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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 912 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
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.

5E isn't getting many new supplements. Since the DMG has come out only a handful of PDFs have come out, many only playtest rough drafts, one POD of around 30 pages, and a hardcover adventure. One more adventure is on the schedule for this year developed by Green Ronin. And that is all that has been announced.

So core 5E won't change very quickly as long as the current brand manager is in charge.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigDTBone 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

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

I think I'm not compelled because I don't (currently) see a clear delineation between requirements and desirements.

-Skeld

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would prefer an incremental change. Like a core rulebook sized Unchained that's just ALL the classes in their newest form, along with more than the 7 core races. Kind of an Ultimate PHB so I am not opening 7 books to make a character. Rules wise I am pretty satisfied with the way everything works, though combat maneuvers could use some more streamlining. It would also be nice to empower the traits system a bit so you get a trait every even level and some of the weaker feats (Childlike, Eagle Eyes, Endurance, Fleet, Run, all the +2 to two skill feats) could be downgraded to traits.

Liberty's Edge

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

If you have read the responses so far you have only heard a small part of what bounded accuracy is. First, a wizard does not have a +6 to hit with a long sword like a fighter. A wizard is +0 to hit with a longsword. And a high level fighter attacks four times (eight with a class feature) while a wizard attacks once. From Basic D&D for Players here are what proficiency is added to:

• Attack rolls using weapons you’re proficient with
• Attack rolls with spells you cast
• Ability checks using skills you’re proficient in
• Ability checks using tools you’re proficient with
• Saving throws you’re proficient in
• Saving throw DCs for spells you cast (explained in each spellcasting class)

And here's the explanation about bounded accuracy. There are six reasons explained as to why it is used in 5E:

bounded accuracy explained by Rodney Thompson

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's another vote for a revised core rulebook. Errata for the core classes, cleaning up ambiguous wording, perhaps making the core book somewhat smaller, etc. I'd greatly prefer that over a new edition. I quite like some of the changes in Pathfinder Unchained, for example.


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

It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.

What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.


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

It means that you can have a max level character that is still able to fail a skill check that is labeled so easy most times you shouldn't even ask for a roll in it. No one is truly skilled in the system. (combat or skills)

I tried to stick out the playtest, but I just couldn't work with bounded accuracy and EVERYTHING being about advantage/disadvantage to the exclusion of anything else even remotely interesting. (and only 1 advantage/disadvantage canceling out a stack of the other.)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

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.

Uh...all this assumes the militia somehow ambush the dragon, as opposed to vice versa, and get to dictate the conditions of the battle. Which is absurd given their +2 Perception and no Stealth and the Dragon's +11 Percption and +5 Stealth. And that they win initiative, which is less unlikely, but hardly a given. If the dragon ambushes them, they probably all (or mostly) die immediately to the breath weapon.

Additionally, an adult white dragon is also only CR 13. Which is to say, not exactly the toughest monster around. A similar CR White Dragon in Pathfinder is much harder to take down, not because of bounded accuracy, but almost solely because frightful presence is better in Pathfinder (at least vs. 4 hd or less foes). If you ignore Frightful Presence, well, militia would need 20s to hit the dragon, rather than 16s, but they can easily be doing 1d8+2 via oil of magic weapon (casually available), and the dragon's HP are about the same, as are its offensive options (okay, it can also cast spells as a 5th level Sorcerer...in terms of offensive spells it has grease and fog cloud). The difference isn't nearly as large as you're implying it is.

I'm not necessarily a huge fan of 5E for various reasons (including their monster design), but this is an extremely biased example in several ways, and the way monsters are designed in 5E isn't necessary for bounded accuracy. For example, if DR still existed alongside bounded accuracy, you could easily set it up so only certain people could harm particularly nasty creature without jacking its AC into the stratosphere.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bounded accuracy basically flattens the math a whole lot compared to Third/Pathfinder, or even Fourth Edition. Armor Class 19 is just as viable at 1st level in Fifth Edition as it is at 20th level. (in Pathfinder, if you're a 20th level fighter with 19 AC, you are suicidally brave and/or reckless and deserve what you've got coming.)

The math goes thusly: You have a +2 bonus at 1st level to saving throws, skills, and attack rolls you are proficient with. If you're a spellcaster, your proficiency adds to your spell's save DC (defaults to 8 + your casting modifier + your proficiency bonus). Every four levels past 1st, this bonus increases by +1. So, technically, yes, the rogue is just as good with a longsword at fifth level as a fighter is because their proficiency bonus is +3. The fighter's (hopefully) much stronger than the rogue, though.

In case you're wondering how multiple attacks works with multiclassing, because I know that came up a page or so back and I'm too lazy to double check it, they don't add together. You can't make more than two attacks unless one class's version of Extra Attack says you're allowed to (like the fighter's does.)

As a sidenote, 5e's bounded accuracy is much better than 4e's, only because of what happened with the math in that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlie D. wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.
What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.

Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.
What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.
Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.

Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +13 (+6 proficiency, +7 Strength mod because barbarians get their Strength and Constitution caps upped to 24 at 20th level.) =p


thorin001 wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.
What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.
Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.

How does this work out in terms of skills.

Are high level characters capable of super-human feats like climbing a brick wall covered in grease at night in the rain.

Or are worlds class climbers only 15% more likely to succeed than a novice?

Liberty's Edge

thorin001 wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.
What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.
Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.

Class features have a long bigger impact due to bounded accuracy not the dice roll. If you play 5E without classes or anything other than ability scores and proficiency than maybe what you are saying works. Otherwise, not accurate or factual at all since you have to ignore basically the whole rest of the game to say only the dice matter.

Liberty's Edge

Snorb wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.
What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.
Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.
Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +13 (+6 proficiency, +7 Strength mod because barbarians get their Strength and Constitution caps upped to 24 at 20th level.) =p

Exactly. Class features are what make bounded accuracy work. Not just proficiency or a die roll.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

How does this work out in terms of skills.

Are high level characters capable of super-human feats like climbing a brick wall covered in grease at night in the rain.

Or are worlds class climbers only 15% more likely to succeed than a novice?

Well, they're 55% more likely to succeed, and DCs cap out at 30, with the average being 15.

So...someone with a +0 succeeds at an average check 30% of the time, someone with a +11 does so 85% of the time, and thus almost three times as often.

There are also various magical and a few non-magical ways to increase that theoretical maximum. Including the aforementioned Class Abilities of various sorts.

In a lot of ways, it's pretty similar to E6, which has similar 'issues' with skills and attack bonuses not scaling beyond a certain point (the scale's a little bigger in E6, but I don't think either goes beyond about +20 or so), just spread out over more levels and with up to 9th level spells.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.
What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.
Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.

How does this work out in terms of skills.

Are high level characters capable of super-human feats like climbing a brick wall covered in grease at night in the rain.

Or are worlds class climbers only 15% more likely to succeed than a novice?

Most likely a super-human feat would be very hard (DC 25) near impossible (DC 30). A rogue could have +12 or higher to a Strength (athletics) check with Expertise so it would be tough but not impossible. A 20th level barbarian may also have a +12 to Strength (athletics) check. With advantage a character might also get two chances to try to succeed. A normal human at +0 to +4 cannot succeed at very hard or near impossible tasks at all.

A rogue may have Expertise and double his proficiency for climbing to make the harder DCs easier to hit. Reliable Talent makes proficient skills that roll a 9 or less a 10 so he or she also succeeds on easier checks more often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Snowblind wrote:

How does this work out in terms of skills.

Are high level characters capable of super-human feats like climbing a brick wall covered in grease at night in the rain.

Or are worlds class climbers only 15% more likely to succeed than a novice?

Well, they're 55% more likely to succeed, and DCs cap out at 30, with the average being 15.

So...someone with a +0 succeeds at an average check 30% of the time, someone with a +11 does so 85% of the time, and thus almost three times as often.

There are also various magical and a few non-magical ways to increase that theoretical maximum. Including the aforementioned Class Abilities of various sorts.

In a lot of ways, it's pretty similar to E6, which has similar 'issues' with skills and attack bonuses not scaling beyond a certain point (the scale's a little bigger in E6, but I don't think either goes beyond about +20 or so), just spread out over more levels and with up to 9th level spells.

So an expert rock climber falls to their death 15% of the time.

Grand Lodge

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

Why does failing an average check result in death?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Snowblind wrote:

How does this work out in terms of skills.

Are high level characters capable of super-human feats like climbing a brick wall covered in grease at night in the rain.

Or are worlds class climbers only 15% more likely to succeed than a novice?

Well, they're 55% more likely to succeed, and DCs cap out at 30, with the average being 15.

So...someone with a +0 succeeds at an average check 30% of the time, someone with a +11 does so 85% of the time, and thus almost three times as often.

There are also various magical and a few non-magical ways to increase that theoretical maximum. Including the aforementioned Class Abilities of various sorts.

In a lot of ways, it's pretty similar to E6, which has similar 'issues' with skills and attack bonuses not scaling beyond a certain point (the scale's a little bigger in E6, but I don't think either goes beyond about +20 or so), just spread out over more levels and with up to 9th level spells.

So an expert rock climber falls to their death 15% of the time.

Sure if you aren't playing 5E? Otherwise you follow the rules which state (unless the DM has a good reason to override the rules of course):

To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success—the creature overcomes the challenge
at hand. Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
So an expert rock climber falls to their death 15% of the time.

If climbing without something that gives them advantage? Yeah, they probably fail that awesome. Advantage isn't that uncommon, though, and death is hardly the usual result of a failed Climb check. Especially when failed by 3 or less.

And Rogues specifically can get up to +17 on something like 4 skills pretty much automatically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
IS the wizard as skilled as the warrior with weapons? Or do they just have the same class bonus?

Generally not. Their proficiency bonus is the same, but they likely haven't put their best rolls in the physical stats that govern weapon combat rolls. They also get fewer attacks per attack action and are proficient with fewer weapons.

They are probably as good with their spells as a fighter is with his weapons, though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Snowblind wrote:

How does this work out in terms of skills.

Are high level characters capable of super-human feats like climbing a brick wall covered in grease at night in the rain.

Or are worlds class climbers only 15% more likely to succeed than a novice?

Well, they're 55% more likely to succeed, and DCs cap out at 30, with the average being 15.

So...someone with a +0 succeeds at an average check 30% of the time, someone with a +11 does so 85% of the time, and thus almost three times as often.

There are also various magical and a few non-magical ways to increase that theoretical maximum. Including the aforementioned Class Abilities of various sorts.

In a lot of ways, it's pretty similar to E6, which has similar 'issues' with skills and attack bonuses not scaling beyond a certain point (the scale's a little bigger in E6, but I don't think either goes beyond about +20 or so), just spread out over more levels and with up to 9th level spells.

So an expert rock climber falls to their death 15% of the time.

Your fatal error is that 5e doesn't have ANY experts in the same kind of terms as pathfinder. The best and brightest in 5e expect that failing is a possibility on even the simplest of tasks. Just be glad breathing isn't a check or the deathrate would be massive... :P

It didn't give me a real sense on accomplishment as I leveled...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:


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.

There are some 4e fans who claim bounded accuracy started with 4e, but I consider that claim extremely far-fetched. The goal of of the bonus structure in 4e wasn't bounded accuracy at all - it was extending the sweet spot of gaming through the entire level run by maintaining offensive and defensive parity between like-leveled opponents. The number bloat as you went up in levels was only a little slower than 3e - moreover, if you slipped in your advancement schedule with higher bonuses to weapons and stats, you fell behind on the treadmill.

The bounded accuracy of 5e is far more about putting bounds on the bonuses so that high level characters don't outstrip lower level ones nearly as badly. Scheduled optimization isn't as important. Metagame constructs like minion versions of NPCs with inflated offense and gimped hit points aren't necessary because low-level participants are more significant contributors to encounters throughout the life of the campaign. And most number bloat, and if you've ever seen stat blocks for creatures like Demogorgon you know what I mean, can go away.

EDIT: Bounded accuracy also reduces the effect of number bloated skills so you can have fewer cases of lopsided opposed skill disparities.

5e is a fantastic breath of fresh air compared to the fussinesses of 3e and Pathfinder. And that's why it now has a place at my table alongside PF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
IS the wizard as skilled as the warrior with weapons? Or do they just have the same class bonus?

Generally not. Their proficiency bonus is the same, but they likely haven't put their best rolls in the physical stats that govern weapon combat rolls. They also get fewer attacks per attack action and are proficient with fewer weapons.

They are probably as good with their spells as a fighter is with his weapons, though.

I had this kinda argument with someone last night. "oh a wizard gets the same modifier? well archers now suck as everyone can be a great archer". People are not looking at the whole, only parts and without any understanding.

I guess it should be noted I really, really like bounded accuracy.


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.

Bounded Accuracy strips away the concept of level. A 10th-level Fighter is no better at fighting than a 1st-level Fighter with the exception of special abilities like multiple attacks.

And AC is significantly lower across the board. It's less simulation (associated mechanic) and more democratic (disassociated mechanic). Low level NPCs (large in number) can kill dragons and demons in D&D 5e.

It's not an alternative option for combat but a totally different game system, and it's incredibly divisive. It would shatter the fan base of Pathfinder if introduced in a new edition.

If you enjoy that style of game play, play D&D 5e, as Bounded Accuracy has no place in Pathfinder.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
Quote:


It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.
What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.
Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.

It is if putting the cart in front of the horse makes for a functional arrangement. Your statement is kind of like saying the concept of the sacrament of Communion is to have a little bread and wine with the church service. It involves bread and wine, but that's not really its concept.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Morzadian wrote:
Bounded Accuracy strips away the concept of level.

Really? No matter what differences there are between a 1st and 20th level character, if they have a system keeping them within the bounds of the RNG then levels are meaningless?


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

Bounded Accuracy strips away the concept of level. A 10th-level Fighter is no better at fighting than a 1st-level Fighter with the exception of special abilities like multiple attacks.

And AC is significantly lower across the board. It's less simulation (associated mechanic) and more democratic (disassociated mechanic). Low level NPCs (large in number) can kill dragons and demons in D&D 5e.

It's not an alternative option for combat but a totally different game system, and it's incredibly divisive. It would shatter the fan base of Pathfinder if introduced in a new edition.

If you enjoy that style of game play, play D&D 5e, as Bounded Accuracy has no place in Pathfinder.

A 10th-level Fighter is no better at fighting than a 1st-level Fighter with the exception of the things that make him better at fighting.

This is such a silly argument.

AC isn't really that simulation or associated, since it combines a whole bunch of things, some of which are also bound up in hps for some characters.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Bounded Accuracy strips away the concept of level.
Really? No matter what differences there are between a 1st and 20th level character, if they have a system keeping them within the bounds of the RNG then levels are meaningless?

Levels still matter, often a great deal. But it lowers the range, you are no longer demi-gods walking among mere mortals. You are simply tough, very skilled mortals.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Morzadian wrote:


Bounded Accuracy strips away the concept of level. A 10th-level Fighter is no better at fighting than a 1st-level Fighter with the exception of special abilities like multiple attacks.

And AC is significantly lower across the board. It's less simulation (associated mechanic) and more democratic (disassociated mechanic). Low level NPCs (large in number) can kill dragons and demons in D&D 5e.

It's not an alternative option for combat but a totally different game system, and it's incredibly divisive. It would shatter the fan base of Pathfinder if introduced in a new edition.

If you enjoy that style of game play, play D&D 5e, as Bounded Accuracy has no place in Pathfinder.

Not quite. In fact, I'd be more tempted to say "not even close." Bounded accuracy doesn't strip away the concept of level - it just reduces a significant part of its impact on the numbers game. Levels are quite well-represented in many other ways. And 1st level fighters aren't as good at fighting as 10th level fighters, even with the numbers game. The difference in proficiency bonus may be small, but the difference in hit points remains large and the 10th level fighter has had a few chances to pack on stat improvements/feats compared to the 1st level fighter.

I won't get into the misuse of associative and dissociative mechanics here. But the idea that lower ACs and demonic/draconic vulnerability is somehow more dissociative than functionally unbounded ACs and invulnerable demons/dragons is a strange one. Neither end of that scale (vulnerability <--> invulnerability) really involves the associative/dissociative mechanic debate since neither involves stepping outside of the character's viewpoint and making decisions about metagame mechanics as part of play.

As far as being incredibly divisive - 4e was incredibly divisive (and remains so as far as I can tell). In the places I hang out, in person and online, 5e has been far more uniting and well-received.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorb wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.
What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.
Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.
Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +13 (+6 proficiency, +7 Strength mod because barbarians get their Strength and Constitution caps upped to 24 at 20th level.) =p

+17 is the biggest modifier although you could get it even higher with a girdle of giant strength.

+5 stat
+12 proficiency bonus (bards and rogues can double that)Some spells and magic items do add numbers there as well the main differnece bieng you can't buy the itmes so you could get at least another +5 from that (1d4 guidance spell, +1 form a luck effect).

Ability scores are capped at 20 with a handful of exceptions usually magic and a level 20 Barbarian. Note in AD&D and BECMI you also had a cap of 25 and 18 respectively and in AD&D getting over 19 was really really hard requiring multiple wish spells or magic items. You could get to a 19 dex with a Elf or Halfling, Dwarves could have a 19 con and Gnomes could get to 19 intelligence.

So 5E is actually more D&D in that regard than 3.x derived games as no stat maximum has been one of the major problems of 3.x games IMHO. Its also how you get things like someone having 25-30 in their prime stat and 8 in their dump stat with the next highest score being a 16 or maybe 20 with the right magic items.

The other idea of 5E is the difference between a good and bad save is only +6 modified by stat bonuses although this can be +11 in practice. In AD&D/BECMI the difference between a good and bad save was usually around 3 or 4 points by level 20 so 5E could have gone a bit further in that regard IMHO.

Older Dragons are no longer immune to non magical weapons in 5E (I do not like that BTW) and fear doesn't actually cause you to run away you just can't approach any closer.

I have been working on a homebrew D&D and it is based heavily on BECMI and 5E. Its back to one hit point of healing per day of rest, no wands of CLW and I have 4 races and 4 classes going to level 1-5 (Cleric, Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling)

3.x games are actually the odd one out with iterative attacks (+16/+11/+6/+1) all te other D&Ds if you have multiple attacks you do not get any penalties to hit they actually nerfed the fighter from 2E to 3.0 and Pathfinder still suffers from this.

I actually went back to 2E and played that again after I gave up on Pathfinder. Apart form crap like THAC0 I found there was not really a lot wrong with it that you can't easily fix youself. You can tweak the human and dump level limits and racial restrictions if you want and I ruled in BAB and ascending ACs to 2E so I got most of the good stuff I liked from 3.x games with none of the bad stuff (wands of CLW, magic item marts, out of control numbers).

I always looked at Pathfinder (and still do) as a clone of D&D just a bit more popular than say Castles and Crusades which is a hybrid of 1E and 3.0.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Bounded Accuracy strips away the concept of level. A 10th-level Fighter is no better at fighting than a 1st-level Fighter with the exception of special abilities like multiple attacks.

A 1st level 5E Fighter has something on the order of +5 to hit. An 11th level Fighter has +10/+10/+10 (including a +1 weapon), and has Improved Critical (or other advantages...possibly spellcasting). He can move and make all his attacks, too (just like everyone else in 5E).

Let's compare with Pathfinder: A Fighter at 1st might also have a +5 (including Power Attack), and at 8th he might have a +15/+10 (including a +2 weapon and a Str boosting item, as well as Power Attack).

Those are about equivalent changes, IMO. So...each level is a somewhat smaller change in offense in 5E (it's a bit smaller than it looks in the above example because damage doesn't scale as much). That doesn't mean levels are meaningless, though (especially since HP go up just as fast).

Morzadian wrote:
And AC is significantly lower across the board. It's less simulation (associated mechanic) and more democratic (disassociated mechanic). Low level NPCs (large in number) can kill dragons and demons in D&D 5e.

AC is lower, but isn't by any means impossible to raise. Indeed, the only reason it's as bounded as it is, is the scarcity of magic items and limits on the number of those you can use.

Morzadian wrote:
It's not an alternative option for combat but a totally different game system, and it's incredibly divisive. It would shatter the fan base of Pathfinder if introduced in a new edition.

This is certainly true. And makes introducing it likely a bad idea from a marketing perspective, and thus unlikely to occur.

Morzadian wrote:
If you enjoy that style of game play, play D&D 5e, as Bounded Accuracy has no place in Pathfinder.

That's more of a matter of opinion. It's probably not going to occur, but whether it should occur is much harder to say definitively.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bounded Accuracy has its pros and cons.

Bounded Accuracy: The DM's monster roster expands, never contracts

Great. So a run of the mill orc is always a threat to me and since they're always hitting me I am forced to take short rests or constantly ask the cleric for healing. The master swordsman isn't really a master, he can just take a good beating.

Bounded Accuracy: It opens up new possibilities of encounter and adventure design.

Great. Peasants can defeat giants. If a giant comes knocking at your door you don't hand out the pitchforks, you find yourself a band of heroes to deal with the problem. I thought I was playing a game where I could become a larger-than-life hero.

Bounded Accuracy: makes it easier to DM and easier to adjudicate improvised scenes.

Setting quick numbers for whom? Ok everyone has the same attack roll in 5e. Great, so the DM gets to easily pick an AC that everyone can hit equally. Poor fighter doesn't even fight better than a wizard just so the DM can pick an easy AC. In Pathfinder there are 4 Bestiaries you can pick from to help you improvise. Same goes with skill checks. The Eagle Eyed Ranger doesn't really shine over the bookworm wizard.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

A 10th-level Fighter is no better at fighting than a 1st-level Fighter with the exception of the things that make him better at fighting.

This is such a silly argument.

AC isn't really that simulation or associated, since it combines a whole bunch of things, some of which are also bound up in hps for some characters.

I think the biggest disconnect is that while the Fighter is better at Fighting than a 1st level Fighter, he is better to a lesser degree than he was in either 3e or PF, and that is a direct result of bounded accuracy.

When WotC first started talking up bounded accuracy, they talked about how the difference from numbers would be made up for by providing more powerful class features and new interesting options, so instead of just having a higher to-hit bonus, they'd be able to do awesome new things.

This was never delivered on. Look at a 5th edition Fighter and compare it to what you can do with a Fighter in 3e or PF. It's pretty pathetic. Seriously, the 'complex' fighter specialization in 5e gets some bonus dice that recharge with an hour of rest that let you do such amazing things as push an opponent back 5ft or disarm an enemy. 5e Fighters get to choose between getting a level-up stat boost (capped at 20) or getting a feat (of which painfully few are worthwhile).

At no point is there anything really introduced to help out defensively via class features, as the designers rely on hit point scaling to keep you secure... but the cap on con, reduced feats, general reduced availability of magic items, etc, means that hit points are lower overall by mid levels, lower by as much as 25-50% by level 20. Meanwhile AC hasn't gone up, you have only 1-2 good saves (meanwhile there are now 6! saves that can be used to screw you over, 3-4 of them are guaranteed to be bad), there's no damage reduction, no immunities, resistance is really rare, miss chance is unheard of (closest thing you'll find is causing disadvantage on attacks against you).

Basically compared to what players are used to in 3e or PF, high level player characters are made out of tissue paper. And while it's still relatively balanced when fighting a level appropriate encounter, when you run into a small squad of orc mooks at level 10 and somebody nearly dies, that is a huge tonal shift. While there are in fact players who like the idea that a handful of orcs can challenge characters regardless of level (my experience is this is mostly DMs who never quite got how to handle high level play), for just as many the idea that high level characters who are out slaying dragons and challenging gods are having trouble with a handful of ordinary orcs is ridiculous. That disconnect is antithetical to the premise high level play has operated on for decades.

And this is ignoring the problems that come up when you apply bounded accuracy to skills, as 5e did. Bounded skill systems are possible, but not with a system as simplistic as D20+X vs Y. There is just not enough granularity there to have meaningful progression of skills; so it becomes either everybody is an expert, everybody is awful, or the GM arbitrarily decides some people are more awesome than others and lets them do things with a roll that somebody else can't do with the exact same roll. I can actually imagine bounded accuracy working for combat with inclusion of more features to supplement it, but skills under the bounded accuracy system are completely unworkable as is. It would need a shift to a new system (ie pool of d20s, or d20 + bunch of d6s based on training bonus, or something along those lines).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why does failing an average check result in death?

The difficulty of the climb is not related to how high off the ground it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Seerow wrote:


Basically compared to what players are used to in 3e or PF, high level player characters are made out of tissue paper. And while it's still relatively balanced when fighting a level appropriate encounter, when you run into a small squad of orc mooks at level 10 and somebody nearly dies, that is a huge tonal shift. While there are in fact players who like the idea that a handful of orcs can challenge characters regardless of level (my experience is this is mostly DMs who never quite got how to handle high level play), for just as many the idea that high level characters who are out slaying dragons and challenging gods are having trouble with a handful of ordinary orcs is ridiculous. That disconnect is antithetical to the premise high level play has operated on for decades.

A tonal shift? Maybe. But then I could see some older school players say, "Yeah, a shift back to playing D&D instead of what 3e turned D&D into." Because those D&D and AD&D PCs frequently had ACs lowly orcs could hit and had a lot fewer hit points than they had in 3e. Commoners could kill giants and dragons in those days as well.

There may be a tonal shift, but don't forget that 3e ushered in a tonal shift of its own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why does failing an average check result in death?
The difficulty of the climb is not related to high off the ground it is.

"You Sir have clearly never climbed 8 floors of stairs as they tried to eat you."

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why does failing an average check result in death?
The difficulty of the climb is not related to high off the ground it is.

What if failing the climb check doesn't make you fall automatically?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Seerow wrote:


Basically compared to what players are used to in 3e or PF, high level player characters are made out of tissue paper. And while it's still relatively balanced when fighting a level appropriate encounter, when you run into a small squad of orc mooks at level 10 and somebody nearly dies, that is a huge tonal shift. While there are in fact players who like the idea that a handful of orcs can challenge characters regardless of level (my experience is this is mostly DMs who never quite got how to handle high level play), for just as many the idea that high level characters who are out slaying dragons and challenging gods are having trouble with a handful of ordinary orcs is ridiculous. That disconnect is antithetical to the premise high level play has operated on for decades.

A tonal shift? Maybe. But then I could see some older school players say, "Yeah, a shift back to playing D&D instead of what 3e turned D&D into." Because those D&D and AD&D PCs frequently had ACs lowly orcs could hit and had a lot fewer hit points than they had in 3e. Commoners could kill giants and dragons in those days as well.

There may be a tonal shift, but don't forget that 3e ushered in a tonal shift of its own.

I have played D&D for over 30 years and your statement is a complete fabrication.

Absolutely false.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Seerow wrote:


Basically compared to what players are used to in 3e or PF, high level player characters are made out of tissue paper. And while it's still relatively balanced when fighting a level appropriate encounter, when you run into a small squad of orc mooks at level 10 and somebody nearly dies, that is a huge tonal shift. While there are in fact players who like the idea that a handful of orcs can challenge characters regardless of level (my experience is this is mostly DMs who never quite got how to handle high level play), for just as many the idea that high level characters who are out slaying dragons and challenging gods are having trouble with a handful of ordinary orcs is ridiculous. That disconnect is antithetical to the premise high level play has operated on for decades.

A tonal shift? Maybe. But then I could see some older school players say, "Yeah, a shift back to playing D&D instead of what 3e turned D&D into." Because those D&D and AD&D PCs frequently had ACs lowly orcs could hit and had a lot fewer hit points than they had in 3e. Commoners could kill giants and dragons in those days as well.

There may be a tonal shift, but don't forget that 3e ushered in a tonal shift of its own.

Disagree. This is actually one of the big lies that people have perpetuated to try to sell Bounded Accuracy. Trying to retcon it to say that old school AD&D was a bounded system and numbers didn't scale as much. All of the core numbers scaled just as much as in 3e/PF, what didn't scale as much was attributes, various "other" bonuses from class features/spells, and to a lesser degree magic items (magic Items were a much bigger deal in AD&D than they are in 5e though)

In AD&D the base AC is 10, and the Fighter would hit AC0 relatively early, as soon as he had enough loot to buy himself some full plate. A level 15+ Fighter is rocking AC-5 to -10. Similarly, his saves have at this point gone from 10-20% across the board to closer to 80-90% across the board; his THAC0 has gone from 19 down to 0. Oh and Fighters had the ability to make one attack per class level against low level enemies (such as orcs)

The AD&D Fighter had fewer hitpoints than 3e, and most of the more commonly used high level defenses were less common or non-existent at that point in time, but a high level AD&D fighter had nothing to fear from a squad of orcs. He had an AC that they needed a natural 20 to hit, a THAC0 low enough to hit them except on a 1, and could kill more than 10 of them every round. AD&D Fighters would wade through 100+ orcs before dying. And that's just the fighter, not even the rest of the party! Throw in a Cleric and a Wizard and you're taking down large armies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:

I have played D&D for over 30 years and your statement is a complete fabrication.

Absolutely false.

How so? Its very much in line with my 23 years of D&D tells me and with the many issues older edition players have with 3.x. The power level went well past 11.


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

I have played D&D for over 30 years and your statement is a complete fabrication.

Absolutely false.

How so? Its very much in line with my 23 years of D&D tells me and with the many issues older edition players have with 3.x. The power level went well past 11.

Note: The argument is not over whether or not 3e increased the power level (it did); it is over whether numbers scaled quickly enough to invalidate orcs numerically by mid to high levels (they did).

Liberty's Edge

adembroski wrote:

I used to be the cranky guy that'd get mad whenever a new edition came out. I'd say the only one I welcomed was 3.0 because 2nd edition was so utterly broken.

But frankly, I'm ready.

I'm torn on this.

I have a lot of Pathfinder books that I don't want to see obsoleted, but I also know Paizo relies on the regular book sales to pay the rent. And they're running out of non-Golarion products to make. And there's people (like me) who just aren't buying the RPG products as often because we've reached content saturation.

Honestly, 5e has me now. It won for me. I like Pathfinder and am continuing to play my Skull & Shackles game and would like to run through Emerald Spire, but 5e just feels... better.
I'm highly unlikely to buy a Pathfinder 2.

adembroski wrote:
What would that 2nd edition look like to me?

I always prefer the name "Pathfinder Revised" to 2nd Edition.

Bounded accuracy does seem like a great idea. 3e onward suffers from number bloat and it's far, far too easy to stack bonuses for obscene results. (I had a level 6 PC in my game make a 70+ Bluff check the other month.)

Removing or reducing assumed wealth and stat boosting magic items would also be good, as would capping ability scores. It's too easy to get scores in the mid-20s, which is ridiculous. How do you roleplay someone with a 24 Intelligence. They'd be 20% smarter than Einstein on his best day.

Killing sacred cows. D&D has a long history and has show things don't work when they kill their sacred cows. Pathfinder has more freedom, and is able to do things like drop ability scores for just the modifier, removing alignment, playing with levels and classes, etc.

Honestly, making Pathfinder more akin to Pathfinder Online wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility. Where you gain abilities and when you get certain combinations you hit levels of a class.


Seerow wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

I have played D&D for over 30 years and your statement is a complete fabrication.

Absolutely false.

How so? Its very much in line with my 23 years of D&D tells me and with the many issues older edition players have with 3.x. The power level went well past 11.
Note: The argument is not over whether or not 3e increased the power level (it did); it is over whether numbers scaled quickly enough to invalidate orcs numerically by mid to high levels (they did).

Far point. I misunderstood then. For myself I like the fact orcs are always a threat. Who knows if this will work out long term but as of now, I like it. I also do not miss rocket tag or the half page of mods on x player for this fight.


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

I have played D&D for over 30 years and your statement is a complete fabrication.

Absolutely false.

How so? Its very much in line with my 23 years of D&D tells me and with the many issues older edition players have with 3.x. The power level went well past 11.

If someone thinks a lowly orc could be a threat to a 5th level AD&D fighter and that peasants could kill dragons has NEVER played AD&D and knows absolutely nothing about it.

D&D 3.x made many changes but continued the legacy that Gygax started. 3.x was well received by the vast majority of older players.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Bounded Accuracy strips away the concept of level.
Really? No matter what differences there are between a 1st and 20th level character, if they have a system keeping them within the bounds of the RNG then levels are meaningless?
Levels still matter, often a great deal. But it lowers the range, you are no longer demi-gods walking among mere mortals. You are simply tough, very skilled mortals.

Well, tough at least.

Skilled...not really. I have more skill at climbing mountains than a 20th level character that has maxed out abilities in that arena apparently, and though I freeclimbed for a while, I don't consider myself the greatest of the climbers either.

So..skilled...not overly much.

Morzadian wrote:


If you enjoy that style of game play, play D&D 5e, as Bounded Accuracy has no place in Pathfinder.

And this is probably what it really boils down to.

This is Paizo's boards and many of us play PF. If we are playing PF, and we choose not to play 5e, it probably implies we would rather play a game like PF than a game like 5e.

That doesn't necessarily mean 5e isn't a good game, it just means it isn't our cup of tea and we don't want to see PF turn into a 5e type game.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Seerow wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

I have played D&D for over 30 years and your statement is a complete fabrication.

Absolutely false.

How so? Its very much in line with my 23 years of D&D tells me and with the many issues older edition players have with 3.x. The power level went well past 11.
Note: The argument is not over whether or not 3e increased the power level (it did); it is over whether numbers scaled quickly enough to invalidate orcs numerically by mid to high levels (they did).
Far point. I misunderstood then. For myself I like the fact orcs are always a threat. Who knows if this will work out long term but as of now, I like it. I also do not miss rocket tag or the half page of mods on x player for this fight.

Which is perfectly fine, everyone wants something different from role-playing games and I'm happy there is an alternative system that accommodates to your needs more effectively.


Morzadian wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

I have played D&D for over 30 years and your statement is a complete fabrication.

Absolutely false.

How so? Its very much in line with my 23 years of D&D tells me and with the many issues older edition players have with 3.x. The power level went well past 11.

If someone thinks a lowly orc could be a threat to a 5th level AD&D fighter and that peasants could kill dragons has NEVER played AD&D and knows absolutely nothing about it.

D&D 3.x made many changes but continued the legacy that Gygax started. 3.x was well received by the vast majority of older players.

1: I misunderstood what he was saying, or at lest how you guys took it. I took it to mean the power level vastly shifted, not that orcs were always a threat at high level.

2: I ran 2e for 8 years man, do not presume to know what I know about the system. ( Edit: not being snearky, although it did come off that way.Sorry about that)

3:Most folks happily switched, but not all of them did and a good part did not stay. Among those being "super heroes in D&D" was a common and frankly fair claim. Many others where chased off by the growing complexity of the system or/and its many issues and flaws.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
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.

Preach.

101 to 150 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