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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 912 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Morzadian wrote:


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.

I tend to like all kinds of systems and do not play just a single system. I do think PF needs simplified and the bloat handled and to jettison much of the 3.x baggage that simply does not work as it should.


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

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.

Lies? Because someone disagrees with your analysis? That's pretty... strongly put, even obnoxious.

There are elements of the offense that scaled in AD&D just like 3e and PF, true. But the defense was fairly closely bounded. AC0 was attainable, but it was much harder to get better than -2 to -5 (equivalent to AC 22 to 25) because you couldn't count on getting the magical items that you can in 3e that send the AC scaling quite a bit higher. Moreover, that AC tended to drop when surrounded (as multiple orcs tend to do). If a substantial amount was based on having a magic shield, most of the orcs didn't have to worry about it thanks to facing rules.

And those multple attacks? They got them against creatures with fewer than 1 HD - kobolds and goblins, but not orcs. High level fighters just their 3/2 or 2/1 attacks. Not quite the army-rending force you might remember.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Hard to say 3.0 was the big hit, 3.5 sold less than 3.0 and it seems PF has sold less than 3.5.

I think the major things 3.0 had going for it was a combination of factors. They got rid of level limits and racial restrictions for example and ascending ACs are more intuitive than descending ACs and THAC0. So 3.0 for the most part had better mechanics in terms of being user friendly than AD&D.

But 3.0 created new problems of its own that in a lot of ways are worse than the problems it solved. Balance for example is actually better in 2E than in 3.x games and that is with things like different xp tables for the classes.

Bounded accuracy is not an AD&D things as such but more OD&D and BECMI. In BECMI for example a level 20 fighter has +13 to hit via its equivalent of BAB. I do not mind the 0-+20 part of BAB in 3.x games or even +5 weapons (5E has +3 weapons a'la BECMI/OD&D)but those old D&Ds lack the number crunch of feats and buff spells that result in +40 or +50 to hit. Even in AD&D you would be hard pressed to get more than +27 or so to hit and that is a level 20 fighter with a +5 weapon and gauntlets of Ogre Power. A BECMI fighter could have around +19 to hit and that compares with a level 20 5E fighter with + 14 to hit (+6 proficiency bonus, +3 weapon, +5 ability score).

All the older D&D capped ability scores as well. It was very easy to acuse 4E of not being D&D, 5E is more D&D than any other version of D&D since 2E died. If you regard the 3.x rules as sacrosanct however or if you have only played 3.x type games I can understand why one may not like 5E.

Since 2012 though I have gone back and played BECMI, AD&D, AD&D 2E, and several clones and bought the OD&D boxed set. 3.x is not the definitive version of D&D and I would argue the main reason Pathfinder did so well was due to the rapid edition cycle of 3.5 and 4E being erm less than ideal. In 2008 3.x was popular and it needed a fix, they tried to kill it and look what happened.

In regards to Orcs being challenging to AD&D PCs at 5th level imagine a world where you only got 1 hit point per day of resting, where wands of cure light wounds and healing surges do not exist and where you can't buy or easily craft magic items and there are no encounter building guidelines. That fireball that kills them all you might need it later in the day the DM might be throwing 10 encounters at you (or 1). Even if 20 Orcs get in 1 hit for 10 hit points of damage that is the equivalent of 2 CLW spells and AD&D clerics have a spell pattern similar to Pathfinder ones but lack the channel energy ability to heal and CLW only heals 1d8 hit points.

Or fighting 20 Kobolds at level 1 in such a world which happens in the Caves of Chaos.

Liberty's Edge

Morzadian wrote:
Bounded Accuracy has its pros and cons.

All systems have their pros and cons.

Morzadian wrote:

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.

The orc is always a potential threat but his damage becomes insignificant. It goes from taking away 2/3rds of your health to 1/10th. And the fighter can suddenly attack three times instead of once and has other abilities that make him a better swordsman.

This means if you just need a few mooks at high level to spice up an encounter you don't need to stat up a whole new monster.
The dragon needs some servants? He has a pack of kobolds taking care of its needs. That takes seconds.

And it's hard to make mooks in Pathfinder because the numbers scale so fast. If they can reliably hit, that means they have enough hp to last far longer than a mook should and are generally fairly complex creatures to run.

Morzadian wrote:

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.

Peasants can defeat giants IF there's enough of them. So the angry mob is a real threat to the flesh golem. So PCs can mobilize and lead small armies to do what they can't do alone. There's a reason to have armies of peasants and low level soldiers rather than just training a couple dozen high level heroes.

Which also means you can play the level 5 heroes that - through cunning and skilled tactics - can injure and drive away an adult red dragon that's much higher level.

This also means a high level PC can't slaughter an entire army single-handed.

Morzadian wrote:

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.

Everyone DOESN'T have the same attack rolls.

You still add your proficiency bonus (read: BAB) plus your Str/Dex to the attack, but only if you know how to use the weapon. The wizard likely has a poor Str so the fighter will hit more often in melee.

Increasing DCs cause problems with a disparity between the master and novice. There's not the situation where, to challenge the fighter, there's a jump or cliff impossible for any other character to cross. Or a constant increasingly difficult traps that are always the same level for the rogue to disarm. Don't have max ranks in a skill and a high ability score? Then don't even bother, you'd need to roll a 26 on a d20 to stand a chance.
So, as the GM, you're either challenging the one play at the expense of the rest of the party or challenging the party and letting the specialist auto-win without risk.

The catch is... bounded accuracy doesn't *really* change your odds from 3e/4e/PF. You generally have the same chance of success. But instead of the treadmill of your bonuses going up at the same rate as the DCs everything stays flatter. In Pathfinder, fighter's don't *really* get more accurate since monsters get harder to hit at a similar rate; everyone else just becomes more and more inaccurate. Yes, his accuracy is going up and up but he's never going to fight a creature where this matters as they provide no challenge.

And in a bounced accuracy system when you do get a bonus (from a proficiency increase, an ability score bump, or a magic item) your odds of success actually go up! The fighter hits more often

Liberty's Edge

Morzadian wrote:

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.

Please go open a 1st Edition Monster Manual, turn to the "D"s and look at the hit points of dragons.

A handful of peasants could absolutely kill a dragon, if there was enough of them.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Zardnaar wrote:

Hard to say 3.0 was the big hit, 3.5 sold less than 3.0 and it seems PF has sold less than 3.5.

I think the major things 3.0 had going for it was a combination of factors. THey got rid of level limits and racial restrictions for example and ascending ACs are more intuitive than descending ACs and THAC0. So 3.0 for the most part had better mechanics in terms of being user friendly than AD&D.

But 3.0 created new problems of its own that in a lot of ways are worse than the problems it solved. Balance for example is actually better in 2E than in 3.x games and thats with things like differnet xp tables for the classes.

I'm not going to dispute that 3e was a big hit. It clearly was and was well received by a large portion of the market. But I agree that it really did introduce some complications, even problems, to D&D that PF has only nibbled at fixing. Escalating combat modifiers (partly through buffs and partly through open-ended stat increases) and arbitrarily escalated natural armor bonuses to balance the challenge are part of those complications that particularly affect the martial characters on the 3/4 BAB track. Caster/non-caster balance is worse in 3e/PF, in part, because of stat increases and weak saving throws compared to AD&D (not because they're on the same XP table - that argument, I think, is really a non-starter).

A 2nd edition of PF could work to cleaning up some of those problems. And while bounded accuracy can work pretty well for some of them, it's not a method PF needs to use wholesale (though the related idea of capping stats and/or save DC inputs is a particularly strong one that I would advocate). The methods PF uses in the future to improve the game do not have to be the same as the ones WotC incorporates into D&D.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:

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.

And a lowly orc won't be a threat to a 5th level 5E fighter either. He's more likely to hit the fighter, but he's also going to die very quickly.


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

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.

Lies? Because someone disagrees with your analysis? That's pretty... strongly put, even obnoxious.

Yes, any attempt to claim that AD&D works on a scaling system that is even half as restricted as 5e is unabashedly lying.

Quote:
There are elements of the offense that scaled in AD&D just like 3e and PF, true. But the defense was fairly closely bounded. AC0 was attainable, but it was much harder to get better than -2 to -5 (equivalent to AC 22 to 25) because you couldn't count on getting the magical items that you can in 3e that send the AC scaling quite a bit higher.

A fighter could generally expect magical weapons and armor. While he might not expect a +5 Weapon, +5 Armor, +5 Ring +5 Amulet and 2-3 more items to increase his primary stats; a set of magical full plate is pretty standard, and by the time you're looking at level 10-15 the Fighter is totally going to be rocking that. A Fighter without AC in the negatives by level 15 is a fighter playing in a group with a DM that translates "rare" as "nonexistent"

And of course you completely ignored all points about saves or to-hit bonuses, both of which scale far more than 5e allows without ever having to care about magic items.

Quote:
Moreover, that AC tended to drop when surrounded (as multiple orcs tend to do).

So basically just like flanking in more recent games?

Quote:

And those multple attacks? They got them against creatures with fewer than 1 HD - kobolds and goblins, but not orcs. High level fighters just their 3/2 or 2/1 attacks. Not quite the army-rending force you might remember.

You're right, I was misremembering thinking the rule was something like 1/5th your hd. That is more limited than I remember, but since you're pretty much guaranteed to hit every orc, you're still better off than a 5e fighter even while down 1 attack per round. And when those 1/2 hd mooks show up you actually can mow down armies of them.

Jester David wrote:

The catch is... bounded accuracy doesn't *really* change your odds from 3e/4e/PF. You generally have the same chance of success. But instead of the treadmill of your bonuses going up at the same rate as the DCs everything stays flatter. In Pathfinder, fighter's don't *really* get more accurate since monsters get harder to hit at a similar rate; everyone else just becomes more and more inaccurate. Yes, his accuracy is going up and up but he's never going to fight a creature where this matters as they provide no challenge.

This is the other frequent lie 5e supporters love. The implication being that you will only ever fight things that are level appropriate for you, so your higher level doesn't matter. I find it particularly ironic in this particular post, since it comes right after acknowledging that the numerical scaling is a contributing factor to allowing high level characters to take on armies and win. Because while you may not frequently spend a lot of time fighting something 10 levels below you, knowing that you could take on a whole bunch of them at once because you are strictly better than them is an important aspect of setting and character power levels.

Even ignoring that you will frequently fight things as much as 4-6 levels below you and 4 levels above you. And there is no way you can argue with a straight face that the scaling doesn't matter when you are fighting a half dozen guys 4 levels lower, or a single enemy 4 levels above. The treadmill argument only applies if the game is designed in such a way that you can never exit the treadmill and never fight anything but level appropriate encounters. I have never encountered a game that is actually designed that way, and 3e and PF both explicitly expect you to fight a wide range of enemies both weaker and more powerful than you.

Maybe as a DM you feel you need to run your game like an MMO and level every creature you throw out up or down to match the ECL of the party exactly; but running your own home game like a robot doesn't change how the game is intended to be played.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:

Hard to say 3.0 was the big hit, 3.5 sold less than 3.0 and it seems PF has sold less than 3.5.

I think the major things 3.0 had going for it was a combination of factors. THey got rid of level limits and racial restrictions for example and ascending ACs are more intuitive than descending ACs and THAC0. So 3.0 for the most part had better mechanics in terms of being user friendly than AD&D.

But 3.0 created new problems of its own that in a lot of ways are worse than the problems it solved. Balance for example is actually better in 2E than in 3.x games and thats with things like differnet xp tables for the classes.

I'm not going to dispute that 3e was a big hit. It clearly was and was well received by a large portion of the market. But I agree that it really did introduce some complications, even problems, to D&D that PF has only nibbled at fixing. Escalating combat modifiers (partly through buffs and partly through open-ended stat increases) and arbitrarily escalated natural armor bonuses to balance the challenge are part of those complications that particularly affect the martial characters on the 3/4 BAB track. Caster/non-caster balance is worse in 3e/PF, in part, because of stat increases and weak saving throws compared to AD&D (not because they're on the same XP table - that argument, I think, is really a non-starter).

A 2nd edition of PF could work to cleaning up some of those problems. And while bounded accuracy can work pretty well for some of them, it's not a method PF needs to use wholesale (though the related idea of capping stats and/or save DC inputs is a particularly strong one that I would advocate). The methods PF uses in the future to improve the game do not have to be the same as the ones WotC incorporates into D&D.

Put it this way in AD&D Greater Magic Weapon is a 4th level spell that grants +1 to hit. Divine Favour doesn't exist in AD&D but a buf spell that grants +3 to hit and damage is probably a 5th level spell that is in a splat book.

In my house rules I use DC 10+ the spell level for spell DC and keep the high stat requirement to cast the spell.

Its the feats and 3.x spells that cause the most problems IMHO. They give a lot of customization options but that also creates most of the problems.


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

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.

Please go open a 1st Edition Monster Manual, turn to the "D"s and look at the hit points of dragons.

A handful of peasants could absolutely kill a dragon, if there was enough of them.

A AD&D Red Dragon has an AC -1 with 9-11 HD, plus magic use, a peasant would need a 20 to hit the dragon if the dragon did not cast a Protection from Normal Missiles spell, which did not give DR but immunity no less.

Making it IMPOSSIBLE for a mob of peasants to kill a AD&D dragon.

Maybe you were thinking about D&D 5e because they can definitely do it there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Seerow wrote:
So basically just like flanking in more recent games?

No, not "just like flanking". Depending on how choice that shield is and the surrounded PC's Dexterity, it could be a several point swing in AC.

Good thing I'm not accusing you of lying or ignoring that little difference. 'cause that would be being a dick.


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


A AD&D Red Dragon has an AC -1 with 9-11 HD, plus magic use, a peasant would need a 20 to hit the dragon if the dragon did not cast a Protection from Normal Missiles spell, which did not give DR but immunity no less.

Making it IMPOSSIBLE for a mob of peasants to kill a AD&D dragon.

Maybe you were thinking about D&D 5e because they can definitely do it there.

Uh-huh. Spells. Something 60% of all red dragons capable of speech (only 75% for that) in 1e AD&D couldn't do at all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My biggest problem with 5e is that it renders heroes (IE. PCs) largely irrelevant unless they're a full caster.

The biggest, baddest threats in the entire world are no more dangerous than three or four dozen 1st level NPCs with bows (aside from the Tarrasque- and a couple smaller threats with other solutions like werewolves- which IIRC in 5e has immunity to normal weapons and no regeneration. For that you need a low level rogue with a magic bow or a caster that can fly). All the wealth, time, training, and danger that goes into a high level martial character is an utter waste compared to raising a tiny army of guys with ranged weapons. And the only reason casters are relevant is because they can use powers like magic jar to acquire immunity to normal weapons (insulating them from the militia mob) or animate dead to acquire their own pocket militia mob that has more combat power than they alone.

It's the casteriest caster edition to ever cast. Any sensible 5e D&D world is run by a small handful of invincible necromancers walking around in werewolf bodies with a horde of skeleton archers that are more capable of winning any fight than a pit fiend or great wyrm. And frankly, that's not the game I want to play.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:
My biggest problem with 5e is that it renders heroes (IE. PCs) largely irrelevant unless they're a full caster.

Wow, this sounds so familiar...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
My biggest problem with 5e is that it renders heroes (IE. PCs) largely irrelevant unless they're a full caster.
Wow, this sounds so familiar...

I know right? It's hard to fathom, but 5e somehow manages to implement this problem harder than ever before.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Jester David wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

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.

Please go open a 1st Edition Monster Manual, turn to the "D"s and look at the hit points of dragons.

A handful of peasants could absolutely kill a dragon, if there was enough of them.

A AD&D Red Dragon has an AC -1 with 9-11 HD, plus magic use, a peasant would need a 20 to hit the dragon if the dragon did not cast a Protection from Normal Missiles spell, which did not give DR but immunity no less.

Making it IMPOSSIBLE for a mob of peasants to kill a AD&D dragon.

Maybe you were thinking about D&D 5e because they can definitely do it there.

An adult red dragon also only has 50 hit points and only has a 40% chance of employing spells. And while the single 3rd level spell it does know *could* be protection from normal missiles, this seems an unlikely choice.

Plus, a red dragon is also one of the hardest dragons. An adult black has AC 3 and 35 hit points while and adult white has AC 3 and 30 hit points.

Now, I'm not saying it will be easy for a group of 50 armed peasants to kill a dragon. But a couple of them will hit each round and the dragon can only kill so many each round. A couple lucky shots and the dragon goes down in as little as six rounds.
But it's also not going to be easy for 50 commoners to kill a 5e young red dragon with AC 18 and 178 hp.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Morzadian wrote:


A AD&D Red Dragon has an AC -1 with 9-11 HD, plus magic use, a peasant would need a 20 to hit the dragon if the dragon did not cast a Protection from Normal Missiles spell, which did not give DR but immunity no less.

Making it IMPOSSIBLE for a mob of peasants to kill a AD&D dragon.

Maybe you were thinking about D&D 5e because they can definitely do it there.

Uh-huh. Spells. Something 60% of all red dragons capable of speech (only 75% for that) in 1e AD&D couldn't do at all.

In AD&D (1977-1979, Gygax editions) a Red Dragon has spell use, and an adult dragon+ can cast the Protection from Normal Missiles spell, which gives complete immunity to missile weapons like spears, a weapon a peasant would use.

Nevertheless they still need a 20 to hit.

Just say for arguments sake the Red Dragon did not cast a spell, a dragon at adult age and older radiates a powerful aura of fear when it flies overhead. All creatures under 1 hit die, not trained for warfare will flee in panic, no saving throw.

The peasants will flee in panic and run very far away, all the way to the D&D 5e game so they can fight and kill a dragon.

Liberty's Edge

Aratrok wrote:

My biggest problem with 5e is that it renders heroes (IE. PCs) largely irrelevant unless they're a full caster.

The biggest, baddest threats in the entire world are no more dangerous than three or four dozen 1st level NPCs with bows (aside from the Tarrasque- and a couple smaller threats with other solutions like werewolves- which IIRC in 5e has immunity to normal weapons and no regeneration. For that you need a low level rogue with a magic bow or a caster that can fly). All the wealth, time, training, and danger that goes into a high level martial character is an utter waste compared to raising a tiny army of guys with ranged weapons. And the only reason casters are relevant is because they can use powers like magic jar to acquire immunity to normal weapons (insulating them from the militia mob) or animate dead to acquire their own pocket militia mob that has more combat power than they alone.

It's the casteriest caster edition to ever cast. Any sensible 5e D&D world is run by a small handful of invincible necromancers walking around in werewolf bodies with a horde of skeleton archers that are more capable of winning any fight than a pit fiend or great wyrm. And frankly, that's not the game I want to play.

Because everyone's favourite bit about D&D is how a level 15 fighter can walk into town and kill the entire city with only a scratch because an entire army launching volleys of arrows will do an insignificant amount of damage to him.

Because every campaign setting takes into account why a group of bored level 20 PCs doesn't set out one morning and wipe out the entire orc race.


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

they're running out of non-Golarion products to make.

Except they're not. You're vastly underestimating, the creativity of Paizo.

And, that very dynamic creativity, is what 5ed is lacking.

A year into it, and it's 5th edition that looks out of ideas, not Pathfinder.

PF just released Unchained, has Occult Adventures in July, and just posted a bunch of material for later in the year.

5th has nothing in the works. Last I saw, they're re-releasing more 3.5 hardcovers than anything to support 5th. Strange.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

My name is Ed, and I approve of this 5E tangent derailing this thread!


Morzadian wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Morzadian wrote:


A AD&D Red Dragon has an AC -1 with 9-11 HD, plus magic use, a peasant would need a 20 to hit the dragon if the dragon did not cast a Protection from Normal Missiles spell, which did not give DR but immunity no less.

Making it IMPOSSIBLE for a mob of peasants to kill a AD&D dragon.

Maybe you were thinking about D&D 5e because they can definitely do it there.

Uh-huh. Spells. Something 60% of all red dragons capable of speech (only 75% for that) in 1e AD&D couldn't do at all.

In AD&D (1977-1979, Gygax editions) a Red Dragon has spell use, and an adult dragon+ can cast the Protection from Normal Missiles spell, which gives complete immunity to missile weapons like spears, a weapon a peasant would use.

Nevertheless they still need a 20 to hit.

Just say for arguments sake the Red Dragon did not cast a spell, a dragon at adult age and older radiates a powerful aura of fear when it flies overhead. All creatures under 1 hit die, not trained for warfare will flee in panic, no saving throw.

The peasants will flee in panic and run very far away, all the way to the D&D 5e game so they can fight and kill a dragon.

Those percentages for speech and spell casting are from the AD&D Monster Manual - Gygax edition. There's also a chance it'll just be asleep when you show up, remember that. :)

The 30% of red dragons who could cast might have chosen Protection from Normal Missiles. Or they might have chosen something more useful against adventurers or other threats.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:
My biggest problem with 5e is that it renders heroes (IE. PCs) largely irrelevant unless they're a full caster.

I can only imagine the utter contempt you must hold Pathfinder in.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:

Those percentages for speech and spell casting are from the AD&D Monster Manual - Gygax edition. There's also a chance it'll just be asleep when you show up, remember that. :)

The 30% of red dragons who could cast might have chosen Protection from Normal Missiles. Or they might have chosen something more useful against adventurers or other threats.

10-1 that Morzadian continues to ignore this and uses his example of 1E dragon being immune to a horde of commoners through a few more posts.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
My biggest problem with 5e is that it renders heroes (IE. PCs) largely irrelevant unless they're a full caster.
I can only imagine the utter contempt you must hold Pathfinder in.

It'd be nice if you read the whole thing.

In Pathfinder, martials matter a little bit. They can bring to bear raw numbers that are difficult to match, and are good at mopping up enemies that have been incapacitated by casters. It's still not good enough, and martials don't get nearly the narrative impact they deserve at higher levels, but it's passable and if well built you can play one and have a good time with your friends.

In 5e, they're about as good as a squad of barely trained militiamen and less likely to survive needing to make saving throws to boot. You might as well not even bother showing up to sessions past the earliest levels, because there is nothing your character can meaningfully contribute.


A lot of people are taking the form of bounded accuracy 5e decided to run with and explaining AS bounded accuracy as if it couldn't be done differently.

First off, to address a fallacy that's been thrown out regarding 5e specifically; no, a wizard is NOT just as good at hitting his target with a weapon as a fighter in 5e. Yes, they both have a +x proficiency bonus assuming they're both of the same level. But a 5th level fighter, typically, is going to have two attacks per round at +9, while a wizard at 5th level will have 1 attack at +3, and likely at less damage.

Next, a PF version of bounded accuracy would not necessarily look like 5Es bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy is the idea that you keep all bonus within a specified range so they don't fall victim to long term bloat. That is to say, DCs don't keep growing and growing just to give the player a challenge.

I certainly agree with the bounded accuracy critics who'll say that it's a GM's job to understand the power levels and tailor the experience to them, but the more the system can help with this the better. Bounded accuracy has done a lot to keep 5e from power bloating the way all of its predecessors did. There's a lot I don't like about 5e, but that's definitely one thing I think Pathfinder would benefit from.


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

Those percentages for speech and spell casting are from the AD&D Monster Manual - Gygax edition. There's also a chance it'll just be asleep when you show up, remember that. :)

The 30% of red dragons who could cast might have chosen Protection from Normal Missiles. Or they might have chosen something more useful against adventurers or other threats.
10-1 that Morzadian continues to ignore this and uses his example of 1E dragon being immune to a horde of commoners through a few more posts.

100-1 That Morzadian does not do that as he has already proved his point because AD&D Dragons have a fear aura, peasants need a 20 to hit and doesn't need to bend the knee to posters who constantly move goal posts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Those percentages for speech and spell casting are from the AD&D Monster Manual - Gygax edition. There's also a chance it'll just be asleep when you show up, remember that. :)

The 30% of red dragons who could cast might have chosen Protection from Normal Missiles. Or they might have chosen something more useful against adventurers or other threats.
10-1 that Morzadian continues to ignore this and uses his example of 1E dragon being immune to a horde of commoners through a few more posts.

The other difference, also largely irrelevant to direct comparisons between AD&D, PF & 5E is how much worse commoners were in AD&D. They counted as "under 1HD" which meant, among other things, they didn't get saves vs dragonfear and fighters got 1 attack per level against them.

None of which is really relevant to how Bounded Accuracy destroys the game, but does make it much harder to fight dragons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
My biggest problem with 5e is that it renders heroes (IE. PCs) largely irrelevant unless they're a full caster.
I can only imagine the utter contempt you must hold Pathfinder in.

It'd be nice if you read the whole thing.

In Pathfinder, martials matter a little bit. They can bring to bear raw numbers that are difficult to match, and are good at mopping up enemies that have been incapacitated by casters. It's still not good enough, and martials don't get nearly the narrative impact they deserve at higher levels, but it's passable and if well built you can play one and have a good time with your friends.

In 5e, they're about as good as a squad of barely trained militiamen and less likely to survive needing to make saving throws to boot. You might as well not even bother showing up to sessions past the earliest levels, because there is nothing your character can meaningfully contribute.

Is this theorycrafting or actual play experience?


I ike bounded accuracy in theory 5E implementation of it could be better and some monsters such as high CR Dragons should have immunity to non magical weapons IMIHO.

I used 40 5E Kobold on level 8 PCs. They all died horribly but they did a lot of damage on the way out and they were serving a black Dragon. A few of the spell casters in 5E are not ll that 4/8 wizards seem to be a bit meh, fighters do uber damage but I prefer Paladins as with bounded accuracy charisma to saves is huge. Concentratin does tend to lit the stacking of spells and you get a lot less of them. Some of the clerics are very good (Death, Light, Life)and most of the classes are semi viable but a couple of monk options and a ranger option lo
ok a bit meh.

I would like tosee a few 5E concept in a more traditional D&D game though as there are some things I do not like about 5E (healing rates, monster damage at lower levels, concentration mechanic as implemented, a few spells bless being a major one).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Skaorn wrote:
Stuff
Stuff

TheJeff is correct, there are parts of Pathfinder that I miss when I play 5E.

I do play in a 5E game and a PF Game. The things I was gettinging at were as follows:

1) I think it would be a good idea for Paizo to consider doing a streamlined PF supplement or two (main book and monsters) for ease of running games for groups who don't have a lot of time in their sessions.

2) I think there are a couple things that could be looked at for implementation in PF. The style of Feats 5E has is could easily be used to compress the Feat tree. Scaling spells make a lot of sense and would save on a bit of space. Adding these things to PF would be easy.

3) The last paragraph was directed towards the OP's original comments.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe Hex wrote:
Jester David wrote:
they're running out of non-Golarion products to make.
Except they're not. You're vastly underestimating, the creativity of Paizo.

Okay then, what non-campaign setting books do people really want to see that will have as broad appeal as Occult Adventures? Paizo needs to do 2-3 a year. So for Pathfinder to continue for four more years, we need 8 to 12 260-page book ideas. It's not like they can slow down production with the amount of staff they have. Writers need to write.

While I'm sure the staff is creative enough to release wave after wave of new accessories (the Paizo team is freakin' awesome after all), fewer and fewer people are going to be interested in buying them.

Joe Hex wrote:

And, that very dynamic creativity, is what 5ed is lacking.

A year into it, and it's 5th edition that looks out of ideas, not Pathfinder.

Which is an unfair statement. It's not that 5e has run out of ideas, it's that they don't want to release product for the sake of releasing product.

Just like how Paizo took things slow when they were starting with Pathfinder, opting for 3 hardcovers a year opposed to WotC's 12+.

Joe Hex wrote:

PF just released Unchained, has Occult Adventures in July, and just posted a bunch of material for later in the year.

5th has nothing in the works. Last I saw, they're re-releasing more 3.5 hardcovers than anything to support 5th. Strange.

Occult Adventures would have blown my mind two years ago. But I ran a couple horror campaigns already so it has nothing to offer me. There's already 15 classes in the Pathfinder RPG that have not seen any play at my table. Six more - even cool ones - are unneeded. And years and enough archetypes and books for every player to have three I have enough AP material to play Pathfinder bi-weekly for four PCs in each campaign with no repeats.

I need no more books from Paizo.

And WotC has *announced* nothing. That doesn't mean they're not working on something. They announced the next storyline and they're almost certainly planning something for GenCon. The private "friends and family" playtesters are still receiving packages of new content to test.

WotC is just opting for a slower release schedule to see if that will sustain an edition longer than the wave of books did for 3e/4e.


Well there is a sale on the 5E PHB and apaprently it has shot back up the Amazon sales charts. BY most accounts 5E has been selling well.

WoTC has also been announcing things at the last minute so to speak like the new legends of the sword coast game and they are doing monthly updates to the game and you can get that free. They have added several new subclasses, races, spells etc this way. Somemore support would be nice but I can't keep up with the levels of Pathfinder bloat and most of the stuf they do release doesn't interest me. Mythic adventures no thanks, Advanced Races Guide full of silly races no thanks, Advance CLass Guide PF already has to many classes and Pathfinder Unchained would be more interesting if I still cared that much about further material.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A little of column A, a little of column B.

For reference, a 5th level caster can maintain an entourage of 8 to 16 skeleton archers, depending on how often they rest. Each of them shoots at +4 for 1d6+2 damage at 80/320 range. A 5th level fighter attacks twice at +7 for 1dWhatever+4 damage, which is absolutely swamped by the output of a fraction of one of a caster's class features.

By 10th level a wizard (or valor bard; they're almost as good at shooting people as a fighter is because magic and can also do this just as well since they're full casters now) can maintain an army of 46-92 of those guys. At 20th they can have 128-256 of them (though they probably want to lowball it so they can have some emergency higher level spells or dominate the world with utility magic as always).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

There's so many flavors and everyone is choosing to be salty. Can we dial it back before this ends like a Tarentino movie?

Liberty's Edge

Okay, an important thing about bounded accuracy: it grants choices.

If you don't want an army of 20-60 peasants killing the adult red dragon, then don't have the peasants attack the dragon. If you want the PCs to feel heroic and not have to fight orcs after level 4 then don't plan an orc encounter.

But... what if you want to do a story with an ancient dragon terrorizing the land ala Dragonslayer? Where the dragon isn't just an appropriate level encounter? Well, in a system without bounded accuracy (3e, PF, 4e, etc) the PCs will be unable to hurt the dragon and it will never miss with its attacks and the save of its special abilities will be impossible to make.
But in a system with bounded accuracy the PCs could lure the dragon into an ambush site and attack with NPC allies. The dragon might miss and there's a chance of surviving its attacks.
(Such as the 1e module Dragons of Desolation where you fight an injured ancient dragon.)

Or if you're playing in an Lord of the Rings inspired orc assault game (the hordes of Belkzen are invading Varisia!!) and want to have a fight with a dozen orcs. In a bounded system you just throw your party against a dozen orcs (which is actually pretty challenging according to the DMG).
But in a game with unbounded accuracy, like Pathfinder, a dozen orcs are an appropriate challenge for a level 5 party. But the party will never miss said orcs with their 13 AC and the orcs are unlikely to be able to hit the part's tanks. The PCs quickly outclass the orcs and they cease to be a viable option.


D&D 5e had to move away from the 3.x system because at the point Paizo owned the marketshare of customers interested in that system, and all they would be doing is competing with something that already existed.

D&D 5e is also very pedestrian, the play-test compromised D&D 5e final designs through several perspectives and contrasting game mechanics to appeal to a broader base (AD&D, D&D 3.x, D&D 4th edition players).

While Paizo's playtest was very focused on improving 3.5 mechanics and making their system backwards compatible.

There is a reason why WOTC had to create bounded accuracy, and there is a reason why Paizo will stay clear of it.

@Aratok totally agree, the D&D 5e Fighter not only got nerfed, it is an incredibly boring class to play.


Zardnaar wrote:
I ike bounded accuracy in theory 5E implementation of it could be better and some monsters such as high CR Dragons should have immunity to non magical weapons IMIHO.

They can never do that though, since they "forced" the game to not rely on magic items in a ... weird way. Ugh... I hate the way they handled magic items, made it impossible to even attempt to port over my campaign.

Quote:

Or if you're playing in an Lord of the Rings inspired orc assault game (the hordes of Belkzen are invading Varisia!!) and want to have a fight with a dozen orcs. In a bounded system you just throw your party against a dozen orcs (which is actually pretty challenging according to the DMG).

But in a game with unbounded accuracy, like Pathfinder, a dozen orcs are an appropriate challenge for a level 5 party. But the party will never miss said orcs with their 13 AC and the orcs are unlikely to be able to hit the part's tanks. The PCs quickly outclass the orcs and they cease to be a viable option.

You could just chuck a level or two onto the orcs.... If you only ever use sentient creatures straight from the book rather than ever modifying them it's abit restrictive, but that's because you're skipping a step.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Certain encounters can outclass the party or be outclassed by the party without bounded accuracy. This is the opposite of a problem in a leveled system.

If you have more levels, you are supposed to be stronger. You don't get to feel any stronger or go on more exciting adventures when the same pack of 40 guys with crossbows is just as lethal at 1st level as 20th level, and there's no reason for adventurers to be squaring off with the Dark Lord when Bill's Mercenaries could do the same job.

When you're 6th level, you should absolutely not be going on the same adventures or facing the same threats a group of 1st or 2nd level PCs should be going on. You're in a different tier of power dealing with a different tier of problems. But 5e is all in one tier, and that tier is "whoever has the most small guys with ranged weapons wins".

FFS, an encounter with 228 CR 1/8 bandits is medium encounter for 4 20th level characters (IE, the strongest people in the setting) in 5e, but those bandits are shooting at +3 (1d8+1) versus AC 21 at best and mulching one person a round with 251 DPR when the tankiest person there has 224 hitpoints. A couple hundred ponces with crossbows are capable of killing characters that are described by the game itself as "masters of the world" that are supposed to go on adventures that determine the fate of millions of people (funny how it takes less than 200 of those millions to kill them- wonder how they'd deal with the threat on their own). And on the other end, creatures that are supposed to be world shattering in their deadliness like pit fiends can be put down by a militia of guys who train their crossbow accuracy on lazy afternoons (or put down in a single round by the necromancer who reigns supreme over all other character types).

5e is a game about adventuring in a world where adventurers don't matter and necromancer god-kings reign supreme. It's maddening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
You could just chuck a level or two onto the orcs.... If you only ever use sentient creatures straight from the book rather than ever modifying them it's abit restrictive, but that's because you're skipping a step.

I loved that approach in video games. Level 1 you fight a couple 1st level orcs. Level 10 you fight a couple 10th level orcs. Never seem to run into the level 1 ones anymore. And it's a good thing these tough boys didn't show up sooner.

:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:

Certain encounters can outclass the party or be outclassed by the party without bounded accuracy. This is the opposite of a problem in a leveled system.

If you have more levels, you are supposed to be stronger. You don't get to feel any stronger or go on more exciting adventures when the same pack of 40 guys with crossbows is just as lethal at 1st level as 20th level, and there's no reason for adventurers to be squaring off with the Dark Lord when Bill's Mercenaries could do the same job.

When you're 6th level, you should absolutely not be going on the same adventures or facing the same threats a group of 1st or 2nd level PCs should be going on. You're in a different tier of power dealing with a different tier of problems. But 5e is all in one tier, and that tier is "whoever has the most small guyswith ranged weapons wins".

FFS, an encounter with 228 CR 1/8 bandits is medium encounter for 4 20th level characters (IE, the strongest people in the setting) in 5e, but those bandits are shooting at +3 (1d8+1) versus AC 21 at best and mulching one person a round with 251 DPR when the tankiest person there has 224 hitpoints. A couple hundred ponces with crossbows are capable of killing characters that are described by the game itself as "masters of the world" that are supposed to go on adventures that determine the fate of millions of people (funny how it takes less than 200 of those millions to kill them- wonder how they'd deal with the threat on their own). And on the other end, creatures that are supposed to be world shattering in their deadliness like pit fiends can be put down by a militia of guys who train their crossbow accuracy on lazy afternoons (or put down in a single round by the necromancer who reigns supreme over all other character types).

It's good that 228 guys with crossbows are a threat. But you're vastly overstating that threat unless your characters are complete idiots who stand there in front of perfectly lined up crossbowmen waiting to shot at.

Yeah, yeah, I know the math works out to 251DPR. So what? I'm 20th level. I'm not standing there to be shot. I'll come up with something clever to do.

Liberty's Edge

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


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

I wouldn't. The same way I didn't like the whole D&D "Next" thing. Too much like a marketing buzzword that thinks its cleverer than its demographic. If it's a new edition, call it that.


More generally, the way the X number of guys with bows does better than the PCs against monsters is by faking the same number of attacks (with a multiple because they really aren't hitting nearly as often) and more importantly the same number of hit points. They just get them by having more people. Trouble is, when they lose hps they die. A group of 40 guys that's lost half its hps is probably close to 20 guys. A group of 4 higher level adventurers that's lost half its hp is probably still 4 guys. And that's assuming your group of half-trained commoner militia is running and hiding by the time they're half down. Staying in good order and fighting with a 50% casualty rate is good for elite troops.

They'd certainly much rather have adventurers take the risks, because they don't want to die.


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


I always prefer the name "Pathfinder Revised" to 2nd Edition.
I wouldn't. The same way I didn't like the whole D&D "Next" thing. Too much like a marketing buzzword that thinks its cleverer than its demographic. If it's a new edition, call it that.

Pathfound!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:
If you have more levels, you are supposed to be stronger. You don't get to feel any stronger or go on more exciting adventures when the same pack of 40 guys with crossbows is just as lethal at 1st level as 20th level, and there's no reason for adventurers to be squaring off with the Dark Lord when Bill's Mercenaries could do the same job.

You ARE stronger. You have far more hitpoints and abilities and even the martial classes can make multiple attacks and dish out an really high amount of damage.

(People I've talked to who've actually played higher level 5e report fighters and rangers can unleash staggering amounts of damage and are often better than the wizards who feel a little nerfed, due to their limited high level spell slots and the limits imposed by concentration.

The numbers just doing go up higher and higher for no real reason.

Aratrok wrote:
When you're 6th level, you should absolutely not be going on the same adventures or facing the same threats a group of 1st or 2nd level PCs should be going on. You're in a different tier of power dealing with a different tier of problems. But 5e is all in one tier, and that tier is "whoever has the most small guys with ranged weapons wins".

The type of adventure you go on has NOTHING to do with the size of the numbers you throw around.

Having a +15 to attack and fighting monsters with 30 AC doesn't make the story any more epic, the environment more exciting, or the campaign more dramatic. The numbers are just bigger.

Here's the thing about increasing numbers: it's artificial progress. It's a Red Queen's Race. You get a +1 bonus to your attack and a stat boost that you all but have to put into your primary attack stat and 4000gp that you have to spend on an item that also boosts your attack stat. All so you can get an extra +3 to attack and +2 to damage. But the AC of the monsters you're fighting goes up by 2-3 so you're not really any more accurate. It's rare in Pathfinder to fight monsters with unusually low AC and you seldom fight monsters more than 2 or 3 CR lower than you. There's an illusion of progress when you're really not hitting any more often.

Before 5e was actually announced I joked that they could get away from attack bonuses all together and just reduce attacking to a d20 roll. 11 or higher and you hit. It has the same rough effect but without adding increasingly high numbers and dozens of modifiers.

That's a lesson learned from 4e: the numbers don't matter. The bonuses don't matter. It's all just an illusion that makes things more complicated and the math harder.

But if numbers are all that determines your progress it's an easy fix. Just increase proficiency bonuses to all related checks by an amount equal to the character's level and grant monsters bonuses to the same equal to their challenge.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:
FFS, an encounter with 228 CR 1/8 bandits is medium encounter for 4 20th level characters (IE, the strongest people in the setting) in 5e, but those bandits are shooting at +3 (1d8+1) versus AC 21 at best and mulching one person a round with 251 DPR when the tankiest person there has 224 hitpoints. A couple hundred ponces with crossbows are capable of killing characters that are described by the game itself as "masters of the world" that are supposed to go on adventures that determine the fate of millions of people (funny how it takes less than 200 of those millions to kill them- wonder how they'd deal with the threat on their own). And on the other end, creatures that are supposed to be world shattering in their deadliness like pit fiends can be put down by a militia of guys who train their crossbow accuracy on lazy afternoons (or put down in a single round by the necromancer who reigns supreme over all other character types).

You're seriously telling me you think it's okay that if, say, Hercules, was ambushed by two legions of roman archers who peppered an entire football field centered around him with arrows he should be fine?!

You WANT the level 20 PCs to be able to take on entire armies without risk?

That was always one of my least favourite parts of earlier editions of D&D, where mundane things ceased to be a threat. When the town guards and elite knights of the king ceased to be imposing and the PCs could kick anyone's butt.

Having large numbers of mooks take out a hero is very, very, very much a feature not a bug.

This thread is all about Pathfinder ver2. And Pathfinder is not D&D. Not anymore. It's not subservient to the sacred cows of D&D, especially the silly ones. It has the opportunity to break free of many of the silly ones without losing the legacy or history of the game, because the legacy of the game is so much shorter.
I really hope Pathfinder Revised gets away from the number porn and power creep of PCs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Here's the thing about increasing numbers: it's artificial progress. It's a Red Queen's Race. You get a +1 bonus to your attack and a stat boost that you all but have to put into your primary attack stat and 4000gp that you have to spend on an item that also boosts your attack stat. All so you can get an extra +3 to attack and +2 to damage. But the AC of the monsters you're fighting goes up by 2-3 so you're not really any more accurate. It's rare in Pathfinder to fight monsters with unusually low AC and you seldom fight monsters more than 2 or 3 CR lower than you. There's an illusion of progress when you're really not hitting any more often.

Seerow wrote:

This is the other frequent lie 5e supporters love. The implication being that you will only ever fight things that are level appropriate for you, so your higher level doesn't matter. I find it particularly ironic in this particular post, since it comes right after acknowledging that the numerical scaling is a contributing factor to allowing high level characters to take on armies and win. Because while you may not frequently spend a lot of time fighting something 10 levels below you, knowing that you could take on a whole bunch of them at once because you are strictly better than them is an important aspect of setting and character power levels.

Even ignoring that you will frequently fight things as much as 4-6 levels below you and 4 levels above you. And there is no way you can argue with a straight face that the scaling doesn't matter when you are fighting a half dozen guys 4 levels lower, or a single enemy 4 levels above. The treadmill argument only applies if the game is designed in such a way that you can never exit the treadmill and never fight anything but level appropriate encounters. I have never encountered a game that is actually designed that way, and 3e and PF both explicitly expect you to fight a wide range of enemies both weaker and more powerful than you.

Maybe as a DM you feel you need to run your game like an MMO and level every creature you throw out up or down to match the ECL of the party exactly; but running your own home game like a robot doesn't change how the game is intended to be played.

Liberty's Edge

Coridan wrote:
Jester David wrote:
I always prefer the name "Pathfinder Revised" to 2nd Edition.
I wouldn't. The same way I didn't like the whole D&D "Next" thing. Too much like a marketing buzzword that thinks its cleverer than its demographic. If it's a new edition, call it that.

It'd be Pathfinder Revised Edition. A new edition just without the big numeral on the front

Much like Vampire Masquerade 2nd Edition had its Revised Edition.

It also pushes the idea that it's a revision of the rules and not a brand new ruleset (even if it is a new edition).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
You could just chuck a level or two onto the orcs.... If you only ever use sentient creatures straight from the book rather than ever modifying them it's abit restrictive, but that's because you're skipping a step.

I loved that approach in video games. Level 1 you fight a couple 1st level orcs. Level 10 you fight a couple 10th level orcs. Never seem to run into the level 1 ones anymore. And it's a good thing these tough boys didn't show up sooner.

:)

Who's to say they didn't show up sooner? Just because you didn't battle them doesn't meant they don't exist, one adventure might require getting past the higher level warband of orcs because you know they will annihilate you.

Easier to do in a sandbox game admittedly.


Milo v3 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
You could just chuck a level or two onto the orcs.... If you only ever use sentient creatures straight from the book rather than ever modifying them it's abit restrictive, but that's because you're skipping a step.

I loved that approach in video games. Level 1 you fight a couple 1st level orcs. Level 10 you fight a couple 10th level orcs. Never seem to run into the level 1 ones anymore. And it's a good thing these tough boys didn't show up sooner.

:)

Who's to say they didn't show up sooner? Just because you didn't battle them doesn't meant they don't exist, one adventure might require getting past the higher level warband of orcs because you know they will annihilate you.

Easier to do in a sandbox game admittedly.

It's percentages. At first you're fighting tribes of a few dozen 1st level with leaders a couple levels higher. Later on you're fighting tribes of a few dozen 10th level with leaders a few levels higher. Nothing changes.

And those 10th level ones you tried to sneak by at 2nd level? They caught you and killed you because their perception scales up along with everything else. I suppose you could still be killing enough 1st level ones along with dangerous ones at 10th level to make it seem reasonable you hadn't chanced to run into any before, but that would be a lot.

But you can justify it if you try hard enough. That's not really the point. It's that nothing changes.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why didn't the tenth level orcs show up sooner? You're not the only adventuring party in the world! =p

151 to 200 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