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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 912 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Seerow wrote:

The implication being that you will only ever fight things that are level appropriate for you, so your higher level doesn't matter.

...
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.

Try Pathfinder Society then. Or the Adventure Paths. You will never fight an encounter that's more than APL-2 or more than APL+3. It's always level appropriate encounters, if not a little high. The exceptions are noteworthy.

There's not even a mention of APL-2 in the Core Rulebook. It's not something you're expected to do.

And, really, an APL-2 Encounter ceases to really be a challenge. I put my level 8 PCs up against some level 6 NPCs the other day (this past Saturday) and they couldn't hit. The NPCs needed a 14+ to get past the tank's AC and the tank and other offensive characters needed a 5 to hit. The numbers just ceased to work. And that was just a couple level difference. I've seen worse examples, and experienced far worse trying to update 1st Edition modules to Pathfinder.
Low level NPCs and monsters cease to have a meaningful contribution in combat after 2-3 levels except as flank buddies or aiding attacks/AC.

Seerow wrote:
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.

It's not running it like a robot. It's running it by the rules and/or using the materials given.

If you're not playing by the advised rules then that's you house ruling the system, which means your experiences are non-representative.

Now, Pathfinder isn't as bad as 4e was in this instance. 4e's monster math was far more rigid. But the effect was the same: extra bonuses to all your stats every level while monsters progressed at the exact same rate so you might as well have not have gained any bonuses at all.
But, Pathfinder Unchained has adopted simple monster creation which is even more limited than 4e, so it's very possible Pathfinder might be going down the 4e route.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

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.

Thing is there is no reason for monsters to Have to scale with your level in PF, it is possible for adventurers to go "Hmm... that's a giant dragon, there is no way we could beat it, lets run into the woods rather than running out to die.", unless your PC's are idiots.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snorb wrote:
Why didn't the tenth level orcs show up sooner? You're not the only adventuring party in the world! =p

"ALL ORC BOB FAULT! ORC BOB BAD AT DIRECTIONS."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't we all just agree that bounded accuracy would be... just awful for pathfinder and move on to another topic? :P

Really, people that love it should have fun playing with it in 5E. Those that don't have our pathfinder. Sounds like a win/win until someone talked about mixing the two.


Some of us think it would be good for PF 2e, but yes that topic needs moved elsewhere.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AM CONFUSED wrote:
Snorb wrote:
Why didn't the tenth level orcs show up sooner? You're not the only adventuring party in the world! =p
"ALL ORC BOB FAULT! ORC BOB BAD AT DIRECTIONS."

"ORC STEVE HAD TO STOP AND EAT EVERY ELF ORC STEVE CAME ACROSS, DIDN'T HE? THAT SLOW US DOWN!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"ORC RANDY WANTED STOP FOR HALFLING! EVERY ORC KNOWS HALFINGS NOT FILLING."


Milo v3 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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.

Thing is there is no reason for monsters to Have to scale with your level in PF, it is possible for adventurers to go "Hmm... that's a giant dragon, there is no way we could beat it, lets run into the woods rather than running out to die.", unless your PC's are idiots.

Sure, they can be around. As I said it gets harder to justify. Especially when you're slaughtering all the wussy little orcs and none of the big tough ones bother to do anything about it.

Conveniently there are always big warning signs about the monsters that are too tough, they never ambush the part and they don't bother to chase. Nor are they ever a direct opponent on any mission or goal you actually care about. You can project the illusion that the world is the same and the big nasties are always around, but it's carefully stage managed, even in the most sandboxy game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Sure, they can be around. As I said it gets harder to justify. Especially when you're slaughtering all the wussy little orcs and none of the big tough ones bother to do anything about it.

Conveniently there are always big warning signs about the monsters that are too tough, they never ambush the part and they don't bother to chase. Nor are they ever a direct opponent on any mission or goal you actually care about. You can project the illusion that the world is the same and the big nasties are always around, but it's carefully stage managed, even in the most sandboxy game.

If you're doing that, then that's your fault. My game doesn't have that issue, and has people from level 1-15 all existing at once.

There are thousands upon thousands of ways to play Pathfinder, and not all of them have the issue you're describing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Try Pathfinder Society then. Or the Adventure Paths. You will never fight an encounter that's more than APL-2 or more than APL+3. It's always level appropriate encounters, if not a little high. The exceptions are noteworthy.

Are those encounters always with a single creature with CR equal to APL-2 to APL+3? No, not really. I will admit they show up more frequently than I would prefer, because lone monsters tend to get outclassed by PCs through sheer action economy, but that's besides the point. The point being that encounter level and challenge rating are two different things. Even if you never see an encounter lower than APL-2; it is MUCH more common to see an encounter made up of creatures that are APL-4 or more, with more of them being used to make it an appropriately leveled encounter.

Besides that I haven't run a ton of APs, but the one I have been working with (Kingmaker) includes random encounters that go as high as APL+5 and at least a couple of different areas that have tons of creatures much lower level than the party, that the developers stated (when asked about it on the forums) are there explicitly to let the players feel powerful and note the difference that comes from being higher level.

Which as you may remember, is the entire point. You continue to go on about how lower level creatures aren't dangerous and therefore should be avoided. One does not lead to the other. Lower level creatures aren't as dangerous, and as a result should be used from time to time because that contrast is what makes gaining levels worthwhile.

Just as a quick example of this sort of thing, here's an anecdote from a game my group had a month or two ago.

My party ran into a lone yakfolk (3.X monster, a CR4 evil bodysnatcher/slaver) around level 4. It was a pretty tough fight, and sent us packing because we had heard there was a village full of them nearby and we did not want to get involved stirring up that hornet's nest. Around level 8 we happened to have an adventure that involved crossing through that same area again, and along the way we decided to deal with that yak folk village along the way, taking out the whole tribe of about 80 of them (plus their assorted slaves).

Being able to go in and actually take care of the problem we had been forced to walk away from at lower level was totally awesome. And something we never would have been able to do in 5e. And by your logic is something that would never actually happen in a real game because you are on a constant treadmill and should not be bothering with lower level creatures after 2 levels.


Milo v3 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Sure, they can be around. As I said it gets harder to justify. Especially when you're slaughtering all the wussy little orcs and none of the big tough ones bother to do anything about it.

Conveniently there are always big warning signs about the monsters that are too tough, they never ambush the part and they don't bother to chase. Nor are they ever a direct opponent on any mission or goal you actually care about. You can project the illusion that the world is the same and the big nasties are always around, but it's carefully stage managed, even in the most sandboxy game.

If you're doing that, then that's your fault. My game doesn't have that issue, and has people from level 1-15 all existing at once.

There are thousands upon thousands of ways to play Pathfinder, and not all of them have the issue you're describing.

So, in your sandbox game, you go to no effort to make sure the players know what they're getting into? They're occasionally ambushed by much more powerful faster enemies with no qualms about killing them? Cause that's the kind of thing that happens to people who don't have the GM looking out for them. You know, NPCs.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

Can't we all just agree that bounded accuracy would be... just awful for pathfinder and move on to another topic? :P

Really, people that love it should have fun playing with it in 5E. Those that don't have our pathfinder. Sounds like a win/win until someone talked about mixing the two.

Agree, but the OP of the thread started out talking about how much he loves bounded accuracy and thinks PF2.0 should adopt it... so arguing about the merits or lack thereof is about as on topic as you can get.


Seerow wrote:

My party ran into a lone yakfolk (3.X monster, a CR4 evil bodysnatcher/slaver) around level 4. It was a pretty tough fight, and sent us packing because we had heard there was a village full of them nearby and we did not want to get involved stirring up that hornet's nest. Around level 8 we happened to have an adventure that involved crossing through that same area again, and along the way we decided to deal with that yak folk village along the way, taking out the whole tribe of about 80 of them (plus their assorted slaves).

Being able to go in and actually take care of the problem we had been forced to walk away from at lower level was totally awesome. And something we never would have been able to do in 5e. And by your logic is something that would never actually happen in a real game because you are on a constant treadmill and should not be bothering with lower level creatures after 2 levels.

Of course it is. Just not quite so easily or maybe quite so soon. You really do get more powerful, even if your attack bonuses don't scale as drastically. 80 would be a lot and require planning and clever tactics, but that certainly doesn't mean you can't ever triumph over things that would have wiped the floor with you earlier.


Seerow wrote:
graystone wrote:

Can't we all just agree that bounded accuracy would be... just awful for pathfinder and move on to another topic? :P

Really, people that love it should have fun playing with it in 5E. Those that don't have our pathfinder. Sounds like a win/win until someone talked about mixing the two.

Agree, but the OP of the thread started out talking about how much he loves bounded accuracy and thinks PF2.0 should adopt it... so arguing about the merits or lack thereof is about as on topic as you can get.

LOL I know, but I hate it so much it made me run away screaming from the playtest. I'd rather hear about almost anything else. ;P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
So, in your sandbox game, you go to no effort to make sure the players know what they're getting into? They're occasionally ambushed by much more powerful faster enemies with no qualms about killing them? Cause that's the kind of thing that happens to people who don't have the GM looking out for them. You know, NPCs.

They "generally" know what they're getting into, but sometimes they get in over their head or attack the wrong person or go into a place that's stronger than they think or weaker than they think. It's higher at high levels, because once the low-level guys see how powerful you are often would rather run away or retreat than outright die, leaving most of the enemies in an area as the more level appropriate ones. But it is harsh at low-levels if they aren't careful.

Also, what's peoples view on 5e magic items. Some people have told me they'd prefer if PF handled it the same way, but I think they went to too much effort to ensure items aren't necessary.


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


And, really, an APL-2 Encounter ceases to really be a challenge. I put my level 8 PCs up against some level 6 NPCs the other day (this past Saturday) and they couldn't hit. The NPCs needed a 14+ to get past the tank's AC and the tank and other offensive characters needed a 5 to hit. The numbers just ceased to work. And that was just a couple level difference. I've seen worse examples, and experienced far worse trying to update 1st Edition modules to Pathfinder.
Low level NPCs and monsters cease to have a meaningful contribution in combat after 2-3 levels except as flank buddies or aiding attacks/AC.

Laying aside that 2 levels should not produce quite that large of a swing if you build the NPCs to challenge the party, you seem to view this as a bug, rather than feature. I don't.

I want my 15th level wizard to be capable of beating a squad of town guards to death with her bare hands if it comes to that. I want the party's 15th level fighter to stand under a hail of arrows and make jokes about fighting in the shade.

High level characters that are almost untouchable to lower level beings is arguably the thing that I enjoy the most about pathfinder, because it shows your character's growth and gives meaning to the journey.


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

You can't have it both ways.

You're claiming that Pathfinder is in ruins, because they need to do 2-3 BIG books a year. "Writers need to write"- your words.
But at the same time you're praising WotC for it's glacial pace of new material?

And this question of "What books are left for Pathfinder", is getting so tired, it's comatose. It's been answered- repeatedly- by everyone! I'm bored with wading through dead horse to take that bait again.

You said you would've liked Occult Adventures two years ago, but you ran a horror game, so, that somehow means the book has nothing to offer. You haven't even read it! Plus you're pigeonholing it!

You've made it clear that it doesn't matter what Piazo does, you've made up your mind not to like any of it. It sounds like you're even retroactively disliking books. None of this is a problem with Paizo or Pathfinder, it's just this weirdly aggressive point that you're trying to make stick.

Liberty's Edge

Seerow wrote:
Quote:

Try Pathfinder Society then. Or the Adventure Paths. You will never fight an encounter that's more than APL-2 or more than APL+3. It's always level appropriate encounters, if not a little high. The exceptions are noteworthy.

Are those encounters always with a single creature with CR equal to APL-2 to APL+3? No, not really. I will admit they show up more frequently than I would prefer, because lone monsters tend to get outclassed by PCs through sheer action economy, but that's besides the point. The point being that encounter level and challenge rating are two different things. Even if you never see an encounter lower than APL-2; it is MUCH more common to see an encounter made up of creatures that are APL-4 or more, with more of them being used to make it an appropriately leveled encounter.

Besides that I haven't run a ton of APs, but the one I have been working with (Kingmaker) includes random encounters that go as high as APL+5 and at least a couple of different areas that have tons of creatures much lower level than the party, that the developers stated (when asked about it on the forums) are there explicitly to let the players feel powerful and note the difference that comes from being higher level.

Which as you may remember, is the entire point. You continue to go on about how lower level creatures aren't dangerous and therefore should be avoided. One does not lead to the other. Lower level creatures aren't as dangerous, and as a result should be used from time to time because that contrast is what makes gaining levels worthwhile.

Just as a quick example of this sort of thing, here's an anecdote from a game my group had a month or two ago.

My party ran into a lone yakfolk (3.X monster, a CR4 evil bodysnatcher/slaver) around level 4. It was a pretty tough fight, and sent us packing because we had heard there was a village full of them nearby and we did not want to get involved stirring up that hornet's nest. Around level 8 we happened to have an adventure that involved...

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


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

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

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

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

As for the scenario of going back working just as well in bounded accuracy, TheJeff already admitted it would take longer (wait until higher level) before such a scenario would be feasible; because the overall power scaling of characters is greatly decreased. Where in the scenario I described we were able to go back at level 8 and use tactics/planning to wipe out a tribe of level 4 enemies; in 5e what level would you need to be to accomplish similar? I guess if you could manage to get the enemies in small groups of 2-4 you could do it by level 10. But if you were taking out groups of 8-12 or more, with higher level leaders or giant slaves mixed into the bunch? You're probably looking at a 20th level capstone adventure. To take out a village full of low level creatures. Seems underwhelming for characters who are in theory capable of taking on gods at that level.


I agree with those who've suggested, something along the lines of a 'Beginner's Players Guide". Just the basics, for new players, where you don't feel like you're throwing them in the deep end. Pathfinder is a game that once the basics click for a new player, they get excited about all the other options. And those options, are NOT bloat, they are however, more advanced than what the average new player is going to wrap their heads around in a single night.

I think that is what Paizo had in mind with the Strategy Guide, but I feel it would have worked better as a basic version of the Core Rulebook.


Isn't that what the Beginner Box is?


Milo v3 wrote:
Isn't that what the Beginner Box is?

I honestly don't know. If it is, and it does it's job, I know a few friends, off the top of my head, who will be getting it for their birthdays!

Liberty's Edge

Seerow wrote:

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

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

Which is where some of the master vs novice problems come in. The tanks AC quickly goes up but the squishy character's don't. So when you have a scale of +/-10 you quickly have situations where the monsters cannot miss the wizard but cannot hit the fighter.

Or high level Pathfinder where the rogue needs a 15+ on a d20 to make a Will or Fort save but the wizard/fighter need a 5.

Seerow wrote:
As for the scenario of going back working just as well in bounded accuracy, TheJeff already admitted it would take longer (wait until higher level) before such a scenario would be feasible; because the overall power scaling of characters is greatly decreased. Where in the scenario I described we were able to go back at level 8 and use tactics/planning to wipe out a tribe of level 4 enemies; in 5e what level would you need to be to accomplish similar? I guess if you could manage to get the enemies in small groups of 2-4 you could do it by level 10. But if you were taking out groups of 8-12 or more, with higher level leaders or giant slaves mixed into the bunch? You're probably looking at a 20th level capstone adventure. To take out a village full of low level creatures. Seems underwhelming for characters who are in theory capable of taking on gods at that level.

I actually misread the scenario. It's actually a great example of the problem with the numbers.

I mean, c'mon, you took out an entire village. Even in the base rules of Pathfinder, the difficulty of that encounter should have been astronomical. Even if you managed to separate them into 8 groups of 10 monsters that should have been 8 different CR 10 encounters. But the monsters became so ineffectual that after only four levels you were apparently able to slaughter them like nothing.
It seems an odd example when it was so wildly beyond the realms of expected play.

By the rules, in 5e the most challenge 4 monsters a level 8 party should be able to face is 4-5. However, that's also the baseline, and smart parties can get passed that with creative spell use and ambush tactics. While slightly less potent, level 8 PCs can still unload a lot of power if required. Skilled players can rip through "balanced" encounters just like in Pathfinder.

Still, power level in games fluctuates. Bounded accuracy has nothing to do with the power level of PCs. They're two completely unrelated topics. Just because 5e has bounded accuracy and weaker PCs doesn't mean one is caused by the other.
It would be easy to give each PC twice as many class features each level and a bunch of cool powers and have ass kicking PCs but still retain bounded accuracy.
The prior two editions of D&D ramped up the power level of PCs. PCs in 3e were pretty badass compared to 1e and 2e PCs, and 4e PCs were even farther up the power scale. 5e is pulling that back for simple games with weaker PCs, knowing DMs can always give out stat boosts and magic items for more super heroic PCs.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Joe Hex wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Isn't that what the Beginner Box is?
I honestly don't know. If it is, and it does it's job, I know a few friends, off the top of my head, who will be getting it for their birthdays!

I'd give it a look. If all goes well, you might check out the Strategy Guide as a follow-up. ^_^


Joe Hex wrote:

I agree with those who've suggested, something along the lines of a 'Beginner's Players Guide". Just the basics, for new players, where you don't feel like you're throwing them in the deep end. Pathfinder is a game that once the basics click for a new player, they get excited about all the other options. And those options, are NOT bloat, they are however, more advanced than what the average new player is going to wrap their heads around in a single night.

I think that is what Paizo had in mind with the Strategy Guide, but I feel it would have worked better as a basic version of the Core Rulebook.

I agree,

I have some novice players in my group, and the complexities of Pathfinder is its strength not its weakness. It's a challenge for them and they love it.

And it allows for the more experienced members of the group to pass on the knowledge they have picked up over the years.

Overall a pretty positive experience.


thejeff wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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.

Thing is there is no reason for monsters to Have to scale with your level in PF, it is possible for adventurers to go "Hmm... that's a giant dragon, there is no way we could beat it, lets run into the woods rather than running out to die.", unless your PC's are idiots.

Sure, they can be around. As I said it gets harder to justify. Especially when you're slaughtering all the wussy little orcs and none of the big tough ones bother to do anything about it.

Conveniently there are always big warning signs about the monsters that are too tough, they never ambush the part and they don't bother to chase. Nor are they ever a direct opponent on any mission or goal you actually care about. You can project the illusion that the world is the same and the big nasties are always around, but it's carefully stage managed, even in the most sandboxy game.

Monster Codex is pretty good book, when it comes to bringing longevity to common monsters like orcs and goblins. They can still easily be a threat to PCs 1st-12th and that is over half a player character's entire career.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

A few points;

Am I the only one that likes the fact that a lvl 1 orc can't really threaten a lvl 20 adventurer? I presume that by level 20 I'm pretty much a battle demi-god so I should be plowing through regular ole normal level 1s by the dozen.

5e is more grounded where an band of vanilla kobolds can threaten you at most levels if there are enough of them and you are generally poor. Pathfinder has you level into superheros and you bet Bruce Wayne dollars. And that's fine, they do different things. Although I'm still more into Pathfinder because really if I wanted any kind of bounded threat kind of game I'd just play or run a game that happens within the boundries of a couple of levels. Actually in general I prefer Pathfinder because overall I can do whatever kind of game I want and more options like Unchained and third party stuff keeps pumping out more ways to have drastically different kinds of gameplay.

I like a lot of things about 5e but I can't really say bounded accuracy is one of them. I guess it works out for the context of 5e but so often I feel like I have no breathing room for modularity and leveling feels like nothing.

I'm going to have to agree with some of the 5e Fighter points. People complain about the fighter not doing anything that's not combat in Pathfinder but I'm currently on my 6th level as Fighter in 5th edition and if not for the character's fluff the character would be boring as crap.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Am I the only one that likes the fact that a lvl 1 orc can't really threaten a lvl 20 adventurer?

Nope.


I always figured higher levels were supposed to be superhuman war gods at that point, which is why every normal person is like level 1-3. Usually 1.


And to make lvl 20 adventures be like demi-gods, the massive power shifts across the levels has its own problems. By being more strict on the overall power levels, 5th ed made level progression much more fluid and progression less drastic.

Honest and a bit of a jerk comment: System that tries to do multiple power levels at the same time is going to mediocre in presenting them all at once. There is a good reason why 40k RPGs have their power levels spread over 3 (4) different systems.


IN D&D 5e an Orog (great orc) has an AC 19, while an Ancient Red Dragon has an AC 22, hardly a fluid progression and the shift in power levels is hardly unnoticeable.

Yet in fact the power levels are extremely noticeable because an Orog has 46 hp, and an Ancient Red Dragon has 546 hp.

Bounded Accuracy is not a system that creates balance in power levels, it makes the game simpler, less maths, less contrast between the classes, and less contrast between levels, and takes away the idea of chance, that lucky sword slash that killed the evil dragon and saved your entire party.

Because in D&D 5e everyone hits, both the players and the monsters.

Grand Lodge

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

And that's a bad thing?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
And that's a bad thing?

It's a different thing.

There is nothing wrong or flawed with Pathfinder's system in comparison to D&D 5e Bounded Accuracy, both systems are totally different play styles.

The OP said Pathfinder can benefit from it, wherein fact it can't benefit without changing the nature of the game itself.

A simple thing like having one enemy with an AC 15 and another with an AC 35 provides complexities, interesting complexities from character building to actions taken during combat. Something that defines the 3.75 system from others.

Something that Bounded Accuracy loses out on to maintain its simplicity.


Malwing wrote:
Am I the only one that likes the fact that a lvl 1 orc can't really threaten a lvl 20 adventurer?

My issue with Pathfinder is that a level 15 orc can't really threaten a level 15 adventurer - not an adventurer who's put any real effort into boosting their AC. Unless the orc has the same wealth as a level 15 PC, in which case the battle is likely to be insanely profitable for the party.

If a level 1 orc can't hit a high-level PC, that's a design style. If a boss monster from a Paizo adventure path can only hit a PC on a 17+, that looks more like a design flaw.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Am I the only one that likes the fact that a lvl 1 orc can't really threaten a lvl 20 adventurer?

My issue with Pathfinder is that a level 15 orc can't really threaten a level 15 adventurer - not an adventurer who's put any real effort into boosting their AC. Unless the orc has the same wealth as a level 15 PC, in which case the battle is likely to be insanely profitable for the party.

If a level 1 orc can't hit a high-level PC, that's a design style. If a boss monster from a Paizo adventure path can only hit a PC on a 17+, that looks more like a design flaw.

Uh...let's examine this statement. A level 15 Orc Barbarian will have Str 28 when Raging (due to a +2 Belt), a +15 BAB, and a +1 Furious weapon, plus Furious Focus and Power Attack. That's 12k of the 45k an NPC of that level gets, by the way, and not all that hard to do.

That's a +27/+18/+13. Do your 15th level Adventurers usually have an AC of 44? Because that's not impossible, but it's sure not typical either, and I can give the Orc I just mentioned +5 more to hit casually with minimal effort (Reckless Abandon + Weapon Focus).

Paizo boss monsters are built assuming a party of four PCs at what many consider a minimal level of optimization, not adjusting them if you have PCs with AC in the high 40s is more your fault than that of the encounter design.

And even if the encounter design was at fault, that's the fault of the encounter design, not the system as a whole, which can most definitely be used to make threats to even highly optimized high level characters.


Malwing wrote:
Am I the only one that likes the fact that a lvl 1 orc can't really threaten a lvl 20 adventurer?

Yeah, that's a nice thing about 5e. The orc can't really threaten the lvl 20 adventurer, but he also can't be completely ignored and a lot of them can be a threat.

Of course, in cases where you've got hundreds of them with ranged weapons and perfect circumstances where they can all shoot you without obstruction, the 20th level character will have trouble in PF as well.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Am I the only one that likes the fact that a lvl 1 orc can't really threaten a lvl 20 adventurer?

My issue with Pathfinder is that a level 15 orc can't really threaten a level 15 adventurer - not an adventurer who's put any real effort into boosting their AC. Unless the orc has the same wealth as a level 15 PC, in which case the battle is likely to be insanely profitable for the party.

If a level 1 orc can't hit a high-level PC, that's a design style. If a boss monster from a Paizo adventure path can only hit a PC on a 17+, that looks more like a design flaw.

A lvl 15 orc is inherently equipped as well as a lvl 15 PC unless you want to juice him up in monster abilities or templates. On adventure paths this happens but like any game its hard to predetermine how good the PCs are. Two weeks ago a party of four came across a hydra at level 5. The hydra is CR8 and we had no fire damage between us so the hydra heads were going into the double digits. Because my character isn't a pansy he was the first to get into melee and lost maybe 25% HP through the ordeal. This week I'm wearing a hydra head as a codpiece. Because sometimes PCs are just hardcore regardless the system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Am I the only one that likes the fact that a lvl 1 orc can't really threaten a lvl 20 adventurer?

Yeah, that's a nice thing about 5e. The orc can't really threaten the lvl 20 adventurer, but he also can't be completely ignored and a lot of them can be a threat.

Of course, in cases where you've got hundreds of them with ranged weapons and perfect circumstances where they can all shoot you without obstruction, the 20th level character will have trouble in PF as well.

I prefer having that as an option. I mean shouldn't it be if other things are going to be a credible threat?

For example; I was looking at Pathfinder's Tarrasque and 5e's. In 5e, as lvl 6 PCs, I think my party and like four other dudes that are as optimized at least could take it. In Pathfinder the Tarrasque is an extinction level situation. We need to get all the summons and a whiny soccer player's soul to take that thing down. If we're at the level of punching an immortal Godzilla or Creatures that literally create universes I think a CR 1/8 Kobold perfectly fine to be able to completely ignore, and if I think otherwise then the game isn't going to level 20. I'm not obligated to have games go from 1-20 at all times.


Malwing wrote:
In Pathfinder the Tarrasque is an extinction level situation. We need to get all the summons and a whiny soccer player's soul to take that thing down.

I see what you did there.


Malwing wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Am I the only one that likes the fact that a lvl 1 orc can't really threaten a lvl 20 adventurer?

Yeah, that's a nice thing about 5e. The orc can't really threaten the lvl 20 adventurer, but he also can't be completely ignored and a lot of them can be a threat.

Of course, in cases where you've got hundreds of them with ranged weapons and perfect circumstances where they can all shoot you without obstruction, the 20th level character will have trouble in PF as well.

I prefer having that as an option. I mean shouldn't it be if other things are going to be a credible threat?

For example; I was looking at Pathfinder's Tarrasque and 5e's. In 5e, as lvl 6 PCs, I think my party and like four other dudes that are as optimized at least could take it. In Pathfinder the Tarrasque is an extinction level situation. We need to get all the summons and a whiny soccer player's soul to take that thing down. If we're at the level of punching an immortal Godzilla or Creatures that literally create universes I think a CR 1/8 Kobold perfectly fine to be able to completely ignore, and if I think otherwise then the game isn't going to level 20. I'm not obligated to have games go from 1-20 at all times.

How much of that is due to bounded accuracy type stuff?

The reason the tarrasque is so tough in PF is more its DR, immunities and regen than crazy high AC or attacks.

Even in PF, you could still fly around and shoot it, without it being able to do anything, it was just harder to get enough damage through DR to overcome regen.


thejeff wrote:

The reason the tarrasque is so tough in PF is more its DR, immunities and regen than crazy high AC or attacks.

Even in PF, you could still fly around and shoot it, without it being able to do anything, it was just harder to get enough damage through DR to overcome regen.

Tarrasque in PF have ranged attacks, can do giant jumps, and has immunity to death. Even without bounded accuracy, the tarrasque is ridiculously more epic.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Uh...let's examine this statement. A level 15 Orc Barbarian will have Str 28 when Raging (due to a +2 Belt), a +15 BAB, and a +1 Furious weapon, plus Furious Focus and Power Attack. That's 12k of the 45k an NPC of that level gets, by the way, and not all that hard to do.

That's a +27/+18/+13. Do your 15th level Adventurers usually have an AC of 44? Because that's not impossible, but it's sure not typical either, and I can give the Orc I just mentioned +5 more to hit casually with minimal effort (Reckless Abandon + Weapon Focus).

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

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

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Paizo boss monsters are built assuming a party of four PCs at what many consider a minimal level of optimization, not adjusting them if you have PCs with AC in the high 40s is more your fault than that of the encounter design.

And even if the encounter design was at fault, that's the fault of the encounter design, not the system as a whole, which can most definitely be used to make threats to even highly optimized high level characters.

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The reason the tarrasque is so tough in PF is more its DR, immunities and regen than crazy high AC or attacks.

Even in PF, you could still fly around and shoot it, without it being able to do anything, it was just harder to get enough damage through DR to overcome regen.

Tarrasque in PF have ranged attacks, can do giant jumps, and has immunity to death. Even without bounded accuracy, the tarrasque is ridiculously more epic.

But that's the point, even though I missed the spines. It's not the bounded accuracy. It's the other abilities.

Liberty's Edge

Malwing wrote:

I prefer having that as an option. I mean shouldn't it be if other things are going to be a credible threat?

For example; I was looking at Pathfinder's Tarrasque and 5e's. In 5e, as lvl 6 PCs, I think my party and like four other dudes that are as optimized at least could take it. In Pathfinder the Tarrasque is an extinction level situation. We need to get all the summons and a whiny soccer player's soul to take that thing down. If we're at the level of punching an immortal Godzilla or Creatures that literally create universes I think a CR 1/8 Kobold perfectly fine to be able to completely ignore, and if I think otherwise then the game isn't going to level 20. I'm not obligated to have games go from 1-20 at all times.

The 5e tarrasque has some of the same weaknesses as the PF tarrasque in that it has no ranged attack.

Level 6 5e characters are going to have a hard fight against the tarrasque. First, it's immune to nonmagical weapons (with magic items not being assumed in 5e). A wizard can give one person a magic weapon by the spell of the same name, but only one and that also means no flying.
Plus the tarrasque's AC is 25, which means even a fairly optimized level 6 PC needs a 19 or 20 to hit.


Jester David wrote:
The 5e tarrasque has some of the same weaknesses as the PF tarrasque in that it has no ranged attack.

I'm really surprised how often people say that. Hmm... suppose the 3rd edition Tarrasque was so disappointing no one bothered to look at the PF version.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Jester David wrote:
The 5e tarrasque has some of the same weaknesses as the PF tarrasque in that it has no ranged attack.
I'm really surprised how often people say that. Hmm... suppose the 3rd edition Tarrasque was so disappointing no one bothered to look at the PF version.

I know right?. Its like some people don't read the monsters.


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

Am I the only one that likes the fact that a lvl 1 orc can't really threaten a lvl 20 adventurer? I presume that by level 20 I'm pretty much a battle demi-god so I should be plowing through regular ole normal level 1s by the dozen.

5e is more grounded where an band of vanilla kobolds can threaten you at most levels if there are enough of them and you are generally poor. Pathfinder has you level into superheros and you bet Bruce Wayne dollars. And that's fine, they do different things. Although I'm still more into Pathfinder because really if I wanted any kind of bounded threat kind of game I'd just play or run a game that happens within the boundries of a couple of levels. Actually in general I prefer Pathfinder because overall I can do whatever kind of game I want and more options like Unchained and third party stuff keeps pumping out more ways to have drastically different kinds of gameplay.

I like a lot of things about 5e but I can't really say bounded accuracy is one of them. I guess it works out for the context of 5e but so often I feel like I have no breathing room for modularity and leveling feels like nothing.

I'm going to have to agree with some of the 5e Fighter points. People complain about the fighter not doing anything that's not combat in Pathfinder but I'm currently on my 6th level as Fighter in 5th edition and if not for the character's fluff the character would be boring as crap.

I love 5E fighters. I'm on about my fifth, I think.

I think your first point is the crux of the matter - bounded accuracy is a game where you don't get much better than you start (and where experts are not so far ahead of novices). If you don't like that limited progression, you won't like BA. If you do want that kind of game, unbounded systems like Pathfinder won't do it for you (unless you impose limits and run a game within a few levels).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
...Am I the only one that likes the fact that a lvl 1 orc can't really threaten a lvl 20 adventurer? I presume that by level 20 I'm pretty much a battle demi-god so I should be plowing through regular ole normal level 1s by the dozen...

I think the problem isn't that people don't like it, it's that the progression from normal to demi-god (and the speed in which it can happen) isn't obvious or explained. For some players, the transition is jarring. If you want to play Conan or Knights it gets really hard above level 6 but if you have certain anime in mind than the first 6 levels don't really meet your needs.

Once you understand the scale and progression of the game it definitely gives you more latitude in creating the type of game you want.

I just wish it was better explained in the CRB. I would like to see them be more upfront and clear about it and provide guidance on how to tailor your game to your particular play style.

201 to 250 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