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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 912 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

The 5e tarrasque also has flat-out immunity to spells that require a ranged attack roll, line effect spells, and Magic Missile, along with fire, poison, certain conditions, and nonmagical weapons. (In the case of those spells I mentioned above, you the DM roll 1d6. 1-5 means the tarrasque takes 0 damage, 6 means the tarrasque takes no damage and you get attacked by your own spell. Fun!)

Incidentally, this means a party of clerics can Inflict Wounds a tarrasque to death in 5e. (Assuming they can get past AC 25.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't want a new edition, I just want more Basic Box support. At least Wayfinder and the community provide some of that.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I want this thread to be about a new edition, rather than D&D 5E.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I want this thread to be about a new edition, rather than D&D 5E.

Just be a little patient, there's usually a new "I want a new edition" thread on Wednesdays and a new "bloat is killing Pathfinder" thread on Thursday.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:
Just be a little patient, there's usually a new "I want a new edition" thread on Wednesdays and a new "bloat is killing Pathfinder" thread on Thursday.

Hmmm...I wonder what might be causing those threads to become so commonplace.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Duiker wrote:
Just be a little patient, there's usually a new "I want a new edition" thread on Wednesdays and a new "bloat is killing Pathfinder" thread on Thursday.
Hmmm...I wonder what might be causing those threads to become so commonplace.

Personally, I blame fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field combined with sunspot activity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I want this thread to be about a new edition, rather than D&D 5E.
Just be a little patient, there's usually a new "I want a new edition" thread on Wednesdays and a new "bloat is killing Pathfinder" thread on Thursday.

Pretty much, but the problem with this thread is that it started with wanting to start becoming 5th edition and at this point you might as well just play 5th edition. I know each day people want the game to improve past what it was yesterday but its easy to get defensive because some of us are still here because we didn't want to play 5th edition or wanted to play some Pathfinder.

Its weird because its not even edition warring. Nobody is really arguing that 5th edition does it's job well. Most opinions on it in a vacuum has been fairly unanimous. Its just that not everyone playing Pathfinder wants the same design goals as 5e. I play Pathfinder because it has what I want and what it doesn't have a third party publisher has already printed it. I own and play 5th edition when I feel like I want to do that but it is not my preference depending on what kind of game I'm into.

Liberty's Edge

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

I read the mythic update in Inner Sea Gods but y'know, I never really looked at the base Pathfinder one. Well, until I posted the above and decided I'd never looked at it. It wasn't like my game was ever going to hit levels where it was relevant and I know what the monster is, so reading its statblock closely never seemed important.

So, huh, ranged spikes. Huh. It works I guess. I would have preferred thrown boulders or a breath weapon.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh. I thought the "I want a Revised Edition" threads were on Mondays, and the "Bloat is killing Pathfinder" threads were on Saturdays. Meanwhile, the "The Fighter and Rogue Suck" threads were originally scheduled on Tuesdays, and weren't the "Power creep is killing Pathfinder" threads alternating Sundays where leaves weren't on the ground?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
AC 44 is pretty easy to achieve for anyone willing to invest in it.

How? By 15th level, I mean.

Dex 16, Mithral Full Plate +5, Ring of Protection +5, AoNA +5, Jingasa, and Ioun Stone is only 39. A +5 shield can make that 46, sure, but that's a really focused build right there, with 2/3 of it's gold invested solely in AC.

Now several Classes can make that easier/cheaper, or take it higher, but it's not exactly typical of builds of that level. Indeed, I mostly hear Level +20 cited as a 'typical' AC high enough to be effective, and you're talking Level +30 as typical? I don't think you're playing the same game as most others.

Which is cool, but really high levels of optimization demand either equal levels of optimization to deal with them, or using higher CR'd foes, and doing one of those things is sorta one of the GM's jobs.

Matthew Downie wrote:
And for anyone who does, that Level 15 orc is a joke who will probably flail around missing for two rounds and then die.

As mentioned, I can add +5 to that casually, and more with a little effort.

Matthew Downie wrote:
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.

Hey man, you're the one who specifically mentioned Orc. That said, I can pretty readily get equal to-hit numbers with any Full BAB Class, and several that aren't. And just about any Race.

The NPCs in the NPC Codex are...not very optimally designed. Yes, obviously if you put them up against optimal PCs they'll do poorly, but that means nothing in regards to the ability of the system to do so. It's potentially a complaint about that product, but not the game as a whole.

Also...you're using a Monk (one of the least accurate Classes there is) as an example of 'all classes have terrible accuracy' which is not precisely a good argument when examined.

Matthew Downie wrote:
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.

Okay, which would you rather, that some experienced GMs needed to power up the adventures a bit to keep up with their PCs, or that many brand new GMs running their first game of Pathfinder had to modify the adventure or constantly wipe the party?

Because those are basically your options, and I'm glad Paizo chose the first.

About half the posts I see complaining about AP difficulty in the actual AP forums say they're too easy, the other half say they're too hard. Like you, I tend to fall on the 'too easy' side, but the fact that the numbers are even tends to indicate that the right choice was made on difficulty.

Now outside the AP forums, I see the 'too easy' version more often, but I put that down to people who spend a lot of time on the rules or advice forums having a higher than average level of skill at optimization.

Matthew Downie wrote:
I haven't played 5E, but if it's found a way to avoid that, I'd like to give it a try.

The system's simpler, making optimization more obvious and more assumed...so sorta?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Duiker wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Duiker wrote:
Just be a little patient, there's usually a new "I want a new edition" thread on Wednesdays and a new "bloat is killing Pathfinder" thread on Thursday.
Hmmm...I wonder what might be causing those threads to become so commonplace.
Personally, I blame fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field combined with sunspot activity.

Something something fluoride in the water something precious bodily fluids.


It's probably already been discussed but atm I don't have time to read a thread this size...

Can somebody please explain to me why the OP feels that constricting character growth throughout a 20 level career, and reducing Attacks Per Round while leaving 9th level spell progression could possibly be a good thing?

Liberty's Edge

Malwing wrote:

Pretty much, but the problem with this thread is that it started with wanting to start becoming 5th edition and at this point you might as well just play 5th edition. I know each day people want the game to improve past what it was yesterday but its easy to get defensive because some of us are still here because we didn't want to play 5th edition or wanted to play some Pathfinder.

Its weird because its not even edition warring. Nobody is really arguing that 5th edition does it's job well. Most opinions on it in a vacuum has been fairly unanimous. Its just that not everyone playing Pathfinder wants the same design goals as 5e. I play Pathfinder because it has what I want and what it doesn't have a third party publisher has already printed it. I own and play 5th edition when I feel like I want to do that but it is not my preference depending on what kind of game I'm into.

It's super important to look at 5e and what it does and the changes between 4e and 5e.

Looking at 5e is certainly going to determine what direction Pathfinder 2 should take, if only to avoid too much audience overlap. 5e is a very rules lite system that doesn't have a lot of tactical depth or character customization. PF2 could focus on being the character building game. But this moves PF2 in the direction of 4e, which means they need to be aware of what worked and what didn't.

You also don't want accidental 4e-isms. The thing is, 3.X has a lot of problems. And Pathfinder inherited most of them. And there a several ways of fixing them and the game can evolve in many different directions, but some are especially obvious. As I watch Pathfinder evolve, the direction it's evolving is closer to 4e than 5e. While Pathfinder Unchained is only optional rules and isn't the beta test for Pathfinder 2 (probably) there are a lot of 4e-isms in the book (how it handles diseases, the consolidated skill list, simplified monsters, classes with lots of powers picked from giant lists, etc). To say nothing of the kineticist which was a formatting change away from being a 4e class.

Pathfinder fans and much of Paizo has likely been out of the loop regarding the developments of 4e and the changes that took place. So it's easy to look at things like minions and go "hey, that's a great idea. We should bring those in." Which skips over all the problems that come with minions. Pathfinder needs to closely look at both 4e and 5e to see how the game and gaming has evolved in the 15 years since the creation of the d20 system that powers Pathfinder.

Especially since Pathfinder isn't bound to the same sacred cows of D&D. D&D cannot get away from things like Lawful Good alignments, 18 Charisma, classes, races, levels, etc. Pathfinder can get away from those to some extent. "Because tradition" is less of a valid excuse to not make a change.

For example, it'd be very possible to split the difference between the bounded accuracy of 5e and the unbounded accuracy of Pathfinder. So the numbers still increase but rather than a modifier range of DCs 10 to 55+ of Pathfinder or the DC 10 to 25 of 5e there could be a range of DC 10 to 30 or 35.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
For example; I was looking at Pathfinder's Tarrasque and 5e's.....In Pathfinder the Tarrasque is an extinction level situation.

You are kidding right? The PF Tarrasque is about as bad as its 3e counterpart. It's largely a big stupid bag of hit points with not much going for it in terms of dealing with things even mid level adventurers may throw at it. It has fairly weak ranged attacks, no means of flight and no SLA's. It doesn't need a team of high level adventurers, given its terrible Will save a mid level Cleric with Reach Spell and Plane Shift can dispatch it elsewhere with ease.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
Malwing wrote:
For example; I was looking at Pathfinder's Tarrasque and 5e's.....In Pathfinder the Tarrasque is an extinction level situation.
You are kidding right? The PF Tarrasque is about as bad as its 3e counterpart. It's largely a big stupid bag of hit points with not much going for it in terms of dealing with things even mid level adventurers may throw at it. It has fairly weak ranged attacks, no means of flight and no SLA's. It doesn't need a team of high level adventurers, given its terrible Will save a mid level Cleric with Reach Spell and Plane Shift can dispatch it elsewhere with ease.

Given its 30' reach, I don't think Reach Spell will really help. Might as well just touch it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which is why a lot of players are fine with Pathfinder as it is. If Unchained and the various third party products and even ultimate campaign taught us one thing it is that Pathfinder is partially a piecemeal game. Not so much like GURPS or FUDGE but you can take the high fantasy experience to whatever realm you want. I think this system has been reworked and cloned so much for that reason. Heck, I'm currently using a 3.5 book on giant robots powered by magic for a Pathfinder Mecha vs Kaiju game. Last year I played with a Psionic 'My Little Pony'.

I love 5e because its a swift, painless way to go about a sword and sorcery game without getting as abstract as other games with similar motives. However I'm fine enough with Pathfinder that I can't really say I want a second edition to even be on the table. At least not to the degree of D&D edition changes. At best a sister line would be in order. I've always argued that the Beginner Box could turn into a great sister line with some tweaks. Plus any low level module like The Dragon's Demand works out like a mini AP that works for both products.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
andreww wrote:
Malwing wrote:
For example; I was looking at Pathfinder's Tarrasque and 5e's.....In Pathfinder the Tarrasque is an extinction level situation.
You are kidding right? The PF Tarrasque is about as bad as its 3e counterpart. It's largely a big stupid bag of hit points with not much going for it in terms of dealing with things even mid level adventurers may throw at it. It has fairly weak ranged attacks, no means of flight and no SLA's. It doesn't need a team of high level adventurers, given its terrible Will save a mid level Cleric with Reach Spell and Plane Shift can dispatch it elsewhere with ease.
Given its 30' reach, I don't think Reach Spell will really help. Might as well just touch it.

Pathfinder's Reach Spell increases the Range Category by one.

Meaning a 4th level spellcaster using Reach Spell can do so from outside the Tarrasque's reach.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
andreww wrote:
Malwing wrote:
For example; I was looking at Pathfinder's Tarrasque and 5e's.....In Pathfinder the Tarrasque is an extinction level situation.
You are kidding right? The PF Tarrasque is about as bad as its 3e counterpart. It's largely a big stupid bag of hit points with not much going for it in terms of dealing with things even mid level adventurers may throw at it. It has fairly weak ranged attacks, no means of flight and no SLA's. It doesn't need a team of high level adventurers, given its terrible Will save a mid level Cleric with Reach Spell and Plane Shift can dispatch it elsewhere with ease.
Given its 30' reach, I don't think Reach Spell will really help. Might as well just touch it.

Pathfinder's Reach Spell increases the Range Category by one.

Meaning a 4th level spellcaster using Reach Spell can do so from outside the Tarrasque's reach.

Plane Shift is touch. Reach moves that to Close (25'). Cleric gets eaten.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Close: The spell reaches as far as 25 feet away from you. The maximum range increases by 5 feet for every two full caster levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
andreww wrote:
Malwing wrote:
For example; I was looking at Pathfinder's Tarrasque and 5e's.....In Pathfinder the Tarrasque is an extinction level situation.
You are kidding right? The PF Tarrasque is about as bad as its 3e counterpart. It's largely a big stupid bag of hit points with not much going for it in terms of dealing with things even mid level adventurers may throw at it. It has fairly weak ranged attacks, no means of flight and no SLA's. It doesn't need a team of high level adventurers, given its terrible Will save a mid level Cleric with Reach Spell and Plane Shift can dispatch it elsewhere with ease.
Given its 30' reach, I don't think Reach Spell will really help. Might as well just touch it.

Pathfinder's Reach Spell increases the Range Category by one.

Meaning a 4th level spellcaster using Reach Spell can do so from outside the Tarrasque's reach.

Plane Shift is touch. Reach moves that to Close (25'). Cleric gets eaten.

Check the Close range category again.

PRD wrote:
Close: The spell reaches as far as 25 feet away from you. The maximum range increases by 5 feet for every two full caster levels.

Caster level 4 is 35 feet.


Gah. And I knew that too. Sorry.

Grand Lodge

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

Meh, I'd been operating on a confused understanding of bleed damage up until last week. No biggie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, how are you getting a metamagic feat on a level 5 spell at level 4? You need to be lvl 11 at least to do that.

Second, good luck getting past that spell resistance, scent and +43 perception check along with it's 6 120ft range attacks.

I'm sure that the Tarrasque can be taken down by very clever level 12 caster PCs with a good plan but most of the setting cant deal with it and its a far cry from 8 level 6 fighters going 'eh, we can take it if we found a few epic weapons.'.

Bonus: I forgot whether or not 5e Tarrasque is immortal, has ranged attacks or what all it's defenses are. My book is at home. I'd check the 5e SRD or the PDF on my tablet but...

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

No interest in new edition

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'm pretty sure that the 4th level caster was the example of how early the reach can be defeated. Negate Aroma takes care of scent, Invisibility helps against the ranged attacks and perception bonus, and Dweomer's Essence plus Bit of Luck or other reroll abilities gives a good shot at the SR.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the 4th level caster was the example of how early the reach can be defeated. Negate Aroma takes care of scent, Invisibility helps against the ranged attacks and perception bonus, and Dweomer's Essence plus Bit of Luck or other reroll abilities gives a good shot at the SR.

As I said, a group mid level casters with a good plan can probably do it. In more ways than that if we really want to theorycraft it hard. But nowhere near as trivial as 5e Tarrasque. The setting can't handle it because 10th level casters are kind of hard to come by.


Malwing wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the 4th level caster was the example of how early the reach can be defeated. Negate Aroma takes care of scent, Invisibility helps against the ranged attacks and perception bonus, and Dweomer's Essence plus Bit of Luck or other reroll abilities gives a good shot at the SR.
As I said, a group mid level casters with a good plan can probably do it. In more ways than that if we really want to theorycraft it hard. But nowhere near as trivial as 5e Tarrasque. The setting can't handle it because 10th level casters are kind of hard to come by.

Are they really? Under the core rules I mean, not a homebrew setting.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Malwing wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the 4th level caster was the example of how early the reach can be defeated. Negate Aroma takes care of scent, Invisibility helps against the ranged attacks and perception bonus, and Dweomer's Essence plus Bit of Luck or other reroll abilities gives a good shot at the SR.
As I said, a group mid level casters with a good plan can probably do it. In more ways than that if we really want to theorycraft it hard. But nowhere near as trivial as 5e Tarrasque. The setting can't handle it because 10th level casters are kind of hard to come by.
Are they really? Under the core rules I mean, not a homebrew setting.

A metropolis can have 8 levels of casting but in the context of Golarion from looking at NPCs in relationship to their settlement scores it looks like that's caster level rather than spell level and those guys are likely the villains.

Also there was a thread recently discussing why have X when casters can just bypass it. One of the Devs chimed in that Golarion isn't so high fantasy that casters at that level are frequent enough where X is obsolete. Earlier other Devs have talked about the same thing.

So I'm not exactly talking about the core rules but Golarion, although I always thought that was the assumption since having level 3 spells almost everywhere has got to make the world more wacky than it is. The rate of magic item in the core rules doesn't support the idea though.

The short answer is; No, but that's what's assumed on Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes 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? 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).

This is the way to look at it. Myself, I can't stand that "limited progression" but I don't begrudge others liking it.

Kalindlara wrote:
Duiker wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Duiker wrote:
Just be a little patient, there's usually a new "I want a new edition" thread on Wednesdays and a new "bloat is killing Pathfinder" thread on Thursday.
Hmmm...I wonder what might be causing those threads to become so commonplace.
Personally, I blame fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field combined with sunspot activity.
Something something fluoride in the water something precious bodily fluids.

The Mayan calendar was off a bit...

Liberty's Edge

In the end it all depends on what the devs want to do with the game. If they want to remain the alternative to 3.5. The they should be the best alternative. Even though I think they need a new background. Tired of Golarian. Here background xyz. Why at the same time making very clear that fhey are committed to continuing and developing the PF rules.

If they want to take it in another direction. They need to be committed to that as well. A new edition. A .5 edition whatever. With a proper playtest. Not one where a very vocal minority chased away anyone who asked for major changes. That type if BS if it were to happen in a second playtest should result in permaban IMO.

In the end your not going to make everyone happy. While offering more than just a rehash with better production values.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Meh, I'd been operating on a confused understanding of bleed damage up until last week. No biggie.

What did you learn? I'm sure I'm still confused about it because... I don't recall the last time I used bleed.... :P

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I always ran it as incurring the bleed damage as part of the attack. As I reread the entry, it seems to me that bleed damage doesn't actually happen until the victims turn. So when it says 1xd+y and 2 bleed, you don't actually add that 2 to every successful hit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't see a Pathfinder revisions going too far afield, especially with there being so much potential for improvement without doing so.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I always ran it as incurring the bleed damage as part of the attack. As I reread the entry, it seems to me that bleed damage doesn't actually happen until the victims turn. So when it says 1xd+y and 2 bleed, you don't actually add that 2 to every successful hit.

It can be important to roll that bleed on each attack if it's a variable amount like a d4 bleed, as you take the highest roll.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
graystone wrote:
It can be important to roll that bleed on each attack if it's a variable amount like a d4 bleed, as you take the highest roll.

I don't see why you would do that, instead of just rolling a d4 each time the victim's turn came up. I consider 1d4 higher than 2, and 1d6 higher than 1d4.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

I think graystone wants free bleed rerolls... creative but no :)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

More I hear about Bonded Accuracy the more I think that it was a solution that went to far the other way.

Don't get me wrong, just like the 1st edition of M&M, the things in place for 5e seems, from what I hear, be working for it. The one thing that is a plus for me is the combined caster mechanic, one that should have been in place since 3.0. Wizards and clerics still mem spells, but can choose what to cast at the time of casting. This is something that a new edition of any OGL/fantasy game needs to move to.

But this whole scale down of BAB and combined level to bonus thing? It is not in line to what the 3.5 or PF game would be. Whatever is used to pair down scale for such things needs to be done with more variables than what 4e/5e uses.


Each bleed is a different attack that comes up on the foes turn. Only the highest takes effect. If you did a bleed 1 then a separate bleed 3, you'd expect the 3 to take effect right? Why would the variable make it different?

"When two or more bleed effects deal the same kind of damage, take the worse effect." So a d4 that rolled a 4 is a worse effect than the d4 that rolled a 1 isn't it?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The Bleed is rolled at the time of the attack, the number rolled is recorded and is used for the bleed effect on the target's turn. Unless it is a weapon with Wounding, bleed doesn't stack.

Edit.. and yes, the highest bleed rolled for multiple attacks is the one used.

Grand Lodge

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

But the number rolled isn't the listed damage. 1d4 is.

Reference link.

Direct link.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
The one thing that is a plus for me is the combined caster mechanic, one that should have been in place since 3.0. Wizards and clerics still mem spells, but can choose what to cast at the time of casting. This is something that a new edition of any OGL/fantasy game needs to move to.

No.

It's an interesting mechanic, sure. And I've got to tell you I WAY prefer some form of Spontaneous Casting over Vancian, but that doesn't mean that vancian [even legitimate Vancian IE a warrior who can prepare one or two spells for the entire day] doesn't have its place.

The problem largely arises when Vancian is somehow seen as a weakness, thus penalizing the spontaneous equivalents for having something supposedly better [rather than just more fun.]


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my dreamscape this is where I think Pathfinder will go.

Pathfinder will eventually receive two new core rulebooks. Pathfinder, which is virtually unchanged but has cleared up language and is more clearly setting neutral. The other is 'Pathfinder-Lite' which is a revised Beginner Box that incorporates the revised action economy and consolidated skills from Pathfinder Unchained. It also goes to level 10.

All the Pathfinder books are still relevant to both (In the case of Pathfinder-Lite it's relevant as it can for up to 10th level adventurers but the 'adventures' line turns into full blown setting adjustments. 'Steampunk Adventures' 'Stone Age Adventures' 'Space Adventures' 'Earth Adventures' and 'Planar Adventures' will eventually come out, probably on a yearly basis. In fact Pathfinder-Lite will likely be a part of the 'Adventures' line as 'Basic Adventures' The Adventure Path line will probably have an AP related to the current 'Adventures' book every 1.5 years.

A new Pathfinder Unchained will come out every 2 years merging roles with Ultimate Campaign to introduce Alternate Rules periodically.

The Campaign Setting line will be relatively untouched but have way less crunch and potentially support the Adventures line. The Player Companion line will do the same but have more crunch.


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

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).

I wouldn't have a problem if that was the game 5e was trying to be, but it claims to be something bigger and sets things up as if it's doing the same sort of thing as 3.x where you have different tiers of play with defined capabilities and people growing to challenge deific threats. The DMG even defines those tiers.

5e DMG p37 wrote:
  • Levels 1-4: Local Heroes
  • Levels 5-10: Heroes of the Realm
  • Levels 11-16: Masters of the Realm
  • Levels 17-20: Masters of the World

Problem is, it's straight up a fabrication. You never really grow out of being a local hero (again, unless you're a full caster with an army as a class feature), because there aren't really any threats that require the attention of anything greater- a direct result of low challenge creatures being able to threaten creatures far above them. The king's army is far more capable of taking care of problems than your PCs will ever be, and monsters that were once big and bad (pit fiends and, hey, the Tarrasque got mentioned earlier) are really just smaller monsters re-skinned to pretend they're big bad threats.

Though, humorously, the Tarrasque being kind of a pansy is a return to form, when you think about it. The legendary Tarrasque was beaten to death by a bunch of commoners after being charmed by a song. The new one gets juggled by effects targeting its +0 Refl- er, 'Dexterity' save (which it's not immune to, since it's only immune to spells that still kinda suck anyway) and shot to death with a magic weapon'd bow.

If you wanted to implement something like bounded accuracy in Pathfinder, you'd probably not want to implement it in regards to the whole level scale, and be more concerned with keeping creatures of the same threat range on the RNG with each other for basic statistics like to-hit, AC, and saves. Numbers in Pathfinder sometimes diverge pretty wildly, when realistically you don't want a swerve of more than around 10 points on those core numbers (unless situational benefits/cooldowns/whatevers are in play) if you want dice in combat to continue mattering. The biggest place this comes up is Paizo's pre-generated NPCs, which often times follow the CRB method instead of the Bestiary method and generate extremely underpowered and over-geared characters.

Likewise, you'd probably want to put the kibosh on massive swings of skill bonuses (+6 from skill focus at 10th level or later, +10 from magic items, +2 from masterwork, etc...) and tie things down to a more linear progression with new abilities being unlocked by ranks rather than absurd bonuses (like in the ELH... *shiver*) and statistically higher results being acquired by re-rolls. You'd get overall more reliable, usable results, and a means to mete out level appropriate tricks (like running on water with acrobatics, identifying someone by their footsteps with perception, or reading someone's surface thoughts with sense motive) for "mundanes".

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Complaints I've seen on this board have included:

"How can the town guard yelling "Halt, you're in our crossbowmans sights!" remain relevant?"

"The party monk has 50 AC, how can I challenge him without destroying the rest of the party?"

And to that, bounded accuracy.

That said, this is a problem of Pathfinder that is core to Pathfinder, and for some it is a feature. As some have mentioned (perhaps not in this topic but elsewhere), the 3.x/Pathfinder experience goes through several shifts, from Gritty to Superhero to Demigod as you level. If you don't like that, it's probably not the system for you, or you should cap the level where you do like it (ala E6).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The once a day class/race abilities are somewhat different than the "Fire and forgetful" nightmare. Usually, it is extra to what the character gets already, and useful in very select circumstances.

The overall jist, though, is that the Spontaneous Casters are leashed back and hampered because the wizard needs some advantage (other than NOT using Cha as a caster stat) over the superior mechanic of the new class. (in 3.0) That advantage is more spells, which enables the Wizard to mem MM three times at first level and have the trusty Crossbow/infinite cantrip to fall back on when that is gone.

PF gave Wizards Bonded Objects, making the Familiar an extinct species. Clerics have Spontaneous Casting (turning spells into healing/harming) and Druids can switch out spells for Nature's Ally.

Other than the most OCD player, the wizard finds himself twiddling thumbs at most times, and then gets one or two pops at higher levels.

PF has improved the Wizards a lot with Archtypes and the Arcanist is a move toward the mechanic I spoke of. A new edition would, like it or not, change or remove Vancian casting. That is, the spellbook would still be used, but not for forgettable spells. A lot of class abilities can be used in concert with the spells if a combined caster mechanic is used.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
But the number rolled isn't the listed damage. 1d4 is.

Not getting your point.

1) Each attack that causes bleed is a different attack.
2) Each attack does it's bleed damage.
3) They do not stack but "take the worse effect".

If you don't agree then how do you parse "When two or more bleed effects deal the same kind of damage, take the worse effect." to come to a different conclusion?

Also, did you read the thread you linked? Someone even asked "If I can inflict 2d6 bleed 3 times, should we 2d6 three times a round and take the highest?". The answers seemed to be "Take the highest of the round." and treat a static bleed as "Think of static bleed as Xd1?". You're doing my work for me.

EDIT: We should probably move along as this is off-topic to the thread.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
graystone wrote:
If you don't agree then how do you parse "When two or more bleed effects deal the same kind of damage, take the worse effect." to come to a different conclusion?

Because I consider 1d4 to be a worse effect than 2, and 1d6 to be a worse effect than 1d4, and 2d6 to be a worse effect than 1d6. And 2d6 is not worse than 2d6, so you apply 2d6 once.

graystone wrote:
You're doing my work for me.

No, I'm highlighting that no one has a definitive answer and that your way works just as well as mine.

graystone wrote:
EDIT: We should probably move along as this is off-topic to the thread.

What, like the bounded accuracy/tarrasque/5th edition arguments?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:

Complaints I've seen on this board have included:

"How can the town guard yelling "Halt, you're in our crossbowmans sights!" remain relevant?"

Why the Baatezu would you WANT that to remain relevant past level 8???

Quote:
"The party monk has 50 AC, how can I challenge him without destroying the rest of the party?"

The same way you'd ever challenge him. Hit the party with CR appropriate opponents and LET HIM HAVE HIS HIGH AC, HE PAID FOR IT.

Ahem, sorry, that's a bit of a sore spot for me. I've been the High AC character who was blamed for the party getting hit all the time because the GM felt some artificial need to challenge my AC.


Petty Alchemy wrote:

Complaints I've seen on this board have included:

"How can the town guard yelling "Halt, you're in our crossbowmans sights!" remain relevant?"

"The party monk has 50 AC, how can I challenge him without destroying the rest of the party?"

And to that, bounded accuracy.

That said, this is a problem of Pathfinder that is core to Pathfinder, and for some it is a feature. As some have mentioned (perhaps not in this topic but elsewhere), the 3.x/Pathfinder experience goes through several shifts, from Gritty to Superhero to Demigod as you level. If you don't like that, it's probably not the system for you, or you should cap the level where you do like it (ala E6).

Pretty much. If I want to do that with as little pain as possible for 20 levels then, sure, I have 5th edition but really I don't know why its made out to be so hard to play 6-7 levels at a time like the big modules do. Its also why I've always been unenthused about epic levels because you're already pretty powerful by lvl 20.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
The once a day class/race abilities are somewhat different than the "Fire and forgetful" nightmare. Usually, it is extra to what the character gets already, and useful in very select circumstances.

See... I HATE those once per day class/race abilities. So stupid, and usually they're nowhere NEAR good enough to justify the limited use.

Quote:
The overall jist, though, is that the Spontaneous Casters are leashed back and hampered because the wizard needs some advantage (other than NOT using Cha as a caster stat) over the superior mechanic of the new class. (in 3.0) That advantage is more spells, which enables the Wizard to mem MM three times at first level and have the trusty Crossbow/infinite cantrip to fall back on when that is gone.

This is a problem with the game designers perception, not with the existence of Vancian Casting. If you're so convinced that Spontaneous Casting is better than Vancian, then putting the two side by side without that 'balancing' of which you speak would still achieve the goal you want... which is ensuring Spontaneous casting is as powerful as it should be.

Truth be told though? Spontaneous casters with limited spells known and more spells per day vs Vancian with infinite spells known and fewer spells per day balances very well without any of the b%~+**%# 3E and Pathfinder have done to Spontaneous Casters [screwing them over in metamagic and putting them a level behind on spell level acquisition.]

Quote:
Other than the most OCD player, the wizard finds himself twiddling thumbs at most times, and then gets one or two pops at higher levels.

This has never ever been my experience, granted perhaps I am one of those OCD players. My Wizards always have something valuable to cast into the fray.

Quote:
PF has improved the Wizards a lot with Archtypes and the Arcanist is a move toward the mechanic I spoke of. A new edition would, like it or not, change or remove Vancian casting. That is, the spellbook would still be used, but not for forgettable spells. A lot of class abilities can be used in concert with the spells if a combined caster mechanic is used.

What you're suggesting here is making the 'Spellcaster' even more powerful, giving him the spells known of a Wizard in conjunction with Spontaneous Casting. Can't say I'm a fan, and I KNOW this community would never accept the absurd levels of martial badassery required to balance against that.

251 to 300 of 912 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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