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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 912 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

1 person marked this as a favorite.
adembroski wrote:
all creatures working under the same generation system,

I read the first post, but the rest, TL;DR.

I'm cool with most of what you said in your post except the quoted part. As a monster designer, I can only say, oh please no. This is one of the things that needs to go. Unchained's monster creation is great; I imagine that it is a starting point idea for what the designers would like to do in a new edition but back compatible with a new edition. I support this effort.

Another thing I would love to see changed: eliminate all +(whatever) bonuses with magic items. I really like the "automatic bonus progression" in Unchained. Now if Pathfinder 2e can just eliminate all that from the game's math to begin with, I'd be thrilled. There is no reason for the game to assume that all the players would have cloaks of resistance +1 at 3rd level when it can just eliminate its need from the math altogether. Same with armor and weapon +1, +2, + ... bonuses. Why can't a magic flaming sword be a sword you get at 1st level with a fire enchantment on it. Why do you have to have a +1 bonus on it to begin with.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I disagree on the creatures thing Dale. Speaking as both a GM and a player and an a game designer I HATE the way other editions of D&D have isolated monsters from characters. It's the same world, it should run on the same rules in my view.

That being said, you're spot on with the unnecessary arbitrary math of +X bonuses. I hate those >_<

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Honestly I disagree on the creatures thing Dale. Speaking as both a GM and a player and an a game designer I HATE the way other editions of D&D have isolated monsters from characters. It's the same world, it should run on the same rules in my view.

Philosophically, I completely agree with you. I totally agreed with you before before I was a game designer. Then I started designing monsters and I realized how it can be a serious problem.

Take Intelligence for example. This is probably the least used ability score of any monster. When I design a monster, typically it is the last one to get assigned and it is assigned by "how many skills should this monster have?" If it is a leaping, acrobatic animal, it quickly be out of the Int 1 or 2 range. Either case leaves us with 1 skill point/HD. Acrobatics, Climb, Perception, Survival, Swim. If you split the skill points 5 ways, the skills are useless. If you split it between 2 skills, you're at half what it should have, but it is still workable. Sure you can make up what it should have with racial bonuses, but, at what point are you really just ignoring the whole skill point system and assigning skill point whily-nily because it fits the flavor of the monster?

Its the same with the other ability scores, only worse, since they have interactions with hit points, saves, attacks, special ability DCs. All of these have target numbers and when you change 1, it usually has unintended consequences. So if you are increasing the Con score because the hp and Fort saves is too low, you also increase the special ability DC to much higher than it should be. Sure you could have used a feat to fix them, but you spent all your feats and assigned a bonus feat already to let it have the kind of attack you wanted it to have.

Monster creation, when it has to stick to the same rules as character generation, breaks down alot earlier than high level play does.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I also disagree on the creature design. I love the 3.x/PF system where everything makes sense and you know where all the numbers come from. I really dislike the Unchained monster system of "pick all the numbers to match the expectations for CR." So we get CR X critter that has a +Y to hit for Z damage. Why? Because it's CR X. What happens if I give it magic gear? Nothing, those bonuses are already baked in. So now I either have a situation where Goblin King(with masterwork weapon and magic armor) has the same stats as Goblin King(caught just out of bed), or I have to write him up twice. I can't just subtract out his equipment because his stats don't come from there. Ug. This was one of the absolute turn offs of 4e for me.

And Dale, no one has yet given an answer that satisfies me to the question - if you eliminate +X bonuses, how do you represent gear that makes you better at those things? Players will want magic weapons that hit more often and hit harder, and magic armor that is more protective. +s are an easy way to do that.

Someone above suggested making all those things, say, +3. To which I respond, that works right until someone says "I want this sword to be somewhat accurate, but not as accurate as the Accurate ability's +3. I know! I'll make it "Seeking" and make it +2!" So now all we've done is replace the +s with hard to remember names for each one. Bleh.

I fully support removing the necessity for +X bonuses though. I just think they should still be there as options.

Edit: Intelligence is one of the first things I look at as a GM to tell me how to run the monster.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Honestly I disagree on the creatures thing Dale. Speaking as both a GM and a player and an a game designer I HATE the way other editions of D&D have isolated monsters from characters. It's the same world, it should run on the same rules in my view.

Philosophically, I completely agree with you. I totally agreed with you before before I was a game designer. Then I started designing monsters and I realized how it can be a serious problem.

Take Intelligence for example. This is probably the least used ability score of any monster. When I design a monster, typically it is the last one to get assigned and it is assigned by "how many skills should this monster have?" If it is a leaping, acrobatic animal, it quickly be out of the Int 1 or 2 range. Either case leaves us with 1 skill point/HD. Acrobatics, Climb, Perception, Survival, Swim. If you split the skill points 5 ways, the skills are useless. If you split it between 2 skills, you're at half what it should have, but it is still workable. Sure you can make up what it should have with racial bonuses, but, at what point are you really just ignoring the whole skill point system and assigning skill point whily-nily because it fits the flavor of the monster?

Its the same with the other ability scores, only worse, since they have interactions with hit points, saves, attacks, special ability DCs. All of these have target numbers and when you change 1, it usually has unintended consequences. So if you are increasing the Con score because the hp and Fort saves is too low, you also increase the special ability DC to much higher than it should be. Sure you could have used a feat to fix them, but you spent all your feats and assigned a bonus feat already to let it have the kind of attack you wanted it to have.

Monster creation, when it has to stick to the same rules as character generation, breaks down alot earlier than high level play does.

I agree with you for the most part. But my thing is that I'd rather have the solid structure in place so that I can use it as a baseline but ignore what I need to than to have it be built on too loose of a framework with very little in the way of structure.

I'm not trying to argue the point because again what you said is valid. I just prefer the way it is now. Over say AD&D and 2nd ED.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Those are actually problems with the core rules, not with monster creation being the same as character creation.

The problem right now is that we're at a sort of half-way between state, where monsters are partially independent and partially made like characters.

In an ideal game, each creature type would basically be a class, and each 'level' in that class grants one hit die and associated benefits.

On the intelligence topic, Int should never have determined skill points to begin with. That should be solely the function of class [including Creature Classes]

As far as unintended consequences go, that's a side-effect of over-involving Ability Scores in every facet of everything characters do. This is one area older editions had right, where ability scores were a good deal less relevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
thaX wrote:


That is when Vancian Casting would be ripped from Role Playing games forever. Like it should have been in 3.0.
Yeah you keep barking up that tree, pal.

Actually, I'm completely on board with that as well. It's a clumsy system that shackles the character even as it stifles the imagination.

There are multitudes of examples of spellcasters in other media that have "themed" magical effects... they're from the distant north, so all of their offensive spells have a cold element to them. Not something that costs extra feats to possess, but that since they're equal in nature cost the same to cast. How about a Hold Person spell that requires a Fortitude Save rather than a Willpower one, as it targets the body and not the mind? I would have adored to use the words of power system Paizo released... if it wasn't inferior in every way.

Also, the Feat system is completely unwieldy. You can easily spend a full hour pouring over the various books just to chose what Feat you receive at 1st level. That's absurd. It changes the game from being fun to being a chore.

Don't get me wrong, every gamer is going to have their own house rules to "fix" the little things they see is broken in the existing system. But as much as I enjoy Pathfinder, these are two elements that simply become worse as more books are published. It's proceeded to the point that there is an increasing sentiment amongst my gaming friends to try Mutants & Masterminds as the basis of our fantasy game, and simply use the Pathfinder setting (that we enjoy) as reference material.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The kicker is that monsters don't actually follow the rules for characters, because whenever a designer wants to fudge the numbers, he simply throws in a "racial bonus."

Besides, why would monster design require the same level of detail character design does? Do we really care whether the blacksmith has knowledge (local)? No, we don't. We only care about craft (blacksmith). Do I care whether that orc has X ranks of stealth? Nope. All I care about is the final #, not how you got there.

Designing monsters using character rules is crazy talk.

Also, assumed bonuses need to die in a fire. :)


ryric wrote:
I fully support removing the necessity for +X bonuses though. I just think they should still be there as options.

I agree, somewhat, but how do you do that?

They're not necessary because someone wrote a rule that they're necessary, they're necessary because you need them to stay effective. (Less the straight +x to weapons, more the AC, saves, etc)

If you make them available, but don't figure them into expectations, then players will use them and break the expectations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
And Dale, no one has yet given an answer that satisfies me to the question - if you eliminate +X bonuses, how do you represent gear that makes you better at those things? Players will want magic weapons that hit more often and hit harder, and magic armor that is more protective. +s are an easy way to do that.

Speaking personally... I do not want those things.

I want a character's ability to hit to come from the character, NOT his gear. I want his toughness/durability to be determined primarily by the character and secondarily by the type of mundane armor he chooses to wear, NOT how many magical +'s the armor has.

Quote:
Someone above suggested making all those things, say, +3. To which I respond, that works right until someone says "I want this sword to be somewhat accurate, but not as accurate as the Accurate ability's +3. I know! I'll make it "Seeking" and make it +2!" So now all we've done is replace the +s with hard to remember names for each one. Bleh.

Why? Why is a weapon more accurate than another? Please forgive me, but I find this whole concept of a more accurate weapon to be utterly stupid. The proposed Accurate enhancement [which could alternatively be named Seeking] was a compromise, a special ability one could buy to allow that 'more accurate sword' you want for reasons I can't seem to grok.

Quote:
I fully support removing the necessity for +X bonuses though. I just think they should still be there as options.

In general the game tends to assume PC's have X gear, it wants them to have Y odds of success at Z levels, and calculates accordingly. Not saying that can't be worked around, but it is a bit of a conundrum.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Philosophically, I completely agree with you. I totally agreed with you before before I was a game designer. Then I started designing monsters and I realized how it can be a serious problem.

Take Intelligence for example. This is probably the least used ability score of any monster. When I design a monster, typically it is the last one to get assigned and it is assigned by "how many skills should this monster have?" If it is a leaping, acrobatic animal, it quickly be out of the Int 1 or 2 range. Either case leaves us with 1 skill point/HD. Acrobatics, Climb, Perception, Survival, Swim. If you split the skill points 5 ways, the skills are useless. If you split it between 2 skills, you're at half what it should have, but it is still workable. Sure you can make up what it should have with racial bonuses, but, at what point are you really just ignoring the whole skill point system and assigning skill point whily-nily because it fits the flavor of the monster?

Its the same with the other ability scores, only worse, since they have interactions with hit points, saves, attacks, special ability DCs. All of these have target numbers and when you change 1, it usually has unintended consequences. So if you are increasing the Con score because the hp and Fort saves is too low, you also increase the special ability DC to much higher than it should be. Sure you could have used a feat to fix them, but you spent all your feats and assigned a bonus feat already to let it have the kind of attack you wanted it to have.

Monster creation, when it has to stick to the same rules as character generation, breaks down alot earlier than high level play does.

I find this very interesting because this is pretty much exactly backwards from how I would design a monster. I have in my head a sort of scale for how big each stat is - 10 is average, 14 is very good, 18 is nearing human maximum, and so forth. I pick the ability scores, HD, natural armor based on what the monster should have - then the rest of its stats flow naturally from these choices. CR is assigned last, after all the final numbers are determined.

What I imagine is going on is a key difference between designing a monster for a home game and designing one for publication. If you're writing a supplement you can't afford to go through the whole creation process to find out your assigned CR7 critter is actually a 4 or a 12. This explains a whole lot about why so many monsters have frankly nonsensical ability scores and so forth - picking the final result you want then wedging scores into the monster to get that result is going to lead to some absurdities. Sadly I don't really have a good answer for this dilemma.


thejeff wrote:
ryric wrote:
I fully support removing the necessity for +X bonuses though. I just think they should still be there as options.

I agree, somewhat, but how do you do that?

They're not necessary because someone wrote a rule that they're necessary, they're necessary because you need them to stay effective. (Less the straight +x to weapons, more the AC, saves, etc)

If you make them available, but don't figure them into expectations, then players will use them and break the expectations.

I suppose the plan here would be to let them break the expectations. Which is actually fine by me but most GMs would be rather unhappy with that result based on my readings on these boards.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo needs to do something. The only game company I can think of that hasn't reworked their rules is Palladium, and they're, well, Palladium. Even then, they have multiple game lines allowing them to do some different world lore (and republish the rules again and again).
Other RPGs have smaller updates, but their rules are less robust and they don't have 130-odd RPG books all with crunch options (somewhere in the range of 5000 pages of pure crunch). And this isn't counting adventures or monster books. Having lots of books is also intimidating to new players, and levelling up can be more intimidating still.

The way I see it Paizo has a number of options for their future.

No New Edition
Paizo keeps going as it's currently going
Pros No change. Everyone knows what they're doing and they're really good at it. Paizo is "in the zone".
Cons Atrophy. Everyone has a book limit, an amount of content where they decide not to buy any more or to slow down purchases to select books. It also becomes harder to think of content worthy of new books before getting into a Dragon Magic situation. Paizo released more book content in 2014 than TSR produced during their peak (excluding novels and the magazines) and is producing even more in 2015. Also does nothing to fix problems in game system.

Slower Schedule
Paizo reduces the number of books released
Pros Slows the rate of atrophy and customer saturation while maintaining the new edition. Can maybe maintain staff levels by relying on in-house people rather than freelancers.
Cons People used to the constant content will be upset. Doesn't fix problem of burnout or flaws in the game system.

No New Splatbooks
Paizo dramatically cuts the number of pure crunch released, likely reducing the number of hardcover products, only having new mechanics with the flavour requires it
Pros Slows the rate of saturation. Might allow Paizo to explore other areas of Golarion at a faster rate. New books could focus on advice, types of campaign, or alternate methods of play.
Cons People used to the constant content will be upset. Doesn't fix problem of burnout or flaws in the game system. More likely to result in layoffs.

Revised Edition
Paizo cleans up the ruleset but doesn't make fundamental changes to the system (touching up the classes to assume archetypes (with generic archetypes provided), fixing spells, tweaking options, adjusting some of the numbers, etc.); basically a Pathfinder .5 edition
Pros Allows some backwards compatibility with prior products. It maintains much of the fanbase by not dramatically changing the game. It keeps what you like about the system.
Cons Still a new edition requiring new books, so some of the audience will be lost. Won't fix fundamental problems with the system. A third revision of a 15-year-old game system. Will require mandatory character updating from Pathfinder Society and some conversion. Doesn't really stop system burnout as all the old content is available, and conversions might be unpopular.

Rules Revision
Paizo keeps the fundamentals of the game (how things work) but reworks everything
Pros The game is familiar but works better. Room to start anew. The system can be designed to accommodates things desired by the campaign setting and Paizo's own lore. Easier for new people to get into the game.
Cons People hate buying new books and this might scare people away. Changes might alienate fans. Pathfinder Society will need a reboot and the back catalogue of PFS adventures ceases to be valid. The game retains a lot of odd D&Disms (heavy armour that makes you harder to hit, characters that can be stabbed dozens of times without slowing down, Vancian magic, etc).

Reimagining
Paizo reworks everything from the ground up, gutting sacred cows
Pros Paizo can finally create their own game rather than being seen as copying WotC. The system can be designed to accommodate the campaign setting and world lore. The system can break away from many undesired D&Disms. Pathfinder can be something other than a D&D clone and be its own thing.
Cons The game might alienate a lot of its fans. Pathfinder Society will require a complete reboot. Requires a lot more work and it's possible to make an unfamiliar game.

I'm really not sure what the right decision is, if there's a right decision. It really depends what percentage of current Pathfinder supporters are just fans of 3.5e who want that game, what percentage just want something that feels like D&D but isn't 4e/5e, what percentage are fans of Paizo and what they do, and what percentage are fans of the world.
If most of the fans are just dedicated 3e fans, then no edition change beyond another small rules patch will work. If most of the fans like D&D then Paizo is just as shackled to a 40yo legacy of a game as D&D. But if a large percentage of fans are just Paizo supporters they have more latitude to do new things and make changes to the game.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Speaking personally... I do not want those things.

I want a character's ability to hit to come from the character, NOT his gear. I want his toughness/durability to be determined primarily by the character and secondarily by the type of mundane armor he chooses to wear, NOT how many magical +'s the armor has.

Maybe it's a difference in what sorts of fantasy we each enjoy, but in most of what I read, a magical weapon is:

Lighter, easier to swing
Sharper
Harder to damage

All those are encapsulated nicely in enhancement bonuses. Sometimes there is "extra damage to evil" or "on fire" or "can launch a beam of sunlight at demons" or other abilities, but those are in addition to those listed above. If you take away the ability to give magic weapons those things, you take away the ability to simulate a huge chunk of magical weapons in literature.


ryric wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Speaking personally... I do not want those things.

I want a character's ability to hit to come from the character, NOT his gear. I want his toughness/durability to be determined primarily by the character and secondarily by the type of mundane armor he chooses to wear, NOT how many magical +'s the armor has.

Maybe it's a difference in what sorts of fantasy we each enjoy, but in most of what I read, a magical weapon is:

Lighter, easier to swing
Sharper
Harder to damage

All those are encapsulated nicely in enhancement bonuses. Sometimes there is "extra damage to evil" or "on fire" or "can launch a beam of sunlight at demons" or other abilities, but those are in addition to those listed above. If you take away the ability to give magic weapons those things, you take away the ability to simulate a huge chunk of magical weapons in literature.

That is indeed a difference in the sort of fantasy we enjoy.

What I read in a magical weapon is 'has some kind of magical power.'

Not 'Is better just by nebulously being magical.'

You want a weapon that's Lighter and/or easier to swing/sharper [reduces category to wield or enables dex to damage or has a higher crit range] that is doable. You want a weapon that's harder to damage, that is also doable, though not currently in the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
ryric wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Speaking personally... I do not want those things.

I want a character's ability to hit to come from the character, NOT his gear. I want his toughness/durability to be determined primarily by the character and secondarily by the type of mundane armor he chooses to wear, NOT how many magical +'s the armor has.

Maybe it's a difference in what sorts of fantasy we each enjoy, but in most of what I read, a magical weapon is:

Lighter, easier to swing
Sharper
Harder to damage

All those are encapsulated nicely in enhancement bonuses. Sometimes there is "extra damage to evil" or "on fire" or "can launch a beam of sunlight at demons" or other abilities, but those are in addition to those listed above. If you take away the ability to give magic weapons those things, you take away the ability to simulate a huge chunk of magical weapons in literature.

That is indeed a difference in the sort of fantasy we enjoy.

What I read in a magical weapon is 'has some kind of magical power.'

Not 'Is better just by nebulously being magical.'

You want a weapon that's Lighter and/or easier to swing/sharper [reduces category to wield or enables dex to damage or has a higher crit range] that is doable. You want a weapon that's harder to damage, that is also doable, though not currently in the rules.

Except that's not normally what those weapons in fantasy are described as doing. Weapons that are magically lighter are often still used by the strong heroes, not the finesse style ones, they just are easier for them to target with.

Sometimes you actually have weapons that subtly guides your hand. Or ones that pierce armor more easily. Since PF lumps both hitting and penetrating armor into the same roll, both of those can be represented as a bonus to hit.


thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
ryric wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Speaking personally... I do not want those things.

I want a character's ability to hit to come from the character, NOT his gear. I want his toughness/durability to be determined primarily by the character and secondarily by the type of mundane armor he chooses to wear, NOT how many magical +'s the armor has.

Maybe it's a difference in what sorts of fantasy we each enjoy, but in most of what I read, a magical weapon is:

Lighter, easier to swing
Sharper
Harder to damage

All those are encapsulated nicely in enhancement bonuses. Sometimes there is "extra damage to evil" or "on fire" or "can launch a beam of sunlight at demons" or other abilities, but those are in addition to those listed above. If you take away the ability to give magic weapons those things, you take away the ability to simulate a huge chunk of magical weapons in literature.

That is indeed a difference in the sort of fantasy we enjoy.

What I read in a magical weapon is 'has some kind of magical power.'

Not 'Is better just by nebulously being magical.'

You want a weapon that's Lighter and/or easier to swing/sharper [reduces category to wield or enables dex to damage or has a higher crit range] that is doable. You want a weapon that's harder to damage, that is also doable, though not currently in the rules.

Except that's not normally what those weapons in fantasy are described as doing. Weapons that are magically lighter are often still used by the strong heroes, not the finesse style ones, they just are easier for them to target with.

Sometimes you actually have weapons that subtly guides your hand.
Don't want it
Quote:
Or ones that pierce armor more easily.

Not sure I want it. I could see something like that, that ignores a few points of Armor/Natural Armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Not sure I want it. I could see something like that, that ignores a few points of Armor/Natural Armor.

Which functions exactly like a +X weapon, except for those fairly rare cases where there is no armor/natural armor.

The thing is, you're taking this common fantasy trope, looking at the brief justification for how it hits better and translating that into PF terms by making it do something other than the source actually had it do. Like I said, the strong heroes get the weapons that are "Lighter, easier to swing" and are helped by them, even though finesse/Agile isn't what they'd use.

If you don't want it, that's fine. I agree that I'd much rather see more of the character's power come from within and less from gear than the current state. But I do think that even simple +X weapons are common in the literature and getting rid of them has drawbacks from that point of view.


You know, there is a sub system in Unchained that actually removes that dependence on +1s and moves it on to the character, with the character gaining increases in attack, damage, ac, saves, etc. It's pretty good, from what I've seen.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

And Dale, no one has yet given an answer that satisfies me to the question - if you eliminate +X bonuses, how do you represent gear that makes you better at those things? Players will want magic weapons that hit more often and hit harder, and magic armor that is more protective. +s are an easy way to do that.

Someone above suggested making all those things, say, +3. To which I respond, that works right until someone says "I want this sword to be somewhat accurate, but not as accurate as the Accurate ability's +3. I know! I'll make it "Seeking" and make it +2!" So now all we've done is replace the +s with hard to remember names for each one. Bleh.

Its the easiest, sure, but is it the best way of doing it?

What do you feel about this change: Remove the requirement that all magic weapons start with a +1 bonus. Now your first weapon magic weapon can either do +1 to hit/damage or it can do +1d6 fire damage.

Now lets talk about one other change: capping magic weapons at +5 instead of +10. Lets be honest, when was the last time anyone saw a +5 vorpal sword? But if you cap it at +5, you can have a vorpal sword, but no other bonuses, not even a +1 on it.

I'm all for players getting gear, but first we have to ask, "are we, as GMs, giving stuff just to give stuff or are we giving meaningful stuff." a +x bonus items being baked into the system means that certain items must be given out at certain times. I'd rather eliminate that from the math and focus on the adventure instead of making sure that this perfect magic item is included in the treasure pile, and providing an explanation as to why the bad guy wasn't using that item.

....

Which I just realized is the answer to the post above: PCs and NPCs in the system as it stands right now do not use the same creation system. According to the rules of the system right now, a 20th-level NPC is suppose to have 159,000 gp, which a 13th-level PC is suppose to have. And how are you ever to see a +10 weapon when that costs 200,000 gp, 41,000 gp more than a 20th level NPC is ever suppose to have?

And yes, that is at high level. A +1 magic weapon costs 2 kgp (kilo gp or 1000 gp). An NPC isn't suppose to have that much devoted to a weapon until level 6. Compare that with the automatic bonus progression (Unchained) which lays out what kind of bonus the game expects you to have and when. A PC is suppose to get a +1 weapon bonus at 4th level.

So right there, you have two different systems. One for PCs and one for NPCs.

Sovereign Court

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

To be fair, occasional NPCs (mostly big bads and such) get PC-level wealth. ^_^


thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Not sure I want it. I could see something like that, that ignores a few points of Armor/Natural Armor.

Which functions exactly like a +X weapon, except for those fairly rare cases where there is no armor/natural armor.

The thing is, you're taking this common fantasy trope, looking at the brief justification for how it hits better and translating that into PF terms by making it do something other than the source actually had it do. Like I said, the strong heroes get the weapons that are "Lighter, easier to swing" and are helped by them, even though finesse/Agile isn't what they'd use.

If you don't want it, that's fine. I agree that I'd much rather see more of the character's power come from within and less from gear than the current state. But I do think that even simple +X weapons are common in the literature and getting rid of them has drawbacks from that point of view.

Fair point.

To be perfectly honest I'm just sick and tired of the need for magical christmas trees. I aggressively houserule baseline characters into being way more badass, but try to minimize magical equipment.

I suppose the compromise +3 suggested above may be appropriate to emulate those stories you're talking about without having scaling +X system in the game.

Generally these magic weapons you're talking about essentially become part of the character though. Yes they can be stolen or sundered, but they're pretty much never replaced, nor do they usually seem to accrue more powers, their wielder just becomes more skilled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
ryric wrote:

And Dale, no one has yet given an answer that satisfies me to the question - if you eliminate +X bonuses, how do you represent gear that makes you better at those things? Players will want magic weapons that hit more often and hit harder, and magic armor that is more protective. +s are an easy way to do that.

Someone above suggested making all those things, say, +3. To which I respond, that works right until someone says "I want this sword to be somewhat accurate, but not as accurate as the Accurate ability's +3. I know! I'll make it "Seeking" and make it +2!" So now all we've done is replace the +s with hard to remember names for each one. Bleh.

Its the easiest, sure, but is it the best way of doing it?

What do you feel about this change: Remove the requirement that all magic weapons start with a +1 bonus. Now your first weapon magic weapon can either do +1 to hit/damage or it can do +1d6 fire damage.

Now lets talk about one other change: capping magic weapons at +5 instead of +10. Lets be honest, when was the last time anyone saw a +5 vorpal sword? But if you cap it at +5, you can have a vorpal sword, but no other bonuses, not even a +1 on it.

I'm all for players getting gear, but first we have to ask, "are we, as GMs, giving stuff just to give stuff or are we giving meaningful stuff." a +x bonus items being baked into the system means that certain items must be given out at certain times. I'd rather eliminate that from the math and focus on the adventure instead of making sure that this perfect magic item is included in the treasure pile, and providing an explanation as to why the bad guy wasn't using that item.

....

Which I just realized is the answer to the post above: PCs and NPCs in the system as it stands right now do not use the same creation system. According to the rules of the system right now, a 20th-level NPC is suppose to have 159,000 gp, which a 13th-level PC is suppose to have. And how are you ever to see a +10 weapon when that...

Mostly the way you get around that is by selling and buying gear. You don't need the perfect item there and the NPC not to be using it. You can collect a bunch of stuff and then fund the weapon you want.

But yeah, PCs are supposed to better equipped than most. That bumps them effectively by one CR.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Not sure I want it. I could see something like that, that ignores a few points of Armor/Natural Armor.

Which functions exactly like a +X weapon, except for those fairly rare cases where there is no armor/natural armor.

The thing is, you're taking this common fantasy trope, looking at the brief justification for how it hits better and translating that into PF terms by making it do something other than the source actually had it do. Like I said, the strong heroes get the weapons that are "Lighter, easier to swing" and are helped by them, even though finesse/Agile isn't what they'd use.

If you don't want it, that's fine. I agree that I'd much rather see more of the character's power come from within and less from gear than the current state. But I do think that even simple +X weapons are common in the literature and getting rid of them has drawbacks from that point of view.

Fair point.

To be perfectly honest I'm just sick and tired of the need for magical christmas trees. I aggressively houserule baseline characters into being way more badass, but try to minimize magical equipment.

I suppose the compromise +3 suggested above may be appropriate to emulate those stories you're talking about without having scaling +X system in the game.

Generally these magic weapons you're talking about essentially become part of the character though. Yes they can be stolen or sundered, but they're pretty much never replaced, nor do they usually seem to accrue more powers, their wielder just becomes more skilled.

Agreed. Of course, most genre literature doesn't cover the same range of power that PF does.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

ryric wrote:
What I imagine is going on is a key difference between designing a monster for a home game and designing one for publication. If you're writing a supplement you can't afford to go through the whole creation process to find out your assigned CR7 critter is actually a 4 or a 12. This explains a whole lot about why so many monsters have frankly nonsensical ability scores and so forth - picking the final result you want then wedging scores into the monster to get that result is going to lead to some absurdities. Sadly I don't really have a good answer for this dilemma.

You pretty much nailed it on the head. Until Unchained (which completely change what I am doing), I started with the concept of the monster, the CR and then the saves. Yes, the saves. Would I describe this monster to be tough, agile, or strong willed. I compare that with the save numbers and after looking on the appropriate tables for the number of HD the monster, which ones are its type's good and bad saves and then what those base saves are. The difference between them gives me three ability scores. There might be adjustments to those scores based on how they interact with universal or special abilities, but on the whole, what's how I start.

Essentially, I am taking the key I want to use in the lock and building the lock around it. But that is the most reliable method of building balanced monsters that uses the same basic chargen framework as players. A smarter idea, IMO, is to decouple them.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Its the easiest, sure, but is it the best way of doing it?

What do you feel about this change: Remove the requirement that all magic weapons start with a +1 bonus. Now your first weapon magic weapon can either do +1 to hit/damage or it can do +1d6 fire damage.

Now lets talk about one other change: capping magic weapons at +5 instead of +10. Lets be honest, when was the last time anyone saw a +5 vorpal sword? But if you cap it at +5, you can have a vorpal sword, but no other bonuses, not even a +1 on it.

I'm all for players getting gear, but first we have to ask, "are we, as GMs, giving stuff just to give stuff or are we giving meaningful stuff." a +x bonus items being baked into the system means that certain items must be given out at certain times. I'd rather eliminate that from the math and focus on the adventure instead of making sure that this perfect magic item is included in the treasure pile, and providing an explanation as to why the bad guy wasn't using that item.

I'm all for removing the +1 before special abilities requirement. I'm pretty sure that's a legacy requirement from 1e/2e where special abilities were not a la carte. I just think that +s, while "boring" still have a place in the system.

Now, the expectation of +s being baked into combat difficulty is a trickier beast. Ideally I'd want a system where your 13th level barbarian or fighter or ranger can have a masterwork weapon, a +1 weapon, or a +5 frost keen holy demon bane weapon, depending on the flavor of the campaign, and the math would work regardless. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale CR system where PCs with more or less magical gear face different challenges.

I do know, for example, that Pathfinder can be run at high levels (20+) with 1/5 or less WBL, as long as the GM is willing to chuck CR out the window and pick challenges based on what the group can actually do rather than some arbitrary numbers. But that is tough for adventure writing and is a lot of extra work for the GM in any case.

I guess I'm not a fan of "I'm not going to give you actual magic items, instead you'll get innate bonuses that duplicate those items in every way just to make the math work." I'd rather fix the math.


ryric wrote:
I guess I'm not a fan of "I'm not going to give you actual magic items, instead you'll get innate bonuses that duplicate those items in every way just to make the math work." I'd rather fix the math.

While I agree with this specific statement 100%...

I think you're probably asking too much when asking that the math 'work' for both High Wealth and Low Wealth campaigns in the same system. That is a TON of work.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

ryric wrote:
Ideally I'd want a system where your 13th level barbarian or fighter or ranger can have a masterwork weapon, a +1 weapon, or a +5 frost keen holy demon bane weapon, depending on the flavor of the campaign, and the math would work regardless. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale CR system where PCs with more or less magical gear face different challenges.

It would have to be a very complex sliding scale to be accurate, it's not only how much gold you have, but what percentage of that gold is combat stat items vs. non-combat stat items. If it checks what the enh bonus of your weapon/armor is, you might as well just bake those numbers into the system, no?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Before I was just picking a monster that was close to what I was doing and either added class levels or multiple templates depending on where I wanted it's CR to be. Sometimes arbitrarily adding spell-like abilities and class features that don't fit.

I still haven't decided on what I'm doing from now on. I got The Monster Codex and The Advanced Bestiary in relatively the same time period, then Unchained comes out throwing me for a loop. I like the concept of class templates because honestly I work mooks like an old videogame: I start off with the generic mook and change his color pallet and put on a template to keep the same mooks relevant as time goes on or if I just want some kind of 'special' mook. By the time I'm done the minion design looks more like Streets of Rage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I was going to steal anything from 5e for Pathfinder, it would be fewer (both in total #'s and # that PC's get) but bigger feats. You could even keep backwards compatibility for feats. You get five feats, and you can chose PF 1.0 feats that give you 1 thing or PF 2.0 feats that give you 2 or 3 things.

If I could steal a second thing, it would be concentration and adding it to most buffs and conjuration/summonings. That would stop a lot of shenanigans.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
ryric wrote:
Ideally I'd want a system where your 13th level barbarian or fighter or ranger can have a masterwork weapon, a +1 weapon, or a +5 frost keen holy demon bane weapon, depending on the flavor of the campaign, and the math would work regardless. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale CR system where PCs with more or less magical gear face different challenges.
It would have to be a very complex sliding scale to be accurate, it's not only how much gold you have, but what percentage of that gold is combat stat items vs. non-combat stat items. If it checks what the enh bonus of your weapon/armor is, you might as well just bake those numbers into the system, no?

But there are a lot of systems that work just fine with no CR/WBL type mechanic at all. In 1e/2e/BECMI you didn't worry too much about party equipment when designing encounters, and all monsters had was an "XP value" to tell you how tough they were. Most other systems I play don't concern themselves with mathing out precisely how effective things should be at x level - you just kind of wing it.

I actually really think the whole CR system of "this monster should be X hard and characters should be X good to fight it" tries to add a layer of pseudoscience to something that is still rather an art. It should be a more organic process of "can my players hit its AC, does it have good enough saves, will the monster do what its supposed to do?" rather than pin everything on one number - one number which nearly everyone agrees is often a poor representation of threat. Threat which varies anyway depending on party composition and optimization levels. Supposedly a level 19 fighter is just as much of a threat as a level 19 wizard. Golems are a joke if there's an alchemist in the party. A giant scorpion is a terror if the party can't fly, and a non-encounter if they can. And so forth - gear just obscures the fact that the CR system is pretty much a flawed premise to begin with.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think those systems are less reliant on the items, which is kind of what's being proposed by baking in the flat numbers you're expected to get. Not that I've played the ones you've referenced.

But a +5 weapon is basically +10 enh to Str, so it rather matters if you have it or not.
-
True that CR is best used as a guideline, but it's better to have it than not. When you're leafing through the MM to find some baddies to use for your lvl 6 party, you can instantly tell if the monster is too strong/too weak.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

ryric wrote:
Now, the expectation of +s being baked into combat difficulty is a trickier beast. Ideally I'd want a system where your 13th level barbarian or fighter or ranger can have a masterwork weapon, a +1 weapon, or a +5 frost keen holy demon bane weapon, depending on the flavor of the campaign, and the math would work regardless. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale CR system where PCs with more or less magical gear face different challenges.

I don't really see that happening, atleast not to that scale. Slow, medium, and fast with medium being the assumed, sure. But not at the scale you are describing above.

ryric wrote:
I guess I'm not a fan of "I'm not going to give you actual magic items, instead you'll get innate bonuses that duplicate those items in every way just to make the math work." I'd rather fix the math.

I agree. But I think Automatic Bonus Progression is more a test to see how people like less magic items in their gameplay all around while still using the existing system. Since the system assumes these bonuses, they're providing the bonuses essentially free of charge. So if people respond positively to less overall magic items, they can just rework the math for the next edition and keep the same feel of less magic items.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of the Pathfinder Unchained simple monster system. It's suffers from the same flaws as 4e where all monsters become a little uniform and you only really need the one set of monster statblocks that you can modify with variant attacks and a dash of reflavouring.

This is fine for a lot of games. A handful of statblocks will do for most RPGs, such as FATE or Cortex. The mechanics matter less and pretty much come down to minor +2 situation bonuses. But in a game defined by its combats as Pathfinder can be, monsters *need* to be different. It's a little too easy to know the target numbers and track how injured a monster is.

And if you know the target numbers you can guess the Challenge Rating and deduce all the rest. "Looks like a lich. Oh, a 25 hit it. Those have a higher AC so it's CR 11 or less. About 130 hitpoints, focus on Fort or Reflex"

And, frankly, some monsters should just be high offence and low defense or high defense and low offence. Orcs vs hobgoblins. Or the ogre that hits like a truck but is the archetypal side of a barn.
4e tried to work around this by dividing "the combatant" into "brutes" and "soldiers".


Sounds like the problem with the simple monster system (which I haven't looked at yet, I'll have to take a look into it after this) is that there is only a single chasis available. I mean even 4e had modifiers to hit/ac/etc based on the intended role of the monster.

If designing a simple monster system, I'd probably start with a base value from CR, but then add a bunch of potential modifiers that adjust the numbers up and down. Similarly add a few options to get extra special ability slots in exchange for adjusting numbers further. Beyond that leaving templates in the game (including adding a few new templates to cover things that currently get covered by monster building/hit dice rules like "Gain Class features", and you're set.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mechagamera wrote:
If I was going to steal anything from 5e for Pathfinder, it would be fewer (both in total #'s and # that PC's get) but bigger feats. You could even keep backwards compatibility for feats. You get five feats, and you can chose PF 1.0 feats that give you 1 thing or PF 2.0 feats that give you 2 or 3 things.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of the "X" "Improved X" and "Greater X" styles of feats condensed into a single scaling feat. And cutting down the number of filler feats that have no/negligible benefit and just seem to be there to fill up page space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we're talking automatic bonus progression, and what we do, personally, mine is really, really, really simple:

Following the basic classifications from Mythic Evil Lincoln but toned more to Ashiel's older idea.

Enhancement bonuses are part of the character; the bonus is based on their levels, and whether they receive it or not is based on their equipment (sort of).

To properly channel a person's "enhancement" bonus, that person needs a Masterwork [ITEM] associated with said enhancement.

Attacks and Damage: Weapon
Armor AC (or Natural AC): Armor or Pendant*
Shield AC: Shield or Bracers*^
Save: Cloak~ or Ring*^
Physical Ability Score: Belt, or Gloves (or Gauntlets)*, or Boots*
Mental Ability Score: Circlet, or Third Eyes*, or Cloaks*~

* this breaks with the current game's design principles, but I feel it works better
^ these may be switched, based on the situation, but that's the basic idea
~ Probably don't allow item double-dipping, but I haven't really run into this problem soooooo...

All bonuses are enhancement bonuses, which means they don't stack with any other enhancement bonuses (so no need for a ring and a cloak, for example). Normal "+" items don't exist.

Masterwork items are always +300 gold from the base price to be able to channel magical potential (in the case of armors, it's 150 gold to get the normal mwk benefits, but 300 to channel magic), for a minimum price of 450 gold.

To get around these limitations, you may take a single feat to bypass a singular category: attack and damage, armor, shield, save, physical score, or mental score.

All bonuses are +1/3 level. Straight up. Yes, that caps at +6.

Everything else functions normally.

If you're worried about money (I'm not, but I understand different groups are different), you can "short change" your PCs WBL stuff based on said bonuses over the course of their career.

Magic Armor, Magic Shields, Cloaks of Resistance are 1k, 4k, 9k, 16k, and 25k (and would be 36 for a +6).

Headbands and belts are 4k (10k for two, 16k for three), 16k (40k for two, 64k for three), and 36k (90k for two, 144k for all three).

Weapons are 2, 8, 18, 32, 50, and 72.

In total, that's 72+144+144+25+25+25 = 75+288+72 = 435k at 18th (when they hit their maximum +6) out of the PCs' 530k, leaving them with 95k - roughly 18% of their expected WBL (17.9245283-etc) - to play with. So, if you care to, you can run with those numbers: 180 around 1st level, 540 at 2nd and so on. You could run the ability scores as "less"

You could, as an alternate, allow a special "Magical Ritual" that allows a character to access their inner magical talent (notably opening up every X levels) that they must pay to undergo. Just even out the cost of such things like items (perhaps even breaking up the bonuses to scores into their three constituent parts instead of all three).

In any event, these are all simple, clear, and easy to run. Math is minimal and game-adjustments are also minimal, really.

YMMV, naturally...

EDIT: one word change


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my gaming group we don't play with ability enhancement items and we play with consolidated feats.

Weapon Focus, Weapon Speclalisation, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialisation and Penetrating Strike = 1 feat.

Makes the Pathfinder game have a more medieval feel, stronger and more diverse martial characters and less super heroics.

This play style isn't for everyone and this is why I don't recommend Pathfinder change to suit my personal taste.

Excluding PFS, Pathfinder is very malleable (more so with Pathfinder Unchained), I say play as you want.

If D&D 5e is that good, why are 5e supporters posting on Paizo forums to make 5e changes to the Pathfinder game? Either 5e is deeply flawed and they miss the 'magic' of the 3.75 system or they are out-of-control dictators and need to tell Pathfinder players they are doing it all wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:

In my gaming group we don't play with ability enhancement items and we play with consolidated feats.

Weapon Focus, Weapon Speclalisation, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialisation and Penetrating Strike = 1 feat.

Makes the Pathfinder game have a more medieval feel, stronger and more diverse martial characters and less super heroics.

This play style isn't for everyone and this is why I don't recommend Pathfinder change to suit my personal taste.

Excluding PFS, Pathfinder is very malleable (more so with Pathfinder Unchained), I say play as you want.

If D&D 5e is that good, why are 5e supporters posting on Paizo forums to make 5e changes to the Pathfinder game? Either 5e is deeply flawed and they miss the 'magic' of the 3.75 system or they are out-of-control dictators and need to tell Pathfinder players they are doing it all wrong.

Because, as said before, they like some things about both systems and would like something that's mostly PF, but with a couple good ideas from 5E?

Or because they're monsters. Which do you think is more likely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monsters obviously, EXP bags waiting to be plucked.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

In my gaming group we don't play with ability enhancement items and we play with consolidated feats.

Weapon Focus, Weapon Speclalisation, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialisation and Penetrating Strike = 1 feat.

Makes the Pathfinder game have a more medieval feel, stronger and more diverse martial characters and less super heroics.

This play style isn't for everyone and this is why I don't recommend Pathfinder change to suit my personal taste.

Excluding PFS, Pathfinder is very malleable (more so with Pathfinder Unchained), I say play as you want.

If D&D 5e is that good, why are 5e supporters posting on Paizo forums to make 5e changes to the Pathfinder game? Either 5e is deeply flawed and they miss the 'magic' of the 3.75 system or they are out-of-control dictators and need to tell Pathfinder players they are doing it all wrong.

Because, as said before, they like some things about both systems and would like something that's mostly PF, but with a couple good ideas from 5E?

Or because they're monsters. Which do you think is more likely.

Changing 11 broad categories is "mostly PF"? it might be easier for them to change 5e to be more pathfinder like...


thejeff wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

In my gaming group we don't play with ability enhancement items and we play with consolidated feats.

Weapon Focus, Weapon Speclalisation, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialisation and Penetrating Strike = 1 feat.

Makes the Pathfinder game have a more medieval feel, stronger and more diverse martial characters and less super heroics.

This play style isn't for everyone and this is why I don't recommend Pathfinder change to suit my personal taste.

Excluding PFS, Pathfinder is very malleable (more so with Pathfinder Unchained), I say play as you want.

If D&D 5e is that good, why are 5e supporters posting on Paizo forums to make 5e changes to the Pathfinder game? Either 5e is deeply flawed and they miss the 'magic' of the 3.75 system or they are out-of-control dictators and need to tell Pathfinder players they are doing it all wrong.

Because, as said before, they like some things about both systems and would like something that's mostly PF, but with a couple good ideas from 5E?

Or because they're monsters. Which do you think is more likely.

it is a pointless argument because Paizo and WOTC are rival companies, and 'bounded accuracy' is 5e's trademark. It is what defines the two different systems and game publishers.

I have played 5e and I didn't mind it, it has its strengths as an RPG. Different game to Pathfinder though. And as gamers we are lucky we have a choice to play different types of fantasy RPGs. Yet the last thing we need is to homogenise D&D and Pathfinder making little difference if we play one or the other.


Morzadian wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

In my gaming group we don't play with ability enhancement items and we play with consolidated feats.

Weapon Focus, Weapon Speclalisation, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialisation and Penetrating Strike = 1 feat.

Makes the Pathfinder game have a more medieval feel, stronger and more diverse martial characters and less super heroics.

This play style isn't for everyone and this is why I don't recommend Pathfinder change to suit my personal taste.

Excluding PFS, Pathfinder is very malleable (more so with Pathfinder Unchained), I say play as you want.

If D&D 5e is that good, why are 5e supporters posting on Paizo forums to make 5e changes to the Pathfinder game? Either 5e is deeply flawed and they miss the 'magic' of the 3.75 system or they are out-of-control dictators and need to tell Pathfinder players they are doing it all wrong.

Because, as said before, they like some things about both systems and would like something that's mostly PF, but with a couple good ideas from 5E?

Or because they're monsters. Which do you think is more likely.

it is a pointless argument because Paizo and WOTC are rival companies, and 'bounded accuracy' is 5e's trademark. It is what defines the two different systems and game publishers.

I have played 5e and I didn't mind it, it has its strengths as an RPG. Different game to Pathfinder though. And as gamers we are lucky we have a choice to play different types of fantasy RPGs. Yet the last thing we need is to homogenise D&D and Pathfinder making little difference if we play one or the other.

Nobody's talking about making Pathfinder exactly like 5e. They just want to steal one or two of 5e's better ideas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

In my gaming group we don't play with ability enhancement items and we play with consolidated feats.

Weapon Focus, Weapon Speclalisation, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialisation and Penetrating Strike = 1 feat.

Makes the Pathfinder game have a more medieval feel, stronger and more diverse martial characters and less super heroics.

This play style isn't for everyone and this is why I don't recommend Pathfinder change to suit my personal taste.

Excluding PFS, Pathfinder is very malleable (more so with Pathfinder Unchained), I say play as you want.

If D&D 5e is that good, why are 5e supporters posting on Paizo forums to make 5e changes to the Pathfinder game? Either 5e is deeply flawed and they miss the 'magic' of the 3.75 system or they are out-of-control dictators and need to tell Pathfinder players they are doing it all wrong.

Because, as said before, they like some things about both systems and would like something that's mostly PF, but with a couple good ideas from 5E?

Or because they're monsters. Which do you think is more likely.

it is a pointless argument because Paizo and WOTC are rival companies, and 'bounded accuracy' is 5e's trademark. It is what defines the two different systems and game publishers.

I have played 5e and I didn't mind it, it has its strengths as an RPG. Different game to Pathfinder though. And as gamers we are lucky we have a choice to play different types of fantasy RPGs. Yet the last thing we need is to homogenise D&D and Pathfinder making little difference if we play one or the other.

Nobody's talking about making Pathfinder exactly like 5e. They just want to steal one or two of 5e's better ideas.

or 11...


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

In my gaming group we don't play with ability enhancement items and we play with consolidated feats.

Weapon Focus, Weapon Speclalisation, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialisation and Penetrating Strike = 1 feat.

Makes the Pathfinder game have a more medieval feel, stronger and more diverse martial characters and less super heroics.

This play style isn't for everyone and this is why I don't recommend Pathfinder change to suit my personal taste.

Excluding PFS, Pathfinder is very malleable (more so with Pathfinder Unchained), I say play as you want.

If D&D 5e is that good, why are 5e supporters posting on Paizo forums to make 5e changes to the Pathfinder game? Either 5e is deeply flawed and they miss the 'magic' of the 3.75 system or they are out-of-control dictators and need to tell Pathfinder players they are doing it all wrong.

Because, as said before, they like some things about both systems and would like something that's mostly PF, but with a couple good ideas from 5E?

Or because they're monsters. Which do you think is more likely.

it is a pointless argument because Paizo and WOTC are rival companies, and 'bounded accuracy' is 5e's trademark. It is what defines the two different systems and game publishers.

I have played 5e and I didn't mind it, it has its strengths as an RPG. Different game to Pathfinder though. And as gamers we are lucky we have a choice to play different types of fantasy RPGs. Yet the last thing we need is to homogenise D&D and Pathfinder making little difference if we play one or the other.

Nobody's talking about making Pathfinder exactly like 5e. They just want to steal one or two of 5e's better ideas.

i think its fair to say if you introduce 'bounded accuracy' into the Pathfinder system, Pathfinder is no longer Pathfinder. And that's what the OP was suggesting.

How would 'bounded accuracy' affects Pathfinder Adventure Paths? Greatly, as APs are defined by their vividness, hi-octane combat and party slaughtering villains.

Scaling spells and consolidated feats are a different matter entirely.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Morzadian wrote:

In my gaming group we don't play with ability enhancement items and we play with consolidated feats.

Weapon Focus, Weapon Speclalisation, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialisation and Penetrating Strike = 1 feat.

Makes the Pathfinder game have a more medieval feel, stronger and more diverse martial characters and less super heroics.

This play style isn't for everyone and this is why I don't recommend Pathfinder change to suit my personal taste.

Excluding PFS, Pathfinder is very malleable (more so with Pathfinder Unchained), I say play as you want.

If D&D 5e is that good, why are 5e supporters posting on Paizo forums to make 5e changes to the Pathfinder game? Either 5e is deeply flawed and they miss the 'magic' of the 3.75 system or they are out-of-control dictators and need to tell Pathfinder players they are doing it all wrong.

Because, as said before, they like some things about both systems and would like something that's mostly PF, but with a couple good ideas from 5E?

Or because they're monsters. Which do you think is more likely.

it is a pointless argument because Paizo and WOTC are rival companies, and 'bounded accuracy' is 5e's trademark. It is what defines the two different systems and game publishers.

I have played 5e and I didn't mind it, it has its strengths as an RPG. Different game to Pathfinder though. And as gamers we are lucky we have a choice to play different types of fantasy RPGs. Yet the last thing we need is to homogenise D&D and Pathfinder making little difference if we play one or the other.

Nobody's talking about making Pathfinder exactly like 5e. They just want to steal one or two of 5e's better ideas.

This implies that 5e actually had good ideas, much less ones that would fit in at all with a system similar in scale and scope to Pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Even 4E had a good idea or two, as blasphemous as that probably sounds to some of you.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Even 4E had a good idea or two, as blasphemous as that probably sounds to some of you.

Burn the heretic!

/demagogue


4 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Even 4E had a good idea or two, as blasphemous as that probably sounds to some of you.

I'd actually argue 4e had many good ideas, just an overall implementation that caused the good ideas to fall flat and fail to engage the players.

5e on the other hand manages to engage players by sticking to things that are tried and proven, with their "innovations" being few enough to count on one hand, and mostly just turning the game into a new way to play E6 over 20 levels.

I definitely have a lot more respect for the 4e designers for forging ahead with a game trying new ideas, even if ultimately I preferred 3e to it. It had interesting new designs, and many things that could have been adapted and merged back into the previous design to create an overall better product. I cannot honestly say the same thing about anything I have seen out of 5e, because either other systems have done it first and better (most everything), or the change is one that goes against the core gameplay dynamic that I associate with D&D/Pathfinder (basically bounded accuracy).

Edit: On second consideration, bounded accuracy isn't even an innovative mechanic. It's new to d20, but mostly because bounding accuracy that tightly on a d20 is inherently dumb. But the core idea of keeping everyone on the same RNG and giving everyone some chance of success regardless of skill level isn't new at all. Pretty much every dice pool game in existence falls under that category (seriously most of those games will range between 5 and 15 dice, with high end DCs being 5 successes, so for most tasks even the low end guy has a chance of success... but the high end guy has a much better chance, without auto succeeding), and does it much better than D&D 5e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Even 4E had a good idea or two, as blasphemous as that probably sounds to some of you.

Burn the heretic!

/demagogue

LOL I'd rather add 4e parts than 5e parts...

401 to 450 of 912 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 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