|
THAC0 wasn't really as bad as a lot of people seem to think. I like the D20 To Hit system better, but I'm honestly tempted to say that it's more problematic or complicated than THAC0, if you remember all the various modifiers that may or may not apply on any given round. I can't count how many times I've heard "Oh, Oh. I forgot to add in the +2 for _____, does that still miss?"
Another aspect I liked about 2E is that there was an upper limit to most things. Both from an asthetic point of view and a mechanical one. For example, if you managed to get to a Strength Score of 25, you knew that you where basically amongst the strongest individual in existence. On par with deities of Strength, the Hulk, etc. . . Similarly, Skill where defined. Or rather defined against everything in existence rather than things of your CR/HD. So, if you had a Rank in (the equivalent to) Knowledge Religion, you where actually very proficient about that, on par with many of the greatest scholars in the world(s) about Religion. There wasn't a great deal of difference between a Level 1 character and a level 10 character with a few Ranks in "Know Religion", where as in PF, there is no limit to the Modifiers and Ranks, and a Level 10 character that continued to put Ranks into it is far, far beyond a Level 1 character that did the same. But this also meant that at level 1, and also at level 10 it was a lot less dependent on the randomness of the die rolls. The vast majority of the time at low levels in the D20 system, Ranks are practically irrelevant as much as just rolling high. Anyone can roll a Nat 20, or a Nat 1, which could mean the most inept, clumsy Barbarian in full plate does a better job at dancing than the nimble guy/girl that has actually trained to dance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mean to completely derail this thread, but the big issue with THAC0 is that it's easier to work with positive numbers than negative ones. Calculating attacks against negative THAC0 always took too long for us in high school.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While its not something I hear much, per se, it is something I encounter. Trying to give 5E a try with some of my home groups didn't have enough support for a table. People said that they had too much investment in PF/PFS. I was able to get a few WoD games going for a bit. Shadowrun, 3.5, MCWoD, Exalted, there just wasn't enough people willing to go to another system, all of which in my opinion are better games/systems.
A few even did outright say only PF.
Basically the boat I'm in for one of my groups. People don't want to learn anything new, so we're stuck with PF and just MAY try a game of 5e in that group.
Of course, the one time we tried Savage Worlds, everyone thought it was much more complex than PF. No, it really isn't. It's like a fifth as complex. You're just used to 3.X and have internalize all the rules.
Savage Worlds more complex than PF... Uhhh... Well.
Ok, there is some basis for this: the core mechanics of SW are more unwieldy than the core mechanics of PF - roll the same die each time and add a number to compare the target number and apply the results of success/failure versus roll one die of varying size and one d6, check if either die rolled maximum and roll it again if it did, compare the higher result with target number, count raises/successes/whatever they are called and apply the results.
So the Pathfinder is a bit less complex on procedural level, but much more complex on number-of-build options available, number of higher level rules (e.g. magic - two types of casting versus single type of casting, and number of spells probably two magnitudes higher).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
THAC0 wasn't really as bad as a lot of people seem to think. I like the D20 To Hit system better, but I'm honestly tempted to say that it's more problematic or complicated than THAC0, if you remember all the various modifiers that may or may not apply on any given round. I can't count how many times I've heard "Oh, Oh. I forgot to add in the +2 for _____, does that still miss?"
As many buffs as there are in 3e/PF, a lot of people forget that 2e had a lot of modifiers as well. You could stack bless, chant, and prayer together, get bonuses for attacking from the rear or flank, negate shields attacking from the rear or opposite flank, as well as gain the same situational bonuses you see in PF.
Another aspect I liked about 2E is that there was an upper limit to most things. Both from an asthetic point of view and a mechanical one. For example, if you managed to get to a Strength Score of 25, you knew that you where basically amongst the strongest individual in existence. On par with deities of Strength, the Hulk, etc. . . Similarly, Skill where defined. Or rather defined against everything in existence rather than things of your CR/HD. So, if you had a Rank in (the equivalent to) Knowledge Religion, you where actually very proficient about that, on par with many of the greatest scholars in the world(s) about Religion.
This is, I believe, an important point of difference between 1e/2e and 3e/PF. By comparison, the target numbers you needed to hit in 1e/2e were tightly constrained. ACs ranged from 10 to -10 (with a few special exceptions), Saving Throws were all within a d20's range. The change in the 3e family drives a lot of impulse to optimize to keep up as well as give you the easy tools to do so with the magic item economy. It's still possible to play with the older style, but you have to make that part of your table's culture. Fortunately for me, this is relatively easy since we've been playing since before the 3e family of games was published. We've already got the older school culture.
This is one reason why some of us from the older days of D&D are finding a 5e so refreshing compared to PF.
Ironically, I was introduced to a piece of THAC0 first, since I played nethack before I ever played any tabletop rpg, and the game uses a "the lower the better" armor class mechanic
So I guess nethack was based on 2e or 1e.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically, I was introduced to a piece of THAC0 first, since I played nethack before I ever played any tabletop rpg, and the game uses a "the lower the better" armor class mechanic
So I guess nethack was based on 2e or 1e.
1e. Or possibly good old Basic D&D.
I remember playing Rogue on my college mainframe in '85 and nethack and moria in '88 or '89.
I'm aware that a number of spells such as magic missile does 'force damage', but a search through the d20pfsrd fails to find any clarification as to what force damage actually is.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm aware that a number of spells such as magic missile does 'force damage', but a search through the d20pfsrd fails to find any clarification as to what force damage actually is.
It's not in the most obvious place, but under the Incorporeal (Ex) definiton in the Universal Monster Rules of the Bestiary, it clarifies that Force spells and effects affect incorporeal creatures normally, i.e. not taking 50% damage reduction and sdding to AC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also no creatures that can resist or reduce force damage. It bypasses damage reduction and all energy resistances. Very handy, that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen the (probably mythical) "character so optimized, he/she can solo the adventure."
While it hasn't happened, I am pretty confident that one PC at my table could solo quite a few "level appropriate" adventures, and apropos of your avatar image RainyDayNinja, that PC is in my Kingmaker campaign. The same player has at least one Society character whom I have watched solo Society scenarios. Another PC in that same Kingmaker party can fairly effectively shut down melee combats on her own, but isn't versatile enough that I believe she could solo whole adventures. The combination of the two PCs can be trying at times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm aware that a number of spells such as magic missile does 'force damage', but a search through the d20pfsrd fails to find any clarification as to what force damage actually is.
Force damage is Force damage. Just like Fire damage is Fire damage.
I'm aware that a number of spells such as magic missile does 'force damage', but a search through the d20pfsrd fails to find any clarification as to what force damage actually is.Force damage is Force damage. Just like Fire damage is Fire damage.
Alright, but what is the general nature of the 'force' of which we speak? Is casting magic missile like hitting someone with an invisible lead ball the size of my fist?
It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.Alright, but what is the general nature of the 'force' of which we speak? Is casting magic missile like hitting someone with an invisible lead ball the size of my fist?I'm aware that a number of spells such as magic missile does 'force damage', but a search through the d20pfsrd fails to find any clarification as to what force damage actually is.Force damage is Force damage. Just like Fire damage is Fire damage.
Or that
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also no creatures that can resist or reduce force damage. It bypasses damage reduction and all energy resistances. Very handy, that.
wrong, actually
Off the top of my head, variant aasimars can get a little bit of resistance to itIn 3.5 there was an epic dragon called the force dragon that was naturally immune to it
But other than those I can't think of any
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, but what is the general nature of the 'force' of which we speak? Is casting magic missile like hitting someone with an invisible lead ball the size of my fist?I'm aware that a number of spells such as magic missile does 'force damage', but a search through the d20pfsrd fails to find any clarification as to what force damage actually is.Force damage is Force damage. Just like Fire damage is Fire damage.
It's...force. Like, it's not elementally aligned, it's just pure power. Which is pretty much the description provided by the force descriptor.
"Force: Spells with the force descriptor create or manipulate magical force. Force spells affect incorporeal creatures normally (as if they were corporeal creatures)."
Other than that, fluff it how you want. Maybe you're telekinetically punching a guy in the face. Maybe you're just tossing pure magic at someone. Who knows?
There's equal support for it being telekinetic (or "Aetheric" by the Occult Adventures description) in nature, and it being pathfinder's equivalent to many games' "Arcane damage".
Alright, but what is the general nature of the 'force' of which we speak? Is casting magic missile like hitting someone with an invisible lead ball the size of my fist?I'm aware that a number of spells such as magic missile does 'force damage', but a search through the d20pfsrd fails to find any clarification as to what force damage actually is.Force damage is Force damage. Just like Fire damage is Fire damage.It's...force. Like, it's not elementally aligned, it's just pure power. Which is pretty much the description provided by the force descriptor.
"Force: Spells with the force descriptor create or manipulate magical force. Force spells affect incorporeal creatures normally (as if they were corporeal creatures)."
Other than that, fluff it how you want. Maybe you're telekinetically punching a guy in the face. Maybe you're just tossing pure magic at someone. Who knows?
There's equal support for it being telekinetic (or "Aetheric" by the Occult Adventures description) in nature, and it being pathfinder's equivalent to many games' "Arcane damage".
Yeah, that 'force' entry you just quoted was pretty much what I was looking for in the first place. where did you find it?
Also someone here said that force damage can ignore damage reduction. Where's the source for that?
(when I ask for a source I don't mean I am skeptical, more that I want to see the source for my self to acquire more understanding)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's like 6 movies out that go into exacting boring minute detail about what The Force is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that 'force' entry you just quoted was pretty much what I was looking for in the first place. where did you find it?
It's in the description of the Force Descriptor in the Magic section. Of Ultimate Magic, I think, since that's where they were introduced.
Also someone here said that force damage can ignore damage reduction. Where's the source for that?
Damage Reduction only reduces physical damage, not energy damage. DR doesn't apply to Fire, Cold, Acid, Electricity, Sonic, Force, Positive, or Negative energy attacks.
(when I ask for a source I don't mean I am skeptical, more that I want to see the source for my self to acquire more understanding)
If you need a quote, it's one of the main characteristics of DR.
"The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's like 6 movies out that go into exacting boring minute detail about what The Force is.
You deserved so much better than the s$$+ty death you got in episode 3.
I'm so sorry.
Yeah, that 'force' entry you just quoted was pretty much what I was looking for in the first place. where did you find it?It's in the description of the Force Descriptor in the Magic section.
Also someone here said that force damage can ignore damage reduction. Where's the source for that?Damage Reduction only reduces physical damage, not energy damage. DR doesn't apply to Fire, Cold, Acid, Electricity, Sonic, Force, Positive, or Negative energy attacks.
(when I ask for a source I don't mean I am skeptical, more that I want to see the source for my self to acquire more understanding)If you need a quote, it's one of the main characteristics of DR.
"The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below."
Thanks a bunch! This was exactly what I was looking for c:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's like 6 movies out that go into exacting boring minute detail about what The Force is.You deserved so much better than the s%!*ty death you got in episode 3.
I'm so sorry.
I get to wear an eye patch as Nick Fury, so looks like I came out on top :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also no creatures that can resist or reduce force damage. It bypasses damage reduction and all energy resistances. Very handy, that.wrong, actually
Off the top of my head, variant aasimars can get a little bit of resistance to it
In 3.5 there was an epic dragon called the force dragon that was naturally immune to it
But other than those I can't think of any
A moderate search didn't reveal which assimar variant got force resistance. Care to link it?
It may have been a different edition you're thinking about, which in that case makes Grean Tea Gamer's assessment correct.
IIRC there's some giant zombie Tarrasque thing walking around a jungle in Tian Xia with force resistance
IIRC there's some giant zombie Tarrasque thing walking around a jungle in Tian Xia with force resistance
Is that a giant tarrasque compared to us, or a giant tarrasque compared to normal tarrasques?
Also, the existence of a zombie tarrasque proves that a tarrasque can be killed. :)
Tis a Kaiju sent from Verces to Eox but got knocked off course crashed in the jungle, was killed by Mogaru which triggered it's failsafe making it undead :-)