|
I really think that it is more of a "what if" scenario. I mean, unchained was really just a big "what if" book that has people worried about a "Pathfinder 2.0" but I'm not going to any further into that can of worms.
But really, even if someone decided to homebrew bounded accuracy for Pathfinder, 12th level characters would still be massively undergunned against a CR 20. For what it's worth, Pathfinder DOES do a very good job of keeping challenge ratings relevant, and it shows in their adventure design.
It's just a shame that the mythic rules were such a sticky wicket. If ever a book needed revision...
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[bunch of stuff that's allegedly replying to me, but really it's not]
I didn't challenge your assertion that a mid-level PC would have a reasonable chance of hitting a deity, which makes the fact that you spent multiple paragraphs proving it pretty silly, and indicative of a lack of attention on your part.
What I challenged was your assertion that the simple fact of being able to hit implies that it's easy to kill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, guys, can we calm down for a minute and stop arguing? I like Pathfinder, I like 5e. I would like to see some stuff from 5e in PF, and vice versa. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, you can't, no matter how many numbers you bring in, prove or disprove that bounded accuracy is good or bad. It is just a difference in opinion.
This is a nice and fun thread about daydreaming and "wouldn't this be cool?" Can we please stop trying to one-up each other and just have fun with the thread?
|
|
Pathfinder's challenge ratings are probably one of the weakest aspects of the game at all levels, and it gets worse as levels go up because creatures vary wildly in power levels at high levels the same way players do. It's one of the things bounded accuracy fixed in 5e.
Yes and no. Pathfinder basically trains you to be as effective as you can be, but it leads to some very easy encounters, punctuated by the occasional hard one.
But what it does do is make sure that you can't go over your CR by too much. To clarify, Pathfinder is rather good at being binary in whether or not you can defeat something, and expecting your complicity in staying within that realm. It plays a delicate game of "make sure to stay within this challenge area" on which adventure paths seem predicated.But the math does get mucked up at higher levels.
You are right that 5e fixes that. However, it does make the CR curve a bit murkier, which I think is awesome. I rather doubt that 12th levels would defeat Tiamat, if she is anything like the Tarraqsue. That they would at least make a dent would be neat.
[...]I disagree with this approach in general for gameplay where you are supposed to be heroes where you replicate being able to be like Hercules, or Jason, or Ulysses where the lower level guys are mere bloodsplatters on your blade if they come against you.[...]
Studying greek mythology is a passtime of mine (along with RPGs), so I'd like to point out that :
- the only super-powers of Ulysses is that he's very strong (he's the only one able to bend his bow), but not inhumanly so ; he's very handsome/attractive (women, immortal or not, are all over him), and exceedingly clever and astute - the most astute man in his age of the world.
Nowhere in Ulysses' stories is it suggested that he can single handedly and all by himself defeat entire armies. We don't really know if he's a supreme duelist, even if we can presume that he's not a slouch with a sword.
Jason is a bad ass, to be sure, but he doesn't defeat armies alone, either.
Hercules could certainly splatter any mortal humanoid unlucky enough to be his enemy, but we don't really know if he could defeat entire armies alone.
I won't argue about Pathfinder or 5th edition. I only wanted to point out that your idea of "heroic" is very contemporary of our time - no harm in that, though.
That's interesting.
I'm not (at all) a very good christian, it appears.
This kind of example suggests that different ancient cultures may have had a different way of thinking about heroes and heroics. I find that pretty interesting.
And one can't help notice that the most over-the-top of super-heroes (meaning, the most "powerful"), and the first of them, to boot, was created by people of biblical culture (Superman, created by Shuster and Siegel).
If you want an example of someone that can defeat armies, the bible is your source. People always forget about Samson.
Or Moses holding his arms in the air.
Although my favorite is Elijah with some lanterns and clay pots.
Or even the somewhat obscure judge, Ehud the Left-handed, who managed to turn a disadvantage into an awesome power. :)
I would ask, though, why you would study Greek mythology and then refer to those heroes as Ulysees and Hercules, rather than as Odysseus and Heracles?
I was using the names provided by GreyWolfLord. Though, to be honest, the roman names refer to the exact same characters.
|
|
Do folks really go around at high level splattering low level things?? There was mention of BA being artificial. Id argue its more stimulationist and thats certainly not everybody's bag. It makes a hell of a lot more sense in a campaign setting. Also, BA gets rid of the ridiculous math treadmill and monster graduation process of yesteryear. The biggest opposition to BA comes from folks who dont completely understand the shifting of character advancement from accuracy to other means such as HP, damage, and class abilities.
Its perfectly fine to dislike BA, but please try and understand it before knocking it. Also, keep in mind this thread is asking what people want brought into PF from 5E. Telling posters to "not wreck your game" is not in spirit of the discussion nor an argument of any value.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see archetypes "built into" the PF classes. Instead of having 1 Core Class with later options in other books, it would be neat to see some options cooked into the CRB.
Also, Dex to damage, Finesse being a weapon quality. Stuff like that.
One of the great things about PF are all the options, but a lot of them never get used because there are ridiculous feat taxes and the like. For example, Weapon Finesse, Spring Attack, Pounce, Two-Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc.
Do folks really go around at high level splattering low level things?? There was mention of BA being artificial. Id argue its more stimulationist and thats certainly not everybody's bag. It makes a hell of a lot more sense in a campaign setting. Also, BA gets rid of the ridiculous math treadmill and monster graduation process of yesteryear. The biggest opposition to BA comes from folks who dont completely understand the shifting of character advancement from accuracy to other means such as HP, damage, and class abilities.
Its perfectly fine to dislike BA, but please try and understand it before knocking it. Also, keep in mind this thread is asking what people want brought into PF from 5E. Telling posters to "not wreck your game" is not in spirit of the discussion nor an argument of any value.
Oh, I understand it perfectly. It's rather arrogant to assume people who don't like BA don't understand this.
in respect for those who state this is a houserule discussion and not a jab at pathfinder players and their game discussion...I won't go into details and let their discussion continue. However...It's not that we don't understand BA...it's that we prefer to play a game that doesn't have BA (aka...we play Pathfinder rather than 5e) placed in it in a way that we (or some...even if not you) see as limiting.
Ah...and to answer the first question of your post. Yes...people DO go around at high level splattering low level things. Many DM's let people face occasionally low level threats to let players experience just how powerful they've gotten. Admittedly, this is probably more common in sandbox games than in more railroady type things.
|
One thing I'd like to use is not having a separate sizing for small creatures - some weapons are indicated as being 'heavy', and difficult to use*. This allows for one to play a small warrior and not be (too) penalized. That, and the DM doens't have to throw in a 'small' longsword to the halfling paladin in a treasure horde.
I also like the idea of energy resistance being 'half damage' rather than a static number. Not sure how that could be imported in PF, as that technically make a creature/class feature with resist fire 5 be on the same footing with resist fire 15.
I'm also for the short rest idea, even if it's to regain a bit of stamina.
*Curious, to those that know, how does this work with large(r) creatures and manufactured weapons? I have aims to work it into a houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the weapons in 5th edition: I remember they had something similar in the first iteration of 3rd edition, and changed it when they revised it. Instead of small creatures not being able to use heavy weapons, they couldn't use large weapons. Weapons were sized Tiny (dagger), Small (shortsword), Medium (longsword), Large (greatsword) and Huge (fullblade only). Where small creatures couldn't use Large weapons, and had to use Medium weapons two-handed. Curious why they decided to go back to something similar when they originally removed that after 3 years in 3rd edition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's even a rule where you CAN wield a larger sized weapon, but you attack at disadvantage.
So you can re-create that FotR scene where they are fighting a bunch of goblins and that Large cave troll with the Huge flail. It would do 3d8 damage, but the attack rolls would be at disadvantage (maybe making random squares difficult terrain on a miss?). I really want to run an encounter like that.
The DMG even has rules for Climbing Onto A Creature Bigger Than You. So you can go all Legolas on oliphants and stuff. :-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would ask, though, why you would study Greek mythology and then refer to those heroes as Ulysees and Hercules, rather than as Odysseus and Heracles?
Among the Greek / Roman characters that have variants of their names, quite often one of those variants has become the one that is more commonly used.
Hercules is seen far more often than Heracles. But Zeus is seen more often than Jupiter.
They're called "myths" instead of "mundanes" for a reason, right? :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Advantage / disadvantage plays very well to the strengths of a d20 system. It rewards players with the initiative to use superior tactics and is simple enough for the DM to award it without having to consult x page of the rulebook.
... Granted, a system like that would break Pathfinder as is, but it's a big reason why I'm favouring 5e over Pathfinder right now.
|
I picked up the 5e books not long ago, and the feeling of e7 play stretched out over 20 levels is something that I am really digging.
I like that characters become broader, rather than more specialized as you increase in level. I'm excited about new class features more than I am more attacks, or higher numbers.
Although I like that a character can move and full attack in 5e as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More than anything else the ' move do something, move some more, do something, move some more and maybe do something else' should adopted.
|
I would like to see archetypes "built into" the PF classes. Instead of having 1 Core Class with later options in other books, it would be neat to see some options cooked into the CRB.
Also, Dex to damage, Finesse being a weapon quality. Stuff like that.
One of the great things about PF are all the options, but a lot of them never get used because there are ridiculous feat taxes and the like. For example, Weapon Finesse, Spring Attack, Pounce, Two-Weapon Fighting, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc.
Not only would I make certain "tax fears" built-in to certain classes, like Rogue automatically getting TWF, Fighter automatically getting Cleave, etc... But I would make those Tax Feats upgrade themselves based on your character level without having to spend an extra feat slot.
If you take TWF (which you get for free as a Rogue), then at Level 5 it becomes Greater TWF without you needing to take a feat slot. If you are at or above Level 5 when you take TWF, it still becomes Greater TWF.
Meanwhile, Magical Tail for the Kitsune race might improve itself once every three levels, and you would only need to take it as an actual feat if you wanted to speed it up.
|
|
*feats
Bloody autocorrect...
I had another idea regarding how Advantage could work if you incorporated the Bell Curve Rolls variant into your campaign for skill checks: A skill with which you could use Advantage, you would roll 3d6 and 1d20, and whichever of the two rolls had a higher result, you'd use; if you were rolling disadvantage, same thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combining a bunch of feats (like TWF, ITWF, and GTWF) is a good idea.
Rolling 3d6 and 1d20 for advantage is just a little awkward and complicated. One of the great advantages (pun kind of intended) of 5th Edition is how elegant it is. Advantage/Disadvantage is really easy and elegant and not complicated at all.