So I just found this Article. I think Paizo should take a look. I think there are some good ideas.


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

http://www.livingdice.com/7729/ten-dumb-things-dd-wont-change/

Ten Dumb Things D&D Won’t Change
January 15, 2013 | Chris Dias | Comments 11
Oh sure, there are certain mechanical decisions other games have done better. I’m not even talking about some of the philosophical choices made. I’m talking about weird mechanics which the designers appear to refuse to deviate from, concepts not only carried over from past editions, but ones recent editions, including D&D Next AND Pathfinder still insist on adhering to. There are many staples of D&D, ones which we know will never change, but the following list are issues which I wish they would address.

ATTRIBUTE BONUSES

Beyond the statistical flaws present in comparing a D20 die roll against 3D6, your actual attribute value means very little. Think about it, when is your attribute score ever used? Back in the old editions, every numerical increase gave you something, but that stopped nearly 20 years ago. In 4th Edition, your Constitution score was used to generate hit points at 1st level, but that was it. Everything else was derived from your attribute bonus, which is itself derived from said attribute score. But if that’s true, why have an attribute score in the first place? It does nothing anymore other than give you another fixed number. Oh sure, there’s that mechanic indicating that you only gain another +1 attribute bonus from 2 increments of your score, but that’s easily worked around. Other games don’t bother. So someone has a -1 to Charisma instead of 8. It means exactly the same thing and the -1 is applicable to rolls while the 8 is not. At one point, there was some reason for it, back in the old days, but it hasn’t in a long time.

WIZARD SPELLS

Isn’t it unusual that a wizard gaining his knowledge from reading spellcraft is cursed to forget his spells at the beginning of each day? I’m aware of the need for limiting the uses of spells, but inventive writers have worked around this dilemma for decades. The best idea D&D can come up with is that magic somehow wipes its knowledge from the guy who spends the whole of his life trying to remember it. Ironic? Yes? An annoying meta-rule to work around logical problems? Yes. Necessary? No. This is another Wheel of Fortune conundrum—you know of that I speak; when choices are limited, people eventually just pick the same options as everyone else. Since Wizards need to select certain spells to use each day, it precludes them from doing anything actually clever. They’ve tried to work around this with the use of rituals, but even D&D Next and Pathfinder have still wrapped their heads around this obsolete concept that magic acts likes a dick. Wizards require a long rest and are then forced to select which spells to memorize, even if they might’ve cast said spell a thousand times by that point. Christopher Lee is 90 years old; he’s memorized the Lord of the Rings, every G!&-d#+ned page, so I’m pretty sure Gandalf should be able to recall magic missile whenever the hell he wants.

MONKS

D&D Next put Monk front and center with their core classes, because it makes perfect sense. There isn’t a single work of high fantasy that doesn’t make the mistake of excluding bare-fisted kung-fu flying magic men from their setting. It reminds me of a famous Gardner Dozois quote where he said (paraphrasing) there was no problem within a science fiction story which couldn’t be solved by putting dinosaurs in it. And now we have magic monks. Not just martial artists, I’m talking G@+-d##ned immortal teleporting indestructible flying men wrapped in robes that can throw fire from their hands. Why bother being a fighter wielding a clumsy sword. A rust monster could reduce his armor to dust. But a monk could punch your colon through your throat and be naked doing it. It’s like lining up the characters from the Fantastic Four film and thinking to yourself, okay, these make sense. We got water, earth, air, fire…and…bad ass armor with lightning? For once, I would just like a martial artist, and not some ridiculous retreading of an increasingly annoying cinematic cliché.

SAVING THROWS

Someone made an argument that saving throws were intended to be a last ditch survival roll to prevent something horrible from happening. Unfortunately, it evolved into the single die roll you were given to prevent the instant and utter eradication of your character. One random number generator disregarding your AC and hit points which would wipe your character from that plane of existence. At least with 4th Edition, nothing could ever kill you dead unless you were already close to dying. Some people will applaud that brutal nature of the game, but there’s a point where that stops being fun, especially when it’s your character. I wouldn’t mind saving throws if it truly was a last ditch effort. A monster fires its hex vision, rolls to attack and hits, and THEN you get your saving throw—a double chance to avoid petrification. I haven’t even gone into the mechanics themselves, a topic I’ve ranted about previously. Why does a melee attacker have to roll to attack but a spell fall to the defender to roll? This was another point 4th Edition got right. D&D Next goes half way, crystallizing the problem while simultaneously only partially addressing it. There shouldn’t be a separate mechanic for spells and melee attacks; die rolls should fall to the attacker. If saving throws are required, make it for extreme spell effects, and only after an attack has succeeded. This also leads me to my next issue.

ARMOR CLASS

So let me get this straight. I get hit with a fireball and I wear no armor. My AC is entirely Dex based, but I still make a Dex-based saving throw, which is not connected to AC. If I wore armor, said armor should provide protection against fire…because stuff you wear just does that; it’s one of the reasons why we wear clothes. And yet it doesn’t, and said fireball is entirely based on a separate mechanic to my claimed primary defensive statistic. Armor Class has always been an obsolete concept which should have been abandoned with the eradication of THACO. To then create a separate saving throw or defense for avoiding things and what you have is this clumsy set of situations which are arbitrarily categorized to affect only certain situations. So when said dragon breathes fire, our poor fighter has no hope, because apparently being draped in four layers of cloth and metal provides zero protection. And what annoys me the most is that the solution has been easy from the get go. AC should be about avoidance and armor should be damage resistance. It’s called hardness, a mechanic the game already has!

ANNOYING DEATHS

In order to prevent players from utterly crucifying DMs when that solitary saving throw versus death is failed, D&D placated the masses by making death…well…annoying. Dying means very little. Don’t bother with tears or burial rights. Just make sure the body is intact until you can FedEx it to Miracle Max, ensuring the corpse is only mostly dead. Let’s get the obvious out of the way; there is no society in any reality which can function with commonplace resurrection. When mortality and economics combine, what you have left are legions of suffering peons which would hold every cleric to the fire to bring their dead wife or child back to life. And yet death and resurrection is a staple of gaming…well actually it’s not. In fact, few games outside of MMOs really involve true resurrection with little to no penalties. Most games actually feature save games, meaning the situation just becomes a giant do over. You may think that’s a jarring mechanic, but consider how valid the alternative is to a legitimate fantasy setting. Death should mean something more than a slight financial burden.

TOO MANY SPELLCASTERS

Sometimes, I think Wizards have their oddball mechanics in order to justify other classes. Nearly every edition of D&D has had a huge spells chapter encompassing in some cases half a book. No matter what spellcaster you make, they all tap from this same list with many sharing the same spells. But do we truly need all of them? And what fantasy world would take them all? Most settings only permit one, maybe two; do we really need a cleric, wizard, sorcerer, druid, bard, paladin, ranger, and in some cases even warlock. Sorcerer and wizard are basically the same class with some clumsy mechanics separating them, thus also proving the mechanical limitations on each are meaningless. Second, do we really require our paladins and rangers to be spellcasters? Do we really need a bard spellcaster? And then to have every one of these function with the exact same mechanics, tapping the same spell list, often sharing identical features from other spellcasters…it makes the whole ordeal…well…an ordeal. I’ve not run a game without outright banning most of them. I don’t mind wizard and I don’t mind druid. I have separate feelings on cleric, but most of the others could fall between the couch cushions.

POWER GAMING

Do you want to make a dwarf druid? Well don’t, because you’re stupid. Apparently that’s the argument from power gamers everywhere. Unlike human beings, fey races (you know, the halflings, elves and such) are skewed to specific roles, clichés, even stereotypes. This can almost be considered racial profiling; this ethnic group is populated by terrorists, while this ethnic group are all thieves…just like halflings. And why wouldn’t you make a character this way? Bonuses from being an elf generally boost your Intelligence and Dexterity, so why be anything other than a class using those attributes. For a brief time, 4th Edition played with the idea of customization, but D&D Next runs right back into static boosts, something Pathinfer is still stubborn to change. Despite creative gamers trying concepts purely out of some private fantasy; hardcore gamers are always smart enough to find the killer combination of class and race to make one clearly superior to another. Fantasy worlds may wallow in cliché, do we have to create mechanics for it?

ALIGNMENT

Hate it. Hate it. Hate it. I hate alignment so much, I ignore it utterly in every game I play. 4th Edition tried to downplay the system somewhat but my perspective is that it should go completely. I find it irksome when people try to categorize me in real life, so I find it annoying and unnecessary when a game implements it as a rule. I don’t mind holy and unholy dichotomies, but good and evil is at its basic philosophical level quite nebulous. To then impose mechanics around lawful and chaotic ideas and then make abilities based on them is unwanted and unneeded. I simply tell my players that they have to play heroes and let them define for themselves what that means.

MAGIC ITEMS

Do you remember that famous fantasy book where a band of intrepid heroes went on a quest wearing a million gold coins worth of magical items which they purchased at a nearby bizarre? Of course not, because that’s insane. I’ve always wondered about any game where plucky heroes are walking around with magic items worth more than the kingdom they are trying to save. You couldn’t even assume one was a family heirloom since after four levels, you’d have to sell it to acquire a better variant. I’ve actually seen adventurers with polished perfect armor and magical sporting rings, cloaks, amulets, and periapts ride into town in a rickety old caravan. They wear all of this, ignoring the sensible alternative of perhaps trading in all that magic in exchange for a castle made of solid silver, in order to slay a dragon for the sole purpose of acquiring more gold and purchasing slightly better magic. It makes you question the sanity of the adventuring profession. They sleep in the mud under the stars, and then put on their +5 armor to kill some trolls. Peasants would look on and ask themselves, “Why did they buy magic armor? Why didn’t they buy food?” The constant drive to acquire better magic items is something we tolerate in ridiculous video games, but even some of those create mechanics allowing you to keep the same weapon for the entire progress of your character. The items in particularly simply get better as characters do.

Readers may imagine certain mechanics they would want to add to the list. Some people criticize classes. I don’t generally. This is one where I don’t mind filling a mold. As for deities, yes, I admit I hate them, but I also understand its part of D&D canon. I just cut them out of my own personal settings. What would you like to see gone from D&D even though you know perfectly well it never will be?


20 people marked this as a favorite.

...Soooooo, basically, they just don't want to play D&D.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think these criticisms have been around since the days of AD&D. Mutants and Masterminds 3E moved to using just the attribute bonuses.

A lot of it is the nostolgia factor and keeping things like "D&D" for various marketing reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What Rednal and Krensky said.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1.) You already linked the article, what was the purpose of then copy-pasting it in its entirety?

2.) Why do you think Paizo should care about this man's opinions?
2a.) For that matter, why should WE care? What special insight does he bring?

There's no analysis here, just "I hate Monks, saving throws are dumb, class diversity sucks".

Similar complaints have been made hundreds of times over the years by people with more detail and reason behind their opinions.

What makes THIS blog post, of ALL of those something special?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Really did not see anything in the rant that was a good idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are a few good points in there. Attribute scores are odd considering that the benefits are all grouped around the even numbers and the odd numbers mean nothing. Saving throws can be a little weird when you take half or no damage from a fireball and don't actually move out of the blast.

But aside from a few points that may or may not be worth discussing, the bile dripping from every word is off putting and there is nothing constructive. It all reads like a comic book villain who wants to tear down the world in favor of the unstated idea that if things he doesn't like go away then naturally things he does like will pop up.


A handful of good points that end up pointing in the same direction- play something else.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Ranty McRanter wrote:

SAVING THROWS

...the single die roll you were given to prevent the instant and utter eradication of your character. One random number generator disregarding your AC and hit points which would wipe your character from that plane of existence. At least with 4th Edition, nothing could ever kill you dead unless you were already close to dying. Some people will applaud that brutal nature of the game, but there’s a point where that stops being fun, especially when it’s your character.

Ranty McRanter wrote:

ANNOYING DEATHS

Dying means very little.... Death should mean something more than a slight financial burden.

So which is it? Unfun brutal eradication of your character, or a meaningless financial burden?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I’m talking G#$-d@#ned immortal teleporting indestructible flying men wrapped in robes that can throw fire from their hands. Why bother being a fighter wielding a clumsy sword.

The fact that this is about monks and not wizards tells me a lot about the author.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

(I realize that Chris Dias won't read this, but I'm writing as if addressing him for clarity.)

Chris Dias wrote:
Isn’t it unusual that a wizard gaining his knowledge from reading spellcraft is cursed to forget his spells at the beginning of each day? I’m aware of the need for limiting the uses of spells, but inventive writers have worked around this dilemma for decades. The best idea D&D can come up with is that magic somehow wipes its knowledge from the guy who spends the whole of his life trying to remember it.
I hate having to choose spells at the beginning of the day myself, which is why I prefer playing sorcerers. That's the simple solution.
Chris Dias wrote:
...I’m pretty sure Gandalf should be able to recall magic missile whenever the hell he wants.

It is true that most wizards of fantasy seem to cast spells at will, which - again - is why we have the Sorcerer class. Yes, most "wizards" of fantasy are more like sorcerers. That's why you want that class.

Furthermore, the "fire and forget" mechanic was taken from actual fiction, written by Jack Vance. And as others have pointed out to me, Merlin of Roger Zelazny's Amber series would sometimes spend time preparing a spell, and then leave off part of it so that he could "trigger" it long afterward, which is another way you can provide "fluff" for that mechanic. The fire-and-forget mechanism doesn't have to come out of nowhere.

Chris Dias wrote:
Sorcerer and wizard are basically the same class with some clumsy mechanics separating them...

Um... say what? You just ranted about how much you hated wizards. The idea here is that you can play a sorcerer, and someone else who might not like sorcerers can play a wizard, but you can still play the same game together. You're seeing the solution as a problem!

Stone Dog wrote:
Attribute scores are odd considering that the benefits are all grouped around the even numbers and the odd numbers mean nothing.

So when I run PFRPG, I give the odd numbers a BIT of value by house-ruling that ability damage reduces your ability score by the damage amount, just as in D&D 3.0 and 3.5.

For example, suppose your Constitution score is 12, and you take one point of Con damage. In the PFPRG RAW, you shouldn’t get a penalty to hit points and Fortitude saves. In my house rule (or in D&D 3.0 or 3.5) you do, because your Con is effectively reduced from 12 to 11, so your Con modifier is reduced from +1 to 0. So it pays, somewhat, to have a Con have 13 rather than 12, so that, for example, 1 point of Con damage won't hurt your hp and Fort saves.

(Also, it brings you a bit further from getting your ability score reduced to 0.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Following Aaron Bitman's convention:

Chris Dias wrote:
Do you remember that famous fantasy book where a band of intrepid heroes went on a quest wearing a million gold coins worth of magical items which they purchased at a nearby bizarre?

What, like in Steve Brust's Vlad Taltos books? Where you can buy soul-destroying weapons (if you have the right connections, of course)? Maybe they aren't famous enough.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Ranty McRanter wrote:
SAVING THROWS
Ranty McRanter wrote:
ANNOYING DEATHS
So which is it? Unfun brutal eradication of your character, or a meaningless financial burden?

I recall being Imploded, (or maybe it was Destruction or something) and not only my character getting killed, but also all of his equipment getting vaporized as well. That was pretty lame.

But since Pathfinder no longer has the equipment destruction thing, and changed the lose-a-level aspect of death, and even removed most of the save-or-die stuff, it isn't a problem like it was in 3.5. What was the that article about again anyway?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Sundakan wrote:
1.) You already linked the article, what was the purpose of then copy-pasting it in its entirety?

I much prefer it when people do this.

When something really interests me, I appreciate having the link available so I can follow it easily (if I want to buy something, follow the conversation, see other things from the same author or whatever...), however I don't like going to sites I don't know, so wouldn't follow a link if I didn't have the text available first.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
1.) You already linked the article, what was the purpose of then copy-pasting it in its entirety?

I much prefer it when people do this.

When something really interests me, I appreciate having the link available so I can follow it easily (if I want to buy something, follow the conversation, see other things from the same author or whatever...), however I don't like going to sites I don't know, so wouldn't follow a link if I didn't have the text available first.

You beat me to it, I also prefer the relevant info be posted so I don't have to follow a link.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

It certainly makes it easier to mock without giving the author any traffic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No Bards?

No Bards?!

No Bards?!

NO BARDS?!?!?!?!

This man is a buffoon! How dare he! I . . . I have no words.

This is no. Just no. I don't want to live in a (fictional) world without Bards.

And I guess he wrote some other stuff, too - I stopped paying attention after the no bards thing.

Shadow Lodge

Don't feed it guys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
WIZARD SPELLS

Ugh. How many f**ing times we have to repeat... There is no memorization anymore. Spells are prepared as a constructions of magic energy weaved using complex instructions contained in the spellbook and hanged for further use. So, yeah, author keeps b*$&#ing about mechanic he has absolute no understanding of.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

Yep. Have to admit that I disagree with everything in that article.

Bottom line seems to be, "I don't like D&D."

Which, of course, is the author's prerogative. But, I wouldn't go to a football team and tell them that the only way to fix their game would be to play baseball...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Belulzebub wrote:

No Bards?

No Bards?!

No Bards?!

NO BARDS?!?!?!?!

This man is a buffoon! How dare he! I . . . I have no words.

This is no. Just no. I don't want to live in a (fictional) world without Bards.

And I guess he wrote some other stuff, too - I stopped paying attention after the no bards thing.

I read it as no beards. Flipped a table, then read it properly... flipped another few tables. BARDS FOR LIFE!

Liberty's Edge

I do agree about spells. I'm a high level Mage who can prepare his spells yet still forget them. I can live with Vancisn casting does not mean I have to like it. The author of the article style leaves much to be desired IMO.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

We already have a guy that posts clickbait blogs in the forums, we don't need two.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I do agree about spells. I'm a high level Mage who can prepare his spells yet still forget them. I can live with Vancisn casting does not mean I have to like it. The author of the article style leaves much to be desired IMO.

Honestly, he has somewhat of a point with around half of his "Ten Dumb Things". However, his points are so badly thought out and expressed that even the people who agree with him disagree with him due to his "terrible" article.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Posting this made me hungry. munch....munch.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the OP:

Basically your point is you don't want to play D+D 3.X or anything like it.

Good news for you is that it's been decades since that was the only game in town.

So instead of haranging football players to play basketball, why don't you spend time trying out some of those alternatives?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I don't quite understand the reaction here. I didn't think the OP was all that abrasive.

The blog itself was not particularly persuasive, nor particularly revolutionary. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying what you don't like about a game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

I don't quite understand the reaction here. I didn't think the OP was all that abrasive.

The blog itself was not particularly persuasive, nor particularly revolutionary. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying what you don't like about a game.

When someone suggests having a sacred cow BBQ, some people reach for sauce, others reach for pitchforks.


Stone Dog wrote:
There are a few good points in there. Attribute scores are odd considering that the benefits are all grouped around the even numbers and the odd numbers mean nothing.

Actually odd numbers are usually where you find feat requirements.

Silver Crusade

So ... these are some of the mechanics that are not very popular...

All of them ...


Well, D&D could be smoothened, but if you overdo it, you end up with a random (and therefore totally exchangeable) RPG. From the perspective of modern game design, some game rules are overly complicated or unfun - but Pathfinder did away with half of the problems.

I read such postings as the OP at work (other, much smaller game), trying to understand our customers and get the relevant core of an emotional rant. But I find this blog entry to be very anecdotal, so of very limited use for decisions that affect the entire player base. I absolutely prefer critique from a veteran who posts in a more focussed way and probably even suggests alternatives.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Time to go and play FATE


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

I don't quite understand the reaction here. I didn't think the OP was all that abrasive.

The blog itself was not particularly persuasive, nor particularly revolutionary. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying what you don't like about a game.

I think the problem was that they were essentially saying "everything about this game is wrong".

I mean, once you cross off attributes, armor class, saves, classes, customizing characters, casting styles, equipment, and personalities, there's not a whole lot of the game left.

Hence my comment about how the original poster just doesn't want to play D&D. Not this version of it, anyway. It's one thing to think that certain things could be modified to create a smoother experience for everyone. Heck, that's what Pathfinder Unchained was all about doing. There's a difference between tweaking the system and completely eliminating it, though.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Honestly, he has somewhat of a point with around half of his "Ten Dumb Things".

I count about two valid points that aren't simply personal preference.

Ability scores do indeed have a dwindling list of reasons to exist, to the point that they're primarily just an extra round of math for coming up with the numbers that actually matter. It would be trivial to tweak feat prereqs and stat damage to use only the modifier, at which point the only reason the ability scores would exist at all would be so that you could generate your modifiers using 3d6 instead of some other method. Kind of pointless. From a game design standpoint, ability scores aren't offering enough to be reasonable to include.

He's also correct that some of the classifications of what uses the attack/AC mechanic and what uses the saving throw mechanic are arbitrary and nonsensical. I have myself pointed out before that it's kind of silly that a Pathfinder spellcaster can have two different means of shooting magical lightning from their hand toward an enemy that both care about the target's innate ability to react quickly, yet for no discernible reason only one of them cares about my aim, only one of them cares about the target's skill at avoiding things, only one of them cares about my mental capacity for magic, and they each care about different sets of magical defenses. Completely ridiculous.

However, that's where his list of valid points ends. Everything else is subjective, ranging from personal stylistic preferences (some of which I share) to outright racism.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Woran wrote:
Time to go and play FATE

Oh god no. Once was too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
GM Rednal wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I don't quite understand the reaction here. I didn't think the OP was all that abrasive.

The blog itself was not particularly persuasive, nor particularly revolutionary. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying what you don't like about a game.

I think the problem was that they were essentially saying "everything about this game is wrong".

I mean, once you cross off attributes, armor class, saves, classes, customizing characters, casting styles, equipment, and personalities, there's not a whole lot of the game left.

Hence my comment about how the original poster just doesn't want to play D&D. Not this version of it, anyway. It's one thing to think that certain things could be modified to create a smoother experience for everyone. Heck, that's what Pathfinder Unchained was all about doing. There's a difference between tweaking the system and completely eliminating it, though.

Sure - I understand the critique of the blog. I just dont understand the general level of vehemence.

The guy wrote that blog a few years ago (and didnt write it on this forum). Someone comes across it and pretty politely says "hey Paizo, here's some good ideas"....

I've seen far worse and more denigrating comments about the game made on the paizo forums with less reaction. I dont particularly care, I was just puzzled.


Krensky wrote:
And Paizo should pay attention to click bait from some mouth breathing hipster who can't tell Ian McKellen apart from Christopher Lee... Why?

A natural assumption, but you might want to watch the cast commentary of the LotR films before critisizing this blogger for not being able to tell actors apart.

Spoiler:
Or if you have other better things to do with those nine hours of your life, you can take my word for it: Lee was the LotR fanatic, and actually wanted to play Gandalf. I don't specifically remember anything about him memorizing the books, but I do remember someone saying that he read them thru once a year.

Steve Geddes wrote:
Sure - I understand the critique of the blog. I just dont understand the general level of vehemence.

I think it's an identity thing. Most D&D fans have rather particular lists of quirks that make D&D feel like D&D, and when they see those quirks criticized, we see these knee-jerk reactions.

Either that, or fans are genuinely afraid that a bunch of conservative Paizo devs will see some random blogger's diatribe against certain D&Disms and go "I know most of our fans seem to be happy with the legacy quirks in PF...but to hel with it, let's rock this boat!"


TEQUILA SUNRISE WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


If you think about it, Pathfinder Unchained did address some of those points (namely the last two and monks?)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I don't quite understand the reaction here. I didn't think the OP was all that abrasive.

The blog itself was not particularly persuasive, nor particularly revolutionary. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying what you don't like about a game.

I think the problem was that they were essentially saying "everything about this game is wrong".

I mean, once you cross off attributes, armor class, saves, classes, customizing characters, casting styles, equipment, and personalities, there's not a whole lot of the game left.

Hence my comment about how the original poster just doesn't want to play D&D. Not this version of it, anyway. It's one thing to think that certain things could be modified to create a smoother experience for everyone. Heck, that's what Pathfinder Unchained was all about doing. There's a difference between tweaking the system and completely eliminating it, though.

Sure - I understand the critique of the blog. I just dont understand the general level of vehemence.

The guy wrote that blog a few years ago (and didnt write it on this forum). Someone comes across it and pretty politely says "hey Paizo, here's some good ideas"....

I've seen far worse and more denigrating comments about the game made on the paizo forums with less reaction. I dont particularly care, I was just puzzled.

Except none of those are good ideas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Never mind.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

This is just another case of someone confusing "my likes/dislikes" with "this is better for the game as a whole".

Personally if Paizo went this route it would not have gained the players it did, and many of the ones it does have would leave.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, for those who hated D&D editions 1-4 and Pathfinder, D&D 5e actually resolves about half of those.

Which I suppose means if you HATE old D&D and Pathfinder, and half the things on that list, 5e might just be right up the alley...

Which drives the notion why they even call 5e D&D anymore except that they have a bunch of people who feel a name is the only thing that matters, or hated the older editions of D&D enough that they like to drive home how much 5e really isn't like D&D of old...even whilst praising it that it is.

It tried to change attribute bonuses, spells and spellcasting, Powergaming, Magic Items, and optionally ruled on AC and deaths (as options...not default).

Of course, saving throws may have gone even further off the deep end with 5e in that light.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...what?

The Exchange

Valid arguments about some overly clunky mechanics such as ability scores, the rest is just rambling about what the guy likes in fantasy vs. what he doesn't. Meh.


Agree with DM Rednal except for one thing.

OP wrote:
AC should be about avoidance and armor should be damage resistance. It’s called hardness, a mechanic the game already has!

Some versions of the game recognized this and had some fluff mechanics giving a nod to it but I also find it a little odd that when the game was re-built (Pathfinder or 5E) they didn't fix this.

The only AC should be Touch AC and then there is either DR and/or Resistance and/or Immunity or there is not.

AC is just poorly thought out. Kind of like the 'double dipping' that occurs with a high Strength score. It gives you a bonus to hit and a bonus to damage. But if you hit more often from high Strength isn't that in itself a bonus to damage? So a high Strength score really gives you two bonuses to damage. In 3.PF parlance you can say it stacks with itself. Prima facie that should be a definite no-no.


Armor as Damage Reduction is an optional rule. I think that would do a lot of what you're looking for.

I'm fine with double-dipping on Strength. Having a high casting ability improves both Save DCs and number of spells - which for casters means "more, and better, of what I'm doing". That's pretty much the same thing, really. Although if someone really WANTED to split these kinds of bonuses across multiple attributes, they could certainly houserule it in. That wouldn't be a particularly bad way of encouraging people to spread their attributes out instead of focusing on their "main" stat, though you might need to make the occasional adjustment for weird corner cases.


GM Rednal wrote:

Armor as Damage Reduction is an optional rule. I think that would do a lot of what you're looking for.

I'm fine with double-dipping on Strength. Having a high casting ability improves both Save DCs and number of spells - which for casters means "more, and better, of what I'm doing". That's pretty much the same thing, really. Although if someone really WANTED to split these kinds of bonuses across multiple attributes, they could certainly houserule it in. That wouldn't be a particularly bad way of encouraging people to spread their attributes out instead of focusing on their "main" stat, though you might need to make the occasional adjustment for weird corner cases.

Yep, that was one of the sources I had seen.

Like I said it's all about Touch AC.

I can either touch you or I cant.

If I touch you, you either have DR and/or resistance and/or immunity.

Things that would stack into your Touch AC are things that grant Luck, (magic) Deflection, and Dodge. And maybe one or two other things.

It's so obviously broke by 3.PF it's odd that it has only been "optionally" fixed and not hard ruled.

Grand Lodge

Quark Blast wrote:
AC is just poorly thought out.

Armor Class in PF is a hold over from the earlier editions where combat was an abstraction, where each round's duration was 1 full minute, and not a mere 6 seconds.

The assumption was that during this minute of time, there was a constant "back-and-forth" of sword-play happening (e.g. dodging, parrying, blocking, etc.), and that the actual attack roll in those editions represented the time that an opportunity presented itself and you were able to find the opening and possibly score a solid hit (and therefore breaching your opponent's armor).

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / So I just found this Article. I think Paizo should take a look. I think there are some good ideas. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.