Can we have even a bare minimum of respect for realism this time around?


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just stuff like:
•Gambeson (ie: padded) armor was actually really good protection and much better than something like hardened leather. Maybe have the stats reflect that?
•Call an arming sword (currently longsword) an arming sword and a longsword (currently bastard sword) a longsword? Ya know, like they're supposed to be?
•Can a dagger not be completely terrible? It's probably responsible for more battlefield kills than any other weapon, after all.
•Can a falchion be a falchion and not a scimitar?
•Can you explain how tricking the senses (Illusion) is fundamentally different enough from tricking the senses (Enchantment) that they deserve to be entirely separate schools of magic?

Ya know, just some basic common sense type stuff? :)

Silver Crusade

30 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

None of these are basic, common or sense to me. They're more of "a history buff is mad because they want a simulation of medieval Europe and what they get is some Gygax guy throwing names at things at random" frankly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
None of these are basic, common or sense to me. They're more of "a history buff is mad because they want a simulation of medieval Europe and what they get is some Gygax guy throwing names at things at random" frankly.

Hey, I'd love to do away with "studded leather", rename it "brigandine", and make it obvious that the metal plates are the main protective component and not the leather. :v

The other ones really are kind of pedantic, especially the dagger one; what, did you want the dagger to be 2d6, x4 crit just because people used to finish others off with it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
None of these are basic, common or sense to me. They're more of "a history buff is mad because they want a simulation of medieval Europe and what they get is some Gygax guy throwing names at things at random" frankly.

I just threw stuff off the top of my head out there, but my point is that, for a simulationist game, the simulation has historically been waaay off. :P

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
None of these are basic, common or sense to me. They're more of "a history buff is mad because they want a simulation of medieval Europe and what they get is some Gygax guy throwing names at things at random" frankly.
I just threw stuff off the top of my head out there, but my point is that, for a simulationist game, the simulation has historically been waaay off. :P

Which is a fantastic argument!

For ditching the simulationism. If I'd want to play a simulation of medieval Europe, there are games out there that are far better at that.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It's not a simulationist game tho, but a crunchy game based of good ol' Gary's research of his local library and a few, old inaccurate books. I'm with you on the naming, I care, but not enough that I think it should be forced on everyone else with forty odd years of DnDism and corporate knowledge. Just change it for your game it's mostly fluff (renaming) :)


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Dark Midian wrote:
The other ones really are kind of pedantic, especially the dagger one; what, did you want the dagger to be 2d6, x4 crit just because people used to finish others off with it?

I knew there was something I missed when working on Adventurer's Armory 2. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I could see a 'finisher' quality added to the dagger.

X4 when used for coup de grace instead of the usual x2


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'd be happy to just get to use sword and dagger without feeling like I'm really hamstringing myself. We'll see, though.


Neo2151 wrote:

Just stuff like:

•Gambeson (ie: padded) armor was actually really good protection and much better than something like hardened leather. Maybe have the stats reflect that?
•Call an arming sword (currently longsword) an arming sword and a longsword (currently bastard sword) a longsword? Ya know, like they're supposed to be?
•Can a dagger not be completely terrible? It's probably responsible for more battlefield kills than any other weapon, after all.
•Can a falchion be a falchion and not a scimitar?
•Can you explain how tricking the senses (Illusion) is fundamentally different enough from tricking the senses (Enchantment) that they deserve to be entirely separate schools of magic?

Find/replace "Leather Armor," "Longsword," and "Bastard Sword" with "Gambeson," "Arming Sword," and "Longsword."

Remember that the Dagger is arguably the most widespread and versatile weapon in the book.

I agree, the Falchion is a massive misnomer.

Illusion tricks the senses outside the mind, and Enchantment does the same inside the mind. There are naturally exceptions to these rules.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Can we have even a bare minimum of respect for realism this time around?" No... We're playing a fantasy game, not a medieval simulation written for history professors. I also don't CARE what the real/actual weight of things are and other such minutiae that matters little in the kind of adventures I want to play.


graystone wrote:
No... We're playing a fantasy game, not a medieval simulation written for history professors.

Realism is an important part of the game though. There's a reason that Human characters don't have a Fly speed or can't breathe underwater. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:
Realism is an important part of the game though.

It really isn't though. A 20th level fighter can dive off a 2000' cliff, get up unhindered and go do it again. Cube law is ignored. Magic... Pathfinder and realism parted ways a LONG time ago.

Neo2151 wrote:
There's a reason that Human characters don't have a Fly speed or can't breathe underwater. ;)

But they CAN. It's kind of the point of fantasy and magic. ;)


Quote:
Can you explain how tricking the senses (Illusion) is fundamentally different enough from tricking the senses (Enchantment) that they deserve to be entirely separate schools of magic?

Simply - enchantment is direct influence on one's mind, while illusion is construct of light and sound, that indirectly influence one's mind.

That should have some direct and obvious mechanic results, that should be thought about, and illusions centred on one person should be moved to enchantments, because they are clearly mind based.


Neo2151 wrote:
graystone wrote:
No... We're playing a fantasy game, not a medieval simulation written for history professors.
Realism is an important part of the game though. There's a reason that Human characters don't have a Fly speed or can't breathe underwater. ;)

There is a difference between flying amphibious humans and what you are asking for - your minutiae that really has no significant impact - I certainly don't care about the nomenclature, and near as I can tell those that do care can't always agree anyway )or at least there are contradictory expert sources).

And illusion and enchantment are dramatically different in theme, I for one am not seeing the parallel.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:

Just stuff like:

•Gambeson (ie: padded) armor was actually really good protection and much better than something like hardened leather. Maybe have the stats reflect that?
•Call an arming sword (currently longsword) an arming sword and a longsword (currently bastard sword) a longsword? Ya know, like they're supposed to be?
•Can a dagger not be completely terrible? It's probably responsible for more battlefield kills than any other weapon, after all.
•Can a falchion be a falchion and not a scimitar?
•Can you explain how tricking the senses (Illusion) is fundamentally different enough from tricking the senses (Enchantment) that they deserve to be entirely separate schools of magic?

Ya know, just some basic common sense type stuff? :)

It's a fantasy game which is a genre focused on not-realism.

As for what aspects of realism should be in the game, and which should be ignored, that is always going to be a matter of taste.

In other words don't confuse your preference for facts or what is right.


Quote:
And illusion and enchantment are dramatically different in theme, I for one am not seeing the parallel.

Theme - sure.

But there are some illusion spells like phantasmal killer that seems to be more enchantment than real illusion TBH.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If we're going to be realistic the game is definitely going to fail. If some humanoid the size of a giant tries to hit you with warhammer, and you try to use your shield to block it your shield and your arm are going to be broken, and death is very possible. If a normal person hit your shield with enough force it can cause damage so don't expect for large and bigger creatures to care about your shield.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
None of these are basic, common or sense to me. They're more of "a history buff is mad because they want a simulation of medieval Europe and what they get is some Gygax guy throwing names at things at random" frankly.
I just threw stuff off the top of my head out there, but my point is that, for a simulationist game, the simulation has historically been waaay off. :P

It's not really a simulation based game. It's more of an abstraction based game. If it was a simulation you have your health depleted and your ability to be effective in combat would decrease.

However it operates more like a video game in that even with 1 hit point your perfectly ok at fighting, and then you're dead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
graystone wrote:
No... We're playing a fantasy game, not a medieval simulation written for history professors.
Realism is an important part of the game though. There's a reason that Human characters don't have a Fly speed or can't breathe underwater. ;)

There is a difference between flying amphibious humans and what you are asking for - your minutiae that really has no significant impact - I certainly don't care about the nomenclature, and near as I can tell those that do care can't always agree anyway )or at least there are contradictory expert sources).

And illusion and enchantment are dramatically different in theme, I for one am not seeing the parallel.

As someone who's really interested in nomenclature of arms & armor, I really agree with you. I stopped caring about that so much in games a long time ago. (now I just weep a silent nerd tear for the really bad ones...) The problem with a consistent nomenclature for RPGs is...there is no consistent real-world nomenclature. Things like 'arming sword' aren't more accurate, they're just a modern contrivance. At least the way the term gets used today.


Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
graystone wrote:
No... We're playing a fantasy game, not a medieval simulation written for history professors.
Realism is an important part of the game though. There's a reason that Human characters don't have a Fly speed or can't breathe underwater. ;)

There is a difference between flying amphibious humans and what you are asking for - your minutiae that really has no significant impact - I certainly don't care about the nomenclature, and near as I can tell those that do care can't always agree anyway )or at least there are contradictory expert sources).

And illusion and enchantment are dramatically different in theme, I for one am not seeing the parallel.

As someone who's really interested in nomenclature of arms & armor, I really agree with you. I stopped caring about that so much in games a long time ago. (now I just weep a silent nerd tear for the really bad ones...) The problem with a consistent nomenclature for RPGs is...there is no consistent real-world nomenclature. Things like 'arming sword' aren't more accurate, they're just a modern contrivance. At least the way the term gets used today.

Yeah, I do think D&D/Pathfinder to muddy the waters with some odd choices based off crappy sources. But historical terminology is an absolute mess. Most of those different types of sword were just called 'sword' in historical sources. D&D used one convention of naming, which is different than that used by collectors and modern HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) practitioners. The use of 'mail' to mean any kind of armor instead of mail=maile=chainmail is a bit annoying, but the damage is done.

I believe the term longsword as used by HEMA practitioners comes from a technique of using the swords and not necessarily the weapon itself. Longsword was with both hands on the hilt, while short-sword was the technique of using the same weapon with one hand on the grip and the other on the blade, also called half-swording). The D&D/Pathfinder usage to be a one handed sword does seem a bit odd to me though. It really only seems to make sense if you look at it from a Roman context, with the Spatha as a long sword compared to the standard Gladius short sword.

Although some things are Just Plain Wrong. Like studded leather, which didn't exist and wouldn't work if it did. It was a miss-identification of coats of plates or brigandine. Or reference to splinted armor being a full suit when as far as I can tell it was just used for limb protection during the transitional period. Or bucklers being strapped to your arm but not gripped, when the real thing is the exact opposite. Or falchion as a two handed weapon. When the real thing were one handed. With the possible exeption of some of the odd choppers in the Maciejowski Bible that are sometimes identified as falchions. Or maybe the kriegsmesser which is a two handed variant of the German messers (which just means knife but in this context refers to a regional weapon very similar to the falchion, sometimes called grosse-messer or langes-messer).

So yeah, seeing strapped bucklers and two handed falchions is annoying, I'm not sure changing around things that are now well known to gamers is really a good idea. Especially since so much of the real world terminology is a mess. And some of these things exist for mechanical reasons. A one handed falchion would likely be mechanically identical to a scimitar, while two handed fills a niche for a two-handed curved chopper with a large crit range. And strapped bucklers are there to give a shield bonus and not require a hand, enough though it doesn't make sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Realism is an important part of the game though.
It really isn't though. A 20th level fighter can dive off a 2000' cliff, get up unhindered and go do it again. Cube law is ignored. Magic... Pathfinder and realism parted ways a LONG time ago.

A certain level of baseline realism is valuable. Can a level 1 commoner jump over a five/ten/twenty foot pit? Can they survive falling off a hundred foot cliff? Will they die if they try to fight a housecat? Can they cut a rope with a sword? With a hammer?

If things don't act vaguely realistically in the first place, transcending normal human limitations (for example, by becoming a level 20 Fighter) doesn't mean much, since these limitations never existed in the world in the first place. And it's much harder for newbies to know what their characters can do, if they can't rely on the assumption that things work vaguely like they do in real life.

(Not that 'realism' and 'accurate nomenclature' have much to do with one another.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:

Just stuff like:

•Gambeson (ie: padded) armor was actually really good protection and much better than something like hardened leather. Maybe have the stats reflect that?
•Call an arming sword (currently longsword) an arming sword and a longsword (currently bastard sword) a longsword? Ya know, like they're supposed to be?
•Can a dagger not be completely terrible? It's probably responsible for more battlefield kills than any other weapon, after all.
•Can a falchion be a falchion and not a scimitar?
•Can you explain how tricking the senses (Illusion) is fundamentally different enough from tricking the senses (Enchantment) that they deserve to be entirely separate schools of magic?

Ya know, just some basic common sense type stuff? :)

What does using Earth-historic names for things have to do with realism when we're talking about a game that isn't set in Earth's history?

You might as well be talking about changing the country names to Earth-historic ones, because... realism.

Now, I don't particularly care if Earth-historic names are used, it's just that your use of "realism" isn't appropriate. And given that you're angling for "correct" use of terms, it's ironic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
graystone wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Realism is an important part of the game though.
It really isn't though. A 20th level fighter can dive off a 2000' cliff, get up unhindered and go do it again. Cube law is ignored. Magic... Pathfinder and realism parted ways a LONG time ago.

A certain level of baseline realism is valuable. Can a level 1 commoner jump over a five/ten/twenty foot pit? Can they survive falling off a hundred foot cliff? Will they die if they try to fight a housecat? Can they cut a rope with a sword? With a hammer?

If things don't act vaguely realistically in the first place, transcending normal human limitations (for example, by becoming a level 20 Fighter) doesn't mean much, since these limitations never existed in the world in the first place. And it's much harder for newbies to know what their characters can do, if they can't rely on the assumption that things work vaguely like they do in real life.

(Not that 'realism' and 'accurate nomenclature' have much to do with one another.)

And now I want to take Weapon Versatility just to cut ropes with a hammer.


graystone wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Realism is an important part of the game though.
It really isn't though. A 20th level fighter can dive off a 2000' cliff, get up unhindered and go do it again. Cube law is ignored. Magic... Pathfinder and realism parted ways a LONG time ago.

A 20th level fighter is a demigod and far beyond the realm of natural human beings. The entire system is designdd around the best of real world humans as being only 4th or 5th level.

I should point out however, that on rare occasions, people have survived falling at terminal velocity.

Also, making some simplifications for ease of play is not a bad thing, especially when these real world connections are only meant as benchmarks, landmarks for helping us understand just what the numbers mean and how they relate.

Also, the simulationism of d20 does not refer to flavorful things like names, it refers to how the numbers relate to the narrative. The numbers are not pure pass/fail/crit, but actually describe how good the result is in an objective fashion.

Combat is an exception, but then again, combat really needs to be fun and not realistic, cause realistic combat is not fun.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

When I cast magic missile at my boss at work NOTHING HAPPENS. And I'm wearing regular clothes! Clearly there should be a spell failure chance at all times. Its just realistic.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOoooOOOOOOooooOOOOOOOOOOOooooOOOO


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I too prefer more of a simulation, but at this point the D&D Sharknado-quality reality has become its own genre.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chance Wyvernspur wrote:
I too prefer more of a simulation, but at this point the D&D Sharknado-quality reality has become its own genre.

Which raises a much more important question

Is Sharknado an official spell in PF2


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, if we're asking, then I would actually prefer more D&D in my realism, than the other way around.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

No offense but I'm here for "fantasy" NOT "realism"....


4 people marked this as a favorite.

We are getting respect. They've taken the time to correct their poison terminology and working to make sure the names are more accurate. They've also worked on trying to make some real world poisons have a similar onset time in game.

Oh, wait, you mean you want them to correct your particular niche of academic interest, otherwise they're not being respectful.


bookrat wrote:

We are getting respect. They've taken the time to correct their poison terminology and working to make sure the names are more accurate. They've also worked on trying to make some real world poisons have a similar onset time in game.

Oh, wait, you mean you want them to correct your particular niche of academic interest, otherwise they're not being respectful.

to be fair to the OP (not that I agree with him) but what was YOUR particular niche of academic interest again? You'rea toxicologist, right?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
bookrat wrote:

We are getting respect. They've taken the time to correct their poison terminology and working to make sure the names are more accurate. They've also worked on trying to make some real world poisons have a similar onset time in game.

Oh, wait, you mean you want them to correct your particular niche of academic interest, otherwise they're not being respectful.

to be fair to the OP (not that I agree with him) but what was YOUR particular niche of academic interest again? You'rea toxicologist, right?

Yup! I'm not too worried whether a game gets it right or not. It's a game after all. I just thought it was nifty that they actually looked at it. :)

My point is that if we're defining "respect" as how closely they match reality in niche fields, then we can't exclude fields for which isn't in our own area of interest. In other words, we can't say they're not sowing respect because [of this niche field].

The lesson to be learned is that we need to just let it go and enjoy the game for what it is. :)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What people want in RPGs isn't "realism" per se, but "verisimilitude". They want things to "feel real", meaning they want things to seem plausible.

Quibbling about naming conventions between "arming sword" and "longsword" doesn't even make it to that level. It's just a name, and not that big of a deal. So many of the weapons we find in RPG lists are from different cultures that used different languages, and translation is intrinsically a betrayal of literal meaning. I mean even the English used in the middle ages wasn't the English of today, and the languages spoken in the early and late middle ages were not the same beast at all.

Wraithstrike wrote:
If we're going to be realistic the game is definitely going to fail. If some humanoid the size of a giant tries to hit you with warhammer, and you try to use your shield to block it your shield and your arm are going to be broken, and death is very possible. If a normal person hit your shield with enough force it can cause damage so don't expect for large and bigger creatures to care about your shield.

Although I agree 100% about taking hits from large, huge and bigger creatures, I suspect that if realism were to take the front seat, problems would start on an even more basic level, since that giant is going to be in trouble as soon as it tries to stand up. Think of the windfall for orthopedic surgeons, helping giants get over their ankle, knee and hip problems!

What we need isn't realism, as such, but greater verisimilitude. We could take the Giant's Crush feat, for example, and apply its effects every time a creature is hit by an adversary 2 size categories larger than it is.

I'd much prefer little nods to real-seeming like this, than a pedantic re-naming of weapons and armor that have been mis-named since 1974.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
bookrat wrote:

We are getting respect. They've taken the time to correct their poison terminology and working to make sure the names are more accurate. They've also worked on trying to make some real world poisons have a similar onset time in game.

Oh, wait, you mean you want them to correct your particular niche of academic interest, otherwise they're not being respectful.

to be fair to the OP (not that I agree with him) but what was YOUR particular niche of academic interest again? You'rea toxicologist, right?

Yup! I'm not too worried whether a game gets it right or not. It's a game after all. I just thought it was nifty that they actually looked at it. :)

My point is that if we're defining "respect" as how closely they match reality in niche fields, then we can't exclude fields for which isn't in our own area of interest. In other words, we can't say they're not sowing respect because [of this niche field].

The lesson to be learned is that we need to just let it go and enjoy the game for what it is. :)

I mean, I study physics, but I don't care if PF physics matches real physics. I care that the physics (and metaphysics) does not contradict itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please no. In my opinion it is much more important for a game to have internally consistent rules that are balanced, rather than have anything based on realism. Realism is something that has been used to hold back lots of concepts and unbalance the game for far too long imo.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If I'd want more realism in my life, I'd probably play Bureau & Bosses where my once trusty +1 bic pen is cursed with the curse of instant dry up


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
None of these are basic, common or sense to me. They're more of "a history buff is mad because they want a simulation of medieval Europe and what they get is some Gygax guy throwing names at things at random" frankly.

They're basic common sense to anyone that spent 5 minutes looking up things on google and doesn't base their knowledge of weapons and armor on RPGs.

Also, people forget that Pathfinder is set in OUR universe, so leather should not be more protective than padded layers of cloth, and adding studs to leather should make it WEAKER, because that's not how our universe works.

EDIT: That is not to say that I want daggers to be really powerful, if anything they should be better at coups and crits rather than straight up combat. But if you just flip padded and studded leather armors and call longswords just "swords", then you've removed two things from D&D that only exist because Gygax didn't do good enough research, and have greatly influenced modern fiction with their misinformation.


Wicked Woodpecker of the West wrote:
Quote:
And illusion and enchantment are dramatically different in theme, I for one am not seeing the parallel.

Theme - sure.

But there are some illusion spells like phantasmal killer that seems to be more enchantment than real illusion TBH.

Actually that's the different betwen Glamers and Phantasms or something. Some illusions are inside your mind, while others are like holograms. The illusion school does have these distinctions in their spell descriptors.

As to why it's not enchantment, dunno. Enchantment seems a lot more forceful.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Also, people forget that Pathfinder is set in OUR universe,

Nope, Pathfinder is set in the Pathfinder universe.


I wouldn't mind the weapon naming and statistics in relation to each other to be a bit more in line with the real world. I'd actually enjoy it i think. That being said, I don't have a problem with it being "this is what it's called/what it does in fantasyland"

As for daggers. I think they are appropriate. In the current system, the size and weight of the weapon, particularly its business end, determines how much damage it deals. The dagger is among the smallest so it has low stats. That't not necessarily realistic, because when you land a good hit with a dagger it will kill just as easily as a good hit with a greatsword. But the damage dice are an abstraction of how effective the weapon is in combat, where you are generally more likely to come out on top if your weapon has more reach.
That is up to polearms which themselves have a good reason for being the main weapon for all melee combatants in medieval warfare, but have a significant weakness once the opponent has successfully moved past the business end.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Also, people forget that Pathfinder is set in OUR universe, so leather should not be more protective than padded layers of cloth, and adding studs to leather should make it WEAKER, because that's not how our universe works.

Man, you must be REALLY pissed that they included magic.


TheAlicornSage wrote:
graystone wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
Realism is an important part of the game though.
It really isn't though. A 20th level fighter can dive off a 2000' cliff, get up unhindered and go do it again. Cube law is ignored. Magic... Pathfinder and realism parted ways a LONG time ago.
I should point out however, that on rare occasions, people have survived falling at terminal velocity.

Yes, but how many examples are there like mine: walking away with complete and unhindered mobility and doing so multiple time in a row?

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Covent wrote:
Please no. In my opinion it is much more important for a game to have internally consistent rules that are balanced, rather than have anything based on realism. Realism is something that has been used to hold back lots of concepts and unbalance the game for far too long imo.

Depends on how you look at it: As an example, to me, CM/D is not a problem of the mundane/fighter classes being to weak by being restricted to a wrong sense of realism. The real problem is that the caster classes are way too strong and that characters basically become demigods at higher level. Someone really has to scale that level of power back. Only that I'm afraid that Paizo will never do that.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Also, people forget that Pathfinder is set in OUR universe,
Nope, Pathfinder is set in the Pathfinder universe.

What, you don't remember your history classes where the teacher went over how Rasputin, the Mad Monk of considerable magical power and his animated tanks and sentient mustard gas clouds were defeated by a bunch of trans-dimensional adventurers with the aid of Baba Yaga?

We spent like a week on that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
None of these are basic, common or sense to me. They're more of "a history buff is mad because they want a simulation of medieval Europe and what they get is some Gygax guy throwing names at things at random" frankly.
They're basic common sense to anyone that spent 5 minutes looking up things on google and doesn't base their knowledge of weapons and armor on RPGs.

Most people with an internet connection has spent at least five minutes looking up something on Google, and most people probably base their knowledge of weapons and armor on movies and television. I doubt they’d consider any of those facts common knowledge.

“People who have researched historical armor and weapons, and done enough work to overcome preconceptions based on movies, novels, video games, RPGs, and the latest popular fantasy TV series” is probably a pretty narrow group. I’m willing to bet it’s a smaller group than “people who would complain that the system got armor and weapons wrong if they actually did it correctly.”


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
The real problem is that the caster classes are way too strong and that characters basically become demigods at higher level. Someone really has to scale that level of power back. Only that I'm afraid that Paizo will never do that.

Actually, that is exactly what they're doing: nerfing spellcasters and giving more goodies to martials. About time.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wheldrake wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
The real problem is that the caster classes are way too strong and that characters basically become demigods at higher level. Someone really has to scale that level of power back. Only that I'm afraid that Paizo will never do that.
Actually, that is exactly what they're doing: nerfing spellcasters and giving more goodies to martials. About time.

Did they say that? Would be awesome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Covent wrote:
Please no. In my opinion it is much more important for a game to have internally consistent rules that are balanced, rather than have anything based on realism. Realism is something that has been used to hold back lots of concepts and unbalance the game for far too long imo.

Depends on how you look at it: As an example, to me, CM/D is not a problem of the mundane/fighter classes being to weak by being restricted to a wrong sense of realism. The real problem is that the caster classes are way too strong and that characters basically become demigods at higher level. Someone really has to scale that level of power back. Only that I'm afraid that Paizo will never do that.

On mundane classes we will have to cordially agree to disagree.

On casters I agree they need to be lowered in top end and have some abuses reined in.

I think from the limited amount of info that we have been provided though that we are going to see mundanes come up and casters come down.

I just do not want to see any realism cause some concepts to be limited to only realistic things such that they get "cool powers" like jump an extra 10 feet or hold your breath for an extra few rounds, while others are getting the ability to instantly cause enemies to fall unconscious or create protective fields of force from level one.

Selective realism in a game is in my opinion crippling and causes chasms in ability between different concepts, and since this is a game with magic, all concepts should be able to compete regardless of how magical and mundane they are. Magic should not be a free pass to wear the "better than you" hat, and being mundane should not equal wearing the "only useful until you can get better summons" sign.

I would be fine with name changes to make history enthusiasts more pleased. That is a small and to me insignificant change, but all mechanics for classes/feats/spell/weapons/armor/everything, should be based on a balanced system grounded in a mathematical game framework that makes the game fun and flowing. In my opinion none of that should be constrained by any historical truth.

Tl;DR: Historical naming system = fine. Any constraints to realism that affect mechanics = bad, in my opinion.

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Can we have even a bare minimum of respect for realism this time around? All Messageboards