Bounded Accuracy Isn't Bad


Prerelease Discussion

151 to 200 of 376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

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


As an engineer, I read that as: "Only the internals of the machine are the same. The facades are completely different!" For many players, the numbers, the internal mechanics, are the vital parts. The fluff, the facade, the UI, that is important, but entirely secondary to the internal mechanics, the numbers. For others, of course, it is the reverse, and, still others, they are on equal footing.

And that's why engineers usually get so much wrong when they step outside their field.

You mean that an engineer (with a certain expertise in some field of Engineering skill), who might be able to achieve, explain, or understand his field to a depth that your average Joe would have no hope of doing, would not have a similar amount of knowledge of everything else?

But he can make that DC25 Engineering check on a day-to-day basis.

Yet his modifier for "stuff outside his field" is much less than +10?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

So, now you've called me a liar and an idiot in back to back posts.

So, cool. . . Thanks?

Hi.

I'd like to apologise for insulting you yesterday. It was a bad day for me. I'm sick as all hell, and I've got three kids who are all also sick and couldn't go to school. One of whom is only four months old, so on top of being sick I had a lack of sleep. Needless to say, I was inappropriately snappy at you, and I apologise for it. Now that I've actually had a good night's rest for the first time this week, I can see the folly of my own words.

I've been thinking about your experiences with 5e, I believe I can predict some of the house rules your dm set up which would have given you the conclusions you came up with.

Starting is the house rules to ban modifying backgrounds. That's a big one, as it prevents a key part of customization with PCs and forces players to pick a background based off the mechanics rather than the personality of the character. So already we're setting players up for failure. There's a lot of fantastic background features that really open up options in the game. Hell, even Adventurer's League (5e's version of PFS) doesn't count backgrounds as part the limitations on the number of books.

You say the Barb was the top dog in terms of damage. I'm guessing that it was a frenzy Barb and the dm house ruled away the exhaustion mechanics. Without exhaustion, the frenzy Barb becomes one of the top damage dealers in the first half of the game (through level 10 or so). Typically, if you don't use exhaustion, you need to limit the number of uses of frenzy per day.

He either allowed the variant human or gave everyone a free feat, and the Barb picked great weapon master, giving him that +10 to damage each hit. Now, it's usually mitigated by the -5 to hit, and when I played with GWM, I found myself not using it more often than not because if the enemies we fought. This must mean that your DM used enemies with lower AC making GWM more viable, and the Barb used it all the time.

I'm also guessing that your DM didn't follow the recommended number of encounters per day. He probably kept it within the number of pages the barbarian has, so the Barb was always raging every combat. This also makes it so characters which are built for long term play will feal unnaturally weaker (like the fighter and the rogue), compared to those who can dish out spike damage, like the Barb and the paladin. If he only did a small number of encounters per day, did he adjust the rest variants or come up with some other rule to avoid the problems it causes? For example, in my Out of the Abyss game, my players often only saw one or two combat per day during travel, which made our spike damage PCs a lot stronger - so I expanded on the book's recommendation for nightmares, and made them have a cummulative 10% chance to have nightmares which would cancel their long rest benefits. This made it so our paladin wouldn't spam smite every chance he got, because there was always that fear of not getting it back the next day. He'd still use it, he'd just he more conservative.

Speaking of the paladin, did the DM nerf smite or did the player simply not use smite very often? In my OotA campaign, our paladin was our top damage dealer, due to smite (even with his conservative use - sometimes he would just make the call to use it all to get that big bad down). And since you can choose to use smite after you know the results of your attack roll, throwing a smite on a crit just makes it all the more badass. Ya know, maybe that was it, maybe the player thought you had to declare the use of smite before rolling to attack. This would make the paladin a lot weaker.

You also say that the battle cleric and battle bard felt identical. First off, what subclasses do you mean, specifically? For the cleric, I'm guessing a war cleric who can use his bonus action to get an extra attack. But you can only use that a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier. Did the dm house rule that limitation away? I'm also curious how he felt identical to the bard with all his cleric spells, which the bard doesn't have, and with his channel ability, which the bard doesn't have. The war cleric is more likely strength based and has access to heavy armor, while the bard is more likely dex based and does not have access to heavy armor (only medium armor for the Valor bard, unless he took a feat to get heavy).

For the bard, was it a Valor Bard or a College of Swords bard? If the latter, was it the UA version, or the version that was released just last fall? If it's the UA version, know that all UA material is playtest material and "use at your own risk." A lot of UA is way too strong. If it's the Valor Bard, I'm curious how he felt identical, with his bard spells (which the cleric doesn't get), his inspiration ability, and his boosts to skills (often considered one of the most powerful non combat abilities in the game for the level it's received).

Speaking of UA, did the DM allow the UA feats? A lot of those were way out of balance.

Did the DM ignore the other two pillars of the game? Was it primarily a combat campaign, or did he actually give equal consideration to the exploration and social pillars? This would make combat focused characters seem less powerful, as they wouldn't be able to contribute as well to the other pillars if they didn't pick any abilities to help with it. Especially if they all picked the Sailor background and it wasn't a sea campaign.

All of these can drastically alter how the game is played and the feel of the classes involved, and if your DM did even some of them, I can see how you'd walk away with the impression that you have.

5e is not 3.X, and coming to it with a 3.X mindset just sets everyone up for failure. You really do have to look at it with a fresh perspective. Which brings up another question: how many things in the game did your group assume worked the same as 3.X, and just went with that instead of how it was written in 5e?

One of the things 5e veterans recommend for people just starting out is to try to play it as written with as few house rules and variant options as possible. Get used to the new system. Once you have a handle on how it is supposed to be played, then start modifying it to suit your table. If you start modifying it right away, you can unintentionally screw up the balance of the classes and throw the system out of whack. We see it time and time again on the 5e forums; people come in to complain about some aspect of the system, only to find out their their new-to-5e group did some house rules that screwed up the balance.

Granted - there are problems with the system. There are legitimate complaints. The lack of guidelines for skills is one of the top complaints, and that complaint was addressed in the most recent splat book that came out last fall.

But the complaints and observations you have don't seem to be one of the system as it was written, but rather one of misunderstanding the rules combined with (what I'm guessing is) the addition of house rules that boosted and nerfed certain classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

It was out first time using the game, and it was using essentially only the core book and the coasts book, since those are what we had.

For backgrounds- if there's an option to mix and match I didn't catch it, I just looked at the options and immediately saw that gaining Perception is much more powerful than any other skill you could possibly get.

As for the Barbarian- I don't know the mechanics of how he did it, but I know he was able to rage in most combats. This may have been a function of not following some magic formula of having 5 encounters every day, but in a home game that allows true sandbox play you are never going to hit whatever that "it's balanced for this" number of encounters consistently.

We had one dungeon where we had a lot of separate encounters, and usually other than that it was one to three per day (or zero).

Yes, there was a lot of social stuff as well, but no real exploration to speak of. Sure, the Bard had the best "dice" roll in the social stuff, but I literally only had to roll it one time because the rest was handled by roleplaying. (Also, all the lines in the enchantment spells that say "as soon as this wears off, the guy knows you charmed person you and (implied) comes to hunt you down and kill you for messing with his mind" stuff made all those bard spells pretty useless)

It was the Valor bard from the core book- so I could use my bonus action for a second attack, which is identical to the battle clerics power (though they might come at different levels).

The Paladin didn't get to smite that often, I don't know if this is just because he never knew which times he should use, or the function of mostly being in the first five levels where you don't get many uses, or if he just used it for spells more often than smites.

There were no house rules- we were playing it straight from the book. There might have been rules we didn't know to perfection, but the intent was playing straight from the core and using the one extra book, so anything that's been published since also didn't exist.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:

It's more nuanced than that, as there will be penalties to things such as untrained tasks, and bonuses for a character or class that is specialized in said tasks, such as a fighter having a final score of roughly +23 to hit compared to a cleric's +20 with a particular weapon as one of the examples given by a designer.

And to the skills scaling, it actually solves one of the biggest core issues that happened in pathfinder, where a challenge for any particular character with a focus on a skill becomes insurmountable for anyone who hadn't spent the same amount of focus and attention to become good at a task, such as a well trained rogue and his bumbling party sneaking into the castle garden.

I like the variety. It seems those who complain about this at times don't look at the game as it should be, which is that this is a TEAM game.

So what if the Rogue has a +30 to disable Traps and My Sorcerer does not? We are on the same team. As long as SOMEONE in our party has that bonus, it is beneficial to ALL our party. I don't have to waste a skill on that or building it up because someone else in our party already does that!

This builds up team work as opposed to everything being about the ONE person.

This is also why some complain about Arcane or divine magic, because they CAN have big boosts to finding those traps and being silent and stealthy WITHOUT the big investments Rogues or others have to make.

I like the differences though, it means that as long as everyone can find their schtick in the party, each individual is part of the team rather than being the lone superhero that does it all.

It's not disable device that's an issue, and that was never a concern in my games. Instead, I'm talking about things that all party members participate in, and therefore might be forced to specialize in when it doesn't fit the character to be more than average at the task, such as stealth, athletics and the social skills. My fighter had 4 skill points a level in pathfinder, and I couldn't spare the points to not ever not be a massive clanging monster bait if we had to sneak through some sort of obstacle as a party. With this form of bounded I'm not going to automatically alert the entire raid encampment or den of monsters, because my fighter is a dumb brute who couldn't spare the points for stealh with a whopping -4 to stealth at level 16.

And on the what a cleric can do with spells compared to a rogue. ALL characters, regardless of class should be able to, by focusing skill increases on Stealth and skill feats be capable of astounding things, equal to the Rogue in every way. The Rogue can have class feats unique to them that give them some unique stealth based interactions with the rest of their class kit, but no character or class should be locked out of being a master thief of their own design.


Nathanael Love wrote:

It was out first time using the game, and it was using essentially only the core book and the coasts book, since those are what we had.

For backgrounds- if there's an option to mix and match I didn't catch it, I just looked at the options and immediately saw that gaining Perception is much more powerful than any other skill you could possibly get.

As for the Barbarian- I don't know the mechanics of how he did it, but I know he was able to rage in most combats. This may have been a function of not following some magic formula of having 5 encounters every day, but in a home game that allows true sandbox play you are never going to hit whatever that "it's balanced for this" number of encounters consistently.

We had one dungeon where we had a lot of separate encounters, and usually other than that it was one to three per day (or zero).

Yes, there was a lot of social stuff as well, but no real exploration to speak of. Sure, the Bard had the best "dice" roll in the social stuff, but I literally only had to roll it one time because the rest was handled by roleplaying. (Also, all the lines in the enchantment spells that say "as soon as this wears off, the guy knows you charmed person you and (implied) comes to hunt you down and kill you for messing with his mind" stuff made all those bard spells pretty useless)

It was the Valor bard from the core book- so I could use my bonus action for a second attack, which is identical to the battle clerics power (though they might come at different levels).

The Paladin didn't get to smite that often, I don't know if this is just because he never knew which times he should use, or the function of mostly being in the first five levels where you don't get many uses, or if he just used it for spells more often than smites.

There were no house rules- we were playing it straight from the book. There might have been rules we didn't know to perfection, but the intent was playing straight from the core and using the one extra book, so anything that's been published...

I will tell you right now, you did not play RAW, it sounds like you mixed in either house rules or just assumed something worked like 3.x

1: Barbarians have 4 rage max at 7th level with a +2 to damage. Also you must attack every single round. If he is frenzy( extra attack per rage), he should be exhausted after the rage and he can't have damage resistance ( that is a whole other path)

2: The bard valor ability does not work like the war cleric ability. The War cleric is limited to number of times equal to wisdom Mod. The Valor ability is the Extra attack ability the melee classes get, but it gets it later. So the Cleric will never match the Bards number of attacks The Valor bard is also limited to Medium armor and Bard weapons, where the war Cleric can use Heavy armor and all weapons.

3: Divine smite does not work that way in 5e. It works off spell slots, 2d8 + an extra 1d8 per spell slot level burned over the first. It is not limited to evil ( though undead and fiends take n extra 1d8 damage) and its used on a hit. There is zero wasting it. If you hit, you can choose to burn slots to bring the pain

You guys likely got far more things wrong here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

1. One level of exhaustion is nigh on meaningless, since it's only disadvantage on ability checks, even the second level is only a reduction in speed, so it's not until the third exhaustion that the Barbarian is Mean meaningfully affected, so until you get the the 4th encounter in a day he still is getting to rage every round.

Yes, that meant two attacks, always with advantage, and he was using a larger weapon than everyone else and had a 20 str from the jump as a half-orc, and his crits were extra insane.

2. These are just nitpicks-- the two classes played virtually identically. I was one or two points higher AC with the cleric, and for the two sessions I was over 6th level I got an extra attack with the Bard a few times (assuming I got 6 rounds in melee since the cleric got to attack twice 5 times a day). The cleric also got to do a few things granting a bonus to hit with channel divinity and the Bard got to do a few bonuses to hit or damage or skills with his bardic inspiration- but the difference between those things is marginal.

3. See my edit- I didn't play the Paladin, so I don't know exactly what he was doing, but it was all very similar- I expect there was usually a bless involved in most combats, so that eats up uses since they share with spell slots.


Nathanael Love wrote:

1. One level of exhaustion is nigh on meaningless, since it's only disadvantage on ability checks, even the second level is only a reduction in speed, so it's not until the third exhaustion that the Barbarian is Mean meaningfully affected, so until you get the the 4th encounter in a day he still is getting to rage every round.

Yes, that meant two attacks, always with advantage, and he was using a larger weapon than everyone else and had a 20 str from the jump as a half-orc, and his crits were extra insane.

2. These are just nitpicks-- the two classes played virtually identically. I was one or two points higher AC with the cleric, and for the two sessions I was over 6th level I got an extra attack with the Bard a few times (assuming I got 6 rounds in melee since the cleric got to attack twice 5 times a day). The cleric also got to do a few things granting a bonus to hit with channel divinity and the Bard got to do a few bonuses to hit or damage or skills with his bardic inspiration- but the difference between those things is marginal.

3. See my edit- I didn't play the Paladin, so I don't know exactly what he was doing, but it was all very similar- I expect there was usually a bless involved in most combats, so that eats up uses since they share with spell slots.

1: Umm Rage does not give you an advantage on attack rolls. Also exhaustion only goes way at long rest. So 1st rage is as you say, 2nd rage is half speed, 3rd rage is disadvantage on attack rolls and saves that 4th rage your at half HPs

2: No, the classes do not play alike, you guys seem to have not known the rules and jumped in at 7th level and bugled things. You did not know how the classes worked.

3: At 7th level the paladin hd 7 spell slots, bless is not gonna impact his ability to throw down the pain. It seems based off your comment about it only working on evil, not wanting to waste it and this, that the GM and paladin himself did not know how the class worked


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure that by "wasting it", they mean "using it where it isn't required" rather than "whiffing it on an invalid target".


Bloodrealm wrote:
I'm pretty sure that by "wasting it", they mean "using it where it isn't required" rather than "whiffing it on an invalid target".

His unedited post, he stated they did not want to wast it by using it on something that might not be evil. He seemed to think it needed to be used on evil and if it did not hit, it was wasted. He has since changed his post about the class entirely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
1: Umm Rage does not give you an advantage on attack rolls. Also exhaustion only goes way at long rest. So 1st rage is as you say, 2nd rage is half speed, 3rd rage is disadvantage on attack rolls and saves that 4th rage your at half HPs

We're getting our nomenclature messed up. I assumed he was playing a berserker barbarian, who gets Frenzy. But that may not be the case. Frenzy is what gives an extra attack with a bonus action, but also grants one level of exhaustion. But if they were above level 5, the Barb would have extra attack, and get two attacks every round regardless (frenzy would grant a third). The PC may be a totem Barb and get all the resistance without that bonus action attack.

Also, the advantage is from reckless attack - but at the cost of having all attacks against you having advantage. I wonder if the dm remembered that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerrilyn wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:

OH BOY. +3. Yeah, sure, it means more than in PF1 because of the bounded accuracy they're enforcing and from the dumb new crit/fumble system, but that is not something to be proud of.

Untrained is Level + Ability Mod - 1. The other levels are each only 1 better, up to Level + Ability Mod + 3 for Legendary.

I actually like the sound of the system, although a 3 difference sounds a bit small. 3 is probably good between a fighter and a "rouge" (rogue), but it sounds a bit small for the difference between a fightie (or similar) and say, a wizard.

Time for you to finally start bashing skulls!


bookrat wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
1: Umm Rage does not give you an advantage on attack rolls. Also exhaustion only goes way at long rest. So 1st rage is as you say, 2nd rage is half speed, 3rd rage is disadvantage on attack rolls and saves that 4th rage your at half HPs

We're getting our nomenclature messed up. I assumed he was playing a berserker barbarian, who gets Frenzy. But that may not be the case. Frenzy is what gives an extra attack with a bonus action, but also grants one level of exhaustion. But if they were above level 5, the Barb would have extra attack, and get two attacks every round regardless (frenzy would grant a third). The PC may be a totem Barb and get all the resistance without that bonus action attack.

Also, the advantage is from reckless attack - but at the cost of having all attacks against you having advantage. I wonder if the dm remembered that.

This is real possibility. However, he has stated the exhaustion would not be an issue. He does not understand the limits and differences in a Valor bard and war cleric,and he totally misunderstood how smite worked in every way.

He said himself they jumped in at 7th level. I am not saying he is lying, I am simply pointing out he has shown clearly his group did not understand the rules at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
I'm pretty sure that by "wasting it", they mean "using it where it isn't required" rather than "whiffing it on an invalid target".
His unedited post, he stated they did not want to wast it by using it on something that might not be evil. He seemed to think it needed to be used on evil and if it did not hit, it was wasted. He has since changed his post about the class entirely.

Yes, I probably have some details about characters other players at the table played from games we played a year ago.

This is quibbling- we were playing with the rules as close to as written that we could apply with the books in front of us (which I don't have now).

My general impression of the game is what I remember, and what matters- and it's not falsifiable, you can't just find one place I'm off on the specific rule in my memory now and say "haha- see, you were wrong and you clearly would have LOVED every single thing about Fifth ed if you HAD gotten this one small ruling right, and that therefore means you MUST hate current pathfinder and want pathfinder second ed, AND want it to be very similar to fifth ed, and LOVE bounded accuracy!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
1: Umm Rage does not give you an advantage on attack rolls. Also exhaustion only goes way at long rest. So 1st rage is as you say, 2nd rage is half speed, 3rd rage is disadvantage on attack rolls and saves that 4th rage your at half HPs

We're getting our nomenclature messed up. I assumed he was playing a berserker barbarian, who gets Frenzy. But that may not be the case. Frenzy is what gives an extra attack with a bonus action, but also grants one level of exhaustion. But if they were above level 5, the Barb would have extra attack, and get two attacks every round regardless (frenzy would grant a third). The PC may be a totem Barb and get all the resistance without that bonus action attack.

Also, the advantage is from reckless attack - but at the cost of having all attacks against you having advantage. I wonder if the dm remembered that.

This is real possibility. However, he has stated the exhaustion would not be an issue. He does not understand the limits and differences in a Valor bard and war cleric,and he totally misunderstood how smite worked in every way.

He said himself they jumped in at 7th level. I am not saying he is lying, I am simply pointing out he has shown clearly his group did not understand the rules at all.

No, we played one game from 1-5 and a second game from 1-7.

I played War cleric in the one that ended at 5, and bard in the one that ended at 7.

Sorry if after a year my memory of the specifics of the system isn't perfect, but my impression of the system is what it is- and again, I didn't play the Paladin or the Barbarian.


Nathanael Love wrote:


Yes, I probably have some details about characters other players at the table played from games we played a year ago.

This is quibbling- we were playing with the rules as close to as written that we could apply with the books in front of us (which I don't have now).

My general impression of the game is what I remember, and what matters- and it's not falsifiable, you can't just find one place I'm off on the specific rule in my memory now and say "haha- see, you were wrong and you clearly would have LOVED every single thing about Fifth ed if you HAD gotten this one small ruling right, and that therefore means you MUST hate current pathfinder and want pathfinder second ed, AND want it to be very similar to fifth ed, and LOVE bounded accuracy!"

I have been plying 5e weekly for 2 years and we still now and then find we re using an old 3e rule and not RAW. Because often they share names but mechanically are nothing a like.

The quibble over you trying to claim 5e is x, but then not having used the rules correctly. I understand you guys were new and jumped in t too high level and did not use the rules s written. What you don't seem to get man is by doing so, you don't have fair look. The classes played "the same" because you did not use the rules


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
I'm pretty sure that by "wasting it", they mean "using it where it isn't required" rather than "whiffing it on an invalid target".
His unedited post, he stated they did not want to wast it by using it on something that might not be evil. He seemed to think it needed to be used on evil and if it did not hit, it was wasted. He has since changed his post about the class entirely.

Yes, I probably have some details about characters other players at the table played from games we played a year ago.

This is quibbling- we were playing with the rules as close to as written that we could apply with the books in front of us (which I don't have now).

My general impression of the game is what I remember, and what matters- and it's not falsifiable, you can't just find one place I'm off on the specific rule in my memory now and say "haha- see, you were wrong and you clearly would have LOVED every single thing about Fifth ed if you HAD gotten this one small ruling right, and that therefore means you MUST hate current pathfinder and want pathfinder second ed, AND want it to be very similar to fifth ed, and LOVE bounded accuracy!"

With this one weird trick!


Nathanael Love wrote:


No, we played one game from 1-5 and a second game from 1-7.

I played War cleric in the one that ended at 5, and bard in the one that ended at 7.

Sorry if after a year my memory of the specifics of the system isn't perfect, but my impression of the system is what it is- and again, I didn't play the Paladin or the Barbarian.

I stand corrected on the levels. But I am still getting the impression you did not use the rules as written.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
My general impression of the game is what I remember, and what matters- and it's not falsifiable

I hope you bring your experience to the playtest with a critical eye, but also give PF2's system a fair chance. Maybe it will make a better impression.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


No, we played one game from 1-5 and a second game from 1-7.

I played War cleric in the one that ended at 5, and bard in the one that ended at 7.

Sorry if after a year my memory of the specifics of the system isn't perfect, but my impression of the system is what it is- and again, I didn't play the Paladin or the Barbarian.

I stand corrected on the levels. But I am still getting the impression you did not use the rules as written.

Well, we played with the books in front of us, and I referenced every ability basically every time I used it.

More likely, you are getting hung up on the parts that my brain has forgotten in the intervening time and assuming that means not that I forgot the finicky specifics, but that we simply ignored those finicky specifics in the moment.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


No, we played one game from 1-5 and a second game from 1-7.

I played War cleric in the one that ended at 5, and bard in the one that ended at 7.

Sorry if after a year my memory of the specifics of the system isn't perfect, but my impression of the system is what it is- and again, I didn't play the Paladin or the Barbarian.

I stand corrected on the levels. But I am still getting the impression you did not use the rules as written.

Well, we played with the books in front of us, and I referenced every ability basically every time I used it.

More likely, you are getting hung up on the parts that my brain has forgotten in the intervening time and assuming that means not that I forgot the finicky specifics, but that we simply ignored those finicky specifics in the moment.

I am going off your words and cliams. Ypu have a set agenda you want to push, you brought the exsample up, then keep changing it eveytime an issue is called out.

If this is the memory you have of how the game wortks, its not useful as its highly incorrect and likeily been shaded over the years. Not a slam, that is simply how memory works.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


No, we played one game from 1-5 and a second game from 1-7.

I played War cleric in the one that ended at 5, and bard in the one that ended at 7.

Sorry if after a year my memory of the specifics of the system isn't perfect, but my impression of the system is what it is- and again, I didn't play the Paladin or the Barbarian.

I stand corrected on the levels. But I am still getting the impression you did not use the rules as written.

Well, we played with the books in front of us, and I referenced every ability basically every time I used it.

More likely, you are getting hung up on the parts that my brain has forgotten in the intervening time and assuming that means not that I forgot the finicky specifics, but that we simply ignored those finicky specifics in the moment.

I am going off your words and cliams. Ypu have a set agenda you want to push, you brought the exsample up, then keep changing it eveytime an issue is called out.

If this is the memory you have of how the game wortks, its not useful as its highly incorrect and likeily been shaded over the years. Not a slam, that is simply how memory works.

Only assuming that you place zero value on how it feels to play a game.

When we played it FELT like the Barbarian was an unstoppable killing machine- however you slice the specifics, it FELT like the Barbarian was strictly better than the other melee fighters.

We all know that this matters just as much as the finicky specifics- perhaps if you went back round by round analyzed it the Barbarian was only doing a small amount more DPR; perhaps there was an element of luck and above or below average rolling involved, but to the player's sitting at the table it FELT like that character was dominating. Perhaps he was being risky, and leaving himself open to massive return attacks based on the reckless attack ability- but he managed to stay "not dead" so that's all that matters to how it feels, right?

The Cleric and the Valor Bard FELT virtually identical- for most of both campaigns they cast one or two buff spells, then swing Long Swords, with virtually identical to hit values, and used an occasional buff ability- none of which felt like they contributed to the overall success of the party in a meaningful way.

It seemed like the person playing the Paladin in the game I was the Cleric and the Cleric in the game I was the Bard and I spent most of both campaigns using virtually identical actions. Maybe there were more optimized actions one, the other, or both of us were missing- but it felt like in the majority of rounds both Clerics, the Bard, and the Paladin essentially just swung a long sword, and they all had identical to hit chances and did identical damage when doing so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OP is correct, BA isn't bad, it is much much worse than that. It is nothing but an excuse to be lazy in your design. This also goes for lazy GMing. You don't need them if you have rudimentary understanding of math and have something that can be classified as actual work ethic. It's just a crutch.

BA is at the level of bad game mechanics, that not simply I refuse to play any game that has it. I make sure to tell other people to not play that game when my input is asked. There aren't that many single mechanics that have managed that status from me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

Only assuming that you place zero value on how it feels to play a game.

When we played it FELT like the Barbarian was an unstoppable killing machine- however you slice the specifics, it FELT like the Barbarian was strictly better than the other melee fighters.

We all know that this matters just as much as the finicky specifics- perhaps if you went back round by round analyzed it the Barbarian was only doing a small amount more DPR; perhaps there was an element of luck and above or below average rolling involved, but to the player's sitting at the table it FELT like that character was dominating. Perhaps he was being risky, and leaving himself open to massive return attacks based on the reckless attack ability- but he managed to stay "not dead" so that's all that matters to how it feels, right?

The Cleric and the Valor Bard FELT virtually identical- for most of both campaigns they cast one or two buff spells, then swing Long Swords, with virtually identical to hit values, and used an occasional buff ability- none of which felt like they contributed to the overall success of the party in a meaningful way.

It seemed like the person playing the Paladin in the game I was the Cleric and the Cleric in the game I was the Bard and I spent most of both campaigns using virtually identical actions. Maybe there were more optimized actions one, the other, or both of us were missing- but it felt like in the majority of rounds both Clerics, the Bard, and the Paladin essentially just swung a long sword, and they all had identical to hit chances and did identical damage when doing so.

Well, I can see how they're identical in that situation.

You don't use any of their unique features. You don't pay attention to any part of the game except combat. You don't use spells, skills checks, smites, channels, bardic inspiration, background features, or anything else that would make them unique. I'm curious if they even had a personality or motivations as an individual, or if they were all just character sheets going through a module like in a video game.

All you really did was compare their "to hit" and their damage (all use the same exact weapon, so they had the same damage), and nothing else.

So these PCs are really all the same because nothing else was used except that which was the same between them.

And then comes along the barbarian, who actually used his unique features and by comparison it made him a bad ass.

It all makes sense now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, it looks like they have successfully neutered skills with bounded accuracy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


No, we played one game from 1-5 and a second game from 1-7.

I played War cleric in the one that ended at 5, and bard in the one that ended at 7.

Sorry if after a year my memory of the specifics of the system isn't perfect, but my impression of the system is what it is- and again, I didn't play the Paladin or the Barbarian.

I stand corrected on the levels. But I am still getting the impression you did not use the rules as written.

Well, we played with the books in front of us, and I referenced every ability basically every time I used it.

More likely, you are getting hung up on the parts that my brain has forgotten in the intervening time and assuming that means not that I forgot the finicky specifics, but that we simply ignored those finicky specifics in the moment.

I am going off your words and cliams. Ypu have a set agenda you want to push, you brought the exsample up, then keep changing it eveytime an issue is called out.

If this is the memory you have of how the game wortks, its not useful as its highly incorrect and likeily been shaded over the years. Not a slam, that is simply how memory works.

Only assuming that you place zero value on how it feels to play a game.

When we played it FELT like the Barbarian was an unstoppable killing machine- however you slice the specifics, it FELT like the Barbarian was strictly better than the other melee fighters.

We all know that this matters just as much as the finicky specifics- perhaps if you went back round by round analyzed it the Barbarian was only doing a small amount more DPR; perhaps there was an element of luck and above or below average rolling involved, but to the player's sitting at the table it FELT like that character was dominating. Perhaps he was being risky, and leaving himself open to massive return attacks based on the reckless attack ability- but he managed...

And because you simply can't make a single post without insulting me, now the characters had to have no personalities and I clearly am an inferior player because when discussing the way combat felt I didn't digress into character motivations or plot points.

The bardic inspiration didn't feel like bardic inspiration, and it didn't particularly matter- sure, I activated it until I'd spent my short rest's worth of uses, but it's then dependent on the other player's to use it and it amounted to another hoarded resource as often or not.

Yes, both the Bard, the clerics, and the paladins spent some actions healing, so that was using more of their unique abilities (which all three classes share), and as I already mentioned someone cast a Bless in most combats.

I get it bro, I really do- you like fifth edition.

I don't, and insulting me repeatedly sure hasn't been improving my disposition towards it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:
Well, it looks like they have successfully neutered skills with bounded accuracy.

I have to say that the listed example of jumping 20ft in the air to attack flying enemies for Legendary proficiency or stealing the armor off a guard for someone who's only a Master is not what I would call neutered.

Yes, the numbers aren't super vastly different, but it seems the goal isn't for the numbers be the main thing that sets characters with proficiency apart from those without but rather what you can do with those numbers.


Save that now at mundane tasks a legend is barely distinguishable from a barely trained individual.


How many times are you going to make the same post?


Repeatedly, as it’s true.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squeakmaan wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Well, it looks like they have successfully neutered skills with bounded accuracy.
I have to say that the listed example of jumping 20ft in the air to attack flying enemies for Legendary proficiency

Really? Mark talks about amazing martials and we get 20 feet vertical leaps at Legendary?

How about Jump Good as a minimum.

EDIT: Mark explained in the proficiencies thread that the 20 foot vertical leap is low Mastery. That's not bad, so long as it continues to scale upwards.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:
Repeatedly, as it’s true.

You might want to re-read the blog post, because I don't think you understood.

At level 7, the difference in bonuses between a character focused on a skill and one that isn't trained is 11. That's enough for the master's average roll to always beat the novices best chances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Save that now at mundane tasks a legend is barely distinguishable from a barely trained individual.

Who cares? If the DC is 10, why does it matter if the legendary character beats it by a lot more or a moderate amount more?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It may matter, in much the same way it matters for hitting with a sword and Crit hits. We just don't know yet.


Ian Bell wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Save that now at mundane tasks a legend is barely distinguishable from a barely trained individual.
Who cares? If the DC is 10, why does it matter if the legendary character beats it by a lot more or a moderate amount more?

For starters, there's a strong possibility based on what we've seen that beating DC by >10 will provide some benefit due to extraordinary success.

The various skill levels may also be applicable to what you can do with a skill either via Skill Feats or through some other mechanic...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ian Bell wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Save that now at mundane tasks a legend is barely distinguishable from a barely trained individual.
Who cares? If the DC is 10, why does it matter if the legendary character beats it by a lot more or a moderate amount more?

Granularity might matter here. The difference between DC 10 and DC 11 allows less granularity than the difference between DC 50 and DC 55.


The lack of a bounded accuracy system is for me the largest detractor from creating suspension of disbelief in combat (or the threat of combat). The current system is too..computer game like. It also makes my job as a DM a lot harder.

I think there are better tools, and more elegant, to get the "mow down low levels" than this. A functional DR system for example, but that would be adding another layer of stats.

Disclaimer, I do like the grittier types of games I guess. I feel like scaling your PCs up on demand is easier than scaling the whole world up and down.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Well, it looks like they have successfully neutered skills with bounded accuracy.
I have to say that the listed example of jumping 20ft in the air to attack flying enemies for Legendary proficiency

Really? Mark talks about amazing martials and we get 20 feet vertical leaps at Legendary?

How about Jump Good as a minimum.

EDIT: Mark explained in the proficiencies thread that the 20 foot vertical leap is low Mastery. That's not bad, so long as it continues to scale upwards.

I was mistaken in thinking it was Legendary, but seeing as world record is about 8ft, I figured more than double what is humanly possible was already pretty legendary. It'll be interesting to see where that goes. Also interesting that there's no reason at all it would be limited to martials, if a cleric wanted to spend resources to be good at jumping seem like they'll be able to.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Repeatedly, as it’s true.

Yeah, the thing is, it's not. They made that quite clear, and especially in the other thread. It's not bounded accuracy. It's not a mere few points' difference. If you completely ignore all context and just look at the proficiency levels themselves, maybe, but then you don't have an actual argument because you're deliberately ignoring all presented evidence.


Negative one to plus three is how many points?


Arssanguinus wrote:
Negative one to plus three is how many points?

It's -2 to +3, so it's up to a 5-point difference. But you can see in the other thread and even in the blog post where they've very clearly stated that it's not just the numbers. Proficiency is tied into the kinds of crazy skill-related feats you can pull off, and Skill Feats (and presumably Class and Ancestry Feats) also tie into it. It's not just about quantity, in other words, it's about quality. Some of the descriptions of what higher-level skill abilities let you do show us there's a vast gulf in ability between levels, and also that you can accomplish some pretty awesome stuff.

Check out what Mark's saying over there if you can. It all looks very encouraging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I saw that. But there still isn’t that much difference between them doing basic skilled things. Why?


Squeakmaan wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Well, it looks like they have successfully neutered skills with bounded accuracy.
I have to say that the listed example of jumping 20ft in the air to attack flying enemies for Legendary proficiency

Really? Mark talks about amazing martials and we get 20 feet vertical leaps at Legendary?

How about Jump Good as a minimum.

EDIT: Mark explained in the proficiencies thread that the 20 foot vertical leap is low Mastery. That's not bad, so long as it continues to scale upwards.

I was mistaken in thinking it was Legendary, but seeing as world record is about 8ft, I figured more than double what is humanly possible was already pretty legendary. It'll be interesting to see where that goes. Also interesting that there's no reason at all it would be limited to martials, if a cleric wanted to spend resources to be good at jumping seem like they'll be able to.

As a full caster I expect Clerics to have far fewer skill resources but yes, if they choose to make that investment they gain that capability

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

skills should be better grouped and have some structure changes from PF1. 4th edition had the best grouping of skills, just a terrible way to use them.

I also want to see what is being done with Perform and Crafting skills, and if Professions are being used in background skills of some sort.


Arssanguinus wrote:
I saw that. But there still isn’t that much difference between them doing basic skilled things. Why?

A +5 difference is pretty big, though. It means that the one character may fumble where the other does not, or the better will critically succeed where the other is scraping by. And that's not to mention the more advanced applications of the skill, which the higher proficiency allows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But it still means there is a pretty significant chance of the less skilled person winning the roll off.


Arssanguinus wrote:
But it still means there is a pretty significant chance of the less skilled person winning the roll off.

Why is this acceptable in combat, but unacceptable with skill checks?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So you think that(presuming you are unskilled at basketball) there is actually a non zero chance that you won’t be embarrassed and humiliated?


Arssanguinus wrote:
So you think that(presuming you are unskilled at basketball) there is actually a non zero chance that you won’t be embarrassed and humiliated?

What I think is, we accept a certain amount of uncertainty into the outcome of die rolls. That's literally why die rolls are in the game. We don't say, "well, the big bad guy is 5 levels above the party, we'll just say he wins because he's better at fighting than they are." What is it about the skill system that makes it any different from how we resolve anything else in the game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But it shouldn’t be such a small difference that you almost might as well just be rolling opposed d20s, despite what is supposed to be a very significant difference in skill.

151 to 200 of 376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Bounded Accuracy Isn't Bad All Messageboards