Standard responses:
1. No it doesn't. All that stuff is in lots of RPGs like 13th Age*. It's just good RPG design.
2. Just because it's in 4th ed doesn't mean it's bad!
3. Good! I'm a huge fan of 4th ed! It's the best thing since the d20 was invented! I hate 3.5 and PF1e is on outdated tech that needs to be thrown into the dumpsters!**
*Which is a direct descendant of 4th ed, FYI.
**This argument was also pushed in 2008, FYI. It didn't stop Pathfinder from becoming one of the most successful RPGs of all time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Polymorphing and over buffing the barbarian into a cave troll and him killing a dragon in one pounce attack
2. Summoning a flaming monster to burn through solid rock wall at level 5
3. Casting a True Strike'd maximized Disintigrate on a vampire monk recurring villian for instant disintegration.
4. A cleric who thought he was a barbarian, after he critted a wolf with his x4 gnome hooked hammer we could never convince him otherwise.
I could never do that in 4e, nor I can imagine doing them in the current Playtest.
So the majority of these "memorable moments" are when your party ended combats in single rounds which is actually in my opinion the biggest problem with PF1e. The whole system is built around making characters that can end combat as soon as possible. I'm sorry but you cheesing the vampire monk recurring villain for instant disintigration is not my definition of a fun or memorable villain. Sure it's funny in the moment but now that villain is just thought of as lame instead of powerful. Not to mention how did the rest of your party feel about not even getting to contribute to the boss fight?
As for the summon thing I'm not sure if that even works by RAW. doesn't hardness subtract energy damage too?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread would have been more productive if you had lead with...
1. Polymorphing and over buffing the barbarian into a cave troll and him killing a dragon in one pounce attack
2. Summoning a flaming monster to burn through solid rock wall at level 5
3. Casting a True Strike'd maximized Disintigrate on a vampire monk recurring villian for instant disintegration.
4. A cleric who thought he was a barbarian, after he critted a wolf with his x4 gnome hooked hammer we could never convince him otherwise.
Focus on what you want to do in the playtest and what you feel you cannot do. Not on comparisons with other systems.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the summon thing I'm not sure if that even works by RAW. doesn't hardness subtract energy damage too?
Correct. It was called out that the GM can determine certain elements bypass hardness on certain objects if it made sense to them though, but fire vs rock (at level 5)? Ehh...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Reduction of choice
With the latest update, you can multiclass into any other class (I'd say some of these multiclasses need some reworks, like Ranger and Barbarian) and I'd say the playtest offers overall many more choices than 4ed or PF1 Core.
2. Class role homogenization
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. First you complain that classes get locked into niches and then you call it "homogenization". Those two statements seem to be diametrically opposed in my opinion. Also since when are AoOs essential or necessary for tanking? I'd say using the Paladin as an example would have supported your claim much better.
3. Over-reliance on magical gear
I don't think I have ever played a system more reliant on magic items than PF1, where you NEED your +X to saving throws to keep pace with DCs, +Y to weapons to get through reductions and +Z to attributes to boost your main stats, so calling that out in 4e feels kinda ironic.
4. Reduction of availability, scope and power of status effects
5. Reduction of power for utility spells
I'll address those together, but before you again make contradicting claims when you say "reduction of availability" and then complain about martials now being able to inflict these effects.
I'm truly baffled by those two points though, because they are being brought up all the time, so this is more of a question to the people who feel this way: Up until the Playtest dropped people were complaining that the martial/caster disparity was too wide, especially during higher levels. The Playtest obviously tries to address that disparity, but apperantly not to satisfying degree for some people. So how would you guys like a revamped casting system to look like?
6. No backward compatibility
I think the Playtest lets you play quite many character concepts and designs from the previous edition and even a couple that I wouldn't have fought of previously, but I guess some people on the boards have a different perception on that.
7. Sluggish combat
We are in playtesting and while I agree with you on this point, there is still enough time for Paizo to work on the math, so I'm fairly optimistic that some of the math gets some fine-tuning until the release.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it fascinating that all those people are turning up independent of each other to say the same thing over the last months. Almost as if there is something to the argument...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?
Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area
Maybe if it wasn't a single attack or 3.5/PF1 wasn't a game where you can still fight at full efficiency having 1 hp of out 200 left or there's no class ability/weapon enchantment that stops enemies from moving maybe.
But as it is, outside several awkward feats and the grab ability (which PCs can't really get short of some shenanigans), AoO stops nobody.
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it fascinating that all those people are turning up independent of each other to say the same thing over the last months. Almost as if there is something to the argument...
Multiple people making the same inaccurate claims doesn't magically make those claims accurate. It just highlights the fact that a lot of people are bad at interpreting how rules actually work in practice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The psychological impact of potential AoO is a detriment to 3rd Ed/PF1 play, I find.AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area
I have only ever found it beneficial and interesting. I hate the idea of a game without AoOs.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the majority of these "memorable moments" are when your party ended combats in single rounds which is actually in my opinion the biggest problem with PF1e. The whole system is built around making characters that can end combat as soon as possible. I'm sorry but you cheesing the vampire monk recurring villain for instant disintigration is not my definition of a fun or memorable villain. Sure it's funny in the moment but now that villain is just thought of as lame instead of powerful. Not to mention how did the rest of your party feel about not even getting to contribute to the boss fight?
There's another issue with this from the other side of the GM screen. When players start doing stuff like that reliably, enemies end up doing it too.
They basically have to, at least in my experience, both to challenge the PCs and because having enemies not learn the same tricks makes them seem like 2d "boss monster" cutouts rather than characters.
Some people might enjoy combats being two sides throwing one round instant defeat haymakers at each other until one lands, but it's certainly not a playstyle for everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right on, how have they been beneficial and interesting, in your experience?I have only ever found it beneficial and interesting.The psychological impact of potential AoO is a detriment to 3rd Ed/PF1 play, I find.AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area
Entails interesting tactical choice related to positioning
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the narrow level bands for feat choices and lack of general feats are the key thing that makes it feel like 4e. Loosen those level bands (maybe even just 1-10, 11-20) and give some meaningful out-of-class options and the comparison with 4e disappears.
Spells are going to undergo a lot of scrutiny, and adjusting duration and effectiveness is definitely on the table.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. There are a lot more choices for each character and I have no idea what you are talking about. Many more small choices resulting in characters being different.
2. I have no idea what you are talking about on homogenization. 1st ed had balance issues and they have balanced that out which is great because people will only play what they percieve as OVER POWERED. I’m not saying it is correct yet, but at least they are trying.
2a. THANKYOU FOR REMOVING AOO. It makes the game feel so much more dynamic!!!!!!!!!! I will never play with AOO for every character. It makes the game feel boring.
3. There is much less reliance on magical gear. You can’t wear as much and it depends on your resonance.
4. How does my fighter cause all the status effects that a caster does?
5. Casters were known to be game breaking in 1st ed related to the spells. Something had to change for more balance.
6. Thank you for making a bold change.
7. Combat does seem to take too long. I love the action economy though!!!! The 3 actions is great!!!! Best change in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but interesting how, what its so interesting that is occurring? Taking 5-steps to gain flanking and counting squares to avoid AoO never seems very interesting and dynamic to me. Seems to stifle movement.Entails interesting tactical choice related to positioningRight on, how have they been beneficial and interesting, in your experience?I have only ever found it beneficial and interesting.The psychological impact of potential AoO is a detriment to 3rd Ed/PF1 play, I find.AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area
A tactical choice is not required to be dynamic in order to be tactically interesting
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A tactical choice is not required to be dynamic in order to be tactically interestingYes, but interesting how, what its so interesting that is occurring? Taking 5-steps to gain flanking and counting squares to avoid AoO never seems very interesting and dynamic to me. Seems to stifle movement.Entails interesting tactical choice related to positioningRight on, how have they been beneficial and interesting, in your experience?I have only ever found it beneficial and interesting.The psychological impact of potential AoO is a detriment to 3rd Ed/PF1 play, I find.AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area
You still haven't provided any response to how AoOs make combat tactically more interesting...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You still haven't provided any response to how AoOs make combat tactically more interesting...A tactical choice is not required to be dynamic in order to be tactically interestingYes, but interesting how, what its so interesting that is occurring? Taking 5-steps to gain flanking and counting squares to avoid AoO never seems very interesting and dynamic to me. Seems to stifle movement.Entails interesting tactical choice related to positioningRight on, how have they been beneficial and interesting, in your experience?I have only ever found it beneficial and interesting.The psychological impact of potential AoO is a detriment to 3rd Ed/PF1 play, I find.AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area
It's an additional element to consider when evaluating risk-reward ratio relative to positional choices
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've also found AoOs to be a good part of Pathfinder. It stifles movement, but it makes your position on the field more important. Without them, your position on the field isn't really important except in relationship to you and your enemies movement speed. Being able to lock down some enemies with standstill, or other movement stopping combat maneuvers, is also a pretty nice feature.
Without AoOs, it feels like old school RPG combat, where you jump forward and attack, then jump backward.
It's not like you can't lock people down like that in PF2. It's just that you can only do so while playing a monk, and as a DM you'd need to select specific monsters for that ability. I prefer it as a baseline expectation that players can spend feats to ignore rather than something that needs to be bought into.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's rewording of what you previously said (seems like avoidance); how does the additional element to consider when evaluating risk-reward ratio relative to positional choices make it tactically interesting?It's an additional element to consider when evaluating risk-reward ratio relative to positional choicesYou still haven't provided any response to how AoOs make combat tactically more interesting...A tactical choice is not required to be dynamic in order to be tactically interestingYes, but interesting how, what its so interesting that is occurring? Taking 5-steps to gain flanking and counting squares to avoid AoO never seems very interesting and dynamic to me. Seems to stifle movement.Entails interesting tactical choice related to positioningRight on, how have they been beneficial and interesting, in your experience?I have only ever found it beneficial and interesting.The psychological impact of potential AoO is a detriment to 3rd Ed/PF1 play, I find.AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area
Because it requires to think tactically in oder to make good use of it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the narrow level bands for feat choices and lack of general feats are the key thing that makes it feel like 4e. Loosen those level bands (maybe even just 1-10, 11-20) and give some meaningful out-of-class options and the comparison with 4e disappears.
Cleric seems to be testing the level bands option a little.
I'm a little torn, because it's fun to see big shiny options at new levels, but in practice it seems to feel a little like taking a lower level option makes you expect it to be a bad choice, even if it's objectively better for your build. I guess overall I'd tend towards there being some slack at least, as with cleric. Paladin feels like it's on the other extreme, and very silo'd in.I'd definitely be up for some stuff like minor combat tricks (not necessarily number increases, as it might feel mandatory then) shifted to general feats, and access to rituals outside of GM fiat (e.g. a ritualist skill feat).
Good use of it in what way, and how does that make it tactically interesting?Because it requires to think tactically in oder to make good use of itThat's rewording of what you previously said (seems like avoidance); how does the additional element to consider when evaluating risk-reward ratio relative to positional choices make it tactically interesting?It's an additional element to consider when evaluating risk-reward ratio relative to positional choicesYou still haven't provided any response to how AoOs make combat tactically more interesting...A tactical choice is not required to be dynamic in order to be tactically interestingYes, but interesting how, what its so interesting that is occurring? Taking 5-steps to gain flanking and counting squares to avoid AoO never seems very interesting and dynamic to me. Seems to stifle movement.Entails interesting tactical choice related to positioningRight on, how have they been beneficial and interesting, in your experience?I have only ever found it beneficial and interesting.The psychological impact of potential AoO is a detriment to 3rd Ed/PF1 play, I find.AoOs made Fighters tanks? How? How was a Fighter, or anybody thanks to AoO, able to stop enemies from moving away or force them to attack the AoO-er instead of squishies in the second line?Aoo is a danger that deters enemy from leaving threatened area
Good tactical use
It makes it tactically interesting because it's a tactical element that interests tactics
