|
ok, it's already popping up in the middle of games, and the new edition isn't even out yet.
Last game, in the middle of combat, we have the following situation...
Party opens a door and a Large Monster is just inside waiting in ambush. SURPRISE! Swings! Combat starts!
and one of the PCs in the back of the party wants to get behind the monster... which would require them to pass thru the monster (thru a doorway also) and issues a complaint about how much easier this is to calculate "in the new rules"... sigh. But under "these old rules big monsters have really high CMDs" and "then you have to modify the roll for different conditions, it was simpler in the new rules"...
Actually, I never really figured out if they were talking about Starfinder rules or 2nd Edition, but as I actually don't play either, it doesn't really matter...
I can see years ahead of this issue... kind of like how (even in Season 9) I would have players still trying to do things "like we did in 3.5 rules."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can remember long ago, before THAC0, when Druids were a monster (like Orcs and goblins and Gnolls and... other creatures) that worked with or where EVIL, and therefore where killed on sight. Anyone actually working with them was an EVIL creature and Paladins and Right Minded Persons would fight them... and the world was a simpler place.
Then we let a few of them into polite society - after all the argument went, they are NEUTRAL (which was a "new" alignment then), so we let them into "civilization" and soon Players could actually create Druid PCs and all was Good with the world again and life was simpler... After all, we still have evil Orcs and Goblins and... stuff to fight!
Then we let a few of them Half-Orcs into polite society, into "civilization" and soon it came to pass that Players could actually create Half-Orc PCs, and they joined the adventuring party...
But that was OK, after all, Goblins and Gnolls were still EVIL and "Paladins and Right Minded Persons would fight them... and the world was a simpler place".
But you know I worry that the next thing you know, we'll be letting Players create Goblin PCs and we'll have to let them into polite society too, along with the Half-Orcs and Druids ... into "civilization" and Players will actually create ... wait... wow...
Don't worry, soon there wont be a PF1 society game available, and you'll only hear people say, "Well that's how it worked in the old edition and that was better!"
So don't fret, the roles will soon be reversed.
Back in the day, we had THAC0 and we liked it!
And don't forget about facing!
Facing was part of the game up through AD&D 2E. They tried to reintroduce it in Unearthed Arcana for D&D 3.5, but very few people took the bait.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is this a Society-specific topic? *chin-stroke emoji*
Yeah, this is definitely something that happens more than just in PFS. My roommate and frequent GM-swap buddy and I have exchanged I-don't-know-how-many looks or muttered, "God, I can't wait til 2E comes out and I don't have to deal with this again," moments over the last few months.
Playing a magus the other night; attack bonus was calculated as follows: regular bonus +13, +2 inspire courage, +2 heroism, +2 and keen from arcana point, +2 bane, -2 spell combat. Damage regularly 1d6+3, +2 inspire courage, +2 arcana point, +2 and +2d6 bane, +1d6 cold and +1d6 electricity from skald's enhance weapons, +5d6 electricity from shocking grasp. GM, the aforementioned roommate, has literally given up trying to understand what's happening with my class and character and just asks me what the final results of my rolls are.
Both of us are so ready to move on from PF1.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is this a PFS question, you ask?
Well, in a home campaign, if someone is using a rule, or a feat, or a spell, from the wrong edition of a game, you stop the game, back up, fix the problem, and move on. You're all friends, and everything's good to go.
In PFS, you can be halfway through the second combat before someone realizes that their whole schtick is based on a game element not appearing in this edition. (The same thing keeps happening in a Core Campaign game, right?) (And yeah, I had people accidentally playing with the Pathfinder beta rules during Season 1.) I haven't had that many players confuse Pathfinder with D&D versions of the rules, but I'm sure it happens, too. You'd think that it's only low-level characters, but I have sad news to report.
Compared to a home session, getting game systems mixed up is a much more serious problem in PFS, because (1) we're under tight time constraints and (2) there isn't the same level of trust and friendship built up at a convention game. Everybody at the table wants everybody else to have a fun experience, but we also want the games to be legal.
We don't have time to audit a character in the middle of a game. My inclination is to immediately swap in the closest tier-legal iconic I can and promise that (a) their PC will still get all the gold and experience, and (b) we'll check things over carefully after the game.
|
Reminds me of when some older players were very upset when I tried explaining ride by attack to them, and that there is no facing in PF, and other things that were apparently different from 3.5 that make them hate mounted characters. It was an animated combat, not because of the actual fight though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reminds me of when some older players were very upset when I tried explaining ride by attack to them, and that there is no facing in PF, and other things that were apparently different from 3.5 that make them hate mounted characters. It was an animated combat, not because of the actual fight though.
the feat appears to be copy pasted to what changes are you talking about?
|
|
Reminds me of when some older players were very upset when I tried explaining ride by attack to them, and that there is no facing in PF, and other things that were apparently different from 3.5 that make them hate mounted characters. It was an animated combat, not because of the actual fight though.the feat appears to be copy pasted to what changes are you talking about?
Having never played 3.5 I don't know where the issues were, but they thought I had to turn my "horse" around to move back the same way, they thought controlling a mount was a move action, etc. They could have just hated my flying, mounted, character charging every turn though.
Reminds me of when some older players were very upset when I tried explaining ride by attack to them, and that there is no facing in PF, and other things that were apparently different from 3.5 that make them hate mounted characters. It was an animated combat, not because of the actual fight though.
They must have been coming from a pre-3.5 game system. D&D 3.0 officially eliminated facing, and 3.5 finished the job by eliminating non-square spaces for creatures to occupy (as a 1x2 square space strongly implies facing).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having never played 3.5 I don't know where the issues were, but they thought I had to turn my "horse" around to move back the same way, they thought controlling a mount was a move action, etc. They could have just hated my flying, mounted, character charging every turn though.
Ah! The issue's not the mount, it's the flying. Flight does still have an implied facing because of the need to 'turn' your direction of movement.
edit:
Oh, and Ride-by-Attack doesn't allow you to change directions either.
"you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge)."
|
|
Right - a ground-based mount can 'turn on a dime' and do ride-by attacks each round in whichever direction they are able to get enough space to charge. A flying mount has to expend movement to turn, and I don't think can turn at all and still do a ride-by, but I'd have to check. One reason for the existence of the Wingover feat.
|
|
Right - a ground-based mount can 'turn on a dime' and do ride-by attacks each round in whichever direction they are able to get enough space to charge. A flying mount has to expend movement to turn, and I don't think can turn at all and still do a ride-by, but I'd have to check. One reason for the existence of the Wingover feat.
I'm derping finding any rules for turning while flying.
Its not under the fly skill, its not under movement, its not under the fly spell...its not under the universal creature rules...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm derping finding any rules for turning while flying.
Its not under the fly skill, its not under movement, its not under the fly spell...its not under the universal creature rules...
It's under the Fly skill:
Flying Maneuver DCs
15 Turn greater than 45° by spending 5 feet of movement
20 Turn 180° by spending 10 feet of movement
20 Fly up at a greater than 45° angle
A flying mount has to expend movement to turn, and I don't think can turn at all and still do a ride-by, but I'd have to check
A flying mount can turn during a flyby attack because it's worded differently than ride-by-attack. The ride-by requires you to continue moving in the direction of a charge. Flyby attack permits you to take a standard action at any point during a move action.
|
|
AHah here we go...
At the beginning of the next turn, you can move in a different direction than you did the previous turn without making a check.
Since you consistently move in a straight line while charging anyway you can just keep flying and ride by attacking people, turning around on a time in between your turns.