Plus the bigger issue, why bother trying to keep track of what does and doesn't get destroyed?
Destroying things is a useful and common tactic. Surrounding oneself with things that others would like not to destroy is also a good way to ward off attacks. From my perspective, it's useful to include side effects into spells and abilities to make them different from one another.
As it stands, fireball behaves very little like a fireball other than doing that type of damage. It gets very close to the different colored damage concept.
I suppose none of that's important if you want to keep item destruction entirely on the DM side of the screen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not re-entering the fireball specific debate, since there is a trhread for that, but talking more generally about environment and destruction:
I get that it is fun to recreate cinematically inspired battles in RPGs and that a big part of movie battles is using props exploding and breaking to draw out battles and not just have characters hit or miss each other over and over. But blood, sweat, and swift, chaotic movements ruin and destroy furniture/the environment around the battlefield too. Is that something that we expect the rules of the game to explicitly arbitrate and the GM to track in terms of whether the art objects, or important papers or delicate magic items should lose value when exposed to combat?
PF2 is just not the gritty realism simulator that needs explicit rules for minutiae. By making the system default, “don’t add environmental damage unless it is an explicit part of a character’s plan (which should involve spending actions and possibly resources deliberately targeting the environment/objects),” then it removes the pressure on the GM to try to track all that stuff when it isn’t relevant to the encounter.
Making moves to ease the GM tracking load for details was a design goal of PF2. Getting rid of a default: everything gets damaged, feels like a similar decision to narrowing down the different kinds of stackable bonuses. It makes the game move faster and discourages player cheese spamming / the need for villains to do the same.
That's why I suggested something like a debris clearing DC based on material and bulk. I understand that keeping track of exactly what is damaged or moved would be tedious and could stack up considerably if damage isn't uniform throughout the area. However, I think that you could set a DC for traversing the debris that was mirrored by a DC to move the debris through abilities, and that would give you some quick and easy rules that provide a number of gameplay benefits without too much cost in time or management.
As a quick rule, I'd do something like a leveled DC to move the debris with abilities or traverse the area with acrobatics, and a critical effect would destroy the debris or allow you to push through it with athletics. Then apply modifiers based on material type versus attack type.
This gives a coherent and scalable rule set for all sort of field effects like cloud and wall spells, and gives you an opportunity to integrate debris clearing abilities into class ability sets so that wall type abilities aren't as effective at locking down some classes.
The simplest description would be that we're using the grease spell as a baseline for difficult to traverse areas, and scaling it depending on the difficulty. Then giving some abilities an additional effect that allows the clearing of grease like effects, with a success level change based on material type and damage interaction. In game ruling would be as simple as comparing the DC of your ability to the DC of the effect and removing anything in the area with a DC below yours.
Game is not particularly strict in most fields, but one in particular stands out as extremely frail: Numbers. The "tight math" of this game has been talked out a lot already in these forums so I won't make an essay about it. The main consequence is that GMs should really not mess with the bonuses, penalties, +1s, buff-stacking rules or action economy of the game, or it can easily shatter into little bits. T
he acceptable values for a modifier to a d20 are in a very narrow band for a given level and calculating difficulty depends very much on that. Am always afraid to make any house rule in this area.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules and the in-world physics are connected, but they're not the same.
Using bulk rules to assign actual weights seem silly to me, the rules aren't trying to simulate the weight of people and objects.
you're right of course, but that's not really the issue here. i suspect even graystone knows better deep down, it's just that "bulk bad" is a super convenient strawman for them to beat on and thereby "prove" how the system is terrible and wrong and should be cancelled in favor of PF1 redux or whatever. it was never really about the bulk system per se, it's about deliberately misinterpreting the bulk rules in order to make the system look bad and/or have something to complain about ad nauseum.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love bulk, encumbrance and weight have always been a pain in the ass, anything to minimize that pain is alright with me.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you're right of course, but that's not really the issue here. i suspect even graystone knows better deep down, it's just that "bulk bad" is a super convenient strawman for them to beat on and thereby "prove" how the system is terrible and wrong and should be cancelled in favor of PF1 redux or whatever. it was never really about the bulk system per se, it's about deliberately misinterpreting the bulk rules in order to make the system look bad and/or have something to complain about ad nauseum.
I think this is unfair to graystone. I disagree with them quite a lot on Bulk (as this thread shows), but I believe their issues with it are directly and sincerely held. They have had a consistent issue ever since Bulk was proposed with its lack of objective standards, and have never wavered in this issue.
Personally, I feel the final version fixes just enough of the issues that it's acceptable, but I do understand and even somewhat sympathize with graystone's point of view that it isn't.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thread asks a question that erks me because Structure =/= Restrictive, and how structured or restrictive a ruleset feels is not a one-dimensional spectrum. Overall, I desire elegance: structured but nonrestrictive.
Regardless, here's my take:
Conflict Resolution: The simplicity of rolling a d20 and comparing it to a number exemplifies the core of why d20 systems continue to endure. Adding the new critical success and critical failure rules help add some variance to results. I thought I would dislike it, but in actual play, I've grown to enjoy it.
Action Economy & Tactical Rules: These rules are elegant. They're tight, concise, and yet highly encompassing. The action economy is highly structured, but simple and broad in application. While there's an action or activity for anything, most actions/activities encompass many actions that would have been separate listed entries in 3rd Edition. The Interact action is a great example: it has discrete mechanics, but the action is super simple and handles the legwork of pretty much anything your character would do to physically manipulate something in the game world.
Character Creation/Advancement: The character creation rules grant multiple points of choice for each character at each level. This allows characters many ways to vary as well as grow organic as they level up, which is something I felt 5th Edition lacked. However, you are restricted within the boundaries of your class and the availability of feat options. Some classes also have restrictions that feel completely arbitrary and contradictory to the game narrative, such as champion reactions being restricted to certain alignments regardless of whether or not it's appropriate for their deity. Archetypes -- the best options you have outside of class abilities -- have serious opportunity cost issues.
Investigation/Non-combat Encounter Rules: Here's where the game loses me. Most of the game has beautifully robust, elegant, and well-structured rules with concise, tight language. Non-tactical encounter rules function as the one massive exception. Knowledge checks, investigation, and many uses of non-physical skills have almost no structure or DC suggestions. These rules have almost no structure beyond "roll a check, the GM makes something up." As I pointed out in my criticisms of the investigator playtest, I consider this a bad thing as it contradicts the tone of the game, compromises the integrity of the rules, adds more work to the GM, creates inconsistency in rules adjudication, and makes it impossible to develop character options for. I could list so many TTRPGs that have structured rules while also providing a "freeform" feel and broad range of options.
Exploration: I feel the exploration rules are a bit of a misnomer. They're more like simple rules for deciding what your character is doing in between combats and how that translates into a benefit when initiative starts. I consider this a great addition to the game, but not a structure for exploration sections in adventures as one might expect. Probably have to wait until GameMastery Guide releases.
Having read it, I do not feel the Gamemastery Guide helps clarify Exploration Mode much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Investigation/Non-combat Encounter Rules: Here's where the game loses me. Most of the game has beautifully robust, elegant, and well-structured rules with concise, tight language. Non-tactical encounter rules function as the one massive exception. Knowledge checks, investigation, and many uses of non-physical skills have almost no structure or DC suggestions. These rules have almost no structure beyond "roll a check, the GM makes something up." As I pointed out in my criticisms of the investigator playtest, I consider this a bad thing as it contradicts the tone of the game, compromises the integrity of the rules, adds more work to the GM, creates inconsistency in rules adjudication, and makes it impossible to develop character options for. I could list so many TTRPGs that have structured rules while also providing a "freeform" feel and broad range of options.
As a mathematical GM, I have been developing my own structure. The lack of DC suggestions especially bothers me because I am the GM who has to select the DCs. I default to TABLE 10–4: SIMPLE DCS and TABLE 10–5: DCS BY LEVEL on page 503 of the Game Mastering chapter of the PF2 Core Rulebook, but those are for challenging tasks, not easy or average tasks. I still need to play more before I can formalize anything.
Exploration: I feel the exploration rules are a bit of a misnomer. They're more like simple rules for deciding what your character is doing in between combats and how that translates into a benefit when initiative starts. I consider this a great addition to the game, but not a structure for exploration sections in adventures as one might expect. Probably have to wait until GameMastery Guide releases.
I find that asking my players, "What are you doing as you travel?" is more sensible than asking them to select an exploration activity. Sometimes, after their response, I suggest one of the more useful exploration activities that fits their notion, such as Follow the Expert. I have also taken to calling the non-activity of simply traveling at full speed without a side activity, "Maximum Speed." Since they are usually traveling to a known location and shifting exploration activity as they draw closer, the "how that translates into a benefit when initiative starts" is not the benefit my players are looking for during the beginning part of travel.
The PF2 Core Rule Book describes how to run a high fantasy pulp adventure story focused on combat with a character power growth that takes them from being competent adventurers at Level 1 to demigods at Level 20.
As more books come out the more the system will be able to be modified to run different kinds of games and tell different kinds of stories.
I do think though that Paizo has left behind the physics sim aspect of 3.Pathfinder and that won't be coming back. Bulk can't be tied to weight for example, it's an abstraction of 'how difficult is thing to carry'. A large fluffy stuffed animal prize from a carnival would have very high Bulk for example even though it doesn't have much weight.
I can understand how that would be frustrating for people who loved that part of 3.P. There will be plenty of homebrew and 3rd party rules for that stuff but I know it's not the same as official support.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you're right of course, but that's not really the issue here. i suspect even graystone knows better deep down, it's just that "bulk bad" is a super convenient strawman for them to beat on and thereby "prove" how the system is terrible and wrong and should be cancelled in favor of PF1 redux or whatever. it was never really about the bulk system per se, it's about deliberately misinterpreting the bulk rules in order to make the system look bad and/or have something to complain about ad nauseum.I think this is unfair to graystone. I disagree with them quite a lot on Bulk (as this thread shows), but I believe their issues with it are directly and sincerely held. They have had a consistent issue ever since Bulk was proposed with its lack of objective standards, and have never wavered in this issue.
Yeah, just to continue the tangent a bit further, I find Graystone to be one of the most consistent and genuine forum posters around. The forums would be worse off without Graystone's presence.
Which is why it bothers me when I see people, to varying levels of seriousness, imply that Graystone is a troll or intentionally obtuse. Graystone just has opinions that sometimes come into conflict with the majority.
Graystone disagrees with people often (me included), but you pretty much never see them getting heated or rancorous.
I always try to avoid naming names in posts unless I am responding to someone's direct statement and it would be confusing if I didn't let that person know I was responding to them.
That said, I have greatly enjoyed developing my understanding of this game by participating in these threads and all of us have particular issues that we feel more passionate than others, and they are naturally going to come to mind when we discuss other issues, especially ones with tangential links to our key issues. I really appreciate it when people remind me that there might be another thread to better discuss something that I am going off on a side track on.
This discussion is a general discussion that is naturally going to draw in people to talk about their key issues in particular. I think a fair bit of that is necessary, and if it gets too much, we can just remind each other that there might be more specific threads to discuss it in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love bulk, encumbrance and weight have always been a pain in the ass, anything to minimize that pain is alright with me.
I have a sneaking suspicion some of the some people's hostility towards bulk rests in how their prior games just ignored encumbrance because it was frankly a lot of unfun bookkeeping, but bulk is simple enough to use and "I can't carry as much stuff as I want anymore" feels like a loss.
I doubt that's the case, it isn't for me at any rate. I'd imagine someone who happily ignored weight would continue to ignore bulk as well.
The reasons are pretty straight forward-
- -The lack of precision in comparative values: two bulk 1 items are frequently not comparable in their difficulty to carry.
- -The poor scaling that makes individual bulk of items not directly additive: the difficulty in carrying two spears is not twice the difficulty of carrying one spear.
- -The need for constant DM involvement in mundane activities: asking if you can pick something up every time you encounter an item you may want that isn't in the book anywhere, or modifying the bulk if something is stored more effectively than normal.
You'd have to ask the GM about unknown objects in the previous system anyways, ErichAD.
It's also difficult to ignore bulk limitations as a player if your GM wants it tracked, which is what I think PossibleCabbage was hinting at.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that asking my players, "What are you doing as you travel?" is more sensible than asking them to select an exploration activity. Sometimes, after their response, I suggest one of the more useful exploration activities that fits their notion, such as Follow the Expert. I have also taken to calling the non-activity of simply traveling at full speed without a side activity, "Maximum Speed." Since they are usually traveling to a known location and shifting exploration activity as they draw closer, the "how that translates into a benefit when initiative starts" is not the benefit my players are looking for during the beginning part of travel.
The rules explicitly tell you to do just this. From page 479 of the CRB:
EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES
While you’re traveling and exploring, tell the GM what
you’d generally like to do along the way. If you to do
nothing more than make steady progress toward your
goal, you move at the full travel speeds given in Table 9–2.
When you want to do something other than simply
travel, you describe what you are attempting to do. It
isn’t necessary to go into extreme detail, such as “Using
my dagger, I nudge the door so I can check for devious
traps.” Instead, “I’m searching the area for hazards” is
sufficient. The GM finds the best exploration activity to
match your description and describes the effects of that
activity.
I don't know of the top of my head what many things weigh (well, especially so when it's not in metric), so at best I'd have to look it up which I wouldn't do since it slows down the game too much.
Previous iterations of encumberence have been totally unusable to me, whereas 2E's implementation is something I can actually use. Assigning bulk to a new object is lightning fast.
You can get a pretty close estimate by comparing volume and density of a material. Waters your 1, woods about a .6, stone about 3 steel about 8, and as long as you know how much a comparative volume of water weighs, you're good to go.
However, even if you can't eyeball volumes and do some multiplication, you can just look it up while the DM is running the game. Passing it through the DM every time is much more likely to slow things down.
I'm not sure why it would be easier to ignore weight than to ignore bulk if your GM wants it tracked.
You can get a pretty close estimate by comparing volume and density of a material. Waters your 1, woods about a .6, stone about 3 steel about 8, and as long as you know how much a comparative volume of water weighs, you're good to go.
However, even if you can't eyeball volumes and do some multiplication, you can just look it up while the DM is running the game. Passing it through the DM every time is much more likely to slow things down.
I'm not sure why it would be easier to ignore weight than to ignore bulk if your GM wants it tracked.
Because rather than a number line ranging from .01 to infinity, I now just have to pick 0, .1, 1 or 2 for 99% of things. And anything higher than that borders on prohibitive to carry for a single person with adventuring gear.
Because rather than a number line ranging from .01 to infinity, I now just have to pick 0, .1, 1 or 2 for 99% of things. And anything higher than that borders on prohibitive to carry for a single person with adventuring gear.You can get a pretty close estimate by comparing volume and density of a material. Waters your 1, woods about a .6, stone about 3 steel about 8, and as long as you know how much a comparative volume of water weighs, you're good to go.
However, even if you can't eyeball volumes and do some multiplication, you can just look it up while the DM is running the game. Passing it through the DM every time is much more likely to slow things down.
I'm not sure why it would be easier to ignore weight than to ignore bulk if your GM wants it tracked.
That doesn't make weight any easier to ignore than bulk if the DM is enforcing both rules, so I assume you're talking about adjudicating bulk versus weight.
With bulk, encumbrance determination is bottlenecked at the DM. If my players see a 1 foot tall human statue made of gold, I'd like them to be able to do the math (160/6^3*20 about 15 lbs) and figure out whether or not they can pick it up with mage hand (nope) before their turn starts and make other plans. Waiting to ask me in their turn just slows things down.
"Bulk 2 ish? Do I consider how hard something is to hold for mage hand, or do I ignore that since it's a magical movement spell and not literally a hand. Maybe I should enlarge myself to reduce it's bulk, or does the effective bulk of an item not change for the purposes of mage hand if it's bulk is reduced by my size? Wait, I'm not increasing it's effective bulk because a disembodied hand is tiny am I?"
I'll just tell them 2 and answer no if they ask questions.
So do we know how to attack a table yet?
Because it would be good if, out of this thread, someone could indicate how it is done, and it points to the abstraction experienced that perhaps no one has. Unless I missed it.