Pathfinder 1E Power and Pathfinder Classes - Forked Thread: Pathfinder - sell me

[Ariosto]

Changing "save or die" to "save or lose a lot of HP" is an interesting proposal.

I have played with similar rules even for transformation effects (e.g., petrification and polymorph) in other games, Champions coming notably to mind.

It would give an edge to classes (such as fighters) with higher average HP. It would make targets of high enough level effectively immune when at full strength, but potentially very vulnerable once worn down.

I would keep the "save" aspect, so as not to make low-level figures too vulnerable -- and also to allow DMs so desiring to keep the simpler "or die" (etc.) implementation.

Again, my ideal scenario would be to have options rather than changes by designer fiat.

 

[Ariosto]

I think OSRIC does a very good job with 1E, unless the omissions are especially dear to one's heart. As with 2E, myriad differences in detail mean that one either chooses one or the other as "the final word" or -- the course I always prefer with D&D -- accepts that the DM has final say (but is open to dialog with players).

Innovation versus back-compatibility is indeed a matter of "having one's cake or eating it", except that ...

As I keep suggesting, it is also possible to present more than one option. That is something I liked about the 2E PHB and DMG (in principle, if not always the specifics).

 

[billd91]

The old "rule" that magic-users should die like flies while fighters survive to get ahead in levels remains to my mind the best balance for those elements of the game that were originally designed with it in mind.

We never saw this happen in a game. It was almost always the wizards living the most often.

The biggest deal, though, is the personal endurance of fighters and their capacity for sustained combat action.

And this is largely why. Once the wizard was running low on resources (spells), he made sure to be on the defensive while the fighter would and could fight on. He often had to so that the rest of the party could survive. As a result, fighter-types were the most often casualties in games I witnessed.

 

[Ariosto]

We never saw this happen in a game. It was almost always the wizards living the most often.

And this is largely why. Once the wizard was running low on resources (spells), he made sure to be on the defensive while the fighter would and could fight on. He often had to so that the rest of the party could survive. As a result, fighter-types were the most often casualties in games I witnessed.

An MU's survival chances, such as they were, definitely depended on the assistance of fighting men.

But did they never face rival MUs? Did not other moderately intelligent foes target them with the aim of at least disrupting their spells (which might also kill them)? Were they never victims of traps that heartier or better armored folks, or even (at later levels) those with better saving throws, would likely have survived?

 

[Ariosto]

A fighting man should not let himself get worn down to the point that he is as fragile as a thief or MU ... unless, perhaps, he is under a charm (which should be sowing the wind for a careless caster).

 

[Ariosto]

As I recall, 3E made life in a number of ways much easier on MUs (and other spell-casters). Calling for a bit of initiative, effort and skill to make full use of the potential power of the class was one off-setting factor in previous editions.

 

[Roman]

The new previews are up, but there is little information pertaining to power level. One thing we do see is that the +2/+2/-2 ability score pattern for races seems to have carried over from the Beta.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Got a link Roman?

 

[Aus_Snow]

I hain't no Roman! However, if it's just the link you're after, here it is. The race preview (a zipped PDF) is the one you'd want to look at. Dwarves, in this case, still get +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha, f'rex.

And while I'm on that topic, for me personally, the +2/+2/-2 setup is the best so far, among all the D&D and d20 games (that I've seen).

edit --- Oh yes, and Elves. . . now get an Int bonus. They ('standard' Elves, that is) are finally naturally gifted with most things Wizardly, with stats that match the flavour text - about frickin' time (in the D&Dverse)! Thank you, Paizo guys 'n gals, for this almost bewildering display of logic and sanity.

 

[Roman]

I hain't no Roman! However, if it's just the link you're after, here it is.

Yeah, thanks for linking it - I should have done so when I mentioned the previews are up.

The race preview (a zipped PDF) is the one you'd want to look at. Dwarves, in this case, still get +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha, f'rex.

And while I'm on that topic, for me personally, the +2/+2/-2 setup is the best so far, among all the D&D and d20 games (that I've seen).

edit --- Oh yes, and Elves. . . now get an Int bonus. They ('standard' Elves, that is) are finally naturally gifted with most things Wizardly, with stats that match the flavour text - about frickin' time (in the D&Dverse)! Thank you, Paizo guys 'n gals, for this almost bewildering display of logic and sanity.

Actually, I kind of agree. This is one case where the power boost actualy can be justified through better flavor (or rather stats matching the flavor). I think it could have been done a bit differently, perhaps giving +2/-2 to each race, but with the caveat that the +2 can be assigned by the player to one of the two high ability scores of each race. This would also keep the humans nicely as a baseline at +0/-0, rather than +2/-0 that they got in the Beta. Still, I do think that because of the better consistency with flavor, the +2/+2/-2 is an improvement over the 3.5E despite the slight power boost. I guess I am just trying to be a perfectionist by suggesting that similar rules-flavor congruency could have been achieved without a major power boost, but I cannot help it - it is in my nature to do that!