Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder BETA - Some Sizzle, Not Much Steak

[The Highway Man]

You arent supposed to be able to just beat anything that comes your way, you have to outsmart them, use tactics.

And that, in 4E, means "use the rules to your advantage".

Hardly any use of real tactics, if you ask me. Just playing the board game system.

 

[AllisterH]

re: "Random one shot deaths"

I'm kinda wondering why people are surprised by players not wanting random deaths.

Was I the only one reading DRAGON during the 2E heyday where they used to extol "getting in touch with your character", "become your character", "make your characer your avatar" etc....

The blame for this lies FIRMLY with 2E's slant away from 1e's "it's just a game" to "this is a real world situation" and away from "randomly rolled characters" etc.

Really, read Gygax excerpts about his game. They actually came prepared with backup characters and didn't even bother making names forthier characters until 3rd/4th level.

The system now says we should be invested in the characters we create yet somehow, it's the PLAYERS fault for not wanting random death?

I call shenanigans on this.

 

[AllisterH]

And that, in 4E, means "use the rules to your advantage".

Hardly any use of real tactics, if you ask me. Just playing the board game system.

???

I think we have a different interpretation of what tactics means.

 

[Hjorimir]

And that, in 4E, means "use the rules to your advantage".

Hardly any use of real tactics, if you ask me. Just playing the board game system.

After a nonsensical statement like that I must request that you please give us a solid list of "real tactics" and really explain why, for example, something like falling back to a chokepoint to control the flow of opponents wouldn't constitute as a real tactic.

So, yeah, I'm asking you.

 

[Vegepygmy]

From what I've seen in some of the arguments, there is a sentiment that if my X can't do Y every round (mage can't cast spells, for example) then he is useless or isn't as involved in the game. In my view, that isn't a problem of the rules. In our games, you are responsible for your own fun, and for finding a way to help the team. Sunderstone's post is a prime example of what we do: you find a way to be useful.

This sums up the main difference I perceive between 4E fans and 3e loyalists. 4E was intentionally designed to ensure that your character will be useful all the time; in 3e, you have to take the responsibility on yourself.

 

[Moggthegob]

I humbly suggest that any game that breaks unless players do X, Y and Z every time is not a game with the sort of flexibility and expansive nature that RPGs are said to have.

I'm not talking about a group that's made up of cloistered clerics wandering into the Tomb of Horrors. There needs to be more give in the system than saying "well, of course you died, you didn't have a cleric!"

That goes for any game. Even 4E's explicitly role-based system is better, since the "leader" role can be taken on by clerics or warlords (and soon, other classes), and they play quite differently, which means that someone at the table doesn't "lose" and is forced to play the cleric in order for the game not to break.

But this is not always true. I JUST finished running a Pathfinder RPG Red Hand of Doom game in which the party was as follows:

Paladin (the whole way)
Beguiler( into Mindbender as the campaign progressed)
Ranger ( the whole way)
Wizard/Divine Oracle/ Loremaster

And I must say the party had some problems, but not any more than any other group that has played through the module under me. The Paladin had a healthy supply of happy sticks and the beguiler had a high UMD and used wands of Lesser vigor.

It was a pretty good run and the party was fine.

 

[AllisterH]

And I must say the party had some problems, but not any more than any other group that has played through the module under me. The Paladin had a healthy supply of happy sticks and the beguiler had a high UMD and used wands of Lesser vigor.

It was a pretty good run and the party was fine.

Um, to the simulationist fans....

How does the schtick of the heros snarfing down shots from wands like a crack addict NOT be considered genre busting....

This is pure gamism of the highest level and not found in ANY source material be it novels or action movies.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Doesn't that thing have a save DC of like 13 or 14, meaning most undead of mid-level or higher are only going to fail on a 1? So, generally, 1 out of 20 successful hits?

I'm curious to routes various players have taken -- what are some of the ways, besides tanglefoot bags and alchem. fire, that rogues have been able to stay combat-useful when the wights, vampires, etc. show up?

Assist others. There are some situations in which some classes don't shine like others do. When you go up against an anti-magic field (or just plain monster with high SR) then the wizard does something other then cast spells - usually he assists the team directly or indirectly. Same with the rogue against undead; provide flanking, make full use of items (You've got UMD as a class skill, after all), etc, etc. Be creative.

Um, to the simulationist fans....

How does the schtick of the heros snarfing down shots from wands like a crack addict NOT be considered genre busting....

This is pure gamism of the highest level and not found in ANY source material be it novels or action movies.

Isn't the entire plot of the first Dragonlance books that they have a magic staff that can cure wounds?

Aside from that, who cares if it's not in any action movies? Tabletop shouldn't be an action movie, or a book, or a video game, or anything but tabletop. It is its own thing, and while it can take advice from those other things, it doesn't become them. Besides, that's exactly what those wands are there for. Do you ban medical kits from games? Are bandages not allowed?

Not that any of that matters. Mogg said "No, you're incorrect, I just ran a part of players that weren't in any way geared specifically to this task, and I did fine." It doesn't matter how he did it, so long as he did it inside the rules of the game. Unless you've houseruled against all wands.

 

[Moggthegob]

Precisely. The arguments for 3.5 and for 4e have nothing to do with gamism vs. simulation ism, but rather which game's assumptions you like more and are more wiling to accept. In both games you accept the things that make it a game and then simulate.

Some people like the game 3.5 DnD and its successor PFRPG and some like 4e DnD. That's all the argument boils down to.

 

[Sunderstone]

Some people like the game 3.5 DnD and its successor PFRPG and some like 4e DnD. That's all the argument boils down to.

Not exactly, lately im seeing more and more shots aimed at Paizo by 4E folks who seem to be looking for any excuse to rag on them. The lamest thing about this is that they seem to have no intention of going back to 3.5, which is fine. So why bother bringing this stuff up all the time by making these kind of threads.

I remember when folks here said Paizo can never hope to compete with WotC, and they laughed at Paizo for staying with 3.5. Now in almost every 4E thread i see here, theres more and more mention of Paizo, comparisons to, etc., Then the ragging starts.....