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

[Greg K]

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.

There also those that like 3.5 and, while acknowledging that it needs some fixes, dislike 4e and Pathfinder (based on the Alpha and beta). Yet, they stilll see a couple of ideas worth stealing from each.

 

[xechnao]

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.

I think an example of what he may be up to is the difference of wargames and chess (with chess being 4e, wargame simulations what he intends for "real"). So yeah, I think it pretty much makes sense.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think an example of what he may be up to is the difference of wargames and chess (with chess being 4e, wargame simulations what he intends for "real"). So yeah, I think it pretty much makes sense.

I don't think he was correct in saying that 4e has no tactics, it just has very different tactics. 4e rewards you when you stay in line with the mechanics - your chess example works perfectly here. Chess has a very strict set of rules that you have to adhere to, and people make these huge strategies around these rules that hurt my head. Older editions - and the it's more prevelant as you get into the older editions - rewarded you for the exact opposite, for thinking OUTSIDE the mechanics and the box. In chess, you can't convince the enemy pawns to stage a revolution against their own inept king. There is a reason the ten foot pole was, for quite some time, standard adventurer equipment - it was just so damn USEFUL for doing so many things, and the rules never bothered telling you what those things were, because they expected you to be able to do that on your own. They also never told you what those things were because they knew they could never name them all, because as any DM can tell you, the players will always - ALWAYS - find a longer, more complicated, and far more convoluted way, to get past an obstacle, so long as it isn't the way you thought they were going to do it.

I don't recall if that good ol' reliable ten foot pole still around in 4e or not.

 

[Jack Colby]

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.

Bravo. You hit the nail on the head with that one. Pity most people will just dismiss what you are saying rather than try to understand.

 

[Hjorimir]

I think an example of what he may be up to is the difference of wargames and chess (with chess being 4e, wargame simulations what he intends for "real"). So yeah, I think it pretty much makes sense.

I don't mean this as any kind of attack on you (and it wasn't even your post I was talking to originally), but the idea that 4e doesn't have "real" tactics is pure rubbish. 4e is full of tactical choices. In fact, I think tactics have a much stronger impact in 4e than 3e, really with the importance of group coordination and all of the movement type powers.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

When challenged to come up with a novel that resembles D&D, I thought it was understood that a D&D novel explicitly based on a D&D campaign doesn't qualify.

 

[Moggthegob]

I don't mean this as any kind of attack on you (and it wasn't even your post I was talking to originally), but the idea that 4e doesn't have "real" tactics is pure rubbish. 4e is full of tactical choices. In fact, I think tactics have a much stronger impact in 4e than 3e, really with the importance of group coordination and all of the movement type powers.

I don't think that is what I was asserting at all. They are not the same tactics generally. 3.5 is based on the preparation end of tactics and 4e is more based on mid-battle tactics.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

When challenged to come up with a novel that resembles D&D, I thought it was understood that a D&D novel explicitly based on a D&D campaign doesn't qualify.

Out of my entire post, you chose to respond to one sentence?

 

[ruemere]

For the sake of completeness, Cleave feat here:

Cleave (Combat)
You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing.

Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: As a full-round action, make a single melee attack
against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage
normally and can make an additional attack (at the same
bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also
within reach.
Both of these attacks are made at your highest
attack bonus.
You can only make one additional attack
per round with this feat.

Note that Cleave allows to score two attacks now, both at highest attack bonus. Also, kindly note that requirement for additional was relaxed to "If you hit".
In other words, Cleave is about getting additional attacks (at lower BAB) or about trading iterative attacks for better overall chance to hit. Sensible tradeoff, if you have Improved Critical or Power Attack.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[AllisterH]

I don't mean this as any kind of attack on you (and it wasn't even your post I was talking to originally), but the idea that 4e doesn't have "real" tactics is pure rubbish. 4e is full of tactical choices. In fact, I think tactics have a much stronger impact in 4e than 3e, really with the importance of group coordination and all of the movement type powers.

Needless to say, I agree.

I would rate 3E as the edition with the lowest amount of tactical choice * in-battle* based on the relatively short length combat tends to be (2-3 rounds whereas both 1e/2e had longer combat rounds closer to 4E IME). 3E is more akin to CONSTRUCTED in M:TG where the build itself is a much larger determinant of whether or not you win the battle then what you do during the battle itself.

Choosing the right buffs, feats, PrC are all pre-battle decisions and are characteristic of 3E. THIS is actually tactics since it deals with the in-game battle but 4E focus on the table much moreso rewards tactical thinking in battle.

re: "Blame the players"
I've noticed that lately, it seems akin to say the rules themselves aren't the problem but the players are.

I call hogwash on that based on the fact that players only ACT in a certain manner based on their response to the rules.

The "fear" of random death for example is not because players are "weak" or "less true gamers" but the fact that nowadays, even the lowliest CRPG tries to make you CARE about the character and in tabletop RPGs, you're actually expected to come up with backstories and in both, character creation is no longer

"Roll 3d6 6 times, pick a class and you're done".

It couldn't be the fact that now, character creation ACTUALLY takes time? I could whip out a new 10th level character by the time my next turn was up in a 5 man party back in 1e, yet now that I couldn't even do this in 3E (and actually expected not to, remember, I got to have a decent backstory otherwise I'm not a real "ROLE-PLAYER") and it of course is my fault for being weak in not wanting to do this due to a random roll that I had pretty much had no control over.

Really, I distinctly even remember reading a 2E DRAGON article where the DM and players were it was even suggested that you shouldn't even allow a character into a campaign that doesn't have a backstory worked upon by both player and DM.

Yet it is the fault of the PLAYERS for fearing random death? How do you guys come to THAT conclusion? Or is this a case of trying to use your cred as a 1e oldtimer to impress newer players? That won't work on me unfortunately since I played 1e just as much.

Similarly, the 3e "15 minute workday". IF your DM doesn't believe in trash/warmup fights and actually believes that every fight should be tense for the players (i'm not even talking challenging fight but one that certainly uses more than 20% of a team's resources), how can the blame lie with the players for wanting to rest RIGHT AFTER since they're capability has taken a significant hit just from using up even the lower level buff spells.

Hell Paizo even uses this to their advantage in one of their modules where in a gladiator type combat, the PCs are told battle is coming so to prepare (they buff up) yet some "random" occurences causes the match to be delayed until the buffs run out.

Yet it STILL is the fault of the player and DM?

re: Simulationist
Um, reading this thread AND others, there were MULTIPLE times when people disparged 4E for not being for Simulationists and that 3E is better if you actually want to match the experience of a book and 4E is for those that like "videogames"

Not once did I see anyone mention how genre-busting the existence of wands of lesser vigoe and the cheesiness of nightsticks make hash of any novel aspiration

(Really, ProfessorCirno, using a D&D novel to rebut my point? Come on, even in D&D, this was an abnormality).

The thing is, I kinda agree with you that D&D should model itself but then I think it's not kosher to then turn around and argue for Simulationism as being the hallmark of 3E when it produces situations like that.

Seriously, I know people hate the power system of 4E as being "so like a videogame" and all that, but how in the world do people tolerate the crack pipe that is wands of lesser vigor/cure light wounds?