Pathfinder 1E So what do you think is wrong with Pathfinder? Post your problems and we will fix it.

[ForeverSlayer]

Here is ForeverSlayer arguing that Boundless Endurance must be magic, because it involves the regeneration of tissue:




Here is Wicht stating that, in PF, regeneration and fast healing mean the regeneration of tissue:




And here is Paizo, in Ultimate Combat, stating that a barbarian can gain fast healing as an EX (= non-magical) ability:



At least one of [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION], Wicht and Paizo must be wrong:

• If Paizo and Wicht are both correct, then ForeverSlayer is wrong to thing that the ability to rapidly knit together tissue is magic;
  
  
• If Paizo and ForeverSlayer are both correct, then given that rapidly knitting together tissue is magical, and given that there is a non-magical fast healing ability with the word "regenerative" in its name, then Wicht is wrong to think that fast healing and regeneration in PF have any general connotation of knitting together tissue (and is wrong also to think that Regenerative Vigour involves knitting together of tissue);
  
  
• If ForeverSlayer and Wicht are both correct, then Paizo was wrong to label a fast healing power EX - it should be SU.

Is anyone able to tell me who it is who is wrong?

You're grasping at straws here.

The problem that 4th edition has is it identified it as a powersource.

 

[Hussar]

Nope. If you have a group of smart, resourceful players who don't rely on simple skill rolls to get by, and a DM who doesn't play in a purely mechanistic fashion, you could have a group composed on nothing but thieves, or nothing but clerics, or whatever successfully go through just about any adventure.

The problem is that a lot of players and DMs play Pathfinder and D&D like a wargame with some roleplaying mixed in, which results in ever significant action requiring a dice roll. If you play it as a roleplaying game with some mechanics for figuring out the things that can't be handled through roleplaying alone, you get a whole different game with a lot more variety.

Yup. When you have a group that ignores the rules and a DM who enabled this, you can certainly free form your way through an adventure.

Not while playing DnD, but, it can be done.

 

[pemerton]

I also find it amusing that even if we were able to somehow 'prove' that 4e fighters and rogues are wizards in disguise, the B/X point still stands -- that muggles can be competent/effective/fun/awesome without imitating casters. Well, presumably the point stands; I've never played B/X, so I can only assume by the general silence on the issue that the original claim is in fact true.

I was one of those who made the point. Admittedly experience with high level B/X is limited, but so many of the features even of AD&D that allow MUs to power up are absent. For instance there are no Bracers of Defence or Cloaks of Resistance, so magic-user AC is 10 plus DEX plus the possibility of a Ring of Protection (and even these might be limited to +1 - I'll check that when I get home). Clerics are quite good, but there spells are the classic healing/restorative type spells; as best I recall they don't even have Flame Strike as an attack spell.

Fighters don't get multiple attacks, and so to that extent are also correspondingly weaker - but with the opportunity for AC -4 (plate +3 and shield +3) they can become far more resilient than MUs.

 

[pemerton]

You're grasping at straws here.

In what way? Why can there be non-magical biological regeneration in PF, but not in 4e?

The problem that 4th edition has is it identified it as a powersource.

Huh? Are you saying that any powersource must inherently be a form of magic?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Huh? Are you saying that any powersource must inherently be a form of magic?

Yes, unless that power source is oxidative phosphorylation.

 

[pemerton]

I generally take it for granted that the natural laws and micro-details of a fantasy world aren't the same as for the real world (eg air, fire, water and earth are all elements). Particularly so for biology, given that - whatever the truth for the real world - I take it as given that lifeforms were created rather than evolved.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I generally take it for granted that the natural laws and micro-details of a fantasy world aren't the same as for the real world (eg air, fire, water and earth are all elements). Particularly so for biology, given that - whatever the truth for the real world - I take it as given that lifeforms were created rather than evolved.

I take it you also think that the reason characters die of starvation is that they enjoy eating so much that when they can't eat they lose their morale and waste away in a sea of sadness?

I mean, I know the rules don't require you get Vitamin C in your diet or suffer scurvy penalties, but I take it as given that D&D characters are eating food, breathing air, and using the latter to burn the former for energy. Also, your character takes falling damage because of gravity.

I'm not even going to touch fantasy notions of creation.

 

[Wicht]

Yup. When you have a group that ignores the rules and a DM who enabled this, you can certainly free form your way through an adventure.

I don't think that's what he said.

 

[billd91]

Yup. When you have a group that ignores the rules and a DM who enabled this, you can certainly free form your way through an adventure.

Not while playing DnD, but, it can be done.

Meaning you're playing it wrong if you deviate from the written rules? Is that it?

Even Gygax said that once in a Dragon column and it wasn't well received considering it is contrary to the creative spirit of D&D (not to mention, as we later learned, it was contrary to his own method of playing). Why should we give that notion any credence? It has none.

 

[Hussar]

Meaning you're playing it wrong if you deviate from the written rules? Is that it?

Even Gygax said that once in a Dragon column and it wasn't well received considering it is contrary to the creative spirit of D&D (not to mention, as we later learned, it was contrary to his own method of playing). Why should we give that notion any credence? It has none.

So, if I'm free forming, ignoring most of the mechanics, and playing the game, I'm still playing D&D? I have no problem saying that I'm playing a game. Fair enough. But, the game is only passably recognisable as any actual written version of D&D.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with deviating from written rules. But, there has to be a point where you can say, "Hey, you know what? That game you're playing? That's not D&D anymore".

Note, at no point did I actually say anything about doing it wrong, or that it wasn't fun, or that it was a bad thing. That's entirely on you and your interpretations. What I said was the only way you're going to take 4 thieves through a module and survive is if the DM is going way off the written rules and allowing all sorts of soft touch interpretations that enable the players to survive.

4 druids? Yeah, I could see that. 4 clerics? Maybe less chance, but, depending on how they synergized their characters, it's possible. 4 wizards? After about 5th or 6th level maybe, but, I wouldn't expect them to do it before then. 4 fighters or 4 thieves going through any published module that wasn't specifically tailored for that specific group? Not a chance. The only way that doesn't end in a lot of dead PC's is if the DM is fudging things left, right and centre.

Would you honestly expect 4 5th level 3.5 edition fighters (or rogues) to go through, say, any Paizo adventure path module for 5th level successfully?