Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[hong]

Which is different from the 4e encounters/day paradigm of "a total value of [...] XP is an appropriate encounter for a level X pary" because?

Because an appropriate encounter for a 4E party can involve a lot more detail and tactical to-and-fro than an EL X fight in 3E that the party is expected to steamroll.

 

[Azzy]

One of the things my group has agreed upon is that playing D&D is not the same as reading a book, or watching a movie, and thus it does not have to comply with linear narration.

Good for you. Some of us, however, do enjoy build up, progression and climax.

Going nova in 4E is very tactical indeed, because the ability to spike has been severely damped down.

So, what you're saying is that 4e was specifically developed for that purpose? However, we weren't talking about 4e, we were talking about 3.x--where novaing is the antithesis of tactical.

"Work"?

Be deserving. Ie, if the encounter was of a sufficiet EL above the party's APL, then yes they deserve a rest. If the part just played foolishly then... actions have consequences.

Resource management, yes. It just so happens that "resource management" as a principle can encompass many more things than just a 4 encounters/day assumption.

Which is not the static beast that many make it out to be when decrying it.

 

[hong]

Since none of all the other P&P RPG following what you consider "very common values of "fun" and "interesting"" are as popular as D&D, the conclusion seems to be that you are in the minority and that P&P players very much like what you consider "antiquated approach to combat"

Holy issue evasion, batman!

Evidence: every other fantasy RPG, p&p or computer, does something else. This includes franchises that are ten times more popular than D&D.
​

There is no reason to suppose p&p gamers have different genes or something to other types of gamers. Especially when the lineages of most of those computer games can be directly traced back to D&D.

 

[Azzy]

And...? The basic principle of the 4 encounters/day paradigm is that you can throw 4 identical sets of enemies at the party, and the attrition is supposed to do the job of making the later fights more dangerous. Which 1) says nothing of situations where it may not make sense to have 4 encounters in a day; 2) uses the wrong tool for the job of adventure pacing. If you make earlier fights even easier to allow later fights to be more dangerous, then all you do is make the earlier fights even more boring.

After I just got done explaining that it doesn't have to be four encounters, or identical sets of enemies, or even have easier fights in the beginning and harder fights in the end? Come, now--please read what I wrote.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be combat encounters. *sigh*

 

[Maggan]

Some of us, however, do enjoy build up, progression and climax.

So do we. But there's other ways than a hard-line linear narration to get there without restricting the options available in the game for the players.

Action - Reaction - Consequence. Properly applied by a DM, it all works out nicely, without having to resort to forced pacing.

/M

 

[hong]

After I just got done explaining that it doesn't have to be four encounters, or identical sets of enemies, or even have easier fights in the beginning and harder fights in the end? Come, now--please read what I wrote.

I read what you wrote. What you wrote does not deny in any way, shape or form the underlying fact that attrition of per-day resources is what drives the 4 encounters/day paradigm. If you deliberately make the later fights tougher, well and good. It has nothing to do with the balancing mechanism.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be combat encounters. *sigh*

And...?

 

[Azzy]

Using Teleport or Rope Trick is not "refusing to manage one's resources". It is one way of managing your resources, using the resources (in this case, spells) available in the game to make sure that the party's resources are at their maximum at any given time.

No, it's exploiting spells that were never designed to give players a "power reset" between each encounter and allow them to unload all their top-tier abilities without recourse to consequences. That's not resource management, that's cheese-balling.

 

[hong]

No, it's exploiting spells that were never designed to give players a "power reset" between each encounter and allow them to unload all their top-tier abilities without recourse to consequences. That's not resource management, that's cheese-balling.

What are you supposed to do in a rope trick, besides rest?

 

[hong]

What are you supposed to do in a rope trick, besides rest?

FNARR FNARR

 

[Dimitris]

I am very very very pleased with the news.

In fact I was expecting a move like this. I was writing about this option 5 years ago. If 1 or 2 companies with the necessary funds use the OGL at this point they may anchor the standard system for D&D-like worlds to 3.5 (and the 4.0 will be just another RPG system).

I am not saying that the 3.5 is the best system in the world. But, the companies could make corrections, adaptations, polishing, tailor the rules to worlds etc and, at the end produce Worlds, Adventures, Campaigns, optional add-ons, alternative options etc and not re-publish all the standard material.

I am not saying that I like the rules for grapple. I don't like the game beyond the 10th-12th level too. But, I don't like to hear the people in WotC advertise all the weaknesses of the system. Personally I don't see anything that couldn't be fixed with a few updates.

The 3.5 is a really flexible system. In my opinion it deserves to become the standard. See for example: there was an adaptation of the 3.5 to Conan RPG.

I recall that someone in WotC admitted that they didn't like the way that the other companies exploit the OGL. I am sure that the next OGL will be much more restricted. The opportunity for all of us to get an open standard for RPG D&D-flavor worlds is NOW.

And let me say that if 4.0ed don't have the success they want between the WoW players, I wouldn't bet on its future. Hasbro could just sell it to PAIZO.

Dimitris