Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[Azzy]

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.

No, not denying that. What I have been denying is your assertion that this paradigm inhibits the ability to create fun and interesting encounters. The 4E/D mechanic allows for varied encounters, number of encounters, and types of encounters that can make sense within the context of the storyline. Neither is there a need to make the encounters progress linearly from easiest to hardest. Like I said, it's pretty damned versatile and not the limiting, static beast you make it out to be.

 

[Maggan]

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.

So, care to explain what Rope Trick was designed for, if not for resting in a safe and timely manner?

EDIT: Wait, no need actually. I'll take Dimitris post as a cue to get on topic, or out of the thread. So I'll just bow out.

/M

 

[hong]

No, not denying that. What I have been denying is your assertion that this paradigm inhibits the ability to create fun and interesting encounters. The 4E/D mechanic allows for varied encounters, number of encounters, and types of encounters that can make sense within the context of the storyline. Neither is there a need to make the encounters progress linearly from easiest to hardest. Like I said, it's pretty damned versatile and not the limiting, static beast you make it out to be.

It is limiting in the following ways:

1) It forces every encounter into the straitjacket of having a certain number of encounters per day. Some adventures, notably the stereotypical dungeon crawl, fit this pattern. Many others do not.

2) If this straitjacket is not used, some classes can very easily grab the spotlight.

3) If the straitjacket is used, early fights require players to artificially limit themselves from using their best abilities, or are simply too easy to be interesting.

4) Facing players unwilling to conform to this limit, the DM has to resort to metagaming to make them toe the line (random encounters that magically disappear when all resources are used up, punishing smart use of rope trick, etc).

All these issues stem from how the 4 encounters/day paradigm conflates class balance and adventure pacing. Hence the logical solution is to treat these as separate.

 

[Azzy]

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

Oh, hur hur. :\

Like I said, it's the exploiting of the spell that is the cause of the problem. A 2nd-level spell shouldn't allow a party to be able to "reset" their powers between each encounter without risk or consequence.

 

[hong]

Oh, hur hur. :\

Like I said, it's the exploiting of the spell that is the cause of the problem. A 2nd-level spell shouldn't allow a party to be able to "reset" their powers between each encounter without risk or consequence.

There is nothing about rope trick that says you can only use it after having had your 4 fights for the day. Besides, if you don't like rope trick, consider teleport. Or Mord's mansion. Or plane shift. There are many ways for smart players to avoid having to deal with the attritional paradigm, and if they don't do it, it's only because they're willing to handicap themselves to make things more interesting.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

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).

Oh, come on. I'm sick of people saying this because it smacks REALLY heavily of pipe dreaming. Inevitably, it always comes from people who think that their personal preference means anything in the face of market demographics. Unless 4E really, and I mean REALLY sucks, people are going to follow the brand. That's the experience of history. New Coke is AN ANOMALY, not the pattern. It gets as much press as it does because things did not happen as they should have. If the New Coke transition had happened as similar brand transitions have been proven to happen through history, we'd be drinking New Coke now and not even noticing the difference.

Not only that, but RPGs don't have a "Pepsi" for people to latch onto. D&D is pretty much the only game out there with that oh so precious commodity, name recognition. Outside of really zealous Internet fans, Paizo has virtually no name recognition for either their company or for the Pathfinder brand; they are essentially building Pathfinder from the ground up in the face of the established dominant brand in the industry with a 35-year head start. We call games like this "Fantasy Heartbreakers" or "OGL Heartbreakers" for a reason.

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.

Specifically, they referred to companies reprinting verbatim the SRD as a for-profit product. I'm not surprised they didn't; to most of the world that's called plagiarism.

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

Pure pipe dreaming. I'm sure that Hasbro has calculated a margin of success they can reasonably expect from D&D (incidentally, the RPG brand is only one facet of D&D), and anything beyond that is gravy.

 

[hong]

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

Which is only peripherally related to the attritional model.

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.

One can certainly avoid novaing, if one is willing to metagame and assume the DM won't punish you for not doing your utmost. Or if the fight is easy enough that you can avoid expending those resources, in which case it's likely to be just boring.

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.

And if the encounter was sufficiently difficult to require heavy expenditure of resources, then some classes are going to outshine the others. That's the consequence of linking class balance to adventure pacing.

 

[Azzy]

It is limiting in the following ways:

1) It forces every encounter into the straitjacket of having a certain number of encounters per day.

So, you're going to have some encounters during the day, right? Chose the number you want. Next, adjust the EL of those encounters. You're limited only in having to adjust the EL of one or more encounters. Whoooo!

Some adventures, notably the stereotypical dungeon crawl, fit this pattern. Many others do not.

The encounters don't have to be combat encounters so your dungeon crawl comment is kinda a non sequiter. If there are any encounters to be had, this system works.

2) If this straitjacket is not used, some classes can very easily grab the spotlight.

Fortunately, this straitjacket has a lot of wiggle room.

3) If the straitjacket is used, early fights require players to artificially limit themselves from using their best abilities, or are simply too easy to be interesting.

Assuming the early fights are the lower-EL ones. This doesn't always have to be the case.

4) Forcing players unwilling to conform to this limit, the DM has to resort to metagaming to make them toe the line (random encounters that magically disappear when all resources are used up, punishing smart use of rope trick, etc).

I've yet to DM a player that I've had to enforce this upon. These situations where the players are metagaming and/or exploiting rules are things I've only heard about online (and usualy only when people are making wrongheaded claims about the 4E/D mechanic. And "smart use of rope trick?" Cheesily exploiting a 2nd-level spell is "smart?" Please.

All these issues stem from how the 4 encounters/day paradigm conflates class balance and adventure pacing. Hence the logical solution is to treat these as separate.

And yet adventure pacing doesn't need to be affected (because 4E/D can be molded to fit the pacing), and class balance doesn't become an issue when you use 4E/D.

Look, with 4e you're trading one balance mechanic for another. While you may personally prefer the balance mechanic in 4e, that doesn't mean the balance mechanic in 3.x does not allow for fun nor interesting encounters.

 

[hong]

So, you're going to have some encounters during the day, right? Chose the number you want. Next, adjust the EL of those encounters. You're limited only in having to adjust the EL of one or more encounters. Whoooo!

By having fewer encounters, you increase the likelihood that certain classes will hog the spotlight, as noted below.

The encounters don't have to be combat encounters so your dungeon crawl comment is kinda a non sequiter. If there are any encounters to be had, this system works.

In the vast majority of cases, an encounter that eats resources will be a combat encounter. Certainly any encounter that eats a significant proportion of resources from the party as a whole will be a combat encounter. Your post is the non sequitur.

Fortunately, this straitjacket has a lot of wiggle room.

No. It has apparent wiggle room. However, if you try to use that room, you quickly get bitten.

Assuming the early fights are the lower-EL ones. This doesn't always have to be the case.

You were the one going on before about having big bad fights at the end. Do make up your mind how you want to approach the adventure pacing issue.

I've yet to DM a player that I've had to enforce this upon. These situations where the players are metagaming and/or exploiting rules are things I've only heard about online (and usualy only when people are making wrongheaded claims about the 4E/D mechanic. And "smart use of rope trick?" Cheesily exploiting a 2nd-level spell is "smart?" Please.

You call it cheese. I call it the most obvious, self-evident use of a spell I've ever seen.

And yet adventure pacing doesn't need to be affected (because 4E/D can be molded to fit the pacing), and class balance doesn't become an issue when you use 4E/D.

This is because 4E does not tie class balance to adventure pacing. Everyone has (roughly) the same mix of at-will, per-encounter and per-day powers. You can have one big, stand-up fight where PCs kick butt and get kicked, and it will work. You can have half a dozen fights requiring moderate consumption of resources and it will work. There is no tradeoff required or any assumption to meet on fights per day.

Look, with 4e you're trading one balance mechanic for another. While you may personally prefer the balance mechanic in 4e, that doesn't mean the balance mechanic in 3.x does not allow for fun nor interesting encounters.

The point is that fun and interesting encounters in 3E happen in spite of the incentives built into the system, not because of it.

 

[Azzy]

Oh, come on. I'm sick of people saying this because it smacks REALLY heavily of pipe dreaming. Inevitably, it always comes from people who think that their personal preference means anything in the face of market demographics. Unless 4E really, and I mean REALLY sucks, people are going to follow the brand. That's the experience of history. New Coke is AN ANOMALY, not the pattern. It gets as much press as it does because things did not happen as they should have. If the New Coke transition had happened as similar brand transitions have been proven to happen through history, we'd be drinking New Coke now and not even noticing the difference.

Agreed (from the 4e-"hater").

Not only that, but RPGs don't have a "Pepsi" for people to latch onto. D&D is pretty much the only game out there with that oh so precious commodity, name recognition.

Disagreed. Both White Wolf's WoD and SJG's GURPS, and to a lesser extent Hero's "Champions" all have a large degree of name recognition. Sure, D&D has the biggest, in that respect, but the others are no slouches, either. Of course, a decade ago I could have easily added another half dozen to that. *sigh*