Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[billd91]

And to me that's actually a huge point. 1e had deeply embedded within it reasons not to nova (primarily the Wandering Monster table - that was one of the major purposes of it). 2e pulled most of these out and 3.X removed almost all the remainder.

Wandering monster info is in both my 2e and 3e stuff. Yours must be defective or something.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Here I'm going to ask what you mean. Playing at optimal levels is min-maxing as I understand it.



One of the abilities PCs have is that any time they control the pacing they can use a full loadout of spells. Apparently either you don't ever allow them to do this (IIRC you've said you always sling at least 3 encounters/day) or they don't use it when they have the chance.



Part of D&D as intended is for the PCs to play it smart.

The 15 minute adventuring day is a necessary consequence of daily recharge cycles, the PCs playing things smart, and handing control of pacing over to the PCs. If you're going to risk life and limb there is very little reason not to go in fully loaded if you have control of the pacing.

The Kingmaker AP is one where the pacing is largely down to the PCs. That's part of the point of a sandbox. Which means that if the PCs aren't doing it they arent using the tools they have available.

And my comment on the

Spoiler

trolls

is that they probably didn't hard enough. The more you use the fewer you lose - and if they were purposely holding back, that will have contributed to their defeat.

Of course the whole problem vanishes if no one is playing a full caster. Or the cleric's playing healbot.

For some reason I suspect that their needing to fall back against the

Spoiler

trolls

had more to do with the fact that they were levels five and six than any errors. They got to that encounter area a bit earlier than might have been best.

At this point, I am pretty sure that you are, to use an old and annoying phrase, 'playing the game wrong'.*

We have the three and four encounter adventuring day. We do not have the 15 MAD. We have a party leaning toward a mix of all roles. We do not have players complaining that the wizard is hogging all the fun. We do have players that feel their characters are being challenged, regardless of class.

You apparently do have those problems with encounter numbers, 15 MAD, and 'overpowered' wizards.

If one group is playing by the planned balance, and is having the expected results, and another is not... it is a good bet that the one getting the expected results is the one that is playing by Hoyle.

So, no, not buying your premise, not even for a penny.

The Auld Grump

* This is a joke, this is only a joke. Do not adjust your Interweb, we have assumed control....

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Wandering monster info is in both my 2e and 3e stuff. Yours must be defective or something.

My books seem to have those tables too... Maybe our books are the defective ones?

The Auld Grump, heck, I seem to have two 3.X books dedicated to encounter tables....

 

[Water Bob]

The Malazan Books of the Fallen series is an excellent example of a D&D style setting, showing how the characters and societies would deal with the fact that mages exist.

As I understand it, the books are based on Erickson's D&D campaign and game world. He first attempted a screenplay that didn't sell, and that led him to the books.

 

[dagger]

We currently play PF/1ed and have for years(well 1e).

We don't have a wizard problem or a 15 min work day problem and never have.

In 1e most of the XP comes from the treasure anyway, and that helps players play differently sometimes.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

In our last regular DnD campaign we had one player who was regularly guilty of burning all his good spells/powers in the first encounter then wanting to make camp. The rest of the group always told him "stiff cheddar" and kept moving. He (slowly) learned to be more restrained.

My personal problem with the 15 MAD is that it just seems silly from a narrative POV. This doesn't make it a bad thing, for some (many?) players considering the narrative POV is the silly thing.

cheers.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We have the three and four encounter adventuring day. We do not have the 15 MAD.

How? Where? Name the locations. Because there are very few of them I can think of in the Kingmaker module assuming you spend a day in each hex.

Spoiler

Stag Lord's Fort, the Barrow, Candlemere Keep, the Kobolds or the Mites, and the Trolls

are all that spring to mind in the first two modules. And that is the problem. Especially when it's safe to retreat from

Spoiler

Candlemere across the water and to outside the Barrow

and rest up.

As for the wandering monsters, IIRC 2e has the tables - but not the ten minute turns that mean you must keep moving. In 1e play they come in as a ticking clock. In the 3e DMG although you have the tables themselves they aren't so deeply part of the game. That's what I mean by removal of wandering monsters.

And no, Gamerprinter, you didn't realise that the norms had changed. That is the point. The checks and balances that were downplayed to the point of being removed are still there in your games. You didn't know you weren't meant to include them (and it's a better game if you do). But players who learned on later editions didn't know they were meant to use them so strongly.

And that's IMO what went wrong with playtesting 3e. It was playtested as far as I know mostly by former 1e and 2e players. The problems are normally exposed by people who come to 3e cold.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We currently play PF/1ed and have for years(well 1e).

We don't have a wizard problem or a 15 min work day problem and never have.

In 1e most of the XP comes from the treasure anyway, and that helps players play differently sometimes.

This. Very much this. And even when the XP doesn't come from treasure, XP as treasure creates habits they are in. 2e relegated that rule to optional rather than default - and it isn't even IIRC listed as an optional rule in 3e.

But players who learned on 1e will play that way because that's D&D. Whereas players who learned on 3e know that to get XP, defeat monsters.

 

[Hussar]

The Auld Grump - you're saying you typically have 3-4 encounters per adventuring day. A 15 MAD group has 1-2. How is this really a huge difference? A fair chunk of the time, you're only doing 1 more encounter per day. Sometimes you might be doing 3, but, I think the typically difference will be 1-2 encounters per day.

Overall, it makes almost zero difference. Over 20 levels, (I've posted this elsewhere), the difference in time between the two groups is something like 5 to 6 months total. How fast is the pacing of your game that 6 months is going to make a radical difference?

See, I can totally buy 3-4 encounters per adventuring day. To me, though, that IS 15 MAD. 3 encounters? That is a very, very short adventuring day.

The problem with this conversation is that everyone assumes that 15 MAD=1 and ONLY 1 encounter per adventuring day. That's not what 15 MAD is. 15 MAD is not limited to that. 15 MAD is a criticism of the fact that the pacing of groups is dictated by the casters. If your group is only doing 3-4 encounters per day, YOU ARE A 15 MAD group.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

How? Where? Name the locations. Because there are very few of them I can think of in the Kingmaker module assuming you spend a day in each hex.

Spoiler

Stag Lord's Fort, the Barrow, Candlemere Keep, the Kobolds or the Mites, and the Trolls

are all that spring to mind in the first two modules. And that is the problem. Especially when it's safe to retreat from

Spoiler

Candlemere across the water and to outside the Barrow

and rest up.

As for the wandering monsters, IIRC 2e has the tables - but not the ten minute turns that mean you must keep moving. In 1e play they come in as a ticking clock. In the 3e DMG although you have the tables themselves they aren't so deeply part of the game. That's what I mean by removal of wandering monsters.

And no, Gamerprinter, you didn't realise that the norms had changed. That is the point. The checks and balances that were downplayed to the point of being removed are still there in your games. You didn't know you weren't meant to include them (and it's a better game if you do). But players who learned on later editions didn't know they were meant to use them so strongly.

And that's IMO what went wrong with playtesting 3e. It was playtested as far as I know mostly by former 1e and 2e players. The problems are normally exposed by people who come to 3e cold.

They do so be not retreating from encounters - the

Spoiler

trolls

being an exception.

To be more accurate - they handle every encounter as if there will be more, not assuming that that will be all that there is.

When they hit places like

Spoiler

The Stag Lord's Fort

they try to take it out in as close to one go as possible - assuming that if they do not do so then there will be reinforcements brought in to make their job harder. Messengers sent to bring in the minor bandit camps along the roads, etc..

Yeah, most hexes only have a single encounter - but my players do not make that assumption, so if a

Spoiler

fey asks them to do something about an evil tree

they will try to use only part of the day's resources. And given that the bestiary section of several of the AP books also have several creatures that are designed to go after wounded parties, or be secondary monsters added to an existing encounter, the party is ofttimes right - Paizo added those opportunistic monsters for a reason, whether the critters

Spoiler

fly down in the darkness

or

Spoiler

pop out of a well, stream, or pond like a long skinny Jack in the Box

. Their stated purpose is to be added after or during encounters, not just to be encounters themselves.

They are there to be added to make the game more challenging, and some will follow the PCs to camp, then wait for nightfall. (Did that tree trunk just stand up?)

Again, what the critters are designed to do, and what they were added to the bestiary for.

The Auld Grump