Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6797164" data-attributes="member: 996">One really good - even broken - ability doesn't make you Tier 1.&nbsp; It buys your way into Tier 4, Tier 3 if you're not otherwise deficient.&nbsp; But, if it's not that such powers fly under the radar, why is Pathfinder not being regularly attacked for such 'narrative incoherence' or whatever neologism is being trumpeted atm to make non-magical x/day abilities sound unacceptable?Same reason it should support such oddities as CaW or dungeon-crawls or whatever:&nbsp; some past edition or other supported it (and/or fans of that edition at least /tried/ to use it that way).&nbsp; Low-magic, and even no-magic campaigns have been attempted more or less from the beginning, even if they haven't often been workable.I'm sure I could imagine ways they might, too.&nbsp; But, lack of in-combat healing to stand up a fallen PC, for instance, can turn an ordinary combat into a 'death spiral,' as loss of the PC shifts the numeric advantage to the enemy, leading to another dropped PC, further stacking the odds against them.&nbsp; It's really just like the all-striker delves of early 4e, or the Nova tactics of 3.0 - it works well as long as it works, but when it doesn't, it's disastrous.&nbsp; That's probably an acceptable 're-skinning' of the traditional healing potion (or maybe projecting the traditionally magical healing potion of all prior eds on 5e was a little unconscious re-skinning on my part).No, it didn't.&nbsp; Checks, sure.&nbsp; Other contributions, not even close.&nbsp; Yes, quick combats are part of the design, but no, in-combat healing is as vital as ever, because quick combats can go wrong quickly, and you need to be able to recover from that just as quickly.And, while in-combat healing is perhaps the most obvious contribution such a party would be lacking, it's far from the only one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6797164, member: 996"] One really good - even broken - ability doesn't make you Tier 1. It buys your way into Tier 4, Tier 3 if you're not otherwise deficient. But, if it's not that such powers fly under the radar, why is Pathfinder not being regularly attacked for such 'narrative incoherence' or whatever neologism is being trumpeted atm to make non-magical x/day abilities sound unacceptable? Same reason it should support such oddities as CaW or dungeon-crawls or whatever: some past edition or other supported it (and/or fans of that edition at least /tried/ to use it that way). Low-magic, and even no-magic campaigns have been attempted more or less from the beginning, even if they haven't often been workable. I'm sure I could imagine ways they might, too. But, lack of in-combat healing to stand up a fallen PC, for instance, can turn an ordinary combat into a 'death spiral,' as loss of the PC shifts the numeric advantage to the enemy, leading to another dropped PC, further stacking the odds against them. It's really just like the all-striker delves of early 4e, or the Nova tactics of 3.0 - it works well as long as it works, but when it doesn't, it's disastrous. That's probably an acceptable 're-skinning' of the traditional healing potion (or maybe projecting the traditionally magical healing potion of all prior eds on 5e was a little unconscious re-skinning on my part). No, it didn't. Checks, sure. Other contributions, not even close. Yes, quick combats are part of the design, but no, in-combat healing is as vital as ever, because quick combats can go wrong quickly, and you need to be able to recover from that just as quickly. And, while in-combat healing is perhaps the most obvious contribution such a party would be lacking, it's far from the only one. [/QUOTE]

Verification