Pathfinder 1E What's broken or needs vast system knowledge?

[N'raac]

Now, which one would be better to roleplay in a D&D game?

I've seen good characters following either model, so I will say that neither is inherently "better".

It's going to take more contrivance to make a skill like Profession: Cook as useful as Sense Motive for a detective.

So our Detective has only one skill point, and must select either Profession: Cook or Sense Motive? Frankly, if some skills are useless, then I consider that poor game design. If being a great cook will have no in-game benefits, then the player should be allowed to define his character as a great cook with no cost in character resources. Can we ever ensure each skill is equally relevant and influential? Probably not. But we can certainly work to ensure that players are not required to invest character resources into abilities that will have no value in the campaign.

Feats are rather significant investments for people who are not fighters.

Absolutely. So the investment of a feat should have benefits in-game. One such feat is Skill Focus. If it will have no in-game impact, perhaps it is again appropriate for the GM to mandate that character resources are not required to be expended for the character to have that ability.

Ah, so you'd give Skill Focus: Craft: Poetry additional uses.

I would more likely tell the player that "Craft: Poetry" is not a skill in my game world, and that the ability to compose poetry is a part of Perform: Poetry Recitation. Perform, of course, being a very important skill to a Bard. Or I would simply say "Your ability to compose poetry will have no game impact. You can define your character as a skilled composer of poetry without spending any skill points or feats."

Hold on. Are you suggesting that practice combat plays no part in how a character gains experience? Then what are fighting academies and martial arts classes teaching in the in-game world?

By RAW, practice combat plays no part in how a character gains experience. How is it that you consider the inhabitants of this world will notice and quantify the various results of leveling up, enhancing save bonuses or BAB, etc. but they will not notice that activities which do not generate xp do not result in any improvements, however long they are undertaken?

And you ignored completely the part where I suggested that they'd be sent out on missions. Which is another way of saying they get into combat.

So training in any field - cooking, practicing law, playing the flute, weaving cloth, any skill whatsoever - will see the student sent out on dangerous missions involving life or death combat? Regardless, by RAW, the experience gained will not vary with the skill of the teacher, but the number and nature of missions he sends his students on.

If we accept experience as a game mechanic only, simulating the many ways in which the PC's could be improving and enhancing their skills, then there becomes an in-game reason for such training. However, the acceptance of game mechanics as simplified abstractions would also seem to eliminate the ability to assert the game world residents can quantify those mechanics, since they are only abstractions of the game world's reality.

The mechanics of saves are quantized; you can fail 10% of the time, you can fail 15% of the time, but you never get someone who fails 13.5% of the time. If someone does a long study of these probabilities, they might notice it. Historically, this sort of thing has happened; during World War II, South African mathematician John Kerrich carried out 10,000 coin tosses while interned in a German prison camp. (He must have been really bored.)

So some Wizard will hire someone to stand and have Sleep cast upon him 10,000 times to record how often he falls asleep? Presumably, he must hire many people of many different levels of experience, since he needs to quantify when they obtain a bonus that increases the probability of success. He also needs to find a reliable measure for their basic statistics as WIS bonuses can throw off his curve.

I suggest, rather, that the "increments of 5%" save bonus are an abstraction necessitated to make the game playable, and are not observable or measurable within the game milieu. The characters might well reason that sometimes the effect of the spell is resisted, and even that persons with a strong will are more able to resist the effects of those spells. Demarcating what causes such enhancements to one's will, and in specific demarcations? Not so much.

How does it enhance the character more to take more levels of Oracle? Is it conceivable that one level of Oracle might be enough for a character concept?

Quite. What I consider not to be conceivable is that each and every Barbarian will attain precisely one level as an Oracle touched by divine forces, with each and every one of them rendered lame as a consequence.

Do you remember the parts of 3.5e rulebooks where it discusses how you can adapt classes and prestige classes? For example, Champion of Corellon has an adaptation section where it talks about changing the deity to another.

Do people not do that in Pathfinder? Are the class descriptions straight jackets now?

To me, those adaptations are intended to create interesting aspects of the campaign world, not to provide carte blanche for individual customization. But then, if I want absolute customization, I would look to the Hero System where all abilities are open and available, within the constraints of available character points and any restrictions imposed by the specific game.

Hold on. Nothing in the Challenge description requires you to warn enemies of your tactics. You simply single him out for more damage and make yourself easier to hit by other enemies. You do not have to be honorable to do this. You could be a some sort of psychopath and still focus your wrath on a single foe in combat.

"Once per day, a cavalier can challenge a foe to combat. As a swift action, the cavalier chooses one target within sight to challenge. The cavalier’s melee attacks deal extra damage whenever the attacks are made against the target of his challenge. "

This seems to imply a positive action on the Cavalier's part - throwing down a challenge, not just picking a target. How is that foe "challenged to combat" if not by a challenge issued to that foe?

The Ronin option does not require someone to act honorably - to be kind, just, fair, truthful, or ethical.

These are not perfect synonyms for the term "honorable".

The description of Ronin reads: "Known as ronin, these samurai wander the lands, serving their own code of ideals." He could behave like a Chaotic Evil scumbag - and indeed, the lack of alignment restrictions allows for just that kind of character.

He still needs that code of ideals, whatever it may be. The consistent adherence to such a code strikes me as more Lawful than Chaotic, but it would still only be one aspect of the character's overall persona.

That because Honorable Stand has honor in the title, it requires the character to act honorably, as if there is some sort of truth in advertising policy? Nothing in the actual ability requires you to be an honorable, it just requires you to stand your ground to the bitter end.

Apparently, Samurai consider death before retreat a facet of honor. If he acts dishonorably (retreats from that foe), he loses this ability for 24 hours.

And indeed, Black Jack does exactly that. Tell me what's wrong with it.

And again, I am not saying that every multiclass, or even every dip, is bad. I am saying that simply choosing options with no basis other than "I like these mechanics and they make me powerful" is not, in my eyes, the mark of a good character or a good game.

To the specific character, the only reason for that dip which I see from your comments is "I gain a mechanical advantage". I see nothing that makes him a more interesting character as a result, just "I had one more level and this dip provided a mechanical advantage".

Then how does your in-game world treat spells, abilities, powers, and feats that directly tell a character metagame knowledge?

This would vary depending on the specific ability. It may be an assessment of combat skill, magical knowledge etc. depending on the specific ability, and provides information in that regard in the terms of reference familiar to the character (a mighty warrior; a skilled novice). Again, we abstract that in-game information by providing information the player can evaluate - the mechanical abstractions.

 

[S'mon]

Going to have to disagree on this interpretation. Of all things, you'd think magic would get the most leeway in having strange rules.

I used to think magic was the exception to rules-aren't-physics, until I realised that I was happily running different games with different magic systems in the same game-world - 1e AD&D and Warhammer Battle, as I recall. And my sense of the actual physics of magic in the world wasn't much like either - it was a bit more like the 4e D&D system I guess. Eventually I accepted that the various magic rules I was using in no way defined the physics of magic; at most they pointed to a few things about the nature of magic in the setting.

 

[Votan]

Several D&D settings have had civilization last for a long while. In Faerun, for instance, Human seafarers settle Ruathym in the year -3100. The Time of Troubles was in the year 1358. Through the power of mathematics, one can conclude that humans civilization has existed in Faerun for 4458 years. And humanity is far from the oldest civilization in Faerun; Moon elves from Shantel Othreier founded Ardeep in the year -23,600.

Other settings have younger civilizations. In Greyhawk, the humans of Flanaess spread across the region in the year -2004. The Temple of Elemental Evil takes place in the year 566. This is only 2570 years worth of human civilization, though as Greyhaws it the default D&D setting, it has all the spells in the PHB. This is important to keep in mind for reasons I am about to explain in a moment.

I assume that, in most settings, there will be people who have already figured out basic spells. In which case, you'd think someone would notice that the duration of, say, Obscuring Mist increases in 1 minute increments. A novice who just mastered cantrips casts the spell and gets a 1 minute duration, a wizard of slightly more experience getting 2 minutes out of it, but never a duration of 1.5 minutes.

And anyone capable of casting spells such as Analyze Dweomer gets metagame information as a direct result of the spell.

I think I pretty much have to agree with this. I can totally buy clerics seeing magic as something divine and casting spells without cause as being an abuse of the divine gift. Or maybe Druids being solitary and not really being able to work these things out might be discussed. Sorcerers might be solitary and so forth. These sorts of assumptions might not apply to every campaign, but I could see the argument for it.

But wizards are an intelligence based class that has access to every possible knoweldge skill. This background suggests scholars and teachers. Many waizard spells have no cost to being cast other than time to prepare the spells. Duration might not be a great metric but you'd get it with repetition and practice. The intensity of fireballs may not be trivial to measure.

But what about the number of magic missiles that are created by a spell. That is discrete, easy to measure and would correspond to spell power. Or the number of totals spells that can be prepared. You just figure wizards are going to work these things out to a high level of precision . . .

 

[Votan]

Double post

 

[NewJeffCT]

I

The all-too-simple equation "powergaming = bad roleplaying" is known as the Stormwind Fallacy. And it's called a fallacy for good reason.

Good point on that - one of the biggest powergamers I played with many years back was also a terrific role player. He'd be the one called on to give the speech pleading our cause to the doubtful king, or negotiate with the pirates holding the merchant hostage, etc (He was a trial lawyer IRL) But, he also did his best to take the most powerful classes and whatnot (he was a bladesinger in 2E and then a duskblade in 3E/3.5E) in game.

 

[Cadence]

Then how does your in-game world treat spells, abilities, powers, and feats that directly tell a character metagame knowledge?

I think it would depend on the type of metagame knowledge -- spell duration seems like something the characters would know in the terms used if it was minutes or hours. It's never come up in a game for me, but I imagine if we had to think about what a character would get when the player saw +1d6 strength or damage in a spell description it would be something like 10-50% increase in physical lifting ability or something like that. I certainly don't imagaine the characters thinking of themselves as puppets of giant dice rolling beings.

As an aside, its kind of interesting to see where threads veer off to...

 

[S'mon]

But what about the number of magic missiles that are created by a spell. That is discrete, easy to measure and would correspond to spell power. Or the number of totals spells that can be prepared. You just figure wizards are going to work these things out to a high level of precision . . .

If in-world magic is no more analogous to the magic rules than in-world combat is to the combat rules, then magical experiments will not reveal the magic rules.

 

[Empirate]

I think I pretty much have to agree with this. I can totally buy clerics seeing magic as something divine and casting spells without cause as being an abuse of the divine gift. Or maybe Druids being solitary and not really being able to work these things out might be discussed. Sorcerers might be solitary and so forth. These sorts of assumptions might not apply to every campaign, but I could see the argument for it.

But wizards are an intelligence based class that has access to every possible knoweldge skill. This background suggests scholars and teachers. Many waizard spells have no cost to being cast other than time to prepare the spells. Duration might not be a great metric but you'd get it with repetition and practice. The intensity of fireballs may not be trivial to measure.

But what about the number of magic missiles that are created by a spell. That is discrete, easy to measure and would correspond to spell power. Or the number of totals spells that can be prepared. You just figure wizards are going to work these things out to a high level of precision . . .

In the Magic of Faerûn FR supplement, there's a chapter on mage fairs. During these, there are not only mage duels, markets, gladiatorial matches, spell swap meets etc. Wizards and Sorcerers also engage in Fireball hurling contests. The relative heat and maximum distance reached by each Fireball are gauged and compared, and a winner is elected based on how powerful his or her Fireballs are.

So I guess it's common for D&D mages to measure their magical dicks.

 

[Votan]

If in-world magic is no more analogous to the magic rules than in-world combat is to the combat rules, then magical experiments will not reveal the magic rules.

Okay, this I will grant you. It was more the granularity of spell effects linked to a research culture that made me suspect wizards would have a good idea of level and spell power. But there could be a level of abstraction going on in some games.

 

[Matthias]

That is entirely correct, however, the real world never had magic. D&D, however, does. I feel this is a significant difference.


It is entirely possible someone's studying probability distributions. The Name of the Wind features an order of wizards who systematically study magic, energy, and chemistry, among other topics, in a medieval setting.

Several D&D settings have had civilization last for a long while. In Faerun, for instance, Human seafarers settle Ruathym in the year -3100. The Time of Troubles was in the year 1358. Through the power of mathematics, one can conclude that humans civilization has existed in Faerun for 4458 years. And humanity is far from the oldest civilization in Faerun; Moon elves from Shantel Othreier founded Ardeep in the year -23,600.

Other settings have younger civilizations. In Greyhawk, the humans of Flanaess spread across the region in the year -2004. The Temple of Elemental Evil takes place in the year 566. This is only 2570 years worth of human civilization, though as Greyhaws it the default D&D setting, it has all the spells in the PHB. This is important to keep in mind for reasons I am about to explain in a moment.

I assume that, in most settings, there will be people who have already figured out basic spells. In which case, you'd think someone would notice that the duration of, say, Obscuring Mist increases in 1 minute increments. A novice who just mastered cantrips casts the spell and gets a 1 minute duration, a wizard of slightly more experience getting 2 minutes out of it, but never a duration of 1.5 minutes.

And anyone capable of casting spells such as Analyze Dweomer gets metagame information as a direct result of the spell.


So if Bob the Wizard casts this spell in game on Steve the Sorcerer, Bob automatically learns Steve's caster level. I imagine the in-game world reflects this somehow.



Well, I imagine they would have Fighter bonus feats, so somebody could snag Combat Awareness from the PHB2 if that book is allowed.


There are feats and spells like this scattered through 3.5e that basically tell you metagame information. For another example, look at the psionic power Feat Leech.


Psychic Reformation allows you to switch out skill points and feats for other ones. This means that the people using it would, again, have to have some idea of what they're manipulating, as the power adjusts discreet variables.




And that's a valid point, but the real world never had Int 30 supergeniuses running around who can determine these sorts of things via spells and ask questions of the gods on how things work. Or gods, for that matter.


Then let me ask you a question: How do players in your games choose their feats and builds? Do you let them pick whatever they want as long as they qualify in game terms, or do you force someone who wants to multiclass from Barbarian to Fighter to have spent time in a fighting academy, and if he wants to go back to Barbarian to avoid the dead third level of fighter, call him a powergaming munchkin and forbid him from doing so because you do not think he has an in-game knowledge of the upcoming dead level?

What about skill points? That's a very mechanistic approach to skills which does not at all resemble how skills are gained in the real world. And probably a dozen other game elements in Dungeons and Dragons.

You are applying real world logic to a game whose reality is governed by completely different rules, yet expect people in the game world to behave as if they were in our world.

If Pathfinder operated under real-world "laws of nature", you would not see spell effects manifest in integer increments, any more than you would see characters constrained to move around in 5-foot increments in the middle of a combat encounter. Having spell effects be dependent on class level and occuring in multiples of rounds or minutes saves GMs time by not making them do math that is more complicated than simple addition.

If you could run a Pathfinder simulation on a sufficiently advanced network server, you could generate precise fractional caster levels in real time, thereby calculating spell effects down to a fraction of a second, using the following formula:

C + (A / M)

where
C = current class level
A = XP accumulated beyond the minimum for the current class level
M = Minimum amount of XP to reach the next class level

In such an environment, you could also totally get rid of round-based combat in favor of an encounter clock and encounters being played in real time--or at least in-game real time, where X number of seconds in the real world equates to 1 second in the game world, and all creatures (including NPCs and monsters) are making decisions independently of one another.

However, such increases in realism are not really necessary because the current paradigm works just fine.