Rant: Riding dog is second tier!1!1! (Paizo)

[ckafrica]

Smug

What you just described doesn't deserve its own publication run, it deserves to be post in some wiki for house rules. Seriously.

So little what they've done has been anything even touching on innovative that it is an insult to everyone whose been playing this game that they are trying to publish what they have. The reaction that the developers have had to negative criticism proves that they are not professional enough to do what they are trying to do.

It IS offensive that these guys feel they are trying to keep themselves afloat on the laurels of their lost contract by trying to shill this uninspired tome of mediocrity as something renovating the game. They painted the living room while claiming that they did the whole house. It's weak shit

[ckafrica]

Also worth pointing out that most 3.5 stuff will not be compatible without serious revisions on their own so one of their main premises to the system is a delusion

[Tequila Sunrise]

Personally I never intended to buy PF, and I still don't. If I were to DM a 3e game again, an unlikely possibility, I have a 10+ page pdf of the best house rules of 3e that I could choose from to 'fix' my game. I do download the PF pdfs though, out of curiosity, and I occasionally post on the PF forums when I see a topic of interest. A few months back I started a stink about the absurd +1 BAB prereq for Weapon Finesse and lo and behold, JB dropped it in the next pdf.

I can definitely understand feeling that PF is 'too little, too late', but I just don't understand where all this anger is coming from.

TS

[Username17]

I can definitely understand feeling that PF is 'too little, too late', but I just don't understand where all this anger is coming from.

Because Jason said that he was going to do an open playtest and make a fixed version of D&D that was on the whole compatible. This encouraged people like myself and K to actually take time out of our day to help him.

Then he behaved like a jack ass, through a major temper tantrum, and drove all of us away. And the final product he's making is neither fixed nor compatible. So I'm left pissed off and excluded.

Or to put it another way: why wouldn't I be angry?

-Username17

[smug]

Smug

What you just described doesn't deserve its own publication run, it deserves to be post in some wiki for house rules. Seriously.

So little what they've done has been anything even touching on innovative that it is an insult to everyone whose been playing this game that they are trying to publish what they have. The reaction that the developers have had to negative criticism proves that they are not professional enough to do what they are trying to do.

It IS offensive that these guys feel they are trying to keep themselves afloat on the laurels of their lost contract by trying to shill this uninspired tome of mediocrity as something renovating the game. They painted the living room while claiming that they did the whole house. It's weak shit

If they can sell it, fair play to them. If they can't, well that's just the nature of competition. As for 'offensive', that seems to be to me taking it too far; if one were to compose a list of 'things stupid enough to be offended by', even if one left out political campaigns I can hardly believe that even people that thing that PF is shite would feature it in their top 100 offensive things.

Also worth pointing out that most 3.5 stuff will not be compatible without serious revisions on their own so one of their main premises to the system is a delusion

I haven't found it particularly problematic yet, but I'll see how it goes. For me, however, the most important part of '3.5 stuff' isn't splatbooks but rather modules, and that's perhaps a different thing to what concerns you.

I can definitely understand feeling that PF is 'too little, too late', but I just don't understand where all this anger is coming from.

Because Jason said that he was going to do an open playtest and make a fixed version of D&D that was on the whole compatible. This encouraged people like myself and K to actually take time out of our day to help him.

Then he behaved like a jack ass, through a major temper tantrum, and drove all of us away. And the final product he's making is neither fixed nor compatible. So I'm left pissed off and excluded.

I think that a big part of the issues that some have had (including PR, a Pathfinder supporter, getting banned from their forums) is that they are demanding a certain decorum that (in my opinion) is antithetical to the pursuit of improvement. It's not how I'd moderate their boards (but then, it always is a bit tricky judging how to moderate corporate boards, it seems to me).

Or to put it another way: why wouldn't I be angry?

-Username17

I guess I never had fantastically high hopes for how it would turn out in terms of the playtest writing the rules (and I guess I expect to be largely ignored just because of the numbers involved although also I don't have your expertise in any case).

[RandomCasualty2]

I think I realize my main point of rage against PF, and that's namely that they have yet to include a simple system for statting monsters and NPCs of a given CR. After playing 4E, I realize that this is like one of the few advantages 4E has over 3.5, but it's a big advantage, since it lets DM stat up shit quickly. I can make a 4E monsters in like 2-4 minutes, where anything that involves creating something custom in 3.5 takes forever. And this really makes me dislike 3.5 more than any other feature. Because as a DM I'm spending tons of time statting shit up and not working on an adventure, and as a player, because the outrageously long preparation time leads other DMs to make simple boring railroaded adventures. When the DM spent an hour writing an encounter, you are going to fight that battle. Some DMs try to disguise it by allowing you to choose left or right, but in the end both lead to that encounter, no matter what you do.

And I really can't believe Pathfinder didn't try to fix that at all.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

I think I realize my main point of rage against PF, and that's namely that they have yet to include a simple system for statting monsters and NPCs of a given CR. After playing 4E, I realize that this is like one of the few advantages 4E has over 3.5, but it's a big advantage, since it lets DM stat up shit quickly. I can make a 4E monsters in like 2-4 minutes, where anything that involves creating something custom in 3.5 takes forever. And this really makes me dislike 3.5 more than any other feature. Because as a DM I'm spending tons of time statting shit up and not working on an adventure, and as a player, because the outrageously long preparation time leads other DMs to make simple boring railroaded adventures. When the DM spent an hour writing an encounter, you are going to fight that battle. Some DMs try to disguise it by allowing you to choose left or right, but in the end both lead to that encounter, no matter what you do.

Yes, that is a fault in the 3.x Dnd system.

However, it is easily fixed with houserules. The purpose of the numbers in a game system are to test the strengths of different characters in different ways. This necessitates keeping the players on the RNG with respect to each other. Then if you want an enemy to be easy to hit by the group, you give him an Ac of 5 higher than the average party attack bonus. A hard to hit opponent gets an Ac of 15 points higher. You do this for every number: Ac, saves, skill checks, attack bonus, damage, etc.

Yes, this is a houserule. You don't need to fill out a Dnd sheet like some fucking tax reform code, adding up bullshit bonuses from all over the place. "Ok, I want Npc Fighter X to be hard to hit by the party. Ok, base ac 10, dex mod +4...oh wait, max dex from armor is +3, +8 from armor, +3 from enhancement, +2 from shield, +3 enhancement, +2 natural armor, oh, I don't have enough gp for that, ok, get a +1 of this and a +1 of that...." Don't. Do. This.

Yes, 3.x is off the RNG and is shit in that respect. Claiming that it is difficult to fix, or in any way comparable to the scale of 4e's flaws is profoundly stupid.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I can definitely understand feeling that PF is 'too little, too late', but I just don't understand where all this anger is coming from.

Because Jason said that he was going to do an open playtest and make a fixed version of D&D that was on the whole compatible. This encouraged people like myself and K to actually take time out of our day to help him.

Then he behaved like a jack ass, through a major temper tantrum, and drove all of us away. And the final product he's making is neither fixed nor compatible. So I'm left pissed off and excluded.

Or to put it another way: why wouldn't I be angry?

-Username17

Jason just reacted defensively to what he probably viewed as a hostile takeover attempt. That doesn't mean that he did the right thing or the smart thing, but I think it's a very human reaction.

As I think is clear from the revisions, Jason is a person with a lot of ideas but not a lot of theory. Regardless of his stated goals, his actual goals in making Pathfinder are probably just to be a lead designer and implement some cool ideas he's been thinking about.

Hence the lack of systematic framework, the asymmetric ability bloat, and the glaring imbalances.

[Tequila Sunrise]

I can definitely understand feeling that PF is 'too little, too late', but I just don't understand where all this anger is coming from.

Because Jason said that he was going to do an open playtest and make a fixed version of D&D that was on the whole compatible. This encouraged people like myself and K to actually take time out of our day to help him.

Fair enough.

I think I realize my main point of rage against PF, and that's namely that they have yet to include a simple system for statting monsters and NPCs of a given CR.

Ah...the countless hours I spent trying to figure out the rhyme and reason behind CR. Then I finally realized that there never was any true method to the madness, and a kind of peace came over me...and I was finally able to write up a set of no-BS monster creation guidelines. I don't think D&D will ever have a set of solid official monster/NPC creation guidelines, be it 3e, PF, 4e or any other.

TS

[Bigode]

Jason just reacted defensively to what he probably viewed as a hostile takeover attempt. That doesn't mean that he did the right thing or the smart thing, but I think it's a very human reaction.

Maybe I'll except that as an excuse when you explain how'd Frank be able to take anything over. Also, calling something "human" isn't ever an appropriate excuse - there's no context in which the word's better than neutral.

[RandomCasualty2]

Yes, this is a houserule. You don't need to fill out a Dnd sheet like some fucking tax reform code, adding up bullshit bonuses from all over the place. "Ok, I want Npc Fighter X to be hard to hit by the party. Ok, base ac 10, dex mod +4...oh wait, max dex from armor is +3, +8 from armor, +3 from enhancement, +2 from shield, +3 enhancement, +2 natural armor, oh, I don't have enough gp for that, ok, get a +1 of this and a +1 of that...." Don't. Do. This.

Yes, 3.x is off the RNG and is shit in that respect. Claiming that it is difficult to fix, or in any way comparable to the scale of 4e's flaws is profoundly stupid.

Well it is difficult to fix, simply because it relies on everyone group playing by different stat blocks. Once you say that an ogres AC isn't a fixed amount, but is instead just some arbitrary number that isn't even fixed, but instead varies depending on the bonuses of the PCs, that's not an easy fix.

And really, at that point I wonder why even have rules at all, because the numbers you have are meaningless. Get a big bonus to attack and all you do is raise the monster's ACs. And not in a natural progression, but instead directly. You have 28 AC, therefore the monster has a +18 to hit, because it was deemed that it should hit 50% of the time.

At that point, the rules really feel broken, because we could just cut out all the bullshit and just say "Strong monster: 50% chance to hit any PC" and not bother with AC and attack roll mechanics at all.

The simple house rule you propose is actually akin to just tossing all the other numerical bonuses in the game. And if that's what it takes to make 3.5 playable, then the system is pretty much unsalvageable, because the thing you propose isn't really a system at all.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yes, this is a houserule. You don't need to fill out a Dnd sheet like some fucking tax reform code, adding up bullshit bonuses from all over the place. "Ok, I want Npc Fighter X to be hard to hit by the party. Ok, base ac 10, dex mod +4...oh wait, max dex from armor is +3, +8 from armor, +3 from enhancement, +2 from shield, +3 enhancement, +2 natural armor, oh, I don't have enough gp for that, ok, get a +1 of this and a +1 of that...." Don't. Do. This.

Yes, 3.x is off the RNG and is shit in that respect. Claiming that it is difficult to fix, or in any way comparable to the scale of 4e's flaws is profoundly stupid.

Well it is difficult to fix, simply because it relies on everyone group playing by different stat blocks. Once you say that an ogres AC isn't a fixed amount, but is instead just some arbitrary number that isn't even fixed, but instead varies depending on the bonuses of the PCs, that's not an easy fix.

I don't think that Sphere is saying that AC for example shouldn't be a fixed amount; he's saying that it should depend directly on CR rather than depending indirectly on CR through a bunch of background stats that the players never see. But maybe that's just my philosophy.

I don't agree with Sphere's statement that this is a sublimely simple house rule though, and that fixing this problem somehow makes 3e preferable to 4e. It is a relatively simple house rule, but 3e requires far too many house rules to make playable even if they are all relatively simple.

TS

[SphereOfFeetMan]

It is an easy fix for any particular gaming group.

The game rules are not the numbers. The game rules are the basic combat options, spell effects, supernatural abilities, etc. That is the game system. The numbers are a small and next to meaningless part of the rules, that are easily modified by any number of means.

For example: A low level group fighting an Npc melee Fighter. You just write down a 25 in his Ac. No player is going to fucking care that you didn't jump through hoops to get that number. They are not going to say: "Oh shit now. Look at this shit. You didn't write down that he had a base 10 ac, 8 from mithral full plate, 3 from dex, and a +2 shield. I can't take this. I'm walking."

You can get the same numbers by jumping through hoops, or by just writing down numbers. Nobody cares that you didn't go through WotC's game tax code. Saving preparation time does not negate all the abilities and effects in the game which players like to have, and which are fun to play.

[PhoneLobster]

For example: A low level group fighting an Npc melee Fighter. You just write down a 25 in his Ac. No player is going to fucking care that you didn't jump through hoops to get that number. They are not going to say: "Oh shit now. Look at this shit. You didn't write down that he had a base 10 ac, 8 from mithral full plate, 3 from dex, and a +2 shield. I can't take this. I'm walking."

So anyway I played a game of d20 World of Warbullshit not too long ago.

I'm not to familiar with the guys DMing style, turns out he has a bit of Gygaxian railroad tycoon going.

So he makes this big thing about how uber tough these couple of paladins our exceptionally lame, under numbered, primarily goblin and already significantly inured group encounters, at very close range by surprise for no good reason, happen to be.

We get severely beaten. Of course. I say "Bullshit that was like +5 EL or what?" And he is like "Nah, they were just level 1 paladins"

But I run the numbers I observed in practice and manage to determine that...
1) They had between 3 to four base attributes of 16 or 18.
2) They had way better equipment than us.
3) They were using level 2 or better class abilities and easily had level 2+ HP and level 3+ equipment value.
4) For a party of 3 level 1 characters with poor equipment and significantly expended resources in HP and spells from earlier fights the encounter was well off the scale.
5) He didn't understand or apply numerous basic movement and combat rules.
6) He didn't understand or use core, or remotely sane/fair substitutes for starting encounter distances.
7) He was constantly screwing us on AoEs Every AoE we ever placed constantly failed to have more than one enemy under it and somehow always had an ally under it. (a massive achievement considering the described actions and positions of enemies and allies).

So yeah I fucking care where 25 AC came from. And I will run numbers and call you on it. Because it isn't fair and the game sucks when the party TPKs against the numbers you pulled out of your ass.

Even if you manage to pull out balanced numbers I still care when that suit doesn't give ME 25 AC when I strip it from the nigh invulnerable corpse of my enemy.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

So yeah I fucking care where 25 AC came from. And I will run numbers and call you on it. Because it isn't fair and the game sucks when the party TPKs against the numbers you pulled out of your ass.

Even if you manage to pull out balanced numbers I still care when that suit doesn't give ME 25 AC when I strip it from the nigh invulnerable corpse of my enemy.

It sounds as if that Dm was mostly fucking you over in ways that I wasn't addressing.

That said, no it does not matter where the numbers come from. I can jump through the hoops and give fair numbers, or I can jump through hoops and give insanely unfair numbers. Or I can just write stuff down and give fair numbers, or I can just write stuff down and give insanely unfair numbers.

There is no causal relationship between fairness and time-consuming game tax codes.

[Ice9]

For most monsters, it indeed doesn't matter exactly where the bonuses are coming from. Whether the monster had 10 BAB and +5 Strength or 5 BAB and +10 Strength, or 5 BAB, +5 Strength, and a +5 Insight bonus, the attack bonus is still +15, and all of those are equally possible for a monster to have.

Humanoids are slightly more tricky. For some areas it doesn't exactly matter, but for certain areas (like AC for instance), where the PCs have to scramble for every +1, they may cry foul when that Orc's rusty half-plate is giving him 30 AC and DR 10/adamantine - especially if it just reverts to normal half-plate when they take it.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Humanoids are slightly more tricky. For some areas it doesn't exactly matter, but for certain areas (like AC for instance), where the PCs have to scramble for every +1, they may cry foul when that Orc's rusty half-plate is giving him 30 AC and DR 10/adamantine - especially if it just reverts to normal half-plate when they take it.

The fairness of treasure allocation is a separate issue from Rng fairness. You could pull shenanigans, and jump through hoops, and create an Orc with a 30 AC and DR 10/-adamantine with no magic items whatsoever. That is by the rules. It is also total bullshit.

It is the Gm's responsibility to be fair with respect to the Rng, and magic items. If the Gm does this without jumping through hoops, good for him.

[Psychic Robot]

I have to agree with Sphere--just make up numbers that are going to provide an adequate challenge. This is, of course, completely bullshitting the system and fucking with the 4e "pull it out of your ass" mechanics--and I hate it conceptually--but if you're having huge problems making monsters, it's not a horrible solution.

Now, for a recurring NPC, I would stat him or her up. But that's not an orc who is going to get his ass handed to him.

[PhoneLobster]

There is no causal relationship between fairness and time-consuming game tax codes.

At which point I say fuck off and play fairy tea party you rule hating dumb ass.

[Psychic Robot]

Really, though, I find that statting up monsters and then pitting them against the party is very rewarding. Of course, the party then manage exploit the monster's one weakness you overlooked, turning the encounter into a cakewalk.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

At which point I say fuck off and play fairy tea party you rule hating dumb ass.

At which point I say go fuck yourself. You obviously don't have the ability to comprehend basic game mechanics, so anything you say is worthless. Dumb ass.

[RandomCasualty2]

I have to agree with Sphere--just make up numbers that are going to provide an adequate challenge. This is, of course, completely bullshitting the system and fucking with the 4e "pull it out of your ass" mechanics--and I hate it conceptually--but if you're having huge problems making monsters, it's not a horrible solution.

Yeah, the philosophy sounds very 4Eish to me. Especially when treasure allocation is separated from NPC stats. Those are all very 4E style concepts towards encounter design.

Now, I actually don't think the 4E encounter design attitude is all that bad honestly, it's just that I'd prefer there be some system (a fast system), for creating monsters of a given CR that didn't involve just making the monster entirely PC relative. Though I guess it's impossible to do CR's normally in 3.5 anyway because PC power can vary so much. What challenges a 5th level druid is going to destroy a 5th level monk. So maybe it's a pointless goal anyway, and the only real solutions have to be for each individual adventuring party instead of one generic solution for everyone.

Now, for a recurring NPC, I would stat him or her up. But that's not an orc who is going to get his ass handed to him.

I haven't had much in the way of recurring 3.5 villains. The game is just too deadly, and if the villain is just going to teleport away in the first round, I'm not even going to bother statting him up. And if he doesn't teleport first action, he's going to get totally nuked. Most of the recurring characters tend to be noncombat NPCs which you don't stat out anyway.

[PhoneLobster]

You obviously don't have the ability to comprehend basic game mechanics, so anything you say is worthless.

YOU ARE MAKING AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE USE OF BASIC GAME MECHANICS.

I feel the need to remind you that in big letters and small words because you seem oddly to think you can do that AND accuse me of being an idiot for not understanding basic game mechanics.

I mean "adding up AC? Fuck that is tedious rules-tax for chumps, what? You don't like me making up a really high "low level" ac? Fuck you for not understanding basic er, rules tax"

Your capacity for cognitive dissonance is fantastical.

[Koumei]

This debate would be incredibly boring were it not for the insults you are slinging at each other. Bravo.

I quite enjoy spending time making encounters, with the rules, sometimes even choosing to include a weakness for players to discover and exploit (as opposed to overlooking something and watching it happen by accident). It's like making a character, really, and I enjoy that.

I don't like the idea of just making bullshit up and then pretending that you're even using the intricacies of the system. If the opposing numbers are directly set by your numbers, then your numbers don't matter so you might as well just declare "a hard-to-hit thing is hit on a 16+, no matter who you are." and what-not.

[JonSetanta]

This debate would be incredibly boring were it not for the insults you are slinging at each other. Bravo.

/tg/ would love them so much. 7/10, would rage again, etc.

I've lost track of the actual discussion and insert comparison between counterbaiting multiquote rages with mythological rock-throwing giants here, but I like a strong continuity of mechanics for both PC and DM sides.
When shit changes suddenly just because it's passed between that erected sheet of cardboard I do find that outright bullshit.
Ideally the DM uses the same rules and resources as the players but the arrangement and control of said resources is changed.