Pathfinder might become less bad

[PhoneLobster]

"All the things you totally want changed but totally compatible with the existing bloated product! All you have to do is smash them into pieces and jam them together yourself. Neither this experimental book or the bloated aging wreck will be obsoleted in a year or so. Trust us."

[magnuskn]

The link's timing out for me right now

Seems to be the case for the entire Paizo website at the moment.

[MfA]

It would be realy funny if Paizo does do their own closed IP for pf2 and then Dreamscarred press takes over where they left off with another attempt at 3e done better.

[magnuskn]

Is there any way to prevent the math breakdown after level 11 with the current 3E system? It really seems to be most significant problem as far as I am concerned and the guys at Paizo do not really seem to understand it / don't give a crap about their high-level opponents being ROFLstomped all the time.

[hogarth]

The link's timing out for me right now...Just going by that excerpt, Pathfinder Unchained seems like a response to 5e's advertised design philosophy.

I think they're just going down the list of 3.5E D&D books that they haven't duplicated yet and they've hit the "U" section.

Note that a few things from the 3.5E Unearthed Arcana made it into 4E (e.g. complex skill checks, simplified skill system, improved non-magical healing) in some form.

[tussock]

Is there any way to prevent the math breakdown after level 11 with the current 3E system?

There are many ways.

AD&D style for instance, works fine with d20 mechanics.

[*] Despite spells being ludicrously awesome, PCs can ignore them, as can the top end monsters. So saves that work, magic resistance that works on top, spells that either have saves or have caps that high end PCs can ignore, and plentiful cheap defences against the rest. Leave spells to shape the battlefield and wipe the mooks.

[*] You know who can hit monsters? Fighters, many times per round. You know who can't hit monsters? Everyone else, once a round. Need monsters hit? Get Fighters. Summon a bear instead? Please, Fighters eat bears for breakfast.

[*] Caster PCs cast better than caster monsters, fighting PCs fight better than fighting monsters. Double check those. PCs >> Monsters.

[*] Spell failure on casting is comitragically ever present in AD&D, it's easy to write into 3e. You can make it so a fairly solid blocking line/sphere both works perfectly and is vital and can't be trivially replaced with cheap summons because they're not hard enough. To some extent, a Cleric team can just win because they cast a bit and fight a bit, but that's unavoidable in their current image. As long as someone fights better and someone else casts better you won't get all-Cleric parties.

[*] You also need to fix that infinite loop stuff properly. With game-wide limiting rules. Like maximum number, individual power, and total XP of subordinate critters by character level, like wealth per level only they go home on their own.


Wait, you wanted math and I got into my usual rant. Right, so martial characters need to hit monsters and then kill them with damage, that's got to work, also means martial characters need to be able to get to the monsters. Casters who have "mass save-or-die" sort of spells mean everyone's saves just have to automatically work almost all the time after mid levels. Spells need to strictly avoid being built to actually bypass critical game magic immunity structures, like SR and saves and resistance and plane shifting and so on, at least not all of them all the time.

Most of the other mechanics, how people arrive at the right numbers, by items, stats, class, spells, whatever, that doesn't matter. Attack trumps AC, saves beat DCs, player movement and range and cope with monster movement and range. Blocking and martial-based caster lockdowns have to work.

[Username17]

The math on 3e really only works out to level 6 or so. If you want to get it going to level 11 and beyond, you need to institute something non-divergent. So for starters, attack bonuses should catch up on secondary and tertiary attacks rather than fall farther and farther behind. Save bonuses should get tighter and keep pace with dcs.

So for starters, save dcs should be character level dependent rather than spell level dependent, and the save bonuses should keep pace with that by rising at the same rate and getting character level dependent named bonuses.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The biggest obstacle to Pathfinder 2E's success might be the system that it's beholden to. A lot of the features that D&D fans take for granted are actually a boat anchor on a game that operates on a linear RNG and has as much power scaling as D&D does. For example:

• Tying derived numbers like defense and damage to stats but not tying stats to levels. I think that they should just decouple your will saving throw bonus being tied to your wisdom altogether. Or if they can't manage that, at least switch to a stat XOR system. That is, a fighter with 20 STR has a +5 damage bonus and a definite advantage for four levels, but from level 5 onwards (thanks to the +1/level inherent damage bonus fighters get) it's just a curiosity.
• Open multiclassing. Open multiclassing is probably the innovation of 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons and even though pretty much everyone (especially Pathfinder) acknowledges that it doesn't work and there are better ways to achieve its design goals I don't see Pathfinder as being able escape this legacy.
  
  But like FrankTrollman said, they can still curb the most egregious abuses. Save bonuses should be character-level dependent, not class dependent. They'll still need enough discipline not to litter the early levels with Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes crap. Pathfinder does have a few tricks up of their sleeves, though, to discourage people from multiclassing too much.
• Proliferation of number-fucking geegaw like cloaks of protection and amulets of natural armor. Pathfinder is really bad about this, even moreso than 3.5E and 4E D&D.

If Pathfinder did all of that then they could conceivably have a game that plays just fine to level 15-20 without extensive GM babysitting. For real this time, though.

[Red_Rob]

An issue I've come across in looking at the problems of 3e is that of keeping people on the same RNG whilst still allowing player choice and interesting decisions on level up. If you set it up so the maximum that two characters can start is 10 points apart on the RNG in a task, they can't really ever diverge more than that without the math starting to break down. Which means you have to be extremely conservative about allowing bonuses on level up. Ways around this such as a level-derived bonus to all rolls leads to oddness like frail old Wizards becoming experts at strength and dexterity related tasks as they level up.

[Username17]

An issue I've come across in looking at the problems of 3e is that of keeping people on the same RNG whilst still allowing player choice and interesting decisions on level up. If you set it up so the maximum that two characters can start is 10 points apart on the RNG in a task, they can't really ever diverge more than that without the math starting to break down. Which means you have to be extremely conservative about allowing bonuses on level up. Ways around this such as a level-derived bonus to all rolls leads to oddness like frail old Wizards becoming experts at strength and dexterity related tasks as they level up.

Well, what you need is to have highly level dependent tasks (climbing, stealth), somewhat level dependent tasks (crafting, door kicking), and level independent tasks (knowledge, diplomacy). You'd need to rewrite the skill system, but obviously you need to rewrite the skill system.

Some things kind of work with 2e's nwps and some things kind of work with 3e's ranks, and some things kind of work with 4e's auto scaling, and it's just unreasonable to expect one size to fit all.

-Username17

[deaddmwalking]

Ehh, I don't have a problem with high-level wizards being able to break down 'regular doors' because they're high level. If the door is 'hard' for a very strong character to break down, it's probably very hard for the wizard... And the fact that high-level wizards can kick in peasant doors now when they couldn't back at 1st level - well, that's hardly going to break the setting...

[Lago PARANOIA]

Trust me, people will flip their lid if 10th-level Thognarr the Barbarian can answer questions about religion better than 2nd-level White Mage the Cleric or if 2nd-level Whisper McWeaselface the Rogue sneaks in shadows worse than 10th-level Creaky El Lumbago the Wizard.

We know this, because that was the number-one complaint about the 4E D&D skill system among non-shills.

Secondly, so fucking what if two equal-leveled characters start out on the RNG for a task but then diverge so much that one of them loses it? Throwing a flaming casket of oil is about comparable to Burning Hands at low level, but no one gives a shit if there aren't any 9th level ExplodoOils+ readily available even if that's when Delayed Blast Fireball comes online.

Falling off of the RNG is okay and even desirable as long as the game doesn't regularly or one-sidedly present challenges that can only be passed by people able to do the task. It's only a problem when the broad contours of the challenge comes up so much that one character repeatedly gets the shaft or if it's a do-or-die challenge that determines whether the rest of the night will be spent playing Smash Bros.

[souran]

The math on 3e really only works out to level 6 or so. If you want to get it going to level 11 and beyond, you need to institute something non-divergent. So for starters, attack bonuses should catch up on secondary and tertiary attacks rather than fall farther and farther behind. Save bonuses should get tighter and keep pace with dcs.

So for starters, save dcs should be character level dependent rather than spell level dependent, and the save bonuses should keep pace with that by rising at the same rate and getting character level dependent named bonuses.

Did ANY 3.X designer ever fess up to why the Saving throw math is so messed up.

Assuming that "Bad" save progression is supposed to at least keep pace with spell DCs it should be pretty clear that with 9 (really 10 but 9 affect the math) spell levels it is not hard to figure out that when casters gain new spells saves need to increase by 1 or people will be failing more saves. Thats if we ignore the variance between casting stat and defense state which can, on its own, basically obliterate the RNG.

Excel was a thing in 1998-1999 the saving throw progressions are inexcuseable.

[virgil]

Wasn't that something 4E and Star Wars Saga basically did? Everyone's saves went up at the same rate, with a starting class bonus of +0 to +2 or so?

[Kaelik]

Hey Souran, maybe the game is better if people fail saves on their bad saves more unless they invest in bonuses to that saving throw.

I fucking hate that literally every time you talk about saving throws you sound like Tussock when he waxes nostalgic to the idea of everyone auto succeeding all saving throws and basically just erasing a mechanic from the game.

I mean for fucks sake, you can and should but a +5 resistance item. There is no +5 to DC item. 5+6 is often times more than 9.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Assuming that "Bad" save progression is supposed to at least keep pace with spell DCs it should be pretty clear that with 9 (really 10 but 9 affect the math) spell levels it is not hard to figure out that when casters gain new spells saves need to increase by 1 or people will be failing more saves. Thats if we ignore the variance between casting stat and defense state which can, on its own, basically obliterate the RNG.

Excel was a thing in 1998-1999 the saving throw progressions are inexcuseable.

That's just the cherry on the shit sundae, though. The problem of stats being uncorrelated with level, open multiclassing, and magic item proliferation made it much worse.

Level 15 of 20 spellcasters easily throwing out Save DCs of at least 22 (level 8 spell) when your base saving throw in your good save is +9 and your bad save is +4 is pretty bad but still still manageable. All that other shit thrown on top, though, means that the game has absolutely no chance of working.

[souran]

Hey Souran, maybe the game is better if people fail saves on their bad saves more unless they invest in bonuses to that saving throw.

I fucking hate that literally every time you talk about saving throws you sound like Tussock when he waxes nostalgic to the idea of everyone auto succeeding all saving throws and basically just erasing a mechanic from the game.

I mean for fucks sake, you can and should but a +5 resistance item. There is no +5 to DC item. 5+6 is often times more than 9.

Considering we are talking about a game where failing saving throws means that you spend the whole evening playing smash brothers, yes I think that you should at least not get WORSE at making some of your saves against level approprate spells.

Additionally, there are craploads of ways to increase the DC of your spells, and you have 1 casting stat and every target has 3 defenses and you can pretty much always choose the one where the differance between your casting stat and their defense stat is greatest.

So, yes I am VERY certain the save DCs vs. save progressions are broken. If you fixed save progression then people wouldn't need to wear 3 +5 save items just so that they wouldn't have to worry if they had charged their iphone enough for them to play angry birds all night.

[souran]

That's just the cherry on the shit sundae, though. The problem of stats being uncorrelated with level, open multiclassing, and magic item proliferation made it much worse.

Level 15 of 20 spellcasters easily throwing out Save DCs of at least 22 (level 8 spell) when your base saving throw in your good save is +9 and your bad save is +4 is pretty bad but still still manageable. All that other shit thrown on top, though, means that the game has absolutely no chance of working.

Agreed that there are more problems with the save system than raw progression. However, even in low optimization games the problems with people getting worse and worse at their bad saves quickly becomes apperent. Again, somebody at some point could have placed the numbers in excel, seen that the percentage was falling when stats/feats were held steady, converted it to a bunch of charts and put the charts in front of a totally innumerate managing designer and said "these pretty lines indicate why this will be broken."

[Axebird]

Really, the existence of spells that can totally shut someone down with a single saving throw are a bigger problem than the saving throw math. It wouldn't be nearly the issue it is if more spells were like hold person, in that you got a new save to throw the effect off every round, or like calcific touch, which deals ability damage leading up to incapacitation.

And Save or Dies can fuck right off.

[Kaelik]

then people wouldn't need to wear 3 +5 save items just so that

You are an idiot. If you don't even know literally any of the rules, you don't get to have an opinion.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Given how much D&D likes its save-or-sucks, you'd think that they would implement a system where the effect or duration scaled by how badly you failed the save.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with, say, a Hold Person causing someone who just barely failed the initial save letting them get a save every around, someone who failed it by +5 only getting a save every three rounds, and by +10 being permanently paralyzed.

[Mistborn]

Really, the existence of spells that can totally shut someone down with a single saving throw are a bigger problem than the saving throw math. It wouldn't be nearly the issue it is if more spells were like hold person, in that you got a new save to throw the effect off every round, or like calcific touch, which deals ability damage leading up to incapacitation.

And Save or Dies can fuck right off.

Given that balance line for 3e involves people dropping an opponent on the same tier in 2-3 round I'd have to disagree strenuously on that account.

[Username17]

Really, the existence of spells that can totally shut someone down with a single saving throw are a bigger problem than the saving throw math. It wouldn't be nearly the issue it is if more spells were like hold person, in that you got a new save to throw the effect off every round, or like calcific touch, which deals ability damage leading up to incapacitation.

And Save or Dies can fuck right off.

This is stupid and you should feel stupid. Hold person is in all ways worse for the game than deep slumber. The first leaves you helpless and gives your enemies a time limit for coup de gracing your ass. The latter boots you out of the combat, but offers no harm at all if your allies win the battle.

Save or Lose is fine, and basically necessary if battles don't take a large number of rounds. Save or Lose effects that wear off before the battle is over are the worst thing ever, because they encourage overkill actions that are meaningless to disposable monsters but cause lasting harm to player characters.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, a lot of people think that 3E D&D combat -- especially at very low and very high levels -- is too short, Lord Mistborn. When combat only lasts for three rounds that's not too big of a deal but if it lasts for five turns then it's kind of a sticking point. Considering that both Pathfinder and 4E D&D deliberately implemented changes to extend the mean length of combat it is something that has to be dealt with. And I find 4E D&D's saving throw system full of fail and tears.

Save or Lose is fine, and basically necessary if battles don't take a large number of rounds. Save or Lose effects that wear off before the battle is over are the worst thing ever, because they encourage overkill actions that are meaningless to disposable monsters but cause lasting harm to player characters.

Then again, both Pathfinder and 4E D&D took steps to make it so that 'death' often isn't more of a inconvenience than 'longer-than-combat incapacitation'. You may not like it -- I certainly don't -- but that is the calculus that the game designers are operating under.

[John Magnum]

I'm still mad at the Orb of Imposition nerfs.