General opinion on Pathfinder RPG?

[veekie]

Well, if you leave it open, you could add immature characters into a game without much house ruling or disturbing matters, for the matter.

[bhu]

Ok, Meg just replied to the thread about the sub forum I asked for, and she said she needs screenname links to make it go faster. Just to be sure, I want to get confirmation on who is in. If I miss somebody, please speak up.

Bhu

I'm in

[The_Mad_Linguist]

So it looks like we so far have a concensus classes having broad scope with the ability to specialize through customization.

You can fix the skill try issue by simply having abilities scale with level.  The biggest point is that your total power should be based on your character level, and nothing else.  Your classes or abilities shouldn't make you more powerful than another class or someone with different abilities.  They simply make you different.  I'm fine with the system rewarding specialization, although it should be set up so that you can specialize in a few things fairly easily to keep from having too narrow a focus.

I disagree.  If you make a wizard10 with 5 int, you deserve to suck.

[dither]

I disagree.  If you make a wizard10 with 5 int, you deserve to suck.

I disagree. If you make a wizard 10 with 5 INT, you've managed to get through 9 levels as a wizard with sub-optimal Intelligence. That's worth something.

[Alastar]

Commoner>wizard, everyone knows that!!

[The_Mad_Linguist]

I disagree.  If you make a wizard10 with 5 int, you deserve to suck.

I disagree. If you make a wizard 10 with 5 INT, you've managed to get through 9 levels as a wizard with sub-optimal Intelligence. That's worth something.

So we can only create characters at first level now?

[dither]

I disagree.  If you make a wizard10 with 5 int, you deserve to suck.

I disagree. If you make a wizard 10 with 5 INT, you've managed to get through 9 levels as a wizard with sub-optimal Intelligence. That's worth something.

So we can only create characters at first level now?

Unless you were born fully-grown and with 10 wizard levels, whether you played through levels 1-9 or not, your character must have experienced them, ne? Isn't that sort of the point?

[The_Mad_Linguist]

I disagree.  If you make a wizard10 with 5 int, you deserve to suck.

I disagree. If you make a wizard 10 with 5 INT, you've managed to get through 9 levels as a wizard with sub-optimal Intelligence. That's worth something.

So we can only create characters at first level now?

Unless you were born fully-grown and with 10 wizard levels, whether you played through levels 1-9 or not, your character must have experienced them, ne? Isn't that sort of the point?

The point is that character ability has to be based on more than just level -  player ability at optimization is going to have an effect no matter which system you use (unless your entire character sheet is a class and a level number). 

Maybe your wizard lost most his intelligence to a mind flayer cabal.

[Sinfire Titan]

Maybe it's not the Wizard who has an Int of 5?

[dither]

Maybe your wizard lost most his intelligence to a mind flayer cabal.

Sounds like it's time to retire the character, then?

[The_Mad_Linguist]

That was a bit of an extreme example, but if there's a side-by-side comparison between wizards with builds identical except for ability scores
WizA
12 str
10 dex
14 con
8 wis
17 int
10 cha

and
WizB
8 str
10 dex
14 con
8 wis
20 int
8 cha

It's fairly obvious which one is more powerful.

[dither]

That was a bit of an extreme example, but if there's a side-by-side comparison between wizards with builds identical except for ability scores

It's fairly obvious which one is more powerful.

I added the scores of Wiz A together and got 71 and I added the scores of Wiz B together and got 68, without taking into account the differences in "point-buy," since you didn't say you used it. I'm confused as to why you say that it should be obvious which one is more powerful. How are the ability score values relevant to the build?

Assuming the ability scores mean the same thing (and we're talking about D&D):
Wiz A is stronger, both are about the same in terms of nimbleness, both are pretty healthy, both lack common sense, Wiz B is smarter, and Wiz B is lacking in personal charm (probably a grumpy old bugger).

[altpersona]

i see a save dc difference of 2 points and a couple bonus cantrips..

[Risada]

Maybe it's not the Wizard who has an Int of 5?

 

@the level-based abilities: sure, it should matter a lot. However, one should not be tied up only on that. The stats and other stuff (feats/items/buffs) should join in as well... What can't happen is the other stuff be more relevant than the character levels themselves....

[dither]

see a save dc difference of 2 points and a couple bonus cantrips...

I assume you're referring to the difference in Intelligence scores, right? So, that 3-point difference in one ability score gives you extra character options? Why doesn't the +4 difference in Strength or the +2 difference in Charisma do anything like that? Sounds kinda messed up to me.

[veekie]

I disagree.  If you make a wizard10 with 5 int, you deserve to suck.

I disagree. If you make a wizard 10 with 5 INT, you've managed to get through 9 levels as a wizard with sub-optimal Intelligence. That's worth something.

So we can only create characters at first level now?

Unless you were born fully-grown and with 10 wizard levels, whether you played through levels 1-9 or not, your character must have experienced them, ne? Isn't that sort of the point?

The point is that character ability has to be based on more than just level -  player ability at optimization is going to have an effect no matter which system you use (unless your entire character sheet is a class and a level number). 

Yes, indeed it does. However, on the design side, such holes to be targeted by optimisers should be minimised, the key merit of a level based system is a set of expectations of capabilities. Optimisers WILL find gaps to manipulate, but as a designer, ensuring a maximum number of builds are functional is key. Maximising MAD helps somewhat here in keeping viable builds per concept to a high level, compared to SAD.

[altpersona]

flopping back to the other side of the fence....

2 points of int is better than 2 points of strength...

probably better than the dif in str and cha... but i dont have the math to support that..

and flipping back over..

the str points are a bigger value at lvl 1 than lvl 5...

[bhu]

Wizards actually study magic to gain power, so I'd say that Int should affect them somehow.  However I'd think that it would determine how many spells they could learn and how complicated a spell they could cast as opposed to how powerful that spell actually was.

And nothing says you cant give other classes abilities that are based on a stat of some sort.  But if you'd like to disconnect spells from stats just make the caster have a set number of spells per day, and if he wants bonus spells he gets the appropriate feat.


A better question to be settled first would be how versatile do you want the system to be?  Are we doing a specific type of fantasy setting?  Or are we doing a system we hope can be adapted to different types of fantasy settings.

[GawainBS]

Wizards actually study magic to gain power, so I'd say that Int should affect them somehow.  However I'd think that it would determine how many spells they could learn and how complicated a spell they could cast as opposed to how powerful that spell actually was.

And nothing says you cant give other classes abilities that are based on a stat of some sort.  But if you'd like to disconnect spells from stats just make the caster have a set number of spells per day, and if he wants bonus spells he gets the appropriate feat.


A better question to be settled first would be how versatile do you want the system to be?  Are we doing a specific type of fantasy setting?  Or are we doing a system we hope can be adapted to different types of fantasy settings.

I think disconnecting a stat from spellcasting is one of the worst decisions ever. It makes stats less useful for certain classes.

[bhu]

Oh and a pet peeve of mine: Critters.  I love making monsters for 3.5, but find the system limits me heavy.  I'd like to suggest doing away with monster types, and giving them descriptors instead.  You could make spells/powers/class abilities target specific descriptors as opposed to Types.  It would also allow someone to make a Fey for example that didn't totally suck ass at combat.