Rules options and other chatter

maybe we can chat here instead of clogging up Alan's story thread?

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/unchained/gameplay/revisedActionEconomy.html



The #cruncher sees some obvious places for abuse right off the bat...

2 wpn fighting and flurry of blows become instantly more powerful and almost the default melee attack style since you can get multiple attacks AND move AND have 1 act leftover.

This is an interesting attempt to streamline things, I like it after a casual look. It really makes 2wpn and FoB lethal, as you observed.

Best as I can tell, that 3rd action is the reaction, which you lose if you do a complex that requires all 3?

I like PF for an expanded, "deep" rules set - but I have to say the more time I spend with 5e, I think its the best DnD rule set to date. It does the most with the least. It has some core mechanics that strip away so much unneeded and vague rules that you really get down to business and run things fast, smooth, and fair!

MAS wrote:
Best as I can tell, that 3rd action is the reaction, which you lose if you do a complex that requires all 3?

Yes and no

When your turn comes up in the initiative order, you can commit up to 3 acts. Sometimes, acts are committed discretely as simple actions, while other times 2 or more acts can be committed together as an advanced action. You can take these simple and advanced actions in any order you choose, except when the rules for individual actions state otherwise.

From what I can tell..... A single attack (or 2 with the 2WF\FoB) is only 1 simple act. So without moving, you could make 3 attacks in any round at 1st level. That is actually 6 total attacks with 2WF\FoB. 18 attacks with all the feats at later levels! That just seems silly and way OP to me.

You get all 3 of your acts + a reaction

Once your turn is over, you gain the ability to take one reaction before the start of your next turn.

The thing is though, you still can't break up your movement, lol! You can take 1 act to move - but you must use all your movement! Then take 1 act to attack, then your final act to move again. It doesn't really change your ability to split up your movement allocation of Xft.

It is just power creep, not really some great evolution of rules. Everyone just get 3 actions in a round, not 2.

Nevermind, I retract my earlier comment - this is just dumb, imo

MAS wrote:
I like PF for an expanded, "deep" rules set - but I have to say the more time I spend with 5e, I think its the best DnD rule set to date. It does the most with the least. It has some core mechanics that strip away so much unneeded and vague rules that you really get down to business and run things fast, smooth, and fair!

Radiance\5e is playing D&D as Checkers

PF is playing D&D as a tactical combat simulator, like Battletech.  lots of rules, very complex, kinda slow to make it all work


I think that just comes down to personal preference.

I haven't seen a rule set that is like Chess - a great balance between speed and complexity.

I guess I don't see the streamlining in 5e that everyone else does. It looked out of balance and needlessly complicated in other ways that PF doesn't have (though PF can be needlessly complicated in a few ways too, admittedly)

whit10 wrote:I guess I don't see the streamlining in 5e that everyone else does. It looked out of balance and needlessly complicated in other ways that PF doesn't have (though PF can be needlessly complicated in a few ways too, admittedly)

Ok, fair enough...can you give an example of something that seems over-complicated about the rules to you? I cant think of anything off hand that seems more complex than 3.5/PF - but that could be because Ive become familiar with it already. The biggest complexity I encountered in learning it was keeping a distinction between what rule-set I was using in whatever game I was playing, lol!

---

The checkers / tacsim comparison is an interesting comparison, Chris.

I think given some to time explore the freedom that the more streamlined set of rules opens up, you'll see that you've got a nearly as rich and detailed menu of possibilities - Plus you get faster and smoother encounters that don't get bogged down by rules disputes. Core mechanics like advantage/disadvantage, proficiency bonus, and bounded accuracy keep you from needing to reference endless tables, and keeps the D20 relevant without using "+/-crazy" modifiers.

This one is for Josh because he doesn't see the streamlining, and is also just a great example of cutting the dead weight away so that the game can take its course.

Consider all the extra rules, feats, etc in 3.5/PF that govern movement, attacks, and their sequence, fly-by/ride-by attacks, etc.

Now read this.

Breaking Up Your Move
You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.

Moving between Attacks
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed o f 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.

That cuts a ton of red tape from the radar and still allows loads of flexibility in the way one executes a turn. Additionally, since this is a core mechanic, everybody moves/acts this way - all classes, monsters, etc. - so its a level playing field across the whole game.

The thing that really makes the rule set sing IMO - is just that. It is focused on functional mechanics that can be broadly applied vs stacking rules.

Matt - there's definitely some good things about 5e and to a lesser extent Radiance.   The improved Quick Draw rules, improved actions in general (dash, racial, etc) and the movement rules you posted are probably a long-overdue change.   Attribute-based Saves make sense and are in a logical progression from the old AD&D\2e saves.  

However, character generation and variation are a total snooze fest.  Again, ideal for someone just learning to RPG, but to have limited flexibility in skills, class abilities and the like should have stayed dead with AD&D and 2e.  Pick 2 of 6 skills, pick 1 of 3 specializations....  and you're done.    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Rob criticized my combat play in Radiance once because I just kept spamming my special ability.  That was the only special ability the character could do.  The guy had like 4 skills.   It was that or just take a basic attack.  5e is a step up from there, but still just too limited.  I LOVE the part of PF that is like playing Magic the Gathering - figuring out all kinds of crazy possibilities when you mix feats, racials, archetypes, multi-classing, etc.  The rules do resemble MtG though, I agree about that.

Honestly, in my opinion from having played so many MMOs, RPGs should move to more of a straight ability-point buy system.  Everyone gets 100 pts - skills cost X, feats costs Y, racial cost Z (Radiance was on the right track here, but quit too soon).  Build whatever you want and go.  You could offer some "classic setups" for a base F\W\T\C as examples.

White Wolf (totally broken play system) had the best character generation system ever:  attribute pools, skill pools, ability (discipline) pools, merits & flaws.  Total customization and still quicker than PF.

I had fun playing Rob's cyberpunk version of 5e.  I would certainly give it another go on the forums if anyone wanted to run something.  Like you said, maybe I just haven't played with it enough.  

Chris, you actually summed it up really well for me. Thank you.

5E - My biggest bitch (other that what Chris mentioned) was all of that combined with the new saves system made the game disappointing to me. I don't like the Advantage/Disadvantage thing at all. I don't see Saves as being all that flawed personally. I suppose an argument could be made about Will saves incorporating Charisma or Intelligence but it's kind of hard for me to see what something like Reflex and Fortitude saves need modification. Maybe it's just how I see things.

Chris wrote:Matt - there's definitely some good things about 5e and to a lesser extent Radiance.   The improved Quick Draw rules, improved actions in general (dash, racial, etc) and the movement rules you posted are probably a long-overdue change.   Attribute-based Saves make sense and are in a logical progression from the old AD&D\2e saves.  

However, character generation and variation are a total snooze fest.  Again, ideal for someone just learning to RPG, but to have limited flexibility in skills, class abilities and the like should have stayed dead with AD&D and 2e.  Pick 2 of 6 skills, pick 1 of 3 specializations....  and you're done.    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Rob criticized my combat play in Radiance once because I just kept spamming my special ability.  That was the only special ability the character could do.  The guy had like 4 skills.   It was that or just take a basic attack.  5e is a step up from there, but still just too limited.  I LOVE the part of PF that is like playing Magic the Gathering - figuring out all kinds of crazy possibilities when you mix feats, racials, archetypes, multi-classing, etc.  The rules do resemble MtG though, I agree about that.

Honestly, in my opinion from having played so many MMOs, RPGs should move to more of a straight ability-point buy system.  Everyone gets 100 pts - skills cost X, feats costs Y, racial cost Z (Radiance was on the right track here, but quit too soon).  Build whatever you want and go.  You could offer some "classic setups" for a base F\W\T\C as examples.

White Wolf (totally broken play system) had the best character generation system ever:  attribute pools, skill pools, ability (discipline) pools, merits & flaws.  Total customization and still quicker than PF.

I had fun playing Rob's cyberpunk version of 5e.  I would certainly give it another go on the forums if anyone wanted to run something.  Like you said, maybe I just haven't played with it enough.  

Yeah, I felt Radiance was very limiting - when we used it I found myself spamming certain abilities as well. I dont find that at all with 5e. There are devastating combos and crunches to be had!

I'll admit the skills are reduced, but I think just about everything can be clumped under the skills listed pretty easily. I'm not convinced that breaking everything down into sub-skills is really necessariy.

The crunches are there, race/class/multi-class/etc - but you are looking for them with PF/3.5 eyes so they look watered down when compared to +ridiculus. Bounded accuracy keeps the modifiers lower across the whole system so that a +1/+2/+3 really matters. As we've both stated, spending some time playing the rule set displays the how the mechanics, game-play rules, and character structure come together into an effective game. I believe that once you do it will click.

What you have described as an ideal point buy system is really close to the HERO system - the basis of the Champions superheros game. Its a good idea but uses an obscene amount of d6s in execution. You should take a look at it though, they got the idea right if only then to flub the execution.

Josh - I could go back into forum posts and find where you stated you liked advantage/disadvantage and it was the only good thing about 5e. I guess now you dont?!?!

I really dont see the changes to the saves as being too major, and cant say that I've seen much of an big change/effect in play.

The biggest impact I've observed, and I'd say the most disruptive aspect of the rule-set, is in the way hit points/healing/spell slot recharge are handled, and the concept of short and long rests. No time to go in depth on that in this post, Ill have to hit that later.

Matt, I don't know what you're talking about. Ask Chris, I never liked the advantage/disadvantage thing. And I think the combos are nothing special and 5E is basically Radiance 2.0 in many ways.

From what I had read, which was not the whole game admittedly, it didn't look like it got play tested very much.

MAS wrote:
Yeah, I felt Radiance was very limiting - when we used it I found myself spamming certain abilities as well. I dont find that at all with 5e. There are devastating combos and crunches to be had!

I'll admit the skills are reduced, but I think just about everything can be clumped under the skills listed pretty easily. I'm not convinced that breaking everything down into sub-skills is really necessariy.

The crunches are there, race/class/multi-class/etc - but you are looking for them with PF/3.5 eyes so they look watered down when compared to +ridiculus. Bounded accuracy keeps the modifiers lower across the whole system so that a +1/+2/+3 really matters. As we've both stated, spending some time playing the rule set displays the how the mechanics, game-play rules, and character structure come together into an effective game. I believe that once you do it will click.

What you have described as an ideal point buy system is really close to the HERO system - the basis of the Champions superheros game. Its a good idea but uses an obscene amount of d6s in execution. You should take a look at it though, they got the idea right if only then to flub the execution.

Josh - I could go back into forum posts and find where you stated you liked advantage/disadvantage and it was the only good thing about 5e. I guess now you dont?!?!

I really dont see the changes to the saves as being too major, and cant say that I've seen much of an big change/effect in play.

The biggest impact I've observed, and I'd say the most disruptive aspect of the rule-set, is in the way hit points/healing/spell slot recharge are handled, and the concept of short and long rests. No time to go in depth on that in this post, Ill have to hit that later.

Thanks for the continued positive feedback  

Actually, I think it was me that said they liked Adv\Dis.  I added it as an option to PF-SW.  You might be right, but I think Josh has always disliked it... something about needlessly adding extra dice rolling, which I don't agree with, but I think that was his point.

I have used the HERO system.  I know I played some Champions and at least a couple other variations of it.  My recollection is BLOAT!  But maybe it has to be bloated to give all the options, I don't know.  Vampire wasn't bloated until years later with all the supplements.  Much like HERO, WW had a great idea and botched the execution.

I forgot about the changes to "resting" rules.  Those are nice too!  
However, there are lots of ways to do that without the limited xY times per day, needing a rest, etc.  That is about as old-fashioned a concept as "1 move, 1 attack".

Let's just assume anything beyond a basic attack or skill use is an ability.  So this includes spells, feats, class features, etc.

For examples:
Abilities could be on a "per encounter" timer and it would totally eliminate the need to "rest" at all.  Power attack can be used 1x per level.  Highest level spells can be used 1x per encounter +1 use for each lower spell level.  So a 9th level mage would get 1x 5th, 2x 4th, 3x 3rds, etc per encounter.  Paladin heals 1x per 2 levels.  etc etc.  
All abilities reset any time you roll initiative.  

OR

Abilities are simply on a "per action\turn" timer, like a "cool down" in a video game.  Power attack can be used every swing, 0 cool down.  Paladin heals have a 1 turn cool down (so every other round).  Spells have a cool down based on the power level of the spells.  Your highest level spells are 3 rds, next highest 2 rds, anything less can be used every round.
*I admit this adds some book keeping, but it wouldn't be too bad*


As for the skills discussion, since this keeps coming up....  I agree that skills could be grouped together more.  However, I don't like being "locked" into only picking 2-4 skills and that is it.  I really like the skill point system because it gives you the option to choose if your character is highly specialized in a skill (max ranks) or if you want to spread your points out and get 1-2 ranks in every class skill.  With the "class skill +3" feature of PF - 1 rank in a skill actually matters.  Especially for things like Knowledges, Climb, Swim, etc  You usually don't need max ranks in it, which is what 5e forces you into.  You either have it or you don't.  1 rank in climb, swim, Kno is generally enough to be competent and represents, imo, a more realistic reflection of a person's skill set.   It makes sense to wrap all that up into Athletics (or something) but again, maybe I just want to be a little athletic and not a decathlon competitor.

As I said, I would be more than happy to try 5e as a player again, in any theme variation.  I know... I could make Josh's head explode and have everyone reroll SW to 5e next time

that wouldn't make my head explode. I just wouldn't play.

to each their own but I'm very underwhelmed by that game

whit10 wrote:that wouldn't make my head explode. I just wouldn't play.

to each their own but I'm very underwhelmed by that game

Thats fair, no one says you HAVE to like it. I am always curious to hear your opinion and discuss it.

I may have very well confused you and Chris in regards to the statement about liking adv/dis, Josh. In retrospect, it does seem a suspect position that you would like something.

It got play-tested extensively, in house and by a huge amount of customers too, btw. Really an unprecedented level of collaboration.

BTW - you'll find this funny and interesting I think. You know how you always call me "Monty" to get my goat? My family tree on my Mom's side is British/Scottish and the family name is "Montgomery"!

Some cool things Ive learned recently:

I had an ancestor who fought as a loyalist for the crown in the American revolution, in the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge. http://allthingsliberty.com/2014/01/battle-moores-creek-bridge/

Another ancestor fought in the War of 1812. While we have records showing he enlisted in the US Army, the next record shows his name listed in the rolls recording "enemy pows and aliens" five years later. My best guess is he was captured and then part of a troop exchange for British POWs after the war.

Additionally, another on served on the rolls in both Union AND Confederate regiments of Missouri Cavalry.

Pretty cool stuff!

---

Chris - HERO system is bloated like crazy, but that is the point, its a general frame that you can do just about anything with.

The "cool down" method (instead of slots and rests) you have described is the approach they used for 4e. It has a very MMO feel and was almost universally rejected by all but the newest gamers. I don't think its a bad approach in general.

I agree that 5e skills are a weak point, but again, you have to look at it with 5e eyes. A Barbarian gets 2 skills and another 2 from a background for a total of 4 - This is not a skill heavy class, its a combat class. But keep in mind with only 18 skills on the list, "4" is over 20% of the available skills. A Rouge gets 4 (+2 from a background) which gives them a full 1/3 of the entire list!

Your observation about being unable to slot a "just one/or a few" points into a skill is a valid one. That is a bit limiting. One would have to rely on their ability bonus, plus a situation/feat/spell that grants advantage, magic item, or inspiration point for non-prof skills in a critical situation.

I've been working on a campaign built in 5e. I've been intending to run it for the "every other sunday" tabletop group later this year if my schedule allows, but its been more of a world/campaign building for it own sake exercise, just something for when I have a spare hour and happen to have some extra creative juice. Maybe later in the year we could do something on the forum with it too.

I am of course always open to being a player, although I think shifting a pre-existing game into another system is rough. I dont think Josh's head would survive!

Ok shit head, enough with the side-swipes.

This game is very limited and that's what bothers me.  Why does a Barbarian have to be nothing but a wild tank?  Why do all the classes have to be shuttled into cookie-cutter archetypes that have very little option for creativity or "thinking outside the box"? Why are skills subordinated to such a minor roll?

I like all sorts of things and I had a very different reaction to when I first saw PF.  I just happen to think that 5E sucks.  Disagree with that all you want but enough with the cheap shots Mr. "I can't even get a campaign started before I lose interest"  

...and all 'ribbing' aside, cool on the history Matt! That's always fun stuff to find out

I added #s for reply - that is awesome family history!  

MAS wrote:
1- The "cool down" method (instead of slots and rests) you have described is the approach they used for 4e. It has a very MMO feel and was almost universally rejected by all but the newest gamers. I don't think its a bad approach in general.

2 - I agree that 5e skills are a weak point, but again, you have to look at it with 5e eyes. A Barbarian gets 2 skills and another 2 from a background for a total of 4 - This is not a skill heavy class, its a combat class.  But keep in mind with only 18 skills on the list, "4" is over 20% of the available skills. A Rouge gets 4 (+2 from a background) which gives them a full 1/3 of the entire list!

Your observation about being unable to slot a "just one/or a few" points into a skill is a valid one. That is a bit limiting. One would have to rely on their ability bonus, plus a situation/feat/spell that grants advantage, magic item, or inspiration point for non-prof skills in a critical situation.

3 - I've been working on a campaign built in 5e. I've been intending to run it for the "every other sunday" tabletop group later this year if my schedule allows, but its been more of a world/campaign building for it own sake exercise, just something for when I have a spare hour and happen to have some extra creative juice. Maybe later in the year we could do something on the forum with it too.

I am of course always open to being a player, although I think shifting a pre-existing game into another system is rough. I dont think Josh's head would survive!

1 - so guys like Josh?     just joking!
Ok, fair point, I suppose, but it seems like there has to be a better way

2 - good point about the % of the entire skill list, though I agree with Josh about being locked into 1 of 3 archetypes.  I see a pickle there - either you have 12 archetypes which ends up with system bloat like PF or you have 0 archetypes which ends up in HERO bloat because you have to list all the available options to free-build or you limit the choices which feels.... limiting to the old farts

3 - Having tried to convert SW twice, only once being successful, I totally agree that converting an existing game is problematic.  I think it would be better if the next "new" game that gets started just uses 5e from the beginning.   Bronson and Rob dropped out of SW, which didn't cause any hard feelings or problems.  Josh could choose not to try 5e.   But it would be nice to give it another shot, at least for me personally - especially with someone that knows how to run it.... hint, hint

whit10 wrote:  Disagree with that all you want but enough with the cheap shots Mr. "I can't even get a campaign started before I lose interest"  

whit10 wrote: "I can't even get a campaign started before I lose interest"  

If only I could find players that could rise to my level!!!!



More response on the gaming topics on the way - I am up against a deadline for a magazine article right now.