pathfinder 2nd edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Voss**

MegaDombro wrote:
Its sad to see 4th ed DnD so panned on message boards. Most well thought out and balanced DnD edition by miles.

My big issues from playing 4e was that it very very dull, and didn't feel at all like D&D. More like a superhero boardgame crossed with Warhammer Quest (in a bad way). Especially since the superhero powers were pretty underwhelming, and many did not work as advertised (marking in particular).

The other part is it assumed a static and very gamey world. If the players weren't directly interacting with something, it didn't matter or change.

For Piazo games, Starfinder is poorly designed and balanced. Is Pathfinder 2.0 along the same mode (having launched near to each other)?

Actually no.
Starfinder is a very noticeable blend of PF1 (but only with their 6 spell level hybrid classes and mundanes) and d20 Star Wars/ Future/Modern with the serial numbers filed off. And diablo style level restrictions on equipment, because reasons.
Mechanically it sticks closer to PF1 than PF2 does. Which makes mindcaulking the setting changes from PF1 to PF2 to Starfinder really difficult and confusing. (As Starfinder is set 1000+ years in the future of the setting centuries after a multiverse spanning memory wipe, which affects even gods and archfiends, because reasons. And canonically 'what happened' will NEVER be answered, so definitionally can't matter.).

A lot of this is because at least several of the major Starfinder designers worked on d20 Star Wars (and Alternity for those that remember that), so they basically recycled a lot after scraping the labels off and quickly dipping it in the Pathfinder dipping sauce.
Notably, after the core rules were finished the lead designer left Paizo. Probably to get on with something else in his life, but for me that always raises an eyebrow.

PF2 wanders off in an entirely different direction than Starfinder with very few common points (the only one that's easy is the racial/ancestry bonus hit points at level 1). Skills, feats, spells and etc in Starfinder are pure copypasta from PF1. In PF2, it's all a major rework.

I wasn't particularly impressed with Starfinder (partly for keeping the same flaws, partly for item level, and a lot for the horrible setting fluff- both the memory wipe and including every plot point in the home system, negating the need to explore space at all), but PF2 is amazingly shaping up to be even worse, because they've apparently considered nothing but 'the math.' Which is important, but it's overtuned to the point that it breaks if you sneeze on it. And their 'fixes' to spells and magic items just break them in entirely predictable ways. Different ways, sure, but mostly worse ones, that were showing up to attentive readers even back in the preview blogs.

**MegaDombro**

Most complaints about 4e seem game related not mechanics related. If its "dull" or "static" thats the DM/players, not the system.

The core mechanics of a game, to me, should provide a dynamic combat simulation (4ed is so so far above the rest of the major systems its hard to compare), and a rules for skill sets in heroic situation (4ed being as bad as any other for this).

Really the DM and players should be handling all other interactions.

I'll have to check out pathfinder 2.0 if its a departure from Starfinder/Pathfinder 1.0. Chances are if its panned by the RPG community, its a fleshed out and balanced system.

**Voss**

There are a lot of mechanics related complaints about the 4e system. The skill system never worked, mathematically, despite multiple revisions. The usual output is failure through iterative probability. With multiple rolls and a lower failure threshold, failure is the usual result.

Marking has similar problems as a mechanic. At -2 to hit or charisma modifier damage isn't actually enoug to stop a monster from attacking a target other than a tank. It's still a better choice to attack a squishier target.

Massive hit point bloat for monsters, unexamined and terrible high level play, which resulted in feat taxes being added to give to hit bonuses to fix the combat math. The weapon and armor lists were reduced, but were still made up of trap options you should never use, due to multiplying dice (choosing smaller dice is obviously terrible, and 4e lacks weapon properties or other diversity to make a nuanced or playstyle choice. PF2 unfortunately shares this, despite a lot of bad weapon properties.)

4e had some interesting mechanical concepts (healing surges and better dependency for saving throws), but the implementation of the system was consistently terrible.

---

I could go on, but what do you think makes for a dynamic combat situation with 4e? Simply constantly pushing miniatures a couple squares?

@that last comment is a nice display of contempt (but very strange in assuming a united RPG community), but no, it isn't even remotely balanced, and there is no flesh attached to the teetering tower of numbers.

**skyth**

TheAuldGrump wrote:

On the Paizo forums, it looks like the game designers have at least noticed the negative response, but I don't know if there is much of anything that they can do about it, other than to scrap and restart - an expensive proposition in regards to time.

I haven't seen that. Though they have been closing a lot of threads

**Red Harvest**

The designers have been responding to some of the criticisms, especially about Heritage feats and Resonance. They just can't seem to let Resonance go. They just set up a mini play-test for some changes to resonance.

The plan is to release PF2 in 2019, I'm guessing at GenCon. This means the book needs to go to the printers several months beforehand. Will Paizo get this all sorted out in time?

4e was a fine miniatures skirmish game, with a litttle RPG action thrown in.

**TheAuldGrump**

Red Harvest wrote:
The designers have been responding to some of the criticisms, especially about Heritage feats and Resonance. They just can't seem to let Resonance go. They just set up a mini play-test for some changes to resonance.

The plan is to release PF2 in 2019, I'm guessing at GenCon. This means the book needs to go to the printers several months beforehand. Will Paizo get this all sorted out in time?

4e was a fine miniatures skirmish game, with a litttle RPG action thrown in.

A very little RPG action...

And a recorded history of not listening when the playtesters complained.

What 4e wasn't was D&D, or even D&D compatible - with WotC telling GM's not to bother converting, and just start over. (Every previous edition of the game had a conversion guide.)

But, worse, it was a completely inept marketing campaign that doomed the game - and, sadly, it took the miniatures and novel lines with it - 4e damaged the D&D brand far beyond its failure as an RPG.

4e might have done well enough if marketed as D&D Tactics, or the like - but it attempted to reduce an RPG to a board game, and failed as a result. Certainly, it performed well for the boardgames that were released later.

As a replacement for 3e/3.5, or AD&D? An utter failure - with the largest returns that D&D had ever seen. (Returns being books sent back to the publisher - and something that publishers very much want to avoid.)

The Auld Grump

**Voss**

skyth wrote:
TheAuldGrump wrote:

On the Paizo forums, it looks like the game designers have at least noticed the negative response, but I don't know if there is much of anything that they can do about it, other than to scrap and restart - an expensive proposition in regards to time.

I haven't seen that. Though they have been closing a lot of threads

Yeah, what's weird about that is the Director of Games Design is doing a lot of those thread closures, which seems like a waste of time with so much work to do (as they've also got a fairly large staff for policing their forums)

I've definitely gotten the impression that release date is set in stone, regardless of the state of the game. But keep in mind the playtest closes shop well before any manuscript deadline, and they intend to do a closed door revision for the final version.

**MegaDombro**

Yes I understand 4ed was a commercial failure. Complaints of it being RP light is silly. The crispness and tightness of its combat system has nothing to do with RP, thats the gm/players. Its mechanics for RP were as loose as any other system of DnD.

And many things are popular while being poor quality. In the entertainment world, shows like "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" or "The Bachelor" probably draws much higher ratings then quality dramas, say "Breaking Bad" or something (Im old, meh). Popularity does not infer quality.

Now off to read about the Pathfinder 2.0. Sounds interesting

**Voss**

Nope, the RP 'mechanics' were non existent.

And the combat system was neither crisp nor tight. It was broken:

They had to add the Melee training and Weapon Expertise feats to the Player's Handbook _2_ to force the 'to hit' math to work out as intended.

That wasn't even enough, and they had to jettison their original monster design principles and start over from scratch for the MM2 or 3, with a completely different set of numbers for the various monster 'roles.'

And this still never dealt with the hit point bloat vs. damage problem, especially at higher levels, where the limits on encounter powers meant hacking endlessly through hundreds of HP with just puny and uninteresting at-will powers.

By year 4, they had ~~realized~~ admitted (internally), that their mechanical system was fairly nonfunctional and rebuilt the game as 'Essentials' and then by year 5 gave up entirely.

4e was a mechanical mess, even for the few things it even bothered to do mechanically (largely combat).

**MegaDombro**

NOPE!!!!

Well, we are posting our opinions about DnD editions in a forum about Pathfinder, so last post then I am out.

No DnD system has an RP mechanics. 4ed is just as light as the rest. The Skill Challenge was a neat idea, but a admittedly poor.

Its combat mechanics were flawed at launch (still best DnD combat imo) and improved with revision over time. Honestly, every other DnD has got marketable worse with more splat books.

Did you ever play a high level campaign? The HP bloat? Slog out with boring at wills? Encounters never lasted through parties onslaught of Encounters/Dailys. No high paragon or epic player ever used an at will in either of the 2 campaigns we ran in 4th edition 1-30.

**Lance845**

MegaDombro wrote:
NOPE!!!!

Well, we are posting our opinions about DnD editions in a forum about Pathfinder, so last post then I am out.

No DnD system has an RP mechanics. 4ed is just as light as the rest. The Skill Challenge was a neat idea, but a admittedly poor.

Agreed. DnDs mechanics have always been almost exclusively about combat and only sometimes about RP. The closest most consistent RP mechanic dnd has ever had was the Alignment system and thats a pretty crap system for RP since when you take it as the literal forces of good evil law and chaos it's restricting as hell.

5th introduced some stuff that helps players get more RP foundation in their backgrounds/bonds/etc etc... But even those are just a mechanic for gaining the gamey Inspiration.

4th is no less RP then any other d20 game, it just does a worse job of hiding how shallow they all are.

**skyth**

Does 4th edition have craft/profession skills? Does it have diplomacy/bluff/intimidate skills? Does it have an equivalent of the leadership feat?

All of those help with roleplaying and most have been around since 1st edition AD&D. (leadership goes back to BECMI. I believe the social skills were introduced in 2nd ed AD&D. Might be wrong there).

**Lance845**

skyth wrote:
Does 4th edition have craft/profession skills? Does it have diplomacy/bluff/intimidate skills? Does it have an equivalent of the leadership feat?

All of those help with roleplaying and most have been around since 1st edition AD&D. (leadership goes back to BECMI. I believe the social skills were introduced in 2nd ed AD&D. Might be wrong there).

Yes. And they introduced the idea of social encounters offering experience points as a standardized mechanic. And they introduced ideas in the core rules for running social encounters. Like convincing x person of y requires z number of successes. Those successes can come from intimidate, bluff, etc etc...

Again it's no different then any other DnD. And skill points, their progression, and what impact they have on game play is still a secondary aspect next to combat.

**skyth**

What about craft/profession or leadership?

**Lance845**

skyth wrote:
What about craft/profession or leadership?

Characters with the Enchant Magic Item ritual or the Alchemist feat may craft items of the associated type of their level or lower, although the cost to do so is equal to the normal cost to buy the item. The advantage of the feat/ritual is in flexibility, as you can craft things on-the-fly instead of needing to plan ahead.

For example: You could buy a Flameburst Crossbow +2 for 3,400 gold. But then you end up in a Lava Golem's lair and feel all kinds of silly when you could use Enchant Magic Item before entering the lair to make a Frost Crossbow +2, pay the same gold, and be ready to tackle your enemy's weakness.

These can be improved by things such as the Mark of Making Dragonmark feat or the Master Crafter feat (and I believe the Artificer class also gains some benefit, which you could gain access to after chargen with a multiclass feat).

D&D 4e doesn't really have rules for "repair," but magic items don't really break except for story reasons, anyway, and by the time a character has any real skill at anything in 4e, nonmagical items are practically worthless to them. If a crafter-type character (esp. an Artificer) wants to repair a mundane item, I'd say let them do it, without even a roll1. If there's a broken magical item, fixing it ought to be a quest.2

As Exo Waltz points out, there are a few Martial Practices (DDI categorizes them as rituals) which can be used for crafting/repair:

Forge Armor: Creates a Magic Armor with no special enchantments, at the normal cost for the appropriate +N Magic Armor. If the enhancement bonus is high enough, the armor can be masterwork.
Forge Weapon: Creates a Magic Weapon with no special enchantments, at the normal cost for the appropriate +N Magic Weapon. By increasing the cost, the weapon can be silvered.
Master Artisan: Create mundane items, at the normal cost for the item.
Temporary Fix: Repair items as with Make Whole at the cost of a healing surge, but the item returns to its damaged state after 24 hours.

That said, I wouldn't let them repair stuff in the middle of an encounter. Have them repair stuff during a rest or downtime.
There is the Make Whole ritual, which can repair any item which fits within a 10ft cube, although you must pay 20% of the item's cost to use the ritual.

In Summary

REPAIR: The Make Whole ritual can permanently repair an item (costing 20% of the item's value), and the Temporary Fix martial practice can temporarily repair an item (costing 1 healing surge).

CREATE MUNDANE: The Master Artisan martial practice can create mundane items (costing the item's value).

CREATE MAGIC: The Enchant Magic Item ritual, Forge Armor martial practice, and Forge Weapon martial practice can create magic items (costing the item's value). Enchant Magic Item may also resize magic armor (for free), or upgrade an existing magic item (costing the difference between the upgraded and original item's value).

CREATE ALCHEMICAL: The Alchemist feat can create alchemical items (costing the item's value).

IMPROVE CRAFTING: Some feats will improve a character's crafting abilities, such as Mark of Making (Enchant/Alchemist as though you're +2 levels), Master Mixer (Alchemist as though you're +3 levels), Creation Mastery (Enchant/Alchemist as though you're +2 levels, cast rituals faster), Dungeon Enchanter (Enchant faster), Pupil of the All-Father (Enchant as though you're +4 levels, 1/day Make Whole for free if cost <100). There are probably others.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/30210/blacksmithing-and-repair-in-dd-4e/30225#30225

As for leadership. Its the social rules.

Bluff intimidate or diplomacy your followers into doing the jobs you want with a dc and circumstantial bonus/penalties as appropriate.

**skyth**

I meant normal crafting/profession.

So no game mechanic that automatically attracts followers.

Is there rules for stronghold creation?

**Lance845**

skyth wrote:
I meant normal crafting/profession.

So no game mechanic that automatically attracts followers.

Is there rules for stronghold creation?

The "normal" crafting professions is Master Artisan.

At least in 4th it doesn't cost you exp points to make items just money.

No mechanical entity attracts followers, and shouldn't. It's not a video game. If you want people to follow you you should role play the actions needed to get that going and make the appropriate social checks to gauge success.

Same goes for a "stronghold". Find someone willing to sell land and buy it. Spend money to build it. Why would/should there be specific rules for something that doesn't need it?

BTW I am not defending 4th or saying it's good by any means. 4th is in most ways equally bad to other d20s and in some other ways worse. (and in some other ways better). It's certainly not the game I go to for my game nights. But it's far from the gak pile it's made out to be.

**Paradigm**

Lance845 wrote:

No mechanical entity attracts followers, and shouldn't. It's not a video game. If you want people to follow you you should role play the actions needed to get that going and make the appropriate social checks to gauge success.

Same goes for a "stronghold". Find someone willing to sell land and buy it. Spend money to build it. Why would/should there be specific rules for something that doesn't need it?

I think this sums up the whole debate for me. Yes, the focus on any D&D Players Handbook or DMG is going to be on resolving combat because that's the most complex element of the game to resolve.

Outside of that, the existing skills and minimal dice rolling can act in support of roleplaying that's in no way dependant on the system. I think you can view good roleplaying as entirely independent of system: a good character is a good character in D&D, Pathfinder, One-Page RPG, any other system you care to mention. And as long as those systems provide a resolution mechanic for non-combat situations (even one as simple as 'roll D20, add skill') you've got all you need.

So you have a player who wants to craft a set of armour? Yes, you could have lengthy rules explaining how to go about that or you can just have the Blacksmith's Tools skill and as the DM, set the required number of successes/material cost/time to complete the process.

Likewise, you want a player that wants to inspire a town's militia to fight back against an approaching wave of Orcs, that player gives their rousing speech in character and rather than needing a complex leadership system, you ask for a Charisma check with a DC based on the quality of what they said, the disposition of the targets ect. You don't need complex mechanics to encourage roleplaying, and you don't need to 'gamify' those things to have a good time or make them worthwhile.

Just because combat is a big chunk of the rules doesn't mean it has to be an equally dominant part of the game, and neither does it mean that there's any more value to a combat encounter just because it has more rules than, say, a tense negotiation or sneaky infiltration.

**Lance845**

Paradigm wrote:
Lance845 wrote:

No mechanical entity attracts followers, and shouldn't. It's not a video game. If you want people to follow you you should role play the actions needed to get that going and make the appropriate social checks to gauge success.

Same goes for a "stronghold". Find someone willing to sell land and buy it. Spend money to build it. Why would/should there be specific rules for something that doesn't need it?

I think this sums up the whole debate for me. Yes, the focus on any D&D Players Handbook or DMG is going to be on resolving combat because that's the most complex element of the game to resolve.

Outside of that, the existing skills and minimal dice rolling can act in support of roleplaying that's in no way dependant on the system. I think you can view good roleplaying as entirely independent of system: a good character is a good character in D&D, Pathfinder, One-Page RPG, any other system you care to mention. And as long as those systems provide a resolution mechanic for non-combat situations (even one as simple as 'roll D20, add skill') you've got all you need.

So you have a player who wants to craft a set of armour? Yes, you could have lengthy rules explaining how to go about that or you can just have the Blacksmith's Tools skill and as the DM, set the required number of successes/material cost/time to complete the process.

Likewise, you want a player that wants to inspire a town's militia to fight back against an approaching wave of Orcs, that player gives their rousing speech in character and rather than needing a complex leadership system, you ask for a Charisma check with a DC based on the quality of what they said, the disposition of the targets ect. You don't need complex mechanics to encourage roleplaying, and you don't need to 'gamify' those things to have a good time or make them worthwhile.

Just because combat is a big chunk of the rules doesn't mean it has to be an equally dominant part of the game, and neither does it mean that there's any more value to a combat encounter just because it has more rules than, say, a tense negotiation or sneaky infiltration.

I agree.

When I say d20 isn't as good as it could/should be its for a couple reasons.

1) It's binary. You either pass or you didn't. There is no degrees of success. That militia either comes to your aid or you don't get anybody. The DM can fudge the rules to create a situation where it happens otherwise but it's not something the rules themselves say or support.

2) I don't have any issue with the bulk of the rules handling the most complex and ultimately dangerous aspect of the game. Combat SHOULD make up most of the rules. But it sucks when your characters progression is intrinsically tied to combat and combat alone. Skill points are such a minor aspect of character progression and for some classes it's down right negligible. That tells you what the game wants the game to be about.

**skyth**

Stronghold building and attracting followers has been a focus of the game from BECMI through 2nd edition. It's been there as an option for 3.0-PF1 and really increases the roleplaying potential of the game.

It's nice having the rules framework in place so it doesn't devolve into Calvinball.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stronghold building and attracting followers has been a focus of the game from BECMI through 2nd edition. It's been there as an option for 3.0-PF1 and really increases the roleplaying potential of the game.

It's nice having the rules framework in place so it doesn't devolve into Calvinball.

**Da Boss**

Of course you do not need rules for Strongholds or Crafting, but having rules for it can be more fun and more satisfying for players than not having it. I like the idea of a simple warfare system for example because I find it fun.

Dungeons and Dragons is at it's heart a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff, the entire game is based around that. You can do other stuff with it, but 1 third of the core books is about monsters to kill and a significant chunk of one of the others is about the stuff you can steal from them.

If you want to play a game that is about storytelling and so on, there are systems which have mechanics to encourage that that are a lot of fun. Dungeons and Dragons can do it, but it is pretty clearly not the primary focus and therefore usually requires a more talented dungeon master or a lot more prep work if you want to do it.

Personally, I like little rules modules I can add on to my core game, and I think the game is better when things are gamified. I prefer playing a tactical monster killing game with a story to a storytelling game.

On PF2, I burned out pretty bad on PF after running it for a couple of years, but it remains an attractive option because it is a "modern" game with lots of interesting options available for free online, and it is backwards compatible very easily with the massive library of 3.X material. It has always been pretty creatively bankrupt and was never particularly adventurous in it's design.

PF2 seems to take the jump that DND 4 and DND 5 did, and now it has changed significantly enough to take away it's core appeal, ie. that I could use my giant library of 3.5 stuff with it easily. It does not look elegantly designed or easy to play as far as I can see. Same problems as PF1 and 3.5, just in a different set up. I think I will stick to 5e for my normal games because it is so accessible to new players, and keep PF or maybe just core 3.5 as my game when I want to play something a bit more complicated. (I actually do not find PF that much of an improvement over 3.5 Maybe if you took the martial classes from PF and put them in 3.5 it would help balance, but 5th does that a lot better in my view.)

**TheAuldGrump**

MegaDombro wrote:
NOPE!!!!

Well, we are posting our opinions about DnD editions in a forum about Pathfinder, so last post then I am out.

No DnD system has an RP mechanics. 4ed is just as light as the rest. The Skill Challenge was a neat idea, but a admittedly poor.

Its combat mechanics were flawed at launch (still best DnD combat imo) and improved with revision over time. Honestly, every other DnD has got marketable worse with more splat books.

Did you ever play a high level campaign? The HP bloat? Slog out with boring at wills? Encounters never lasted through parties onslaught of Encounters/Dailys. No high paragon or epic player ever used an at will in either of the 2 campaigns we ran in 4th edition 1-30.

Scott_Rouse wrote:"4e is broken as a game and as a business and needs to go away"
Scott Rouse - D&D Brand Manager

Not much can be said beyond that.

WotC tried for two years past the point where it was obvious that 4e was not going to be the runaway success that they wanted - with Essentials being both a needed step and the final nail in the coffin.

When the #1 spot was taken by an updated version of the system that WotC had abandoned... it was obvious that 4e was an abject failure.

Previous to that, getting between a third and a half of the books back from the book stores had already tarnished their hopes. (And also led to 4e being both their biggest seller at opening, and smaller than 3.5 - the pre-orders from chain bookstores were enormous, but failed to turn into actual sales.)

In part they were hampered by their own online service - folks were either using the online system or buying books, but seldom doing both, which resulted in cannibalistic sales.

Having the online services postponed by a murder was not something that anyone could have expected, but it damaged the initial offering.

The Auld Grump

**Genoside07**

Red Harvest wrote:

The plan is to release PF2 in 2019, I'm guessing at GenCon. This means the book needs to go to the printers several months beforehand. Will Paizo get this all sorted out in time?

4e was a fine miniatures skirmish game, with a litttle RPG action thrown in.

This is what concerns me the most. If they are printing overseas It would seem PF2 will need to be ready for print very soon to meet a August release date.
That means a fully edited book with no changes. Working backwards ...
Early August at distributors and Gen Con
July in states customs / supply chain
June and maybe May for over seas shipping
April / March Printing process including pre-press

That's with no issues.. usually you want more buffer time for the unexpected..
If they are serious I would have a finalized book by the end of January 2019 and what I am seeing they are no where near that, unless they are just messing with us.

**Red Harvest**

I heard that Paizo will need a 3 month lead, so mid-May is when the thing goes to the printers. At least overseas. They could get a first print in Canada and delay the dead-line a bit. That'll cut into profits, but it gives them more time to get the thing tidied up.

Paizo would be better off delaying the release, rather than sticking to the dead-line and releasing an incomplete project which will need massive revision anyway, and thus a new print run of the revised ruleset. they did that once already, released something that was very rough. I forget which book it was.

**Da Boss**

Seems like Paizo runs out of steam when they move from publishing over written but beautifully produced adventures and presenting their house rules for 3.5 as a new innovation in game design.

**Lance845**

The thing is the rules should only exist to help facilitate the game play to be a more fun experience.

For example, combat rules generally only really work up to about 10 individuals before it becomes cumbersome, clunky, and time consuming.

Having different separate rules for mass battles like clashing armies is a good thing to have. You COULD roll dozens of attacks over and over every round while the players wait but its not great for everyone actually there to watch the dm math for most of the big exciting battle..

What rules do you actually need for strongholds? Its a building. Players go in and out of them all the time. Ultimate equipment has lots of things to fill it with. The dm plays the npcs. Siege equipment exists in supplements or can be extrapolated from previous editions. And you know how hard it is to break a door/wall/window from the rules to do so.

**Da Boss**

Well, I like for example some special rules for a stronghold that give the players a bonus for having it.
I also like having a price written down somewhere that someone has thought about for me, since I find the money side of the game kinda boring. So I like being able to look up gold piece prices for stuff. (This is one area Pathfinder does a lot better than 5e- the way they do magic items in 5e is unsatisfying for players who want to buy a particular magic item. I run a game for a bunch of kids and they are very interested in finding or getting specific magic items or potions, and it is frustrating that there is no pricing guideline really outside some really broad brackets. I know some people say "oh, but you should not be able to buy magic items" which is a totally fair way to play, and I have done that in 3.5, but it is also fair to have a market in magic items existing in your setting particularly in big cities and a proper price list is important for that.)

And I find it fun to have some tables and stuff to roll on for the kind of followers you get, I like that sort of thing. So if someone provides me with some ready made ones, I am quite happy. I like these gamey aspects, and I tend to find players like them too as long as they do not take up too much time.

I am very much looking forward to getting my Strongholds and Followers PDF from MCDM when it is finished. My players recently took over an abandoned ring fort and are excited to upgrade it and customise it, and I am excited to have some mechanics to tie to that that a professional game designer has spent time thinking about.

So I think it is totally cool to leave stronghold building and so on out, but I also think it is cool to have the option of some rules if you feel like it.

**Lance845**

Da Boss wrote:
Well, I like for example some special rules for a stronghold that give the players a bonus for having it.

Explain this. Besides the natural benefits to having a base of operations, especially if they have a steward that is at all competent, what exactly do you think players should get for owning property?

Example, my players were doing the 5e starter box adventure. I threw in some extra prisoners in a place in the adventure and one was a gnome merchant. One player tried to talk him into joining them and it ended up turning into a business arrangement. The gnome takes 80% of all their loot and sells their loot (I am giving them an extra 5-10% mark up on selling prices without them having to do the bargaining) while he gets them supplies for a little under market price. He managed to rent out a small building in the local town and he is hunting for leads for work so they get the quests they missed from the guide. Arguably, they have a "stronghold" because they are now all part owners in a heroes for hire style business that has a store front. But what they really gained was the gnome whos doing all the wheeling and dealing for them for a % of gross profits.

I didn't need extra rules for that. They roleplayed a conversation with a guy and came to a deal. The rest is just playing the NPC correctly.

I also like having a price written down somewhere that someone has thought about for me, since I find the money side of the game kinda boring. So I like being able to look up gold piece prices for stuff. (This is one area Pathfinder does a lot better than 5e- the way they do magic items in 5e is unsatisfying for players who want to buy a particular magic item. I run a game for a bunch of kids and they are very interested in finding or getting specific magic items or potions, and it is frustrating that there is no pricing guideline really outside some really broad brackets.

Every edition eventually get s a ultimate equipment book that is incredibly valuable for this. If 5e doesn't have one yet it will.I use ultimate equipment for NOT d20 games just as a price guide. On the other hand, I don't want my players to know or be able to look up the value of anything. You can't have someone try to convince them it's a steal! when they are really being fleeced if they can just look it up.

I know some people say "oh, but you should not be able to buy magic items" which is a totally fair way to play, and I have done that in 3.5, but it is also fair to have a market in magic items existing in your setting particularly in big cities and a proper price list is important for that.)

Instead they can look for someone capable of making the magic item and work out a deal or mini quest to have the item of their choice made instead of purchased at a market. A story to get a item they desire is far more interesting than a single sales transaction. And far more rewarding. The item MEANS something to them when it didn't simply cost them gold.

And I find it fun to have some tables and stuff to roll on for the kind of followers you get, I like that sort of thing. So if someone provides me with some ready made ones, I am quite happy. I like these gamey aspects, and I tend to find players like them too as long as they do not take up too much time.

NPC tables are not game specific and available everywhere for free as DM tools.

I am very much looking forward to getting my Strongholds and Followers PDF from MCDM when it is finished. My players recently took over an abandoned ring fort and are excited to upgrade it and customise it, and I am excited to have some mechanics to tie to that that a professional game designer has spent time thinking about.

So I think it is totally cool to leave stronghold building and so on out, but I also think it is cool to have the option of some rules if you feel like it.

Sure optional extra rules never hurt. Take them or leave them or pick the parts you like. All I ways saying is 4th wasn't lacking anything every other edition of dnd didn't also lack for RP. It just didn't bother to hide it's mechanics.

**skyth**

The mechanics make the RP better. The problem of RP without mechanics is the player with a high charisma can dump his character's charisma and not have any real penalty.

**Lance845**

skyth wrote:
The mechanics make the RP better. The problem of RP without mechanics is the player with a high charisma can dump his character's charisma and not have any real penalty.

The mechanics only make the rp better if the mechanics help facilitate the rp. If they instead promote the players behaving in ways that have nothing to do with being a person in the world then they are not making the rp better. They are something the players have to conciously fight against to keep the rp going.