5th Edition vs 6th Edition

[LoneWolf]

That may be true but when I stack up my Pathfinder books compared to the Hero System books the Pathfinder stacks is a lot higher.   I have 15 1st edition Pathfinder books and that does not include all the splat books that I just bought the data packages for Hero Labs.   Pathfinder definitely has more reading but is broken up into easier to manage packages.  

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

Actually Killing attack wasn't reduced that much. The average stun multiplier for 5th edition is 2.6 while in 6th edition it is 2. You do have a chance of getting better with 5th edition but it still will be just a 1 33.33% of the time as rolling both a 1 and a 2 are considered a 1.

It's the volatility that made the Stun Lotto powerful.  Let's say we have a 35 DEF opponent in a 12 DC game On average, 12d6 rolls 42 and does 7 STUN past defenses. The rolls won't vary a lot from the average.  A 4d6 KA averages 14 BOD. It will get 0, 0, 0, 7, 21, 35 past defenses for an average of 20.5 past defenses.

 

Let's drop defenses to 25. On average, 12d6 rolls 42 and does 17 STUN past defenses.  A 4d6 KA averages 14 BOD. It will get 0, 0, 3, 17, 31, 45 past defenses for an average of 16 past defenses.  A more comparable result, but I bet that 45 means a 1 in 6 chance of stunning the target (maybe even 2 in 6 from 31).

 

The average before defenses is not as meaningful.

 

6e?  You have a 1 in 3 chance of matching STUN from the normal attack.  KA exists to do BOD.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[LoneWolf]

It is more complicated than that because you have two variables that affect the stun.  First you have to roll high enough BODY for the stun multiple to matter.  There is a 56% chance of rolling at least 14 BODY on 4d6.  After that you have a 1 in 3 chance of rolling a 3 on the stun multiple.  That means you have a have a 19% chance of matching the stun from a normal attack.   The law of averages is going to mean that the normal attack is far more consistent in how much stun is rolled.      

[Doc Democracy]

4 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

It is more complicated than that because you have two variables that affect the stun.  First you have to roll high enough BODY for the stun multiple to matter.  There is a 56% chance of rolling at least 14 BODY on 4d6.  After that you have a 1 in 3 chance of rolling a 3 on the stun multiple.  That means you have a have a 19% chance of matching the stun from a normal attack.   The law of averages is going to mean that the normal attack is far more consistent in how much stun is rolled.      

 

But gamers are gamblers and they feel where their best chances often lie and that was the problem with the 5th edition killing attack.

 

So, yes, you have only a 20% chance, on any one roll, of matching the STUN.  When the average STUN damage through defences is 7 against an opponent who may have 50 STUN, you do not see that as a great risk.

 

With the killing attack, you have 56% chance of rolling 14+ BODY, which is gives you (in fifth edition) 19% chance of 21+ STUN through defences and a 10% chance of 35+ through defences.  There is more excitement in the killing attack, and 1 in 10 times you have a decent chance of stunning your opponent which allows everyone else to throw pushed attacks at that stunned opponent and take them out the fight.

 

In sixth edition those numbers reduce drastically and the gamblers do not see the same risk/reward ratio.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

It is more complicated than that because you have two variables that affect the stun.  First you have to roll high enough BODY for the stun multiple to matter.  There is a 56% chance of rolling at least 14 BODY on 4d6.  After that you have a 1 in 3 chance of rolling a 3 on the stun multiple.  That means you have a have a 19% chance of matching the stun from a normal attack.   The law of averages is going to mean that the normal attack is far more consistent in how much stun is rolled.      

 

You have a 20% chance of at least matching the Stun.  You have a chance of a much higher than average result - at the extreme, 72 STUN - one chance in 3,888 is low, but a lot better than 1 in 2,176,782,336 to roll 72 on 12d6.  With the old stun multiple, extremes were sufficiently likely to make the KA a better bet at getting STUN through.  Now, while still possible, the KA delivers big STUN much less often, making it a poor choice for inflicting STUN.  That was the goal - it's KILLING attack, so it should not be used to punch STUN through more effectively than a normal attack.  It makes KA a niche power - useful against automatons, entangles and objects, but not as useful to KO living targets as a normal attack.

[unclevlad]

On 9/21/2023 at 4:13 PM, LoneWolf said:

That may be true but when I stack up my Pathfinder books compared to the Hero System books the Pathfinder stacks is a lot higher.   I have 15 1st edition Pathfinder books and that does not include all the splat books that I just bought the data packages for Hero Labs.   Pathfinder definitely has more reading but is broken up into easier to manage packages.  

 

And how of of those Pathfinder books is fluff?  Yes, I count all prestige classes, all races, all variant classes...as fluff.  How many books do you NEED to read, to play?  How many of those are campaign books, or class books, or whatnot?

 

Yes, to a point, they're 'rules' books because both Pathfinder and D&D have almost no rules, in a systemic sense.  What they have is a set of exceptions and special cases.  It's the worst possible way to build rules, but yeah, it's what lets gaming companies sell a zillion more exceptions.

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

You have a 20% chance of at least matching the Stun.  You have a chance of a much higher than average result - at the extreme, 72 STUN - one chance in 3,888 is low, but a lot better than 1 in 2,176,782,336 to roll 72 on 12d6.  With the old stun multiple, extremes were sufficiently likely to make the KA a better bet at getting STUN through.  Now, while still possible, the KA delivers big STUN much less often, making it a poor choice for inflicting STUN.  That was the goal - it's KILLING attack, so it should not be used to punch STUN through more effectively than a normal attack.  It makes KA a niche power - useful against automatons, entangles and objects, but not as useful to KO living targets as a normal attack.

 

I'm actually pretty sure most people are saying much the same thing.

 

All right, let's actually bring some numbers into this.

KA STUN, 4d6, using the 6E STUN mult (a d3)

Many STUN totals are impossible, so I skipped them.  These are rounded to the nearest percent.  

P(total stun at least 36) -- 31
P(total stun at least 38) -- 25
P(total stun at least 39) -- 24
P(total stun at least 40) -- 20
P(total stun at least 42) -- 19
P(total stun at least 44) -- 15
P(total stun at least 45) -- 15
P(total stun at least 46) -- 11
P(total stun at least 48) -- 11
P(total stun at least 51) -- 8
P(total stun at least 54) -- 5
P(total stun at least 57) -- 3
P(total stun at least 60) -- 2
P(total stun at least 63) -- 1
P(total stun at least 66) -- 0
P(total stun at least 69) -- 0
P(total stun at least 72) -- 0

12d6 -- STUN, percentage 

42,  53.32693980477263
43,  46.673060195192626
44,  40.108723576102626
45,  33.806089328702626
46,  27.917394539142627
47,  22.564386106792625
48,  17.831351558682627
49,  13.762348354492627
50,  10.362598605692627
51,  7.603437296512627
52,  5.429777614632627
53,  3.768850548012627
54,  2.538993269342627
55,  1.657465075978627
56,  1.0465962821586268
57,  0.637947569198626

 

58+ is down below 0.5%.  I don't care at that point.  It simply won't happen enough to be meaningful, so trying to say one near-impossibility is more likely than another is splitting a carbon nanotube.

 

Note that even 51 STUN is basically a TIE.  54 STUN, the KA has a small advantage...but not much.  You're getting down to the 1 chance in 30-ish that you'll get 57+.  Flip side?  70% of the time you won't reach 36 STUN, which basically means, you do nothing in the scenario we're discussing.

 

So, yes.  Hugh's right.  Chasing that 60+ STUN with a KA is like hoping a monster is gonna miss his save in D&D...when he saves on a 2.  

 

Now, yeah, in 5E?  KAs are gross.  They're sick.  They're hideously overpowered.  

Stun from 4d K, 5E:
P(total stun at least 42) -- 40
P(total stun at least 44) -- 37
P(total stun at least 45) -- 36
P(total stun at least 46) -- 33
P(total stun at least 48) -- 33
P(total stun at least 50) -- 30
P(total stun at least 51) -- 29
P(total stun at least 52) -- 28
P(total stun at least 54) -- 26
P(total stun at least 55) -- 25
P(total stun at least 56) -- 24
P(total stun at least 57) -- 22
P(total stun at least 60) -- 21
P(total stun at least 63) -- 17
P(total stun at least 64) -- 17
P(total stun at least 65) -- 15
P(total stun at least 66) -- 13
P(total stun at least 68) -- 13
P(total stun at least 69) -- 12
P(total stun at least 70) -- 12
P(total stun at least 72) -- 10
P(total stun at least 75) -- 9
P(total stun at least 76) -- 7
P(total stun at least 80) -- 6
P(total stun at least 84) -- 4
P(total stun at least 85) -- 4
P(total stun at least 88) -- 3
P(total stun at least 90) -- 3
P(total stun at least 92) -- 2
P(total stun at least 95) -- 2
P(total stun at least 96) -- 1
P(total stun at least 100) -- 1
P(total stun at least 105) -- 0
P(total stun at least 110) -- 0
P(total stun at least 115) -- 0
P(total stun at least 120) -- 0
 

So...80 STUN?  Still 6%?  And that's higher than a normal attack can possibly do.  And 1 time in 6, we're well over 60, which quite possibly will stun the target?  MUCH!!!! too high...particularly as this also requires major additional expense, to avoid taking an uncomfortable amount of BODY.  

 

[LoneWolf]

Most of the pathfinder books have new classes, spell, feats and other significant things.  Pathfinder is a class based system with defined spell lists so none of that should be considered fluff.  It’s not like in the Hero System where you can easily build your own spells or abilities.  You are limited to picking from prewritten options.   In the Hero System all the information you need is in the main rule book(s).  I can create a Fantasy Hero character with spells without needing more than a single book.  In Pathfinder unless the GM is restricting you to core only, you typically need multiple books to create a character.  You class could be in one book, and your spells and feats scattered through half a dozen other books.  

[unclevlad]

It's a matter of how one considers things.  None of these are rules, they're purely options because there are (almost) no rules, only exceptions.  And you don't need all of them to make a character;  you need all of them to build the character *you want*.  Those are massively different.

 

From another perspective...why do you need a book to hand you the spells?  Why not construct them using the existing spells as models?  You *can* extract some general principles to use, if you've got an analytical bent.  Yeah, unfortunately, they're obscured and confused by the numerous cases where they fail, but it can be done.  Of course, I had...however many years on 3E and 3.5 boards doing this, so I may have a bit of a head start.....

 

 And the classes?  Mostly they're just like SFX on Hero powers...nothing more.  Most of em, done badly...but the core classes are badly constructed, so I suppose it's not a surprise.  I'm speaking *overall*...not necessarily everything individually.  

 

But to take this back to Hero...the massive difference is you *can* build a perfectly good character with nothing but the PF PH, and you'll know how to play.  Worst problem can be spells selection...because low level casters are so terribly nerfed.  Hero?  You have 6 hours of reading to do.  The mechanics are scattered over two HUGE, badly laid-out books.  5E is nominally shorter, but not any better for finding some rules.  The options can easily be dizzying...and there's no real assistance, as we've talked about.  

[LoneWolf]

In Pathfinder the classes, feats, skill, spells and equipment are rules.   Go to the rules forum and you will see posts on all of those.  You may consider archetypes fluff, but they are in part of the rules.  Pathfinder is in fact a rules heavy system.  If you show up at a Pathfinder table with a character with a bunch of custom-built spells 99% of the GM’s are going to veto that character.  If you show up with a character using 3rd party published material most GM’s will not allow that.  If you are talking about organized play those numbers jump to 100%

 

Organized play is probably one of the biggest reasons Pathfinder became popular.  I personally do play in organized play but recognize that it did help the system gain popularity.  Being able to simply show up at a place with a character without having prearranged party and being able to play got the game out there.   If Hero System did something similar it might start picking up more players.  

 

Most of the time if you build your character using only the core rule book, your character is a big disadvantage vs a character built with more sources allowed.  The equivalent in Hero would be saying you cannot use advantages and disadvantages when building your Champions character. 
 

[unclevlad]

I get all that.  The disconnect is that I'm using "rule" in a totally different, much more abstract sense.

 

The equivalent wouldn't be not using advantages or disads.  It'd be like building Fantasy Hero characters ONLY using pre-constructed templates.  I'd never run a Hero game at a convention that was "bring your own character"...but then again, odds are, I'd never run a PF or D&D 3.5 character that was BYOC, if too many splatbooks were allowed, because there were too many broken combinations.  It might not matter at lower levels, tho.  I don't have time to review things that much.  For a regular game?  I'm willing to do it, if it can be done *in advance*.  NOT at the table.  If it's only published spells, then all I need to do is check to see if any are on my Rejected list.  I don't have to check the balance of each one.  Same with classes.

 

To your point...actually, in the later stages of 3.5, there were issues brought up that the structure of the game allowed spellcasters to get more powerful any time a new splatbook was released...because they could cherry pick their spells.  This was somewhat true with other classes, but they had fewer opportunities to do so.  That's not me saying that either;  this was noted by the Wizards designers.  For a time, too, especially after Epic Level Handbook came out, I built some epic characters.  There's a HUGE difference between the choices you'd make starting from a 1st level weenie, having to actually survive through things, and those you can make when you can pick based on long-term optimization/powergaming.

 

Quote

Most of the time if you build your character using only the core rule book, your character is a big disadvantage vs a character built with more sources allowed.  The equivalent in Hero would be saying you cannot use advantages and disadvantages when building your Champions character. 
 

 

See, that's not playing Pathfinder, that's playing the players.

[Hugh Neilson]

Agreed that pre-fabs are essential for a Con Game. The variability works against players too - I don't want a character reliant on influencing the minds of the enemy in a con game focused around battling undead hordes, nor do I want a Ranger with the favoured enemies of Giants and Magical Beasts and the Favoured Terrain of Swamp when the game will be set in the desert and focus on the aforementioned Undead.  We don't want a game-breaking character, nor do we want a game-irrelevant character.

 

For regular games, or even a Con-type game with one player group, the game can be designed around the characters, but that requires advance review and advance planning.  That could work with a good GM, a couple of months to prepare (with player input) and a three-day gaming schedule.  It's not going to work with a random group that shows up 5 minutes before the 3-hour game session.