Pathfinder 1E Disenchanted with Pathfinder

[Aus_Snow]

Strictly speaking that's not what they did. They rejected the LA system but they haven't really replaced it with anything. I'm glad you and your DM are rolling with the stats you have but as Paizo has said they don't really have a system for Monster Characters in place. Officially the bestiary etc.. have no approved player character monsters.

Monsters as PCs (Pathfinder_OGC)

That's open content, via the PFSRD, from a Pathfinder rulebook.

 

[BryonD]

I think at the end of the day I realized that just because the people at Paizo are really good at one thing (stories; their writers are some of the most talented people I've ever seen and their adventures have plots that continue to amaze me) doesn't mean that they are good at all things. When it comes to rules, well, I just don't ascribe to the mantra that more is better.

I don't agree with your statement regarding "more is better" as being a mantra, or even an accurate assessment.

But, I do agree that Paizo as a whole is easily the best collection of "story" guys in the business, and their mechanics chops are not their bread and butter.

But the reason I love Pathfinder is the great majority of the rules were already there and established. The bulk of Paizo's new rules are built to directly interact with the story side of things. They added more texture on an already great game.

But if 3.5 isn't your thing, PF isn't going to be either.

 

[Sigurd]

Monsters as PCs (Pathfinder_OGC)

That's open content, via the PFSRD, from a Pathfinder rulebook.

It's from appendix four of the the Bestiary. I'm glad its working for ya.

The Core Book says:

Any race that grants racial Hit Dice is probably too potent a choice for most campaigns. As a general guideline, you should advise your players to choose races of roughly equal power, using a creature’s racial HD (not its CR) as a general guideline. Characters who wish instead to play standard races should be allowed to start at higher level, so that their total HD match the highest HD held by a non-standard race in the party.

On the paizo forums J. Jacobs has said:

Monsters as Player Characters
James Jacobs (Editor-in-Chief, Pathfinder), http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard...rules/archives/drowNobleAsACharacter&page=1#9

It's important to remember that CR adjustments are NOT the same as 3.5's old Level Adjustments. A creature's CR is a measure of its power in a battle against player characters, and takes in to account the fact that the monster won't be "on stage" for more than several rounds; it's not going to be influencing every single role in a game (which is what the PC race modifiers do).
And the "monsters as characters" entries in the Bestiary aren't there to give permission to players to use them as PCs. They're there because those creatures don't have racial hit dice, and thus are custom built each time by adding character levels to them. We probably should have titled these sections "Monsters as Non-Player Characters" since that's mostly the intent.
Of course, if a GM is cool with letting players play monsters, the "monsters as characters" entries help a lot in getting those particular monstrous PCs off the ground. Chapter 12 in the Core rulebook and the appendix of the Bestiary have guidelines for how to handle playing monstrous player characters.

I don't want to hijack this thread or tell you not to do anything you enjoy. I am suggesting that at some stage there may be better rules for monster player characters. It's something that Paizo admits they haven't got to yet. If this works for you great - you might give an extra vote of appreciation to your DM



sigurd

 

[Aus_Snow]

It's from appendix four of the the Bestiary. I'm glad its working for ya.

I knew where it was from. Haven't tried it, actually. In fact, I was part of a discussion in this very forum about its weak points, alternatives, etc. Not so long ago.

As for the rest, er, fine. I was simply refuting what you posted before. I proved it wrong. So. . . done.

I agree, re: 'hijacking'. Erroneous statements (or the refuting thereof) shouldn't take up too much room.

 

[James Jacobs]

Playing monsters as PCs is a tricky, tricky scene, and not something that can be handled by any simple equation or formula like LA. Simply because monsters aren't built to be player characters. That said, the fact that monsters use the same core building blocks AS PCs, they CAN be played as characters... they're just not that balanced.

But in the hands of an experienced or open-minded GM and some players who honor their GM's rulings and where there's plenty of player/GM trust, playing PC monsters still works perfectly well. It's like using a wrench to hammer in nails; the tools work, but that's not what they're made to do and you can break things if you're not careful.

There's certainly a demand for Monstrous PCs (aka MPCs), but that's not something we can tack on to the rules or into a Monster Bestiary. It needs to be its own book, and the monster PC options, if they're to be balanced, need to be built quite differently than the NPC monsters are is all.

In the meantime, though, if your GM is cool with it and the rest of the players are cool with it, playing PC monsters is completely doable with the right ones and the right conditions and right circumstances.

 

[Scott DeWar]

[HIJACK]
Just a thought here:

If there are any dm's that wish to run a caompain of MPC's, let it be of similer cr's and catagorys (Humanoid ?) I do believe the mechanic for deturmining an encounter is party level times number of pary members divided by 4 (?) so a 1/4 cr monster is supposed to be an average encounter for a first level character IIRC, so a party of 6 first level characters would find a cr 2 encounter challenging and a cr 3 3ncounter quite epic and memorable (?).

conversely a party of cr 1/4 monsters would be on par with a first level party, If i am correct, and if a dm really wanted to do this. IMHO
[/HIJACK]

 

[Allenchan]

What I like about Pathfinder is its exceptional production quality, the fact that they managed to fix about twice as many small problems with 3.5 as they introduced, and that it's tied to a setting and a series of adventures that are second to none. It doesn't hurt that the people who run the company are gamers, up to and including the CEO, either. They're people that I _want_ to do business with.

I agree with all of this, and in addition to it is that I really love the world they are creating. There is something about Golarion that I find irresistible. Its a lovely blend of new and old ideas.

The Monstrous PCs thing mentioned above is the only thing so far that has left a sour taste in my mouth. But honestly, its okay. There's other d20/OGL systems that cover that front fabulously.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Here's a thought on Monster PCs

I think the problem with the EL adjustments in Savage Species is that they resulted in PCs which were largely unplayable, mostly due to lack of HP. But without them, the monster classes would be strictly 'better ' and people who wanted the most effective characters would be forced to play one.

What if, instead of focusing on limiting the monster PCs, one preserved balance by giving bonuses to the other PCs?

Each monster class could have a number of bonus feats associated with it. Lets say an Ogre was worth 4 bonus feats. Everyone playing a 'standard' race in the campaign would get 4 bonus feats, to make them as effective as the Ogre PC.

For parties with multiple monster PCs, lesser monsters would get fewer feats. Say someone was playing a Hobgoblin and it had a feat rating of 1. That PC, because it was in a party with an Ogre PC, would get only 3 bonus feats (the ogre's feat ranking of 4 minus its own of 1).

This has the advantage of making all characters playable, while allowing the other PCs to be equally effective. I know , that as someone who likes to play Humans, I wouldn't mind this system.

The only other thing required to make this playable would be guidelines for the GM regarding what character level to assess the party at when choosing encounters; a party of level 3 characters with 4 bonus feats might count as a level 4 party when considering appropriate challenges.

That would be way way simpler than what was proposed by Sean in Savage Species. And feats are fun!

Ken

 

[jasin]

Personally what sold me on Pathfinder is one little thing.....They replaced LA with CR. This makes it so much easier to play monsters, which is all I play these days.

I've been playing since 3.0 was first released and absolutely fell in love with the imp. In pathfinder an Imp is CR/ECL 2 not supposedly 8.

ECL 2, but with the BAB and HD of a 3rd-level fighter, flight, invisibility at will, immunities, resistances, fast healing, flight...

Does that truly seem fair to you?

 

[Azgulor]

I think James has the right of it -- MPCs require more consideration than they've received in the past.

I think MPCs also exist in tiers - an ogre is different than a werewolf or vampire, both mechanically as well as in its ability to integrate into the civilzations that dominate most game worlds.

That, to me, is where MPCs break down the fastest. A group of PCs walking through a city, upon seeing an ogre strolling down the street in the open, are probably going to draw weapons (unless you're in the city of the BBEG). But the minute a PC wants to play an ogre character, the townsfolk are expected to ignore the brute and treat him like any other citizen. I've actually had a player complain that I was persecuting his character even though I told him at character creation, "You're from a race that's hated in this region (Ogre). You're going to have a tough time getting accepted."

Rather than always looking to increase the power of other PCs to compensate, there should be codified penalties to the Monstrous PCs, esp. with regards to interacting with societies dominated by the PF PC races.

And yeah, I hate having the "cantina scene" being the default assumption in any fantasy campaign.