Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[Windjammer]

I really appreciated 4E representation of rules - but there was still one issue that I think could have been done better, as minor as it appears. What does [W] stand for? You read countless pages of powers (well, not really, at least not me. I skimmed them and focused only on the "reading a power" part), and only once you arrive at the equipment chapter, you figure it out. Of course, once known, you will never look it up.

Absolutely agreed. The [W] thing was disastrous. The acronym (if you can call it that) first appears on page 57 of the PHB without being explained; there's a forward pointer to page 269 by way of quick-reference. If you look up page 269 you won't find it. You will only find it later, on page 276. That description, though, is incomplete and refers the reader back to a table on pp. 218-219.
So yes, that's pretty amazing. I'm glad to say, though, that it's the exception, not the norm in the 4E PHB.

There are probably 3 aspects of RPG texts:
- Write evocative and inspiring stuff that makes you want to play and continue reading.
- Explain the rules of the game.
- Serve as a handy reference at the game table.

Optimizing all 3 is hard.

Well put. When I first got my hardcopy of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook my eyes glazed over. It was so stunningly beautiful, and some of the illustrations straight away transported me into an era of D&D I hadn't "felt" (so to speak) since the days of 2E (Complete Paladin's Handbook comes to mind). And I loved browsing the book. Until I found out it's actually quite short on flavour text. I'm missing a lot flavour text in the class descriptions e.g. So on second look it appeared to me (and still does) that PF prioritized your second aspect - explaining the rules succinctly* - over writing evocative texts. I wonder whether other people feel the same. I mean, obviously the purpose of the book is to provide a rules reference. But compared to flavour text heavy rulebooks like Rogue Trader, Pathfinder goes a bit too much the opposite way as far as I'm concerned. Sure, it's still 3.x .... but my point of comparison is the 3.5 PHB, so when the new class flavour texts are shorter than the 3.5 ones I'm missing something. That said, most of the flavour texts in PF are exceedingly well written, so there's also quality, not just quantity, to consider.

* Most of the time. If you thought the 4E release teaser video ("I grapple the troll.... let's look up grapple... grapple... grapple...") was tedious and an overstated satire of 3.5, what do you make of this?

 

[Voadam]

A simle example which only scratches the surface of my issue was the high level druid wildshaped into a dire bear who already outstripped the party fighter in raw combat power covered his one weakness, AC, with a single level dip into Monk. His big Wis bonus went straight to AC and made him better in the last remaining edge the fighter had over him.

Like I said, it's not a matter of broken high power or broken low power, it was differential between individual character power that made things difficult to balance as DM. Made my job hell, so I wasn't having fun anymore.

Thanks for the example. It is a good dip synergy. For one level hit in druid spellcasting and abilities and a one point BAB hit at character level 13+ a druid can gain about +5 in AC (assuming a 20 wisdom) taking the dire bear form from AC 17 to 22.

Another one I've heard about is dipping into Marshall from the Miniatures Book when using a high charisma race such as a succubus. The marshall gives allies a straight charisma bonus on things like initiative or flanking attacks. This one though is usually only complained about for upping monster power without significantly increasing CR.

These are strong dip synergies but IMO there are not that many big power dip options and they are not big issues for character balance. Obviously your experience varies.

Your other point though, having significant power differentials between strong and weak characters of the same level is a concern I share, particularly when you can have things like a Cleric 3/Sorcerer 3/Bard 3/ranger 3 next to a wizard 12, a druid 12, and a barbarian 12 facing CR 12 or higher foes with first and second level spells as his big guns.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So, if a 4e monster power targets Will, Reflex or Fortitude, you could just have the target save vs the attack? With the DC as the "to hit" roll maybe? And what if the hit causes conditions--4e conditions are very different that 3.5 or PF.

I'm not convinced "compatible" would be the correct word for 4e monsters in regards to PF, even at its most liberal. Better to take the 3.5 version of the monster and strip away what you don't want than try to shoehorn a critter with 4e mechanics into PF.

Or have the save DC = Attack bonus +10. Conditions haven't changed that much. The couple that don't exist in 3E could be run exactly the same. Even the new convention of Save Ends had its 3E corrollary in the charm spells (although the save usually wasn't every round) so, although odd, saving every round wouldn't be undoable.

I think it was MR's point that some would consider this to be compatible and others wouldn't. I wouldn't do this myself and the lack of threads about using 4E monsters as-is in 3E would lead me to believe few other would do this either. It was an extreme example for sure.

 

[BryonD]

If I am very strict, the 3.5. Rogue and the Pathfinder Fighter are incompatible!

In what way?

 

[Quantarum]

So the real debate is whether you want to codify monster tactics mechanically, or whether as a DM you simply make up mechanical repercussions for "horde tactics" and their ink on the fly - which gets us back to BryonD's point. I think it's a good point, but it really merited spelling out. [/quote}

I don't think it’s that good a point. The impact of fluff on actual combat in 3.5 or PF is limited to what the monster is actually capable of doing. A 3.5 gnoll gets the exact same advantages an orc does from attacking in large numbers or flanking, if he wants to knock a foe down he has to use the same trip maneuver an orc could. It seems the "bag o' hitpoints" argument stands pretty well.
If I have to add character levels or house rule special abilities for a monster's fluff tactics to have any impact they might as well be in the stat block imo. -Q.

 

[billd91]

I don't think it’s that good a point. The impact of fluff on actual combat in 3.5 or PF is limited to what the monster is actually capable of doing. A 3.5 gnoll gets the exact same advantages an orc does from attacking in large numbers or flanking, if he wants to knock a foe down he has to use the same trip maneuver an orc could. It seems the "bag o' hitpoints" argument stands pretty well.
If I have to add character levels or house rule special abilities for a monster's fluff tactics to have any impact they might as well be in the stat block imo. -Q.

I think a significant point is: why do you need a mechanical difference when a behavioral one will do?

 

[ancientvaults]

My oldschool group tried 4E, it did not suit us as an alternative, but we like Pathfinder immensely. It isn't our go to game as it takes more preparation time than our usual games, but it is fun and everyone likes the depth in the classes.

As we get more adept at the rules (keep in mind we usually play S&W or LL) the game does flow very smoothly for us.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think it’s that good a point. The impact of fluff on actual combat in 3.5 or PF is limited to what the monster is actually capable of doing. A 3.5 gnoll gets the exact same advantages an orc does from attacking in large numbers or flanking, if he wants to knock a foe down he has to use the same trip maneuver an orc could. It seems the "bag o' hitpoints" argument stands pretty well.
If I have to add character levels or house rule special abilities for a monster's fluff tactics to have any impact they might as well be in the stat block imo. -Q.

Mechanically resolving actions is completely different than mechanically bolting behavior on to an entire creature type.

The idea that being surrounded by gnolls is mechanically worse than being surrounded by orcs is a bad idea, in my opinion and for the gaming style I prefer.

It is perfectly valid to choose to have gnolls use pack tactics whether or not the specific gnolls in question have developed skills which optimize this option.

The "bag of hit points" position misses the point. In a lot of ways an orc and a gnoll and a bugbear are mechanically very similar. But the stat block includes elements intrinsic to the race and elements specific to the individual. It is in the stat block either way. But forcing behavior to be part of the race itself is weak compromise, that to me just assumes that the DM needs a crutch.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But forcing behavior to be part of the race itself is weak compromise, that to me just assumes that the DM needs a crutch.

Why can't the behavior develop into a special ability? Like wolves attacking and pulling their target down resulting in an easier chance to trip? Like any other special ability or racial ability in any edition of the game? You see it as the cart before the horse because gnolls in previous edition received no benefit for acting like gnolls. Others see it as a natural progression for a behavior that a creature practices from birth.

 

[Garnfellow]

RE humanoid mechanical differences

There's absolutely nothing in the 3e system that would prevent the creation of mechanically distinct versions of the humanoid races. In fact, with all the feat and class choices, it might be even easier in 3e.

In 3e, the MM statblocks are supposed to represent the weakest, most commonly encountered representatives of the race. They are, by definition, plain vanilla. But also by definition they take on mechanical flavor easily enough.

It's ridiculously easy to customize these base 3e humanoids to create statblocks for "Shifty Goblins" or "Marauding Orcs" or "Overwhelming Gnolls" -- monsters that have mechanical shticks that emphasize their flavor text.

Just rearrange the base ability scores, vary standard equipment, shift around feats and skill ranks and wham! 4e style differentiation.

It's not rocket science.