Pathfinder RPG vs Book of Experimental Might as 4E Alternative

[Psion]

Except that through both BoEM and Pathfinder one can see the problems addressed and the design goals and that they match so very well with the concerns of the 4e design team. For a specific counter-example, look at the BoExM where Monte flat out states that he finds save or die spells less than compelling and tried to alter them.

That's nice. I guess I should give the BoExM bonus points for approach then, as they are presented as options that I can incorporate as a I please.

This really doesn't alter my point though. 4e seems to be driven by certain philosophies. People who don't share those philosophies find themselves in the "holdout" subset, so the last thing you should do is assume the same design principles should apply.

Indeed, Paizo's "compatibility" goals further run counter to such sweeping philosophical changes.

Or how similarly Pathfinder handles skills compared to SW Saga or 4e.

Take a look at the Pathfinder alpha forum. That's probably the most hotly contested change.

I think the "canon" for 3rd edition problems is pretty well established

Oh? So, there is no room for dissenting opinion, no room for people who don't share the philosophies that went into 4e and whose game ran impecably despite the presence of these supposed "problems"? I think it's safe to say you should not be informing this decision.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I look at it in terms of continued support. The BoEM is an excellent book filled with some very playable options. Monte strikes again! On the other hand, it doesn't look like its going to get much, if any support in the future. The Pathfinder RPG is done well, but the core product is still the adventures. This is a case where the rules are being released to support the core product rather than the other way around, and that's a refreshing change from my point of view. Do if you like published adventures, and if you like what Paizo has done up until now, then I'd say Pathfinder. If you're looking for a great way to completely revamp your 3rd edition game and you like making your own settings and adventures, then I'd probably have to go with BoEM.

 

[Sebastrd]

And for that, I can only be thankful. Some of what you label core problems here are things that vary from non-problem/GM responsibility (15 minute adventuring day) to features (save or die) to me.

The "15 minute adventuring day" and save-or-die effects aren't the main problems with 3.X. The math behind the system is flawed. Outside of a specific few levels, it just doesn't work right. On top of that, because the CR system was based on single monsters vs. a party of 4, it's very difficult to design encounters with multiple monsters.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

3.75 House Rules

I have Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might. And, I love much of it.

I'm not crazy about the 20 spell levels because I use Arcana Evolved and I don't want to convert the 10 spell levels in there to 25 spell levels. And, I'm very comfortable with 9 spell levels. There's always been 9 levels of spells in my DnD (excluding 0th level spells and AE's 10th level spells).

However, I didn't buy the BOXM with the idea of converting to a 20 spell level system. I bought it to mine for house rules to my 3.5 game. And, it's worked great for that purpose. I've been able to combine it with things in the 4E previews to improve my 3.5 to my own 3.75.

And, I'll do the same thing with Paizo's Pathfinder RPG. I love that they're doing an open playtest. And, I like what they did with the fighter class, even if I'm unsure about a number of the conditionally usable Combat Feats. I, also, like how they handled grapple and the other combat manuevers. I, also, like having a "Fly" skill. But, after experimenting with consolidated skill lists (in the vein of Iron Heroes and Star Wars Saga Edition), I'd have to say that I prefer the longer unconsolidated list of 3.5 with some extra skills thrown in (like "Fly" from Paizo, Alchemy from 3.0, Command from The Black Company Campaign Setting, etc...)

Now, I did do away with skill points and did someting similar to what Paizo and SWSE did with trained and untrained skills. But, I have 4 grades ranging from untrained, trained, expert, and master in the skills.

Also, the BOXM when combined with some things in SWSE and the 4e previews fixes the 15 minute adventuring day in 3.5 when combined the way it is in my house-rules. Of course, the BOXM does this on it's own. I just house-ruled it to season it to my own taste.

In short, I will be using the BOXM in combination with Monte's other books along with ideas from the Pathfinder RGP. And, it will be my own house-ruled combination (unless Jason Bulmahn wants to copy my house rules).

Either way, I'm glad that Paizo is doing this and I will be reading what they have to say about it. And, although I'm already a Paizo customer, I'll likely buy more from them than I would have had they not done this (and less from WotC).

Now, if Paizo could get Monte Cook to work on the Pathfinder RPG... ...

(Did I forget to mention that Monte's talking about doing a Book of Experimental Might II? It's tentatively called The Book of Experimental Might: No Love For Fighters. I'm really looking forward to it. Sounds like just what the doctor ordered for Fighters.)​

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

The "15 minute adventuring day" and save-or-die effects aren't the main problems with 3.X. The math behind the system is flawed. Outside of a specific few levels, it just doesn't work right. On top of that, because the CR system was based on single monsters vs. a party of 4, it's very difficult to design encounters with multiple monsters.

True. 3.x's math does seem flawed. I've an idea for how to fix it, but it requires rewriting just about everything. Here's what I thought:

Level / 2 for the base bonus to everything like in the 4E previews.

Classes with good BAB and save progressions get a +2 to whatever they're good at.
Classes with fair BAB and save progressions get a +1 to whatever they're fair at.
Classes with poor BAB and save progressions get a +0 to whatever they're poor at.

Of course, this means recalculating save DC's, etc... All the way through the game. But, I'm tempted to try it even without doing that and just see how it plays out. At least the characters would be more closely matched at all levels.

 

[ZeroGlobal2003]

On top of that, because the CR system was based on single monsters vs. a party of 4, it's very difficult to design encounters with multiple monsters.

A creature of an even CR to the part is 20% of a party's resources. Thus 4 CR 1s is supposed to be an "even" challenge for 4 1st level adventurers. Adjust the CR up or down to give more fights in a day or make the fight tougher.

Admittedly, this doesn't always work, but I'm 100% mystified as to why people keep claiming the 3.X Ed can't handle multiple creatures in a fight.

 

[ZeroGlobal2003]

But, I'm tempted to try it even without doing that and just see how it plays out. At least the characters would be more closely matched at all levels.

Ugh, why would you want that? I mean if the only difference between a fighter and a mage is 2 BAB, thats dull as anything. While 3.X Ed does have some imbalances, breaking the game back to slow progressions just ups the bore factor. I mean, the player who is a 20th level fighter looks at his BAB, his primary thing, ands only 2 higher then the mage who never picked up a weapon... thats disappointing if nothing else.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Ugh, why would you want that? I mean if the only difference between a fighter and a mage is 2 BAB, thats dull as anything. While 3.X Ed does have some imbalances, breaking the game back to slow progressions just ups the bore factor. I mean, the player who is a 20th level fighter looks at his BAB, his primary thing, ands only 2 higher then the mage who never picked up a weapon... thats disappointing if nothing else.

There would have to be a lot of other changes, I'm sure. But, if I understand 4E (and I'm not saying that I do), 4E is using that basic formula. So, the 4E fighter will only have a a point or two more of a bonus to hit than the wizard at 20th in 4E. I actually think it will only be +1, excluding feats and exploits (and I really hope I'm wrong).

My fighters have access to homebrewed feats that make weapons more interesting. And, since they have access to more feats (and feats wizards can't get), it would work out. Especially, with what I believe Monte's BOXM2 will have for fighters.

To fix the math, I believe a designer would have to start with fixing BAB and saves and work out from there. That's why the 3X system is broken and why the progression needed to be changed for epic levels to "work" (and I use the term "work" loosely). I believe this is why we haven't seen a BAB or save progression for 4E... There isn't one. It's just level divided by 2 plus a class bonus between zero and two. I'm not saying it's optimal, but it will stay closer to being balanced at every level than 3X does.

The major problem with using this idea in 3x is that everything would have to be re-worked. That's a job for a professional game designer who loves DnD. Not an RPG player, like me, who likes to figure out why the design is a certain way and use it to build little things for his own use.

 

[ashockney]

wonder twin powers...activate.

 

[Psion]

There would have to be a lot of other changes, I'm sure. But, if I understand 4E (and I'm not saying that I do), 4E is using that basic formula.

Fighters get a kicker. The slope will be the same, but the gap will be worthwhile.