Pathfinder RPG vs Book of Experimental Might as 4E Alternative

[Wycen]

I was reading my friend's blog and found it interesting he mentioned the Book of Experimental Might as a possible way to go if you don't want to go 4E. To be honest I think he was trying to sell some more, he owns a game store, but then again, besides the preview info on Monte Cook's site, I've not seen the book itself. And that wont change except as a casual glance at someone elses copy. I love 3rd party d20 stuff, but I've already got plenty of books.

I think Darrin's post is good, pointing out that Pathfinder will have future support. Heck, it is evolving as we talk about it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Which means you have just cost the party 80 % resources. It's time to go home for the party. To worsen the situation, have the 4 monsters be Undead, and at least one a Bodak. Now you also get your Save or Die fix and a useless Rogue. And now, you got it all - useless rogue, overpowered spellcasters due to novaing, save or die that randomly kills someone because he rolled to low and the Cleric didn't have a Mass Death Ward ready, and the 15 minute adventuring day.

Off course, this is an extreme, example. Hyperbole, if you'd like. But I hope you get my point. Diverging from the standard encounter is not forbidden by the system, and it's definitely even approached as a viable scenario that is to be used. But despite this, the game balance changes.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

With one run-through of BOXM, my players are begging to use it all the time. However, it goes a lot of steps further away from core if you use it all.

Pathfinder RPG gears up to do one thing very well, as observed upthread. It supports the world of Golarion and the type of stories Paizo wants to tell using 3.5. Since it also happens to incorporate a bunch of cool houserules and options both are worth looking at. I don't think you'll see a combined document ever.

So the answer to the OP's question #2 is "Yes. Be prepared to do some work with it. Don't expect a commercial product to do it for you. Have fun. You've got two different toolsets available."

 

[ZeroGlobal2003]

Which means you have just cost the party 80 % resources. It's time to go home for the party...

Off course, this is an extreme, example. Hyperbole, if you'd like. But I hope you get my point. Diverging from the standard encounter is not forbidden by the system, and it's definitely even approached as a viable scenario that is to be used. But despite this, the game balance changes.

Whats why I sad "Adjust the CR up or down to give more fights in a day or make the fight tougher." If you want the party to have 4-6 such fights before rest, then drop them to CR 1/4ths or 1/6ths, or have CR 1s that have been reduced to 1/6th HP, or any other such thing to make it work.

I admit, that balancing encounters as group fights in simplified fashion is an appealing aspect of 4th Ed. Apparently enough people need that change for CRs to make sense to them, but, at least for me, the current setup is perfectly fine. Making encounters balanced for equal numbers of combatants is nothing more then increasing the CR of monster and being done with it. Kobold -> CR 1, Orc Warrior CR 2. Whee I'm a 4th Edition designer.


PS. I'm not really hateful of 4th Ed. designers, nor do I think that that is really what they did for 4th Ed. Looking at the monsters, I know they are fully reworked, but the idea that the new system for setting up encounters being some key upgrade is kinda joke worthy to me.

Edit: Oh, and sense Bodaks are tough, just list them as "elite" or "solo" so you don't fight too many at once... meaning Elite -> CR+2, Solo CR +4.

 

[Treebore]

You can definitely import Monte's ideas into PAthfinder. If I was to do what the OP seems to want, that is the direction I think it would have to go in to create the least amount of work. Unless you only like a few ideas in Pathfinder, or 4E for that matter. Then it would likely be easiest to import those ideas into Monte's work.

So I think the first thing to do is decide which rules set you like better as a whole, then import the fewer things you like from the other systems into your "core" system. At least that is how I do the same thing for my Castles and Crusades game. So the same practice should work for this.

Personally there are two ideas I am thinking of taking from Monte and several ideas about classes and several feats I am thinking of integrating into my C&C from Pathfinder. So far I have only noted two ideas I want from 4E.

Plus I am one of those DM's who likes save or die. So players who can't handle PC death or doesn't like "raise dead" definitely needs to stay out of my games.

 

[Aus_Snow]

The BoXM could provide some interesting options for DMs of the Pathfinder RPG. Sort of an 'Unearthed Arcana' for it, though with fewer alternatives, if better designed ones.

That is the way I see them, personally. Mainly because the Pathfinder RPG will be massively more popular than the BoXM, in terms of groups using it as their main game of choice.

Either one offers some nice options for D&D 3e games, however, for those sticking mainly with a core of that.

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

I was reading my friend's blog and found it interesting he mentioned the Book of Experimental Might as a possible way to go if you don't want to go 4E. To be honest I think he was trying to sell some more, he owns a game store, but then again, besides the preview info on Monte Cook's site, I've not seen the book itself. And that wont change except as a casual glance at someone elses copy. I love 3rd party d20 stuff, but I've already got plenty of books.

I think Darrin's post is good, pointing out that Pathfinder will have future support. Heck, it is evolving as we talk about it.

I don't think BOXM will be available in stores. It appears to be strictly PDF and Lulu only. So, I doubt your friend was trying to sell it.

I was able to implement pieces of it in my games, over the weekend, along with stuff from Pathfinder RPG Alpha and some house-ruled stuff from the 4e previews. It all worked very well. And, I've got to say that I'm a fan of the disciplines for spellcasters from the BOXM, the grappling rules from Pathfinder RPG Alpha, and the idea of healing surges from 4e combined with health and grace from Monte's BOXM.

3.x just keeps getting better!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Whats why I sad "Adjust the CR up or down to give more fights in a day or make the fight tougher." If you want the party to have 4-6 such fights before rest, then drop them to CR 1/4ths or 1/6ths, or have CR 1s that have been reduced to 1/6th HP, or any other such thing to make it work.

I admit, that balancing encounters as group fights in simplified fashion is an appealing aspect of 4th Ed. Apparently enough people need that change for CRs to make sense to them, but, at least for me, the current setup is perfectly fine. Making encounters balanced for equal numbers of combatants is nothing more then increasing the CR of monster and being done with it. Kobold -> CR 1, Orc Warrior CR 2. Whee I'm a 4th Edition designer.


PS. I'm not really hateful of 4th Ed. designers, nor do I think that that is really what they did for 4th Ed. Looking at the monsters, I know they are fully reworked, but the idea that the new system for setting up encounters being some key upgrade is kinda joke worthy to me.

Edit: Oh, and sense Bodaks are tough, just list them as "elite" or "solo" so you don't fight too many at once... meaning Elite -> CR+2, Solo CR +4.

So you mean I should bypass the 3.x rules and use concepts integrated in 4E. Yes, that sounds reasonable, until the time I can go out and buy 4E. In fact, it's something I am already doing for my Iron Heroes campaign.

 

[Psion]

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.

Another oft-asserted "fact" that has not meshed up with my experience. I think part of that is I don't expect the game to produce an identical experience across the level range. I'm pretty happy running a game from 2-16th, and ran a satisfying game up into the 20s. If 4e "homogenizes" the experience across levels, that's not something that interests me.

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.

It is? With you last point, I can see how diverging saves can be a problem at high levels. With designing multi-creature encounters, I have never had a problem, ever. Indeed, to the contrary, it's the single creature encounters that I find take some extra DM tweaking to work out right. Which is actually one thing I actually do see them acting to correct in 4e with "solo" monsters. But again, I'm comfortable doing that myself, so I don't need you to take a wrecking ball to the system to fix it for me; a few notes on challenges of using single creatures would be good enough.

So I take the "truth" of you so-called "canonical" problems with 3e as suspect at best.

 

[Papa-DRB]

Monte excluded Bard/Sorcerer because he'd already covered alternatives for them in Book of Eldritch Might so there was not reason to rehash them if you want to alter them then buy that book. The magic system presented for both classes are very different and would allow for a flavor of their own.

Bard, yes, and I have both I & II. However, Sorcerer should have been included in the 20 level progression. IMNSHO...

-- david