Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[Wulf Ratbane]

So do it Wulf. Seriously, you're a designer. Pathfinder - for whatever reasons - is not going this route. You can.

I'm working on it. But the work comes with a set of assumptions that you have to buy into up front. And not everyone is ready to buy into those assumptions-- my assumptions.

Grazzt's posts show the problems with the current PF approach. In his own games, he tosses stuff out the window, but he feels required to keep that stuff in "official" books.

Yep. Pretty much. Just have to follow the expected rules in 'official' books.

Well I don't see this as a problem, actually. There is a big difference between the amount of work that can (and should) go into a printed work, and the amount of work that can (and should) go into a DM's game prep.

My emphasis would be to educate DMs about the mechanical underpinnings so that they are comfortable adjudicating on the fly. Which was sort of the focus of Grim Tales as well, but while I think GT opened up the toolbox considerably, it wasn't really an "on the fly" ruleset.

GT was a cook-book of sorts. But while it contained a lot of useful stuff for building new recipes ingredient-by-ingredient, it didn't explain enough of the fundamentals in an easy way so that you could just step into the kitchen and whip up something tasty.

 

[Kerrick]

For those of you discussing a revised monster system, why not post your ideas over here?

As for Pathfinder... I loved 3E, and I love 3.5... but the system has its flaws. A lot of flaws. Does Pathfinder address them? Not really, IMO. It's a matter of quantity vs. quality, and PF is more or less evenly split on that - they've made a lot of changes, but only some of them are substantively better. I still hold that amping up the power of the core classes to be on par with later WotC supplements is a bad idea - you balance everything else against the core, not the core against everything else - and a lot of the problems that would fix high-level play haven't been fixed at the low levels, where they should be - immunities (still rampant), skill scores scaling well out of control, high-level spells, number of attacks, etc.. James has said they'll be looking at the number of iterative attacks, which is a good thing - I'm interested to see how they'll deal with it.

On the whole, though, Pathfinder doesn't go far enough. They've already said, multiple times, that their goal was to keep something relatively close to the 3.5 rules, and they're sticking to that goal - kudos to them. The problem is, they're binding themselves from going far enough to fix the things that really need fixing, so it might just end up as some mutation that got caught midway between transforming from 3.5 to a new, better system. They've got enough fans that are happy with the way things are now, though, so who am I to argue?

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

I think there are three markets out there right now, two of which are being targeted by companies.

You've got your 4e crowd and that's WotC's target audience.

You've got your 3e crowd and that's PF's (and T20's) target audience.

But you also have another audience out there that doesn't like 3e, or is ready for a change, but also doesn't like 4e. This is where I feel there's an under-served market. There is a subset of the gaming population that went away from 3e or never liked it in the first place, and these same folks don't feel like drinking from the 4e cup. They don't want PF because it's 3e; they don't want 4e because, well, it's 4e.

This third market doesn't have a game right now. At least not a D&D game.

While I'll grant this market may be small, certainly in a comparative sense, would it not be large enough for a 3PP to publish a game taking the best of 3e and 4e and making an altogether new system? No backwards compatibility, not jumping on the GSL, no nothing. Just do it under the OGL with the d20 mechanic. Could it not be done? Does licensing prevent it?

So, coming full circle, this gets back to Grazzt's post. Again, we have rules he doesn't use in his own game but - ala PF - would have to place them in any released products. He mentioned they could, for example, break away to do a Tome with unfettered rules. But why stop there? Why not do the same with the PHB, DMG, etc.?

WP

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

I still hold that amping up the power of the core classes to be on par with later WotC supplements is a bad idea - you balance everything else against the core, not the core against everything else

While I agree with your criticism, I think licensing aspects prevent that from being an option. Those non-core are not "touchable", per se.

Note, I've been using the word "license" a lot in my last few posts and I don't know dickey about licensing. Just FYI.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

For those of you discussing a revised monster system, why not post your ideas over here?

Aside-- I have. Briefly. I think your thread is going down the wrong path.

 

[The Highway Man]

I don't have this faith because the source of the troubles with 3.5E are based in (...) the fact that nonspellcasters increase in power by a linear factor while spellcasters increase in power by an exponential factor, which is again mathematics of a sort. In addition, these mathematics, as applied to character creation and monster creation/application, are what makes 3.5E so much work, particularly on the DM end. These mathematics work tolerably well at low levels, and break down more and more as levels increase. Most, if not all I've seen with Pathfinder is tweaking this and tweaking that, and changing the surface and features of the game. It does nothing to address these fundamental mathematics.

I say this, and I criticize Pathfinder because while I am a 4E convert and am burned out on 3.5E, someday I expect I'll want to go back. Not in full, but to try it again, since I did play the game for years and enjoyed it. If things can be genuinely fixed, that would be a boon to me when that time comes. I'm not seing it though.

You are talking of fundamental mathematical problems many of the people still liking 3.5 to this day just don't see or do not care about because it did not impact their game play experiences significantly over the years. I'm one of those.

Further, what you call a flaw in the linear vs. exponential progressions of combatants vs. spellcasters is for me a feature of the game, not a flaw. There's no right or wrong answer here, mind you. Tastes, colors etc. I think you are at this point the target of 4E and should enjoy that game to the fullest. Later, when you try 3.5/Pathfinder again, you might have a different take on these things, or maybe not. It's fine!

 

[Shroomy]

Given the hew and cry that I remember from some 3.x fans regarding 4e monsters not operating according to the same rules as PCs, wouldn't doing so in PF potentially alienate a large (or at least vocal, if my memory serves me) segment of their potential player/customer base?

 

[The Highway Man]

Given the hew and cry that I remember from some 3.x fans regarding 4e monsters not operating according to the same rules as PCs, wouldn't doing so in PF potentially alienate a large (or at least vocal, if my memory serves me) segment of their potential player/customer base?

I believe so. I do not want to see that happen, personally.

 

[Grazzt]

Aside-- I have. Briefly. I think your thread is going down the wrong path.

I kinda agree with that. I don't think Roles need to be added to 3.x or PF. Not saying they're a bad idea per se, just not sure 3.x/PF needs 'em.

Stick with Types for BAB/saves/etc (but again- I think the types could be compressed somewhat). Create class templates if you want a specifc monster to be good at something (fighting, give it the fighter template; casting arcane spells; give it the wizard template).

Templates won't let the power level spiral outta control and would also keep monster design to something not akin to a friggin headache.

Frex- you want a 5 HD goblin that can throw a fireball. Make a 5 HD goblin. Tack on the wizard's template. Give it the fireball spell (and maybe a couple of other spells a 5th-level wizard might have). There. 5 HD goblin spellcaster. No need to multiclass into wizard, give it a wizard's hp and save progression, bonus feat(s), etc. No need to load it down with spells just to fill up its prepared spells (esp if you were creating a really high level wizard monster); give it only the stuff you think it needs for combat or concept. It's still a goblin 100%...it's just a nasty little bastard that can hurl a fireball at ya.

And of course- if you want to completely flesh out the goblin caster by using the wizard class, complete with saves, hp, all spells, etc. you could do that too. It's just not always worth it if the monster has a life expectancy of 5 rounds or whatever.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Given the hew and cry that I remember from some 3.x fans regarding 4e monsters not operating according to the same rules as PCs, wouldn't doing so in PF potentially alienate a large (or at least vocal, if my memory serves me) segment of their potential player/customer base?

I would think so. And I don't believe Highwayman is now suddenly alone.

But I think scrapping the idea of monster types as monster classes might be acceptable to "PC/NPC transparency" fans. After all, PC races are not classes, either. You "just" need to come up with a convincing and working class design that is in fact easier to use then the current one. But to be true to 3E and the PC/NPC transparency goals it should work pretty close to 3E.

Maybe this approach still won't work. Maybe you'd had to make 3E characters easier, too. We might never see, though I wish people like Jason, Wulf or Raven Crowkring a lot of luck in their attempts and might actually look into the final results, and occasionally (very occasionally) peek into their ongoing work.