Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[The Highway Man]

I'm opposed to PCs and Monsters built using different rules, but I think the idea of Monster Classes might work well as a compromise, mind you, Mustrum. It still basically says "Monsters and PCs still function with the same rules. There are specific tools that relate to PCs and Monsters differently, however". That reminds me of Villain classes in Iron Heroes. I still can use these tools or discard them if I want to. I sure can get behind this.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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

Folks can't complain about the problem and then reject every solution. (Wait, this is the internet...)

But I think scrapping the idea of monster types as monster classes might be acceptable to "PC/NPC transparency" fans.

My suspicion is that most of the folks demanding PC/NPC parity are players, not DMs. It drives some of my players up the wall when a goblin throws a fireball at them, if that goblin turns out not to be a 5th level wizard.

From the DM side the major complaint seems to be Fey and Undead-- for whom it's hard to raise BAB to practical levels without raising HD, Saves, etc. The problem is that CR is inextricably linked to HD, and HD are inextricably linked to BAB, Saves, etc. There are "best practices" involved with monster design, so if you increase CR, BAB, Saves, etc. without a corresponding increase in HD (hp, really) you run the risk of creating a glass cannon with the potential to dramatically impact play balance.

The more dramatic the glass cannon effect, the less granularity you have in outcomes: the outcomes become restricted more and more to "total pushover" or "total party kill."

It's like a top that goes out of balance. The farther out of balance you go, the less likely you'll see just a little wobble on an overall stable system, and the more likely you'll see wild wobbly swings and an eventual crash.

All of this is to say is that you should be increasing HD, BAB, and Saves as CR increases; and that the desire to be able to move any one of these sliders without affecting the others is problematic.

This is all shades of housecats and expert commoners, again. And ultimately I think if you can't swallow this fundamental assumption of the D&D world, you're playing the wrong system.

All that being said, there is a little bit of wobble room in those sliders yet.

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.

I hope that you do. I am quite fond of you. To say nothing of my moral obligation to keep your German mind occupied with thoughts other than its natural tendencies-- ie, world domination.

 

[avin]

I'm still waiting for a fix for most "save or die" situations, particularly the hold monster + coup de grace thing.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Monsters are also a key puzzle piece that I know with some certainty is being addressed.

And it is being addressed off-camera.

The monsters are being redesigned to fit with the new rules. They already have a release date for the Monster book that is actually before the Core rules. (June)

Likewise, that will have a ripple effect on the game, and hopefully a positive one.

What I am about to say is not offical. I met Jason Bulmahn at GenCon (and I'm just a fan, I don't know the man personally and don't want to misrepresent myself otherwise), and we talked about the role of monsters. If you take a monster and use the Beta Rules, they don't fare so well.

Someting that was just barely hinted at was the possibility of taking a nod from 4E, and designing monsters to be monsters.. not laden down with information more applicable to players.

3.5 had this way of trying to make every monster some sort of playable race, with player based skills. Likewise, monster grappling could be really obscene, with either instant success for the creature or the inability to grapple at all. A good many of those issues are being examined.

I don't know this for a fact, but I have to say, if you're wondering where Erik Mona is in all of this, I would hazard a guess that the monster book is a project that he is working on with the rest of the Editorial Team.

My point is- even with the PF Beta Rules being tested publically, there are a lot of things that go into making an entire rule set function better. Things are being tweaked on many levels.

Ya know, I have vowed to never again DM 3.5 but if Pathfinder can produce a high level monster that has a statblock that fits comfortably in a 3.5" x 5" index card I might consider running it.

I also have issues with magic item dependancy that arise from the High/Medium/Low BAB. But the monster issue is the killer. I simply never remember all that is going on in complex statblock, especially since they often refer to feats and effects that I have to look up separately.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm still waiting for a fix for most "save or die" situations, particularly the hold monster + coup de grace thing.

Spend an action point to re-roll any saving throw (including on a later round, if desired).

The problem with Save or Die/Save or Suck is that the relative risk shifts from an ablative measurement to a boolean measurement.

In "ordinary" play, the players are accustomed to viewing their hit points (ablative) as their means to measure their relative risk in the world. Low hit points, higher risk.

The Save or Die/Save or Suck spells bypass the ablative measurement and replace it with a boolean measurement. "I'm at full hit points-- yet I'm suddenly screwed!"

The simplest solution is to create an ablative replacement for relative risk, albeit on a different scale: Action points.

Low action points/high risk is as meaningful-- but on a higher scale-- as low hit points/high risk.

 

[DaveMage]

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?

It all depends how it's presented.

If the expectation is that monsters are different then PCs, then there are no issues. If, however (as the case with 3.5), the MM tells you how to build monsters and then doesn't even follow its own rules, then there's a problem.

However, one of the things I like about 3.5 is that it tells you in each monster entry how to make the monster an NPC or PC if desired (mainly if they advance by character class). As long as there is such a section for each monster that could be an NPC (or PC) class (or even a blanket method described in the book), I don't have any problem with monsters being different from PCs.

Monte Cook only listed "relevant" skills and feats in his stat blocks for Ptolus, and I have no problem with that method.

 

[The Highway Man]

Folks can't complain about the problem and then reject every solution.

Since your quote referred to me to an extent, "I" certainly do not complain about any problem with 3.5 at this point. Seems to me that the ones doing the complaining aren't, in many cases, the ones actually sticking with 3.5 and variations thereof.

I don't believe that 3.5 is perfect by any means, and play tons of other tabletop RPGs, but I certainly do not think there's anything fundamentally "broken" with it either.

My suspicion is that most of the folks demanding PC/NPC parity are players, not DMs.

I dare say that, in my experience reading through various message boards about all things 3.5 and interacting with 3.5 DMs, your suspicion is ultimately just that: a suspicion.

 

[The Highway Man]

Monte Cook only listed "relevant" skills and feats in his stat blocks for Ptolus, and I have no problem with that method.

That, by the way, was very well done. I totally am for that kind of presentation myself.

 

[xechnao]

Why does monster design need to mechanically focus on the specific monsters? Wouldn't it better to specify properties or combos of properties instead? For example flight, lots of hit points, special attacks, special defenses, big monster, small monster, swarm...etch?

Then the DM picks the properties he wants based on character level.

Have a seperate section with fluff only and powers that monsters could take, ways monsters take advantage of them in their life and ways that weight on them as weak points.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I dare say that, in my experience reading through various message boards about all things 3.5 and interacting with 3.5 DMs, your suspicion is ultimately just that: a suspicion.

I guess I should do that, too.

I pretty much just design in a vacuum.