Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[Obryn]

I have definitely observed a difference in folks way of thinking between 3e and 4e, with regards to DM empowerment, winging it, etc.

Folks greeted the "Wing it!" philosophy of 4e as if it were some dazzling breakthrough in design.

I know I was happy to wing it in 3e, and I got pretty darn good at it. 4e made it easier with a few quick rules of thumb & Page 42. But yeah, it certainly wasn't impossible for any DM to wing it.

But seriously - put a monster or character in a published module which doesn't follow the 3.5 rules. Publish it. How long a complaint thread do you think you'd get on ENWorld or WotC's boards about your poor mastery of statistics and simple game mechanics? Would it be considered an error, to be errata'd? Would it be mentioned in reviews?

If you explained you're basically winging it, do you think that would fly? Or would it be considered lazy and/or poor design?

-O

 

[Qualidar]

But seriously - put a monster or character in a published module which doesn't follow the 3.5 rules. Publish it. How long a complaint thread do you think you'd get on ENWorld or WotC's boards about your poor mastery of statistics and simple game mechanics?

I think a part of "The People's" collective need to work all those monsters and NPCs out according to the RAW stems from the early days of the OGL when anyone could (and did) publish. I think it's natural that people held that fantasy in the back of their heads that perhaps someday their work would get published.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Indeed. And there was no overt instruction that 3e should be played this way - it just sort of developed of its own accord as far as I could tell.

I think it arises from several factors:

1) The design philosophy that "D&D is the game that dares to define everything".

2) The fact that 3E upped the rigor and interconnectedness of the rules while not increasing their transparency, creating an atmosphere in which the mechanics often felt like some grand and magnificent but fragile construction where to tamper with the slightest thing would bring the whole edifice crashing down.

3) The return to 1E's goal of a uniform D&D experience, with most of the settings killed and a turn away from new ways to do things done in the core to 'capstones' that simply added onto or extended the core. I was going through DRAGON #230 a few nights ago, and I came across an ad for A&D 2nd Edition that included as a selling point:

No RPG offers the expandability of AD&D. Consider the PLAYER'S OPTION and DM OPTION Rulebooks, which give players and DMs hundreds of optional rules to enhance their game. By picking and choosing different rules and options, each gaming group has the opportunity to create a customized game.

Emphasis added. Can anyone really picture classic 1E, or early to mid-3E, using the possibility of an individualized game as a selling point? Customizing characters was a focal point--I might even go so far as to call it the raison d'etre--of 3E, but customizing the game itself seems to have somehow become a wholly different matter.

 

[Voadam]

Emphasis added. Can anyone really picture classic 1E, or early to mid-3E, using the possibility of an individualized game as a selling point? Customizing characters was a focal point--I might even go so far as to call it the raison d'etre--of 3E, but customizing the game itself seems to have somehow become a wholly different matter.

Early to mid 3e?

OGL.

Unearthed Arcana.

Alt d20 WotC rule systems such as d20 modern, d20 Wheel of Time, D20 CoC, d20 Star Wars.

Was it Dungeon/Polyhedron that had all those d20 mini games with rules tailored to genre or tone?

 

[M.L. Martin]

Early to mid 3e?

OGL.

Unearthed Arcana.

Alt d20 WotC rule systems such as d20 modern, d20 Wheel of Time, D20 CoC, d20 Star Wars.

Was it Dungeon/Polyhedron that had all those d20 mini games with rules tailored to genre or tone?

Unearthed Arcana was a 2004 release, and 3.5--which is, I think, around the point at which the 'back to the dungeon'/'core D&D experience' philosophy started to feel played out or constricting and they started looking at broadening the game again. It's also around the time of the Setting Search, IIRC.

The rest are d20, rather than D&D--although you could make a case that WotC decided to broaden the game through the larger d20 matrix rather than broadening D&D proper. Still, there was less emphasis on 'making the game your own' for the first few years, which I think contributed to the view of RAW as the All-Holy Word of WotC.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I have definitely observed a difference in folks way of thinking between 3e and 4e, with regards to DM empowerment, winging it, etc.

Folks greeted the "Wing it!" philosophy of 4e as if it were some dazzling breakthrough in design.

In a way, it was. 3E is hiding a lot of things in complex calculations.
Hit Dice define BAB and Save Bonuses. Saves are defined by ability scores and Save Bonuses. attacks is defined by ability score bonus + BAB + size.
That's still pretty similar to 4E. But then, there are lots of other modifiers. Monster A has Weapon Focus, Monster B has a magical weapon. Monsters have a natural armor bonus to AC, some also wear armor and magical items.
HD does not define the challenge rating of the monster. HD and INT define skill points, HD define max ranks. Monsters have feats (depending on HD, but sometimes some bonus feats.)

It's like missing the forest for all the trees. There is so much stuff going for which you don't know what the guidelines are or how they come into being. But you think there must be some "grand design" behind, something that makes it all work "perfectly". But since you don't really see what's going on, do you feel you have a chance to improvise things?

Some did. Some noticed that the "Grand Design" behind it is non-existent. That it was the designers guessing that a +7 natural armor bonus sounded fine for a Troll. They didn't even think about what would happen if you gave that Troll a level of Fighter and a Full Plate (though this greatly affects his numbers and the challenge he posed), though they pretended to do so.
But because people believed the Grand Design existed, but couldn't "see" it, they believed that following the arcane rules would probably achieve their goals, and trying something else was bound to fail, because look at how complex this stuff is!

The irony maybe is that just making it up on the stat would have worked well, often even better then strictly following the rules.
The Grand Design in 3E was either not aimed or failed to achieve any balancing goals, and this is typically what people (these days) worried most when using the rules. To use the dreaded GNS terms: The rules were mostly "simulationist", but people treated them as "gamist", assuming it would get you balanced monsters and NPCs.


4E comes and says: Pick a role and a level. These are your relevant modifiers and HPs. Now go crazy and add some powers. Feats? Equipment? Who cares! Write in the stat block, but don't worry with the mods. Skills - take what you want, the modifiers are clear.
It tells you right out what the end results of your math is. it doesn't try to explain how it gets there in "game rules as game world physics" sense, but it certainly tells you what numbers to use and where you can do whatever you want.

 

[Grazzt]

I'm not seeing a lot of benefit for ease of goblin creation between choosing to go with goblin HD for some aspects (HD, BAB, armor? skills) while using wizard class features and archetypes for the others (stat choices, saves, spell casting except arcane spell failure) and the standard of goblin race with all wizard class features (HD, hp, BAB, saves, spells).

It seems to take just as long, just as many calculations or recalculations, and only ends up with a slightly tougher and more martial monster goblin wizard 5 than a PC wizard 5.

I can only see some time saved if it was something like a rakshasa going from d8 outsider HD to d4 sorcerer ones where you have to mix different types together under RAW.

You can probably go further than I did. I was doing that sitting in my office here and apparently trying to stick closer to the PF/3.x rules than I actually do when running a game. Generally- much like Wulf mentioned, I dont worry about spell slots. I just throw on some spells up to 3rd level (for this guy). And as mentioned- he'll be generally dead before anything else matters.

But to truly streamline, PF should take a page from 4e. Set monsters up based on role/class, if ya have to, or just use Type to determine BAB, hp, saves, etc. Streamline the formulas...like Outsiders: BAB = HD + 3...or whatever.

 

[Grazzt]

4E comes and says: Pick a role and a level. These are your relevant modifiers and HPs. Now go crazy and add some powers. Feats? Equipment? Who cares! Write in the stat block, but don't worry with the mods. Skills - take what you want, the modifiers are clear.
It tells you right out what the end results of your math is. it doesn't try to explain how it gets there in "game rules as game world physics" sense, but it certainly tells you what numbers to use and where you can do whatever you want.

Agreed. And this could be ported to PF/3.x I believe. Just have to figure out roles/monster classes, or if you wanted to structure things based on HD or Type

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But seriously - put a monster or character in a published module which doesn't follow the 3.5 rules. Publish it. How long a complaint thread do you think you'd get on ENWorld or WotC's boards about your poor mastery of statistics and simple game mechanics? Would it be considered an error, to be errata'd? Would it be mentioned in reviews?

If you explained you're basically winging it, do you think that would fly? Or would it be considered lazy and/or poor design?

-O

Do you not see a difference between a published work (where you have all the time in the world to get it right) and what a DM does at his table to facilitate smooth, fun play?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Agreed. And this could be ported to PF/3.x I believe. Just have to figure out roles/monster classes, or if you wanted to structure things based on HD or Type

I am not entirely convinced it is _that_ easy. You still want values that work with the "power balance" of PCs vs NPCs. And... well, that balance is all over the place. There is no straightforward HD = CR formula, and that's something one would hope to gain from such a system, wouldn't one?

Or is it enough that creating _some_ stats for a monster is easy? But what's the point of a formula if it doesn't allow you any reasonable predictions?

I would probably go by a "role-like" approach. I am not sure that Brute/Skirmisher/Controller/Soldier need to be defined for 3E.

Maybe going by a class-like approach is best.
1) Weapon Using Monsters: d10 HD, BAB = HD, Good Fort, Max spell like ability level equals 1/4 HD. Increase Size every 3 HD if desired. Damage as if wielding a two-handed exotic weapon or two light exoticweapons for more attacks of its size. Armor Bonus Total = HD

2) Spell/Supernatural powers Using Monsters: d6 HD, BAB = HD/2, Good Will, Max spell like ability level equals 1/2 HD +1. Melee Damage as if using light or simple weapon. Natural Armor Bous HD/2. Armor Bonus Total = 3/4 HD

3) Mixed monsters: d8 HD, BAB 3/4 HD, Two Good saves; Max spell like ability level equals 1/3 HD+1. Increase Size every 6 HD. Melee damage as if using medium exotic weapon or two light martial weapons. Armor Bonus Total = 3/4 HD

Spell progression is either like caster (if you want it complicated), or highest and second highest spell level 1/day, third highest spell level 3/day or Recharge time (1d4+1 rounds). Saving Throw DCs are always 1/2 HD + Ability modifier. (Take care with spells that become unbalanced this way, for example Hold Person is equivalent to Hold Monster against most PCs.)