Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't recall this being a problem in 1e. Monsters had their own THAC0 table, did they not?

My memory of 1e is... non-existent. My first RPG was Shadowrun 3E, and then D&D 3E.

I will be happy to go over the growth of those numbers again with you MR.

No, not again!

Yeah, you're right. I am too much into 4e again and still pretend that the numbers in 3E grow similar to that, because that what I would want them to do.

 

[roguerouge]

Speaking as a DM in a one PC campaign, I can say that having monsters work under the same rules as PCs or under published and fixed rule sets by creature type is vastly better for me because it avoids the adversarial and arbitrary tinge of "This monsters does what it does because I say it does." Taking that arbitrariness of the table is enormously important when Bad Things happen to the player characters. So put me down as saying that I'd never have a goblin cast fire ball without being a 5th level wizard: it would drive me and several others I know up the wall. It smacks of the very worst aspects of the early editions.

Don't forget that what works at a table with certain types of hyper-experienced players may not work for everybody.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This could create the impression (true or not) that action points are needed to save PCs from grim instant death, strongly discouraging all the other uses for them.

That's not an incorrect impression. Ultimately it's no different from hit points being required to save the PCs from mundane death; or CON points being required to save the PCs from poison death; etc.

The solution to this particular problem with Action Points is to balance supply and demand so that there is no incentive to hoard them-- with the exception, perhaps, of holding onto your last AP as if it were life itself.

Generally speaking it's good design to force the players to make meaningful decisions about their resources.

I have some players who like to hoard their APs and I have some players who eat them like popcorn. There doesn't seem to be any one "winning" strategy.

 

[NilesB]

I have some players who like to hoard their APs and I have some players who eat them like popcorn. There doesn't seem to be any one "winning" strategy.

My worry is that this rule might create one.

Or at least make spending action points feel less fun.

I'm not totally opposed to the rule though.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

My worry is that this rule might create one.

Or at least make spending action points feel less fun.

I'm not totally opposed to the rule though.

Perhaps it comes down to what the players in my game are seeing in terms of opposition. But generally speaking, anyone who conserves their APs for save or die effects is going to end up with a lot of unspent, wasted APs.

Perhaps it also helps that I don't have an adversarial relationship with my players. The DMs job is to challenge the players, not defeat them. (More like a sparring partner than an opponent.)

 

[DandD]

Speaking as a DM in a one PC campaign, I can say that having monsters work under the same rules as PCs or under published and fixed rule sets by creature type is vastly better for me because it avoids the adversarial and arbitrary tinge of "This monsters does what it does because I say it does." Taking that arbitrariness of the table is enormously important when Bad Things happen to the player characters. So put me down as saying that I'd never have a goblin cast fire ball without being a 5th level wizard: it would drive me and several others I know up the wall. It smacks of the very worst aspects of the early editions.

Don't forget that what works at a table with certain types of hyper-experienced players may not work for everybody.

Monsters in 3rd edition are arbitrary, like every other edition of D&D, be it 1st, 2nd or 4th. Especially the high-level ones, like fiendish outsiders, who had good BAB, good saves, good hitpoints, spells, spell-like abilities, natural armour, Damage Reduction against all except one type of damage, and so on.

I think you rather mean 'mundane' creatures like orks, goblins and others who aren't that different from humans in terms of magical abilities.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Monsters in 3rd edition are arbitrary, like every other edition of D&D, be it 1st, 2nd or 4th. Especially the high-level ones, like fiendish outsiders, who had good BAB, good saves, good hitpoints, spells, spell-like abilities, natural armour, Damage Reduction against all except one type of damage, and so on.

I think you rather mean 'mundane' creatures like orks, goblins and others who aren't that different from humans in terms of magical abilities.

Yes, I sometimes have the impression this is missed or lost.

A humanoid monster that you might be able to play doesn't get much specials. So, basically only Giants and Humanoids have this features. Once you enter the area of Monstrous Humanoids, Constructs, Magical Beasts, Undead, Fey, Outsiders or Dragons, the monsters get arbitrary abilities (Spell-Like Abilities, Supernatural Abilities, Extraordinary Abilities. Fast Healing, Regeneration, Breath Weapon, Constrict, Poison, Damage Reduction).
They are still supposed to be balanced according to their CR, but ultimiately they get abilities players will _never_ get. Sure, you can try to come up with a Level Adjustment, but... If the concept had existed before 3E, it could be applied to AD&D, or OD&D, too.

I am pretty certain that there are players that think that what a monster or NPC can do, I could do, too, with the right training. I was one of these players. But... I don't think this is necessary. Sometimes its enough to say: Yes, your character can take this training, but then he'd be an NPC.

 

[billd91]

Monsters in 3rd edition are arbitrary, like every other edition of D&D, be it 1st, 2nd or 4th. Especially the high-level ones, like fiendish outsiders, who had good BAB, good saves, good hitpoints, spells, spell-like abilities, natural armour, Damage Reduction against all except one type of damage, and so on.

I think you rather mean 'mundane' creatures like orks, goblins and others who aren't that different from humans in terms of magical abilities.

I think you're missing his point. It's not that the monsters aren't arbitrary as designed in the books, because anything designed according to someone's sense of creative license certainly is. The point I'm seeing is about something that otherwise fits in with the general classification, say of goblin, has some power that other goblins don't have. Roguerouge would prefer it if said creature got his additional power by following the same build rules as the PCs.

 

[Voadam]

Speaking as a DM in a one PC campaign, I can say that having monsters work under the same rules as PCs or under published and fixed rule sets by creature type is vastly better for me because it avoids the adversarial and arbitrary tinge of "This monsters does what it does because I say it does." Taking that arbitrariness of the table is enormously important when Bad Things happen to the player characters. So put me down as saying that I'd never have a goblin cast fire ball without being a 5th level wizard: it would drive me and several others I know up the wall. It smacks of the very worst aspects of the early editions.

Don't forget that what works at a table with certain types of hyper-experienced players may not work for everybody.

It is by the book legal to make a variant half dragon template to apply to a goblin that allows him to breathe a fireball without taking wizard levels. Or to create a dragonfire adept variant class. Or to give him six levels of sorcerer or one level of sorcerer and a scroll or limited charges wand, etc.

Its hard to see a significant difference between "I say this goblin has 5 levels of wizard so he can throw a fireball" vs. "I say this goblin has six levels of sorcerer and can cast fireball" vs. "I say this level 1 sorcerer goblin has a wand of fireballs" vs. "I say this goblin has a template that allows him to throw fireballs" vs. "I say this goblin can throw fireballs" when the resulting fireball throwing goblin is essentially the same and the PCs are not able to note the difference in general.

If there was a discussion with the NPC goblin about his fireball throwing such as a PC wizard wishing to trade spells, or if his ability came from an item the party takes from him then it would be significant but as a general matter I can't imagine a PC even noticing a difference.

 

[Voadam]

I think you're missing his point. It's not that the monsters aren't arbitrary as designed in the books, because anything designed according to someone's sense of creative license certainly is. The point I'm seeing is about something that otherwise fits in with the general classification, say of goblin, has some power that other goblins don't have. Roguerouge would prefer it if said creature got his additional power by following the same build rules as the PCs.

It looks to me more like hes saying he doesn't want an atmosphere where he will be blamed when his monsters do bad things to his PCs. He can point to his book legal goblin wizard and say he's following the book so that his player's will accept the bad things as part of the game instead of as him being adversarial or being responsible for going overboard in creating opposition.