Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Sneak Peeks (Old thread)

[Windjammer]

Well, let's look in the DMG 3.5, p.50,
under the Heading Difficulty and the subheading Challenging:

Most encounters seriously threaten at least one member of the group in some way. These are challenging encounters, about equal in Encounter Level to the party level. The average adventuring group should be able to handle four such challenging encounters before they run low on spells, hit points, and other resources. If an encounter doesn't cost the PCs some significant portion of their resources, it's not challenging.

That is a guideline for encounter design - obviously, it also is a guideline for CRs, since a single monster has an Encounter Level equal to its CR.

I'd like to alert you to the context of the quote you provided, and direct you to this site: http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/encounter-design.html

A: Most level appropriate encounters deplete 1/4 of the party resources.
B: A level appropriate adventuring day consists of 4 of those level appropriate encounters.

B does not follow from A.

A is not a definitive statement of what a level appropriate encounter consists in. Because, unlike a bazillion of forum posts, that statement doesn't actually talk in terms of absolutes (exceptionless generalities).

And while we are at your quote from the 3.5 DMG,

C: "Most encounters seriously threaten at least one member of the group in some way."

doesn't exactly entail

D: "No encounter should seriously threaten that member in the party whose player can only think of hitting things with metal swords."

either.

 

[malkav666]

To those that are kind of not liking the Allip changes for PF or the Rust Monster changes for 4e, why not just play them the way you think they should be played in your own games?

I do not mind in the case of the allip the drain being converted to damage, it pretty much brings it in line with a shadow (Shadow :: d20srd.org). Even with the wisdom ability attack being damage instead of drain, the allip is still one tough cookie. It still has the madness ability, babbling, and its incorporeal. I think its going to give a party a hard time anyway. But if the fact that it did damage instead of drain really got under my skin, then I would just change it back to drain when and if I used the beastie.

I am not sure how the other topic about the rust monster in 4e works as I have not viewed that monster. But perhaps the same thing could be done there? If you think the rust monster should destroy metal on hits, how much work on the part of the DM would it take, to just say that it does?

I personally don't mind the monsters being tinkered with to try and make for a better CR fit. In all honesty there were quite a few SRD critters that had pretty big guns for their rating (or worse yet, were free kills for parties of their CR). Because it is compatible with 3.x, if I do not like a change I can just use the original MM version. But that is just my own opinion.

love,

malkav

 

[Synchronicity]

A lot of the comments in this thread are starting to come off as needlessly adversarial. Frankly, a lot of the pro wisdom drain allip are starting to come across like 'Well, obviously anyone who prefers Wisdom damage can't handle a real encounter with real consequences.' I half expect someone to leap in and start talking about how back in the day their GM made them defeat an allip with nothing but half a shoe and a length of knotted twine.

I jest. Mostly.

More to the point, I honestly don't understand the reason this change is getting such flak. The allip always appeared to me as a design abberation; to my knowledge, there is no other creature of CR 3 or lower that causes ability drain of any sort.

Furthermore, for the people who are saying this is all part of an adventuring paradigm where game designers can't bear to have people go into any encounter at less than full strength, that's simply not true. At level 3, Wisdom damage from an allip, especially on multiple people, is likely to be staying around for a while, since your cleric's unlikely to be packing that many lesser restorations. All the change means is that you can expend resources to remove some or all of that damage, either immediately if you have them, or later. When it was drain, you had to get NPC help, and bankrupt yourself in the process. And God forbid if it was your cleric that got drained. At least now you may have scrolls or potions of lesser restoration kicking around that can help.

Finally, I really don't see how a change to one monster, one which arguably possessed an inflated ability for its CR, can be indicative of anything except the fact that Paizo decided that monster warranted changing. And, you know - just a thought - maybe we should wait and see the whole picture before anyone flips out and starts accusing Paizo of giving up on real game design in favour of 'catering to the lowest common denominator'.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

To those that are kind of not liking the Allip changes for PF or the Rust Monster changes for 4e, why not just play them the way you think they should be played in your own games?

Because I'm not always the dm. For those of us that like the occasional creature/trap that challenges the players in unconventional methods, we have no option unless we're the dm. It's much easier for the dm to simply not use the rust monster or Allip if he doesn't like them than it is for the dm to change it. Powering up monsters makes the dm seem like the bad guy, while simply not using the monster does not. We just want some few creatures that make PLAYERS not characters to think outside the box, but sadly, that option is being taken from us, for our own good because we have somehow been deluded into thinking we're having fun when obviously we are not.

 

[Synchronicity]

Because I'm not always the dm. For those of us that like the occasional creature/trap that challenges the players in unconventional methods, we have no option unless we're the dm. It's much easier for the dm to simply not use the rust monster or Allip if he doesn't like them than it is for the dm to change it. Powering up monsters makes the dm seem like the bad guy, while simply not using the monster does not. We just want some few creatures that make PLAYERS not characters to think outside the box, but sadly, that option is being taken from us, for our own good because we have somehow been deluded into thinking we're having fun when obviously we are not.

I've always been of the opinion that it's the DM who makes the players think outside the box. The monsters are merely tools which allow him to do so. And the fact that one tool is now shaped slightly differently to how he remembers it shouldn't preclude him from using some of the many other tools available to him.

 

[dm4hire]

Jason Bulmahn comments about the size bonus change on Paizo's messageboards.

So, we went with a size bonus for one big reason, for those that are curious. We realized that if we chose a more common bonus (such as racial or enhancement) adjudicating the effect would be even more complicated (since you would have to compare and only take the higher bonus). I should note that this applies to spells of the polymorph school in general, not just the wild shape ability.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

 

[Odhanan]

Ignore.

 

[EroGaki]

This is a good point, Twowolves. The same way, reading the Caryatid Column entry from the Bonus Bestiary, the "broken" quality applied to a sundered weapon is actually something that can make sense in-world. It'd be like Narsil in the LOTR that is reforged to later become Anduril.

Really, I'm not here for a fight. Just sharing my concerns: I don't want the Tyranny of Fun to become one of PF RPG's design principles. That's 4e's province, and I'd happily leave it that way.

I agree 100%.

 

[BryonD]

The reworked animal companion is simply a template with every animal simply modifying said template...

*Looks through Martial Power*

Yeah, that's kind of exactly the manner in which animal companions function there -- personally, I'm waiting for the cries of "That's just like WoW" about the animal companion in pathfinder.

Wow, are you actually claiming this is some kind of fundamentally defining concept of 4E?

Yes, it is a point of similarity. Have you *ever* heard anyone claim that 4E is not a good choice because of animal companion templates? I have not.

I love the 4E death and dying rule and house rule it in. My game remains completely unlike 4E in all substantive ways.

 

[AllisterH]

Wow, are you actually claiming this is some kind of fundamentally defining concept of 4E?

Yes, it is a point of similarity. Have you *ever* heard anyone claim that 4E is not a good choice because of animal companion templates? I have not.

I love the 4E death and dying rule and house rule it in. My game remains completely unlike 4E in all substantive ways.

I think you might want to redirect your ire....

The original post was in response to another post asking "how is animal companions like 4e".

I didn't say anything else about that...