Pathfinder 1E Broad philosophy suggestions for Pathfinder (cross-posted at Paizo's boards)

[RangerWickett]

Hm. The more I read over Pathfinder, the more I begin to think that what I really want is "4th core mechanics, heavy revisions of 4e classes so they have more Sword & Sorcery flavor, and the people from Paizo writing it and providing its art."

I like the math rejiggering of 4e. I like that they've compartmentalized class abilities so you can memorize each in a chunk (sort of like how I have a large portion of my brain set aside for remembering every Magic card printed before 2001). I like that monsters are pretty easy to use. I like rituals. I like that I could totally get rid of magic items and just grant flat bonuses to attack, AC, and defense.

However, I dislike a lot of flavor of the classes (teleporting paladins, no differentiation between clerics of different faiths, clerics having lots of zappy powers, rangers existing still as the TWF/Bow guys). I dislike the naming conventions of both class abilities and monsters. I dislike that most feats are boring. I dislike the art. I really dislike the art. I dislike the general flavor of characters and monsters.

Mechanically, I only really dislike that feats are boring. The rest of my complaints are mostly based on the aesthetics of the new rules.

I love the aesthetics of Pathfinder. I just really don't think they'll be able to change things enough that I'll want to play the system. I think I need to just pony up and learn how to use a pdf layout program to make my own version of the 4e rulebooks.

 

[Treebore]

I think your ideas are solid, and rewriting of monsters and spells does not need to be done, these ideas can be used as generalized alternatives to what is already written. So DM's and players would just have to be smart enough to recognize/identify when these alternative ideas would be used instead. Since gamers tend to be pretty smart using these rules as alternatives don't look to be a difficult task to do.

Besides, they can be stated in much simpler and broader terms to simplify the application.

 

[joela]

presumptuous

I'm feeling presumptuous, so will answer for him: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard...ck/alpha3/newRules/broadPhilosophySuggestions

Coolio. Thanks!

 

[Gotham Gamemaster]

I for one would not accept a rewrite of monsters and spells. A large component of "compatibility" is defined by "How's the rest of my 3.5 library going to hold up?" Paizo can't rewrite the Denizens of Avadnu; they can't rewrite a Spell Compendium; etc.

Wulf, what about a monster rewrite that was as simple as "decrease all monster CRs by 1" to account for the increased racial and class effectiveness of Pathfinder PCs?

My hesitation with PF after having playtested almost weekly since it debuted is that the "front end" of 3.5 has received the 3.75 treatment but the "back end" (monsters, CRs, ELs) feels like it needs attention--specifically revision of SRD spells and monsters.

The phrase "Based on 3.5" would have been better than "backwards compatible," methinks. To put it another way, I realize now that I want PF to be "What If Paizo designed 4th Edition?" rather than a 3.75. (I eagerly await Trailblazer!)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Wulf, what about a monster rewrite that was as simple as "decrease all monster CRs by 1" to account for the increased racial and class effectiveness of Pathfinder PCs?

Such a "rewrite" would be wrong.

+2 to an additional ability score (as an example) makes a big difference at 1st level. Less at 10th level. Much less at 20th level.

I haven't seen any changes to PF that indicate to me, a consistent +1 CR increase at all levels.

EDIT: Let me give you a clear example. I've started campaigns now giving new PCs 3 max HD at 1st level. 30 hit points vs. 10 hit points for a 1st level Fighter makes a huge difference. At 20th level, 150 hit points vs. 130 hit points isn't nearly as big a deal.

My hesitation with PF after having playtested almost weekly since it debuted is that the "front end" of 3.5 has received the 3.75 treatment but the "back end" (monsters, CRs, ELs) feels like it needs attention--specifically revision of SRD spells and monsters.

A friend of mine expressed today his belief that Pathfinder hasn't actually touched the "hard questions" of 3.5 yet.

The phrase "Based on 3.5" would have been better than "backwards compatible," methinks.

Well, look, although I do have my worries about PF's divergence, it's still my observation that complaints of compatibility are largely blown out of proportion.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

A friend of mine expressed today his belief that Pathfinder hasn't actually touched the "hard questions" of 3.5 yet.

That's my view as well. They're rearranging deck chairs at this point, and it remains to be seen if they can fix the big issues.

Hm. The more I read over Pathfinder, the more I begin to think that what I really want is "4th core mechanics, heavy revisions of 4e classes so they have more Sword & Sorcery flavor, and the people from Paizo writing it and providing its art."

This has been my take as well. I'm not certain what to do about it.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

As for dispel magic, I'd remove it entirely as an option in combat. It's draconian, but it's simple and effective. If you want to debuff in combat, you'll need to rely on specific debuffs. Absolutely NO recalculating an entire statblock in the middle of combat.

Which is what 4e did, and I rather don't care for it philosophically. In 4e it kinda works, I think, because the rest of the game is so locked down and static. In 3e, it just makes the buffs, etc., more powerful, because the odds are the opposition won't have the specific counter-buff at hand. If the DM is actively tweaking the opponents to counter common PC tactocs, that's fine (to a point). But the PCs generally have no such luxury.

It also removes counterspelling as a valid tactic (assuming anyone but me ever bothered...) which is unwelcome. I'd rather see it dual-purpose -- in combat as a generic counterspell to prevent magic from happening, out of combat to drain the magic from an area/person/etc. Perhaps if there were no generic debuffs there might be more incentive to prevent the buffs from getting cast in the first place.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'd rather see it dual-purpose -- in combat as a generic counterspell to prevent magic from happening, out of combat to drain the magic from an area/person/etc. Perhaps if there were no generic debuffs there might be more incentive to prevent the buffs from getting cast in the first place.

That's exactly the change I recommended for Trailblazer. (See Magic, see Dispel Magic thread below.)

 

[Gotham Gamemaster]

Well, look, although I do have my worries about PF's divergence, it's still my observation that complaints of compatibility are largely blown out of proportion.

Thanks for the feedback, Wulf!

And, yes, I agree the compatibility issue has been blown of proportion. I should have been more clear, I was trying to rephrase the backwards compatibility design goal so that it allowed for more flexibility to entertain new solutions such as RangerWickett's ideas (to get back on topic! <g>).

-peter

 

[Angellis_ater]

Wulf, might I ask what the "hard problems" for 3.5 were, in your (or your friends) eyes? I'm very interested in seeing your view on it.