Pathfinder 1E Could Pathfinder take D&D's place...

[Pentius]

In the end, we're all happy.
The real question is, if a violent fungus falls in the middle of a dungeon and no one is around to hear it, who get's the XP?

The dungeon itself, of course. That's how the high level dungeons get that way.

Because the "solution" (not having any system for morality) is even worse.

How so?

 

[TarionzCousin]

That's the kind of thinking that has General Sedgwick saying "They can't hit an elephant at this distance" before being killed at Spotsylvania.

To be fair, General Sedgwick was NOT an elephant.

 

[Hussar]

Just a point about the 4 roles.

Way, way back in the early 90's, I used to read the Marvel comic X-Factor. In X-Factor, there is a character called Strong Guy. Strong Guy gets his name because of a joke made during a press conference where a reporter, seeing Strong Guy's huge muscles, says that he must be the strong guy on the team because every team has a strong guy.

The roles thing is lots, lots older than MMO's.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=50895]gamerprinter[/MENTION] - just a thought about building the light armored fighter. Why fighter? Why did you pick that specific class?

At a guess, I'd say that it had a lot to do with the full BAB. Makes sense. You want a guy who's kicking the crap out of things, so, missing all the time isn't going to get that done.

Thing is, when building in 4e, that particular criteria no longer exists. Pre-4e, the fighters hit more often than everyone else (and by fighter's, I'm talking about anything with a full BAB). In 4e, everyone has the same BAB. There's no distinction made with class.

So, one of the main criteria for choosing that particular class in 3e no longer exists in 4e. You still pick a class that best fits the concept, but, now, you're no longer limited to a single tree of classes because of BAB (whether that be 3e BAB, or earlier edition THAC0).

When someone looks at your concept and suggests something that's not a fighter, it's not that fighter's are a particularly bad fit for your concept. It's that 4e has narrower class archetypes, but, quite a lot more classes. Your concept sounds like a striker. In 4e, you'd look at Martial strikers (in the PHB, that would be Ranger or Rogue, Essentials, I dunno) and go from there. A highly mobile guy with little or not armor that hits a lot and kicks ass?

Rogue. All the way. And, unlike 3e rogues, Rogues don't come with a lot of "Thief" baggage like being the only one who can find/remove traps and that sort of thing. Your specific concept would be pretty easy to make in 4e. It just has different names than in 3e because the organization is different.

But, at the end of the day, it wouldn't play out hugely different. Probably a lot more mobile in 4e since 4e focuses on in combat movement to a much larger degree. But, not terribly different in execution.

 

[prosfilaes]

Because the "solution" (not having any system for morality) is even worse.

That's not the only solution; OD&D, AD&D/3E, 4E and Palladium all show variations on the basic theme, and Unknown Armies goes detailed, marking how far you've gone on Violence, Helplessness, Isolation, Self, or the Unnatural. (I don't know if technoextreme would consider that more accurate or not.) I've seen a set of rules for GURPS for running an RPG set in the setting of the Fountainhead, with an Objectivist alignment system.

And not having an alignment system can work too. It deprives the designer of a tool that can help set the game, but it can also forestall a bunch of silly arguments about who's what alignment.

 

[gamerprinter]

@gamerprinter - just a thought about building the light armored fighter. Why fighter? Why did you pick that specific class?

Because its easier to explain without over fiddly details. I've created alternate versions of all the classes for use in Kaidan. While the setting doesn't exclude certain classes, there are a couple I have yet (and may not) detail for the setting, as they don't belong flavor-wise, including the Summoner. But pretty much all the classes are represented.

In fact in the Tengu book, where I was explaining my build of the light armored fighter, there is a cavalier, a magus, and a paladin. I've got other race books with builds on sorcerer, cleric, druid, etc.

But I picked a light armored fighter in my example, because its easier to explain in a short post on a forum - not for any other reason.

Another difference between 4e and PF, is that in PF I have a limited number of classes that through archetypes creates many flavors (dozens of options), while in 4e, I have dozens of classes that all fit the same four roles. Kind of looking at the same problem from opposite points of view. I don't need dozens and dozens of classes to achieve the variety of character builds. A dozen is fine for me, really, I could live with a lot less (I really don't need most of the new classes from the APG.)

Archetypes allow me to build anything that I'd possibly want to play with, within the socalled limit of the classes. While 4e's direction is certainly viable, it isn't the fix that I prefer. PF does it for me better.

 

[Systole]

I've always wondered why people would want to play with a mechanic that has such horrible philosophical underpinning. Please tell me why you like playing with a system that anyone who has any clue how morality and philosophy works would laugh at?

In PF/D&D world, dieties are real and spend their time poking the Prime Material Plane with a stick. The alignment system may be simplistic, but it's essentially one of the natural laws of a fantasy universe. Joe the Wizard may think the divisions between good and evil or law and chaos are ridiculous, but it's still a fact of life for him, and Asmodeus is right there to smite some sense into him if he starts to think otherwise.

I mean, if you consider this universe, I think it's silly that pi is an infinitely long, irrational number that amounts to "three and a bit," but that's the way things turned out and I don't have much choice except to live with it. (Since I'm not Bloody Stupid Johnson.)

P.S. Referring to "how morality and philosophy works" suggests that there's a single unified theory in our world, which -- last I checked -- was not quite the case.

 

[technoextreme]

Because it effectively turns most of your enemies into Nazis. It provides a simple polarizing, simplifying overlay over the whole world. It's designed to keep real world morality out, not pull it in.

Just out of curiosity are you familiar with Eberron?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Just out of curiosity are you familiar with Eberron?

Eberron is a special (and in my opinion, a wonderful) case.

Some folks in Eberron aren't even sure that the gods really exist, outside of the Powers that they influence.

In Eberron alignment is more of a simplified method for outlining behavior, and is more useful to a GM than a player. A GM could probably hide a PC's alignment from the player, with most folks falling into Neutral.

It is only when the favor of the gods, or of godlike Powers, has an actual effect that it matters all that much - a god who's martial arm consists of paladins probably does have some fairly strict preferences, even outside of any published Code.

I like to look at a villain's stat block, and being able to say 'hunh, Lawful Evil... odds are he doesn't take a chainsaw on a stroll through the mall....' Keeps it pretty simple.

The Auld Grump

 

[BryonD]

Just a point about the 4 roles.

Way, way back in the early 90's, I used to read the Marvel comic X-Factor. In X-Factor, there is a character called Strong Guy. Strong Guy gets his name because of a joke made during a press conference where a reporter, seeing Strong Guy's huge muscles, says that he must be the strong guy on the team because every team has a strong guy.

The roles thing is lots, lots older than MMO's.

Are you actually pointing out that something somewhere had "roles" before MMOs existed and expecting that to come across as news AND suggesting that this common knowledge therefore somehow invalidates any significance to the specific implementation of "roles" in the topic at hand?
Or did you forget to make your point?