Is There Possibility of a PF1.5 or a 3.5 Revival? Whether Directly or Something With Similar 'Ethos'

[Reynard]

Saga is very much the public alpha of 4e mechanics...
and the connective tissue showing a continuity of 3e to 4e, via 3.x to SWD20 to SWSE to 4E.

Which means it definitively is NOT an example of what a 3.0 progression might look like.

 

[aramis erak]

Which means it definitively is NOT an example of what a 3.0 progression might look like.

You clearly haven't encountered the D20 Star Wars then...

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

It's the combination of both. Pathfinder 2 also has assumed magic items per level (though less strict than 3e) for PCs, but just gives NPCs/creatures desired stats for their level. Why does this guard have a +15 attack bonus? Because they're a 5th level creature with a melee focus and thus that's the appropriate attack bonus. I don't have to design the guard as a 5th level fighter with Str 16 (and quaffing a potion to get to 20) and the Weapon Focus feat and a masterwork weapon to get to the +12 that'd give them in 3e. I just decide "5th level melee dude, that's +15.". If they happen to have a magic weapon, it's because I want to give it as loot to the PCs.

If I ever started a 3.X/PF1 campaign again, I would simply do this when designing my own monsters. CR7 baddie? +10 to attack, 100 hp (or whatever) and so on. Same effect, 10 percent the hassle.

 

[Reynard]

You clearly haven't encountered the D20 Star Wars then...

Pf course I have -- both versions. I am not sure what that has to do with Saga being a 4E testbed, though.

 

[Staffan]

If I ever started a 3.X/PF1 campaign again, I would simply do this when designing my own monsters. CR7 baddie? +10 to attack, 100 hp (or whatever) and so on. Same effect, 10 percent the hassle.

Definitely. There was a growing understanding of the issue over the course of 3e's life cycle. I remember when 3.5e came out, they did some hyping up of having remade some monsters to be more CR-appropriate. To a large degree, 3.0 monsters were created by just taking AD&D monsters and translating their special abilities to 3e, and eyeballing a CR based on those. I remember an article on the website calling out the ogre mage as being poorly designed, because it has 37 hp, AC 18, and attacks at +7 for 3d6+7 (or flies and uses ranged attacks at +2 and 2d6), which is on par with something like an owlbear (CR 4) but it has to be CR 8 because they have a 1/day cone of cold dealing 9d6 points which is WAY too strong for a CR 4 creature. I believe the article then went on to provide a redesigned version with significant physical buffs and with the magic toned down a notch, and I think the Elemental Mages from MM5 were a similar attempt at a "fixed" ogre mage.

PF1 goes half-way to target-based monster creation. They provide target values for each CR, but you still build the monster using PCish rules. So basically they say "A combat-focused CR 5 monster should have an attack bonus of about +10 and 55 hp. A CR 5 Magical Beast should have about 6d10 HD, which alone provides +6 BAB and 33 hp. So you need to give it Strength 18 for +4 to attack and Con 18 for +24 hp and you'll get to about the right values." To me, that kind of seems like the worst of both worlds, but at least there are actual guidelines for how strong a monster should be at each CR instead of "compare it to other monsters."

 

[Alzrius]

Definitely. There was a growing understanding of the issue over the course of 3e's life cycle. I remember when 3.5e came out, they did some hyping up of having remade some monsters to be more CR-appropriate. To a large degree, 3.0 monsters were created by just taking AD&D monsters and translating their special abilities to 3e, and eyeballing a CR based on those. I remember an article on the website calling out the ogre mage as being poorly designed, because it has 37 hp, AC 18, and attacks at +7 for 3d6+7 (or flies and uses ranged attacks at +2 and 2d6), which is on par with something like an owlbear (CR 4) but it has to be CR 8 because they have a 1/day cone of cold dealing 9d6 points which is WAY too strong for a CR 4 creature. I believe the article then went on to provide a redesigned version with significant physical buffs and with the magic toned down a notch, and I think the Elemental Mages from MM5 were a similar attempt at a "fixed" ogre mage.

PF1 goes half-way to target-based monster creation. They provide target values for each CR, but you still build the monster using PCish rules. So basically they say "A combat-focused CR 5 monster should have an attack bonus of about +10 and 55 hp. A CR 5 Magical Beast should have about 6d10 HD, which alone provides +6 BAB and 33 hp. So you need to give it Strength 18 for +4 to attack and Con 18 for +24 hp and you'll get to about the right values." To me, that kind of seems like the worst of both worlds, but at least there are actual guidelines for how strong a monster should be at each CR instead of "compare it to other monsters."

Reading this, I'm curious to know what you think of Pathfinder Unchained's simple monster creation rules.

 

[Staffan]

Reading this, I'm curious to know what you think of Pathfinder Unchained's simple monster creation rules.

Not much. By the time PF Unchained came out, I was already pretty tired of 3.5e/PF so I'm not particularly familiar with those.

I have used PF2's creature creation rules on several occasions and thought the results were pretty neat without being overly much work.

 

[Voadam]

I remember when 3.5e came out, they did some hyping up of having remade some monsters to be more CR-appropriate.

I was happy with that when they did it and when Pathfinder did the same thing with further refinements for the same CR. I was quite happy, for instance, with pathfinder changing the CR 3 allip to wisdom damage instead of drain at that CR. I also liked buffing the toughness of demons as physical combatants at their same CR going from 3.5 to Pathfinder.

I was quite annoyed when WotC went the other direction with things like a mummy going from a CR 3 in 3.0 to a CR 5 in 3.5's redesigned tougher mummy, just enough of a power bump to screw up the expected power balance and challenge when a 3.0 module called for a mummy and you are using the 3.5 rules and MM. A lot of outsiders got similar CR shifts going from 3.0 to 3.5.

 

[Alzrius]

I was quite annoyed when WotC went the other direction with things like a mummy going from a CR 3 in 3.0 to a CR 5 in 3.5's redesigned tougher mummy, just enough of a power bump to screw up the expected power balance and challenge when a 3.0 module called for a mummy and you are using the 3.5 rules and MM. A lot of outsiders got similar CR shifts going from 3.0 to 3.5.

Hey, at least they removed how certain creatures were flat-out immune to spells of a certain level or lower. Like, what sense did it make that a CR 9 rakshasa was immune to spells of less than 9th level?

 

[Voadam]

Like, what sense did it make that a CR 9 rakshasa was immune to spells of less than 9th level?

Tradition!

2e's Monstrous Compendium 1:

1e MM: