Monster Book?

[ValhallaGH]

Out of curiosity, say you take a bird's eye view of the two systems. What would you say are the signs TB is system-driven in approach, and what are the signs PF is style-driven in approach?

At a guess, it would be something like the following:
Trailblazer was designed to address systemic issues. Extra attack rolls, with varying modifiers, consuming too much game time; the "10 minute adventuring day"; providing casters with "full adventuring day" options without giving them unlimited "haha I win" options. And so on. Heck, they even deleted Natural Spell (which was practically a level 6 Druid class feature, it was so good).

Pathfinder went for over-the-top style. Every class got new abilities, even the most powerful core classes (Sorcerrer, Cleric, Druid). Why? Because it was cool and fun. The art, the mechanics, all of it is there to reinforce a high-adventure style that ignores picayune details such as number of rations or exact travel times (those options are there, but they aren't part of the target style).

Helpful?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Helpful?

So much so-- as usual-- that I really should just give you my login information and cut out the middle man.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Helpful?

Totally, and I very much see all those things in both. Though I wonder if a PF aficionado might not object that PF didn't also offer system-level fixes, just . . . different.

My amateur superficial analysis was that both targeted different kinds of boredom. PF found the dead levels and filled them, eliminating feature boredom. TB found players sitting around waiting for their turn or doing nothing when the powers ran out, and filled it with combat reactions, action points, and a rest mechanic.

I can't wait to see if the TB monster book compares brings additional aspects to compare!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I can't wait to see if the TB monster book compares brings additional aspects to compare!

Hmm... Since you have seen most of the monster book-- and there's no need to keep that a secret-- can you elucidate this comment?

I assume you mean you're looking forward to the "mechanics" chapters of the book (which you have not yet seen...) but if there's something else/different you're looking for, let me know!

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I assume you mean you're looking forward to the "mechanics" chapters of the book . . .

Exactly! I'm not fishing to either. Sometimes getting the whole thing in one place you can see the forest for the trees, you know?

Oh and everyone, the Monster book's kickstarter page just got some new monster art.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Pathfinder got rid of Dead Levels? Huh, someone must not have told my copy.
Barbarian: hasn't had any since 3.5, and they still got new tricks.
Bard: 3 dead levels, which is a big improvement. But don't try to tell me they don't need goodies.
Cleric: Exactly the same number of dead levels. They could have just written Channel Energy at level 1, and put the scaling into the ability description, making it look just like the 3.X version.
Druid: 5 dead levels, which is 3 more than 3.5 had. Of course, Druids with Natural Spell don't need any system love.
Fighter: got rid of dead levels, but not with anything interesting.
Monk: Hasn't had dead levels since 3.5. Decent upgrade to Flurry of Blows, though.
Paladin: no dead levels, but lost the ability to do disease removal and hand laying separately. Traded flexibility for power, but the class really needed an infusion of both.
Ranger: no dead levels, but nothing that fills those levels is useful when you've got a caster around.
Rogue: More rogue talents, which is a good thing. More to choose from, which is a less good thing (too many situational options that will be useless in 80% of the campaigns I've played in; or useful only once, which is actually worse).
Sorcerer: Didn't need the love, but got it anyway. And it is some awesome love.
Wizard: School specialty provides Batman with another couple of tricks, and they are good tricks.


... Sorry for any hints of hostility, I just find Pathfinder to completely fail at fixing my issues with 3.x. In most cases, it exacerbates the problems I perceive. So any hostility is pointed towards those rules, not towards the people that use them.

Have fun.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I just find Pathfinder to completely fail at fixing my issues with 3.x. In most cases, it exacerbates the problems I perceive.

We're on the same page, I have the same reaction to what PF did to fill in many of those dead levels of the classes. As far as hostility, heh, I saw passion! I enjoy reading your commentaries on using Trailblazer every time you post, it articulates things I see better than I'm capable.

 

[joela]

I enjoy reading your commentaries on using Trailblazer every time you post, it articulates things I see better than I'm capable.

Ditto. Slight threadjack here, but what's your opinion of the Advanced Players Guide?

 

[ValhallaGH]

Haven't sat down with it, but a cursory examination left me with the impression that it was "more of the same." Some neat ideas and options, but doesn't do a thing that I want.

 

[blobsticks]

Hey all, Ben kindly hired me to work on this book, I'm glad the artwork is getting a nice response
I believe I only have a handful of images left to do and then it's all up to Badaxe to wrestle with this monster of a monster book.. I don't envy them the task!
I've posted a new thread on ENWorld that will showcase a few pieces of art for this book (as I go) and some work for Paizo and personal stuff.. take a look if you're interested
http://www.enworld.org/forum/media-lounge-miscellaneous-geek-stuff/304754-scotts-gallery.html