Pathfinder 1E Monte Cook joins Pathfinder team

[Zil]

I haven't forgotten. And while 3.5 was a better game than 3.0, 3rd Edition made me excited about D&D again. Monte was a big part of that and look forward to his involvement in the design of Pathfinder, no matter how limited it might be. And I didn't dislike Book of Vile Darkness. It was one of my favorite 3.0 books.

It just goes to prove that everyone has a different opinion, no matter what it's about.

I also liked the Book of Vile Darkness. On the other hand, the Book of Exalted Deeds was just broken. I let one of my games get hijacked for a little while by it. The mechanics just weren't balanced enough in BoED. It's like they looked at the Book of Vile Darkness Mechanics and tried to create good analogies, but then forgot to play test them.

Anyway, I'm excited to see Monte involved with Pathfinder in a consultant role.

Some folks have been talking about backwards compatibility issues with Pathfinder. I didn't find Alpha 2 all that difficult to wedge into a 3.5 game. It's kind of like mixing 3.0 and 3.5 which really wasn't all that hard - I'm always amazed when I hear people say it is. Sure, it's not identical to 3.5, but it is pretty compatible.

 

[Big Bucket]

Monte gives more information about his involvement on his blog here. I think it will be good. Having another experienced set of eyes looking at it should be a good thing.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Much disliked? By who? In my opinion, Book of Vile Darkness was one of the top 10 books released for 3rd edition. It's deservedly right up there with the Book of Exalted Deeds!

Right on! I completely - wha?!? You like BoED? Bah!

 

[catsclaw227]

Some folks have been talking about backwards compatibility issues with Pathfinder. I didn't find Alpha 2 all that difficult to wedge into a 3.5 game. It's kind of like mixing 3.0 and 3.5 which really wasn't all that hard - I'm always amazed when I hear people say it is. Sure, it's not identical to 3.5, but it is pretty compatible.

I can tell you from practical experience that it's not that easy when you have a lot of key NPCs. I generally have the main ones follow character creation guidelines like PCs, at least in a general way, but this means re-jiggering them quite a bit.

Also, monsters and the 3.0/3.5 CR systems don't work the same with PRPG (and yes, I know that the CR system is/was not perfect). Good players will wipe out a CR appropriate 3.5 encounter when the PCs use PRPG rules.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Right on! I completely - wha?!? You like BoED? Bah!

Maybe you should go check the author credits before wondering why I might have liked it.

Truth be told, most of the complaints about that book come from areas that I had nothing to do with; and, if you take the Vow of Poverty out of the equation, I think it actually stands up pretty well. Unfortunately people have the tendency to treat the Book of Exalted Deeds as though it is the Book of Vow of Poverty, which is isn't.

Anyway, enough about the BoED. Monte being involved with Pathfinder, even in an advisory role, is a good thing. I am very definitely in favor of OGL games surviving the coming of 4E, even if I think that 4E is making a number of positive changes to the game. The fact that the GSL will probably be revokable by WotC doesn't fill me with the urge to put all of my eggs in the 4E basket.

 

[Big Bucket]

Also, monsters and the 3.0/3.5 CR systems don't work the same with PRPG (and yes, I know that the CR system is/was not perfect). Good players will wipe out a CR appropriate 3.5 encounter when the PCs use PRPG rules.

catsclaw227, I think the same thing can be said of later 3.5 classes as well. Our group right now consists of a cleric, warblade, swordsage and knight. A friend was in for the weekend and wanted to play. He built a Pathfinder fighter and he did not outshine the others. In fact I think he was still weaker than the warblade and about on par with the swordsage and knight. I think what the new classes will do is bring up the core classes to the levels of the later class additions.

As for backwards compatability, I don't worry too much. I won't be making sure everything is exact. I will either adjust the CR or wing it - give the bad guys a little extra here and there. With the group I have now I'm doing that anyway.

Back to topic: I'm still glad M. Cook will be offering suggestions.

 

[SSquirrel]

I like that Monte's involved and hope that it makes the PFRPG a bit more balanced along the way. Big fan of all the Malhavoc stuff, esp AE/Ptolus. PFRPG has yet to prove itself to me, but it's also well over a year from production so we'll see as it shapes itself. I believe Byron would label me one of the 4E'ers, but I think it's perfectly valid to voice concern along with joy. I'm glad to see Monte helping to produce more gaming material in any form, I'm just not sure if the PFRPG will be something that moves me in such a way to go and buy it. *shrug* As things stand right now, if I'm playing something rooted in D&D in 4 months, it will be either 4E or AE and/or PtolusAE.

 

[Jack99]

I think this is awesome news for Paizo and those who might end up playing 3.75. Monte was (is) one of the best designers for 3.5.

Congrats

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Pathfinder and the BoXM books have very different goals.

What does this mean? In game design terms, Pathfinder and the BoXM seem to have such similar goals -- and in a few cases such similar methods of achieving them -- that I sometimes mix up which is which in my head.

I'm personally happy about Mr. Cook's involvement because of what it likely means for Pathfinder's eventual success. While I find his game mechanics and adventure design to be hit-and-miss (no pun intended), I think a Rules Advisor role is perfect ... it should serve as a filter, allowing his strongest ideas and opinions to influence the game. And his strongest ideas are genuinely excellent.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

catsclaw227, I think the same thing can be said of later 3.5 classes as well. [...] I think what the new classes will do is bring up the core classes to the levels of the later class additions.

I agree. Someone mentioned the beguiler earlier. I built a beguiler as the BBEG in my latest session of Eberron, and it was amazing how effective the class is. (And this in consideration of two things: (1) I don't build NPCs with any hyper-efficiency, and (2) this was in a more or less straight-up fight, definitely not the beguiler's strongest suit.)

I can't speak to every non-core 3.5 class, having only read them not seen all of them in play, but for at least some of them the Pathfinder classes are headed for par, not a birdie (and definitely not an eagle).