Pathfinder 1E Monte Cook joins Pathfinder team

[Windjammer]

I kind of expect(ed) the 4E folks here to come in and trash the thread.

Ok, I see how my post can be taken that way, given how little history I have accumulated on this forum. For your information, I plan to stick with 3.5 and my post articulated worries coming from that end.
Erik Mona has made it perfectly clear that backwards compatibility is now their prime objective, so I'm keeping my hopes up. That's why I said "wait for 2009". Also, I'm excited over PRGP because it will be the first RPG to benefit from a solid year of playtesting 4th edition.

Edit. Another thing I raised - the precise extent of Monte Cook's involvement - is answered by himself on his homepage. To quote,

Paizo announced today that I'm working with them on their new Pathfinder game. I think it's going to be a lot of fun and I'm looking forward to the finished product. I think the lead designer, Jason Bulmahn, and the whole Paizo crew are doing an amazing job.

My role is "rules consultant," and I'll be really up-front with you regarding what that means (and doesn't mean). The way it's been working for the last couple of weeks is, Jason emails me with the occasional question or bounces an idea off of me, and I tell him what I think. I also review the new material he comes up with and give my 2 cents. And that's really about it. Jason's not under any obligation to take any advice I might give. It's his baby. He makes the final decisions. I'm not a designer on this project, I'm a resource. Don't, for example, expect to see a ton of stuff from the Book of Experimental Might books showing up in Pathfinder (although there might be a little).Pathfinder and the BoXM books have very different goals. Also, because that's the way my role works, don't come to me with your own ideas or feedback regarding Pathfinder--I'm not going to be able to do anything with them. The Paizo folks, however, are eager to get any and all feedback that people provide, which I think is supremely cool and part of the reason I'm glad to be a part of this.

Part of me wishes I could be involved more deeply, but to be very honest, I just don't have the time with the other (non-P&P game related) projects I have going on. I feel fortunate and honored that they value my opinions enough to let me be involved at all.

Source: http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?montejournal

 

[Roman]

Which might be logical, were it not for the fact that this news is probably of interest to many people who are not interested, at least not currently, in Pathfinder.

Given that, moving the thread to Pathfinder is actually making it harder to find for people interested in it.

You make a good point, but it seems to be a new policy to move everything to the side fora that are not so widely read. This was not always so strictly enforced, but now it seems to be.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Also, I'm excited over PRGP because it will be the first RPG to benefit from a solid year of playtesting 4th edition.

This is why I'm so happy about Pathfinder, also. Although IMO there were some individual steps backward between Alpha 1 and Alpha 2, the net improvement was impressive. If the trend continues, even though it must slow, Pathfinder will be a great successor to 3.5.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You make a good point, but it seems to be a new policy to move everything to the side fora that are not so widely read. This was not always so strictly enforced, but now it seems to be.

You're right, but what's "widely read"? This thread got 50 replies in fewer than 12 hours, after all, from a very wide range of readers.

 

[Fenes]

I used the 3.5 MM in my 3.0 campaign for years, no problem. (Although we heavily house ruled 3.0, dropping much of what was changed in 3.5, like haste, and the hour-long buff spells).

 

[carmachu]

I am a 4e fan.

That doesn't mean that I am uninterested in what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder, and with Monte "on board" it makes it even more interesting.

So should I stay out?

'

No, if you want to discuss it politely and rationally, your more than welcome.

But what others are saying is, thats the SAME reaction many of the 4e fans have told the 3.X ones, to stay out of the 4e forum and not complain if they dont like it. Its what we call Irony.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

I'd like to clarify and defend my earlier post in this thread.

1. I'm not a 4e troll. I'm not too keen on a lot of things related to 4e. There are several facets that compell me to switch from a time-saving perspective, but I have a lot invested in 3.5 and prefer to keep using them.

2. The statement about Book of Vile Darkness being much disliked was not a reflection of my own opinion. I was merely trying to state my observation that there is a large community of individuals who refer to it as a ridiculous book and that it should have been titled the Book of Vile Grossness.

The concept of the Book of Vile Darkness was something I loved when I first read it (back when I was switching my perspective from player to DM). I liked the context in which it is was written. After some time, though, I realized I didn't really need to use much of it to really emphasize truly vile and evil beings. It worked well when I was running Monte's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (some of the material in there found its way into the BoVD). Still, there's a lot of stuff that I found either game breaking or irellevant. Seriously, overly powerful corrupt spells that inflict ability score damage on the caster aren't really balanced if the NPC is going to die in a few rounds anyway (or the PCs for that matter). In the end, I felt as though the book was more about how to kill the PCs, which seems to be a common theme in Monte's work.

For what it's worth, I still love the Kythons.

3. My point about Monte's work with the 3.0 rules was to point out the fact that he is at least partially responsible for the issues in 3.0 and 3.5. Even some of his "fixes" add a layer of complexity that is relatively unnecessary. This might be a moot point since he's not actually designing for Pathfinder RPG.

To summarize, I'm simply trying to bring a different perspective to the conversation. I personally don't automatically associate Monte Cook's approach to gaming with quality game mechanics, but that's just my personal opinion. He has certainly put out some quality products in the past, but I just don't think that everything he touches is necessarily gold.

 

[Dice4Hire]

meh.

Monte Cook is a great guy, but with Paizo already pulling their 3.5 version away from WOTC's they do not need any more impetus, I say. When I continue to play 3.5, I want it to be the 3.5 I have been playing for 5 years, not a new version of it done by Paizo.

 

[Psion]

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 think it's a fair thing to say. I like some changes in BoXM, but wouldn't use some things therein because things like the relevelling of spells are too hard to integrate with existing material, whereas that is one of the proclaimed goals of Pathfinder.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Reading this thread makes me wonder...

How far will Pathfinder have to go before it is a sub-game like Iron Kingdoms and such and not really 3.5 at all.

Personally I think they have crossed that line already.

I am willing to grant that there is the possibility that it might become popular enough to supplement 3.5, but I see that chance as pretty slim.