Pathfinder 1E Monte Cook joins Pathfinder team

[Voadam]

How exactly is a module going to suddenly become "Pathfinder" in the middle? Wouldn't it be either a 3.5 module or a Pathfinder module? Is this a new upgrade feature - when Pathfinder is released, all Paizo modules in existence will automatically become Pathfinder modules? 'Cause if so, that's pretty neat.

Seriously, campaigns have breaks (between adventures, for instance). Throw in an extra adventure - I mean, if you're inserting 3.5 characters into a PF campaign in the middle, you're already adapting it. If you're running 3.5 characters in PF campaign from the beginning, start them at 1 or 2 levels higher than recommended and see how it works.

I just don't see this is a serious issue. I mean, even if you somehow "go Pathfinder" in the middle of an adventure and the party is outclassed and you -really- can't think of a solution, it's a one-time fix. You don't have to add another level every week.

I believe you are misunderstanding what I was talking about.

It was not that the module turns from 3e to PF in the middle of an adventure but that a DM running a 3e game and picking up a compatible PF module to use then finding out as the party is part way through it that it is tougher than he expected and his PCs are getting chewed up.

Pathfinder RPG and PFRPG modules are supposed to be backwards compatible with 3.5 stuff. A DM whose group continues with core rules only 3.5 is supposed to be able to pick up a PFRPG module and send the group into it and be fine. More, he is supposed to be able to mix and match 3e and PF modules in the same campaign.

PFRPG is based on a little power bump of PCs. Paizo stuff for 3e had a rep for being power wise challenging as is. Increase the baseline PC power assumption and I expect them to increase the bad guys accordingly, even if it is just in giving classed NPCs the pathfinder base class extra powers.

So now our core rules 3.5 DM has his, say, 7th level party and begins a PFRPG module designed for parties levels 7-9 and they are getting severely torn up a third of the way through the dungeon crawl.

Xanaqui in post 101 said its no problem to bump the party up to meet the challenges of the module.

I was saying it can be done but I don't think they are great options.

"Kapow! You're all two levels higher!" is one option but I don't really care for it.

Is it a big problem? Not really. Judging power levels even in baseline 3e is more art than science in general. Power levels have wiggle room and D&D has some buffer built into the system so a party can retreat when overwhelmed without it always being a TPK.

However changes in power levels are a problem for compatibility. Is the power bump negligible, one level's worth, or two as various posters have suggested? If it is two then that is like sending second level characters in to begin the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil instead of 4th level characters.

The farther the suggested levels are off for a module the less useful it is for DMs to plan out their campaign paths. Either they misjudge the challenge presented or they have to evaluate the challenges presented and come up with their own 3e handicap for the differences from the 3e baseline, which is extra work for the DM.

Obviously this does not render such modules useless for 3e DMs, just less useful.

 

[Dice4Hire]

If Pathfinder is going to be balanced a couple of levels higher than 3.5 it is antoehr good reason for me not to get involved.

And that annoys me, as I was hoping Paizo would keep new 3.5 (NOT pathfinder) stuff coming. I do not want them to wander off into theri own little system, but it looks like they are bent on doing so.

Very disappointing.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If Pathfinder is going to be balanced a couple of levels higher than 3.5 it is antoehr good reason for me not to get involved.

Any power bump you see in Pathfinder is going to feel the biggest at 1st level, and it's going to make less and less difference as the levels advance.

Here's the most obvious and illustrative example:

Take a 1st level character with 10 hit points. Give him 10 more hit points, and you've doubled his power.

Now advance him to 10th level. He has 110 hit points; the extra 10 hit points he got at 1st level is a 10% increase, not a 100% increase.

It will be the same with Pathfinder.

If your PCs are having trouble, you can fix almost any imbalance in the math systems behind the game with two simple fixes:

1) Reduce the hit points of the bad guys by 10-50%.

2) Give the PCs a standing +2 bonus on any d20 roll. Or do it behind the screen, and subtract 2 from enemy ACs and attack rolls.

 

[AllisterH]

For those who use everything PF seems deliberately balanced against the top performers of 3.5 such as warforged race and Bo9S classes.

I've seen people mention this but even a 20th level warblade is still not even on the same scale as a CORE-only 18th level sorceror.

The thing is, of all the base classes released by WOTC in 3.5, only 2 have I've seen mention in the same breath as the wizard, druid and the cleric. Namely the artificer and the archivist.

 

[BryonD]

If Pathfinder is going to be balanced a couple of levels higher than 3.5 it is antoehr good reason for me not to get involved.

Well, I have good news. Concerns about "a couple levels" are completely unfounded. As Wulf stated, the extra HP at 1st level can be a big deal. Get past that and the difference presented so far is more like an average character vs. a reasonably optimized character.

And that annoys me, as I was hoping Paizo would keep new 3.5 (NOT pathfinder) stuff coming. I do not want them to wander off into theri own little system, but it looks like they are bent on doing so.

Very disappointing.

They announced it from the word go with the Pathfinder name on it. Why in the world would they keep supporting a game called Dungeons and Dragons when that game is moving on to a new edition?
If I were with Paizo, one of my goals would be to have people think of Pathfinder and "playing Pathfinder", not "playing D&D 3.5 using Paizo's Pathfinder stuff".

But that said, I have not seen a single thing yet that I couldn't run with my 3.5 stuff completely on the fly, zero prep time. The differences change the feel in a few ways, while maintaining the overall old D&D feel that some people are concerned 4E isn't staying with.

If you want to take your WotC 3.5 stuff and just keep running along with that base rule set, then two years from now you will be able to pick up a Pathfinder product and use it with your game with a real minimal effort. You seem to be making Mount Everest out of a molehill.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

I think you are greatly underrating the value of quality feedback.

Depends on the level and quantity of feedback.

Looking over a couple of things and saying "looks fine to me" isn't worth crap, and in so doing that person would still be considered a "consultant," as you consulted them for their opinion on something and they gave it. Technically, anyone that playtests the Alpha material and provides feedback of any level is a "consultant." If Monte sticks to his retirement from RPGs the way KISS did their farewell tours for a while, then maybe, but that's a wait-and-see. And personally, I'm soured enough on 3x at this point that I'm looking for a breath of fresh air instead of just spraying the place with a bit of Fabreeze.

Then again, could also be I don't think Monte Cook is the modern messiah of gaming. He's just another bloke with a lot of ideas, only difference being he's published and was part of the biggest gaming revolution to date (3e) as compared to the majority of us.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I've seen people mention this but even a 20th level warblade is still not even on the same scale as a CORE-only 18th level sorceror.

The thing is, of all the base classes released by WOTC in 3.5, only 2 have I've seen mention in the same breath as the wizard, druid and the cleric. Namely the artificer and the archivist.

Don't compare apples and oranges. At super high levels, melee has never matched up to spells. The warblade makes it a bit of a contest, though.

 

[Dice4Hire]

You seem to be making Mount Everest out of a molehill.

Perhaps. I hope so, but from what I have seen, Paizo seems to be moving toward Everest.

First gaming company on top of the world?

 

[Sunderstone]

Any power bump you see in Pathfinder is going to feel the biggest at 1st level, and it's going to make less and less difference as the levels advance.

I agree with this totally. Instead of 4th edition power creep at first level (3 starting hd?), they revamped the core classes. This helps in two ways at early levels.

1) The first few levels survivability factor. 3E/3.5 had a huge mortality rate with many people often resulting in partial or full tpks. If you need proof take a look at any "obituary" threads following APs and boxed sets. Most deaths seem to occur in the first two modules of any AP and steadily decline as PCs get more powerful. Instead of the town locals starting out with a super hero mutation of 3 HD when they pick up their first sword to go adventuring, I prefer the more elegant solution of revamping the classes like giving a Wizard a d6 for HD, etc. These small changes help while still keeping with the "danger" feel of low level d&d.

2) Some of the revamps on the core classes are actually improvements like in the case of the Sorcerer. My group in particular sees no point in having a Sorcerer over the standard Wizard because the higher level spells come slower. The changes to Sorcerer makes them interesting for my players now. My group also likes the changes to the Barbarian and Fighter, etc.

 

[Sunderstone]

Now that I think about it, I actually prefer the term playing "Pathfinder" over playing "D&D" at least until D&D becomes recognizable as D&D again. YMMV. <-- please note before flaming.