Pathfinder 1E Monte Cook joins Pathfinder team

[bento]

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.

I can attest that since my 1st level party implemented the "flat" HP adjustment from PFRPG (max class HD + 6 + Con bonus) several party members avoided certain death in the current campaign.

 

[BryonD]

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.

I think this sums up the issue.
Pathfinder is for people who want to want to stay with 3X. Your POV seems to be so out of phase with the whole point of PF that the value of these specific comments seem pretty well negligible.

Also, you are making proclamations about level of involvement and feedback that sound more rooted in sour grapes than any kind of available data. And you either don't understand the degree of role Monte playing in the formation of D20 or you are intentionally misrepresenting it. I have no means of knowing which.

But the bottom line is: your lack of interest in 3X doesn't change the true value of what is happening here.

 

[BryonD]

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?

shrug
ok.

If there was evidence to support that, I'd be concerned. Instead I'll stay over here, happy with my molehill.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oh I agree 100%. It is an excellent marketing move. I was just disputing that it was nothing more than that.

I think we're agreeing on this matter. Something can be marketing or business move and still be good for a game. I sometimes get the impression that people think it can be only one (and seem to imply that a business/marketing move is never good for the game.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

The Fighter gets extra attack and damage bonus, does he not? Will this not change the math and the balance (both between classes and between characters and monsters)?

Maybe the changes to the magical items can compensate this. If a Fighter has to choose between more strength to gain to-hit and damage or more con to gain survivability, this evens out his "average damage" x "hp" compared to a 3.5 Fighter or a 3PF Barbarian...
(Is this enough?)

---

My concrete concern with Pathfinder's backwards compatibility are the splat books. Adventures can be tweaked by adding a few extra monsters, this shouldn't be so difficult (assuming averarage to-hits and to-saves are still in the same ballpark).
But I'd hate if I couldn't use the non-PHB core classes anymore, or the Prestige Classes. (I think feats and spells will have less problems). Admittedly, there are only few PrCs I ever bothered to use, but we have used some of the core classes in our group.
We're turning our Savage Tides campaign to Pathfinder, and I already had to say goodbye to my Warlock, which is somewhat sad, because I really enjoyed playing him.

Pathfinders current benefit is that it is a breath of fresh air to anyone involved. You can have played dozens of Fighters in 3.x, but the 3PF Fighter is different and new.
But if Pathfinder will go longer then a year, people will want more. The existing classes won't cut it. And if you have a library of 3.x producs with PrCs and base classes, you want to use them. But do you want to adapt them manually to Pathfinder? (Since Paizo often can't do it, since it's not open content?) Or will I throw those books away and get Paizos equivalent of splatbooks (will there even be any? Would this come at the expense of other products, like adventures?)

Maybe I am worrying to much about this. (Considering I am certainly going 4E, unless I get sorely disappointed, I am from my egoistical perspective). Maybe Paizo already has their ideas how to do this. Maybe the fans have. But I hope this also gets discussed.

--

err... so what did this have to do with Monte? Errr... err... Look, there, at the horizon, a novel! *runs away*

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The Fighter gets extra attack and damage bonus, does he not? Will this not change the math and the balance (both between classes and between characters and monsters)?

Depends on how much of a bonus you're talking about and how fast it stacks up as to whether you'll feel it or not.

A fighter's average attack roll (11+BAB+typical bonuses) is never behind the average monster AC, at any level. Fighters are already designed not to miss; at least not often.

By 9th or 10th level, there are enough bonuses that hitting the enemy is pretty much a forgone conclusion (barring some high-AC corner cases). Combat is a game of whittling off hit points (and save-or-die effects...)

The answer really depends on what they do with iterative attacks. The fighter will certainly see greater returns in his down-chain attacks than anybody else.

Adventures can be tweaked by adding a few extra monsters, this shouldn't be so difficult (assuming averarage to-hits and to-saves are still in the same ballpark).

This is actually the worst possible way to balance things, if you want my opinion, for reasons I won't belabor (Lanchesters, economy of actions, etc.) You're better of just changing hit points. It's the easiest thing in the world to do and has the most measurable, manageable effects.

 

[Voadam]

This is actually the worst possible way to balance things, if you want my opinion, for reasons I won't belabor (Lanchesters, economy of actions, etc.) You're better of just changing hit points. It's the easiest thing in the world to do and has the most measurable, manageable effects.

What is a lanchester?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

What is a lanchester?

A real pain in my ass.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Depends on how much of a bonus you're talking about and how fast it stacks up as to whether you'll feel it or not.

A fighter's average attack roll (11+BAB+typical bonuses) is never behind the average monster AC, at any level. Fighters are already designed not to miss; at least not often.


By 9th or 10th level, there are enough bonuses that hitting the enemy is pretty much a forgone conclusion (barring some high-AC corner cases). Combat is a game of whittling off hit points (and save-or-die effects...)

It has been a long time since I really checked this out, but I seem to remember my higher level Fighters still missing often enough to be noteable. That might just be selective memory speaking, but I am really not convinced this is true.

The answer really depends on what they do with iterative attacks. The fighter will certainly see greater returns in his down-chain attacks than anybody else. Guess I'll have to find an excuse to roll up a high level character...



This is actually the worst possible way to balance things, if you want my opinion, for reasons I won't belabor (Lanchesters, economy of actions, etc.) You're better of just changing hit points. It's the easiest thing in the world to do and has the most measurable, manageable effects.

A good old Lanchester... I am currently assuming that the power level difference is high enough that it's easier to add a monster (a weak one at least) then to improve the existing ones. This assumption might be wrong.
I think adding hit points might be not such a great idea, due to save or die effects totally bypassing them. But increasing damage across the monsters can also be fatal. Grrr. Reminds me again on stuff that I don't like with 3E math & magic... Lanchester is not the only PITA

 

[Voadam]

It has been a long time since I really checked this out, but I seem to remember my higher level Fighters still missing often enough to be noteable. That might just be selective memory speaking, but I am really not convinced this is true.

In my 17th level group I can't remember the last time our straight fighter archer missed on his lowest iterative based on AC (he still misses for incorporeal and other factors but rarely on AC).

Could be power envy on my part tinging my recollection though, my eldritch knight rarely hits with his lower iteratives, particularly now that he can power attack through the heroics spell. I expect this to change significantly with his retrained arcane strike feat coming into effect now though.