Pathfinder 1E Monte Cook joins Pathfinder team

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It is a whole lot better than a few extra magic missles. (and rather bland)

Not really. Clearly there are different people with different preferences. Better to make two games and offer more people what they want.

Though I suppose if we are talking about an ideal world, then everyone would realize I'm right and we'd all be in the target audience together. lol

I'd be happy to see things your way in your ideal world, since then I wouldn't know any better different and wouldn't have to "worry" about this.

Anyway, we seem to be drifting distinctly off-topic. Clearly PF is in Monte's wheelhouse and his contributions, even the small ones, will be valuable. And the people his ideas will be most valuable to will be the people already more interested in PF. So it works out right.

Indeed we have drifted off-topic. Run back to fundamental issues instead on Monte possible contributions.
Since I definitely see Monte Cook as one of the best game designers out there*, I think whatever he'll do, it can only be good for Pathfinder.


Maybe seeing him as the "Second Coming" in game design is a stretch, but I enthusiastically read his Design Diaries, and loved them all. He had a lot of good insights to offer then, and he probably still has...

 

[roguerouge]

If the PRPG is a balanced but overpowered 3.5 for you, there are three options. First, they have a slow, medium, and fast XP chart which allows you to more easily control advancement and power levels. Second, their modules are tough grinders anyway, so it may balance with their encounters. Third, you can just consider the party to be one average level higher when selecting other modules.

 

[roguerouge]

Good question.

I play in a lot of pbp games and a large number of them are core rules (PH/DMG/MM) only.

A bunch are any WotC books and some are any WotC books but no Bo9S or psionics.

For the Core rules only crowd Pathfinder is a power bump across the board (the PF fighter gets everything the core fighter gets plus more AC and attack bonuses, etc.). For those who use everything PF seems deliberately balanced against the top performers of 3.5 such as warforged race and Bo9S classes.

It's not that over-powered. The fighter will still lag behind the druid, have no fear. Think of it as balanced against the Beguiler, the War Mage, and the Scout... you know, the classes that beat up the rogue/sorcerer, the evoker sorcerer, and the ranger and took their stuff.

 

[roguerouge]

It's so...big!

Sorry. Just tried to read -- again! -- that "Homosexuality in Golarion" thread over at Paizo. And I thought the topic on elves and their ear sizes(!) was tired

Just skip all the thread jacks on real world religions and it becomes much more manageable.

 

[SSquirrel]

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.

Just to run a comparison for 1 class here. Here is a comparison of L20 Rogues. Just from the class stat block, no made up attributes to assume for each character. The advanced talent from Pathfinder is largely similar to the special abilities, and you get several more in 3.5 than PFRPG. Of course, you get 10 rogue talents, which are no slouch either, as well as Master Striker in PFRPG and up to 40HP more. I don't see this as the difference between an average and reasonably optimized character. This is before any attributes or magic items are thrown into the equation or even a race.

L20 Pathfinder Rogue:
BAB: 15/10/5
Saves: 6/12/6
HD: d8 (potentially extra 40 HP)

Abilities:

10d6 Sneak Attack (4E style works on almost everyone)
trap sense +6
trapfinding
evasion
Improved uncanny dodge
trap
Master Strike (1d4 hrs sleep, paralyzed 2d6 rounds, slain DC 20+Int mod)
Advanced Talent
10 Rogue Talents

___________________________________________________________________

L20 3.5 Rogue
BAB: 15/10/5
Saves: 6/12/6
HD: d6

Abilities:

10d6 Sneak Attack (3.5 style, lots of restrictions)
trap sense +6
trapfinding
evasion
Improved uncanny dodge
4 Special Ability

____________________________________________________________________

But, as a 4E fanboi, here my criticism:
It can be fun, at least for a while. The question is what happens if I want to pull out some "old" 3.5 PrCs or core classes and want to use them - they might still be new (I have used only a small subset of them so far), but if they are weaker then the core 3PF classes? Do I have to tweak each of them? Do I have to buy the PF equivalents, and still throwing away my 3.5 books (which a 3.5/PF supporter might not have wanted?)

I have the exact same concern and my best guess is to continue running the modules w/the NPCs at the listed levels and just add extra bodies to fight for balance, b/c your players have significantly more powerful characters now.

As SSquirrel said, if it comes out a bit short, give them one more bonus feat. Done. The change just isn't that big.

This was specifically for running AE characters alongside core D&D characters. As shown in my post, I seriously doubt that will account for the differences between PFRPG and Core characters

 

[Voadam]

If the PRPG is a balanced but overpowered 3.5 for you, there are three options. First, they have a slow, medium, and fast XP chart which allows you to more easily control advancement and power levels.

If different xp charts are the balance mechanism for regular 3.5 classes then that creates problems multiclassing between PF and 3.5 classes. Slower advancement also usually means the acquisition of more loot per level since you are hitting more encounters unless the DM compensates away from the defaults in the DMG and modules or throws in extra encounters with rust monsters, sundering monsters, and magic eating monsters to compensate.

Second, their modules are tough grinders anyway, so it may balance with their encounters.

Which means running an all Pathfinder PC and module campaign would be fine but leaves the problems of mixing and matching normal 3.5 stuff unresolved.

Third, you can just consider the party to be one average level higher when selecting other modules.

Giving PF characters an actual or pseudo LA type of mechanism may work.

If it is a pseudo one tough they will get loot as the higher level character and earn more xp for facing tougher challenges. In eaither case you can risk a little of the normal problems for LA characters of being lower on HD and edging towards being glass cannons.

 

[Wicht]

If different xp charts are the balance mechanism for regular 3.5 classes then that creates problems multiclassing between PF and 3.5 classes. Slower advancement also usually means the acquisition of more loot per level since you are hitting more encounters unless the DM compensates away from the defaults in the DMG and modules or throws in extra encounters with rust monsters, sundering monsters, and magic eating monsters to compensate.

Th xp charts in PFRPG are not meant to be used in conjunction with the xp charts in the 3e books. They are a replacement due to the fact that the xp charts are not in the SRD.

I can't foresee a situation where a DM chooses to use both at the same time. Even if the PCs come from different rules the DM should be using one standard set of rules to run the game, either PF or 3.x.

EDIT: Just reread the post and realized I misread what was being replied to. Even so, would any DM really allow different classes to level at different rates. It seems like a bad idea from a 3.x perspective, though in older editions of course it happened all the time.

 

[glass]

On backward compatibility:

EDIT: Let's put it another way. If your definition of "backwards compatible" excludes 3.5 from being compatible with 3.0, your definition is too narrow and Pathfinder will probably pass you by.

And yet, the typical consumer's definition was that narrow. As I understand it, sales of 3.0 stuff tanked when 3.5 was released. I like Paizo and wish Pathfinder every success, but they have set themselves a very difficult task.

On irony: The situation between this and the 4e Forum are not analogous. The people who were chastised for criticising 4e were by and large those criticising rules we had yet to see, filling the gaps with their own imaginations. With Pathfinder, OTOH, the rules have been published in Alpha form -specifically for the purpose of inviting public criticism.

On topic: I think this is excellent news. From what I have seen so far, I will probably be going with 4e, but I will be very interested in how Pathfinder develops.


glass.