Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[BryonD]

I love the way 4e handles the combat mechanics of humanoids. I don't think Pathfinder went far enough in making humanoids mechanically distinctive.

From the other side, I strongly dislike the 4E approach. Mechanics should should be about capabilities and leave behavior to the players.

I liked the flavorful secondary abilities of the dragons in earlier editions

This really isn't the same as what you are saying, but have you checked out Dragons revisited. It does get into mechancis in places, but it is 90%+ flavor and does a great job of expanding on the nature of the core ten colors. If nothing else it is a really fun read.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

I've just handed out a one-week ban for someone purposefully trolling in this thread. So, be warned - there are folks who are posting here not to discuss, but merely for the purpose of cheesing you off and watching your reactions. Do not feed trolls, folks.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Can you offer any examples of PF material that is not backward compatible?
I've already been using non-PF stuff in my PF game, and so far everything is transparent.

Well, for whose definition of backwards compatible? If I am generous enough, I can even use D&D 4 monsters and PCs alongside 3E monsters and PCs. If I am very strict, the 3.5. Rogue and the Pathfinder Fighter are incompatible!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Paizo and I parted company when they went all Pathfinder - by which I don't mean the point in time at which they started to playtest it but when they switched the rest of their product line to Pathfinder.* I'm extremely fiddly when it comes to backwards compatibility and think that the Paizo classes work best with Paizo spells and Paizo monsters. As a result, I never wanted to pick up PF just to mish and mash it with my ongoing 3.5 campaign. Otoh, I'm a 3.5 die hard fan, and more happily run the massive amount of material from Paizo I have from 2004 up to early 2009 than switch systems to enjoy their current offerings.

So onto why I didn't switch system. I couldn't see the fixes. I mean that literally. I still can't. Take combat maneuvers. I'd like these to run smoothly at the table and to be good options for characters to take. Now, not only has PF skewered the % chance of succeeding at the maneuvers (all committed in the name of fixing a "balance" issue I never had) by loading two stat bonuses on the opposed defense roll (STR and DEX go into CMD). Also, the formating in the book doesn't make the rules any easier to handle. To be precise, the rules needed not just a simplification in their actual wording, but in how it's presented. Some time last year I created a combat maneuver "cheat sheet" which gave people a handier table reference than the overly long entry in the 3.5 PHB on Grapple e.g. That sheet borrows heavily from the 4E layout devices, and I regret that Paizo didn't make heavier use of goal-driven layout (you don't need to be a fan of 4E layout to think this btw). Secondly, the reason some maneuvers slowed down play wasn't just that the rule was badly presented in the rule book - so badly as to be impossible to quickly glance over at a session. No, the reason it stopped sessions - apart from being impossible to absorb at a glance - was that it was unclear about how it reacted with a lot of other circumstances. Just earlier today I read a Pathfinder rules thread in which someone asked whether a guy who escapes from the Pinned condition using the Escape Artist skill is still considered Grappled, or whether it takes a follow up check to liberate oneself from Grappled. Even with the PRD the thread (a day later) hasn't progressed. So apparently Grapple is just as unclear as ever, because how the combat conditions interact is apparently unclear (it's a two-step maneuver, moving the guy from condition 1 to 2, so freeing oneself from condition 2 would logically invite the reverse sequence; yet it's also stated that the conditions don't stack, so it seems as if condition 2 replaces condition 1).

I've gone into quite some length with this example, but not with the intention to convey that it's the only one. It's just one of several cases where PF didn't convince me that it was a step up from 3.5. Yet it needed to convince me of that since, as stated earlier, for me it's really a question of playing only one of the two systems - 3.5 or Pathfinder. I appreciate that PF does a lot of good things for a lot of people who've jumped onto that system (e.g. active product support, base classes viable up to level 20). It's just not for me, and I don't begrude people who switched systems. I just hope PF won't contribute to the trend of less and less new blood coming to 3.5. For, alas, the time is gone when 3.5 PHBs for new players were an affordable option, and I fear that having an affordable approximation (i.e. PF) it will be even harder to get people into 3.5.

My whole post so far, though, only concerns the 3.5 campaign I DM. A friend of mine is going to run Legacy of Fire using the Pathfinder ruleset, and I'm quite excited about that, as I'll want to try out the reworked Paladin class. Aaand I'm superexcited about the adventure path.


* (That said, I'd buy the first instalment of Kingmaker even if it was published for a non-D&D-ish RPG, to see if it matches the high hopes I have for it.)

Rules representation can be a big stumbling block. And some approaches are good, but some are even better.

Playing Warhammer 3E (we started an actual adventure in the last session) really highlighted that. To some extent, the game is really optimized for its usability, with dice pools and action cards and all that. But... the rules not on the cards? Frack, are they hard to find. Dispered over 2 books, several possible chapters.

I really appreciated 4E representation of rules - but there was still one issue that I think could have been done better, as minor as it appears. What does [W] stand for? You read countless pages of powers (well, not really, at least not me. I skimmed them and focused only on the "reading a power" part), and only once you arrive at the equipment chapter, you figure it out. Of course, once known, you will never look it up.

There are probably 3 aspects of RPG texts:
- Write evocative and inspiring stuff that makes you want to play and continue reading.
- Explain the rules of the game.
- Serve as a handy reference at the game table.

Optimizing all 3 is hard. I think you cannot really avoid to repeat information occassionally, each for the specific purpose. (And some games do, if not in their core rules, then with a handy DM Screen you can buy at a later point.)

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Not a single goddamn person in this thread cares why you left 3.5. Seriously. That's not the bloody topic here. Go make your own thread.

Yet you cared enough to make a rude post in response. Topic is Opinions on Pathfinder. My opinion is that Pathfinder was not enough of a fix for me to use it to continue running 3.5 D&D. Would I play in someone's Pathfinder campaign? Sure. Paizo has a track record of good material, they just don't sell anything I want to buy right now.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Well, for whose definition of backwards compatible? If I am generous enough, I can even use D&D 4 monsters and PCs alongside 3E monsters and PCs. If I am very strict, the 3.5. Rogue and the Pathfinder Fighter are incompatible!

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't see your point:

How are 4e monsters compatible with Pathfinder without a complete rehaul and different mechanics, (as compared to the minor changes needed going from 3.5 to PF).

Also, how is the 3.5 rogue not compatible with the Pathfinder Fighter?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't see your point:

How are 4e monsters compatible with Pathfinder without a complete rehaul and different mechanics.

Actually if you were very liberal, or as MR said very generous, you could run a 4E monster in 3E with very few changes. Use all of its active abilities as is. Turn Fort/Ref/Will into active save bonuses by subtracting 10. Done.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Actually if you were very liberal, or as MR said very generous, you could run a 4E monster in 3E with very few changes. Use all of its active abilities as is. Turn Fort/Ref/Will into active save bonuses by subtracting 10. Done.

So, if a 4e monster power targets Will, Reflex or Fortitude, you could just have the target save vs the attack? With the DC as the "to hit" roll maybe? And what if the hit causes conditions--4e conditions are very different that 3.5 or PF.

I'm not convinced "compatible" would be the correct word for 4e monsters in regards to PF, even at its most liberal. Better to take the 3.5 version of the monster and strip away what you don't want than try to shoehorn a critter with 4e mechanics into PF.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, if a 4e monster power targets Will, Reflex or Fortitude, you could just have the target save vs the attack? With the DC as the "to hit" roll maybe? And what if the hit causes conditions--4e conditions are very different that 3.5 or PF.

I'm not convinced "compatible" would be the correct word for 4e monsters in regards to PF, even at its most liberal. Better to take the 3.5 version of the monster and strip away what you don't want than try to shoehorn a critter with 4e mechanics into PF.

I didn't intent to say that using 4E monsters in 3.5 or Pathfinder is a good idea. I am just saying that people have different definitions of "compatibility" by using an extreme example. (for the example at hand - you either use the 4E or the closest 3.5 equivalent of a condition. "Slowed", "Dazed", "Dominated" or "Stunned" certainly exist in 3.5, "Immobilized" can be easily fitted into the rules framework.)

Calculating a new Combat Maneuver modifier for different monsters or reworking the skill ranks of a monster or NPC to fit into the Pathfinder skill list can be "compatible" or it cannot be.

 

[Windjammer]

I love the way 4e handles the combat mechanics of humanoids. I don't think Pathfinder went far enough in making humanoids mechanically distinctive.

BryonD answered this well ("Mechanics should should be about capabilities and leave behavior to the players.") but I'd like to spell it out for everyone: a lot of the great things in 4E stat blocks is simply information that got shifted from accompanying background text into the stat block itself. I documented a striking example of this on this site not long ago.

But since you brought up humanoids, I thought it pertinent to provide a supplementory example. Let's ask what differentiates gnolls from other humanoids like orcs. 4E designers told us that they don't differ (or at least, not enough) in editions pre-3E but now they do. I strongly suspect their answer highlights the gnoll's "Pack Attack" power in its statblock:

Pack Attack: The gnoll huntmaster deals an extra 5 damage on melee and ranged attacks against an enemy that has two or more of the huntmaster's allies adjacent to it.

So basically what differentiates a gnoll from an orc in 4E is that one guy has Pack Attack and the other doesn't. Fair enough.

If you then compare this to the gnoll entry in the 3.5 MM (page 130) you see no such thing as "Pack Attack" crop up in the stat block. However, in the flavour text it says (emphasis mine),

Combat: Gnolls like to attack when they have the advantage of numbers, using horde tactics and their physical strength to overwhelm and knock down their opponents.

And if you look up the enormous combat flavour that Paizo gave to gnolls in Classic Monsters Revisited (e.g. page 15 therein on horde tactics) you can see the shift in emphasis: information that previously (in 3E) belonged to "flavour text" was shifted to stat blocks in 4E.

So for me the following two things are actually false::

1. Humanoids had too little to differentiate each other in editions pre-4E.
2. Monster entries in the 4E MM are awefully short on flavour text.

As to 1.: I said why I deem it false already.
I also disagree with 2., since 4E monster statblocks tell a story of their own. I love those stories (the MM being my favourite 4e book), but I absolutely understand people who'd rather work with flavour text.

So the real debate is whether you want to codify monster tactics mechanically, or whether as a DM you simply make up mechanical repercussions for "horde tactics" and their ink on the fly - which gets us back to BryonD's point. I think it's a good point, but it really merited spelling out.