Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[Imaro]

RE humanoid mechanical differences

There's absolutely nothing in the 3e system that would prevent the creation of mechanically distinct versions of the humanoid races. In fact, with all the feat and class choices, it might be even easier in 3e.

In 3e, the MM statblocks are supposed to represent the weakest, most commonly encountered representatives of the race. They are, by definition, plain vanilla. But also by definition they take on mechanical flavor easily enough.

It's ridiculously easy to customize these base 3e humanoids to create statblocks for "Shifty Goblins" or "Marauding Orcs" or "Overwhelming Gnolls" -- monsters that have mechanical shticks that emphasize their flavor text.

Just rearrange the base ability scores, vary standard equipment, shift around feats and skill ranks and wham! 4e style differentiation.

It's not rocket science.

Yeah, I agree here. I find it strange that many people claimed that the 4e MM was good because they found too much fluff restricted their ability to personalize monsters in their campaign... but I'm now seeing some of the same people claiming that 4e's instilling of intrinsic mechanical characteristics in creatures isn't restricting at all... but actually a good thing.

Color me a little confused

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It's not rocket science.

No, but it is time consuming on an incremental basis.

IMO it's easier in 4E. No shifting around of feats and skill ranks and/or adding class levels. Just add and subtract abilities from a creature as you see fit. Monster Builder even gives you automated tools to make it easier. I've done both as DM and 4E is easier by the base assumptions. You could ignore the details of adding classes and swapping feats/skills in 3E and just wing it. Many DMs did and I imagine they had as easy a time as I have with 4E monsters. But savvy 3E players can see through that and feel cheated pretty easily. Those same players feel that monsters "cheat" now in 4E, but the cheat is built into the system.

 

[Snoweel]

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.

I agree totally.

4e combat mechanics for humanoids are a great addition to D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And just because I find how waffley I am on this amusing...

The idea that being surrounded by gnolls is mechanically worse than being surrounded by orcs is a bad idea, in my opinion and for the gaming style I prefer.

While I don't really like what 4e did with dragons, I love that it did this with humanoids. If I ever run Pathfinder (and I might, since, y'know, OATHBOUND!), I am totally porting over a lot of the humanoid bits and pieces. And this is also part of what is one of the strengths of the Roles/Power Sources division, as well -- I can have a particular humanoid species/culture essentially use one power source and never lack for the needed mechanics. In 3e, the need to balance every healer against the Cleric meant that some of them came up short (and compared to the Cleric, some stuff does come up short), and you sometimes had trouble replacing classes with other classes.

IMO it's easier in 4E. No shifting around of feats and skill ranks and/or adding class levels. Just add and subtract abilities from a creature as you see fit. ... You could ignore the details of adding classes and swapping feats/skills in 3E and just wing it. Many DMs did and I imagine they had as easy a time as I have with 4E monsters. But savvy 3E players can see through that and feel cheated pretty easily. Those same players feel that monsters "cheat" now in 4E, but the cheat is built into the system.

Man, you must have had some pretty horrid players to be so jaded! All the "savviness" in the world doesn't save my players if they don't remember Rule 0 (aka: The "The DM gets to cheat if he wants, and it is totally OK for me to hand out XP for cupcake bribery, so suck it up" Rule). That applies for 3e, 4e, Pathfinder, or anything. It's a bedrock principle of the entire bleedin' Tabletop RPG way of playing: There's one person who gets to decide what goes, and you can't tell 'em no.

If anyone's gonna get their undies in a bundle about that, then obviously there's some underlying trust issues that make playing any kind of RPG with that person potentially problematic, since every RPG since the dawn of the Fighting Man has that little by-law in it.

 

[Snoweel]

If anyone's gonna get their undies in a bundle about that, then obviously there's some underlying trust issues that make playing any kind of RPG with that person potentially problematic, since every RPG since the dawn of the Fighting Man has that little by-law in it.

I remember that, a few years ago, there was a significant number of posters on this board who believed that Rule Zero was poor game design, invoking it was poor DMing, and its entire existence was about cheating players.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

I remember that, a few years ago, there was a significant number of posters on this board who believed that Rule Zero was poor game design, invoking it was poor DMing, and its entire existence was about cheating players.

Some folks just have strange notions is all.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In what way?

An example:

The Fighter picks two (cross class) ranks in Listen and Spot. These skills are usually opposed by Move Silently and Hide. But the Pathfinder Rogue doesn't have these skills (IIRC).

So what should I use?

Would it be fair to use the Rogue's Stealth modifier for both? But he Fighter had to make double (or quadruple, if you count the cross-class rules) skill points for his skills? And does the Rogue only make one or two checks (affecting the probability of him succeeding)?

Or should I just assume that the Rogue has no ranks in Hide and Move Silently? But the Rogue player assumed his character would be very sneaky, but against this "old edition" Fighter his training doesn't mean anything?

 

[Windjammer]

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.

I don't think it’s that good a point. The impact of fluff on actual combat in 3.5 or PF is limited to what the monster is actually capable of doing. A 3.5 gnoll gets the exact same advantages an orc does from attacking in large numbers or flanking, if he wants to knock a foe down he has to use the same trip maneuver an orc could. It seems the "bag o' hitpoints" argument stands pretty well.
If I have to add character levels or house rule special abilities for a monster's fluff tactics to have any impact they might as well be in the stat block imo. -Q.

Emphasis added. I appreciate the difference in opinion, but the bolded bits seem to indicate we could be talking past each other, at least in part.

See, nowadays I wouldn't want to DM a 3E or 4E game without heavily dishing out circumstantial bonuses on the fly every round - meaning, I make them up as I go. It has nothing to do with sitting down to write up house rules, or spend brooding over how to advance a monster with class levels or feats (though there are handy e-tools for that in 3.5 nowadays).

In short, if I know from the monsters' background what their preferred tactics are, I'll mechanically "reward" monsters engaging in those tactics by dishing out bonuses to their attack and damage rolls (if its an aggressive tactic) or a bonus to their AC (like the stance the bugbears get when fighting in formation).

That's exactly how I'd run older (pre-3E) edition games as well. My impression is that a DM running Basic D&D is basically doing that anyway... and then the 3e era came along and made the dogma prominentthat "unless it's in the stat block the monster can't do it" (here: unless a mechanical bonus for fighting in style x is there in the stat block the DM must not award one). Frankly, I'd have thought that 4E with its "say yes to things not covered by the rules" would have rendered that attitude obsolete, so I'm a bit puzzled that it's brought up here by a fellow proponent of 4E.

 

[dm4hire]

Actually an aspect of Pathfinder that hasn't been developed yet that I think would help tweek the races would be Traits. I've aslo thought about modifying either the bard or rogue to make them a master of the trait system and allow for more fine tuning. There's no reason why gnolls couldn't be distinguished if made playable by offering select traits that only gnolls would have. Same goes for any other race. Traits would definitely be one area I'd enjoy seeing devloped a bit more.

 

[Jhaelen]

No, but it is time consuming on an incremental basis.

This!
Some of my players are just like yours. They'll hang around after the session asking 'well, how did <monster> do <ability>? Is it a feat or something?!'

That's one of the main attractions 3e offered: everything can be explained by the rules.

It's an advantage that was bought by neglecting ease of use.