Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[AllisterH]

I think a significant point is: why do you need a mechanical difference when a behavioral one will do?

But that beggars the question of "why do we NEED gnolls/kobolds/etc" if you can simply describe a different tribe of orcs.

Indeed, when I was just a player in pre 2E, my DM never bothered using the other humanoids simply because the 1e MM itself actually mentions that you would have different types of orcs (Bloody Head vs Death Moon) and since there wasn't any real mechanical difference between the humanoids, he simply just defaulted his campaign world to just orcs.

The weird thing is why until 4e this wasn't changed at its base. I mean, one of the big complaints about the 2e Monstrous Manual was actually how many "palette swap" monsters appeared ...

There were "humanoids with different HP (the 1-3 HD range)" track of monsters
There were "centaur styled humanoids with different HP" track of monsters
There were "aquatic humanoids with different HP" track of monsters.

 

[bouncyhead]

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.

I get the same questions during encounters. Most of the time the answer is "I just added it."

I'm playing and enjoying PF, just as I played and enjoyed previous editions, but one thing that bothers me about the 3.x approach is this sense that everything deserves an explanation in terms of the ruleset. A concept that -IMVHO - relegates DMs somewhat to something more akin to game adminstrators, asking themselves 'what am I allowed to do/use/add here'.

For the OP - PF does not attempt to address that philosophy. I have never found it an issue as I just ignore it, and the culture of our group readily accepts Rule 0, fudging, tweaking, exception and DM fiat. But if you don't like that approach in 3.x, PF is not going to float your boat. Though they have taken some steps to ease prep - XP calc., skills etc..

But again, as has been posted before, if you don't like 3.x full stop, then PF is not for you...

 

[billd91]

But that beggars the question of "why do we NEED gnolls/kobolds/etc" if you can simply describe a different tribe of orcs.

Ultimately, for people building their own campaigns, monster manuals are toolkits of options, none of which are necessary. But different ones may be appreciated in different ways. Personally, I like having a variety of different humanoids. I tend to use kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, gnolls, bugbears, and ogres, all with cultural differences and using different tactics when encountered. I think it adds to my fun as a DM and helps keep humanoids from just being faceless goons to kill.

My point is that I don't see the necessity for two levels of differentiation when one will do.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

What I love about 3e/PF is that everything CAN be explained by the rules, but nothing HAS to be explained by the rules. Part of what I don't like about 4e is how arbitrary it can all be. In 4e, the numbers are the numbers and how you justify how they work is up to what kind of explanation you want to use, if you even want to use one. Mechanical effect first, then narrative explanation. In 3e, the numbers can represent something in the game world, and have a real impact. It's more of a "toolkit," with a reason for things to happen in the world of the game. Of course, thanks to Rule 0 if nothing else, they can also be just as arbitrary as they are in 4e, too (4e did make it much more transparent what the numbers should be at different levels, which is entirely a good thing). I do think 3e did not emphasize this nearly enough, and I'm glad 4e brought out a lot of these elements, but I feel that while 3e let me go in both directions (mechanics -> effect with Rule 0, or effect -> mechanics with the rest of the system), 4e only lets me go in one direction most of the time (mechanics -> effect). There's little in 4e that says "do this if it makes sense," there's more in 4e that says "do this as long as it doesn't make combat unbalanced." Which is kind of not how I usually game.

I say this as someone who is generally pretty OK with 4e (I own 4e books, run one 4e campaign and am about to start playing in another, but I only own the PF core rulebook, and I haven't flipped through it since I bought it. ). I don't like going backwards from the mechanics, having to figure out my destination before I figure out how I'm going to get there. I'd much rather figure out my first step, and let the road take me where it will (and have game designers giving me a clear path to walk down so I can know kind of what to expect).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Man, you must have had some pretty horrid players to be so jaded! 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 wouldn't call them horrid. It's just that 3E muffled rule zero a bit, IMO, and opened up a new era of player entitlement. The players were told that they were on a level playing field with the DM. What used to be accomplished through plot fiat in AD&D better be accomplished through the rules in 3E "or else." Not very Gygaxian, IMO, but to each there own. None of my players got their "undies in a bunch" so much as had an underlying dissatisfication with the game if the DM did not adhere to the same rules they did. Asking the DM and Players to use the same rules is one of 3E's greatest strengths. It's just not an asset I appreciate any more.

 

[AllisterH]

My point is that I don't see the necessity for two levels of differentiation when one will do.

But without the second, why not fold the only level into the one race? I honestly thought Gygax was leading to this when he talked about how in the 1e MM, there were different tribes of orcs so that you didn't NEED hobgoblins since what made hobgoblins different was FLUFF that could've been folded under one of the differing aspects of the tribes.

 

[Desdichado]

One thing I wish Pathfinder had changed were dragons. 4e dragons are, in my opinion, the best version of dragons in any of the editions. I wish Pathfinder had gone that route.

What's so special about 4e dragons? I'm not very familiar, so I'm honestly curious. I've heard some stuff here and there that they've removed the color-coded alignment (although they did that with Eberron already first, so I don't know that I'd call that a 4e innovation) which certainly makes dragons a lot easier to use. I wish Pathfinder had gone that route too.

I mean, in my home games I'd been doing that already (well before Eberron) but that also meant that a lot of the published fluff wasn't very useable to me.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Pathfinder has a chart for generating monster stat ranges by CR similar to the 4e DMG one for creating monsters of various levels.

4e provides useful information for monster role stat ranges by levels which PF does not.

4e has the monster builder which PF does not.

PF has the chart in its srd free online which 4e does not.

Feeling cheated because a 3e monster is custom and not stock seems really wierd to me. It is trivially easy to end up with any monster end point even by following the core rules of monster creation, advancement, adding classes, and templates. A PF player should know that by the rules even without invoking rule 0 or winging monster stats when they encounter an orc it can be a standard MM warrior 1, one with 17 levels of barbarian, a different breed of orc with 4 HD of monstrous humanoid, or an uruk hai super orc by using a template thrown on top of a normal one, or any combination of those or other "legal" options.

 

[Voadam]

What's so special about 4e dragons? I'm not very familiar, so I'm honestly curious. I've heard some stuff here and there that they've removed the color-coded alignment (although they did that with Eberron already first, so I don't know that I'd call that a 4e innovation) which certainly makes dragons a lot easier to use. I wish Pathfinder had gone that route too.

I mean, in my home games I'd been doing that already (well before Eberron) but that also meant that a lot of the published fluff wasn't very useable to me.

I'm not very familiar either but I believe they are turned into solos, purposefully designed mechanically to be an appropriate challenge to a party on their own without other monsters in the fight as well. More HP and lasting power with the assumption the whole party will dogpile them, attacks and actions/reactions to handle multiple foes at a time, etc.

Most monsters are designed expecting a ratio of one per PC in an encounter with exceptions for minions (exchange 4 per normal monster they replace) and elites (count as two normal monsters in encounter design) and then solos (only the one in the combat).

 

[Dannager]

I don't think there are many who have been touting the decision by WotC to have been one that has been particularly successful to date.

Certainly, not many people you've been listening to. The D&D Insider group on their own forums has over 25,000 registered members - these people have to have been subscribers at one point in order to be part of the group, and they have to have actually gone and registered themselves on the forum community. Even if every single Insider subcriber is registered on the forums (and I'd be shocked if even 50% of subscribers were registered), that's (conservatively) around $2.5 million per year that they take in from this service. They have no print costs. No shipping costs. No warehouse storage costs. They have to pay for the articles (or pay the salaries of their employees who write them/maintain the service) and pay the overhead on the D&D Insider servers. That's all. I'm quite sure that WotC is making a tremendous profit off their decision to switch away from print.

Frankly, I can't really see where you're coming from here. As far as I'm aware there's really no evidence to suggest that this has been a poor move on WotC's part, and some really simple, really conservative math makes it appear to be incredibly successful. So, where is this coming from?