Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[Jeff Wilder]

I could use it right out of the book without much fuss at all.

I was thinking the same thing. Any DM running a CR 13 encounter is, realistically speaking, going to have a strong working knowledge (at least) of the dragon's spells and feats that will impact the encounter.

The point about 3.5 dragons' stats being spread all over creation is a good one; the claim that the Pathfinder dragon isn't playable from the statblock is weak.

 

[carmachu]

It's just unfortunate that there are gamers out there that take the above "WotC kicked my puppy and I hate them for it" position. Not only are they setting themselves against a game they otherwise might enjoy, but they're choosing to see the company as evil or antagonistic for having to make difficult business decisions (like the decision to drop print magazines in the face of the death of print periodicals, or the decision to produce a new edition in order to provide them the revenue they need to continue making new D&D products). It's not like these are uniquely diabolical actions on the part of WotC. They're simply decisions that companies must make, and it's frankly silly to hate a company for doing something they consider necessary, especially if you can't come up with a good reason for why it wasn't necessary.

Your opinion whether it was necessary or not. But the undeniable fact is...WotC went about it in a I dont want to say Hostile manner, but definately an antagonistic manner with some of its fan base.

When Microsoft, walmart, Hyundai, Sears acts in a manner towards its customer base, its not not silly at all to have hard feelings towards that company. WOTC is no different then any of the above companies.

Besides what they did, how they went about it in manners that brought hard feelings- using your Dungeon and Dragon magazine example, Wotc certainly didnt expect the outrage they got, which lead them to trot out various folks to tell their stories to cool the anger.

The fact is, when a company, ANY company for any product, decides that their going to do something in the manner WoTC has, they deserve said anger and hard feelings. And said customers will take their money elsewhere. And its not up to the customers to lose their anger to that they would otherwise "enjoy the game". Its up to a company to earn the customer.

Frankly I dont begrudge Wotc for the new edition. If you enjoy it, great, but its not for me, for more than a few reasons. But on the flip side, Wotc set themselves up for and earned those hard feelings. And loss of customers.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Of course, in order to run that dragon and make use of all its abilities, I'd need to reference nearly a dozen combat spells and half a dozen feats. It also takes up twice as much space as the 4e stat block does. The two really don't have comparable utility in terms of using them straight from the book.

I'll say this: I don't think I would run that dragon right out of the box.

Part of the issue is the buffs. This is a hassle. This is something I am fairly glad 4e ejected from the game. Those buffs change the stat-block rather dramatically when a blue dragon is actually encountered, and mean I've gotta spend quite a while looking up the exact details of those buffs, and what happens to them if the PC's dispel them, before the game. This is, to me, a big "DON'T USE IT" sign. If I were to have a blue dragon, I would completely ignore all those spells (because it is work), and as such, my PC's might have a significantly easier time than the CR would indicate. Which isn't a huge deal unless I planned on making the thing a superboss and was saddled with players like VB's who wouldn't let me beef up the thing's HP on the fly.

If I was a brand new player, I wouldn't even KNOW these things are buffs, so if I didn't do adequate prep-work, this would grind my game to a halt while I was like "OH! He would've cast these things before battle." Bad news for everyone, there.

I entirely love how 4e essentially did away with long-term character enhancement, because that is a tracking nightmare. Give me a big one-off effect that is worth spending an action on, or don't waste my time fiddling with +4's.

Aside from the buffs, there's a minor hassle in referencing the Sandstorm rules and other spells in the core rulebook without providing at least a shorthand there in the monster description. I'd call it at least a 50% toss-up for me ignoring THOSE abilities as well, even if they're combat-applicable. Even if I use them, I might not address the actual rules ("Oh, Blue Dragons can create and destroy water, I will just wing that").

Part of this is just information presentation. If Pathfinder adopted a division between noncombat effects and combat effects (like the 4e division between rituals and powers), the stat block could be much more useful for both using spontaneously at the table, and for developing insidious plots while using it for imagination-fuel. There's an "Offense" and a "Defense," what about a "Noncombat" section? There, you could even include information on which buffs the critter usually has casted, if for some reason you absolutely love long-term, removable bonuses like that. You could also make note of how to use the dragon's OTHER abilities -- like the illusion powers -- that make combat with a blue dragon truly distinct, though perhaps that would be more fitting in a "Tactics" entry.

That last part is where I think the PF statblock makes up for almost all that noise about buffs and cross-referencing above. It's worth putting up with a lot of that, because the PF blue dragon is just cooler than the 4e blue dragon. Encountering a blue dragon (which means more than just getting into a fight with it) who can alter the weather and who is a master of deception is so much more awesome than encountering 4e's blue dragon, with it's horrible ability to, what, sometimes put its horn in you? And to chain some lightning together? Whoop-i-deeleley-do. That is not a monster that lives in the world, that is an excuse to get into a fight for some sweet, sweet XP, that is something that you just need to kill and get it over with. It might be fun to kill, but that's all it is: something to kill. Which is fine for certain styles, but it is not what I want out of my monsters.

Just for fun, I'm going to retrofit 4e's Adult Blue dragon with some of the flavorful 3e/PF abilities; I'll post it here when I'm done.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I'll say this: I don't think I would run that dragon right out of the box.

Part of the issue is the buffs. This is a hassle. This is something I am fairly glad 4e ejected from the game. Those buffs change the stat-block rather dramatically when a blue dragon is actually encountered, and mean I've gotta spend quite a while looking up the exact details of those buffs, and what happens to them if the PC's dispel them, before the game. This is, to me, a big "DON'T USE IT" sign. If I were to have a blue dragon, I would completely ignore all those spells (because it is work), and as such, my PC's might have a significantly easier time than the CR would indicate. Which isn't a huge deal unless I planned on making the thing a superboss and was saddled with players like VB's who wouldn't let me beef up the thing's HP on the fly.

That is what makes me leery about switching to Pathfinder - the issue of the buffs and all the math related to it.

We just finished a high level 3.5 campaign where it was common for at least one side in the battle to have several rounds of prep time, if not both sides... so then you have to calculate the bonuses from (for example) Haste from the sorcerer, plus Prayer, Heroes Feast and Holy Aura from the cleric. Plus, everybody drinks their Fly potions and the psion manifests his personal protections, while the paladin casts "Bless Weapon."

Not to mention, remembering that everybody has evasion vs Fire attacks now because the sorcerer also cast Mass Fire Shield and that everybody has immunity to death effects and negative energy from Mass Death Ward. And, don't forget, the +4 deflection bonus from Holy Aura replaces the various +2 and +3 deflection bonuses from the various rings of protection... and, then if Holy Aura is dispelled, each person then would then have their AC lowered by 1 or 2 depending on how powerful their original ring of protection was. And, if Holy Aura isn't dispelled, but Haste is, everybody loses the +1 dodge bonus to AC, in addition to losing 30 off their movement.

And, then you have to recalculate everything from the top if a beholder pops up and envelops you in its anti-magic field, because you have to take off bonuses from items as well as all the buffs.

While it was a fun campaign overall, once it got past level 10-11 or so, it was a lot of work for me to have fun as a DM. I mean, we had a long-awaited showdown with some drow in the campaign that was 3 combats before the finale. The session ran over two hours longer than normal and at the end and the PC cleric cast her Mass Heal and all the PCs were basically back up to full hit points again - so, basically down a few spells and power points... and, I found myself secretly being thankful when the PC dwarf fighter cut down the drow cleric immediately before she was able to cast her own Mass Heal on the bad guys.

If the drow cleric had managed to cast her spell, we'd likely have been there for another 3-4 hours, or (more likely) called a timeout & started Phase II of the combat the next session.

 

[BryonD]

For you.

I could use it right out of the book without much fuss at all.

Me too.

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.

I completely reject this claim as silly. I'm sorry that your game had this result and assure you that in the absence of artificially injecting this concept into play, 3E works awesome. I'm certain forcing that into the system would have a negative impact.

In short, 4e dragons quickly give me info I NEED when in a fight, and are easy to quickly reconjigger if I need to.

That last part is where I think the PF statblock makes up for almost all that noise about buffs and cross-referencing above. It's worth putting up with a lot of that, because the PF blue dragon is just cooler than the 4e blue dragon. Encountering a blue dragon (which means more than just getting into a fight with it) who can alter the weather and who is a master of deception is so much more awesome than encountering 4e's blue dragon, with it's horrible ability to, what, sometimes put its horn in you? And to chain some lightning together? Whoop-i-deeleley-do. That is not a monster that lives in the world, that is an excuse to get into a fight for some sweet, sweet XP, that is something that you just need to kill and get it over with. It might be fun to kill, but that's all it is: something to kill. Which is fine for certain styles, but it is not what I want out of my monsters.

These quotes speak toward one of the many fundamental differences to me.
Particularly if you consider that I DON'T find the buffs to be a pain.

One game is about making everything be what it should be within a complete and reasonably self consistent artificial world. The other is about the math working in simple to run conflicts (be they combat or otherwise).

As my sig states, I fully understand that you can roleplay the exact same way using either system. But I don't pay for roleplay, I bring roleplay to the table myself. I pay for MECHANICS that live up to what I want to roleplay. There are lots of systems that live up to that threshold. 4E doesn't fail miserably. But why settle for C- when I have a solid A already?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

That is what makes me leery about switching to Pathfinder - the issue of the buffs and all the math related to it.

Ditto. I like Fantasy Craft because it significantly reduces the effects of magic item and magic spells upon the buff-debuff math of the character compared to other 3.x-derivatives. It's just that Fantasy Craft is changed in so many other ways from 3.5 that I'm not sure I could convince a whole group to try it, despite the fact Fantasy Craft has a fix for most of our gripes against 3.5. Heh.

We would likely move to Pathfinder or Trailblazer, warts of the default magic assumptions and all, because it is not a far leap from the familiar.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That is what makes me leery about switching to Pathfinder - the issue of the buffs and all the math related to it.

*shudder*

Yes. This is one of 4e's biggest pure wins in my book. Some people didn't have a problem with the buff-math, but I don't think anyone LIKED it. I'm a little disappointed to see that PF doesn't have a more streamlined way of handling this, but I suppose it would have required a massive re-write of almost every 3e spell, which is a huge problem if you're trying to be backwards-compatible. At the very least, I'd hope to see monster stat blocks pre-buffed with some note about which stats are enhanced magically and how, or even totally sans buffs. But when you give your monsters spells, as dragons have, I suppose they will buff. Which is also why I'd avoid giving monsters spells.

These quotes speak toward one of the many fundamental differences to me.

Heh, interesting. But I do stand by that criticism of 4e so far, which I think is one of my harshest criticisms of the game, because it is one of the elements that I personally like the least. They made dragons boring to me. They fundamentally misunderstood how DMs like me use monsters, and monsters have always been one of my favorite parts of the game. It doesn't have to be a total disaster going forward, but the modus operandi established is not one I enjoy.

Which makes me a little curious about the Dark Sun "monster manual," since it indicates in the title there may be more than just "stuff to beat up" inside of it. That might delight me.

OH! The Dragon! Here's the thing, in "printed monster builder pdf" format. For the record, the PDF format cut off the tail end and I don't enjoy not being able to export this to other formats GRUMPY FACE. I could export it to .monster file, but ENWorld doesn't like that format.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Suggested errata: add "Bluff +22" to the skill list.

It should be there, and, if I'm not mistaken, that would also handily take the skill point total to where it should be, for a 16 HD critter.

 

[Aus_Snow]

4e dragons, from what I remember, are basically big dumb flying lizards. They scratch, they bite, also maybe gore? Then there is the breath weapon (of course!) and the fact that they are scary. OK. What else? Perhaps an aura of auto-damage, or a burst thingy, I dunno. All damage, alla time.

But I might not be remembering right - it's been a while.

I quite like the Pathfinder dragons, personally. Nice mix of options - and yes, it's partly optional stuff! - and simple bread 'n butter stats, all laid out neatly and sensibly.

One thing I would prefer though, be it in 3e or Pathfinder, is a bunch more *tailored* supernatural abilities as options, rather than spell-like abilities and spellcasting per se. And that goes for a huge number of other monsters too. Oh sure, some of those abilities could be *similar* to stock spells, and that'd be fine.

It's a pet peeve, and (another) one 4e really didn't fix, as far as I'm concerned - for my tastes in gaming, and all that.

 

[fuzzlewump]

One game is about making everything be what it should be within a complete and reasonably self consistent artificial world. The other is about the math working in simple to run conflicts (be they combat or otherwise).

I'm hoping that the next edition, or perhaps some kind of new book for 4E edition, has a good combination of both. For instance, a dragon monster book in my vision would have all 4E style combat stat-blocks for the easy to run encounters, and then something like an Special Abilities stat block that covers the special, sometimes combat-useless, things that say all Red Dragons have, which say could take up an entire page. Basically, a big pile of imaginative stuff about red dragons that doesn't have to be attached to every single stat-block, for stuff that may not be relevant in every battle. For instance, having an ability that allows a Red Dragon to 'consume' a zone that deals fire damage, and spit it back out. Having that on every Red Dragon's statblock would be a sore, because it might not ever come up, but a special attributes page would make the perfect place. Most of the 3.5 style spell-casting dragon stuff could be imitated on this list as well. (EDIT: Not most; some. Tip of the iceburg for the higher level dragons.)

The same book, in this vision, would have rituals that players can learn that are modeled after some of the more spell-like abilities. That way, there is a still a gap between monsters and players world consistency, but not a chasm.

Just thinking.