Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[Drkfathr1]

Greater Dispel in PF, however, dispels one effect per four caster levels.

Which is a bit more streamlined than how it works in 3.5

Again, a nice little tweak that simplifies things a bit.

Can still be complex, but better.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

4E is not trying to simulate anything. Hit Points aren't even necessarily a wound of any type. There are many flavorful ways within this context to describe the +5 damage that are both cool and logical. A foe harried by a pack of demonic yipping hyena-men could lose resolve and focus easier (-5 hp). Many of these arguments come about because people are unwilling to try to put flavor into the results of the rules. I'm not asking you to do so because you are obviously not interested in 4E, that's fine, but the ability to have a 4E game that make internal sense is there if you want it to be.

Yeah editions really should matter in terms of what youre talking about. I've always considered a PC's starting hit points + their HP gained from CON bonus to be their real wounds. Anything on top of that is just a combination of luck and or non critical wounds. I think it's up to the DM to set the tone for this sort of thing though. I mean I do. I make it clear during a description that even though someone loses hit points it may not be because of a direct hit.

"That Orc spear came damn close to skewering you. It took a lot out of you to side step that sucker at the last minute. you dont know if you've got the energy for more close calls like that..."

It's when the PC's get down to those core hp that the descriptions start leaning toward "After that last blow you feel a rib give way and youre reacquainted with the familiar taste of blood in your mouth..."

Obviously, those of you who believe in sticking to the letter of the rules are going to have real problems with this. I, on the other hand, really, REALLY dont.

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

I suppose you can reject it as silly, if it makes you feel better.

But I have played with more than a few people that started their RPG gaming with 3e (and not AD&D, OD&D, 2e, BECMI, etc...) and this is exactly what the players acted like. It wasn't because they had bad DMs in the past, it was because they learned to DM and play with 3e and all the rules for PC creation, encounter design, monster design was totally transparent and if it was available for the BBEG NPC or the Monster, then the feat/spell/thingy was available to the players, or should be able to be replicated by the PCs.

Now, you may not have had this experience, but I have, and others have. And it's been posted about in myriad threads.

Many players and DMs exposed to D&D or RPGs prior to 3.x have had their learning start in a different paradigm, and therefore don't have these kinds of experiences, but they are there, for sure.

Rejecting his claim as silly is either being ignorant to experiences of other gaming tables, or it's just an attempt to dismiss a claim because you don't like what it says.

 

[Mark Chance]

...if it was available for the BBEG NPC or the Monster, then the feat/spell/thingy was available to the players, or should be able to be replicated by the PCs.

That seems more like a play-style issue than a game-design issue. I've never run or played any RPG with such an assumption in place. So, while I can certainly see why some players might have developed such a sense of entitlement, it isn't a part of Pathfinder as far I can see.

 

[Dannager]

Last night after readin a few of these posts I actually sat down with my PF Bestiary and Core Rulebook and hand copied (from the book) an adult blue dragon. It took me about 15 min to copy what I'd need for a combat including special abilities, spell ranges, saves and damage.

If I want to customize a 4e dragon's stat block, it takes me 5 minutes to start up the Monster Builder, make the necessary changes by increasing or decreasing level and swapping out powers, and print it or save it for later use.

 

[catsclaw227]

I never really understood the dislike of long-term buffing magic. I could do all the adjustments in my head on the fly. I knew every feat in the book. I always figured any DM had the rules memorised and only had to pull out the books for odd situations that might require a bit of research. Buffing magic was never a problem in any campaign I've been in.

WHich book are you talking about? The PHB? Or the PHB and the 100 other player and DM supplements that came out for 3.x? I don't know one DM that remembered every feat or spell in 3.x or d20.

"Then limit what the players can use." OK. I can do that, but if I am in a campaign for 3 years and new supplements were coming out all the time and the players wanted to use and see these books, why should I be a jerk and deny them?

There are a LOT of feats and spells to know and the Blue Dragon stat-block example from PF requires a lot of looking up and cross referencing. And I agree with some other posters that the buff up/ de-buff process was tedious. I am not stupid, nor am I an inexperienced DM. But it was still very tedious for me.

 

[Dannager]

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.

See, I don't believe this is true. I paid close attention to the edition switch, and I didn't see any hostile or even "antagonistic" action on WotC's part towards its own fans. I certainly saw some fans react as though antagonistic action had been taken, but that doesn't mean their reaction was justified. As I've pointed out before, this isn't exactly a community that's known for being able to react appropriately to industry news and changes. If WotC "set themselves up" for this in any way, it was simply by choosing to continue to make the tabletop roleplaying community their customer base.

 

[catsclaw227]

That seems more like a play-style issue than a game-design issue. I've certainly run or played any RPG with such an assumption in place. So, while I can certainly see why some players might have developed such a sense of entitlement, it isn't a part of Pathfinder as far I can see.

It may not be explicit in PF, but since it's a d20/3.x derivative, it's possible that the same entitlement may carry over.

I am guessing you meant that you meant that you HAVEN'T run or played an RPG with this assumption in place. Did you start gaming with 3.x?

(If you didn't mean that, then I am confused by your statement that you have run or played RPGs with that assumption in place... yet you don't think this would be an issue with PF )

 

[malkav666]

On the topic of the dragon statblock. I prefer the PF ones. Yeah there is a lot of information and special abilities listed within it. And a 4e block has much much less. But thats kind of the point for me. A dragon in my games would likely be a key encounter, if not the major one in an entire campaign arc.

With a good amount of options for a monster I can pick and choose that best fit my encounter, and if I don't use every single ability its not a big deal. I could even play two dragons of the same types with varying abilities played in combat (or if I was real mean I could have one encounter with both of them simultaneously) and they could be entirely different encounters in every sense of the word. Now I am not saying that you cannot get varied encounters in 4e D&D. I have DMed the system and I know that to be false. I just find it pick what I want to serve in a major encounter with an entire buffet of choices.

What I am saying is that I feel its easier to get that variance in PF. There are a lot of ways I could play that dragon, and it is really convenient to have that list of abilities with which to build my encounter. In 4e your dragons could be played very differently from a placement and battlemat perspective, but with just a handful of special abilites, the only real variance will be when it gets bloodied (for Bloodied breath), when it spends its action points, and if it gets lucky and gets a recharge on one of its abilities. With the PF dragon I have a good amount of abilities listed, and spellcasting which is already nicely codified BY LEVEL, so I can easily swap out features and not have to worry about effecting the CR.

Now both systems have dragons and I have fought and ran dragons in both systems. Initially they were both very rewarding. But in 4e after the first couple, it became a matter of more of the same and waiting for a couple of key moments in the fight that kind of ended up defining the dragon fight (the above mentioned bloody breath, and the action points), once those variables occur its pretty much a grind down with occassional breath weapons.

Now with some preperation i am certain DMs can mod the 4e dragons, and make them varied and interesting encounters. But at that point they are doing the same type of work as PF DMs. It really just ends up being a matter of preference.

My opinion is that yes, 4e dragons can be used right out of the book by most DMs, and PF dragons require a little more knowledge of the system to use right out of the book (or some prep). But I also find PF dragons to be have more robust options right out of the book for the encounter.

So I am left with modding a 4e dragon and adding features to make it interesting or choosing which of the PF features I want to use to make it interesting. The amount of time that I have personally spent designing encounters with dragons in both PF and 4e were similar, but thats because I don't usually use dragons as a random encounter, but rather as important ones. And I tend to spend some time on those and make sure that it will be memorable one.

I think a better comparison on statblcks between the editions would be something along the lines of say and orc or a bugbear. There is not much difference in length there. PF monsters get there special stuff in terms that can be described in spells, feats, and special abiltiies printed under the block, and 4e monsters get there special stuff described only in special abilities posted in the block. I find it easier as a DM to customize monsters in PF by switching out feats and spells, than it was for me in 4e to design new abilites using damage by level guildlines. Now I fired 4e before the monster builder came out and I have seen some praise for the tool in making doing some of things I am describing easier, but as I have never used it I will not offer any comments on it.

But in the end Pathfinder is a game about killing things and taking their stuff. Its not the only game in this genre. I feel it is a good game. But the only real way for you to find out is to try it yourself. Don't be intimidated by stat blocks!

love,

malkav

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Now, you may not have had this experience, but I have, and others have. And it's been posted about in myriad threads.

Many players and DMs exposed to D&D or RPGs prior to 3.x have had their learning start in a different paradigm, and therefore don't have these kinds of experiences, but they are there, for sure.

Rejecting his claim as silly is either being ignorant to experiences of other gaming tables, or it's just an attempt to dismiss a claim because you don't like what it says.

From what I can see, BryonD isn't rejecting anybody's experiences as silly. He's rejecting as silly Vyvyan Basterd's claim that 3E codified and caused the experiences.

Those are different rejections as silly.

Personally, I think the "tone" of 3E was player-entitlement and goose-gander equivalency. I think that's so obvious that it's inarguable. But since "tone" is ultimately subjective, and since 3E didn't explicitly say that DMs have to play by the rules, and players are allowed to know what the rules are, BryonD is technically right.

(And, only technically right or not, he's not saying what you're saying he's saying, so continue to say he's saying what he's not saying won't get you much of anywhere. Just sayin'.)