Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

Yay!

 

[Dannager]

For you.

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

I don't doubt that you could.

On the other hand, I think there are precious few DMs out there who might be able to adjudicate the rules behind Resist Energy, Call Lightning Storm, Dazzling Display, Deadly Stroke and Shatter Defenses all off the top of their heads. I imagine most of them would end up sitting in a fortress of books, the PHB on their left, Monster Manual on their right.

 

[Mark Chance]

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.

And that might happen with any game system. If so, it's the players that are the problem.

I am guessing you meant that you meant that you HAVEN'T run or played an RPG with this assumption in place.

Correct. Adverbs are my Favored Enemy.

Did you start gaming with 3.x?

Nope. Been D&Ding since about 1978.

 

[catsclaw227]

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 am not sure if comparing the statblock of a PF dragon and the statblock of a 4e dragon is a fair example regarding it's non-combat abilities.

There are two full books for 4e talking specifically about dragons and their ilk, it discusses their motivations, their plans, how their lairs look, what they like and dislike, society, religions, etc.

It's just that.... well..... they don't need that stuff in the statblock for combat.

4e dragons are certainly NOT just big dumb flying lizards, unless the DMs decide that the creature is just the statblock. That would be true for any edition.

Here are just three paragraphs from the Blue Dragon entry in Draconomicon: Chromatic

Blues are also extremely territorial dragons. They rarely give intruders, even accidental ones, the opportunity to explain themselves. Blue dragons are more likely than other varieties of chromatic dragons to battle powerful enemies or other dragons over violated borders. This can prove particularly problematic, given that blue dragons are also more finicky about their environment than their cousins.

When other creatures give due respect to blue dragons’ pride and territorial claims, however, blues can be the most reasonable of the chromatic dragons. Blues lack the cruelty of black dragons and the ambition of greens and reds. Some blue dragons live as peaceful neighbors of humanoid communities or even, on occasion, of other dragon varieties. Blues might also employ humanoids to perform tasks for them, because blues enjoy both the opportunity to command others (thus showing their superiority) and the accomplishment of goals without having to exert themselves.

Blue dragons savor large prey such as cattle and herd animals, preferring meals of fewer, larger creatures over many small meals. Blues have no particular desire to hunt sentient prey, but neither have they any compunction about doing so if opportunities present themselves. Blues prefer their meat charred but not cooked through: "lightly kissed by the lightning," as one blue reputedly put it.

This oooooooooozes great ideas for non-combat RP moments, but big dumb flying lizards? Nah....

 

[catsclaw227]

Nope. Been D&Ding since about 1978.

Same as me!

And yet when I played 3.x with the gamers that started with 3.x? It felt like I was coming from a very different game. Guys like you and I come from a game where there could be a fair bit of handwaving and stuff going on, yet the players didn't mind.

 

[Mark Chance]

And yet when I played 3.x with the gamers that started with 3.x? It felt like I was coming from a very different game. Guys like you and I come from a game where there could be a fair bit of handwaving and stuff going on, yet the players didn't mind.

And let's not forget that us old-timers are just classier, more sophisticated, and blessed with hard-earned wisdom. IOW, we rule!



That aside, I think the point stands: This player's sense of entitlement isn't a feature of the game. I don't even think it's there implicitly, but rather results from too many unchallenged inferences.

 

[Windjammer]

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.

What you describe here is utterly true at my 3.5 table. So I got 1-2 guys who've been gaming 3rd since 2000, and then I've got 5 guys who only got introduced to 3E by me last year. Let's call them 3E veterans and 3E newbs (although neither label is appropriate).

A "veteran" had joined our campaign after taking leave for several months. After last session he expressed his utter amazement that none of the noobs were shooting me (or the veterans) after-session Q&A on "so how this monster ability work" and "how did monster 2 do that". In reply, all of the noobs were amazed that they were sorta expected to ask these questions, as if it's part of the game. Which, for us, it isn't.

So colour me intrigued by your observation. Yes, it rings true, but I'd REALLY like to know what exactly in 3E brought about this sentiment in the veteran player base. I don't know. Nothing in the core rulebooks ever told me that as a DM I'm obliged to enlighten my players. Heck, last time one of the veterans was surprised that I didn't tell him the DC for his skill check. I wonder where the core books say I must announce the DC. And so on. What brought about this mentality?

And now, for the record:

1. The 4E PHB explicitly recommends players to read the MM, as there is much "useful" information for them in the MM. Does 3E do that? I don't recall. I recall that players reading the MM was regarded a sin in 1E times, and not a venial one either.

2. A quote:

• Dragon 375▾
• Andy Collins▾

Game Transparency, By Andy Collins - in Dragon 375

Excerpt:

"Game transparency" is the amount of purely game information that's shared between the DM and players. Even DMs who understand the value of game transparency can struggle with the right balance of information-sharing and secrecy. When is the right time to tell the players what's happening? A little opacity can maintain the illusion of believability; after all, it's not like the characters are omniscient entities. What's more, limiting information keeps the game playable. Not only is there no good reason for characters to have detailed information about monster statistics, such details can distract players from more important concerns. ...
Although it’s true that
part of the fun of D&D is not knowing exactly what’s
going to happen next, too much of that reduces the
value of decision-making by the players. After all, why
bother strategizing for a battle if the results of your
actions appear random?
Players without sufficient transparency quickly
grow bored or conclude that they have no reason to
pick one tactic over another. Artful combinations of
monster powers and weaknesses are ignored. Combats
turn into mindless, identical grinds of “attack
roll, damage roll, who’s next?”
Thus, you need to inject some level of transparency,
even beyond what the rules already provide.
Sure, players know that flanking provides combat
advantage. But do they know that those flanking goblins
also deal extra damage, or do they just assume
that you got a lucky damage roll? For the player to
make an informed decision, it’s best to let them know
what’s happening.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20090508

Show me a remotely comparable passage/essay in any official thing published for 3.x by WotC. Please do.

 

[Voadam]

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.

What if you want to add in all the spellcasting powers of a 5th level sorcerer to make it more like a 3e/PF dragon?

Dragons in 3e are basically monsters with complex spellcasting added on top.

4e Dragons are mechanically dragon monsters without spellcasting, right?

I don't think the time differences in doing a spellcasting dragon in 3e style or 4e style would be very different and the same for a nonspellcasting one done in 3e or 4e style. As a default they are mechanically complex in 3e and mechanically simple in 4e, but they can be adjusted for either.

As a default all monsters in 4e are mechanically simple, while in 3e there is a wide variety of mechanical styles (dire animals are simple while things with spell like abilities or spellcasting are complex).

4e puts most everything on the statblock while 3e cross-references to feats and spells from the MM and PH.

 

[NewJeffCT]

And let's not forget that us old-timers are just classier, more sophisticated, and blessed with hard-earned wisdom. IOW, we rule!

And, we're also better looking and have at least a 19 INT as well! (supra-genius for those of us who played 1E)

 

[Scribble]

That aside, I think the point stands: This player's sense of entitlement isn't a feature of the game. I don't even think it's there implicitly, but rather results from too many unchallenged inferences.

Ehh... There have always been rules lawyers, and while not really a "feature" of the game, the way d20 was built kind of gave a little more ammo to the idea that it's "by the rules or not at all..."

And if you started with this rules set I can really see you getting the idea that should be the case. (And for some, that is fun for them.)