Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Alpha "crunch" discussion

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah well, that's a given...is the same way right now already after all. When you take levels in a prestige class, your base class abilities don't advance at the same time except if you took a prestige class that added class abilities similar to your base class (e.g. sneak attack or spell levels). But where does wealth-by-level figure into it? And why does that make a prestige class useless? PrCs have a lot of useful abilities on their own list after all. Or did I miss something?

Sorry, I might have "jumped" a little bit.

The base classes become more powerful. The assumption is that Wealth by Level will be changed to "rebalance" this. But the Prestige Classes don't advance the aspects of the base classes that give the "extra oomph", and the characters still don't get the same amount of magical items.

And why the heck are you up and here at half past eight already?

I am sorry, answering that would incriminate myself. (Hint: Remember the "Boss"-Key from old computer games and what it was for? And didn't I mention I am wasting too much time on EnWorld already? )

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Sorry, I might have "jumped" a little bit.

The base classes become more powerful. The assumption is that Wealth by Level will be changed to "rebalance" this. But the Prestige Classes don't advance the aspects of the base classes that give the "extra oomph", and the characters still don't get the same amount of magical items.

Okay, now I see what you're getting at...heh, I guess I simply didn't make the connection because I don't hope wealth by level changes, but merely the dependency on the "big six", as they are so lovingly called by now. For example, Damage Resistance doesn't need special plusses anymore, so even a +1 sword will damage something with DR 10/magic, and the rest of the bonuses to attack and damage can come from your fighter class abilities. Of course, PrCs won't add much to those, but most of them have their own bonuses that they dispense over a figther.

Probably would have to sit down and build a few examples...thing is, I hate PrCs for what they have become (loved the concept when it appeared in the DMG), and usually don't touch them with a 10-foot pole if I don't have to due to player wishes. :/ So I'm not really motivated to do so now either. But there'll be enough gearheads who'll crunch the numbers as soon as the Beta has hit the streets and we have some solid Pathfinder rules in our hands. Right now it would be building boats from silly putty.

I am sorry, answering that would incriminate myself. (Hint: Remember the "Boss"-Key from old computer games and what it was for? And didn't I mention I am wasting too much time on EnWorld already? )

Yep...gotcha. Wish I could say I "waste my time" here, too.

 

[Desdichado]

What do you think of this quick-and-dirty backwards compatibility system?
Pathfinder PCs (with extra hp) have +1 LA

I don't like it. LA +1 races is already a sore point with me, and something that I want a new edition of the rules to "fix."

 

[Arnwyn]

It would surprise me. That would mean you'd have to adjust the loot in every mix and match module when flipping between 3.5 and 3P stuff.

Their goal is backwards compatibility.

It would surprise you? Really? Even after the rather massive changes already in both the races and classes?

To me, their first crack looks like they're only going for a modicum of backwards compatibility.

Given the choice I'd much prefer an AE to an IH style of D&D 3.5 compatible stuff from Paizo.

Me too. Hopefully they backtrack on some of their changes.

 

[BryonD]

I don't like it. LA +1 races is already a sore point with me, and something that I want a new edition of the rules to "fix."

While I certainly don't want to see the LA+1 approach either, I'm open to the possibility that the assumed power level of PC could be higher. I'm not calling for it, but it wouldn't be a problem either. As long as there is a clear way of comparing.

And if it was understood that all PCs in PF were equal in power to 3X characters one level higher, then that really wouldn't be LA anyway. Everything is still on the same plane. You'd still have the problem of a Drow being +2 LA whether he is in 3X or PF. LA is a sloppy way of dealing with race differences within a game, but it isn't applicable to a discussion of an across the board shift.

 

[Voadam]

It would surprise you? Really? Even after the rather massive changes already in both the races and classes?

To me, their first crack looks like they're only going for a modicum of backwards compatibility.



Me too. Hopefully they backtrack on some of their changes.

Yeah, it'd surprise me. Their stated goal is backwards compatibility with 3.5 for their modules which I want. It makes sense to design pathfinder modules so their fans could mix and match with Paizo's own game mastery or old dungeon adventures to make a campaign without messing with awarded loot levels.

They have not stated that Christmas Tree effects or the general wealth per level guidelines are what they are trying to fix. Reducing wealth will damper the tree effect by delaying a few levels the acquisition of such useful items, perhaps at most pushing a desired "sweet spot" out a few levels.

Having played in both high and low point buy games I saw no impact of base stats on the desire for big six items. In a game where stats did not give bonus spells however my wizard eldritch knight chose to use a hat of disguise instead of a headband of intellect.

Of course, I was surprised at the bump in race and class powers given their stated goal of backwards compatibility. And as I think about it more the change in xp and feat progressions similarly messes with compatibility a bit when designing an adventure path.

I ignored the change in Arcana Unearthed XP and expect to do so in pathfinder too. But I haven't gotten any AU modules yet so I'm not sure how much that affects loot acquisition and pacing.

I'm hoping they won't make too many more changes to baseline D&D assumptions but focus on distinct rules elements that can be easily adopted or not as a DM wants, such as their new grapple system and hopefully a streamlined NPC/monster format. I use lots of variant rules elements in my D&D games but I prefer my modules and sourcebooks to be as compatible with 3.5 stuff as they can be.

 

[BryonD]

I think there is a difference between compatibility and balance.
I'm not saying balance is not important or that changing balance should be taken lightly. If they adjust the balance point then a lot of thought needs to go into understanding and accounting for it.

But a lot of people played gestalt games with characters vastly more powerful than PF characters. Monte's Book of Experimental Might gives ever character a feat every single level. Both of these options significantly mess with balance, but I've never heard anyone suggest they are not compatible.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

But a lot of people played gestalt games with characters vastly more powerful than PF characters. Monte's Book of Experimental Might gives ever character a feat every single level. Both of these options significantly mess with balance, but I've never heard anyone suggest they are not compatible.

That's because Paizo made "Compatible with 3.5" their tagline for Pathfinder, and loudly so. The others didn't, really. Monte explicitly states on the backcover that BoXM is his house rule collection, and gestalt characters from UA are also "alternative rules" that, if I remember correctly, come with a disclaimer that gestalt characters are more powerful than standard multiclass characters, and need to be treated as such. Pathfinder is supposed to replace the 3.5 core books on bookshelves in 2 years, so yeah, compatibility has a bigger importance here.

 

[BryonD]

That's because Paizo made "Compatible with 3.5" their tagline for Pathfinder, and loudly so. The others didn't, really. Monte explicitly states on the backcover that BoXM is his house rule collection, and gestalt characters from UA are also "alternative rules" that, if I remember correctly, come with a disclaimer that gestalt characters are more powerful than standard multiclass characters, and need to be treated as such. Pathfinder is supposed to replace the 3.5 core books on bookshelves in 2 years, so yeah, compatibility has a bigger importance here.

I don't think you understood my point. My point is that there is a difference between balance and compatible. Who says a disclaimer won't be on the real PF that says the characters will be more powerful and should be treated as such? The presence or absence of this disclaimer would have zero impact on the compatibility. The mechanics would still function the same either way.

Gestalt is more powerful. Gestalt is compatible.
BoXM is more powerful. BoXM is compatible.
PF may end up more powerful. PF WILL end up compatible.

Again, I'm not saying that it is a better way to go. I don't care either way and can easily see reasons that keeping the same baseline power level would be preferable.

But it matters zero how important compatibility it because nothing shown so far is incompatible. They are completely in compliance with their tag line.

 

[Cobblestone]

Random thoughts

Keep it simple.

There is no need to buff up first-level characters. If survivability is an issue, make the default starting point 3rd level. No new rules needed.

But,

Hit points should be based on race. Add a Human entry to the monster manual. Start all Humanoids at D8. Every level, give ‘em another d8. Dwarves are hearty? Give ‘em a bonus to Constitution. Barbarians are tough? Give ‘em a bonus to Constitution. Maybe all classes should offer ability bonuses (1st level only) as well. Studying as a wizard makes you smarter. Studying as a Bard makes you better at holding people’s attention. Studying as a Fighter makes you stronger, etc.

Something along the lines of:

Barbarian: +4 CON, +2 STR, -2 INT (for whatever part of Intelligence is book-learning)
Bard: +2 CHA, +2 DEX
Cleric: +2 WIS, +2 CHA
Druid: +2 WIS, +2 CHA
Fighter: +2 CON, +2 STR
Monk: +2 WIS, +2 DEX
Paladin: +2 CON, +2 CHA
Ranger: +2 CON, +2 WIS
Rogue: +2 DEX, +2 INT (for whatever part of Intelligence is street-smarts)
Sorcerer: +2 CHA, +2 DEX
Wizard: +2 INT, +2 DEX

Obviously, that’s just a quick stab, based on what needs to happen for hp averages to work out for the fighter-types, and also based on the attributes that in my experience people tend to make their second-best. Stats would be higher across the board, but that would allow for the implementation of other ideas: identical save progressions (or heck, just make them ability checks), max skill ranks equal to character level without a huge drop off early on, etc. No real need to re-stat old 3.5 materials as ability differences would be made up in skill ranks and different hit dice. If that’s too much of an increase for you, just knock off that second ability increase.

Two cents and all.

Peace,

C-Stone