Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Encounter Design Simplified

[AllisterH]

First of all, in order to copy the 4e XP system, people would have had to have seen the 4e XP system before drafting their own. This was released a couple of months ago.

Second of all, this system is a derivative of the 3e XP charts and CR. Maybe the 4e system is also a similar derivative but I haven't seen it so I wouldn't know.

Third of all, if the system uses different numbers and the 3e CR how can it be a copy? Are you suggesting 4e uses identical math?

1. We knew about the Encounter Budget/building since DDXP. Keterys et al pretty much had it down to exact numbers a few months back.

2. Make no mistake about it, this system _IS_ highly reminiscent of the 4E system. Let me put it this way, if you consider 4E an entirely new game and not a derivative of past editions, then most assuredly, this xp system is not really a *derivative* of 3E's system.

3. Do expect howls of "paizo is just copying 4E" since just like the "Disenchant is so WoW", most people aren't going to recognize parallel development or GOOD IDEA (tm).

 

[Dragonblade]

Yes, that's correct.

Works for 3e too, inasmuch as the CR system is trustworthy.

If you're trying to insinuate that the design is inspired by 4e, well... duh.

Hey its cool with me. I think the more 4e mechanics Pathfinder has, the better a game it will be.

 

[Wicht]

A couple of months? This thread was started 3 days ago.

Yes but the Pathfinder Alpha rules came out a couple months ago and all Wulf did was simplify the charts from that.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

1. We knew about the Encounter Budget/building since DDXP. Keterys et al pretty much had it down to exact numbers a few months back.

2. Make no mistake about it, this system _IS_ highly reminiscent of the 4E system.

That's the intent.

1) CR/EL has been around since 3e. I've worked it over pretty good. The fundamental here is "doubling the number of creatures increases the EL by +2." I have my own doubts about that but, that's the RAW, that's what I'm playing by.

2) A common complaint of 3e is that it doesn't do mixed groups well. I've tackled it before, with others. (See Chi-Rho.) If you rely on the DMG, you pretty much can't do more than group monsters into like-like doublings and the occasional mixed pair. And if your party is not 4 members all the same level, God help you, because the DMG offers little other than estimates.

3) Fixed XP awards have been around since... well, 1e. But we saw them most recently in UA.

4) Encounter budgeting is an idea we have known for a while is coming in 4e.

Jason's encounter design system uses #1 above, and uses it to try to solve #2.

He did pretty good. Couple that with his fixed XP awards chart, and my intent to make an encounter budgeting system, and the design came together.

Given all that has come before, the fact that there is a clean mathematical expression should shock no one.

But, yeah... the actual numbers? They kinda matter.

 

[Gotham Gamemaster]

Hey its cool with me. I think the more 4e mechanics Pathfinder has, the better a game it will be.

It seems misleading to suggest that Pathfinder RPG would be adopting 4e "mechanics" by using Wulf's system. 4e tools? Okay. But the word "mechanics" for me would signify such stuff as all spaces count as 1 square, the elimination of schools, magic missile as an attack, etc. The more such 4e "mechanics" PF has, the more pointless it would become with each such step--while Wulf's streamlined charts have no such effect on theme or tone.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It seems misleading to suggest that Pathfinder RPG would be adopting 4e "mechanics" by using Wulf's system.

Unless you broadly define 4e mechanics as "streamlined play."

"Hey, no fair! That streamlines play for 3e! That's copying 4e!"

Rolleyes, you are sorely missed.

 

[AllisterH]

Unless you broadly define 4e mechanics as "streamlined play."

"Hey, no fair! That streamlines play for 3e! That's copying 4e!"

Rolleyes, you are sorely missed.

You DO realize most of the complaints against 4E are that they are dumbing it down and how it oversimplifies things, right?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You DO realize most of the complaints against 4E are that they are dumbing it down and how it oversimplifies things, right?

Not in my experience, no.

 

[see]

Only change I'd make to your suggestion is to use 480 as the replacement for 400 instead of 240. Doesn't do anything substantive; just leaves the numbers looking more like the 400-base numbers while keeping all the useful mathematical properties of 240.

 

[Pinotage]

Very nice, Wulf! Makes it easier for mixed CR encounters rather than having to resort to some electronic EL calculator. Unfortunately won't solve, nor was intended to, the fact that many CRs are just wrong to begin with.

Pinotage