Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Sneak Peeks (Old thread)

[Odhanan]

Bringing monsters more in line with their CR (as was done with the allip) is also a way that the PFRPG is addressing concerns about the 15 minute adventuring day.

A CR 3 encounter shouldn't leave a group of 3rd level characters ruined. It should be one of many encounters they can handle in a day. As a result, what might look at first like a complete nerf to a monster in fact means that the PCs will be able to handle more level-appropriate encounters in a day, and thus won't be forced to run home and rest after each room in the dungeon.

I'm with Windjammer on this. If people have so many issues with the Allip or Rust Monster, no one stops them from selecting other monsters to build their adventure with. Another possibility would be to make a "touch of insanity" and "temporary" sunderings OPTIONS for the DM to use, or not, as he/she pleases, rather than make them the baseline of player expectations.

This just doesn't make sense. Since when did retiring more and more tactical options make a strategy game more interesting to play? By nerfing monsters, smoothing everything out, what the design does in fact is catter to expectations instead of stimulate players to come up with inventive problem-solving.

Fleeing/Avoiding/Distracting/Tricking monsters becomes moot because 'the party should be able to take any monster of that CR range'. "If we can't kill it it's too tough for this game." Err... what? That's all this game is tactically about for you guys?

I also do agree with Windjammer's analysis that this design evolution, bottom line, can be traced back to the Organized Play game style. He said pretty much everything I would have said on that topic.

I too am very surprised to see Pathfinder going down that road, or seemingly so.
This is not a good thing.

 

[coyote6]

[...]the party should be able to take any monster of that CR range. "If we can't kill it it's too tough for this game." Err... what? That's all this game is tactically about for you guys?

That's what CR means, though; saying a monster is CR X means that you're saying that a party of four level X characters can defeat that monster.

If you want PCs to be in danger of extermination from a monster, you don't use a CR X monster; you use a CR X + 5 or 6 or 10 monster, or a couple of 'em, or a dozen CR X monsters, or the like.

 

[Odhanan]

That's what CR means, though; saying a monster is CR X means that you're saying that a party of four level X characters can defeat that monster.

So as a designer, you either lay out in which circumstances the CR applies for a monster such as the rust monster or allip, OR you modify the CR itself to reflect its lethality more accurately. Gimping the monster is not the only option available.

Besides of which, "defeating" doesn't necessarily mean "killing this thing in melee, with metal weapons in a corridor 10 feet wide, with a buff for wisdom ready just in case, with your left-hand index up your nose".

What happened to the players' inventive tactics, exactly?

Framing tactical situations to be more of the same doesn't make the game any better.

Truth is? That sounds an awful lot like the Tyranny of Fun all over again. Which worries me.

 

[billd91]

I also do agree with Windjammer's analysis that this design evolution, bottom line, can be traced back to the Organized Play game style. He said pretty much everything I would have said on that topic.

I too am very surprised to see Pathfinder going down that road, or seemingly so.
This is not a good thing.

I think you're completely misreading the road PF is actually going down. Making adjustments that organized play may have helped expose doesn't mean you're making changes just to facilitate organized play. It may be done to facilitate play in general, of which organized play is just a subset.

Frankly, if a monster isn't fitting its CR and the CR is the variable being held constant, I expect the monster's powers to change a bit. Stat drain is pretty studly for a CR 3 critter when same level PCs are only just starting to get ahold of a fast remedy for stat damage.

 

[Odhanan]

For the record, I'm not trying to have a big argument about this whole thing, but since James is around and reading here, I just thought I might as well share my concerns. If not for the final version of the PF RPG, since it's already at the printer, maybe for future consideration and design. One can only hope.

 

[Twowolves]

So as a designer, you either lay out in which circumstances the CR applies for a monster such as the rust monster or allip, OR you modify the CR itself to reflect its lethality more accurately. Gimping the monster is not the only option available.

And if they were designing a new game from the ground up, they probably would have just bumped the listed CR up to an appropriate level. But that's not what they are doing. They are trying to keep backwards compatibility as a #1 priority, and that means 3.X CR stays the same in PRPG. If that means some misaligned monsters get a boost or taken down a peg, that's what they'll do.

The allip is still just as dengerous as it was to a CR-appropriate party, it's just the recovery after the battle that's changed. Resting for a few days vs pay for a spell they can't cast for 4 more levels (and incidentally draining their level-appropriate wealth, which can create a "gimp-spiral" where they will be a few levels behind in catching up in gear-based power).

Anyone who sees this as some sort of attempt to facilitate organized play or trying to turn PRPG into "4th ed Lite" is just looking for a reason to bash the game, IMO.

 

[Windjammer]

That's what CR means, though; saying a monster is CR X means that you're saying that a party of four level X characters can defeat that monster.

I agree with the wording of this statement. You, sir, have hit the nail on its head. For your statement abstracts from the skill of the players controlling those characters. That's why the CR system is, and always will remain, such a crude tool for constructing well-balanced encounters. And no amount of monster design to the contrary, or further along extant lines, will ever change that fact.

Not until you have constructed a game where a character's tactical in-game potential is no longer determined by the player. For instance, your selection of when to press the at-will/per-encounter/daily-buttons (never mind which powers you select, in case you didn't go with the pregens) doesn't matter when any set of choices will safely get you through 90% of Keep on the Shadowfell. So you might as well turn on auto-pilot, and be woken from slumber for the remaining 10% when things actually get exciting and your very input, as opposed to a computer's, is actually required by the game.

Now, apparently this ratio of 90% to 10% makes for the sort of game people nowadays get excited about. Guess what, I'm one of those people myself. I'm the sort of person who when bored turns on invincibility mode in Neverwinter Nights for the sole purpose of getting some cheap thrills out of trashing monsters at zero risk. But when I run a table top game at home*, it's understood that everyone's playing to the hilt. That's why I personally don't get anything out this design ethos whereby catering to the lowest level of player skill is the default mode of catering to the lowest common denominator. What's discouraging, perhaps, is that the lowest denominator now includes people who can't be expected to think of attacking an allip or a rust monster other than by melee drawing on metal gear. It's, apparently, too much to ask for. So we need to pay designers to redesign whole generations of monsters to accomodate to that fact. Impressive.

As I said above, I don't begrudge anyone their preferred source of entertainment. Just leave enough elbow room for other avenues, that's all. A tall order? You tell me!

(* In just an hour, actually, and Jason Bulmahn's own Mad God's Key! Will report the PC fatalities in Blood of Cairn on a later occasion.)

 

[Odhanan]

The allip is still just as dengerous as it was to a CR-appropriate party, it's just the recovery after the battle that's changed.

This is a good point, Twowolves. The same way, reading the Caryatid Column entry from the Bonus Bestiary, the "broken" quality applied to a sundered weapon is actually something that can make sense in-world. It'd be like Narsil in the LOTR that is reforged to later become Anduril.

Really, I'm not here for a fight. Just sharing my concerns: I don't want the Tyranny of Fun to become one of PF RPG's design principles. That's 4e's province, and I'd happily leave it that way.

 

[coyote6]

So as a designer, you either lay out in which circumstances the CR applies for a monster such as the rust monster or allip, OR you modify the CR itself to reflect its lethality more accurately. Gimping the monster is not the only option available.

Altering its abilities is an option, however. Is there a reason why upping the CR of the allip is preferable to altering its abilities? And conditional CRs don't make much sense, would be hard to adequately describe, and would make CRs even less useful than they are. I think part of the goal is to improve the usefulness of the CR (edit: by making them more accurate).

Besides of which, "defeating" doesn't necessarily mean "killing this thing in melee, with metal weapons in a corridor 10 feet wide, with a buff for wisdom ready just in case, with your left-hand index up your nose".

What happened to the players' inventive tactics, exactly?

So how else could you defeat a hostile insane flying incorporeal monster? Given no special conditions (i.e., the creature isn't trapped in an area, isn't blocked by salt or the like, this particular one can't be assuaged by bringing it its dolly from its living days or whatever, etc.), what else can you do to it?

It's insane and hostile -- all it wants to do is touch you and drive you insane, too -- so it can't be reasoned with, or talked into something. You might be able to sneak past it -- except you are a D&D party, so only one or two of you is any good at sneaking, and you're third level, so turning everyone invisible isn't an option. You can leave it alone, but that's not defeating it; and once it's spotted you, there's nothing you can do to keep it from coming after you. You can try to lure it into a fight with some other monster, but at third level, you might not be facing many other creatures that can handle an incorporeal foe, so that may not work. Burning oil won't work. What else is there, generically? The bare monster can't make any assumptions about the specifics of a particular encounter.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I don't want the Tyranny of Fun to become one of PF RPG's design principles. That's 4e's province, and I'd happily leave it that way.

Nice! No proper Pathfinder thread without a little kick at a edition you don´t like, eh?