Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Sneak Peeks (Old thread)

[JRRNeiklot]

Because melee classes since the beginning are mostly their gear?

Um, this was pretty bad in 1e/2e as well. Remember, in 1e/2e you needed a +1 and a higher to hit certain monsters so if the DM used a rust monster at an earlier encounter, there's a very good chance that the melee characters were effectively done for the rest of the dungeon as unless the DM "happened" to drop +1/+2 loot, what exactly is a fighter supposed to do against a pit fiend?

More importantly, what exactly aout the fighter's CLASS abilities provide anything releveant to the battle?

How about the fact that he can hit easier than any other class, even with a chair leg? Or the fact that he has more hit points than anyone else (sans barbarian.)

Once, back in AD&D, we fought a stone golem. Not one of us had a magical weapon. We ran from it, dropped a bridge from under it, so that it fell hundreds of feet. In 3e, that would have probably dispatched it, but in AD&D, the golem struggled to it's feet and started searching for a way up the cliff. We survived and I remember that fight because we used our heads, otherwise it'd be just another monster we hacked apart. I remember that encounter because it was FUN and out of the ordinary. I'm not suggesting those fights (rust monsters, allips, etc) be common - just the opposite, they should be rare - but once in a while, they are great fun and add spice to a session.

 

[Vurt]

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).

I'm of the opinion that reworking a monster to fit the prepublished CR is preferable to readjusting the CR, from the standpoint that this is less likely to break older modules that might use the monster in question.

 

[billd91]

How about the fact that he can hit easier than any other class, even with a chair leg? Or the fact that he has more hit points than anyone else (sans barbarian.)

Indeed. Before 4e, the best attack (table in 1e, THAC0 in 2e, BAB in 3e) in the game plus multiple attacks were among the primary class abilities of the fighter types. I think additional abilities rose to the same level in 3e, but in 1e/2e, it's pretty much all in the attack.

Gear's valuable stuff and it hurts to lose it suddenly, but gear can be replaced. A lot of people make a big deal about it and the "expected wealth" levels and all that. But they're really taking a tool for the DM to use to keep things in balance and fetishizing the heck out of it.

 

[coyote6]

Yes, I get that. What I dont get it spending a chunk of your available wealth on something you can easily replicate with a spell (unless they have nered GMF).

Well, it does free up a spell slot that can be used on other spells (or used on the animal companion).

I'd hope the amulet of mighty fists' cost was reduced; IIRC, it was triple the cost of a weapon, which was silly expensive, especially since it used up a neck slot.

 

[mach1.9pants]

What else specifically (aside from animal companions) about the PFRPG previews gives you the 4e vibe?

I personally am not getting that same "4e in feel" feeling when thinking about how animal companions are being handled. 4e companions seem to me like they are just a die type extension of the controller (of the animal), and I also believe those beast companions in 4e get HP at a static rate (no hit dice), and have their beast damage bumped up "at tier" like all other 4e damage systems.

This:

The reworked animal companion is simply a template with every animal simply modifying said template...

*Looks through Martial Power*

Yeah, that's kind of exactly the manner in which animal companions function there -- personally, I'm waiting for the cries of "That's just like WoW" about the animal companion in pathfinder.

But I am not saying in any way that PF is more like 4E than 3E, it is not. It is a houseruled set of 3E (a very professional, well tested, long term supported houserule set, that is!). However it seems they have gone the same way as 4E with many of the fixes, normally not as 'far' as WotC in 4E, but still in the same direction.

 

[AllisterH]

How about the fact that he can hit easier than any other class, even with a chair leg? Or the fact that he has more hit points than anyone else (sans barbarian.)

You DO realize the pit fiend REQUIRES a +3 to hit right? A table leg is doing jack and nothing with jack having left the room several rounds ago.

Once, back in AD&D, we fought a stone golem. Not one of us had a magical weapon. We ran from it, dropped a bridge from under it, so that it fell hundreds of feet. In 3e, that would have probably dispatched it, but in AD&D, the golem struggled to it's feet and started searching for a way up the cliff. We survived and I remember that fight because we used our heads, otherwise it'd be just another monster we hacked apart. I remember that encounter because it was FUN and out of the ordinary. I'm not suggesting those fights (rust monsters, allips, etc) be common - just the opposite, they should be rare - but once in a while, they are great fun and add spice to a session.

Again, there's two aspects I find problematic.

1. what exactly in this scenario required the use of the fighter's class abiliteis

2. it requires a DM to provide assistance and/or hints. If this was a random encounter, youre kind of SOL here as the DM might not have provided a bridge anywhere.

3. You can ALSO do this in latter editions. Simply throw a high level monster at the party, watch them take off and do the same thing so if a DM wants the players to think on their feet, that's already available in the form of using unbeatable monsters.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Taking a potshot is perhaps not the best way to prove that you aren't looking for a fight.

That last swipe was completely unnecessary. Really. Don't do that again. Thanks.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

How is that a "kick" at 4e? Scroll up, look at the comments about how stupid Gary Gygax must have been to design creatures like the rust monster. Of couse, that's not a "kick" at 4e, so it doesn't count, right?

Of course it does count! If you see something like that, report it. Attacking persons, living or dead, talking down editions - thats not healthy for a board. Thats never okay.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

You DO realize the pit fiend REQUIRES a +3 to hit right? A table leg is doing jack and nothing with jack having left the room several rounds ago.


Again, there's two aspects I find problematic.

1. what exactly in this scenario required the use of the fighter's class abiliteis

2. it requires a DM to provide assistance and/or hints. If this was a random encounter, youre kind of SOL here as the DM might not have provided a bridge anywhere.

1. In this example nothing. I was using it to illustrate (perhaps badly) that monsters that take unconventional strategy to overcome are not broken and are actaully some of the more fun encounters; however, in the rust monster scenario, the fighter's class abilities are quite relevant.

2. Absolutely not. The dm did not "provide" a bridge. It happened to be there in the campaign setting. Yes, the dm provided the game setting, but I seriously doubt the bridge simply materialized due to the presence of a stone golem. Had there not been a golem, or had we the means of fighting the golem using conventional methods, the bridge would have still been there.

 

[SkidAce]

2. Absolutely not. The dm did not "provide" a bridge. It happened to be there in the campaign setting. Yes, the dm provided the game setting, but I seriously doubt the bridge simply materialized due to the presence of a stone golem. Had there not been a golem, or had we the means of fighting the golem using conventional methods, the bridge would have still been there.

It's a mutha loving beautiful bridge baaby, and it'll be there.

/grin