Pathfinder 1E Some items which [langtitle=nt]Pathfinder[/langtitle] did right which could be used for the appeal of all editions in DDN

[GreyLord]

I admit, when [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] came out I actually went and played 4e. I was sick of some of the things with how the 3.X series of D&D did things. Some of it didn't appeal to me with the way they did their fast advancement, so many classes that they didn't keep track of them (or if they did, didn't really pay heed to how munchkins abused them), and a bunch of player entitlement issues with some of the groups. 4e slowed down advancement some, made classes more restrictive (class actually MEANT something rather than simply being a skill set), and skills were actually simpler in how they were handled.

This isn't meant to dish on 3e or 3.5 at all, merely stating why I was actually happy with 4e. However, with the power system, at higher levels it actually could become a pain as DM to keep track of all the powers that players were using. In 3.5 creating NPCs and other things may have taken more time prior to the game, and monsters were much easier to handle in 4e, BUT the actual keeping track of what all the characters could do and had at their disposal got much more complex over 10th level in 4e.

I still enjoy 3.5 core, but I think there were many things I was burned out on with 3.5 overall so didn't actually make the move to PF. However, when I did move to PF, it didn't kill my interest in 4e, but it DID make me decide that if I ever play 3.5 I WANT many of the things that it has in my 3.5 game. One of the things I like about PF is that it had several conventions that moved it more towards the realm of an older school gamer.

For starters, it had options written in (aka, it wasn't DM houserule/creation, it was actually a rule option) with slower advancement. You could slow it far down in how fast they advanced to a more comfortable speed (for me at least). What was great about this was that if someone wanted to run a game with the fast advancement of 3.5, they could do that as well. That's awesome. It has the options to appeal both to the fast XP and slow XP folks.

Next, it strengthened the class archetype. This didn't totally kill the aspect that those who wanted to be more munchkiny or utilize classes more as skill bundles, could. In fact they could still do it as much as they wanted, but the way they handled classes it strengthened the class archetype itself. Sure, you still can break the game as a munckin, but the classes on their own have many options to make you stick as a wizard or fighter, or whatever you chose.

If it had some sort of basic option that was similar to C&C, I'd say PF may even have captured the appeal for all my ranges of play. Still, it has options which I think can appeal across the medium to many different groups of players. NOT ALL of them, but more than straight 3.5 does at this point in my opinion.

It doesn't replace AD&D or older editions, but it has something about it that adds to the options and appeal to it.

I still enjoy 4e also, so I'm not siding on one group or another, but PF has something about it that I think the creators of DDN should look at.

I don't want them to create another PF. I ALREADY HAVE PATHFINDER. However, the thread on how complicated the character builds in DDN are already, got me thinking. We don't know that this is going to be the default, but from appearances they are trying to appeal to certain crowds and forgetting others exist. [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] is far from perfect, but I think there are some lessons there that they could utilize.

Give more options and LABEL them as options. Things such as very simple character creation (maybe something akin to what C&C does, or even pared down further, no skill type ideas, no packages, nothing like that).

Something with fast and slower advancements, maybe something with using skill bundles as the idea without classes, or something that makes it so that instead of damage dice, maybe have it so there are set damage dice ideas with skills for those who enjoy that aspect of 4e.

Maybe that's what will turn out, but currently it doesn't look like that's the way they are headed. I think this could have at least been a slam dunk with how they could create a game with appeal (even if not all would try it) for those of many editions, but the way it's going currently I'm not seeing them doing that.

PF mainly is played by 3.5/3e gamers in all honesty. However I think it has designs that DO have an appeal for a broader audience.

It's that design idea in mind that I wish they'd use for DDN.

 

[timASW]

Theres definately a lot of little tweaks that PF did right. They could have gone further IMO but I would say DnD5e ( i will not call it next) could learn a lot from the advanced player guide for pathfinder. It opens up a ton of different archetype options that really let you make the character you want.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I cannot see how going back to 3.5 will make next a slam dunk. Or pathfinder, or anything that came before.

It needs to be a step forward, not back to an old edition. Any old edition, including PF.

 

[DEFCON 1]

On top of that... why does it need to be only PF that they can learn from? Truth be told... game designers can and do learn from EVERY other RPG out there. Both to get ideas for new types of mechanics you can incorporate, but also just on seeing how the wind blows in terms of what the player base now expects out on an RPG - storywise and gameplay wise.

No designers can and do ignore other games in the marketplace. That's the surest way to cripple your design advancement.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I don't think the OP is saying that we shouldn't look at other games, he just wants to talk about PF in this particular thread.

Some of the things I like about [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate]:

Clerics have a pool of healing powers that's separate from their spells.
Classes are more interesting up to 20th level.
Spellcasters get at-will cantrips.

 

[Starfox]

To Defcon 1: There are already similar thread about what can be salvaged from 4E, so why not [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate]?

On topic: Not much in [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] strikes me as a stellar invention - it has too much "revision" written all over it. I do like many of the revisions, but overall felt they could have gone further.

I like that combat maneuvers were made easier and more efficient, but they made them too fiddly (especially with APG), and why didn't they unify them more - does Feint really need that separate a DC?

I like almost all of the new classes - the cavalier and summoner in particular. The jury is still out on balance, but they are definitely cool enough.

I like the balance work that was done to the fighter and rogue, tough I feel the rogue is still weak. Again, I feel they could have gone further.

 

[steenan]

Things that [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] did well, IMO, and that can be easily used in other games:
- class structure that encourage sticking with a single class, not multiclassing
- polymorph-type spells that don't restrict what you can change into, but streamline and balance the mechanical effect
- channel energy as healing effect that does not use spell slots
- at-will minor magic

 

[Grimmjow]

pathfinder also made classes fun to play al lthe way to level 20. you were rewarded for not multi-classing and sticking with one class. unlike DnD next is doing in the current play test.

 

[Greg K]

As with 4e, I am not a big fan of [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate]. However, just as with 4e, there are a few things that I think Pathfinder does right (based upon the beta).

1. Race
a. Humans get a +2 to one ability score

2. Classes
a. Rogue: increased hit die
b. Sorcerer: increased hit die; Intimidate and Use Magical Device as class skills
c. Wizard: increased hit die; Arcane Bond

3. Skills
a. Balance and Tumble combined into Acrobatics (I would prefer Jump remaining separate)
b. Hide and Move Silent combined into Stealth
c. Listen and Spot combined into Perception (I would prefer Search remaining separate)
d. Acrobatics (tumble) and Bluff (feignt) in combat resisted by BAB

4. Magic
a. At Will 0-level spells
b. Polymorph broken down into forms

5. Removing XP costs

 

[GreyLord]

I cannot see how going back to 3.5 will make next a slam dunk. Or pathfinder, or anything that came before.

It needs to be a step forward, not back to an old edition. Any old edition, including PF.

It's not so much about going back or revision but about design strategy. Look at what others have done and how it truly would appeal. Broaden horizons instead of limit them. That's one reason I think PF has been so (and in many ways surprisingly) much of a success. I'm not saying PF is the greatest game ever, but I think they made some very smart design decisions while 4e is doing the exact opposite in those same areas. They both have the playtest which I think is good, but I think there are some audiences which the DDN is listening more strongly too than they should and that's affecting their design decisions and how much appeal DDN will have when it's finished.

PS: I DO enjoy 4e a LOT, don't get me wrong, but I think that it appeals to some but they also missed a LARGE part of making it so that it could appeal to a larger audience. I think it's a solid game, and actually has great opportunities in it, but I think PF has the ability for a larger appeal with how it's designed. It's how to design that appeal into a game which this thread is about.

Right now I am seeing DDN as it's own biggest enemy possibly. IT still has the name, it has the hype...it even has that promise of appealing to all generations of D&D gamers...but I see the design decisions going more in a direction that it won't fulfill that and hence be it's own greatest enemy.