Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[Betote]

Well, what do you have in mind? I suppose we could have "Weapon Monster" vs "Spell Monster" classes.
Weapon Monster: Full BAB, d10 HD, 4+INT skill points. Available Spell Level progression like Ranger/Paladin. (So no spell-like abilities before level 5?)
Spell Monster: Medium BAB, d6 HD, 4+INT skill points. Available Spell Level progression like Cleric/Wizard (So spell like abilities have a max level equal to 1/2 CR)

I'd like a full chart, similar to the class charts, with more or less this information:

Monster "class" / BAB / Saves / HD/ skills / # of abilities / level of abilities

Then each ability (rend, blindsight, swallow whole, spell-likes...) would have a level. Creature types would be descriptors, and would matter just for bane, DR, etc purposes, as well as for general traits (critical hit immunities et al).

Just keep in mind one thing: the "monsters and PCs follow the same rules" doesn't necessarily mean "every monster should be elegible for a PC race". So they shouldn't be "balanced" like PCs, just as threats.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'd like a full chart, similar to the class charts, with more or less this information:

Monster "class" / BAB / Saves / HD/ skills / # of abilities / level of abilities

Then each ability (rend, blindsight, swallow whole, spell-likes...) would have a level. Creature types would be descriptors, and would matter just for bane, DR, etc purposes, as well as for general traits (critical hit immunities et al).

Just keep in mind one thing: the "monsters and PCs follow the same rules" doesn't necessarily mean "every monster should be elegible for a PC race". So they shouldn't be "balanced" like PCs, just as threats.

If we only had the benchmarks for that...

 

[Grazzt]

exactly. that way combat might go faster if you cut out the complicated BS on one side of the combat. flat out saying they take half damage from fire attacks beats the heck out of saying they are able to cast this or that spell which gives elemental protection, then having one more thing to keep track of. and monsters with skills and feats is a pain in the ass.

Yep. Or just give them resistance (resistance to fire 10, 20, whatever). Anything's easier and quicker honestly. And I quit bothering with feats and skills (other than those I deemed needed) for my 3.x monsters (in game..obviously not in any future NG stuff )

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You see, I don't have this faith. I don't have this faith because the source of the troubles with 3.5E are based in the underlying mathematics of the system, and the fact that nonspellcasters increase in power by a linear factor while spellcasters increase in power by an exponential factor, which is again mathematics of a sort.

I can't reconcile speaking "mathematically" vs. "colloquially" when you use the terms "linear" and "exponential."

Can you demonstrate in mathematical terms how spellcasters increase in power exponentially?

In addition, these mathematics, as applied to character creation and monster creation/application, are what makes 3.5E so much work, particularly on the DM end.

3.5 will not be fixed until we accept that DMs are not required to operate under the same rules as the players. When DMs are allowed to use a different rules framework for monsters than the players use to create PCs, the workload on the DM is eased considerably.

EDIT: See Grazzt's post directly above mine for a demonstration of what I am talking about.
EDIT 2: And an even better post from Grazzt on page 3.

 

[Sunderstone]

Personally I hope that most of what Pathfinder fixes/tweaks, happens off camera. Too many people have too many opinions as to whats "broken" and how to fix it.

Paizo's staff is top notch and I am totally satisfied with their work. That said, I still dont comment on works in progress at their forum, and I didnt buy the print beta. It's a beta. Id rather have the final edition before I comment on it as all things are still subject to change.

Im a 3.5 fan, so far Ive been using some of the smaller changes from the alpha/beta, and my game has been better for it.
The class changes I wont use until the final version, but I already like the Sorcerer and Barbarian changes. If the classes are slightly more powerful at the beginning , so be it. Low level 3.5 was/is lethal and I dont want to start characters up with 3 HD adding a whole new can of worms.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

3.5 will not be fixed until we accept that DMs are not required to operate under the same rules as the players. When DMs are allowed to use a different rules framework for monsters than the players use to create PCs, the workload on the DM is eased considerably.

So do it Wulf. Seriously, you're a designer. Pathfinder - for whatever reasons - is not going this route. You can. Your Grim Tales could be updated and avoid the anchor of having the remain backwards compatible with a fundamentally flawed system.

I think. I don't know the licensing issues involved.

Grazzt's posts show the problems with the current PF approach. In his own games, he tosses stuff out the window, but he feels required to keep that stuff in "official" books. That's a problem, because it immediately and indirectly states "Look, these rules...they aren't all that. But we have to make them that way. I don't even use all of them for my own games, but..."

WP

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

3.5 will not be fixed until we accept that DMs are not required to operate under the same rules as the players. When DMs are allowed to use a different rules framework for monsters than the players use to create PCs, the workload on the DM is eased considerably.

If I wanted to be "true to the spirit of 3e", I would want to keep the PC/NPC/Monster transparency and have them all operate under the same rules. This aspect was one of the things people applauded on 3E, and now everybody seems to hate it. And I know why - it's an awful lot of work.

But I keep wondering if there isn't a way to do it. 4E doesn't really try (though I think it's ultimiately just as close as 3E is to this goal. Let's face it, there was nothing transparent about determining natural armor, ability scores or available spell-like abilities in 3E!)

Maybe the only way to do this is having a point buy system. But, like 3E, it's too complex and too much work.

Or am I just falling into the trap I warn other armchair designers of? Trying to find a perfect solution and trying to achieve two goals that are ultimiately at odds with each other? Probably.

 

[Grazzt]

Grazzt's posts show the problems with the current PF approach. In his own games, he tosses stuff out the window, but he feels required to keep that stuff in "official" books. That's a problem, because it immediately and indirectly states "Look, these rules...they aren't all that. But we have to make them that way. I don't even use all of them for my own games, but..."

WP

Yep. Pretty much. Just have to follow the expected rules in 'official' books. Now, if we ever did a variant "look what we can do with monsters" version of Tome...we could probably get away with it

 

[Grazzt]

But I keep wondering if there isn't a way to do it. 4E doesn't really try (though I think it's ultimiately just as close as 3E is to this goal. Let's face it, there was nothing transparent about determining natural armor, ability scores or available spell-like abilities in 3E!)

I think it could be done. Again- just have to come up with a system that made designing monsters quick and easy (and fun). Level + x for BAB, (Level / 2) + y for saves, whatever.

Types could be simplified too (which would reduce the number of Types to layout designs for). Giant for example...should really be a subtype (again- something I think 4e got right).

DCs for its special attacks wouldnt deviate from 3.x/PF. No need to really. Those were never really hard to determine.

 

[DaveMage]

YepNow, if we ever did a variant "look what we can do with monsters" version of Tome...we could probably get away with it

You know, if it was spelled out in the intro to the product, I don't think I'd have a problem with this at all, and I'll bet there are others like me that feel the same way.

Heck, I usually forget to look at a monster's skill and feat list during an encounter unless the need for an opposed roll arises (usually related to one detecting the other in some way).