Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[joethelawyer]

Most, if not all I've seen with Pathfinder is tweaking this and tweaking that, and changing the surface and features of the game. It does nothing to address these fundamental mathematics.

I would like to be able to add some of the stuff we cut out of the game. Basically, from being on this board, and hearing about the main sources of problems people had with the 3.x system, we heavily houseruled our 3.0 base game to proactively address them.

The thing is, we didn't fix the problem as much as we amputated the offending limb. This is a copy/paste from just the first half page of our 6 page house-rules document:

_______________________________________
[FONT=&quot]Ability Score Buff Spells: do not exist.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ability Score increasing items: do not exist. This includes permanent stat increases gained through books.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Prestige classes do not exist. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]DR (Damage Reduction of any kind) does not exist[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Only the core 3.0 races/classes are allowed for PC’s to play unless otherwise stated herein.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Psionics do not exist.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Most social type skills do not exist. Any checks must be role-played out with the DM taking into consideration your relevant ability scores as a modifier. The now-dead skills are: bluff, intimidate, innuendo, sense motive. Put points placed in those stats into other things.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Rangers are per the ranger class in 3.5, except they use a 10 sided HD.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Rogues can only backstab if he has surprise. He cannot do it in combat unless invisible or hiding in shadows, and silent, and has studied the opponent in combat for 1 full round. Merely flanking an opponent does not give a backstab chance.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Grappling is a useless pain in the ass and does not exist. Monsters can still grab you and throw your ass around and/or rend your ass off, per the DM’s discretion.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Haste spells and increased speed effects on weapons or items that duplicate haste or speed or increases in number of attacks per round do not exist. Wizards lose haste spells, weapons of speed don't exist, anything that multiplies or adds to number of attacks per round doesn’t exist.[/FONT]

________________________________


Some of that stuff reflects our style of play, but most of it is a direct result of not wanting to deal with power creep and a chase the stats style of game.

I wouldn't mind adding some of that stuff back in, and if pathfinder has a way to do it which works, and addresses many of those issues, I would try to convince the group to just switch to pathfinder as a base rather than 3.0. Especially if they get rid of the monster as a class thing.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

My problem with Pathfinder is the designer's apparent willingness to add fiddly new subsystems, when the last thing 3.5 needs as a fix is a bunch of fiddly new subsystems.

One example is the rage points system for barbarians in the Beta. It's absolutely horrible to use, as a DM. While I can't say for sure, I don't think I'd particularly enjoy it as a player (although apparently many Pathfinder barbarian players do).

Now this is an interesting example, because the designer actually did listen to the playtesting DMs on this, and settle on a compromise rage system. (It's more complex than 3.5, but not by much.)

But from what I've seen, the fiddly new subsystems mentality has continued through other classes and into feats and skills, and for better or worse, posts like, "I play the new rogue and I think it pwns! Don't change a thing!" seem to receive as much consideration, or more, as more thoughtful theoretical and systematic playtests.

Meanwhile, as someone else mentioned, little is being done to fix high-level play. There are many changes to individual components -- feats, spells, class abilities -- that, taken as a whole, help quite a bit. But more needs to be done. A lot more.

Finally, while I don't mind a little power bump in the core classes, to keep them on the level with stuff like the beguiler, in some cases it's been way overdone, and I'm not seeing any acknowledgment of that. (Rogue, I'm looking at you again.)

So that's the direction in which I see Pathfinder heading. And as much as I love Paizo and adore -- I can't think of another, less girly but still apt, word -- them for keeping the spirit of 3.5 alive, unless things change it's looking like Pathfinder is just going to be another source for my homebrew 3.75 rules.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That would be very interesting... If the monster classes are not similar to what 4e is doing now. We already have 4e for that, don't we?

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)

 

[Darrin Drader]

Now this is an interesting example, because the designer actually did listen to the playtesting DMs on this, and settle on a compromise rage system. (It's more complex than 3.5, but not by much.)

But from what I've seen, the fiddly new subsystems mentality has continued through other classes and into feats and skills, and for better or worse, posts like, "I play the new rogue and I think it pwns! Don't change a thing!" seem to receive as much consideration, or more, as more thoughtful theoretical and systematic playtests.

I've had a player run this in a playtest and not only did it not take long to get used to, but I don't feel that working with it added a measurable amount of time to running the barbarian, nor was it overly complicated. The player had a copy of the class description in front of him and it worked well.

Meanwhile, as someone else mentioned, little is being done to fix high-level play.

Yet.

They are working on it and I'm confident that the final result will be a workable solution.

it's looking like Pathfinder is just going to be another source for my homebrew 3.75 rules.

There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Maggan]

how many companies would do what they are doing with their design process for the rpg? its unheard-of.

Mongoose did an open playtest of Traveller which started in November 2007.

/M

 

[Jack99]

i have more faith in a company owned by gamers, than in wotc. how many companies would do what they are doing with their design process for the rpg? its unheard-of.

Have you considered that a company like Paizo might benefit more than their customers from an open playtest?

 

[Shadeydm]

Have you considered that a company like Paizo might benefit more than their customers from an open playtest?

Participation and consumer feedback is better than "cloud watching".

 

[Jack99]

Participation and consumer feedback is better than "cloud watching".

I wasn't comparing Paizo's tactics to WotC's. I am just saying that perhaps it is not a completely 100% altruistic decision on Paizo's part. They occupy two very different positions on the RPG market.

Either way, who cares. I think it is great that they are keeping an edition alive for the players who do not wish to move forward right now. If they do it in a way that will eventually make them more money, that's even better. I mean, how will they be making 4e adventures in a couple of years if Pathfinder RPG flops?

 

[Grazzt]

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)

Me personally, for monsters in PF, I'd take a page from 4e and design them so they dont have to follow the same rules as PCs. Use something akin to 4e's formulas that makes monster design a snap.

For example, set their BAB (maybe based on 'weapon monster' or 'spell monster' or even Type) to Level + x. Make saves something like (Level / 2) + y. Forget skill points. Only assign them the skills they really need or might use in combat or that are useful for the monster's concept. Same for feats. Either only assign the ones they really need or just turn whatever feat concepts into special abilities or qualities (or in the case of something like Weapon Focus, just give the monster a +1 on attack rolls with whatever weapon)

 

[joethelawyer]

Me personally, for monsters in PF, I'd take a page from 4e and design them so they dont have to follow the same rules as PCs. Use something akin to 4e's formulas that makes monster design a snap.

For example, set their BAB (maybe based on 'weapon monster' or 'spell monster' or even Type) to Level + x. Make saves something like (Level / 2) + y. Forget skill points. Only assign them the skills they really need or might use in combat or that are useful for the monster's concept. Same for feats. Either only assign the ones they really need or just turn whatever feat concepts into special abilities or qualities (or in the case of something like Weapon Focus, just give the monster a +1 on attack rolls with whatever weapon)

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.