Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[The Highway Man]

I guess I should do that, too.

I pretty much just design in a vacuum.

I guess I have to agree, by your own admittance.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I hope that you do. I am quite fond of you. To say nothing of my moral obligation to keep your German mind occupied with thoughts other than its natural tendencies-- ie, world domination.

Hey, what happens in Circvs Maximvs, stays in Circvs Maximvs!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Spend an action point to re-roll any saving throw (including on a later round, if desired).

The problem with Save or Die/Save or Suck is that the relative risk shifts from an ablative measurement to a boolean measurement.

In "ordinary" play, the players are accustomed to viewing their hit points (ablative) as their means to measure their relative risk in the world. Low hit points, higher risk.

The Save or Die/Save or Suck spells bypass the ablative measurement and replace it with a boolean measurement. "I'm at full hit points-- yet I'm suddenly screwed!"

The simplest solution is to create an ablative replacement for relative risk, albeit on a different scale: Action points.

Low action points/high risk is as meaningful-- but on a higher scale-- as low hit points/high risk.

Action Points are a possible solution, but I feel ultimately this is just "add another subsystem instead of going to the foundation of the issue".

Fundamentally, action points and hit points are the same. They are the plot protection of PCs, their ability to do (and survive) things you normally couldn't.

So, is it really a good idea to try having both in the same system? Won't this call all kind of balancing issues? Why not just use the one?
That's what Torg did, and I dare say it did it in an admirably and fascinating way.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Action Points are a possible solution, but I feel ultimately this is just "add another subsystem instead of going to the foundation of the issue".

As subsystems go, action points are simple enough.

Of course, I also think they're properly applied to solve lots of other problems, and they can do this without significant added complexity.

So, is it really a good idea to try having both in the same system?

My answer is obviously yes. But this gets to the heart of what I mean about my assumptions. I start with a couple of very simple assumptions that are nevertheless very polarizing. ("Empower the DM." and "Use action points.")

Won't this cause all kinds of balancing issues?

I have to sort of take that with a grain of salt as any design or redesign entails balancing.

Why not just use the one?

By which I assume you mean hit points.

Certainly, there are ways you can do this. 4e's approach in many cases is to apply all sorts of damage directly to hit points: Poison deals hit point damage, necrotic damage, morale effects can even deal hit point damage (and healing), etc. This is certainly a workable solution but very gamist. And it's unsatisfactory to a lot of people for a lot of reasons.

Or you could work the "re-roll" mechanic into hit points: If you're not reduced below 50% of your hit points, then you receive a significant save boost, possibly including an automatic, free re-roll. Or you could charge the player a certain amount of hit points to "buy" the re-roll. Etc.

For the most part I am ok with different sub-systems tracking "plot immunity" across a variety of tracks: Hit points, ability score damage, action points, etc.

EDIT: I had meant to mention this and forgot. I like the fact that there are effects-- poison, save or die-- that can kill you "suddenly." But that is not to say that the risk should be completely unanticipated. In terms of plot protection, it matters that the players know when they are at significant risk. It helps to build tension; it forces meaningful decisions.

In the status quo, the risk is ever-present; a sleep spell can ruin a 1st level party. There is no plot protection. Consequently, it is very hard to build meaningful tension. Slowly whittling away hit points; slowly whittling away spells and resources; and yes, slowly whittling away action points-- all of these give me greater control as a DM over increasing tension. I want all of these knobs and levers, and more.

I view hit points as the primary ablative resource of the single encounter. (I don't mind the players healing up after every battle.)

I view spells and dailies as the primary ablative resource of the game session.

I view action points as the primary ablative resource of the adventure.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As subsystems go, action points are simple enough.

Of course, I also think they're properly applied to solve lots of other problems, and they can do this without significant added complexity.



My answer is obviously yes. But this gets to the heart of what I mean about my assumptions. I start with a couple of very simple assumptions that are nevertheless very polarizing. ("Empower the DM." and "Use action points.")

Ah, well, I can live with that. But who cares about me?

By which I assume you mean hit points.

For D&D, perhaps. But I mentioned Torg, and I somehow like Torgs approach more. Though it also has its drawbacks, I suppose. Possibilities are plot protection & moxie points. Damage is dealt as shock and as wounds - you just can spend your Possibilities to negate that damage. Basically it feels like it creates a "realistic" world and then adds the plot protection on. Maybe this is actually too complicated or to convoluted? Or maybe this is just brilliant for any fan of "realismn" or "versimilitude", because he understands "this is what would happen in the real world, but we don't let it happen!" While hit points confuse and conceal the issue.

EDIT: I had meant to mention this and forgot. I like the fact that there are effects-- poison, save or die-- that can kill you "suddenly." But that is not to say that the risk should be completely unanticipated. In terms of plot protection, it matters that the players know when they are at significant risk. It helps to build tension; it forces meaningful decisions.

In the status quo, the risk is ever-present; a sleep spell can ruin a 1st level party. There is no plot protection. Consequently, it is very hard to build meaningful tension. Slowly whittling away hit points; slowly whittling away spells and resources; and yes, slowly whittling away action points-- all of these give me greater control as a DM over increasing tension. I want all of these knobs and levers, and more.

I view hit points as the primary ablative resource of the single encounter. (I don't mind the players healing up after every battle.)

I view spells and dailies as the primary ablative resource of the game session.

I view action points as the primary ablative resource of the adventure.[/QUOTE]

I think you nailed down pretty well what I don't like about Save and Die and how to "fix" them. As a player I can't keep the same level of tension for the 4-8 hours of a game session. Save or Die brings me is "exciting", but I come from a relaxed state to this in an incredibly sort time, and then its all over again. Ablating hit points, losing possibilities or losing action points, they can all serve the goal of creating tension over a short but not too short duration.

 

[joethelawyer]

I'm still waiting for a fix for most "save or die" situations, particularly the hold monster + coup de grace thing.

here's how to fix it--just say you can't do that.

though personally i dont see a problem with it. in real life if someone can't move, and i have a sword, i can kill him in 3 seconds. whether its because his head is chopped off or because i just slit his throat, he's gonna be dead real soon.

 

[Kerrick]

While I'll grant this market may be small, certainly in a comparative sense, would it not be large enough for a 3PP to publish a game taking the best of 3e and 4e and making an altogether new system? No backwards compatibility, not jumping on the GSL, no nothing. Just do it under the OGL with the d20 mechanic. Could it not be done? Does licensing prevent it?

Already on it. Yes, it could be done quite easily - just do it under the OGL.

While I agree with your criticism, I think licensing aspects prevent that from being an option. Those non-core are not "touchable", per se.

I meant figuratively, not literally. I know non-core material isn't OGC; my point is that WotC should've balanced that stuff against the core. Paizo's redesigning the core classes, sure, but they're amping the power level up to be on par with stuff that is far more powerful than core. The best way to do it would've been to determine a base power level and build everything to that level, but since they're hewing so closely to existing material, they're a bit hamstrung in that regard.

I kinda agree with that. I don't think Roles need to be added to 3.x or PF. Not saying they're a bad idea per se, just not sure 3.x/PF needs 'em.

Stick with Types for BAB/saves/etc (but again- I think the types could be compressed somewhat). Create class templates if you want a specifc monster to be good at something (fighting, give it the fighter template; casting arcane spells; give it the wizard template).

Templates won't let the power level spiral outta control and would also keep monster design to something not akin to a friggin headache.

That's an interesting idea... but aren't templates just another name for roles? Say you have a goblin, and you want to make it a fighter goblin. Either he's got the "brawler" role, or he gets the "fighter" template - either way, he ends up basically the same (assuming, of course, that the templates change base HD; templates can't change BAB or saves, however, without changing the monster type, so how would you accommodate a goblin becoming a fighter?)

From the DM side the major complaint seems to be Fey and Undead-- for whom it's hard to raise BAB to practical levels without raising HD, Saves, etc. The problem is that CR is inextricably linked to HD, and HD are inextricably linked to BAB, Saves, etc. There are "best practices" involved with monster design, so if you increase CR, BAB, Saves, etc. without a corresponding increase in HD (hp, really) you run the risk of creating a glass cannon with the potential to dramatically impact play balance.

See, this is why roles are the best solution, IMO - you want a fighter fey? Change his base HD to d10, rearrange his saves, and BAM - fighter fey. It worked for MMV, and it's working for 4E... I don't see why it wouldn't work for 3.x. All you need are a set of guidelines telling the DM, "Okay, here's what you can do, and here's how to do it."

Players only bitch about it because "It doesn't say you can do that in the rules." We've become so dependent on the books telling us what we can and can't do that we don't think outside the box anymore (I mean the figurative "we", not the literal "we").

This is all shades of housecats and expert commoners, again. And ultimately I think if you can't swallow this fundamental assumption of the D&D world, you're playing the wrong system.

What assumption is that? That a commoner with 1 HD can't be a master craftsman?

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

That's an interesting idea... but aren't templates just another name for roles? Say you have a goblin, and you want to make it a fighter goblin. Either he's got the "brawler" role, or he gets the "fighter" template - either way, he ends up basically the same (assuming, of course, that the templates change base HD; templates can't change BAB or saves, however, without changing the monster type, so how would you accommodate a goblin becoming a fighter?)

See, this is why roles are the best solution, IMO - you want a fighter fey? Change his base HD to d10, rearrange his saves, and BAM - fighter fey. It worked for MMV, and it's working for 4E... I don't see why it wouldn't work for 3.x. All you need are a set of guidelines telling the DM, "Okay, here's what you can do, and here's how to do it."

What you're talking about in a number of respects sounds like something I experimented with...

Take the monster you happen to be messing around with, and make it a "template" and then slap it onto Foe Facotry: Modern:
EN World PDF Store - Adamant Entertainment - FOE FACTORY: MODERN

I used the pricing system from Grim Tales/upper_krust instead of the prices in the Foe Factory and it seemed to work well enough. Next time I run a D&Dish game I want to try and run all the monsters through this from the beginning. I only messed with it a bit towards the end of the game, so I wasn't able to really "stress test" it seriously. What I did worked out well enough though.

As a bonus, because of the way that the Foe Factory thingy is set up, it means you not only can make different "bases" to attach monsters to but that those "bases" will also scale to a degree with the party (if you want).

In other words, you could do a "tough fighter base" and then slap a variety of different monster "templates" on top of it. You simply have to calculate out the overall "CR Adjustment" that the monster is going to have.

The Foe Factory uses a chart to cross reference stuff and they say at the outset that ranks 2 and 3 (out of 10) are the "average".

Basically, everything would be boiled down to 6 stats and then the special effects/attacks/whatever of the particular critter.

For example, this is what the Zombie stat block in its entirety looks like (Foe Factory):

Zombies! (CR: ACL -2)
Init I; Competence I
Defense III
Hit Points VIII
Resilience II
Speed 20ft.
Attack III
Melee Maul (1d6 20/x2)
Special Attacks Frightening
Combat Gear None
Abilities Str 10, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Skilled None
Possessions None
Attributes Construct, Frightening, Mooks, Natural Attack,
Speed Decrease, Tough 2
Roleplaying Notes None

The BOLD bits are the actual stats that you come up with using the Foe Factory system, and the ITALIC bits are things that would be reflected in the CR Modifier.

To get an idea what that means, here's a zombie looks like when it's set for level 1 using the above values:

Zombies! (CR: ACL -2)
Init I; Competence +0
Defense +0
Hit Points 16
Resilience +0
Speed 20ft.
Attack +0
Melee Maul (1d6 20/x2)
Special Attacks Frightening
Combat Gear None
Abilities Str 10, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Skilled None
Possessions None
Attributes Construct, Frightening, Mooks, Natural Attack,
Speed Decrease, Tough 2
Roleplaying Notes None

And here's what it looks like when it's set to level 20 using the same values:

Zombies! (CR: ACL -2)
Init I; Competence +0
Defense +8
Hit Points 186
Resilience +5
Speed 20ft.
Attack +10
Melee Maul (1d6 20/x2)
Special Attacks Frightening
Combat Gear None
Abilities Str 10, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Skilled None
Possessions None
Attributes Construct, Frightening, Mooks, Natural Attack,
Speed Decrease, Tough 2
Roleplaying Notes None

Resilience = Saving Throw Bonus (covers all 3) and Competence = Skill bonus. Obviously if you desperately need to reflect a number being higher for some reason, then you can do a modifier of some sort and simply add it to the "CR Adjustment". The "Attributes" is also where you'd plug in any special feats that your critter has.

Is that the sort of thing you're talking about, or am I wildly misunderstanding you?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

See, this is why roles are the best solution, IMO - you want a fighter fey? Change his base HD to d10, rearrange his saves, and BAM - fighter fey. It worked for MMV, and it's working for 4E... I don't see why it wouldn't work for 3.x. All you need are a set of guidelines telling the DM, "Okay, here's what you can do, and here's how to do it."

Ok, here's the guideline: Just do it.

Changing a d6 to a d10 hit die is a difference of 2 hp per HD. There is no CR at which that change is going to make an appreciable difference.

Rearranging saves is a CR wash.

Leaving BAB as your only concern. I'd have to study that a bit more, but off the top of my head, I'd guess that wouldn't matter much to CR either. I'm guessing less than 1/2 of 1 CR per HD-- it should round off.

 

[Voadam]

I kinda agree with that. I don't think Roles need to be added to 3.x or PF. Not saying they're a bad idea per se, just not sure 3.x/PF needs 'em.

Stick with Types for BAB/saves/etc (but again- I think the types could be compressed somewhat). Create class templates if you want a specifc monster to be good at something (fighting, give it the fighter template; casting arcane spells; give it the wizard template).

Templates won't let the power level spiral outta control and would also keep monster design to something not akin to a friggin headache.

Frex- you want a 5 HD goblin that can throw a fireball. Make a 5 HD goblin. Tack on the wizard's template. Give it the fireball spell (and maybe a couple of other spells a 5th-level wizard might have). There. 5 HD goblin spellcaster. No need to multiclass into wizard, give it a wizard's hp and save progression, bonus feat(s), etc. No need to load it down with spells just to fill up its prepared spells (esp if you were creating a really high level wizard monster); give it only the stuff you think it needs for combat or concept. It's still a goblin 100%...it's just a nasty little bastard that can hurl a fireball at ya.

And of course- if you want to completely flesh out the goblin caster by using the wizard class, complete with saves, hp, all spells, etc. you could do that too. It's just not always worth it if the monster has a life expectancy of 5 rounds or whatever.

I think I need to see more specifics of what you mean by a wizard or fighter template before I'd come close to agreeing.

Normal templates are a pain to apply mechanically IME.

A fighter template might be add +4 to str and con, -2 to int, give it weapon and armor proficiencies and a couple fighter bonus feats based on HD. It might even say something like change BAB to 1/1 HD, change base saves to good fort and poor others, and change HD to d10 or adjust hit die up 1 die until you get to d10.

If by wizard template you mean "Wizard creatures can throw 3 arcane spell fireballs per day with caster level = to HD" then yes that is easy, after you advance the goblin up to 5 HD using the humanoid type advancement rules.