Kerrick
First Post
That's pretty much what I'm thinking - just give some broad guidelines on how to make a fighter, caster, sneak, etc. - because not all DMs are game designers.
Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?
- Thread starter joethelawyer
- Start date
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
I get that-- and I'm not trying to be snarky-- but a big part of the problem is convincing DMs that they the specifics don't matter nearly as much as we think they do.
It seems the designer's job is to offer endless proofs that the d20 system isn't going to grind to a halt if the DMs start winging it again...?
Let's take the fireball goblin again. Every DM knows that fireball is an appropriate ability for a CR5 creature. Is it really necessary to advance a goblin to 5 HD "using the humanoid advancement rules" or do you think it's probably gonna be ok if you just give him 5 HD and let him cast fireball if you want him to?
Kerrick
First Post
I agree, totally. Like I said, DMs have become stuck on the RAW, and not "how can I tweak these rules to fit my game/make a better experience?"
I think it'd be perfectly fine to give him 5 HD and the ability to cast fireball. What I'm suggesting is something along the lines of:
If you want to make a fighter, make sure it has a high Strength/Con; change the BAB to high; and swap the good save to Fort. Add HD as necessary.
If you want a caster, give it a high spellcasting ability score, change the BAB to medium or low, and give it a good Will save. Add whatever spells you want, and make sure it has enough HD to cast them.
That's all you really need to do. Figuring CR is a little trickier; I'm not totally sure how to eyeball CRs.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
But you really don't need a designer to tell you this. (Ok, perhaps a new DM does need someone to tell him this; but the 3.5 revision market is not composed of newbie DMs.) But my point is that there really isn't any (re)design imperative to tell you that fighters need STR and Fort and wizards need INT and Will.
My point, if it wasn't clear, is that switching the "role" of a creature is (a) easy for any reasonably informed DM and (b) almost always going to be a CR wash.
I think most DMs are comfortable in their ability to do (a) but not necessarily comfortable about (b). They want hard proof. They want mathematical surety. As tedious and potentially endless as those proofs may be, they want to be convinced that they aren't going to break the d20 system if they wing it.
Convincing them of that isn't a design problem, it's a PR problem. Resetting the 3e-hard-science-player-empowerment mentality to a 1e-art-form-DM-empowerment mentality is a PR problem that would require WOTC- or Paizo- or Monte-sized clout to solve.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
So, this article comes to late for 3E then...
Save My Game: Do the Right Thing (sorry, subscriber only. But see here for opinions from people that read and people that didn't read the article: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/245114-save-my-game-do-right-thing.html
)
Grazzt
Demon Lord
I think it'd be ok to just give the goblin 5 HD, the needed HP, attack bonus, etc., tack on the fireball (and whatever other spells if any), and run with it.
Something like this, for example (I'm actually in my office doing network stuff and my books are nowhere close, so keep that in mind
)Marshnek of the Fire Swamp CR 5
Goblin, 5th-Level Caster
NE Small Humanoid (Goblinoid)
Hit Dice: 5d8+5 (35 hp)
Initiative: +1
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares)
Armor Class: 14, touch 12, flat-footed 13
Base Attack/Grapple: +3/-1
Attack: Morningstar +4 melee (1d6) or javelin +4 ranged (1d4)
Full Attack: Morningstar +4 melee (1d6) or javelin +4 ranged (1d4)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Spells
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft.
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +5
Abilities: Str 11, Dex 13, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 8
Skills: Stealth +9, Perception +9
Spells Prepared (4/4/3/1; DC 12 + spell level):
1st-true strike, magic missile (x2), burning hands;
2nd-blur, darkness, scorching ray;
3rd-fireball
He should I guess have 0-level spells, but I omitted them. He's also using his Dex mod on all attack rolls just as if he had the Weapon Fin. feat (which wouldnt work with his morningstar anyway).
Last edited:
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
This would not be the first time, nor likely the last, that I have expressed my frustration that folks think they needed to be given permission by WOTC-- as part of the 4e revision, no less!-- to take control of their game.
Wisdom Penalty
First Post
Wulf Ratbane said:
Don't blame The People. And don't blame The Man.
This need for some sort of permission stems from the fact that 3E had morphed the collective soul of gaming into a "there must be a rule somewhere for that and i must follow it" mantra.
Ostensibly, the Power was taken away from the DM and given to the players & DM via shared, common, standard rules. Gone were the days 1E DM fiat.
And yet, what happened was that the Power was taken away from DMs and given to...the rulebooks. 3E has a rule for flippin' everything. And the mindset became - overnight - that a DM who didn't know or follow those rules was somehow cheating his players or the game.
4E has its warts, but this is one thing is has done fabulously (yes, I just use 'fabulously' in a sentence - don't hold it against me) well on: It has reintroduced DM fiat in broad strokes akin to the heady days of 1E.
WP
Obryn
Hero
Personally, I wish 3e would have gone in this direction. It's not really the default 3e (or, more specifically, 3.5) philosophy, though.
I think it would have been fantastic had WotC come out with revised, easy monster guidelines - and then started releasing monster stats using them. As it stands, though, the guidelines were treated as strict laws, and people complained when those laws were violated.
Then again, I'm an unabashed 4e fan, so take that how you will.
-O
