Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[billd91]

But seriously - put a monster or character in a published module which doesn't follow the 3.5 rules. Publish it. How long a complaint thread do you think you'd get on ENWorld or WotC's boards about your poor mastery of statistics and simple game mechanics? Would it be considered an error, to be errata'd? Would it be mentioned in reviews?

Knowing the gaming community? I think we won't have to wait long for people to complain about 4e stat blocks that don't conform to the guidelines in the 4e DMG either.
The types of people who complained about mistakes in 3e stat blocks aren't likely to change because of an edition change.

 

[DaveMage]

Agreed. And this could be ported to PF/3.x I believe. Just have to figure out roles/monster classes, or if you wanted to structure things based on HD or Type

Please, no "roles." Bleh.

 

[Obryn]

Do you not see a difference between a published work (where you have all the time in the world to get it right) and what a DM does at his table to facilitate smooth, fun play?

Of course I do. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be necessary, even then, and that publishers and designers should be able to break the rules when appropriate.

But, again, I'm not sure I have a horse in this race at the moment.

-O

 

[Grazzt]

Please, no "roles." Bleh.

Agreed. I don't think they are needed myself.

 

[Grazzt]

I am not entirely convinced it is _that_ easy. You still want values that work with the "power balance" of PCs vs NPCs. And... well, that balance is all over the place. There is no straightforward HD = CR formula, and that's something one would hope to gain from such a system, wouldn't one?

Rework CR. Or do away with it entirely. It never was a concrete system anyway. Even WotC admitted as much a long time ago. Assign static XP to monsters (as the variant rule in UA) and build encounters based on XP totals (like 4e does).

Maybe going by a class-like approach is best.
1) Weapon Using Monsters: d10 HD, BAB = HD, Good Fort, Max spell like ability level equals 1/4 HD. Increase Size every 3 HD if desired. Damage as if wielding a two-handed exotic weapon or two light exoticweapons for more attacks of its size. Armor Bonus Total = HD

2) Spell/Supernatural powers Using Monsters: d6 HD, BAB = HD/2, Good Will, Max spell like ability level equals 1/2 HD +1. Melee Damage as if using light or simple weapon. Natural Armor Bous HD/2. Armor Bonus Total = 3/4 HD

3) Mixed monsters: d8 HD, BAB 3/4 HD, Two Good saves; Max spell like ability level equals 1/3 HD+1. Increase Size every 6 HD. Melee damage as if using medium exotic weapon or two light martial weapons. Armor Bonus Total = 3/4 HD

Spell progression is either like caster (if you want it complicated), or highest and second highest spell level 1/day, third highest spell level 3/day or Recharge time (1d4+1 rounds). Saving Throw DCs are always 1/2 HD + Ability modifier. (Take care with spells that become unbalanced this way, for example Hold Person is equivalent to Hold Monster against most PCs.)

Yep. Something like that would likely work. I myself would probably just do it based on Type (but again, compress the Types so their aren't that many).

 

[Grazzt]

Knowing the gaming community? I think we won't have to wait long for people to complain about 4e stat blocks that don't conform to the guidelines in the 4e DMG either.
The types of people who complained about mistakes in 3e stat blocks aren't likely to change because of an edition change.

If it was 3.x stat blocks, it wouldn't take long for someone to shred it based on 'wrong math'. 4e somewhat gets a pass because it says straight up in the DMG feel free to tweak things such as AC, defenses, etc from the base numbers.

Since attack bonuses, AC, defenses are kinda free, about all that one could raise a complaint about would be Skills (though any variation could simply be chalked up as a racial bonus that isnt mentioned; I think the minotaur has this actually), Ability Bonuses, and maybe Hit Points.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Please, no "roles." Bleh.

What's wrong with them? What is the advantage of using types as base?

Or are you looking at a third option? (Maybe something more "shapeable" like a 3E Fighter or Rogue or Wizard. A certain mechanical focus but a variety of directions, focusing on damage dealing, defense, area effects, illusions or-what-you-have)?

I think using types is ... flawed. Why should all Outsiders be good warriors (BAB = HD) - what if an Outsider focuses on spellcasting? Where did he "learn" or "evolve" that BAB? Why shouldn't a hunting animal not have a high BAB?

Using Roles (determine what they focus on in combat) works pretty well from a pure combat balance perspective. Basically it's a "what does this monster do in combat"

But one could also ask "how" monsters do whatever they do - do they use spells? Do they use weapons? Do they mix both? That is at least closest to what 3E classes work, and I think whatever concept you use to define classes should also be used to define monsters.

 

[Voadam]

I am not entirely convinced it is _that_ easy. You still want values that work with the "power balance" of PCs vs NPCs. And... well, that balance is all over the place. There is no straightforward HD = CR formula, and that's something one would hope to gain from such a system, wouldn't one?

Pathfinder Beta page 294 Chart 12-7 Suggested monster HD by monster type to CR chart.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Rework CR. Or do away with it entirely. It never was a concrete system anyway. Even WotC admitted as much a long time ago. Assign static XP to monsters (as the variant rule in UA) and build encounters based on XP totals (like 4e does).

You might not need CR, but you want to have some measure of "combat power" or "threat level". You need something telling you "this is a good monster for level 5 characters". And this measurement better be a little more then just a guess in a +/- 4 levels range. I mean, what are you earning XP for? For the fact that you meet a new, bizarre monster, or that you figure out how to deal with it? If the latter, shouldn't this be based on how difficult it is to deal with it?


Ah, I notice one other thing: Roles have one further advantage: They tell you what the strength and the weaknesses of a monster are. This makes DMing easier, but it also makes the "level" number better to evaluate when you have a non-standard group. For example, a group of 2 wizards, a sorcerer and a Cleric will find certain monsters harder (or easier) then others. Roles can give you a good indicator on what it is.

 

[Voadam]

But to truly streamline, PF should take a page from 4e. Set monsters up based on role/class, if ya have to, or just use Type to determine BAB, hp, saves, etc. Streamline the formulas...like Outsiders: BAB = HD + 3...or whatever.

Pathfinder Beta page 294 Chart 12-6 Monster statistics by CR. Combine with chart 12-7 directly below it for how many HD by type to get a certain CR.