Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?

[Ahnehnois]

Well, we certainly have "race and class" structures, but I don't think a dragon, a troll, a succubus, a ghoul or a gelatinous cube is reasonably considered to have been "built using the PC rules".

At least in the Savage Species paradigm (which I would call an innovative, if poorly written book), monsters can specifically be seen as classes. With a monster class, you do have some different parameters from the PC classes are designed, but also a lot of it is the same.

Your typical garden variety MM monster becomes one that has maxed out its original class (and can multiclass to become a shaman or whatever else).

Now if you're saying that they're not 100% the same, that's true, largely because of how LA works but also a few other things. Making it all truly one platform would be the next iterative step, and that would be innovative.

 

[Hussar]

Well, we certainly have "race and class" structures, but I don't think a dragon, a troll, a succubus, a ghoul or a gelatinous cube is reasonably considered to have been "built using the PC rules". Similarly, point buy games tend not to constrain the adversaries to the same build limits as the PC's, so do they really build NPC's exactly as PC's?

I also cannot think of any class-based game that would build all the monsters as classes. Maybe we could have made that jump instead of dividing race and class way back (Orc as a class, for example), but that ship has long since sailed. Squeezing monsters into "class level equivalents" has never worked that well all round.

Was the innovation (if there was one) 3e deciding you could add levels of Cleric to Goblins (pretty sure we had humanoid shamans before 3e, just not as clearly linked to the PC class rules), or whoever first decided we could have a Lich who is a Cleric, or even a different level Wizard than the standard?

Umm, look at the http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm rules. How is that not a class system ported directly for monsters? Demons are build as a "class" with each hit die representing a level. It determines their skill limits, hit points, advancement for abilities, and a host of other elements. Every single demon (for example) is built in exactly the same way.

 

[Jester David]

Umm, look at the http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm rules. How is that not a class system ported directly for monsters? Demons are build as a "class" with each hit die representing a level. It determines their skill limits, hit points, advancement for abilities, and a host of other elements. Every single demon (for example) is built in exactly the same way.

Hit Dice are only half a level. Most monster HD are like adding NPC class levels, which is not a lot of power.

 

[Hussar]

Hit Dice are only half a level. Most monster HD are like adding NPC class levels, which is not a lot of power.

Where does that come from? I've never seen that concept before. ((Totally not snark. Just never seen that before)).

But, even if the HD are like adding NPC class levels, the point still remains. It's a level system for building monsters, which you generally never saw in a class/level system before. Doesn't really matter how powerful the individual levels are, it's the fact that Monster X has Y BAB, Skills, and Saves because it has Z HD in it's Type Class. A Vrock has the skill points it has because it has been built from the ground up as an outsider with it's HD. Another outsider, with the same HD, will have the same BAB and saves and skill points.

 

[Jester David]

Where does that come from? I've never seen that concept before. ((Totally not snark. Just never seen that before)).

But, even if the HD are like adding NPC class levels, the point still remains. It's a level system for building monsters, which you generally never saw in a class/level system before. Doesn't really matter how powerful the individual levels are, it's the fact that Monster X has Y BAB, Skills, and Saves because it has Z HD in it's Type Class. A Vrock has the skill points it has because it has been built from the ground up as an outsider with it's HD. Another outsider, with the same HD, will have the same BAB and saves and skill points.

It's not stated, it's just a pet peeve with the Level Adjustment/Effective Character Level sub-system. As you add HD + LA to get ECL but just HD are akin to NPC classes which are inferior to PC class levels. So it's a little awkward to just say "monsters are build like classes"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which is why Monte Cook used full-on, full powered racial class levels in his Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So it's a little awkward to just say "monsters are build like classes"

It is. Monsters are built using the same tools as classed characters, but not necessarily balanced in the same way.

 

[Hussar]

It is. Monsters are built using the same tools as classed characters, but not necessarily balanced in the same way.

For the novelty of it, I agree with Ahn here. Heck, wasn't this one of the major selling points of 3e that everything is built using the same rules?

 

[Wicht]

For the novelty of it, I agree with Ahn here.

Ahh! Cats and Dogs, living together!

 

[Emerikol]

That was the real point - while some RPGs may be designed for a single agenda, I don't think you'll find many such any more. Heck, I personally think you'd have a hard time proving that Gygaxian D&D was created to serve only one agenda. And these days where the internet gives designers a great deal of feedback on what the market wants (which is decidedly mixed), and games are often built by teams, rather than by individuals with a focused bias, games are even less focused on just one aspect.

And, by the way, I think that's a good thing. For pretty much any Forgist agenda, if you really wanted to serve just one, an RPG would not be the best way to serve it. I think RPGs are, by their nature, mixed.

I'm not that big a forge guy but I believe the following about agenda is true.
Agenda just means the order you prioritize and does not mean a game lacks
any aspect of the others. It just means when a conflict arises in game design
which agenda wins. So it is my belief that not having and agenda will create
a game that is dissonant for everybody.

When I think of agendas I use these words which probably means I'm
totally wrong per the forge.

the World vs the Game vs the Story

My priority goes from left to right. That is why I say im a Simulationist.
I'm not simulating anything though. I just want narrative mechanical
unity. I'm immersion sensitive.