|The Rot Grub|
|4 people marked this as a favorite.|
I presently play and prefer Pathfinder, and I want to comment on some of the recent discussion.
For some GMs, Feats are a simpler way to present a creature because the GM already has the Feat memorized. For others, they just aren't facile in recalling the Feat's subroutine, so they need it printed on the page. And for some Feats, there are subtle wordings that have a vast effect on play. I just did some research recently preparing for a dragon encounter, and realized that Flyby Attack, when used to grapple, meant that the dragon had to end its turn where it grappled the creature, since moving a grappled creature requires a 2nd grapple check. And the answer for that is not in the Feat itself, but in the portion of the Combat chapter that deals with combat maneuvers.
However, if a GM is able to internalize the rules, then the designer need only a few words to present a lot of information.
Someone mentioned above that the Pathfinder monster design is too belabored, for example that giving a creature two battleaxes requires a minimum DEX of x and applying two-weapon fighting penalties; why not just add two battleaxes and be done with it?
I would argue that, if I were the Pathfinder GM in that situation, my FIRST concern would be asking myself "is this a fun encounter"? If I give 3x-crit battleaxes will that one-shot-kill one of my players? Given that, I ask myself what is the ACTUAL level of challenge presented to the players? Still, I like having the Pathfinder rules available to me as guidelines, first because I LIKE designing creatures from the ground up, and second it gives me some confines to work within so that if I break those confines I know I'm going into new territory.
Where the power scale ramps up as steeply as it does in Pathfinder, this danger of creating an over- or underpowered encounter becomes a trickier business. Where Bounded Accuracy is involved, there is tolerance for "error."
What I like about 5e's design philosophy is that it sheds this idea that there is a precise arithmetic to encounter design. The rules in Pathfinder gives this illusion that you can calculate the power level of a creature. But in Pathfinder, you can't exactly predict the actual level of a challenge because every party is different. Seugathis are extremely strong for CR 6 creatures for nearly all parties, but you can't chalk it up being under-CRed: if you have a party protected against mind control then they do not pose that much of a threat. (So many arguments in these forums are about "this is overpowered/underpowered" which wouldn't be an argument to begin with if we stopped pretending that everything can be strictly quantified to a specific power level.)
In 5e AND in Pathfinder, it's the GM's job ultimately to step back and gauge the power level of a creature and not slavishly assume the CR tells the whole story. What I like about 5e is that it doesn't place lots of restrictions on monster design pretending that adhering to those rules "fixes" having to step back and think how this actually plays on the table, with your specific players.