"Stealing" ideas from 4E


Alpha Playtest Feedback General Discussion

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

There are some things in 3.5 I've never liked, and seem to have been fixed in 4E. Now, I'm not a big fan of 4E on the whole, but it did make some changes that may be worth "stealing" for Pathfinder. I haven't gone through Pathfinder completely so I can't make a full list of things I'd like to see "stolen", but some examples would be:

For races I think that negative racial ability modifiers should be removed, and the number of racial special abilities should be reduced. I also think gnomes and half-orcs should not be player races, and halflings should be taller, but those are more personal preferences that I can deal with in my campaigns.

For spellcasters I think the number of spells spellcasters get (especially wizards and sorcerers) should be reduced, and a lot of spells should either be reduced in power or removed completely. I'm sick of wizards being able to use spells to do things fighters and rogues can do, and do them 100x better than fighters and rogues can (who needs a skill to pick locks when the wizard can just cast a spell?). Or, better yet, make a completely new magic system that makes major spellcasters more balanced with non-spellcasters. The magic system from Monte Cook's D20 World of Darkness would be very interesting.

I haven't seen how Pathfinder deals with multiclassing but if it still exists in Pathfinder it should be removed. multiclassing is way more trouble than it's worth.

It might also be worth looking at games like True 20 and Mutants & Masterminds to see if there's anything they have that can be adapted for use in Pathfinder. If paizo took all the best parts of pathfinder, 4E, M&M/True 20, and some other D20 variants and mixed in some new stuff of their own I think they'd be able to make the best version of D&D ever.


Shad0wdrag0n wrote:

There are some things in 3.5 I've never liked, and seem to have been fixed in 4E. Now, I'm not a big fan of 4E on the whole, but it did make some changes that may be worth "stealing" for Pathfinder. I haven't gone through Pathfinder completely so I can't make a full list of things I'd like to see "stolen", but some examples would be:

For races I think that negative racial ability modifiers should be removed, and the number of racial special abilities should be reduced. I also think gnomes and half-orcs should not be player races, and halflings should be taller, but those are more personal preferences that I can deal with in my campaigns.

For spellcasters I think the number of spells spellcasters get (especially wizards and sorcerers) should be reduced, and a lot of spells should either be reduced in power or removed completely. I'm sick of wizards being able to use spells to do things fighters and rogues can do, and do them 100x better than fighters and rogues can (who needs a skill to pick locks when the wizard can just cast a spell?). Or, better yet, make a completely new magic system that makes major spellcasters more balanced with non-spellcasters. The magic system from Monte Cook's D20 World of Darkness would be very interesting.

I haven't seen how Pathfinder deals with multiclassing but if it still exists in Pathfinder it should be removed. multiclassing is way more trouble than it's worth.

It might also be worth looking at games like True 20 and Mutants & Masterminds to see if there's anything they have that can be adapted for use in Pathfinder. If paizo took all the best parts of pathfinder, 4E, M&M/True 20, and some other D20 variants and mixed in some new stuff of their own I think they'd be able to make the best version of D&D ever.

blinks. I have to say that while I've seen a few useful things in 4th ed, none of them are on your list. Actually many of the things I feel make 4th ed not feel at all like D&D, but rather some new game altogether are on your list.

Liberty's Edge

I agree with Stonechild. These are the worst things about 4e, in my opinion. Also, they would kill backward compatibility, which is a major design goal.


Shad0wdrag0n wrote:


For spellcasters I think the number of spells spellcasters get (especially wizards and sorcerers) should be reduced, and a lot of spells should either be reduced in power or removed completely. I'm sick of wizards being able to use spells to do things fighters and rogues can do, and do them 100x better than fighters and rogues can (who needs a skill to pick locks when the wizard can just cast a spell?). Or, better yet, make a completely new magic system that makes major spellcasters more balanced with non-spellcasters. The magic system from Monte Cook's D20 World of Darkness would be very interesting.

Then that's exactly what YOU need to do for YOUR game. Not Pathfinder doing it for the whole system. SUre a wizard can pick a lock with a spell better than a thief...as long as they have it memorized enough times to do it every time the party needs it.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
I haven't seen how Pathfinder deals with multiclassing but if it still exists in Pathfinder it should be removed. multiclassing is way more trouble than it's worth.

Are you talking as a player or a DM?

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
It might also be worth looking at games like True 20 and Mutants & Masterminds to see if there's anything they have that can be adapted for use in Pathfinder. If paizo took all the best parts of pathfinder, 4E, M&M/True 20, and some other D20 variants and mixed in some new stuff of their own I think they'd be able to make the best version of D&D ever.

And then Patfinder can look like the gamesystems that didn't sell as well a 3.5 D&D. But on the bright side, PFRPG being 3.5 OGl means that you can combine all of this 3PP stuff into you home game...(Unless they all go 4E).


If Pathfinder is going to be so obsessed with backwards compatibility then why bother making Pathfinder at all? Here I thought I was finally going to get a version of 3.x with all the problems fixed. This is the perfect opportunity to make classes like druids and wizards more balanced and not the overpowered juggernauts they are in 3.x, and make it so racial abilities don't pidgeonhole races into specific classes, and finally remove all the problems of multiclassing (from both a DM and player's point of view), and fix all the other numerous problems 3.x has. Wizards tried to fix most of these problems with 4E, unfortunately the game as a whole really fell short. I'm sure that if paizo just gave up this silly notion of keeping Pathfinder so "backwards compatible" they could make the ultimate version of D&D.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
If Pathfinder is going to be so obsessed with backwards compatibility then why bother making Pathfinder at all?

Because Paizo wants a rule set that's on the shelf to publish material for.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
I'm sure that if paizo just gave up this silly notion of keeping Pathfinder so "backwards compatible" they could make the ultimate version of D&D.

I'm sure you'd be wrong. Customer's support Paizo because Paizo is willing to support the 3e line. They didn't want to trash their entire collection BEFORE 4e came out and they still don't. The moment it becomes it's own edition is the moment Paizo loses the people that don't want a completely new edition.

3P is what 3.5 was to 3.0. Nothing more.


I think pathfinder is doing a good job of 'fixing' the 3.5 problems. And they have an entire year(and thousands of helpers) to fine tune it. I think if you want all the changes you have suggested, then 4th might be the better game for you.


[Insert Neat Username Here] wrote:
I agree with Stonechild. These are the worst things about 4e, in my opinion. Also, they would kill backward compatibility, which is a major design goal.

The backward compatibility is something of a myth, anyway. To run any 3E adventure with Pathfinder, for example, you would have to go through it adjusting any monsters with class levels, not to mention the fact that the hit point bonus at 1st level skews challenge ratings. It's certainly easier than converting a 3E adventure to 4E, but still involves some work.

Liberty's Edge

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
Wizards tried to fix most of these problems with 4E, unfortunately the game as a whole really fell short.

And yet you're asking Paizo to imitate them.

Keoki wrote:
[Insert Neat Username Here] wrote:
I agree with Stonechild. These are the worst things about 4e, in my opinion. Also, they would kill backward compatibility, which is a major design goal.
The backward compatibility is something of a myth, anyway. To run any 3E adventure with Pathfinder, for example, you would have to go through it adjusting any monsters with class levels, not to mention the fact that the hit point bonus at 1st level skews challenge ratings. It's certainly easier than converting a 3E adventure to 4E, but still involves some work.

True, but that's no reason to make it even worse.


Shad0wdrag0n wrote:


For races I think that negative racial ability modifiers should be removed, and the number of racial special abilities should be reduced. I also think gnomes and half-orcs should not be player races, and halflings should be taller, but those are more personal preferences that I can deal with in my campaigns.

For spellcasters I think the number of spells spellcasters get (especially wizards and sorcerers) should be reduced, and a lot of spells should either be reduced in power or removed completely. I'm sick of wizards being able to use spells to do things fighters and rogues can do, and do them 100x better than fighters and rogues can (who needs a skill to pick locks when the wizard can just cast a spell?). Or, better yet, make a completely new magic system that makes major spellcasters more balanced with non-spellcasters. The magic system from Monte Cook's D20 World of Darkness would be very interesting.

I haven't seen how Pathfinder deals with multiclassing but if it still exists in Pathfinder it should be removed. multiclassing is way more trouble than it's worth.

I like negative racial modifiers. Doesn't make sense that every race can only be defined in traits that they have that are better than average, in my view. I like the idea that you also give up points in areas where the race is below average.

Reducing spells is a bad idea. If you don't want to use them all, then don't use them. Why take options away from everyone?

Removing multi-classing is a bad idea. If you don't want to use it, then don't use it. Why take the option away from everyone?


why hate gnomes?
gnomes are cool, and useful. If you don't like gnomes then you've just never seen them used properly.


Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
For races I think that negative racial ability modifiers should be removed, and the number of racial special abilities should be reduced. I also think gnomes and half-orcs should not be player races, and halflings should be taller, but those are more personal preferences that I can deal with in my campaigns.

Question: do you have any non-core races in your campaigns?

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
For spellcasters I think the number of spells spellcasters get (especially wizards and sorcerers) should be reduced, and a lot of spells should either be reduced in power or removed completely. I'm sick of wizards being able to use spells to do things fighters and rogues can do, and do them 100x better than fighters and rogues can (who needs a skill to pick locks when the wizard can just cast a spell?).

The number wizards get is, due to the Vancian system, not as important as the number they can prepare. The number sorcerers get is not as important as the number they can learn.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
Or, better yet, make a completely new magic system that makes major spellcasters more balanced with non-spellcasters. The magic system from Monte Cook's D20 World of Darkness would be very interesting.

Balance is good from a game perspective. I'm not knocking balance. Yet at the same time, I can't think of any fantasy source where wizards (real wizards, spellcasters) are not considerably more powerful than warriors. It's part of the genre. I can live with that in my games (in fact, I prefer it that way - but I do make sure there are some checks and balances in play in terms of casters being obvious targets).

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
I haven't seen how Pathfinder deals with multiclassing but if it still exists in Pathfinder it should be removed. multiclassing is way more trouble than it's worth.

Actually, it's way less trouble than it's worth. That's the problem. One of the goals of Pathfinder is to make staying the course in a single class more appealing, without removing the option to multiclass altogether.

Personally I'd like a system where you can merge parts of classes, like the apprentice rules from the 3.0 DMG. I have such a system for myself, but incorporating it in Pathfinder would remove the system too far from 3E.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:

It might also be worth looking at games like True 20 and Mutants & Masterminds to see if there's anything they have that can be adapted for use in Pathfinder. If paizo took all the best parts of pathfinder, 4E, M&M/True 20, and some other D20 variants and mixed in some new stuff of their own I think they'd be able to make the best version of D&D ever.

SirUrza wrote:
Customer's support Paizo because Paizo is willing to support the 3e line. They didn't want to trash their entire collection BEFORE 4e came out and they still don't. The moment it becomes it's own edition is the moment Paizo loses the people that don't want a completely new edition.

QFT. Paizo can't compete with WotC and 4E if they bring out a product that virtually has to start from scratch in terms of support. Paizo can make an acceptable profit by providing continued support for 3E. All the better if they can improve on the ruleset while doing so, but the moment using your old 3E books becomes more of a hassle than it's worth the whole thing goes down the crapper.


Shad0wdrag0n wrote:

There are some things in 3.5 I've never liked, and seem to have been fixed in 4E. Now, I'm not a big fan of 4E on the whole, but it did make some changes that may be worth "stealing" for Pathfinder. I haven't gone through Pathfinder completely so I can't make a full list of things I'd like to see "stolen", but some examples would be:

For races I think that negative racial ability modifiers should be removed, and the number of racial special abilities should be reduced. I also think gnomes and half-orcs should not be player races, and halflings should be taller, but those are more personal preferences that I can deal with in my campaigns.

I'm on the fence on the removal of negative modifiers. Sure, flavorwise, it makes sense for races like half-orcs to be dumber than the others. OTOH, penalties make some race/class combinations a lot less playable, which can get in the way of interesting characters and stories. And it really doesn't matter what races are listed in the core book, as long as options for converting low-HD races are in the monster book.

the dragon wrote:
For spellcasters I think the number of spells spellcasters get (especially wizards and sorcerers) should be reduced, and a lot of spells should either be reduced in power or removed completely. I'm sick of wizards being able to use spells to do things fighters and rogues can do, and do them 100x better than fighters and rogues can (who needs a skill to pick locks when the wizard can just cast a spell?). Or, better yet, make a completely new magic system that makes major spellcasters more balanced with non-spellcasters. The magic system from Monte Cook's D20 World of Darkness would be very interesting.

Actually, in 4e, wizards only get fewer spells at high levels. At low levels, they get an encounter spell and a daily spell, as well as 2-3 at-wills. I actually like the idea of nerfing the pure casters (particularly wizards, druids, and clerics) in Pathfinder because it's more backward-compatible than giving fighters a new spell-like mechanic (another legitimate way to balance them). Alpha 3 has actually nerfed several high-level wizard spells, BTW. I suspect this item on your list will take a lot more abuse than it deserves on this forum. Really, there's nothing wrong with the idea of giving fighters and wizards abilities with a similar use frequency; 4e just did it badly.

the guy with the zeroes in his name wrote:
I haven't seen how Pathfinder deals with multiclassing but if it still exists in Pathfinder it should be removed. multiclassing is way more trouble than it's worth.

I assume that multiclassing in Pathfinder works the same as in 3.x. Really, the reason WotC removed multiclassing as we know it from 4e isn't that such multiclassing is bad. It's just that they can't or won't design classes and PrCs with the fact that players can switch out of a class any time in mind.

the OP wrote:
It might also be worth looking at games like True 20 and Mutants & Masterminds to see if there's anything they have that can be adapted for use in Pathfinder. If paizo took all the best parts of pathfinder, 4E, M&M/True 20, and some other D20 variants and mixed in some new stuff of their own I think they'd be able to make the best version of D&D ever.

Adopting really major parts of these other systems would completely screw the maximum backward compatibility design goal. However, looking at some minor rules that are OGC might make a better game without throwing out backward compatibility.


Heres the problem - and I believe several others have said pretty much the same - while there are things ALL of us would like to see changed in 3P, and I'm sure most of us could make a list of things worth stealing from 4e (or other games) - we'd all have a DIFFERENT LIST.

Anything beyond a few tweaks to the existing material Paizo does to please one group will start alienating another.

In order to understand what is going on here, you must understand the basic premise - Paizo is NOT creating a new game - they're sprucing up the old one so we can continue playing with the system we already own and have invested tons of money in.

Thats why some folks refer to pathfinder as 3.75 - its the same old game with a few new tricks up its sleave. Unlike WotC, Paizo understands its target audience, and that audience doesn't want a different game - for the people who crave something new and different there is 4e.


Although I agree with the backward compatibility approach to some extend (Read: I agree with it, but you have to house rule out the same crap you had to in 3.5) there are some improvements in 4E which would I would like to see in pathfinder, but I could live without if it would be more likely to alienate a lot of players and thus make Pathfinder less likely to succeed.

Still we can also houserule those ourselves:

E.g: Saving throws:

- Your will Defense is your will saving throw + 10.
- The attacker throws D20 + spell level + ability modifier


Rob Vermeulen wrote:
Still we can also houserule those ourselves...

That's the thing. Many houserules and 4E changes consist of making things simpler: removing rolls from saves, for instance, or consolidating skills and doing away with the rank system.

Now simple is definitely good, but sometimes some of us prefer a little more complexity. And here's the rub: it's easier to houserule from complex to simple than vice versa. It's easier to merge skills if you have a bunch of them than it is to split them out if you feel the few skills you have are too broad, for instance.

Because of that, I'm not too keen on the idea of Pathfinder rules changes designed to make things simpler. If Paizo wants to invest time and effort in those things, I'd prefer to see them published separately from the core book, as suggestions rather than as RAW. More importantly, I prefer to see time and effort invested in dealing with actual problem issues.


Shad0wdrag0n wrote:


For races I think that negative racial ability modifiers should be removed

No. Life's not a bed of roses. 4e's obsession with removing anything negative, so the special kids don't get sad or something, is disturbing.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:


I also think gnomes and half-orcs should not be player races

Why not?

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:


but those are more personal preferences that I can deal with in my campaigns.

Good. You see that it's quite easy to get what you want without piddling in everyone's soup. Too bad some people don't, and wizards panders to them.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:


For spellcasters I think the number of spells spellcasters get (especially wizards and sorcerers) should be reduced

So you want to reduce their staying power even more? And those who need thir spells most, you want to hid hardest? You a cleric fanboy in disguise? ;-P

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
I'm sick of wizards being able to use spells to do things fighters and rogues can do, and do them 100x better than fighters and rogues can (who needs a skill to pick locks when the wizard can just cast a spell?).

I know that while wizards can do some rogue stuff with their spells - a couple of times per day, the rogues can do more of them, they can do it all the time, and they can sneak attack.

As for fighters: wizards can't even get near a fighter's pure martial power.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
Or, better yet, make a completely new magic system that makes major spellcasters more balanced with non-spellcasters. The magic system from Monte Cook's D20 World of Darkness would be very interesting.

Nope. If it's D&D, it's Vancian Spellcasting. Everything else is just imposters.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:


I haven't seen how Pathfinder deals with multiclassing but if it still exists in Pathfinder it should be removed. multiclassing is way more trouble than it's worth.

Then don't use it. It's as easy as that. Remember what I said about not piddling in other people's soup.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:


It might also be worth looking at games like True 20 and Mutants & Masterminds to see if there's anything they have that can be adapted for use in Pathfinder. If paizo took all the best parts of pathfinder, 4E, M&M/True 20, and some other D20 variants and mixed in some new stuff of their own I think they'd be able to make the best version of D&D ever.

Remember that this is not going to be a new edition. It's another revision of third edition.


Keoki wrote:


The backward compatibility is something of a myth, anyway. To run any 3E adventure with Pathfinder, for example, you would have to go through it adjusting any monsters with class levels, not to mention the fact that the hit point bonus at 1st level skews challenge ratings.

What hit point bonus?

Anyway, it's a lot less difficult than you think. It's no problem just running the stuff as written (any changes you think are really necessary can be done on the fly), and the quick-and-dirty conversion can also be quite fast. All of that won't take much time, and if you don't do anything at all (which takes even less time), it won't shatter balance, either.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
If Pathfinder is going to be so obsessed with backwards compatibility then why bother making Pathfinder at all?

Because 3.5 is going off the shelves.

Plus, they can fix lots of things without turning this into a new edition.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:


and make it so racial abilities don't pidgeonhole races into specific classes

No one is being pigeonholed into anything. Some choices might be suboptimal, but far from impossible - you just have to accept that the character won't be the cookie-cutter variety. I've been told that more unusual character concepts can be very interesting to play.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:


and finally remove all the problems of multiclassing (from both a DM and player's point of view)

You don't wantt o remove the problems, you want to remove multiclassing. There's a difference.

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
I'm sure that if paizo just gave up this silly notion of keeping Pathfinder so "backwards compatible" they could make the ultimate version of D&D.

A lot of people like 3e. Paizo wants them as customers. The appeal to this is that you can still use all those books that you have been buying for the last 8 years.

I'm sure that several years down the road, when most agree that 3.5 has had its day, Paizo will create a new edition - one that still cleaves to D&D's ideals and concepts, and history. But that time has not yet come.

Dark Archive

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
I'm sure that if paizo just gave up this silly notion of keeping Pathfinder so "backwards compatible" they could make the ultimate version of D&D.

I'm pretty sure calling someone's attempt to streamline and clean up 3.5 (while maintaining the identity of a d20 system - a monumental effort) "silly" isn't really nice. Not to mention a great way to get people to take what you say seriously.


KaeYoss wrote:
Everything KaeYoss said.

Amen man!

The Exchange

I suppose if you got rid of half-orcs and gnomes it would be D&D Cyclopedia (aka D&D 1984)...while I enjoyed a gnome free game for many decades, I overcame the need for it with D&D 3.0.


Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
I'm sure that if paizo just gave up this silly notion of keeping Pathfinder so "backwards compatible" they could make the ultimate version of D&D.

Heh. That's exactly what WotC said. Look what they came up with.


Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
There are some things in 3.5 I've never liked, and seem to have been fixed in 4E. Now, I'm not a big fan of 4E on the whole, but it did make some changes that may be worth "stealing" for Pathfinder...

The thing I find humorous about this post is that Shad0wdrag0n chose to list some of the things that was the most critizised when 4th was announced. I think it's safe to say that the majority of Paizos customers want races as the are (more or less), they want vancian magic, and they want multiclassing (and prestigeclasses to go with).

Besides, the first and third are easily houserule. And the magic thing... Well if you liked Monte Cooks D20 WoD then perhaps you can adopt that one.


Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
Well if you liked Monte Cooks D20 WoD then perhaps you can adopt that one.

I would love it if pathfinder could do an optional non-vancian magical system like McWOD's system which is quite good. The vancian magic system was always one of the things I liked least in D&D through all of its incarnations.


Christopher DeGraffenreid wrote:
Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
Well if you liked Monte Cooks D20 WoD then perhaps you can adopt that one.
I would love it if pathfinder could do an optional non-vancian magical system like McWOD's system

Since systems like that are quite big, I doubt that they'll be in the core book. They might do a book of variant rules (Unearthed Arcana style) and have something in there.

Scarab Sages

stonechild wrote:
blinks. I have to say that while I've seen a few useful things in 4th ed, none of them are on your list. Actually many of the things I feel make 4th ed not feel at all like D&D, but rather some new game altogether are on your...

Agreement here. If you're into variants of the d20 system, I encourage you to build (or buy) your own "Arcana Unearthed" or "MCWoD", so to speak, but Pathfinder going too far away from core D&D would be a huge tactical design mistake, IMO.

The Exchange

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
I'm not a big fan of 4E on the whole, but it did make some changes that may be worth "stealing" for Pathfinder.

I am not sure if stealing from 4th Edition would sit well with WotC. I am sure you are thinking about "round about" cloning of ideas. I have yet to get the books, but I am fairly curious as to their "ideas" for making high level play enjoyable/playable. I forget if they called 20th + as Legendary level play, but I think that is what it was.

I am a fairly big fan of epic characters, quests and the like. I would not consider running such a thing in D&D 3.5 however, because I would have to be some kind of a genius who knows the system inside and out. I hope PathfinderRPG can find a way of mainstreaming epic play for even the dumbest of DMs, as opposed to satisfying the rules smart 3.5 epic minority that has minor quibbles.

I think 4th Edition did try to make Epic Play a possibility, and I would like to see if they succeeded.

Cheers,
Zuxius


Zuxius wrote:


I think 4th Edition did try to make Epic Play a possibility, and I would like to see if they succeeded.

I don't know. If the difference is a couple points of damage and the ability to wear another ring, I don't see how that's supposed to feel like Epic Play.


After looking at 4e for a third time, I've decided that they are the PERFECT set of rules... for a 'supers' game. I've even told them they should got that route over on their boards. I'd play that... but I won't use their rules for fantasy. They sucked all the flavor out of magic...

And I HATE the Vancian system, and yet I still won't use what 4e came up with in its place. I've tried dozens of alternates, but have always come back to the Vancian system because its so well-balanced (people always find ways to abuse point-based systems, for some reason).

Anyhow, I'll have to check-out Monte's WoD - Thanks for the heads up. I'll be playing Pathfinder from now on, but I'll still be keeping my eyes open for alternate magic systems.

I thought the only thing really worth stealing from 4e was the way the monsters scale to encounters... just by adding a 'prefix' (Abyssal, Dire, Primordial, etc) to the name and adjusting some stats upwards, we have wolves, skeletons, Orcs, etc.. to give our players a decent fight at any level.

Then I realized that that was how WoW handles cretures. Just a couple dozen 'frames' with new skins attached.

I also really liked the new take on the Cosmology... until I realized THAT was lifted wholesale from the Scarredlands.

So unless they do a 'Supers' game, WotC has lost me as a customer - if I wanted to play a MORPG, I'd log onto my WoW account and enjoy all the eye-candy I DON'T get from D&D. WotC has actually managed to combine the two WORST aspects of both forms of RPGing into one game - lack of visuals and repetive play. I don't mind sacrificing one when I'm in the mood for the other, but why would I give up BOTH when other options are available?

The Exchange

Wow, you really dislike 4th Edition, welcome!

Cheers,
Zuxius

Shadow Lodge

Keoki wrote:
The backward compatibility is something of a myth, anyway. To run any 3E adventure with Pathfinder, for example, you would have to go through it adjusting any monsters with class levels, not to mention the fact that the hit point bonus at 1st level skews challenge ratings. It's certainly easier than converting a 3E adventure to 4E, but still involves some work.

Speaking from experience, this is also a myth. The amount of time I need to spend adjusting an adventure (a 3.0 adventure at that) compared to the amount of time I spend just reading and preparing for the adventure is minimal. A significant encounter with hobgoblins including their hobgoblin barbarian leader, goblin sorcerer, and half-orc cleric took about an hour to adjust to the Pathfinder system. That hour was part of the hour I was already spending getting their stat blocks written down in my little initiative system.

The Pathfinder adjustments actually in real-world application require extraordinarily minimal prep-work. I was blown away actually. I already can do skills on the fly quite easily using 3.0 (or 3.5) stat blocks, so I figure with a little experience I should be able to do the majority of the conversion on the fly; it was that easy.


There's one thing in 4E that might be worth looking at using in the PfRPG (though I wouldn't call it stealing): the minor action. It looks as though it would make opening a door/pulling out a wand in combat a lot smoother.

Shadow Lodge

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
There are some things in 3.5 I've never liked, and seem to have been fixed in 4E. Now, I'm not a big fan of 4E on the whole, but it did make some changes that may be worth "stealing" for Pathfinder. I haven't gone through Pathfinder completely so I can't make a full list of things I'd like to see "stolen", but some examples would be:

So I'll speak to the dragon sitting in the middle of the room.

Since the OP outlined pretty much every MAJOR complaint that even people that mostly like 4E dislike about 4E, could it be entirely possible that the original 4-post poster was just trying to troll and start an all-out flame war?

The one that got me was:

Shad0wdrag0n wrote:
I also think gnomes and half-orcs should not be player races, and halflings should be taller, but those are more personal preferences that I can deal with in my campaigns.

For the simple reason that it's so "out there" as a request, it makes the whole thing feel like a bad joke.


MarkusTay wrote:


And I HATE the Vancian system, and yet I still won't use what 4e came up with in its place. I've tried dozens of alternates, but have always come back to the Vancian system because its so well-balanced (people always find ways to abuse point-based systems, for some reason).

Anyhow, I'll have to check-out Monte's WoD - Thanks for the heads up. I'll be playing Pathfinder from now on, but I'll still be keeping my eyes open for alternate magic systems.

Note that McWoD also has a point system of sorts - you have a certain amount of points (they recharge at 5% per hour as far as I know) and create your spells with options that cost points. Note that in McWoD, all the options are open to the Mage as long as he can afford them. You don't have to go and decide which components you learn or anything.

Beyond that, there are rote spells, which are premade and are a bit easier to cast - especially those your Mage "school" is specialised in.

MarkusTay wrote:


I thought the only thing really worth stealing from 4e was the way the monsters scale to encounters... just by adding a 'prefix' (Abyssal, Dire, Primordial, etc) to the name and adjusting some stats upwards, we have wolves, skeletons, Orcs, etc.. to give our players a decent fight at any level.

Sounds suspiciously like templates.

MarkusTay wrote:


WotC has actually managed to combine the two WORST aspects of both forms of RPGing into one game - lack of visuals and repetive play. I don't mind sacrificing one when I'm in the mood for the other, but why would I give up BOTH when other options are available?

Exactly. They could have tried to get the best of both worlds, but they did it the other way around. While 4e does have more freedom than WoW (or so I guess), it's not nearly enough to warrant using the lesser-established system (i.e. 4e), as it is not even close to 3e. And while it may be easier and faster than 3e, WoW is a lot faster still, as the computer will take care of all the rolls and calculations.

Shadow Lodge

KaeYoss wrote:
Exactly. They could have tried to get the best of both worlds, but they did it the other way around. While 4e does have more freedom than WoW (or so I guess), it's not nearly enough to warrant using the lesser-established system (i.e. 4e), as it is not even close to 3e. And while it may be easier and faster than 3e, WoW is a lot faster still, as the computer will take care of all the rolls and calculations

You've never gone through the herding of cats that is a raid have you? WoW's faster in processing speed, you still have to spend 30 minutes waiting for the cleric to decide what spells to take (proverbially of course).


KaeYoss wrote:
I'm sure that several years down the road, when most agree that 3.5 has had its day, Paizo will create a new edition -...

I can only hope this prediction comes true.

At this point, I'd be happier if Paizo owned the rights to D&D.


Keoki wrote:
The backward compatibility is something of a myth, anyway. To run any 3E adventure with Pathfinder, for example, you would have to go through it adjusting any monsters with class levels, not to mention the fact that the hit point bonus at 1st level skews challenge ratings. It's certainly easier than converting a 3E adventure to 4E, but still involves some work.

Not what I have planned. Players: 3.5 rules.. adventures 3.P rules... basically throwing my players with the rules they know at a slightly different set of rules. All behind the scenes.. sure.. some things will be harder to kill but that's about it.


ghendar wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
I'm sure that several years down the road, when most agree that 3.5 has had its day, Paizo will create a new edition -...

I can only hope this prediction comes true.

At this point, I'd be happier if Paizo owned the rights to D&D.

I think that's only the natural way of things: Sooner or later, 3e will have played itself out - it's just that for many, this moment hasn't come. Sooner or later, more players will want a new edition as there will be those who want to stick to the old.

And it's not very likely that the next wizards edition will be better - or have a less cut-throat license (in fact, I think that 5e will have no GLS or anything like that.). So Paizo will have to do the work themselves.

To tell you the truth, I suspect that Jason and the others (don't forget Monte) already have some ideas for the next idea. It wouldn't suprise me if the development is scheduled to start late 2009. It will probably run parallel to PF RPG efforts and all the other PF stuff, and will have several years of schedule development time, and at least a year of open playtest.

The Exchange

KaeYoss wrote:


To tell you the truth, I suspect that Jason and the others (don't forget Monte) already have some ideas for the next idea. It wouldn't suprise me if the development is scheduled to start late 2009. It will probably run parallel to PF RPG efforts and all the other PF stuff, and will have several years of schedule development time, and at least a year of open playtest.

NooooO Nooo NooooooOOOO Not the face!!


I really like the Disenchant Item and Enchant Item Rituals from 4e - although I dislike almost everything else about it. Here's why...

In D&D, whoever has the best magic items usually wins the encounter - period. Unfortunately this means that GMs have to hand out tons and tons of gear - or worse - allow players to sell and buy said gear like a customer at a "Wal-Mart"

I think if the Enchant Item and Disenchant Item rituals were made into general feats that anyone can use it would drastically change some of the worst things I think began with 3.0 D&D and continued into 4e.

If the players had an option to reduce unwanted magic items into magical residuum powder with the disenchant item feat. Likewise if you want to pump up an item you have to gain a new ability, use the enchant item feat and a pile of residuum powder to "pay" for the upgrade.

In one fell swoop, a large chunk of the buying and selling of magical items can be removed from the game - which for some old-school GMs is a Good thing. Sometimes it doesn't make sense that people will buy and sell magic items - and in this way its replaced (somewhat) by a trade in Residuum Powder. Since any item can be enchanted with it, and any enchantment can be added (unless the GM limits it in some way), it is in some ways more valuable than other objects. Now this could be a problem, but for some, its less of a problem than buying and selling any item you want as long as you have the gold

Scarab Sages

Keoki wrote:


The backward compatibility is something of a myth, anyway. To run any 3E adventure with Pathfinder, for example, you would have to go through it adjusting any monsters with class levels, not to mention the fact that the hit point bonus at 1st level skews challenge ratings. It's certainly easier than converting a 3E adventure to 4E, but still involves some work.

I really don't get this one. In my experience, all that's needed is subtracting one from the recommended level range on the front cover of the adventure, which I'm pretty sure I can do in my head. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

The closest thing I "stole" from 4e involves carrying capacity ... and I modified it.

Normal = Str x 10
Heavy = Str x 20
Drag/Push = Str x 40 ... as opposed to x50 - math is easier and, IMO, the weights are more realistic.

Admittedly, I'm still uncomfortable with Str x 10 (Light and Medium combined, but we'll see how it goes.)

I also have Natural 20 = Auto Hit / Auto Crit. (Using 3.5 rules on Critical damage, not 4e's.) Natural 1 = Auto Fumble. If a weapon has a critical threat range greater than 20, it's a critical assuming it hits. A confirmation role that results in a critical = Instant Kill.

Since we're on the subject, things I "stole" (or modified) from Star Wars Saga:

1. Melee/Range Damage = Add 1/2 BAB.
2. Two-handed weapons = x2 Str Mod to Damage.
3. Beginning Languages = Racial + Class. Bonus languages will be acquired through Linguistics, Feats, SAs, etc. (Make people work for the new language.)
4. Condition Track (using MAS Damage from d20 Modern as the Threshold mark.)

And things I reconstructed from d20 Modern:

1. Base Defense Bonus = Add 1/2 BAB (similar to class bonus for Modern).
2. Background = Including Paizo's Character Traits and/or Occupation. Haven't decided on the latter.
3. Reputation. Sort of. This will be more as a ploy of making a name that either boosts or hinders Cha-checks, based on the situation, but will be more sparingly gifted out in game, as associated with a class or class level. (Again, haven't play-tested it.)

I figure since I'm adopting Pathfinder at my game table, might as well make it MY game. (Or OUR game .. speaking of the players.)


No rulesystem will ever be perfect, because each and every one of us has a different idea of 'perfect' - thats why housrules will always be neccessary in games (and not just RPGs).

And I personally prefer encumberance to be based on both weight and ST, which is more realistic - a pixie with a ST 13 isn't going to be able to lift the same amount as a halfling with ST 13, and that same halfling isn't going to be able to lift what a human can with the same score. In order for that system to work, you would need to vary the ST scores of creatures WAY more then they are.

I don't mind sacrificing a little bit of realism for easy game play, but there are somethings I just can't get past (like encumberance).

Kathryn wrote:
If the players had an option to reduce unwanted magic items into magical residuum powder with the disenchant item feat. Likewise if you want to pump up an item you have to gain a new ability, use the enchant item feat and a pile of residuum powder to "pay" for the upgrade.

Play Warcraft much? <smirk>

Owen Anderson wrote:
I really don't get this one. In my experience, all that's needed is subtracting one from the recommended level range on the front cover of the adventure, which I'm pretty sure I can do in my head. ;-)

I just add a couple more creature to an encounter if they're lowbies (like zombies or goblins), or another HD or two to more 'main' villain/encounters. That pretty-much off-sets the power difference (but you're way works just as well- run PF PCs through higher-lev stuff).


Actually, when you get down to it, what the 4E system is saying about racial ability scores is that two of your scores are "normal" and the other four are subpar. It is, in a way, saying "12 is the average. Everything below 12 is 'below average'."

Liberty's Edge

Stephen Klauk wrote:
Actually, when you get down to it, what the 4E system is saying about racial ability scores is that two of your scores are "normal" and the other four are subpar. It is, in a way, saying "12 is the average. Everything below 12 is 'below average'."

This is an interesting way of looking at it.


I actually like some of the ideas in 4E, like:
- the implications that all durations are now per encounter. No more worrying about a buff running out too early. No more having to keep track of a duration of a buff.
- the idea of powers which are really actions combos.

There are some of the stuff in 4e that I think are just awful, like:
- goofy powers. Cleric and Paladins have powers heal allies by wacking someone. Buff? Wack. Or how about this: rogues are able to pick pocket once per encounter. No kidding.
- healing surges. PHB: "You can dig into your resolve and endurance to find an extra burst of vitality. In game terms, you spend a healing
surge to regain some of your lost hit points, and you focus on defending yourself." What? How?
- all minions have 1 hit point each. Its the rule. huh?
- monsters have no powers the way characters have powers. They have special abilities, but they have no flashy combination attacks like characters.
- more goofy powers. Fighters have at will powers that deal automatic damage. Cleave: you hit a target and an adjacent target takes STR mod damage. Sure Strike: you deal at least STR mod in damage, hit or miss.
- rangers are now superstars. Level 1 rangers have twin strikes which allow them 2 attacks melee or ranged. They get no damage modifier but they have hunter quarry which add +1d6 to damage, which can be improved to 1d8 with a feat. Firing squad anyone?
- wizzards are over nerfed. Enuf said about this elsewhere.

I'm wondering what they are smoking at WOTC.


RE: stealing ideas from 4e.

As I mentioned above that I like 4e powers. I posted an idea for applying them in 3e. Check here: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11265

There is also a my fix for the Vancian spell system if you are interested.


I like the new ritual rules or, at least, the concept of them. The thing that I like most about them is that anyone, of any class, who has the right skills, can use them. "Failed to pick that lock? Bust out the arcane components and come at it again from a different angle,"
fits my idea of adventuring more than, "Wait for the wizard to make everything all better - and why didn't you just let him Knock it open in the first place?"

Divinations, bindings, raising the dead - I've always imagined them as ceremonial and time consuming, so rituals work for me conceptually.

I do like the "20 equals critical, critical equals maximum damage" thing as well. It is simple, streamlined and effective. Rolling to confirm a threat and failing is a let down. Confirming but rolling low damage is depressing. I don't mind that it reduces the relative worth of scimitars, scythes, kukris and their kin. Threatening to critical over and over again just adds a second confirmation roll and a x4 multiplier just asks, again, for more dice rolling. I'd rather count on the maximum and let the next player take his turn. I like pace.

I don't like healing surges. I like Monte Cook's "grace" system a lot though. It's more cinematic and keeps the players up and fighting longer without turning the cleric into a full time healer.

I like modifiers. If the vancian spellcasting system were somehow removed, stats could just be referenced by their modifiers. Writing 12 or 13 in one box and then +1 in another is fine but a simplified "Strength: 4 Dex: 2 Con: -1 Etc: ," would save on time. We know that a +/- 2 to any stat will result in a +/- 1 modifier (hence racial mods being even numbers). Why not streamline it?

Starting hit points equal to constitution score...yeah. That works. Racial modifiers to con would be accounted for, so biggun's and lil' ones are represented well. I don't really like set increases to hit points based on level though. That means that every high level character would end up having hp totals that are far too similar, every time. That seems kind of lackluster to me.

Then there's leveled magical items. That's probably a big help to beginning DMs who don't balance things well on their own. Plus it makes the Enchant ritual simple.

All in all, I think there are plenty of things that were 'introduced' in 4E that really do streamline play. I won't actually ever play 4E again, out of my need to think for myself (sorry, couldn't resist) but it is a solid system for what it focuses on doing.

Oh, and I like the Ability Mod + 1/2 level thing. Don't really know why, but I like it.

Liberty's Edge

CharlesBrown wrote:

RE: stealing ideas from 4e.

As I mentioned above that I like 4e powers. I posted an idea for applying them in 3e. Check here: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11265

There is also a my fix for the Vancian spell system if you are interested.

Charles,

I am interested in the modifications that you made. However, the URL that you posted did not work for me. Could you verify the URL in case there have been modifications at the site refferenced and/or let me know if I need an account to get there. Barring these things could you repost the information here or start a new thread for the incorporation of these changes.

Thanks


Michelle Petry wrote:

I like the new ritual rules or, at least, the concept of them. The thing that I like most about them is that anyone, of any class, who has the right skills, can use them. "Failed to pick that lock? Bust out the arcane components and come at it again from a different angle,"

fits my idea of adventuring more than, "Wait for the wizard to make everything all better - and why didn't you just let him Knock it open in the first place?"

Rituals actually first appeared in Unearthed Arcana, by the way, so there is a system for using them in 3E already. They just weren't really fleshed out with a large number of rituals.

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / General Discussion / "Stealing" ideas from 4E All Messageboards