I wonder if people who self-identify as DMs are having a different set of reactions and goals for this new system than people who self-identify as players. It would seem that players have an incentive for the revised classes to have more cool stuff and more options. They only have to create one character or fix one character. It would seem that DMs would have a strong incentive to advocate for Pathfinder to fix persistent 3e design problems as simply as possible, rather than create new opportunities. They have to revise an entire world. They see the sorcerer's blood lines and see hours of work revising every last sorcerer in their world.
In short, is a lot of the arguing on these forums based on different incentives based on the poster's role?
And which group should get preference from Paizo: the DMs, who buy the modules and adventure paths, or the players, who clamor for them?
Is it possible to walk the fine line between these somewhat opposed incentives?
I DM for two different groups (one already set in Golarion, the other will be playing the Pathfinder APs in a month or so) and I am enthusiast about the changes proposed so far.
As I already use a veritable boatload of house-rules (and some of them will be kept in use, thanks to the 3.5 backwards compatibility) the relatively small added job of reworking some NPCs/creatures stats doesn't worry me - mostly is adding the CMB bonus, some feats, reworking the skills with the existing guidelines, and writing down new powers.
I'm mostly a DM as well and Pathfinder is looking right on for me. My sorcerers already use bloodlines or similar, because otherwise the class is just bland for me. My fighters already get customizations (or we just use martial adept classes). I've even modified the skill system with almost identical consolidations. These are just examples, but for me the Pathfinder RPG is taking the natural evolutionary step for d20 and implementing things I've been doing for years (bloodlines and sorcery have been in my games since Unearthed Arcana came out). I don't want the evolution that is 4e--it goes too far from what I've seen thus far. I also don't want it to remain as a static rule set with a few tweaks, and I know there are others with valid disagreement to that. So, thus far Pathfinder RPG is looking like exactly the game I want to run (if I'm not playing a whole different rule system).
As for the players, well, my folks pretty much roll with whatever I DM in d20. They expect classes that don't match the SRD right now, so Pathfinder shouldn't be much of a change for them. I don't think any of them post on this forum, however.
roguerouge wrote: I wonder if people who self-identify as DMs are having a different set of reactions and goals for this new system than people who self-identify as players. I'm sure that's true, for the reasons you mention. I myself dread the idea of having to revise every NPC I've built for a campaign I have in Rashemen. However, some changes are inevitable, and so long as Paizo works with the PCGen people to get a ruleset & conversion interface integrated, I'm mostly OK with a short list of changes. I'm NOT OK with a lengthy list of changes.
roguerouge wrote: Is it possible to walk the fine line between these somewhat opposed incentives? Sure, I think so. Make small but effective changes. Avoid making broad sweeping changes.
One of the things I did in my own campaign, similar to what Paizo did (although a different approach) was to change the bonus spell list. Instead of getting 1 bonus 1st-level spell with a stat of 12-19, you got 1 bonus for 12-15, or 2 for 16-19. In other words, you got a new bonus spell for every 4 stat points instead of 8. It turns out in PCGen this was super-easy to do -- change one little text file (statsandchecks.lst), making all the 8s into 4s. I was even able to add bonuses for 0-level spells. In doing this, I made spellcasters FAR more capable at the lower levels, without breaking the high-level gameplay. In our game, the spellcasters can get through an extra battle -- sometimes two -- before needing to rest. It was a tiny change that allowed the game to seem less absurd. These kinds of tiny but effective changes are what I would really like to see from Paizo. I think much of what they have done is already there. Some is too much, but I'm sure they'll pull back and figure it out as they do it.
roguerouge wrote: I wonder if people who self-identify as DMs are having a different set of reactions and goals for this new system than people who self-identify as players. It would seem that players have an incentive for the revised classes to have more cool stuff and more options. They only have to create one character or fix one character. It would seem that DMs would have a strong incentive to advocate for Pathfinder to fix persistent 3e design problems as simply as possible, rather than create new opportunities. They have to revise an entire world. They see the sorcerer's blood lines and see hours of work revising every last sorcerer in their world.
In short, is a lot of the arguing on these forums based on different incentives based on the poster's role?
And which group should get preference from Paizo: the DMs, who buy the modules and adventure paths, or the players, who clamor for them?
Is it possible to walk the fine line between these somewhat opposed incentives?
This is an excellent point.
3rd editions biggest problem IMO is its a players edition. And as a player I can continue using it without much change. As a DM its hardwork at times. From what I've seen so far of Pathfinder I like. But the make or break part , will be running it.
It's actually our goal, design philosophy, and hope that someone who GMs 3.x will be able to switch over to PRPG without changing or retconning anything in his world. All he really needs to do is add new options to it. Let me explain. No, there is no time. Let me sum up.
Imagine, if you will, that a GM wants to run an adventure from Dungeon using the PRPG rules. A crazy (I mean thorough!) GM could go through and change every stat block to update it fully to the new rules, OR a lazy (I mean time-crunched!) GM could simply calculate the CMB for every statblock and leave the rest unchanged. The creatures in the 3.x adventure are close enough in power to PRPG characters, and the rules are (hopefully) similar enough that running a 3.x adventure in that way is completely plausible. Are the PRPG more powerful than the adventure assumes? Yes. As a group, you might need to experiment a little with power levels. Maybe your group finds that PRPG characters are about a level more powerful than 3.x characters. Maybe two. So how does your GM adjust for that? He simply uses a higher-level adventure. :)
But what about the stat block's skills and feats? Like I said, adding a CMB score is the easiest and least time-consuming way to update a stat block. For the skills and feats... meh. If the creature is important enough to worry about updating (the final boss, frex), update him. If not, who cares if some not-truly-challenging schmuck NPC or monster is short a few skill points (because of the combining of skills) or feats? He's likely not going to live long enough to use the ones he already has, and probably doesn't need more. ;)
But what about world continuity? Well, just because a PRPG sorcerer has slightly different abilities than a 3.x sorcerer doesn't mean the 3.x sorcerer suddenly has to stop existing. If your GM has some element of his campaign setting that relies on the abilities of a 3.x class that don't carry over to PRPG, he can simply rule that the 3.x version of that class ALSO exists as a variant of the PRPG version. :)
I think perhaps we should have made those ideas more clear from the get-go. It might have alleviated some of the concerns people are having.
Good post Mike, add it to the front page blog.
As for Dm/player, I have opportunity for both, and I like Pathfinder all-around from both perspectives.
Mike McArtor wrote: But what about the stat block's skills and feats? Like I said, adding a CMB score is the easiest and least time-consuming way to update a stat block. For the skills and feats... meh. If the creature is important enough to worry about updating (the final boss, frex), update him. If not, who cares if some not-truly-challenging schmuck NPC or monster is short a few skill points (because of the combining of skills) or feats? He's likely not going to live long enough to use the ones he already has, and probably doesn't need more. ;) Mike, Thanks for the above explanation, and I completely agree.
I have enough 3.5 material in the way of Dungeon magazine APs, Pathfinder APs, and a couple of other company 'campaign' box sets to last about 15 years, and adding the CMB to the stat blocks is all I had planned to do for the vast majority of NPCs.
As I have 6 players and they are some of the best min'maxers around, I would always stat out the following:
a) Any dragon that was the BBEG or any dragon that was Adult age or higher.
b) The BBEG, usually to give them a level or two plus better spell or weapon selections.
c) The BBEG top lieutenants, sometimes.
The rest are so much cannon fodder to my guys. Heck, when running SCAP, I did not spend any time on the 12, other than the beholder and the guy guarding the metal tree. And even though I stat'd the final BBEG, bumping him so that the angel/demon switch was a free action and he got to take full round actions for *both* forms in a round, he only lasted all of 4 rounds with my guys.
-- david
Papa.DRB
ps. I am the DM and have been DM'ing and not playing since around 1990.
Mike McArtor wrote: It's actually our goal, design philosophy, and hope that someone who GMs 3.x will be able to switch over to PRPG without changing or retconning anything in his world. Holy holy. That is an awesome design goal. I am 100% bought into such a product.
Mike McArtor wrote: Let me explain. No, there is no time. Let me sum up. Bonus points for knowing your audience, Mr. Patinkin.
Mike McArtor wrote: As a group, you might need to experiment a little with power levels. Maybe your group finds that PRPG characters are about a level more powerful than 3.x characters. Maybe two. So how does your GM adjust for that? He simply uses a higher-level adventure. :) OK. My 1st level 3.p characters will tackle a 3.5 adventure meant for level 2s. I'm OK with that.
Mike McArtor wrote: Who cares if some not-truly-challenging schmuck NPC or monster is short a few skill points (because of the combining of skills) or feats? Sadly, I care. :( I could have thought up many better ways to do what's being done. For example:
Imaginary Future Pathfinder Book wrote: Change "tumble" to be "acrobatics." Then cross off jump and balance, putting their points in acrobatics or elsewhere.
Next, change "use rope" to be "set traps" (as in tripwires).
The idea here is to find ways to minimize the changes to statistics, so that they can be very quickly redone. Swap out skills instead of killing them off and adding in new ones. And while what I did with swapping out "use rope" for a "set traps" skill is tenuous, it also at the same time removes some tedious mechanics from the DMG and makes that kind of needed skill obvious to the player.
Do you see what I mean? It's subtle. I do not oppose changing things. But I do think that at every step of the way, someone should be thinking "what are the steps to retcon a 3.5 PHB?" If it cannot be (and is not) boiled down to simple bullet points or single sentences so that a 3.5 book can be quickly modified and brought in line, then it's too much. Note that it doesn't need to be word-for-word, such as "cross out this line in the grapple rules and write in this line." But it should be something easy to do like, "Cross out the entire grapple section and refer to page 200 of Pathfinder."
Of course, this is just my opinion. I know other players & DMs do not share my opinion. I hope I'm not alone, though.
aboyd wrote: Mike McArtor wrote: It's actually our goal, design philosophy, and hope that someone who GMs 3.x will be able to switch over to PRPG without changing or retconning anything in his world. Holy holy. That is an awesome design goal. I am 100% bought into such a product.
Mike McArtor wrote: Let me explain. No, there is no time. Let me sum up. Bonus points for knowing your audience, Mr. Patinkin.
Mike McArtor wrote: As a group, you might need to experiment a little with power levels. Maybe your group finds that PRPG characters are about a level more powerful than 3.x characters. Maybe two. So how does your GM adjust for that? He simply uses a higher-level adventure. :) OK. My 1st level 3.p characters will tackle a 3.5 adventure meant for level 2s. I'm OK with that.
Mike McArtor wrote: Who cares if some not-truly-challenging schmuck NPC or monster is short a few skill points (because of the combining of skills) or feats? Sadly, I care. :( I could have thought up many better ways to do what's being done. For example:
Imaginary Future Pathfinder Book wrote: Change "tumble" to be "acrobatics." Then cross off jump and balance, putting their points in acrobatics or elsewhere.
Next, change "use rope" to be "set traps" (as in tripwires).
The idea here is to find ways to minimize the changes to statistics, so that they can be very quickly redone. Swap out skills instead of killing them off and adding in new ones. And while what I did with swapping out "use rope" for a "set traps" skill is tenuous, it also at the same time removes some tedious mechanics from the DMG and makes that kind of needed skill obvious to the player.
Do you see what I mean? It's subtle. I do not oppose changing things. But I do think that at every step of the way, someone should be thinking "what are the steps to retcon a 3.5 PHB?" If it cannot be (and is not) boiled down to simple bullet points or single sentences so that a 3.5 book can be quickly modified and brought... I agree completely with aboyd! I'm the DM 95% of the time for our gaming group, and have been DM 95% of the time for the past 20+ years. The main reason I would want to stick with PRPG is that I can continue using all the resources of 3.5 for my group with MINIMAL changes. Sure, I can continue using everything for 4E, but that takes a LOT more work converting it all - time and energy that I would rather spend PLAYING.
Another big factor is that for the past 2 years, we've all been very involved with Living Greyhawk - the greatest benefit is that with a standardized rules system that is worldwide, if I'm not available to run a game, or if I have a hankering to play, we can fairly easily find a group within 30 min drive playing on any weekend that is using the exact same ruleset and shared world. We can bring our characters in and out with no problems! What one runs into with houserules and options is that this shared campaign aspect becomes harder and harder to do.
Making changes to fix the modular components of the rules are easy to do - ie. change how grapple works and that's fairly easily done without having to change stat blocks or re-work characters; change the mechanism of a spell is likewise easy to do without impact upon the rest of the game; allow 0-level spells to be cast at will again changes little (and makes it easier that the DM doesn't have to track all the cantrips those 6 wizards have already cast. BUT changing how domain powers for clerics however requires significant reworking of things - PC's who base their "alpha strike" on raging and using the smite ability from the destruction domain and the luck reroll for a miss no longer can continue working as the same PC; printed tactics for cleric NPC's that use domain abilities are no longer applicable - all that creates more work for a DM who ALREADY has to keep track of what the 8 clerics, BBEG, his bodyguard, and 24 troops are doing each round for 12 rounds before the dragon reinforcements come in... (example from my currently running game of Red Hand of Doom).
So what I'm asking is to PLEASE keep us DM's in mind when changes are made when thinking of backwards compatibility (ie. don't completely alter the cleric domains! Add those per level abilities ONTO the existing domain abilities, not replace; use the proposed idea by aboyd of having a certain list of the EXACT details changed so that its easy for me to go through a stat block and add a few more hitpoints because the favored class mechanic changed).
And thank you for allowing us to continue to use all the wonderful 3.5 modules out there!
The backward compatibility is the first among the many appeals PRPG has for me... I've been creating and developing a campaign world as a DM for about 20 years, and 4E was utterly inappropiate... I would have to either rework everything (and my players are too fond of the setting to do that) or abandon it and start anew with a new world more appropiate to the 4e preconceptions (and I have worked far too many hours in that world to do that). So Pathfinder is my perfect solution: not only it will improve gameplay and improve a lot of things in 3.5, but the changes in it are so adaptable and full of flavor that I will be able to retcon them without a sweat! For me, it is a no-lose situation...
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
