What to cherrypick from 4e for PRPG?


Alpha Playtest Feedback General Discussion

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

I like the bloodied idea. I have been using a home-designed hit point variant system for my current campaign - 14 months now - characters are 12th level.

The system divides hit points into "Vitality" and "Stamina." As the stamina is reduced the creature gets weakened progressively - Fatigued, exhausted, slowed and eventually dead.

So i've been using the concept for a while now.

Another Idea in 4th I like is a lot of the new monster traits. Someone here mentioned the Ettin's ability to slobberknock someone even during a 5' step. Thats awesome. What a great idea to add some of these "quirks" to some of the existing monsters.

One of the creature quirks I like is the 5' shift that the kobold gets to take just as you approach it, or the goblins ability to move 5' after you swing at it and miss it. I think that is a cool thing to envision - from these iconic scampering little buggers like cockroaches that you just can pin down.

I don't know if anyone here plays DDO - but fighting kobolds in that game is a pain in the butt! They bounce about all over the place and you NEVER get a full attack action against them, because they're constantly shifting. I can see how that would be cool.

Other ideas could include certain creatures known for their "toughness" to fight on even in negatives (like a badger); such as mintaur and/or hobgoblin.

And truth be told - there's nothing in these abilities that would really compromise "backward compatibility" any more or less than the sorcerers bloodlines, the cleric domain powers, the barbarian rage points etc.

A lot of people on here are calling for the skills to go the route of 4E; PF already tried something like that - and didn't really work well enough. Jason said that the current system is the way they're going to go - with perhaps a few minor tweaks, so thats done. However there were threads that suggested giving a flat bonus at certain levels to all skills that aren't "trained" at levels that you don't get anything - 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, 18th - so that you'd have a +5 to all other skills by the time a character tops at 20th level - which I think is a good idea and does in some way mirror that 4E skill concept.

Lets be honest here - why would a group of adventurers (many of them only getting 2 or 3 skill points per level) NOT have learned to do many of the things simply required to survive by the time such a character hits 20th level - by the very nature of doing it over and over.

Any character by that level should have learned to climb, swim, spot ambushes, search crevices for treasure, and talk more diplomatically with the nobles by that time - it makes logical and perfect sense that they should get a flat bonus at some point to illustrate active daily living skills getting used frequently and becoming more familiar with them.

Robert

Scarab Sages

Mr Baron wrote:

Here is my list of things I like about 4th ed:

1. Minion rules. I really like the concept.
2. Wizards having a magic attack that they can use every round instead of using a crossbow. I hate the idea of a Wizard running out of spells and then being reduced to a crossbow sniper.
3. Simplified monster write ups.
4. The concept of being "bloodied."

Ithink minion rules prolly first appeared in 7th Sea...not sure tho...course from what I've heard the 7th sea execution was better


Seems to me that using parts of 4E kind of defeats the whole purpose. Pathfinder is supposed to support those who enjoy 3E and don't want to change. I imagine that it should just stay as close to 3E as possible and any change should be hashed and rehashed and scrutinized before it's playtested and finally thrown out, only to be considered later and, after more playtesting, be allowed in if it fits and contributes. It would seem like shooting yourself in the foot to have the game deviate from 3E in any but the most minor or flavorful way.

Liberty's Edge

AZRogue wrote:
Seems to me that using parts of 4E kind of defeats the whole purpose. Pathfinder is supposed to support those who enjoy 3E and don't want to change. I imagine that it should just stay as close to 3E as possible and any change should be hashed and rehashed and scrutinized before it's playtested and finally thrown out, only to be considered later and, after more playtesting, be allowed in if it fits and contributes. It would seem like shooting yourself in the foot to have the game deviate from 3E in any but the most minor or flavorful way.

I agree. The 'cherry-pickings' that I suggest are small addtions that can be made within the already proven mechanics rule-set.

In no way do I advocate overhauling something drastically - like removing gnomes for instance, or replacing 9 levels of spells with arbitrary spell-like abilities, or changing the Saving Throws etc.

Adding a few monster quirks that one can add, a template, and possibly a few extra skill points to be added to non-trained skills doesn't break any of the systems in place, and doesn't change combat, character advancement, encounter design etc.

I am not a 4E fan - for its new non traditional D&D style of systems; but I'm not close-minded enough to see that they do have a few good options and ideas that can be translated and adopted for other system; just as Hero'sQuest, Iron Kingdoms, Mutants and Masterminds, Gurps, TrueD20, Warhammer, etc seems to have.

Robert

The Exchange

Let me preface by saying I don't think PRPG would 'cherrypick'. But I am assuming they are looking for areas that they may want to re-design to have a similar effect.

AZRogue wrote:
Seems to me that using parts of 4E kind of defeats the whole purpose. Pathfinder is supposed to support those who enjoy 3E and don't want to change.

I think this is only part of the objective. I think they want reverse compatibility but some improvements. So some change must occur.

I am probably taking you to literally.

Duncan & Dragons wrote:
I wish we could make combat more fluid. Not with people teleporting promiscuously but something that keeps people interested in other peoples actions. Maybe give up one of your iterative attacks for an exta 5' step between blows. Or attacks that cause people to retreat, shift position, etc. Or a successful attack helping an adjacent ally or intefering with an adjacent enemy. I don't like the 'charge' than stand still with full attack actions I always see in my games.

Shamelessly plugging my own idea again. I would not expect PRPG to do things identical to 4.0 in regards to fluid combat. But just as they gave the option of eliminating the iterative attacks with feats like Vital Strike, I would like PRPG to consider giving us feats or combat actions that have the same effect as shift, slide, drag, etc from 4.0.


Duncan Clyborne wrote:

Let me preface by saying I don't think PRPG would 'cherrypick'. But I am assuming they are looking for areas that they may want to re-design to have a similar effect.

I think this is only part of the objective. I think they want reverse compatibility but some improvements. So some change must occur.
I am probably taking you to literally.

Yeah, I did exaggerate my point a bit. Some change is inevitable, since Paizo is going to want to put their stamp to it, but I think each change should be closely evaluated before being accepted.

And this is in no way a slam against 4E since I actually prefer that system. I just thought the goal of keeping 3E alive was a good thing for those who won't be making the switch. I don't see any reason why people couldn't play both, really, if they were willing.

Liberty's Edge

AZRogue wrote:


And this is in no way a slam against 4E since I actually prefer that system. I just thought the goal of keeping 3E alive was a good thing for those who won't be making the switch. I don't see any reason why people couldn't play both, really, if they were willing.

Fiscal reasons is a big reason why many won't play both - many can't even afford to continue to support one edition - let alone two. I can afford one, but two just doesn't make sense.

Another reason is time allocation. With being married with kids and a full time job and other hobbies such as sports, its hard to justify allocating time to both settings, (for me); I'd rather just allocate the time I have to the one I like the most - which is 3rd (so far) and bonus in that I've already spent the money on that edition without having to start over.

Robert


Robert Brambley wrote:
AZRogue wrote:


And this is in no way a slam against 4E since I actually prefer that system. I just thought the goal of keeping 3E alive was a good thing for those who won't be making the switch. I don't see any reason why people couldn't play both, really, if they were willing.

Fiscal reasons is a big reason why many won't play both - many can't even afford to continue to support one edition - let alone two. I can afford one, but two just doesn't make sense.

Another reason is time allocation. With being married with kids and a full time job and other hobbies such as sports, its hard to justify allocating time to both settings, (for me); I'd rather just allocate the time I have to the one I like the most - which is 3rd (so far) and bonus in that I've already spent the money on that edition without having to start over.

Robert

I completely understand that and respect the need to choose. I'm just pointing out that the two games are not mutually exclusive, for the sake of DnD harmony. :)


Todd Johnson wrote:
Mr Baron wrote:

Here is my list of things I like about 4th ed:

3. Simplified monster write ups.

By simplifying monster writeups, WotC has taken the monster concept in the exact *opposite* direction I would have liked to see it from 3.5. Yes, this is more toward the OD&D vein of a monster entry, but it was something I considered a shortcoming before 3E was even on the drawing board.

Sooooo agree.

I looked at a 4e monster writeup and was in a state of gamer shock. All my geek-hairs were standing on end on that one. It was just so... wrong.

The very first thing to appeal to me as both a player and a DM in 3E was the ease of treating almost any monster writeup as a racial template. It was so easy to put classes onto them.

As a player, I almost never met a monster that didn't have class levels in something. My best 3E DM rarely used anything but intelligent monsters, but even some of his brainless candidates managed to have classes in one thing or another.

Now, for DMs that don't want prebuilds, the new edition is going to be a serious pain...

One more reason to hope Pathfinder takes off more than the average independent RPG.


Hey everyone, new here, and gotta say I love Pathfinder!

AZRogue wrote:
Seems to me that using parts of 4E kind of defeats the whole purpose. Pathfinder is supposed to support those who enjoy 3E and don't want to change. I imagine that it should just stay as close to 3E as possible and any change should be hashed and rehashed and scrutinized before it's playtested and finally thrown out, only to be considered later and, after more playtesting, be allowed in if it fits and contributes. It would seem like shooting yourself in the foot to have the game deviate from 3E in any but the most minor or flavorful way.

I agree with this, but if we rule out "cherry picking" from 4e we really rule out A LOT of options from 3.x, namely optional rules from Unearthead Arcana, I think that adding things like Maneuvers from ToB for melee characters would be good, and Shadowcaster style casting for Wizards, but not the At-Wil/Encounter/Per-Day/Utility from 4e.

I hope my example made sense!

Peace,
Pyre

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber
Pyre_Born wrote:

If we rule out "cherry picking" from 4e we really rule out A LOT of options from 3.x, namely optional rules from Unearthead Arcana, I think that adding things like Maneuvers from ToB for melee characters would be good, and Shadowcaster style casting for Wizards, but not the At-Wil/Encounter/Per-Day/Utility from 4e.

I hope my example made sense!

Peace,
Pyre

IMHO, some of the optional rules from Unearthed Arcana that were released under the OGL should be included in the Pathfinder RPG. However, they should be offered as as options rather than core material. There were some very good ideas in UA, but many of them could do with some work.

One of the things that I really don't like about 4e is that it mandates a particular style of play as normative. I much prefer the approach of 3.5 (and earlier editions) that offered a range of different options and let you choose the ones that suit your personal playing style.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In the spirit of this discussion, I really want to open the 4e concept of carrying capacity up for review.

Carry (Str x10)
Lift (Str x20)
Push/Drag (Str x50)

v.

A Table

1. I like the simplicity. It's easy to track and keep in your mind as opposed to having to refer to a table whenever something might impact your strength. (And yes, I keep an eye on encumbrance in my games.)

2. But I'm wary that it might be a bit too strong. Generally, Carry has combined Light and Medium Encumbrance from 3.5. So, in 4e, you can be medium encumbered without penalty. This seems a bit much.

What are your thoughts?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There's a lot to like about Fourth Edition, however just about all of it would be a poor fit with reworked 3.5 rules.

If I was going to cherrypick anything, I'd ditch the Paladin entirely and replace it with Monte Cook's Champion class. heck, I'd be happy to ditch all the core classes with reworked ones from Arcana Evolved.


Prime Evil wrote:


IMHO, some of the optional rules from Unearthed Arcana that were released under the OGL should be included in the Pathfinder RPG. However, they should be offered as as options rather than core material. There were some very good ideas in UA, but many of them could do with some work.

One of the things that I really don't like about 4e is that it mandates a particular style of play as normative. I much prefer the approach of 3.5 (and earlier editions) that offered a range of different options and let you choose the ones that suit your personal playing style.

I agree 100%, 4e seems to think that we aren't intelligent enough to make decisions, they tell us...you're a Wizard...make things go boom! Things like that, they don't seem to want us to make choices!

Peace,
Pyre


No one has mentioned Rituals yet? That could be my favorite innovation from 4e. I don't think I really need to explain the obvious benefits, or how easy a similar system could be introduced into a 3.x campaign, but it is worthwhile enough to cast a vocal support for seeing it considered in the PRPG.

Liberty's Edge

Archon of Light wrote:
No one has mentioned Rituals yet? That could be my favorite innovation from 4e. I don't think I really need to explain the obvious benefits, or how easy a similar system could be introduced into a 3.x campaign, but it is worthwhile enough to cast a vocal support for seeing it considered in the PRPG.

Hmmm, not familiar with the rituals (yet). I guess when i borrow my buddy's book, I'll look into it. Unless you care to paraphrase....?

Robert

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Robert Brambley wrote:
Archon of Light wrote:
No one has mentioned Rituals yet? That could be my favorite innovation from 4e. I don't think I really need to explain the obvious benefits, or how easy a similar system could be introduced into a 3.x campaign, but it is worthwhile enough to cast a vocal support for seeing it considered in the PRPG.

Hmmm, not familiar with the rituals (yet). I guess when i borrow my buddy's book, I'll look into it. Unless you care to paraphrase....?

Robert

Rituals are basically spells with very long (1 hour plus) casting times and very expensive components.

In 4E they replace many of the utility and out of combat spells from 3E, but I can't see why they couldn't be an add-on mechanism in 3E so that non-spellcasters can use magic, it's just not as easy as those who know what they're doing. It also gives those cultists an excuse, sorry, reason, for kidnapping all those nubile, and oh so grateful, virgins the heroes have to rescue.

[Edit] They also appeared in Unearthed Arcana (or at least something similar did) as Incantations


In theory, one could use the Incantation rules from Unearthed Arcana to make 4E rituals backwards compatible, if one were so inclined.

Edit: D'oh! Paul got me on the Incantations. :)

Liberty's Edge

Paul Watson wrote:


Rituals are basically spells with very long (1 hour plus) casting times and very expensive components.

In 4E they replace many of the utility and out of combat spells from 3E, but I can't see why they couldn't be an add-on mechanism in 3E so that non-spellcasters can use magic, it's just not as easy as those who know what they're doing. It also gives those cultists an excuse, sorry, reason, for kidnapping all those nubile, and oh so grateful, virgins the heroes have to rescue.

[Edit] They also appeared in Unearthed Arcana (or at least something similar did) as Incantations

I dont typically use splat books - so I've never even looked in the Unearthed Arcana.

It does sound interesting. It reminds me of "cooperative magic" in 2nd edition in the Tome of Magic book.

I ran a lengthy Midnight Campaign (Fantasy Flight Games) for 3.5 for about 4 years - they have a similar mechanic for the purpose of costing less "mana" to cast. It was a cool concept for Midnight as it worked with it's variant magic system - based on spell energy. The more casters, and longer you did the ritual, the less spell energy it cost.

What does casting a spell as a "ritual" in 4E provide as a bonus? or are there some spells that simply cannot be cast other than as a ritual.

Robert


Unearthed Arcana isn't so much a splat book as variant rules systems and ideas. If you haven't taken a peek at it, I do recommend it. Since a lot of the content is Open, a good portion of it is posted at d20srd.org.

Liberty's Edge

Lilith wrote:
Unearthed Arcana isn't so much a splat book as variant rules systems and ideas. If you haven't taken a peek at it, I do recommend it. Since a lot of the content is Open, a good portion of it is posted at d20srd.org.

Splat - variant. Tomato - tomawtoe.

My point was that I dont typically venture outside the Core Three.

One out of 50 encounters may possibly be outside the MM. I never use or memorize spells outside the PHB (as a player or a DM), and I've only ONCE played a class outside the PHB classes, and never a race outside the PHB.

My reasoning: as DM, I like to keep it simple, so that I can spend more time on developing the story and foreshadowing, and less on specific rules and variants, and other crunch. Furthermore, the further away from the Core three you go, the more "broken" pre-existing rules become and exacerbated those that already are. The reason for this is when the PHB was originally released - they didn't have precognition of every single rule/variant/option that would be released later and so certain stacking/compounding issues could not possibly have been predicted - that "this along with this, taken with this, using this creates OH MY GOD!" And then one player shows up some day to my buddys game (in which I was playing a human paladin) with his new Whispergnome Factotum with Reserve Feats and some skill tricks from the Complete Scoundrel or some such B.S. What a nightmare.

So as a player, i try to follow the same guideline, and I still stick to the basic three. I just keep it simple.

I will take a look at the info - with your urgings, however. I am familiar with some of its content (like the Action points - as another DM I know used them in a game I was part of). My comments that I'm unfamiliar with the splat books was not a judgement; was just meant that I find myself in the dark

Robert


Whoa, lots of hostility towards 4e. Now, I can see where it's coming from. I myself disagree STRONGLY with many of the aspects of 4e, and that's one of the major reasons I'm posting in this forum now. However, to wholly dismiss everything related to it is overly hasty. Despite a load of blunders, there are some ideas lodged in there that may be worth considering. For example, the "versatile" trait of a longsword makes options like using a longsword with nothing in the other hand instead of always taking up a greatsword a more viable and attractive option, whereas otherwise you were just taking a hit for flavor preferences (and, I might note, 3rd edition D&D has an incorrigible habit of encouraging the same few weapon and armor choices which I think would be worthwhile to correct)

Love it or hate it, there's little cause to condemn *everything* printed in there just because of its association.


Robert Brambley wrote:
Splat - variant. Tomato - tomawtoe.

Ah, I gotcha. :) With Unearthed Arcana, it's best NOT to use everything as given in the book, it does recommend picking and choosing; in fact, the hardcover provides a chart so you can keep track of what alternate rules you're using in your campaign. Weapon Groups are among my favorite things in there, along with Traits, Reputation, Backgrounds, metamagic components...lots of fun stuff.

I'm itching to try the vitalizing magic variant in a browser strategy game someday.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook Subscriber
Archon of Light wrote:
No one has mentioned Rituals yet? That could be my favorite innovation from 4e.

Rituals are already OGL. Relics and Rituals had rules for them in 2001. I wouldn't say they were an innovation exactly. :)


Robert Brambley wrote:
Hmmm, not familiar with the rituals (yet). I guess when i borrow my buddy's book, I'll look into it. Unless you care to paraphrase....?

My apologies for not elaborating sooner. I see a few others have already taken the initiative, but it appears not everyone noticed the 4e preview for Rituals posted on the official website not long ago. But now with content in hand, I can elaborate more thoroughly beyond mere speculation.

In 4e, Rituals take the place of some of the more ulitarian spells from previous editions, like Animal Messenger, Raise Dead, Magic Mouth, various Divination spells, as well as certain crafting feats, like Brew Potions and creating portals. The design goal was to relieve spellcasters from some of the more ultra-powerful spells as just another 'wave-of-the-hand' type trick, as well as some of the more unpopular and rarely used (yet still useful when the need arises) invocations. This allows spellcasters to concentrate on more combat-ready selections without sacrificing the ulitarian abilities in the process - something I felt really needed improving in previous editions.

I realize that it might not be an original concept, as previous posters have stated other 'similar' ideas being introduced in other sources - does it really matter? - but I feel the 4th edition write up on this idea really embraces the concept more fully than any other system I've seen proposed. But maybe that's because the rules were written to include that concept from the beginning, whereas a similar idea would have to be reworked to make it compatible with an existing system that wasn't originally designed for such a mechanic. It might take a little extra work, but I'm sure it can be done properly if someone really wanted to do it. ;)

Dark Archive

Lilith wrote:
Robert Brambley wrote:
Splat - variant. Tomato - tomawtoe.

Ah, I gotcha. :) With Unearthed Arcana, it's best NOT to use everything as given in the book, it does recommend picking and choosing; in fact, the hardcover provides a chart so you can keep track of what alternate rules you're using in your campaign. Weapon Groups are among my favorite things in there, along with Traits, Reputation, Backgrounds, metamagic components...lots of fun stuff.

I'm itching to try the vitalizing magic variant in a browser strategy game someday.

The chart was also provided as the web enhancement.

But Unearthed Arcana is a great book, although one should be careful of what to use. But that goes for nearly all rules, even the core ones. I would prefer the use of UA material instead of 4th ed stuff as it should be easier to implement and also reeks less of copyright infringement.

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / General Discussion / What to cherrypick from 4e for PRPG? All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion