It sounds to me like you want a lower power level than PF. I think the problem is you'd like to run a grittier, simpler game and you're using a high magic, simulationist system to do it.
Maybe a grittier, simpler high magic game of pathfinder? :-)
You may be right, I am going to try some other systems...but I have had fun with Pathfinder and would still play as a player...although someone in this thread made the comment they have never played where the GM didn't mess something up and I have had the same experience. Too much hand waiving to the point I wanted to say, why are you using pathfinder as your game system if you are going to hand wave so many rules?I got pretty good as a GM using the rules, and if I could memorize all the powers and avoid cross referencing I would still play PF. Its really the prep time that has put me in this position. The high level stuff I could probably continue to deal with using house rules, but the prep time (when done correctly) is just too much. Think about creating 1 wizard, 1 cleric, 3 fighters all 5th level as npcs. And they may only last one encounter against your players. Easily an hour of prep time to write these guys up correctly.
|
Well, if you're playing modules or opponents rated against APL, then by definition the difficulty will (or should, at least) meet your rate of improvement.
You guys keep missing the point Jawa was making, that eventually the characters should be good enough at something to rarely fail. Not never fail. Otherwise you're just on a treadmill, unable to see yourself improve because the difficulty increases meets or exceeds your rate of improvement.
But unevenly. Challenges will vary between APL-x and APL+x, so some will be easy and some will be hard.
Another change I would make is split the Core Rules into two books. And then write the players book in a much more user friendly manner with more examples and step by step guides on how to use the system. Thus new players could learn the game easier and quicker.
Too much hand waiving to the point I wanted to say, why are you using pathfinder as your game system if you are going to hand wave so many rules?
That's a valid point... many's the time I've sat down to reinvent the abstracted Hit Point system into a more realistic wounds-tracking system, found myself looking at how other games did it, and said "you know, if game X does it better then why am I trying to change game Y?"
A setting I'm working on in the background at the moment calls for some dramatic changes to 3.5/PFRPG rules for them to properly replicate the feel of that setting, and I'm still torn between making those rules changes or switching to a system like RuneQuest.
Commercially, I feel it'd sell better using Pathfinder rules. Personally, I'd rather play it with Pathfinder rules. However, logically it makes more sense to go with the RuneQuest rules because as written they fit the setting better and there's less work involved.
I still haven't made the final decision, but my current thoughts are that longer-term it'll benefit more to go with Pathfinder because of all the additional support materials available and the whole synergistic effect of becoming part of a greater whole.
But shouldn't a character once they reach a certain level succeed? Why should they struggle throughout the entire game? Whats the point of leveling if you will always suck?Where's the point in playing if success is already pre-determined? It stops being a game and starts being story hour.
I would expect a 10th level ranger to be skilled enough to not have problems hunting rabbits...
Which is what I was talking about. There are some mundane tasks that really shouldn't pose a problem once characters reach a certain level and have a certain skill level.
I got pretty good as a GM using the rules, and if I could memorize all the powers and avoid cross referencing I would still play PF. Its really the prep time that has put me in this position. The high level stuff I could probably continue to deal with using house rules, but the prep time (when done correctly) is just too much. Think about creating 1 wizard, 1 cleric, 3 fighters all 5th level as npcs. And they may only last one encounter against your players. Easily an hour of prep time to write these guys up correctly.
Yeah...that is why I use the NPC codex. You will still have to deal with spells, but that book is a godsend for DMs
Another change I would make is split the Core Rules into two books. And then write the players book in a much more user friendly manner with more examples and step by step guides on how to use the system. Thus new players could learn the game easier and quicker.
I will agree with you on that. The Core Rulebook is way too dense. I get why they put everything into one book at the beginning, since they wanted to make it as simple as possible to run their APs. I am hoping the upcoming strategy guide will play around with new formats that might be incorporated into future editions. Honestly...the number one issue I would like to see change for a future edition of the core/players books is the presentation.
I would expect a 10th level ranger to be skilled enough to not have problems hunting rabbits...Which is what I was talking about. There are some mundane tasks that really shouldn't pose a problem once characters reach a certain level and have a certain skill level.
Absolutely. Given a 10th level ranger hunting rabbits in normal terrain and under normal circumstances, and as long as they were willing to spend "as long as it takes" I'd never dream of asking them to roll. I'd hope most GMs would see the sense here of making it not even worthy of opening a rulebook for. One thing I'd consider is throwing in an encounter or two while they hunted, though - that's where the real focus should be at that level.
Of course, if they had to do this while on the move pursued by an army of orcs, or if the land had been fouled by demonic incursions with very little left alive, or if they had a bunch of refugees travelling with them to feed, then it becomes story-critical and I'd want to track things like food usage and availability a lot more strictly.
in Savage Worlds with Weekly William
we fight a wild card or two, every Darned Fight
he always starts PCs at level 1, or Novice in Savage Worlds
and the theoretical race i mentioned, was a homebrewed race for a specific homebrewed setting. i can't remember every detail, but all his super races, are freaks, and most of them maximize stats with moderate importance while reducing the few things that allow you to keep up with a human ranged combatant.
but i found, the only way to buff melee damage is to buff your strength. but we tend to play with a lot of Overpowered Ranged weapons that
Ignore your Parry
Deal Better Damage than Melee Combatants whom don't hyperspecialize
and melee weapons tend to be rare, because ranged weapons are the most expedient ways to wound, because killing your foe before they engage, or wasting a few of their bennies, makes it easier to face them.
but that might be because the DM is slow with the cards.
he is also stingy with the XP, but has always been a stingy DM
i admit, i do like more hinderances for more advantages, but When Weekly William designs his races, they usually minmax something suboptimal in the campaign at the cost of something else.
D12 Vitality Race has -8 Charisma, never ever make a social check whatsoever, they are minmaxed like hell, but you have to roll a variety of social skills to buy anything, or even sell.
So, let me just say your complaints appear to be "I don't like Savage Worlds because I don't like my GM's houserules.
The complaints are all valid, mind you, they just don't really apply to the game itself, they apply to that specific GM running that game.
Also why did you use his name like I would know who he is? Is this guy internet famous?
Everyone who has commented above on 0 level spells has proven my point. None of you use them RAW. You either tell your players 'its not appropriate' or you try to 'distract' them from doing it. Regardless, you are circumventing the rules to make your games better. I say, lets just FIX THE RULES. We all know unlimited 0 level spells is silly, you have all just said so in your own ways as you don't allow it in your games in one way or another...and why? Because it is annoying as all H**L.
Nope, we use them 100% RAW and RAI and there's been no issue at all. Been playing with three groups even since CR came out. Not been an issue. Of course we play with adults....
Of course we play with adults....
Well darn it, I guess the 5 year olds I play with just don't have a clue. Thanks for your insight.
A 10th level character focused on a skill should always succeed at things that he struggled with at first level. Just like a few goblins are a challenge at 1st level, but aren't even a speedbump at 10th. For mid level characters, simple environmental challenges aren't a problem any more.
The problem for me and my group is we need something a little more rooted in reality. We want fantasy and magic, but we want it to scale closer to reality. Even the best navy seals crashed their helicopter when trying to take out Bin Laden. PC's should gain power and skills, but there should be a ceiling that feels real. A system and experience that relates closer to the real world to make the game a better "Role Playing" experience. Something that the players can relate to. Currently pathfinder is a super hero comic book in DnD terms with the power levels. It feels like a super's game, not a classic fantasy role playing game.
A 10th level character focused on a skill should always succeed at things that he struggled with at first level. Just like a few goblins are a challenge at 1st level, but aren't even a speedbump at 10th. For mid level characters, simple environmental challenges aren't a problem any more.The problem for me and my group is we need something a little more rooted in reality. We want fantasy and magic, but we want it to scale closer to reality. Even the best navy seals crashed their helicopter when trying to take out Bin Laden. PC's should gain power and skills, but there should be a ceiling that feels real. A system and experience that relates closer to the real world to make the game a better "Role Playing" experience. Something that the players can relate to. Currently pathfinder is a super hero comic book in DnD terms with the power levels. It feels like a super's game, not a classic fantasy role playing game.
Oh, I agree with you, and I know what you need! E6, or maybe E8! That will solve it.
But Next seems like a better solution (thanks to bounded accuracy).
Oh, I agree with you, and I know what you need! E6, or maybe E8! That will solve it.
But Next seems like a better solution (thanks to bounded accuracy).
What is E6 and E8?
What is E6 and E8?Oh, I agree with you, and I know what you need! E6, or maybe E8! That will solve it.
But Next seems like a better solution (thanks to bounded accuracy).
It's free online. It's complicated, but the short answer is, you play normal D&D or Pathfinder, and stop leveling at level 6 (or 8). Every certain amount of XP after that, you gain a feat. So, you cut the game off before all the problems you've mentioned start to take effect, but you still develop your character by gaining more feats.
Skills stay relevant because spells never replace them. Fighters, Rogues, and Monks don't suck because their problems aren't quite so prominent early. Having a full BAB matters in E6 because only those with a full BAB get extra attacks. It's just, in my opinion, a far superior way to play because I really want the feel of the low levels to last the entire game without stagnating a character's growth or remaining fragile and one-hittable.
]Oh, I agree with you, and I know what you need! E6, or maybe E8! That will solve it.
.
E6 is such a kludge. It's for DM's that can't design a game for PC's that can Fly or T-Port.
If you want Low-magic, Play Iron Heroes. Designed from the ground up for Low magic. Fun, and balanced.
E6 is such a kludge. It's for DM's that can't design a game for PC's that can Fly or T-Port.
Or ones that can, but don't want to ;)
That said, I do like Iron Heroes and it is worth looking at. If I had the choice, I'd pick it every time over other d20 options. But I have found most groups unwilling to try it, whereas E6 is a quick fix that takes almost zero effort to add, since they already know the core game.
E6 is such a kludge. It's for DM's that can't design a game for PC's that can Fly or T-Port.Or ones that can, but don't want to ;)
Pretty much that ones that can't. You always hear "MY Low magic campaign" or "I want do design a low magic campaign" or "MY E6 campaign" always from the DM's that run one. You almost never hear PLAYERS saying they want to run in one.
Pretty much that ones that can't. You always hear "MY Low magic campaign" or "I want do design a low magic campaign" or "MY E6 campaign" always from the DM's that run one. You almost never hear PLAYERS saying they want to run in one.E6 is such a kludge. It's for DM's that can't design a game for PC's that can Fly or T-Port.Or ones that can, but don't want to ;)
As a player and a GM, my preferences are the same. I'd put Iron Heroes first, E6 second, E8 third, and a regular d20 game as a last resort. That said, I'd rather play/run an entirely different game altogether :)
in Savage Worlds with Weekly William
we fight a wild card or two, every Darned Fight
he always starts PCs at level 1, or Novice in Savage Worlds
and the theoretical race i mentioned, was a homebrewed race for a specific homebrewed setting. i can't remember every detail, but all his super races, are freaks, and most of them maximize stats with moderate importance while reducing the few things that allow you to keep up with a human ranged combatant.
but i found, the only way to buff melee damage is to buff your strength. but we tend to play with a lot of Overpowered Ranged weapons that
Ignore your Parry
Deal Better Damage than Melee Combatants whom don't hyperspecialize
and melee weapons tend to be rare, because ranged weapons are the most expedient ways to wound, because killing your foe before they engage, or wasting a few of their bennies, makes it easier to face them.
but that might be because the DM is slow with the cards.
he is also stingy with the XP, but has always been a stingy DM
i admit, i do like more hinderances for more advantages, but When Weekly William designs his races, they usually minmax something suboptimal in the campaign at the cost of something else.
D12 Vitality Race has -8 Charisma, never ever make a social check whatsoever, they are minmaxed like hell, but you have to roll a variety of social skills to buy anything, or even sell.
So, let me just say your complaints appear to be "I don't like Savage Worlds because I don't like my GM's houserules.
The complaints are all valid, mind you, they just don't really apply to the game itself, they apply to that specific GM running that game.
Also why did you use his name like I would know who he is? Is this guy internet famous?
he isn't but i mention his douchebaggery quite a lot
it may not be that i dislike savage worlds, as much as he gave me an unpleasant experience with savage worlds, just like he did with 4th edition, D&D Next, and 1e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. Fighters, Rogues, and Monks don't suck because their problems aren't quite so prominent early.
They don't suck now. In my 11th level campaign the Fighter does the most DPR by far and is the lynchpin of the campaign. Now sure, my Sorc is useful for T-porting the party, but playing taxi is not that much fun. Don't get me wrong, my Sorc can lay down some hurt on crowds of Mooks, and his Haste is always MUCH appreciated by the martial types, but still, even at 11th they are ANYTHING but sucky.
No doubt, once spellcasters get world changing 9th level spells, things change a LOT. Few campaigns ever get there.
The meme that those classes suck is simply wrong.
(Oh sure, we do have a player who runs a rogue who does suck, but that's because he really isnt into the game, and his rogue has two talents and a feat not even assigned. His Bard and his Battle Oracle also sucks. When he played a Wizard- that sucked.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like a super's game, not a classic fantasy role playing game.That's what I like about it. I can run God of War with the 10+ levels and more classic games with the 1th-9th levels.
testify brother
A 10th level character focused on a skill should always succeed at things that he struggled with at first level. Just like a few goblins are a challenge at 1st level, but aren't even a speedbump at 10th. For mid level characters, simple environmental challenges aren't a problem any more.The problem for me and my group is we need something a little more rooted in reality. We want fantasy and magic, but we want it to scale closer to reality. Even the best navy seals crashed their helicopter when trying to take out Bin Laden. PC's should gain power and skills, but there should be a ceiling that feels real. A system and experience that relates closer to the real world to make the game a better "Role Playing" experience. Something that the players can relate to. Currently pathfinder is a super hero comic book in DnD terms with the power levels. It feels like a super's game, not a classic fantasy role playing game.
In Pathfinder, something like crashing a helicopter would probably be a random encounter of something with a CR above their level. or some sort of high level trap or reliance on a cursed/faulty artifact.
At any rate...to continue the ranger example, I consider a first level ranger to be something like the weekend sportsman...familiar with the wilderness, but doesn't live there all the time and probably couldn't easily survive on his own for very long. Whereas someone with 10th level ranger skills would be closer to Daniel Boone or some other mountain man. They know the local fauna/flora like the back of their hand...can track a deer in the most difficult conditions, and just in general are competent in what they do. Unless you drop them in completely unfamiliar environments, or throw some nasty weather/disease there way, or constantly harass them with opponents, finding food shouldn't really be an issue with them.
The meme that those classes suck is simply wrong.
I know we've conflicted on this before, so I'm not going to derail this further. Let me just add that:
1) If doing the most melee DPR is something you consider valuable, then yes, Fighters are fine.2) If, at level 11, skills still matter, your game is running on very different assumptions than the game has (games I run are similarly different from the expected norm), which is fine and awesome, but not exactly relevant to a discussion like this.
|
I would expect a 10th level ranger to be skilled enough to not have problems hunting rabbits...Which is what I was talking about. There are some mundane tasks that really shouldn't pose a problem once characters reach a certain level and have a certain skill level.
Absolutely. Given a 10th level ranger hunting rabbits in normal terrain and under normal circumstances, and as long as they were willing to spend "as long as it takes" I'd never dream of asking them to roll. I'd hope most GMs would see the sense here of making it not even worthy of opening a rulebook for. One thing I'd consider is throwing in an encounter or two while they hunted, though - that's where the real focus should be at that level.
Of course, if they had to do this while on the move pursued by an army of orcs, or if the land had been fouled by demonic incursions with very little left alive, or if they had a bunch of refugees travelling with them to feed, then it becomes story-critical and I'd want to track things like food usage and availability a lot more strictly.
I kind of think hunting wabbits should be an automatic for a ranger no matter what his level. No, that wasn't a typo, I'm imagining Elmer Fudd as a 1st level ranger. But going against wabbits that aren't as good at fighting back
Ducks, on the other hand....
Or because E6 keeps the game relatively balanced, something that Pathfinder can't even vaguely pretend to do after 12th level or so.
That's okay, I can compensate for the system.
it may not be that i dislike savage worlds, as much as he gave me an unpleasant experience with savage worlds, just like he did with 4th edition, D&D Next, and 1e.So if you had played Pathfinder under him, it'd be on your hate list as well.
i play pathfinder under him quite a lot, not too bad, he is quite restrictive and antagonistic though.
he has a highly niche playstyle as a DM. all about stingyness.
Another change I would make is split the Core Rules into two books. And then write the players book in a much more user friendly manner with more examples and step by step guides on how to use the system. Thus new players could learn the game easier and quicker.
That is what the Pathfinder Strategy guide is doing next year, as I understand it.
|
Besides maybe Detect Magic. I never found any of the other 0 level spells truly game breaking. My players don't waste time casting stuff like Guidance in combat. They buff themselves before a encounter. Not every encounter of course yet the ones they can see coming they do. Just like the intelligent npc/ mosnters do as well. Not to mention are we really going to go done "OMG players can cast Guidance at will it's broke nroute.". The game has some flaws. Spells that allow a unlimted +1 is not one of them imo.
The meme that those classes suck is simply wrong.I know we've conflicted on this before, so I'm not going to derail this further. Let me just add that:
1) If doing the most melee DPR is something you consider valuable, then yes, Fighters are fine.
2) If, at level 11, skills still matter, your game is running on very different assumptions than the game has (games I run are similarly different from the expected norm), which is fine and awesome, but not exactly relevant to a discussion like this.
From discussion we have had, our games run quite a bit like James Jacob's games, except no Cthulu.;-)
So, my groups can't be that far off the norm. So, pretty darn relevant.
Now sure, Climb isn't as important once you have levitate, fly, etc. But Perception & Acrobatics are still critical, and the Knowledge skills. And of course the Social skills, out of combat. You need Fy to well, Fly, UMD is always good. The bards use Perform all the time. So yeah, Climb isn;t much anymore and Heal is outdated, mostly. Spellcraft is critical also.
So yeah, we have two skills outdated and a dozen and a half still good.
|
|
For example, lets say I'm trying to create a new creature for a game I'm running:
In 3rd/PF, I'm asking myself questions, like, "how strong is it? how tough? how smart? how does it eat/breed/survive and what special abilities would it have as a result?" All of the answers to these questions have a direct impact on the creature's capabilities. A strong creature hits more often and harder than a weaker one. A smarter one is more skilled, etc. A creature that eats metal might have some ability to sense metal or dissolve it or something interesting.
In 4e, I could ask "how strong is it?" (or any of the other questions I asked above) and the answer is "it doesn't matter at all." The only relevant questions are:
1) What level is the creature?
2) What role does the creature play in tactical combat (skirmisher, artillery, etc.)
3) How many should the PCs fight at once to create an appropriate challenge (minion, standard, elite, solo)?
Why wouldn't you ask in 43 how strong a creature is when creating it? You presumably would be assigning it a strength score and also the damage expression of its powers (so if its a strong creature it might use the High Damage Expression).
In addition, all the details about what it eats, how it breeds etc are as relevant in 4e as in 3.x.
Also, in 3.x wouldn't you also be asking yourself what level / how many hit dice a creature has, what its tactics in combat would be (the 4e roles is just handy short hand) and how many you should be putting up against the PCs to achieve an appropriate challenge?
Holy crap, 2-4 hours of prep time per session? I would kill myself! No way would I GM if I had to spend that much time. Is that what other GMs really do?
When I am going to run a PFS scenario, i.e a 4 to 5 hour session, I create a rules booklet copying out from the PRD all the feats, spells, monster traits, gear, magic items etc that the NPCs use so that I can read them and reference them during play. That takes me a good couple of hours, yes.
One of the many reasons I hate running other people's pre-written campaigns, actually, is the prep time required to read it all. Boo!
The same for me, which is why Paizo's APs don't appeal to me at all - because I just don't have the time to read (and prep) them. In the time I could read an AP, I could plan out a campaign of my own, select NPCs and monsters, maybe create a few as well (even in 3.5) and read a sourcebook that will provide more utility in game than a single campaign book would.
I'd rather run it all straight from my brain to the table. That is harder to do with 3rd/PF, but literally impossible with 4e.
I assume you are talking about it being impossible for yourself - which I can understand, you seem very familiar with 3.x, knowing most of the feats and spells of the top of your head, and if 4e is unfamiliar to you then yes you may find it impossible.
For myself, I am the opposite, when I ran my 4e campaign I was writing a few notes each week, playing mainly from my head, and just choosing a few monsters / NPCs from the Monster Manual, leveling them up or down in a minute (much easier to do in 4e than 3.x).
I think I want to clarify this a little--4e is not GM friendly, it's new GM friendly. It's very easy to pick it up and run it if you have no clue what you're doing. If you already know, however, you have to unlearn so much...
I would disagree, I was able to apply a lot of my GM experience when I ran 4e. What you maybe have to unlearn is trying to run 4e as you would 3.x - although they are both D&D, they are a little different in how they play.
Also the 4e DMG is one of the best books for DM advice I have seen, so much so that I have been know to quote it in discussions about Call of Cthulhu - explaining that the 4e DMG explains how to handle failed Spot Hidden checks so that they don't stop your scenario dead, rather than come up with a completely different system (Trail of Cthulhu).
Anyway, it just shows how GMs differ and how perhaps the presentation and provision of what should be helpful guidelines can actually cause confusion and consternation if a GM is used to GMing in a different manner.
Why wouldn't you ask in 43 how strong a creature is when creating it? You presumably would be assigning it a strength score and also the damage expression of its powers (so if its a strong creature it might use the High Damage Expression).
The Strength score is determined entirely by its level and whether you chose Strength or Constitution to be higher (and both are never high, of course). And there's no such internal logic that suggests a high Strength would lead to a High Damage Expression. It's arbitrary, based on how damaging you want the creature to be to PCs.
In addition, all the details about what it eats, how it breeds etc are as relevant in 4e as in 3.x.
No, they're not, because they have literally zero non-combat abilities in 4e. They literally only have tactical combat powers. That other stuff is relevant in a fluff sense, but in 3rd (and, well, most RPGs), it's relevant mechanically.
Also, in 3.x wouldn't you also be asking yourself what level / how many hit dice a creature has, what its tactics in combat would be (the 4e roles is just handy short hand) and how many you should be putting up against the PCs to achieve an appropriate challenge?
I would eventually have to figure out level (which I mentioned disliking because it's also arbitrary), but no, I never ask what its combat role is or how many are appropriate challenges.
I do not want to think in terms of making something challenging, I want to think in terms of making something true to the game world. If there would be 6 of enemy X in this cave, then there are. I do not care if 6 of enemy X would be a brutal fight or a pushover, there are 6 because 6 makes sense.
And I do not want to assign a combat style to them ahead of time--the situation when combat starts and their abilities will inform their tactics at the time of the fight, but they should never be locked into something arbitrary like "this monster always tanks" (because it's a soldier).
I assume you are talking about it being impossible for yourself - which I can understand, you seem very familiar with 3.x, knowing most of the feats and spells of the top of your head, and if 4e is unfamiliar to you then yes you may find it impossible.
For myself, I am the opposite, when I ran my 4e campaign I was writing a few notes each week, playing mainly from my head, and just choosing a few monsters / NPCs from the Monster Manual, leveling them up or down in a minute (much easier to do in 4e than 3.x).
Ok, sorry, let me finish my thought:
"...but literally impossible without using a monster manual."I almost never use monster manuals--I use custom creatures 90% of the time. In non-3rd, non-4e games, this is easy--as I said, I can run things with no books around at all. In 3rd, I might need to prepare a few stat blocks, but that doesn't take much time, and I can still wing generic enemies (say, NPCs with class levels, which do not really exist in 4e).
In 4e, though, while the core numbers are easy, the powers are so much more complicated (and, despite the standardized math, are not standardized at all), I do believe it is impossible to create 4e monsters from scratch in moments. And even if I did want to use a monster manual, I'd have to do so much extensive reskinning...
I would disagree, I was able to apply a lot of my GM experience when I ran 4e. What you maybe have to unlearn is trying to run 4e as you would 3.x - although they are both D&D, they are a little different in how they play.
If I can run every RPG the same way except for 4e, I am pretty sure 4e is the weird one.
Also the 4e DMG is one of the best books for DM advice I have seen
I don't think I've read a DMG since 1993. I'm not saying that to brag or anything, just, I haven't bothered to read a "this is how you GM" section in any RPG since I learned how to GM, so such sections are irrelevant to me.
Anyway, it just shows how GMs differ and how perhaps the presentation and provision of what should be helpful guidelines can actually cause confusion and consternation if a GM is used to GMing in a different manner.
Can't argue with you there. If I was a "planning stuff out" GM that didn't mind illusionism, I would probably love 4e (remember, I do actually like to PC it). But I'm not, so it was awful for me.
|
|
I'm just gonna leave this here. :p
Yeah, I guess for some people 4e isn't D&D and PF is, but hey, for others the opposite is true and 4e is still D&D whilst PF isn't. It's personal preference, but I guess Mr Butcher read his crowd well or just wanted to vent a little.
I do believe it is impossible to create 4e monsters from scratch in moments
Sweet.
I believe you need to look up "impossible" in the dictionary. Because I've rapidly created 4E monsters from scratch. If I'd known I was doing the impossible, I would have focused on world domination!
I'm just gonna leave this here. :p
I see what you did there!
I'm done with new D&D editions. If they return to the Dragonlance setting I'll get the new material for it and use my preferred system, but other than that I'm done with WOTC. :(
What is E6 and E8?Oh, I agree with you, and I know what you need! E6, or maybe E8! That will solve it.
But Next seems like a better solution (thanks to bounded accuracy).
Since no one has, here is a link to the concept.
...I almost never use monster manuals--I use custom creatures 90% of the time.
I don't think I've read a DMG since 1993. I'm not saying that to brag or anything, just, I haven't bothered to read a "this is how you GM" section in any RPG since I learned how to GM, so such sections are irrelevant to me.
Monster Manuals and the monsters from myth & legend they provide are part of what makes D&D D&D.
Not read a DMG since 1993? Geez, I first DMed in 1974, but I read mine all the time. It's full of charts, numbers and other useful stuff.
If you don't use the MM or the DMG what you are running is so widely at variant from the norm that your opinion of what PF can learn from WotC is pretty much meaningless.
OTOH, we play pretty much standard. Sure we have houserules on what is allowed from which Paizo publications, but we dont have our own rules, etc.
I'm just gonna leave this here. :pI see what you did there!
And, what did he do, since he wasn't polite enogh to tell us, other than a blind link to a YouTube video, which is considered well outside the bounds of internet civility?
If history is any indication, no matter how much you simplify something, the "rule bloat" will eventually happen as new options are piled upon.
Again, you don't need to use every feat, every prestige class, etc.
And, what did he do, since he wasn't polite enogh to tell us, other than a blind link to a YouTube video, which is considered well outside the bounds of internet civility?I'm just gonna leave this here. :pI see what you did there!
Since when?
And, what did he do, since he wasn't polite enogh to tell us, other than a blind link to a YouTube video, which is considered well outside the bounds of internet civility?
It was an argument from authority (Jim Butcher said it, so it must be true). Basically a thinly-veiled edition war pot shot.