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.
Actually, it was because I liked how the crowd spontaneously cheered louder when Pathfinder was mentioned. Given that those were people who came there for a Dresden Files related Q&A and had nominally nothing to do with Paizo or D&D, I loved that spontaneous reaction.
Jim Butcher is no more an authority on the hobby than anybody else here. But I quite like that he comes off as the kind of unassuming nerd who is still amazed at his success as most of us would in his position. Or so I'd like to believe.
Actually, it was because I liked how the crowd spontaneously cheered louder when Pathfinder was mentioned. Given that those were people who came there for a Dresden Files related Q&A and had nominally nothing to do with Paizo or D&D, I loved that spontaneous reaction.
Jim Butcher is no more an authority on the hobby than anybody else here. But I quite like that he comes off as the kind of unassuming nerd who is still amazed at his success as most of us would in his position. Or so I'd like to believe.
...which I completely agree with. Butcher seems like a fantastic guy, and I love his work. I just don't see how that's relevant.
4E as "not D&D" is classic edition war position, and in my opinion, not one that you, me, or Jim Butcher really needs to rehash.
Well, I did say that I liked how the crowd cheered way harder for PF. :)
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 am intrigued. Give me an idea of what you consider "rapidly" and we'll see. If it's "as the PCs were rolling initiative," then I've got to hand it to you, though I'm curious how you came up with correctly balanced special powers so quickly with zero benchmarks to work with.
Should I append "I do believe it is impossible to create excellent 4e monsters from scratch in moments?" I'm really curious about your success on this front.
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.
While I agree that what I run is wildly different from the norm, I disagree that means my opinion is meaningless. I would love changes that made the game look closer to what I run--but I hardly expect them.
That said, I never argue points like, "fighters suck" from the perspective of my games, because yeah, they're so wildly different. I argue those points from the actual rules, ignoring social contract like, "hey, spellcaster, don't be a douche," because not everyone plays by the same social contract.
]I am intrigued. Give me an idea of what you consider "rapidly" and we'll see. If it's "as the PCs were rolling initiative," then I've got to hand it to you, though I'm curious how you came up with correctly balanced special powers so quickly with zero benchmarks to work with.
Should I append "I do believe it is impossible to create excellent 4e monsters from scratch in moments?" I'm really curious about your success on this front.
I was talking about monsters in general, not special powers specifically. That was admittedly more of an art than a science, and got easier with practice -- but I liked that.
Overall, if the PCs were rolling initiative, it largely amounted to some re-skinning and borrowing pieces from other creatures of a similar CR. If I had a little bit more time, it was pretty easy to write something new based on the target ranges given for each role/level as provided in the MM.
Personally, I find things skill point accounting tedious when building monsters -- especially since most of the time the designer just hands out a "racial bonus" to make the skill what he wanted it to be anyway.
|
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).
Are you referring to the DMG p184 where it states "On average, the highest ability score of a pair is equal to 13 + one-half the monster’s level. [...] However, set the ability that governs the monster’s primary attacks to be 3 higher, or 16 + one-half the monster’s level. An 8th- level monster that relies on melee attacks should have a Strength of 20."?
If so I take that as a guideline rather than a strict rule - it is advice to allow a GM to create a monster that is a challenge for its level. And note that it says "on average" meaning you can change that about.
I don't see that as any different than in 3.5 MM it states to use the Elite Array for abilities if the monster has a PC class, or the PF Bestiary that states "A creature’s physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution) should be relatively close to the base
values presented on Table 1–3", an example of which is that a huge creature would have Str 26, Dex 6, Con 18.
Maybe the 4e DMG could have done with wording that made it clear that these were guidelines rather than strict rules.
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.
There is no direct link I admit, but that is because 4e doesn't worry about all the feats, equipment or class abilities that a monster would need to get a certain level of damage, it just allows a damage expression to be assigned - guided by the GM's concept of the monster.
For example, you could have a monster who in PF has Strngth 18 (+4) and
the feats Improved Natural Attack & Weapon Specialisation for that natural attack. Thus if their base damage die would have been d6, the monster actually does d8+6 rather than d6+4.
With 4e you just go straight to assigning the d8+6 damage expression if that meets your concept rather than have to worry about justifying that by working out what strength or feats would be needed to justify that damage expression.
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.
Could you give me an example of something that would have such a mechanical effect in 3.x but never in 4e? I am struggling to see what you mean.
For example if I am creating a monster that lives in the vast caverns of the underdark that informs me that it should maybe have Dark Vision. But if the monster actually lives underground in burrows but ventures to the surface world at dusk to hunt and mate, that makes me think it should have a Burrow (Tunnelling) speed, maybe Tremorsense with Lowlight Vision.
If a monster is normally found in colder climes maybe it has Resist (Cold) 5. If a monster's diet consists of hard rock and maybe metals I would think maybe it has very strong digestive acids and thus perhaps Resist (Acid) 5 and maybe its bite attacks deal "ongoing 2 acid damage (save ends)".
If a monster mates for life, that tells me they will often be encountered in pairs and maybe if the mate is slain the monster will have a rage power that is triggered and its tactics may change.
All those facts have a mechanical impact in 4e, so I am not sure what sort of things you are talking about when you say they only have a fluff impact in 4e, but a mechanical impact in 3.x.
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.
If that is the case, you can do exactly the same in 4e as well. If you want to throw 5 Goblin Sharpshooters at a party of five 6th level characters nothing is stopping you, despite the fact that they are Level 2 Artillery, and at most a challenge for 2nd level characters.
I don't see how that differs from PF or 3.5
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).
And again, then you could ignore the role a monster is assigned, but you may find that looking at their abilities will inform you of the tactics that fit their role.
E.g. if they have a high Stealth skill, a good Reflex defence, low Hit Points and powers that key off combat advantage, then you may think that monster is best off circling around the combat, trying to remain hidden and then darting in to attack - the same thing its role as Lurker would suggest. Basically monster roles are a time saver to sum up the general tactics it will take rather than the GM have to look at the individual traits and determine that for themselves.
And of course there is nothing stopping you have a Soldier monster try to act as a Lurker and vice versa.
Ok, sorry, let me finish my thought:
"...but literally impossible without using a monster manual."
This I can sympathise with, one thing I wish 4e had a bit more rigour in is a set of guidelines for creating powers, e.g. what amount of damage should be traded off to gain a Push 1 effect? As a player I built up a knowledge of how to build a PC, but that knowledge doesn't help much at all when creating monsters as a GM.
Having said that, as monsters don't need to follow the same rules as PCs, it is quite liberating and IMHO makes it easier to just come up with NPC & monster stats on the fly. But to start with having a MM does help a lot.
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 don't believe it is impossible, things like the Monster Manual 3 on a business card help tremendously, and powers you can just make up as you want without having to worry about it fitting into the strait jacket of existing PC classes.
E.g. here is a power for a level 6 Wyvern I am making up as a I type:
Wing Blast, Minor Action (one per turn), Recharge 6
The wyvern rears up and sweeps its wings forward with such ferocity that its foes are pushed back
All creatures in a Close Blast 4; +11 versus Fortitude.
Hit: The target is pushed back 3 squares and knocked prone.
Miss: the target is pushed back 1 square.
If I can run every RPG the same way except for 4e, I am pretty sure 4e is the weird one.
I admit 4e is somewhat of a different beast that sometimes requires a paradigm shift to really appreciate (e.g. 4e is more Narrative than 3.x's more Simulationist approach, Hit points mean something completely different to me in 4e than in 3.x, and monster stats are just those that the PCs will interact with & they can have more powerful abilities as plot points) and that this could mean some may find it difficult to GM if that difference is significant from what they are used to.
But the good thing is, that doesn't make it a bad game, just different. I know quite a few people find Fate to be a difficult system to get their heads around, especially how Aspects work, but that doesn't mean Fate is a bad game, in fact many feel it is an excellent game.
remember, I do actually like to PC it
Cool, and please don't think I am trying to change your mind or anything, its more a case of I am trying to understand your PoV and using some examples to show why I can't grasp what you mean because for me 4e works like XYZ.
so it was awful for me.
And that is cool some systems just don't work for me either, luckily neither D&D 3.5 nor 4e are amongst those :)
|
|
I am intrigued. Give me an idea of what you consider "rapidly" and we'll see. If it's "as the PCs were rolling initiative," then I've got to hand it to you, though I'm curious how you came up with correctly balanced special powers so quickly with zero benchmarks to work with.
So do you whip up balanced 3.x monsters on the fly while PCs are rolling initiative? If they are more than 3rd level / 3 Hit Dice with PC classes then I am impressed.
Given how combat is resolve in all four editions, what I like about first edition D&D is that combat is abstract rather than a straight up simulation.
Every round is a minute, it assumes that during that minute, there are a lot of parries,thrusts, etc and that one attack you make is representative of a strike that might hit home.
This is excellent post:
Bounded Accuracy
So instead of just raising the DC for higher level characters, and all the extra work that comes with that, just give a slower more reasonable progression for everyone. What a concept!!! Keep things simpler for the GM and make the game scale and relate better to real life.
|
|
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?
As well as engaging in edition warring which is a no longer allowed on the forums yet people keep conviently ignoring that rule.
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?I'm just gonna leave this here. :pI see what you did there!
Since this, I believe.
(to the rest of you, you should know good and well what this is, so clicking it is your own damn fault.
I have been playing pathfinder for several years on and off. Two of my biggest issues (and in fact many of my co-players as well) have been.
1. Power level of the players.
2. Complexity of rules.Without going into a bunch of details that have been outlined in countless other threads the basic theme of Pathfinder is make the characters very powerful and hard to defeat. For some this is great, for others it makes the game lose a lot of the element of danger and fear and even respect of the players. My group will walk into just about any encounter with almost not a care in the world. They fully expect to win and if they do end up seriously injured they furl their eyebrows in confusion. Gone are the old school days of the players arguing about who has to go first, now its a race to the front of the pack to be the one to slay the monsters. Like I said, some like this others miss the fear players used to have in older games. Btw, this is just from the Core Rules, we haven't tried adding Mythic powers. I can't imagine why you would need them. My players already feel like gods on earth. And yes, I know you can find ways to challenge them (Please spare me the posts explaining how you do it as I already have my own ways that work), but the game system is arguably designed with player power baked in and at the forefront. And it only continues to grow and grow and grow with each new release.
D&D Next seems to be trying to find more of a balance by lowering the power level of the players from the start. This I really like and look forward to seeing how it develops. But everything I have read I like so far, like lower Armor Classes for the characters.
As for complexity, lets face it we have a zillion feats, spells, class powers, archetypes, monsters, monster templates, conditions, prestige classes, race abilities...heck we even have story feats. I am all for options but after several years I have only used Core, Bestiary 1, 2, some adventure path stuff and some background stuff. That's it and we still haven't...
I agree. And while I liked beta pf, it lost me over time. I've moved on to simpler, more challenging systems without rocket tag or power creep.
This is excellent post:
Bounded AccuracySo instead of just raising the DC for higher level characters, and all the extra work that comes with that, just give a slower more reasonable progression for everyone. What a concept!!! Keep things simpler for the GM and make the game scale and relate better to real life.
It seems what you want is a different game. So why not go play that game? It seems like Pathfinder will never be truly what you want without lots of house rules and at that point, it's a different game. I'm not trying to be a dick. But it seems that what you want is a slower progression and less power overall (or at least slower improvement) over this game. And that's not a bad thing! Not at all. But deep down, it isn't really Pathfinder.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems what you want is a different game. So why not go play that game?
Because no one else wants to play that game. They want to play Pathfinder. So he'll mod Pathfinder to be the game he wants to play and the Pathfinder they want to play.
His game of Pathfinder is just as much Pathfinder as yours is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems what you want is a different game. So why not go play that game?Because no one else wants to play that game. They want to play Pathfinder. So he'll mod Pathfinder to be the game he wants to play and the Pathfinder they want to play.
His game of Pathfinder is just as much Pathfinder as yours is.
Exactly this. There are a so many RPG players out there who are totally unwilling to play anything but D&D/Pathfinder for whatever reason.
A friend of mine in my non-d20 gaming group actually hates d20, not because he thinks it's a bad game, but because he thinks it ruins potential RPG players. He contends that it basically provides this one tiny niche of gaming, but because it's such a huge business, people get the impression that this tiny niche is the only kind of RPG experience available.
This does two things:
1) People who love that specific niche and move on to other games find that they don't provide the same experience and end up thinking the other games are deficient or crappy, rather than just a different kind of game
2) People who hate that specific niche are much less likely to even try a different kind of game because they assume it will be the same kind of experience, even if they are very likely to enjoy that other sort of game
I used to defend d20, since, well, my d20 games don't resemble a typical d20 game and I grew up with AD&D, but having joined another gaming group who absolutely won't switch from Pathfinder, I'm starting to wonder if he's a little bit right.
Crap, some of those guys can't even conceive of the idea of not having classes and levels--it makes them uncomfortable and they don't want to try. What the heck? d20 and I guess Rift are essentially the only games on the market with levels and probably less than 10% of the RPG market has a rigid class system like d20 (though, admittedly, many games have a loose, psuedo-class system like Masquerade/Requiem Clans or L5R schools).
I agree that there is too much complexity in Pathfinder. Just look at all the conditions (stunned, frightened, exhausted, staggered, etc.) and all the types of actions (immmediate, swift, etc.) and all the types of movement+attack in combat. This was bound to happen because Paizo made the mistake of hiring former WotC game designers (the same game designers who ruined 3.x by adding too much complexity).
I don't see that specifically as a mistake. Anything that helps give options other than "Hit them until Critical Existence Failure" is a plus in my book.
As a long time poster I should probably know this, but I don't, and I don't think it is worth its own topic.
What is a "Popcorn" post?
Is it just when someone says something like "Watching the post and eating popcorn, while waiting for the flames" or something similar?
It means they're dotting the thread and watching the ensuing arguments. Flames, etc.
Niche gaming is silly.
That is all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been playing pathfinder for several years on and off. Two of my biggest issues (and in fact many of my co-players as well) have been.
1. Power level of the players.
2. Complexity of rules.Without going into a bunch of details that have been outlined in countless other threads the basic theme of Pathfinder is make the characters very powerful and hard to defeat. For some this is great, for others it makes the game lose a lot of the element of danger and fear and even respect of the players. My group will walk into just about any encounter with almost not a care in the world. They fully expect to win and if they do end up seriously injured they furl their eyebrows in confusion. Gone are the old school days of the players arguing about who has to go first, now its a race to the front of the pack to be the one to slay the monsters. Like I said, some like this others miss the fear players used to have in older games. Btw, this is just from the Core Rules, we haven't tried adding Mythic powers. I can't imagine why you would need them. My players already feel like gods on earth. And yes, I know you can find ways to challenge them (Please spare me the posts explaining how you do it as I already have my own ways that work), but the game system is arguably designed with player power baked in and at the forefront. And it only continues to grow and grow and grow with each new release.
D&D Next seems to be trying to find more of a balance by lowering the power level of the players from the start. This I really like and look forward to seeing how it develops. But everything I have read I like so far, like lower Armor Classes for the characters.
As for complexity, lets face it we have a zillion feats, spells, class powers, archetypes, monsters, monster templates, conditions, prestige classes, race abilities...heck we even have story feats. I am all for options but after several years I have only used Core, Bestiary 1, 2, some adventure path stuff and some background stuff. That's it and we still haven't...
Arg, not another old school gamer complaining again...
I hope I don't offend you, but you complain about a zillion feats, spells, etc... yet you only use Core and Bestiary 1&2. What are you really complaining about here? Your exaggerations to try to prove your point are noted, but YOUR game IS basic.
We don't try to make you use the suppliments. So why complain on these forums about game content you don't even use?
I just don't get this rambling about to powerful of a core system.
But since you posted on these forums for me to read, I must post my disagreement of it for you to read.
You sound like an experienced gamer. if you played 2.0, 3.x, and now pathfinder (not counting any of the other systems out there) then you know that your complexity argument had no basis unless you think all the D^D rule systems were to complex.
I think you are grasping for reasons to complain to be honest (as most old school gamers did when 3.x came out). I can guarantee you wont find a system that does what you want unless you make the adjustments to it as GM.
That is what this game is all about. If you want your players to feel like they are in an old school game, then make the changes you need to make. As GM it is on your shoulders to make those changes, and by what you posted, your players want that right?
So do something about it rather than complain on these boards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ahem. Pot. Kettle. Black. :)
...Paizo made the mistake of hiring former WotC game designers (the same game designers who ruined 3.x by adding too much complexity).
Heh. "Mistake".
The success of those "ruined" games might lead an observer to conclude that it's not them, it's you. No?
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.Actually, it was because I liked how the crowd spontaneously cheered louder when Pathfinder was mentioned. Given that those were people who came there for a Dresden Files related Q&A and had nominally nothing to do with Paizo or D&D, I loved that spontaneous reaction.
Jim Butcher is no more an authority on the hobby than anybody else here. But I quite like that he comes off as the kind of unassuming nerd who is still amazed at his success as most of us would in his position. Or so I'd like to believe.
To be fair, though, from what I saw at Dragon Con this year there was a LOT of Paizo support, and very little WotC support. I could just have missed it, but I'm pretty sure I combed that place pretty thoroughly. I was kind of hoping to actually try out 4th edition...but I was thrilled to see all the PFS rooms. My friend from Texas who was there with me (and is a 4e player) was very impressed with the Paizo support, and with the panel we went to with Keith Baker and Jason Bulmahn. Baker for one sounded a bit soured on WotC, though he's too nice a guy to actually throw them under the bus.