Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[RobbyPants]

I actually wonder if people would accept RPGs that weren't so much shorter as less tall. The current RPG standard is a coffee table book that only fits on a tall shelf and has ~800 words per page. I genuinely wonder if people would accept 11x17.8cm paper back format books as their RPGs. I mean sure, they demand 300+ pages from their books, but why can't it be 300+ pages of 300 words per page?

-Username17

Backpacks?

I know for me, personally, I prefer the books the size and shape they are. I DM more often than I play, and sadly, I don't get to do it from my house much anymore. This leaves me stuck grabbing the half-a-dozen or so books that I think I'll need the most and taking them with me.

[Voss]

Eh. The short and stubby books (like the essentials, or gods forbid a mass market book, like the Weis & Hickman 'RPG' based on the 'Darksword' novels from decades ago) are pretty terrible for referencing and practical use.

While the current format is pretty much a straight set-up for higher costs because 'hardcovers,' a shorter format would be pretty intolerable.

[tussock]

I found the Mentzer books fine in the early days, but old folk who pretend they don't need reading glasses find them tough going. They're 3-column softcovers with big word density, but they kept the page size and count well down. 176 pages up to level 14, 272 for level 25 and rulership, planar travel, and mass combat stuff (full game, all inclusive, plus a 32 page campaign-scale module).

@word counts, I'll defer to Frank. Now, I did take a mechanical word count, and averaged it across page space remaining after discounting space for artwork. But Frank's sources for word counts sound better than mine.

Having said that, I estimate 300k+ in the 384 page 2nd edition Monstrous Manual to bloat up that edition count to near 750k.

Math: 4e PHB, 200k words / ~700 words/p = ~285 pages; + 30 pages art (mostly as 1/4 or 1/2 page graphics) = 317 pages. It was from a discussion about art-space vs game content per edition. Where 4e basically doubled up on the art.

[K]

The old Red Box is an entire game and is half advice for noobies. Getting a playable game in 40K words in magazine format doesn't even seem like a feat.

Hell, DnD is almost entirely monster fluff, stats, and filler spells. Cut that out, and the word-count nosedives.

[hogarth]

The old Red Box is an entire game and is half advice for noobies.

I think the days where D&D could end at level 1-3 are long gone.

[Mask_De_H]

The old Red Box is an entire game and is half advice for noobies.

I think the days where D&D could end at level 1-3 are long gone.

The average PBP campaign, as well as the metric fuckton of OSR material disagrees with you.

[Username17]

Considering how much shit I got for not writing 20th level capstones to 3rd edition D&D classes, I would definitely say that D&D can't end at level 3. People will rebel.

I mean yeah, only a tiny minority of games actually go for more than 3 levels. But people will flip their shit and refuse to use the material if the extra levels they aren't going to use aren't there. I mean for fuck's sake, people flipped their shit and refused to use Tome material on the grounds that it didn't have 20th level written for all the classes. You understand how stupid that is, right? 20th level D&D is not even playable, and you will never get there anyway. But still, if it isn't there, people are unhappy.

That being said, I think you could actually have the initial offering go to 10th level for PCs, with enemies going to CR13 or so in the Monster Manual. If you promised "rules for 11th-20th level" in a later book, I think people would be more accepting of that than being told to wait until next year for the Druid, Barbarian, Monk, and Bard.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

I mean for fuck's sake, people flipped their shit and refused to use Tome material on the grounds that it didn't have 20th level written for all the classes. You understand how stupid that is, right? 20th level D&D is not even playable, and you will never get there anyway. But still, if it isn't there, people are unhappy.

I was literally just asked by someone if I could just make the table 20 levels long for the Cold Dude so that DMs would allow the person to play a Cold Dude 12/Something Else 8, because as a 12 level class, DMs apparently refuse to believe that it is a base class at all, because it is impossible for a Base class to not be 20 levels.

[John Magnum]

I think people are pretty flexible about what level paradigms they'll accept, as long as you don't try to switch horses midstream. People were fine with 20 levels in 3.x. I don't think anybody was mortally offended by the fact that 4e had 30 levels instead of 20. Offended that they stretched what used to be level 7 over thirty levels, but not the raw fact that the level cap was a different number. People are okay with a base level cap of X, to be raised to X +10 or 2X or whatever in a future Epic supplement.

I think the problem with the Tome material is just that there was already the entrenched level convention of "classes have 20 levels of content, PRCs have five or ten", so writing a base class that ends after ten or seven or three levels is contradicting an existing level paradigm. If you were just doing a fantasy heartbreaker from scratch and just told people that base class takes you to level 10 and then you bolt on some additional chassis with new secret sauce, I don't think they would have a problem.

[hogarth]

The old Red Box is an entire game and is half advice for noobies.

I think the days where D&D could end at level 1-3 are long gone.

The average PBP campaign, as well as the metric fuckton of OSR material disagrees with you.

I'd be curious to see the "metric fuckton of OSR material" that's based around the idea that there's no PC or NPC over level 3 in existence.

But at any rate, you're misunderstanding me. A particular campaign can end at level 3, and many do (intentionally or unintentionally). But, as Frank noted, the number of people who are violently opposed to getting rid of high levels even if they never, ever use them is nuts. And even the people I've seen who would be happy to get rid of high levels usually set the bar at level 5 (e.g. Pathfinder's Beginner Box) or 6 (e.g. E6), not 3!

[Red_Rob]

What I care about is how easily I can read the pdf version on my pad. I don't really care about the printed version much anymore.

This. We only really use printed versions of the core books at our table nowadays. other books are usually obscure enough that only the GM or one player needs to read them - perfect fodder for a pdf on that person's tablet.

[Ice9]

While I think that you could have less than 20 levels, I don't think you could actually just have three. If you're talking D&D, a lot of people want "zero to hero" - to a lesser or greater extent, but they want it. And three levels means either the jumps are huge or you're not getting that much change.

Perhaps more importantly, they want more than two moments of character change over the course of a campaign. Even people who want a small power curve like "new recruit to experienced soldier" still want it more granular than that (often by using a non-level system, in that case).


On a related note, while it still wouldn't be that good, I think 4E would definitely be improved by cutting the levels in half, so it goes 1-5,6-10,11-15 for the tiers. With the amount of actual abilities you get, 15 levels is plenty, and it would reduce the pointless grinding feeling.

[Voss]

But the pointless grinding is the whole game.


5e is the one that is really going to suffer from the levels of non-change. People aren't going to be happy that the numbers barely move over 10 levels, and 20 is more of the same.

[Mask_De_H]

I think the days where D&D could end at level 1-3 are long gone.

The average PBP campaign, as well as the metric fuckton of OSR material disagrees with you.

I'd be curious to see the "metric fuckton of OSR material" that's based around the idea that there's no PC or NPC over level 3 in existence.

But at any rate, you're misunderstanding me. A particular campaign can end at level 3, and many do (intentionally or unintentionally). But, as Frank noted, the number of people who are violently opposed to getting rid of high levels even if they never, ever use them is nuts. And even the people I've seen who would be happy to get rid of high levels usually set the bar at level 5 (e.g. Pathfinder's Beginner Box) or 6 (e.g. E6), not 3!

No man, I understand.

They'll bitch about it (if it's a D&D product), but people bitch about everything in D&D so that's nothing new. If it's a heartbreaker or presented under the correct paradigm (E6, FFV), people are fine with fewer levels. Like Dungeon World, Old School Hack, Dark Dungeons, ACKS, et. al. Three is stretching it, but if it's produced in a Red Box sort of way (or you do some FF style multiclassing), K's in the right.

People bitch about Tome classes because the odd class numbers are one of many ways Tome doesn't fit the imagined D&D 3.X paradigm. If that changes, people will be willing to accept it. And at this point, I believe that if you shat on some paper, you could sell it as an RPG, with the right buzzwords.

It's all in the marketing and presentation.

[tussock]

People are okay with a base level cap of X, to be raised to X +10 or 2X or whatever in a future Epic supplement.

Yes, though I think level 3 is still too low in 3e (because you level-up so fast). The first 6 levels would work well mechanically, and get you fireball and fly, plus all the basic monsters up to a few iconic "level 7" ones (CR 5, the Manticore, Troll, and Wraith). That's the D&D most people seem to play.

Maybe just 6 classes, Fighter, Rogue, Adept, Wizard, Cleric, and Bard/Druid.
Where Adept is the martial adept and gish type, a barbarian/monk/psiwar/shifter deal.

[*]A 2nd pair the same sizes would net you the rest of the core game, level 7-16 might be a better stopping point than 7-20, and adding typical prestige path/class options could fill out your page count. Could have PClass rangers and paladins and alt-wizards and spec-clerics and ..., splatbook filler forever. Cold Guy, and Frostmancer, and ice-knife.

[*]Churn out a 3rd pair for rulership and background income, mass combat, trade, boats, flying ships, city-building, and all the bullshit that wouldn't fit earlier, levels 1-16. Include all the noble, criminal, and monstrous secret-overlord societies like Illithid elder brains and drow plots against the overworld. Totally add a courtly social mini-game if anyone can write one that isn't a bag of ass.

[*]A 4th set for planar adventuring and world-rending catastrophies, a few "I'm a god now" epic classes for 17-22 (6 of them, for the original six classes). Get into vampire plagues and nanoswarm cascades and other things DMs may or may not want to bring to the prime but can totally work anywhere as a planar jaunt. The blood war, the fury of angels, the great walk, a dragonflight. Plus all the 9th level spells you ever wanted.


You know, what they tried to do with 4e, a money-making scheme, only something people might totally buy once they're bored with the last lot, not just more of the same. Pathfinder2, eh. Monsters and treasure and encounter generation in the DMG, everything else in the PHB. Not monster books, but monsters and interesting things you can do with them. /rant.

[Korwin]

I actually wonder if people would accept RPGs that weren't so much shorter as less tall. The current RPG standard is a coffee table book that only fits on a tall shelf and has ~800 words per page. I genuinely wonder if people would accept 11x17.8cm paper back format books as their RPGs. I mean sure, they demand 300+ pages from their books, but why can't it be 300+ pages of 300 words per page?

-Username17

SW Saga did smaller books (but not that small).

[Archmage Joda]

In terms of things in Pathfinder that are or aren't crap, how does the Alchemist (particularly with the Mindchemist and either Psychonaut or Preservationist archetypes) measure up? Is it a shit class akin to the fighter or the monk, something completely unnoteworthy either way, or actually something worthwhile as far as Pathfinder stuff goes?

[hogarth]

The alchemist is decent all-around class, and it can pump out quite a bit of damage (and various debuff effects) once it gets access to the Fast Bombs discovery. My alchemist character usually uses stink bombs (for nausea) and force bombs (for knocking enemies prone).

The Mindchemist is okay. The Perfect Recall ability means he can get ridiculous modifiers on Int-based skill checks. If you're playing with a 15-minute work day, cognatogens are awesome compared to mutagens, but if you're having multiple encounters per day the ability damage might be a pain, at least at low levels. At any rate, you can always take cognatogens as a discovery.

The Preservationist is basically harmless. You trade away all the poison stuff for the ability to use Summon Nature's Ally (which is a standard action for an alchemist). I'm playing one now and I like it well enough; mites make good trap-springers, and occasionally I pop out an elemental as a speed bump or a satyr to spam charm/fear effects. Note that you can't take Mindchemist and Preservationist, since they both trade out Poison Use.

The Psychonaut is pretty awful, I think. Your bomb ability sucks and you get the ability to cast various divinations. I guess the ability to cast Scrying as a standard action is pretty neat, but otherwise it seems pretty pointless.

[K]

People are okay with a base level cap of X, to be raised to X +10 or 2X or whatever in a future Epic supplement.

Yes, though I think level 3 is still too low in 3e (because you level-up so fast). The first 6 levels would work well mechanically, and get you fireball and fly, plus all the basic monsters up to a few iconic "level 7" ones (CR 5, the Manticore, Troll, and Wraith). That's the D&D most people seem to play.

Blue Box takes the classes to the low teens and is basically 30 pages, spells and monsters included, and could have been packaged in the Red by extending the existing sections and no one would have noticed. (I don't even know anyone who cared about the Black or Gold Box.)

Hell, most 3.X base classes are two pages each. It's the damned spellcasters that get an extra 60 pages of spells each.

It's really the Monster Manual, nonsense "campaign" sections, and the spell section that eats up about 9/10ths of the word count in 3.X. Write up a monster generation system in ten pages and use a spell system like Shadowrun and your game sheds 700K words instantly.

Historically, DnD has been written fat for a variety of reasons, and it doesn't need to continue.

[Voss]

In terms of things in Pathfinder that are or aren't crap, how does the Alchemist (particularly with the Mindchemist and either Psychonaut or Preservationist archetypes) measure up? Is it a shit class akin to the fighter or the monk, something completely unnoteworthy either way, or actually something worthwhile as far as Pathfinder stuff goes?

It is a rogue (unabashedly so in the case of the vivisectionist) with self-buffing (that can quickly become buff others) and spellcasting (bard level, but mostly buffs and healing, so the fact that the DCs don't scale properly is irrelevant), plus a bunch of other random stuff that can vary from useful (stack on extra arms so you can use a bow, a shield and have a free hand for spellcasting), to trivial, to pretty good. So while it isn't a cleric or wizard, it has the utility role all over, spellcasting and the ability to pile on stat bonuses and be a combat monster when needed (the mutagen adds a newly type of bonus to stats, in addition to the stacking most spells already do. So yeah, you can pretty much make the barbarian feel small in the pants if you want to). Also, just to top things off, UMD.

It is a good class if you don't want to be game-breaking god tier, but want to be useful nearly 100% of the time.

As for the archetypes you mention-
preservationist is fine, as summons aren't exactly a drop in power for anyone

mindchemist is a bit odd, since blowing your int above the scale isn't terribly useful for anything (very few alchemist spells have DCs, so there isn't all that much point in a big int buff). And while kicking your wis up is nice if you're running into mind affecting shit, dropping your ac and ranged abilities isn't, nor is killing yourself to get a diplomacy boost.

psychonaut- eh. if you really like divinations, and don't mind the damage drop, then whatever. At 8th level you can pretty much content yourself with breaking any plots or mysteries the DM happens to throw at you, but the cleric or wizard was doing that a level or more (in the case of murders) before that, so who really cares.

[hogarth]

mindchemist is a bit odd, since blowing your int above the scale isn't terribly useful for anything (very few alchemist spells have DCs, so there isn't all that much point in a big int buff).

In fact, most bomb special effect DCs are based on Int (e.g. nausea, staggering, knocking prone, etc.). Not to mention you add your Int bonus to bomb damage.

[Voss]

Huh, so they are.

Apologies, I've never been terribly keen on the bomb-focused alchemists, nor an int heavy one. I tend to feel the alchemists benefits more from a better spread of abilities, considering how punishing pathfinder's point buy is for high numbers.

[Archmage Joda]

Once again asking how bad something is in this system that is bad (because asking these things here has a good track record of informative, useful answers, and I am not being sarcastic), what of the Words of Power alternate spellcasting system? It looks neat, but what are its underlying flaws that I in my naivete and tendency to be distracted by shiny magic rules have missed? Is it worse than the normal vancian system?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/words-of-power

[hogarth]

The Words of Power system is, at best, an interesting failure.

My main complaints:
[*]Meta words are limited to X/day, but in many cases that's pointlessly limiting. For instance, if you Boost the Selected target word, that raises the spell level by 3 and it also cost you a meta word use -- why charge the PC twice?
[*]The lists of effect words are way, way smaller than the equivalent spell lists. For instance, the cleric/oracle spell list has a whopping two (count 'em, two) 7th level spells (the equivalents of Summon Monster and Control Weather). Your oracle doesn't like summoning or weather control? Then it sucks to be you.
[*]Most effect words are worse than their spell equivalent for no particular reason.
[*]Some spells are just fucked up, period. For instance, there are various effect words in the polymorph subschool, but the word descriptions were obviously written without any regard to the normal polymorph boilerplate.
[*]The rules for combining effect words are pretty lame, so in practice you don't end up making many multi-word spells. For instance, you generally can't combine a damage word and a debuffing word into a single spell because the duration of the combined wordspell is the minimum of the two words (i.e. usually instantaneous in the case of a word that does damage). Even one of their own examples (Selected Ice Blast Life Leech) screws that one up!

I've been playing a Words of Power oracle for a while, and it hasn't been pretty.

[Archmage Joda]

So basically, it sounds like I'm better off sticking with my original plan of being a normal wizard, and just using feats to cherry pick a word or two, like that diet Celerity one