This post is more a musing than anything else.

Like many, I recently gave Baldur's Gate 3 a try, and while I was enjoying it for a while I was getting more and more disaffected as I neared the end of the first act. On a whim, I dropped it and gave another shot to Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous, a game I had tried and bounced off of several times already. Almost immediately I noticed that while the story was no better, possibly worse, I was having a lot more fun with the gameplay.

That got me thinking about the design differences between 3.0/3.5 (and by extension Pathfinder and the rest of the D20 system) and 5th edition. 5e gets compared to AD&D or B/X a lot, but I don't often see it contrasted with 3.x. A lot of people seem to regard the two as being fundamentally so similar that they're of a kind, and that's never sat well with me. 3.0 had many flaws, and 3.5 arguably more so, but I've always felt it had more of an "AD&D spirit" than people gave it credit for. I've never been able to articulate why, but after playing videogames based on the two systems back to back, I had a couple of thoughts.

"Skills Based" vs. "Powers Based":
3rd edition strikes me as being at it's core a skills-based system. I don't mean that in the way that, say, Call of Cthulhu is a skills-based system, and I don't just mean that it's the edition of D&D with the most involved skill system. What I mean is that its class features tend to represent that class being better at things which any class can do. Everyone can get multiple attacks, but fighters get them at earlier levels. Anyone can dual-wield, but rangers get the feats for free. Everyone gets skill ranks, but rogues get more of them. Even some of the named features like "evasion" just make you better at doing something everyone has the ability to do. 5e on the other hand, strikes me as being more of a "powers" based system, by which I mean that more of the class features are designed around allowing you to do something no other class can. Even the martial classes' bonus attack, for example, is instead phrased as a unique action type that only certain classes have access too.

It's not a hard distinction, and I think part of why 3.5 became so broken was a slide towards "powers" based design in the later supplements, but I think it's fair to say that one system leans more in one direction, and the other the opposite.

"Consistency" vs. "Balance":
One of the things I noticed playing Baldur's Gate is that 5e can definitely be quite a difficult game. Of course any game can be hard; you just stack up monsters that are more powerful than the PCs. But what struck me is how 5e makes its monsters difficult. 3rd edition, for all it's flaws, felt to me like the monsters were playing by the same rules as the PCs. They had the same attack progression, mostly the same spells, the same action economy, etc. Meanwhile 5e monsters have access to a host of unique rules: multiattack, lair actions, legendary actions, and so on. 5e monsters are arguably better designed, using unique rules to balance out the power of PCs while maintaining (arguably) simpler stat blocks, but 3rd edition monsters just feel "fairer" to me.

Like I said, no real point to make here. Even though 3.x was my introduction to RPGs, I'm not ride-or-die for it. These days I'd be likely to play one of the stripped-down derivatives of it long before I played 3.5 or Pathfinder as written. Just thinking through why even though the two systems are superficially so similar, 3rd edition and it's many derivatives have always felt more satisfying for me to play.

My feeling is that 3rd edition and its derivatives allowed for extremely granular character builds, especially after the stacks of splatbooks came out with the piles of feats and prestige classes.  5th edition and Pathfinder 2 seem to have sacrificed that flexibility and gone down a path of a more rigid set of class abilities, which is probably much easier to work with on the design side and you don't need to worry as much about the total munchkin builds that 3rd could have, but also removes the possibility of some of the very interesting stuff players could create.

The biggest problem I had with powerful monsters in 3.5e and PF1 was the plethora of feats and abilities they had. Although I could generally manage with the special abilities, I found it more difficult to also remember all of their feats and how they interacted with one another. It's easier in a video game, of course, because the system then handles everything the monsters do. It's also one of the few areas where I think AI could be of help in-game (as opposed to just being a tool for pre-game prep): Have an app or VTT handle all of the monster attacks for the GM so that he can focus on the adventure, the setting, and the social interaction.

Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but I prefer simplicity. I really cannot be bothered to keep track of all the complicated subsystems inherent to ttrpgs. I just want to play make believe improv theater with the fairness of a board game.

Leave all the complicated tracking to my CPU

Quote from: Rhymer88 on September 17, 2023, 03:59:07 AM
The biggest problem I had with powerful monsters in 3.5e and PF1 was the plethora of feats and abilities they had. Although I could generally manage with the special abilities, I found it more difficult to also remember all of their feats and how they interacted with one another. It's easier in a video game, of course, because the system then handles everything the monsters do. It's also one of the few areas where I think AI could be of help in-game (as opposed to just being a tool for pre-game prep): Have an app or VTT handle all of the monster attacks for the GM so that he can focus on the adventure, the setting, and the social interaction.

This is a key issue with a number of critters in PF1. Forget the unique abilities; many foes have access to feats, and the GM needs to review those feats to make sure he's giving the critter all his tools. Something as simple as Power Attack can challenge a party when the bad guy hits as hard as they do.

While I don't object to simplified monster statblocks, I do prefer having statblocks that call out abilities or note details. Most of PF1's adventure paths have monster encounters which note basic battle tactics and morale (which could range from 'flees at half HP' to 'I'M TAKING YOU WITH ME'). Something as simple as 'This monster will use Power Attack for maximum ouchyness' is nice to have.

Quote from: ForgottenF on September 15, 2023, 10:10:59 PM
"Consistency" vs. "Balance":
One of the things I noticed playing Baldur's Gate is that 5e can definitely be quite a difficult game. Of course any game can be hard; you just stack up monsters that are more powerful than the PCs. But what struck me is how 5e makes its monsters difficult. 3rd edition, for all it's flaws, felt to me like the monsters were playing by the same rules as the PCs. They had the same attack progression, mostly the same spells, the same action economy, etc. Meanwhile 5e monsters have access to a host of unique rules: multiattack, lair actions, legendary actions, and so on. 5e monsters are arguably better designed, using unique rules to balance out the power of PCs while maintaining (arguably) simpler stat blocks, but 3rd edition monsters just feel "fairer" to me.

The point of having monsters play by different rules than players is that they serve a different purpose.  They have different handling limits (e.g. 1 GM running a lot of different ones versus a player getting very familiar with their character).  They usually don't have a past that has been played, and even when they do, it has gaps.  They don't need to advance the same way.

As a separate, setting concern, whether monsters should be recognizably in sync with some of the same rules is going to depend a lot on the element of mystery/fantastical.  The more mundane the setting, the more the opponents should operate under the same limits.  Likewise, if most of the "magic" is really alternate physics.  I tend to prefer that magic is not alternate physics, and as mysterious as I can make it (within the constraints of having some kind of structure for the game).  So I don't want my monsters to be the same.  However, I recognize that for someone coming from the opposite extreme, the other way can make a lot of sense.

Note that 5E is kind of glossing over this problem, which is why not every monster has "lair actions" and the like.  They've left the basic monsters operating more or less according to the rules, with a few simple bits thrown in for people like me.  Then where this breaks the basics of the system, they've added in a few exceptions for the bigger things.  Which is not necessarily a horrible design, but it is huge compromise that is unlikely to satisfy anyone with strong opinions on the subject from either camp.

The PF approach looks insane to me nowadays (although I've used similar systems in the past).

Look at the aboleth's feats:

Feats: Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Weapon Focus (tentacle)

Now, ALL of those feats are just small bonuses to statistics that are ALREADY INCLUDED in the huge statblock.

Same for skills:

Skills Bluff +11, Intimidate +14, Knowledge (any one) +13, Perception +14, Spellcraft +13, Swim +24; Racial Modifiers +8 Swim

Not only the aboleth needs a swimming skill, but also a RACIAL MODIFIER. I wonder how often does it have to make swimming checks.

I got curious and I checked: FISHES also have the swimming skill, but not the modifier.

I assume this whole thing is because someone might want to play an aboleth? Fair enough.

In my games I prefer the "it is a fish. It swims." approach, but I am a minimalist guy myself.

With that said, I agree that 3e and 5e are very different systems, in several ways.

And 4e is its own thing, of course.

3e is very "simulationist"/concrete (fiction over mechanics), while 4e leans on the abstract nature of grids/powers (mechanics over fiction), and 5e walks a middle road.

Can you trip an ooze? 3e says no, 4e says yes, 5e says "not really but maybe a snake?". For me, 3e has the best approach here.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/02/tripping-oozes-in-d-3e-versus-4e-versus.html

Let's not pretend like Pathfinder isn't just copy/paste from D&D. That's the same statblock from the 3.5 Monster Manual, which is probably mostly the same as the 3E Monster Manual.

This is the logical conclusion of a simulationist mindset. Everything must be represented in the rules, including the default ability of fish to swim. While you may not ever be expected to play an aboleth, you might try to escape from one at which point we need to know how well you and the aboleth can both swim to resolve whether or not it catches you.

Quote from: Corolinth on September 19, 2023, 03:00:35 PM
Let's not pretend like Pathfinder isn't just copy/paste from D&D. That's the same statblock from the 3.5 Monster Manual, which is probably mostly the same as the 3E Monster Manual.

Yes, certainly, I mentioned PF but it could be 3e o 3.5e, the reasoning is the same.

Quote from: Corolinth on September 19, 2023, 03:00:35 PMThis is the logical conclusion of a simulationist mindset. Everything must be represented in the rules, including the default ability of fish to swim. While you may not ever be expected to play an aboleth, you might try to escape from one at which point we need to know how well you and the aboleth can both swim to resolve whether or not it catches you.

Yes, I agree.

But there are "degrees" of simulationism. 3e very much so, 5e not so much but monsters still have ability scores, something that I find unnecessary 90%of the time.

AD&D OTOH tried to simulate the different effects of weapon versus armor, etc.

In short, I think you need SOME abstraction and adjudication to run any RPG, no matter how simulationist; nowadays I prefer simpler RPGs, requiring fewer mechanics, but ultimately it is a matter of taste.

In 5E pretty much everything is an ability check, with a possible proficiency bonus thrown in. Once you know what a monster's intelligence save is and whether it's proficient, you know it's intelligence score within 1 point.

There's something else going on, which is the ability to back into a monster's statblock. I have seen members of this forum get irked by the popularity of rules-as-written, but there's a reason that came into vogue during 3rd edition. Fair play is an important concept in games, and the degree to which it's important is related to the stakes. You might get a stern talking to dealing cards off the bottom of the deck in a back yard poker game for $100 per player. You might get buried in the desert pulling that same trick at a $100,000 table in Vegas. Some GMs are very enthusiastic about killing PCs, and so we shouldn't be surprised when "official" rulings from the published rise to prominence over the loosey goosey house rulings that older and more established players are used to from back in the day. Similarly, there's an increased interest in being able to validate the numbers in a monster's statblock.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 19, 2023, 02:51:01 PM
The PF approach looks insane to me nowadays (although I've used similar systems in the past).

Look at the aboleth's feats:

Feats: Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Weapon Focus (tentacle)

Now, ALL of those feats are just small bonuses to statistics that are ALREADY INCLUDED in the huge statblock.

Same for skills:

Skills Bluff +11, Intimidate +14, Knowledge (any one) +13, Perception +14, Spellcraft +13, Swim +24; Racial Modifiers +8 Swim

Not only the aboleth needs a swimming skill, but also a RACIAL MODIFIER. I wonder how often does it have to make swimming checks.

I got curious and I checked: FISHES also have the swimming skill, but not the modifier.

I assume this whole thing is because someone might want to play an aboleth? Fair enough.

In my games I prefer the "it is a fish. It swims." approach, but I am a minimalist guy myself.

   This is the fruit of 3.5's "PCs and monsters must be built by the same rules, including skill and feat acquisition"--so you need something to use those feat slots on, and ways to boost the skills if they need to be higher than they would 'legally' be based on skill points and stat modifiers.

Quote from: Corolinth on September 19, 2023, 03:00:35 PM
This is the logical conclusion of a simulationist mindset. Everything must be represented in the rules, including the default ability of fish to swim. While you may not ever be expected to play an aboleth, you might try to escape from one at which point we need to know how well you and the aboleth can both swim to resolve whether or not it catches you.

Even given a simulationist mindset, not everything needs to be detailed on every character. Something BRP or Unisystem is still simulationist, but more rules-light than Pathfinder / D&D3E.

I find the Pathfinder / D&D3E approach a pain because there are so many Feats that are exceptions to the rules, especially when many of them are just +1 or +2 modifiers to rolls.

I like the idea of consistency, and I think it is possible. What sometimes bugs me is if the PCs are different than all other people in the world in verifiable ways. I'm OK with out-of-character mechanics like hero points, but if (say) the rules of magic are different for PCs and NPCs then that is weird. I'm OK with something like Savage Worlds, where "Wild Cards" is a category that includes PCs as well as important NPCs who work under overlapping rules.

Quote from: Corolinth on September 19, 2023, 03:00:35 PM
This is the logical conclusion of a simulationist mindset. Everything must be represented in the rules, including the default ability of fish to swim. While you may not ever be expected to play an aboleth, you might try to escape from one at which point we need to know how well you and the aboleth can both swim to resolve whether or not it catches you.

And yet there is no walk/run skill for landlubbers*. Clearly 3e fails as a simulation.

* note that WEG Star Wars DID have a running skill that rules as written you were supposed to use whenever you moved to not trip over yourself. I always found it amusing because one of my friends IS so clumsy they've tripped over their own feet on level ground and WEG Star Wars is the only game where this could actually be simulated.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 20, 2023, 10:15:17 AM
* note that WEG Star Wars DID have a running skill that rules as written you were supposed to use whenever you moved to not trip over yourself. I always found it amusing because one of my friends IS so clumsy they've tripped over their own feet on level ground and WEG Star Wars is the only game where this could actually be simulated.

  HERO System: Sell back your baseline running, then buy it back with the Requires a Roll limitation.