Savage Worlds Pathfinder Adventure Paths

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

Eeek, $300 is a little too high for me to pledge sight unseen. I'll wait for it to hit distribution and hear how it turned out from others before I purchase anything. Probably the core book, bestiary, and campaign set.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

FWIW, I did something I haven’t done in years and reached out about a review copy. We’ll see.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

FWIW, I did something I haven’t done in years and reached out about a review copy. We’ll see.

...and it looks like I should have something to review before the KS ends. So I'll post back here when I do.

 

[Necrozius]

33$ USD for shipping a single hardcover book? Not including VAT and customs, which aren't covered? They can fuck right off.

 

[tenbones]

This is what I was waiting for. I'm pretty stoked.

Now we're taking our explorers into the land of Golarion, starting with the Pathfinder for Savage Worlds core rulebook. This 256-page, hardback book gives you all-new Class Edges, new powers and power options, gear specific to the world of Golarion, magic items, and more. And you don't need the Savage Worlds Adventure Edition for this one—the entire core Savage Worlds rules system, streamlined and tweaked for Savage Pathfinder, is included!

We've also created a hardback Pathfinder for Savage Worlds Bestiary, Game Master's Screen, and converted the classic and atmospheric adventure Hollow's Last Hope.

SWADE+Pathfinder core in one book. I'm in for a hundo. I don't need all the tchotchkes (I already have them from Rifts, and other KS's I backed).

 

[UnplayedRanger]

SWADE+Pathfinder core in one book. I'm in for a hundo. I don't need all the tchotchkes (I already have them from Rifts, and other KS's I backed).

The one corebook is clutch. And they’ve put out a preview of the Wizard on EnWorld.

I’m really liking what I’m seeing so far.

Savage Pathfinder - Check Out How Savage Pathfinder Makes A Wizard!

One question that has come up a number of times regarding the upcoming Pathfinder for Savage Worlds (currently on Kickstarter and doing phenomenally well!) conversion is how the game handles classes. The folks over at Pinnacle Entertainment Group have sent me along a preview to share with you --...

www.enworld.org

 

[Chris Brady]

Neat. But the real litmus test will be making a Fighter that's actually viable, fun to play and isn't overshadowed by magic users.

 

[Trippy]

Neat. But the real litmus test will be making a Fighter that's actually viable, fun to play and isn't overshadowed by magic users.

Does that happen in standard Pathfinder, as is?

To be honest, I’m not really the target audience of this product - so I’m only looking at it from its marketing perspective. The Kickstarter seems to be going gangbusters though.

 

[Lychee of the Exchequer]

Does that happen in standard Pathfinder, as is?

No. In Pathfinder, fighters are second or third tier, and, after 5th-6th level can't hold a candle to a wizard. That can be mitigated, but that's a bummer.
I don't play Savage World, but Rise of the Runelords SW coudl actually be better in play than the original one.

 

[Stan]

Weak martials is totally a thing in Pathfinder 1e. They released unleashed (unchained?) versions of some classes to beef them up but I haven't tried them. I'm only browsed through 2e - I think it's a little more balanced but am not sure.

 

[Bourbonjack]

No. In Pathfinder, fighters are second or third tier, and, after 5th-6th level can't hold a candle to a wizard. That can be mitigated, but that's a bummer.
I don't play Savage World, but Rise of the Runelords SW coudl actually be better in play than the original one.

This isn't my experience at all after years of playing PF1e. At a certain level, I'd say around when 5th+ spells become widespread, the pure spellcasters certainly have options that no other class offers. But the martial classes still have a role to play at all levels. I'd add my campaigns don't have as auto-defaults the 15 Minute Adventuring Day or the Rest Easy Anywhere, Anytime modes that unfortunately have become somewhat of a standard.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Neat. But the real litmus test will be making a Fighter that's actually viable, fun to play and isn't overshadowed by magic users.

Combat is kind of the thing in Savage Worlds. I'm much more interested in seeing if they can make magic users that feel *at all* like traditional fantasy magic users. That's Savage World's biggest weakness, IMO, not effective fighters. That's also why they led off with a Wizard preview, if I had to guess.

 

[Bourbonjack]

Combat is kind of the thing in Savage Worlds. I'm much more interested in seeing if they can make magic users that feel *at all* like traditional fantasy magic users. That's Savage World's biggest weakness, IMO, not effective fighters. That's also why they led off with a Wizard preview, if I had to guess.

I'm not that familiar with Savage Worlds, but from what I've skimmed in my old copies of the rules, casters will be getting a huge bump down in at least their number of options in Savage Worlds.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I'm not that familiar with Savage Worlds, but from what I've skimmed in my old copies of the rules, casters will be getting a huge bump down in at least their number of options in Savage Worlds.

For sure. But they are gaining above the normal. Unless that listing of "Wish" in the Wizard preview is a typo. Because Savage Worlds, presently, has *nothing* on that level.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I'm not that familiar with Savage Worlds, but from what I've skimmed in my old copies of the rules, casters will be getting a huge bump down in at least their number of options in Savage Worlds.

But another thing is that Savage Worlds basically just has something like three "damage" spells...with modifiers that you can add to spells to beef them up or alter how they hit. So a good chunk of all damage magic becomes one of three powers with a modifier changing number of targets, damage, area of effect, etc.

 

[tenbones]

Neat. But the real litmus test will be making a Fighter that's actually viable, fun to play and isn't overshadowed by magic users.

Honestly? Fighters - whether melee or ranged are *super* dangerous in SW assuming the player dives into their respective "schtick". Dual Wielders, Martial Artists, Two-handed sluggers, Archers, etc. are all very viable. I also find that Stealth builds are *way* more dangerous in SW than in D&D. The Assassin Edge, plus having decent Stealth skill and Fighting skill alone is brutally efficient. Especially if you start doing called shots. (Sap + Headshot + The Drop + Assassin Edge = Game Over. IF you make the roll, which is not terribly difficult especially with Bennies.)

Assuming equivalent skill etc. the difference in power-level is much flatter if you're going RAW. Once you start putting in setting conceits things might shift a bit, but not much. Caster types tend to follow the tried-and-true glass cannon motif - and they're not very good at taking a hit.

And this is just SWADE. If the "Wizard Iconic Framework" is the example being used - this is 99.9% no different than a standard SWADE build with a few tiny flourishes they put in there for setting-translation reasons. I read they are expanding Powers (Spells) which is good. Finally SW Fantasy gets an honest-to-Galactus Teleport spell (SW's standard Teleport is more like Dimension Door).

But personally I've never had the Fighter-is-boring issue, even in D&D. Context is king obviously. Fighters in my games outnumber Casters - they create/overthrow kingdoms and Casters... well they have to deal with other things that are better left to Casters (and tend to scare normies). I like keeping them rare and mysterious; PC's not withstanding of course.

 

[tenbones]

I'm not that familiar with Savage Worlds, but from what I've skimmed in my old copies of the rules, casters will be getting a huge bump down in at least their number of options in Savage Worlds.

I'm assuming their magic-item creation rules will be how they address the usual Itemization-as-Balance issues that plague D&D. That said, they mentioned the current list is about 10 new Powers (spells) above the current SWADE list. Not bad.

I'm currently running SW Rifts - believe me, there is nothing in SW Pathfinder that is going to come close to the power-level of SW Rifts (maybe at Legendary level - but that is basically the starting-entry point for Rifts), so I'm not worried ONE IOTA about Caster Dominance being an issue.

There will be/are ways to balance any such perceived power-discrepancies, and I'm betting right now, RAW for SWP, it will be minimal if at all.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

But another thing is that Savage Worlds basically just has something like three "damage" spells...with modifiers that you can add to spells to beef them up or alter how they hit. So a good chunk of all damage magic becomes one of three powers with a modifier changing number of targets, damage, area of effect, etc.

To be fair, it's the same in D&D, they just decided to name those three spells 100 different ways and write each up individually. :-)

 

[tenbones]

Yeah but there is a LOT of wiggle-room for GM's to allow/disallow the use of Powerpoints to do those kinds of meta-magic effects. I think Shaintar is the setting that started that whole thing - and now it's in the standard rules in a much more streamlined system. SW Rifts only amplifies it as a setting conceit.

Most of the variations you see in D&D's Vancian system and the metamagic rules they ran with in 3e (especially) are easily handled with standard SW Powers + Trappings. Adding in the metamagic Powerpoint options let's you get buck-wild.

 

[Bourbonjack]

To be fair, it's the same in D&D, they just decided to name those three spells 100 different ways and write each up individually. :-)

LOL, and with arbitrary differences mixed in among the variations.

 

[Stan]

When you think about it, much of character builds are the same in both systems in that they rely heavily on feats/edges. Conversion would be a bunch of work but much less than some conversions.

SW has a much flatter power curve than PF - I wonder where this will fall. My guess is a slightly boosted increase compared to SW but far below PF. In the wizard example, the wizard ends with 2.5 times as many power points as 1st level; PF is more like 30 times as much spell energy. Obviously, that's only part of the picture but it's still looks mild overall. As someone who enjoys D&D at low to mid level, I'm ok with this.

The stretch goals are already adding up.

 

[Séadna]

Reading around this I was interested to see that the new SWADE Fantasy book will have Stronghold rules. I wonder will it get into Domain Management stuff.

 

[Trippy]

Does anybody recall when Green Ronin did the April Fool’s prank of the advert for a Champions using Mutants & Masterminds rules book?

Not trying to drift away from the subject at hand at all, but this product feels a bit like this to me. That said, I do recall some fans saying that they were really taken with the idea of Champions using M&M and were disappointed when it didn’t happen.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

When you think about it, much of character builds are the same in both systems in that they rely heavily on feats/edges. Conversion would be a bunch of work but much less than some conversions.

SW has a much flatter power curve than PF - I wonder where this will fall. My guess is a slightly boosted increase compared to SW but far below PF. In the wizard example, the wizard ends with 2.5 times as many power points as 1st level; PF is more like 30 times as much spell energy. Obviously, that's only part of the picture but it's still looks mild overall. As someone who enjoys D&D at low to mid level, I'm ok with this.

The stretch goals are already adding up.

From what I've gathered, they plan to meet in the middle. The overall arcs of the campaign will be powered down, but they are using Savage Rifts to up the overall "endgame" power level of Savage Pathfinder characters...though likely not to the heights of actual high level Pathfinder.

Reading around this I was interested to see that the new SWADE Fantasy book will have Stronghold rules. I wonder will it get into Domain Management stuff.

They have dropped hints and references at other Paizo adventure paths. I gather Kingmaker gets into domain management, so perhaps the groundwork is being laid there?

Does anybody recall when Green Ronin did the April Fool’s prank of the advert for a Champions using Mutants & Masterminds rules book?

Not trying to drift away from the subject at hand at all, but this product feels a bit like this to me. That said, I do recall some fans saying that they were really taken with the idea of Champions using M&M and were disappointed when it didn’t happen.

I mean, it IS a translation of D&D/Pathfinder tropes into Savage Worlds (as evidenced by the Wizard Arcane Background needing a spellbook and being unable to cast spells in armor). But I feel pretty sure it's not an April Fool's Prank.

 

[Trippy]

I mean, it IS a translation of D&D/Pathfinder tropes into Savage Worlds (as evidenced by the Wizard Arcane Background needing a spellbook and being unable to cast spells in armor). But I feel pretty sure it's not an April Fool's Prank.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s a April Fool’s Prank (it’s the wrong date for a start).

I do get why Pinnacle Entertainment Group would want to market Savage Worlds alongside the second best selling game out there, and I do recognize their need to get a high profile fantasy setting for their flagship line. It’s a great business move for them - its just that Pathfinder is as much of a system as it is a setting, and so to make it fit the Savage Worlds system is always going to feel a little strange in practice.

As an example, in the Wizard Class previewed over at ENWorld, they make use of Savage Worlds usual power points to fuel spells. This kinda reminds me of how Sorcerers work to an extent - at least in that they give the option of spontaneous casting. It makes me wonder how they will end up differentiating Wizards from Sorcerers in a meaningful way? These sorts of things aren’t, in themselves, problems in Pathfinder proper but they become things that furrow the brow a bit when you are trying to translate one system to another.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s a April Fool’s Prank (it’s the wrong date for a start).

I do get why Pinnacle Entertainment Group would want to market Savage Worlds alongside the second best selling game out there, and I do recognize their need to get a high profile fantasy setting for their flagship line. It’s a great business move for them - its just that Pathfinder is as much of a system as it is a setting, and so to make it fit the Savage Worlds system is always going to feel a little strange in practice.

As an example, in the Wizard Class previewed over at ENWorld, they make use of Savage Worlds usual power points to fuel spells. This kinda reminds me of how Sorcerers work to an extent - at least in that they give the option of spontaneous casting. It makes me wonder how they will end up differentiating Wizards from Sorcerers in a meaningful way? These sorts of things aren’t, in themselves, problems in Pathfinder proper but they become things that furrow the brow a bit when you are trying to translate one system to another.

That's a good question, re: sorcerers and wizards. One I hadn't considered. But one I'll definitely be looking for if/when I get my review copy. I assume the biggest differential is Wizards having access to more spells, but being limited by the spellbook (and armor? Do sorcerers have that limitation?).

But the "why", from a design standpoint, makes a lot of sense, because - to a not insignificant number of people - "fantasy" is the D&D tropes, and that's something Savage Worlds has never *officially* tried to adopt.

 

[tenbones]

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s a April Fool’s Prank (it’s the wrong date for a start).

I do get why Pinnacle Entertainment Group would want to market Savage Worlds alongside the second best selling game out there, and I do recognize their need to get a high profile fantasy setting for their flagship line. It’s a great business move for them - its just that Pathfinder is as much of a system as it is a setting, and so to make it fit the Savage Worlds system is always going to feel a little strange in practice.

Business reasons aside (which I agree with you) it's not that strange at all to see Pathfinder (let's be real it's D&D) in Savage Worlds because until now, there hasn't been a bog-standard version for the masses of D&D-style settings and fantasy conventions in Savage Worlds.

Hellfrost and Shaintar come close but thematic differences set them apart (Shaintar barely). The real draw here is to showcase Savage Worlds can do this style of gaming with fidelity to the D&D-Fantasy genre. I'll go a step further and say it does it better, in my opinion, because Pathfinder as a system is ponderous by comparison.

As an example, in the Wizard Class previewed over at ENWorld, they make use of Savage Worlds usual power points to fuel spells. This kinda reminds me of how Sorcerers work to an extent - at least in that they give the option of spontaneous casting. It makes me wonder how they will end up differentiating Wizards from Sorcerers in a meaningful way? These sorts of things aren’t, in themselves, problems in Pathfinder proper but they become things that furrow the brow a bit when you are trying to translate one system to another.

Easy - like most Arcane Casters (and Powers users in SW) the only differences are the Trappings, and the abilities which lets be real when it comes to the Sorcerer you're *really* just talking about Bloodlines. I'm betting dollars-to-donuts they'll give a generic Power's list. And each Bloodline type will have their own specific Powers to choose from along their development path. They'll get Bloodline specific Class Edges to also choose from.

Savage Worlds is a system about emulating tropes as abilities, not discrete mechanical expressions on a granular level like 3e d20. This is why the powercurve is going to be lot flatter (but I'll disagree with those that believe it's less powerful at the high-level of play). Any GM worth their salt.. if they wanna kick things up a notch at the Legendary end, I'd start putting in some SW Rifts options to really let the PC's feel like Demi-Gods - if you wanna play extensively at that scale. If so Savage Worlds can run circles around Pathfinder and D&D.

This is an example of what could be a random encounter - and if you wanted to push Savage Worlds, it could eat this up with no problem. That's probably a lone Ley Line Walker spending a couple of extra Powerpoint to give that city-sized nasty a warning shot of mega-damage proportions. These rules could *easily* be used in high-end (i.e. high level) Savage Pathfinder play without missing a beat. As someone that has run Pathfinder for years at 15+ level of play (we stopped at 21+ average)... it was so grinding that I literally walked away from 3e (including publishing in that system) ever since. Running a fight like this in Pathfinder would be a chore. In Savage Worlds? *EASY* and fun.

 

[sureshot]

I have to disagree about Fighters and Caster power levels in D&D. Linear fighter Quadratic Wizard is definitely a thing in 3E imo. So much so that I would never play one ever again 3E and only Cavalier in PF and even with that class using Order of the Dragon because of that order Strategy ability. At 8th level, the cavalier can spend a standard action to grant one of a number of bonuses to all allies within 30 feet (including himself ). The allies must be able to see or hear the cavalier to receive this bonus. The cavalier can grant a +2 dodge bonus to AC for 1 round, a +2 morale bonus on all attack rolls for 1 round, or the ability to move up to their speed as an immediate action once. The cavalier can grant a different bonus to each ally within range, but allies can only benefit from this ability once per combat.

As the other players need to see or hear my character to use it. Recently we were in a fight where the enemy used positioning and Fog Cloud spell. Walk into Fog and we could see nothing. Bows were useless because I could see nothing. No real Fighter feats for dealing with those kind of spells. Luckily I had that ability or if I played a Fighter I would have been useless for the rest of the combat. Charge into a Fog cloud blindly. Even then Feats really don't scale with level certainly not like spells and Bravery as an ability for the Pathfinder Fighter is somewhat of a joke. All the other melee classes have better class abilities while doing less damage than a Fighter. The Fighter offers nothing I can't do with other existing melee classes.

If Savage Pathfinder can fix that issue then it's going to be on my buy list whenever it comes out in print or PDF

 

[CRKrueger]

I hope this KS makes Pinnacle a ton of money, so after Savage Rifts and Savage Pathfinder(SPf) the idea of “just reskin every possible setting into bog standard vanilla SW” gets retired forever.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

The main reason I'm buying this is because there's only two genres I don't consider Savage Worlds for - "D&D Fantasy" and supers.

I love D&D 5e, but I'm not comfortable enough with it yet to hack it for some of the things I would like to add to it, do with it, etc. If this fills some of those gaps and gives me the experience I'm looking for in a system I'm MUCH more comfortable hacking, it'll likely replace 5e for me.

In other words, IDGAF about the Pathfinder setting, I'm here for the D&D tropes in a system I know almost like the back of my hand.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I hope this KS makes Pinnacle a ton of money, so after Savage Rifts and Savage Pathfinder(SPf) the idea of “just reskin every possible setting into bog standard vanilla SW” gets retired forever.

I mean, The fucking Goon had four pages of setting rules. For context, the "generic" setting rules list from SWADE is only 6 pages.

The argument - and I'm seeing it now in other places - is that this is too complicated and will slow things down too much, and not be Fast! Furious! Fun! like it's a footrace. Savage Worlds is one of the fastest systems I've ever ran. It can get a little weight added to it and still be Fast! as long as it's also still Fun!

 

[tenbones]

I agree. I'm past the need for "system" to define the game first. I wants *systems* that I can easily access that allows me to underpin whatever game I want to run. Savage Worlds fills the need for me in two big ways:

1) Very fast and easy to run. It's intensely flexible and as a GM I can bend it and twist it (with very little effort) to model nearly any genre I want to run. The system doesn't get in the way with the game itself.
2) Players can absorb it very quickly.

It's not perfect, I do enjoy other systems. There are genres I wouldn't use it for - Supers (but this has more to do with my slavish love for MSH). But it's solid, scalable, and flexible in ways that outperform other universal/non-universal systems in my hands.

 

[tenbones]

I have to disagree about Fighters and Caster power levels in D&D. Linear fighter Quadratic Wizard is definitely a thing in 3E imo. So much so that I would never play one ever again 3E and only Cavalier in PF and even with that class using Order of the Dragon because of that order Strategy ability. At 8th level, the cavalier can spend a standard action to grant one of a number of bonuses to all allies within 30 feet (including himself ). The allies must be able to see or hear the cavalier to receive this bonus. The cavalier can grant a +2 dodge bonus to AC for 1 round, a +2 morale bonus on all attack rolls for 1 round, or the ability to move up to their speed as an immediate action once. The cavalier can grant a different bonus to each ally within range, but allies can only benefit from this ability once per combat.

This is a perfect example of 3e rules as a system compounded the LFQM issue where by hyperspecializing and cooking it into the system at the class level, it relegated playing the system *as* the game in order to dance around the emergent bad design that forced GM's to have to compensate. The system pretends all these hyperspecialized bonuses have meaningful use free of any context of whatever the campaign/adventure is.

Each class is its own mini-game, that exists only to prop up silly mechanics that are situational based on some designers notion of "what would be cool and not be a Fighter". It's so niche and stupid, conceptually.

As the other players need to see or hear my character to use it. Recently we were in a fight where the enemy used positioning and Fog Cloud spell. Walk into Fog and we could see nothing. Bows were useless because I could see nothing. No real Fighter feats for dealing with those kind of spells. Luckily I had that ability or if I played a Fighter I would have been useless for the rest of the combat. Charge into a Fog cloud blindly. Even then Feats really don't scale with level certainly not like spells and Bravery as an ability for the Pathfinder Fighter is somewhat of a joke. All the other melee classes have better class abilities while doing less damage than a Fighter. The Fighter offers nothing I can't do with other existing melee classes.

If Savage Pathfinder can fix that issue then it's going to be on my buy list whenever it comes out in print or PDF

So what is a Cavalier conceptually in D&D? A warrior of "noble" social class? Really good when mounted? Good fighter? In Savage Worlds - that's the Aristocrat Edge (gives you bonuses to Persuaion and Common Knowledge checks relating to nobility and all pertinent interactions). Steady Hands Edge ,First Strike Edge for certain. And good Ride/Fighting skill. That's IT. And these Edges are useful beyond *just* being mounted. In this case - Steady Hands removes penalties of fighting from awkward positions (like horseback, vehicles, anything unstable) and it reduces movement penalties for uneven terrain. First Strike? Allows you to attack anything that gets in your Reach. Doesn't matter if you're mounted, or on foot. Everything else is normal progression based on however you want to build your character. Edges are impactful for non-casters and can make a non-caster extremely deadly. Sure Casters are learning new powers - but your Fighter/Cavalier/Thief is stacking combat/utility Edges that will commensurately make them extremely deadly/good at what they do with far broader ability than hyper-specialization you see in D&D (but you can do that too).

Most spells in Savage Worlds impact everyone equally - so it depends. There is no overt *advantage* being a spellcaster that doesn't make sense mechanically, but they can work against you too. Sure, a mage can cast Light/Darkness (trapping would be Fog effect) - it limits vision (Dark or Pitch Darkness with a good roll) - well that affects the Caster too.

LF/QM does not exist in Savage Worlds in my experience.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

So, noticed I had $100 in unspent Visa gift cards from Christmas and just like that I'm in for $75. lol

 

[Chris Brady]

One of the things that I liked about SW is the lack of need for Scaling damage. A Warrior's greatsword can be used at any rank and still have a good chance of putting down most critters. If you prefer 'finesse' like twin weapons? Yup, equally viable. As is the classic Sword and Board!

 

[mac40k]

I've been primarily a pdf only gamer for over 5 years already so I'm in for $75, which ain't too bad AFAIC.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

One of the things that I liked about SW is the lack of need for Scaling damage. A Warrior's greatsword can be used at any rank and still have a good chance of putting down most critters. If you prefer 'finesse' like twin weapons? Yup, equally viable. As is the classic Sword and Board!

And on a similar note, you never truly get "too big" to not be a little cautious about taking on most any foes.

That flatter power curve, where heroes get demonstrably more competent while still having danger and tension, is exactly what I love about it.

 

[Chris Brady]

And on a similar note, you never truly get "too big" to not be a little cautious about taking on most any foes.

That flatter power curve, where heroes get demonstrably more competent while still having danger and tension, is exactly what I love about it.

Another good point. Monster remain a threat no matter what the level/rank of the hero. Sure you can Sweep and take out three Goblins, but if you miss, even ONE of those little blighters can still mess you up!

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Another good point. Monster remain a threat no matter what the level/rank of the hero. Sure you can Sweep and take out three Goblins, but if you miss, even ONE of those little blighters can still mess you up!

5e did an admirable job of widening the threat window for monsters over more levels, but not quite to that Savage Worlds level. And over the years, especially since SWADE, they have added more tools for making monsters tougher or more versatile (without just ramping up numbers).

 

[Chris Brady]

5e did an admirable job of widening the threat window for monsters over more levels, but not quite to that Savage Worlds level. And over the years, especially since SWADE, they have added more tools for making monsters tougher or more versatile (without just ramping up numbers).

True, I still prefer Savage World, for the fact players can handle more than one monster at a time, but they're all still threats.