| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As always with any thread dealing with this topic, I want to appeal to people to not start crying in anger because this idea will "ruin Pathfinder FOREVER!" and "makes fighters completely useless!". And as always, I don't expect that this appeal will be paid any attention by these people. They never are.
But anyway, talk about a "Pathfinder Light" show up every so often again and again, so there are actually people interested in playing a game that is like Pathfinder but much less complex and hard to learn and to run. If you play the game for complex tactical combat, this idea is not for you.
This proposal for Pathfinder Fast Play is aimed at people who never really think about adding modifiers for range increments and soft cover, rarely have encounters on difficult terrain, don't have fog and wind come up during fights, and whose fighters regularly use full-attack and whose wizards prepare fireball three times per day anyway. This is important. This proposal is completely and utter broken and unbalanced. It's not a goal, but an issue that is already assumed to be irrelevant for the entire content of this concept. This isn't anything that is significantly different from what D&D did for over 20 years and that all the OSR retro-clones are still doing to this day. What is relevant though, is that all players and GMs who would play in a game like this have to have a mutual unerstanding that there will be no optimization in that campaign. There needs to be a mututal understanding that combat is not a mathmatical problem for which an optimal solution has to be calculated.
The basic idea is "rulings, not rules". That is, the rules of the game just provide a general framework how most common things work. If the players want to do something, they describe their plan and all the rules and dice rolling are simply there to help the GM detrrmine if the action succeeds or fails. It's rules for a game that is all about exploring the world and interacting with it through a story that develops as it goes.
That being said, here the actual crunch of the concept:
Ability Scores: Work just as in the CRB.
Races: Work just as in the CRB.
Classes: Work just as in the CRB, except for class features that might become redundant because of later changes.
Favored Classes: To keep the rules short and simple, these are just dropped completely.
Skills: The Skill list and the system of gaining and distributing skill ranks works just as in the CRB. The rules for using specific skills can change though.
Feats: Work just as in the CRB, though some specific feats might become redundant because of other changes later on.
Monsters: Stay mostly identical to the Bestiaries. A notable exception for the Grab and Constrict abilities.
The major changes:
Combat Grid: Not used, or entirely optional. In larger fights, markers can still be used to indicate the rough relative position of all combatants to each other. Movement ranges and spell areas are eyeballed.
5-foot step: Taking a lesson from Star Wars Saga, these don't exist.
Attack of Opportunity: Provoked when moving out of an enemies threatened range, casting a spell, or attempting a Combat Maneuver, or a character does anything else that requires stopping to dodge any attacks.
Flanking: There is no flanking. Sneak Attack only works when the target is denies Dex Bonus to AC.
Reach Weapons: Do not exist, their range is just like any other weapon. (Though it should be considered when trying to stab at an enemy trapped in a pit or a cage.)
Casting Times: Casting a spell is a full-round action. Spells with a casting time of a swift action become standard actions. Spells with a casting time of a full-round action become 1-round actions.
Defensive Casting: Spellcasters can not cast defensively. The Combat Casting feat provides a +4 bonus to Concentration checks for taking damage of any kind.
Negative HP: A character at 0 hp is unconscious and stable. A character at negative hp takes 1 point of damage every round until a healing spell is cast on him or a DC 15 Heal check is made.
Stealth: If a character has cover or concealment, he can make a Stelath check to hide. If the GM says an NPC has his back turned to the PC, the PC can make a Stealth check to sneak up on the NPC and stay undetected even when outside of cover or concealment.
Shoting into Melee: A flat -4 penalty to hit. No adjustment for other creatures staying in the line of the shot, no chance for hitting another creature (since exact positions are not tracked). In specific situations like using a hostage as a shield, the GM is encouraged to come up with something on the fly, but it should be kept basic and simple in ordinary fighty.
Grapple: Grapple becomes a simple "Pin" combat maneuver, which is a standard action. When beating the targets CMD, the target is pinned until the next turn of the attacker starts. A pinned target can make a combat maneuver roll or Escape Artist roll as a standard action on its turn to escape.
This is the draft for now. Any suggestions what things should be simplefied or where these proposed changes could be improved? Remember, under the assumption that the game is played at low-optimization and casual tactical complexity.
I love thieves.
Those guys who sneak around scouting, taking out dozing guards, and opening doors for their friends with the armor and big swords.
So in PF light, rogues aka thieves will either solo session or be useless?
EDIT: ontopic, make all maneuvers standard actions. No iterative sunders or disarms.
Thieves in AD&D can't make backstab attacks during combat.
Scoundrels in Star Wars Saga can't sneak attack from flanking.
Rogues can still make melee attacks and ranged attacks. They won't be doing as much damage as fighters and barbarians. But if they would, why have fighters at all? Every class being good at their own thing is a good thing.
Very good idea with the combat maneuvers, hadn't thought about that.
I still think itterative attacks should be dropped out of a Pathfinder light game, but this looks good for the stated intentions.
For a Pathfinder Fast(er) Play, you could also consider dropping AoO completely, either allowing players to perform certain actions unmolested (mainly thinking of combat maneuvers) or disallow the action when engaged in melee altogether. The only spells usable in melee would be those that "threaten", i.e. melee touch attack spells (which would actually give some use to those spells). You could keep the AoO when leaving / moving through a melee to avoid what would effectively be a 30ft-long 5-foot step, or enforce a skill check to move out/thru melee. But since you're going gridless, movement-based AoO are going to be much more abstract anyways.
Alternatively (or in addition), remove concentration checks altogether; spells fail when disturbed à la AD&D. Perhaps only allow characters with Combat Casting a concentration check.
If not dropping the iteratives, trailblazer option works as simpler. Dropping AoOs is a definite one for PHLight, much more complications than flanking.
On the rogues, you're taking away their one and only combat ability. I suggest that you give them skirmish instead: bonus damage activated if he moves 10 or more feet. So no multiple sneaks in a round, but easier to qualify for it.
If Combat Maneuvers are all limited to a standard action per round, I think dropping AoO for them would probably be best. Just by deciding to attempt them you chose not to deal any damage at all that round. That's quite an investment, I think.
Dropping concentration completely seems a bit harsh to me, but it's certainly an option. If this ever takes on a shape that would make a compiled pdf like for E6 practical, Concentration could certainly be listed as an optional rule. Since it's no Skill in Pathfinder, that's very easy without modifying characters.
With Reach weapons already out of the way (which also goes for large creatures) and no grid, I think the issue of moving away from a threatening enemy could be reduced to define to characters as simple being "engaged" in melee or not.
You would say "I engage that creature and make an attack" or "I throw my spear and move to engage the wizard in melee". Then, when the enemy wants to move out of your reach, it "disengages" and that provokes an attack of opportunity.
That would be "You provoke an Attack of Opportunity when you disengage from an enemy or cast a spell while engaged in melee".
--
What about more than one attack per round? I'm mostly familiar with low-level play, but does it become an issue at some point? I think making two or tree attacks when not moving doesn't seem like a problem.
The only trouble I see is with monsters that have silly numbers of natural attacks, like dragons. But I think natural attacks of dragons could be dealt with seperately, that alone does not require limiting all attacks to a single attack.
Given that only fighters, ranger, and paladins in AD&D get a second attack per round at 13th level and there are no multiple attacks per round in either Star Wars Saga and Dragon Age (games I consider pretty close to the complexity I'd like), dropping them seems very reasonable.
Which makes Two-Weapon fighting and Cleave really quite interesting, I'd say. ^^
Also improves Charge by default, since you don't lose anything but 2 points to AC.
But what about Vital Strike? Should that feat still exist? I'd say why not? It would be quite good and give characters with that feat the choice of charge for bonus to hit, or vital strike for additional damage. But since there wouldn't be Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, I'd also remove Improved Vital Strike as well.
Dot.
Rogues need something they can do in combat, since this system takes away the only thing they can really do. Even with sneak attack a flanking, fully optimized, two weapon fighting sneak attacking rogue doesn't displace the fighter as main damage dealer, and with sneak attack on flanking taken away from them there is nothing the rogue can contribute to a combat encounter that every other class can't do better now. They can't even flank to help the main fighter hit harder.
What do you see the rogue doing in combat under this system to help the party defeat an enemy? Thinking that they'll be the out of combat scout, trapfinder, and sneaky assassin so it's ok that they can't do much in combat is a nice thought that falls flat in actual play when you can't devote 20 minutes to playing one on one with one character while the others twiddle their thumbs. And if you could do that, devote time to one on one scouting with one player, in this system there is an even bigger incentive to play a trapper ranger, or an archaeologist bard, who can do the rogue's trap role while overshadowing the now quite sad rogue in combat. Or to be a ninja and take Vanishing trick, since being invisible and denying your opponent their dex would be one of the only ways to get sneak attack in combat situations.
I'm very interested in seeing a homebrew light Pathfinder system for those times I want to run a faster moving game but can't convince any players to try something that isn't a d20 system, so I'm looking forward to seeing what else you put together here. I also like rogues though, hard as it can be to keep them relevant, and this variant really hurts them as is.
Have you considered adopting the Beginner Box ruleset?
I don't know. I have to see if I can find the rules anywhere. Have to take a look at them.
Finding a utility use for rogues is fine with me, as long as it can be done without altering the classes too much. But personally, I think Sneak Attack should be a special stealth ability and not just a damage bonus to pretty much all normal attacks the character makes.
Regarding the rogue issue, I would suggest that flanking exist only as a condition for sneak attack and nothing else. It does not provide attack bonuses, just if a rogue gets right across from an ally with a foe in between they get their sneak attack damage. It becomes part of a rogue ability and has no other function in combat.
This preserves balance for a class that many fear is underpowered while keeping the rules still relatively simple.
I would not allow flanking related feats under this system.
On other matters...
It's interesting to see what you prioritize for fast play and simplification and what you don't.
For example, personally, like Laurefindel and others, the first thing I'd get rid of is attacks of opportunity, especially since you want to make the battle grid optional, and you need the battle grid to see threatened areas, or combat quickly degenerates (in my personal experience) into "You were next to him, you provoke," "I do not!" "Do too!" "Do not!". Even if players can be trusted to judge their position fairly, half of what seems to slow down combat in most d20 based games that use them is, "wait, stop, he gets an attack of opportunity first." AOOs especially slow down combat maneuvers, which need some speeding up (beyond your grapple fix, which for fast-play rules, I like).
For spellcasting, I would still require a character to cast defensively if within an enemy's reach, or the enemy gets a free strike (which is governed by no complex AOO rules, just you get a free strike, done).
And speaking of reach, I've never considered reach very challenging or game-slowing so it has never even occurred to me as something someone would want to eliminate. It's also a way of making polearms appropriately mechanically separate from other weapons that do similar damage, without being very complex.
Not sure why you are increasing casting time.
This is not a statement of "you're wrong"; it's simply an observation of "this is (not) how I would do it."
It's a great idea--although I also agree with the suggestion of checking the beginner box, as that it in itself essentially official fast play rules. I don't know if I'd opt to use your particular rules, but it's a good attempt and I'd love to see playtest results.
With reach weapons I think they seem rather redundant if you don't have clear definitions when a character is within a 5 foot reach or 10 feet reach that a grid provides. Also, there's no 5-foot step. You'd instead have to keep track of every time someone says "I step back to attack with my spear" or "I step forward to attack the spearman". And I don't see how it would add anything to the game.
But I'd be interested to hear it, if you are thinking of something specific.
With Combat Maneuvers as Standard Actions, they should not provoke an Attack of Opportunity, I think.
That really leaves only spellcasting as the whole reason of their existance. Either to interrupt a spellcaster or to hurt him as he steps back to cast his spell out of reach.
So the real question is, should characters be able to interrupt a spellcaster other than using a readied action to ready a charge? This also adresses the casting time issue.
I often read that in AD&D spellcasters were very vulnerable and easy to interrupt, but if I understand the rules correctly, that system simply wouldn't work without extensively rewriting all spells and changing the entire Initiative system.
Looking around some more, it seems that both Star Wars Saga and Dragon Age don't allow the interruption of spells at all, even though Saga does have Attacks of Opportunity for any actions that leave you unable to defend yourself. But using a Force Power is not considered to be such.
Everyone keeping things casual and not going overboard is one of the key assumptions to make this whole concept work, but I think with spellcasters in Pathfinder, simply letting spellcasters pull of their spells without real chance for failure (barring readied charges) just doesn't seem like a good idea.
Currently, I am rather lost on this aspect. If anyone has a decent idea, I'd really like to hear it.
This isnt really a light version of pathfinder, it is a retro-clone version of pathfinder. There is a difference. It doesnt take all the +x's out of the game, or cut down on codification to make things more abstract and streamlined, it is just cutting things out of the game that you wish were different. Thats fine and all but you need to understand that that is what you are going for, and not a genuinely light version of the game.
Also, in terms of the whole rogue thing, while yes, in previous editions 'backstab' only worked with stealth, a lot of other elements of the game were also very different. A big one was hit points, namely things didnt have as many. Fighters didnt do as much damage either. There wasnt a dozen different kinds of static bonuses they could add on, the just hit with weapon damage + strenght. Sometimes they had a feat or two that added a little to it. So when the rogue DID get to backstab, it was a big deal.
In pathfinder, a fighter that takes basic obvious options (not optimized) does more damage in a round of attacks then a rogue that IS sneak attacking. And monsters/characters have hit points to match this assumption. Removing in-combat options to sneak attack is a serious hampering to a rogue actually being able to contribute to a combat encounter as the game stands. If you want to go back to the ways of backstabing, you need to make significant changes to other parts of the game, and not just sneak attack and flanking.
It's shorter, has less rules to remember, and offers less options in combat. I assumed that that's what most people talk about when proposing a Pathfinder light.
The issue I have with Sneak Attack from flanking is that it's not really a special ability. Just a flat damage bonus a rogue is expected to get on every attack he makes.
However, good point in mentioning modifier-raising bonuses. Christmas-tree level wealth is indeed another thing that wouldn't work in such a game. I think the assumed setting to be "low-magic" when it comes to items would probably be best.
It's shorter, has less rules to remember, and offers less options in combat. I assumed that that's what most people talk about when proposing a Pathfinder light.
The issue I have with Sneak Attack from flanking is that it's not really a special ability. Just a flat damage bonus a rogue is expected to get on every attack he makes.
However, good point in mentioning modifier-raising bonuses. Christmas-tree level wealth is indeed another thing that wouldn't work in such a game. I think the assumed setting to be "low-magic" when it comes to items would probably be best.
Maybe I missed something but how are there less rules? You didnt change skills, classes or feats. That is where the bulk of the rules lie. You just altered the combat rules a little. And while some of them are complex, their complexity is almost nothing compared to the myriad of options, rules, combinations and bonuses present in all the things that you havent mentioned.
And low magic is fine, but remember that unless you make some other adjustments, that means you cant really use the CR system as is either after around 6th level.
The issue I have with Sneak Attack from flanking is that it's not really a special ability. Just a flat damage bonus a rogue is expected to get on every attack he makes.
Thats true, its not overly special. But pathfinder has it being common baked into the rogue. Almost all the offensive rogue talents revolve around sneak attack, and he doesnt really have much to do in combat otherwise. You would be taking just about all the combat potential out of the rogue and making alot of its available talents a lot less valuable. Mind you, you could do something with your modification to stealth to make it useful in combat, but it would be something you'd have to add in as a patch to make the pathfinder rogue fit your game.
Sure in ADnD the rogue didnt have much to do in combat if he didnt sneak attack, but all the other classes were a lot then simpler also. Monsters/enemies had a lot fewer hit points. Most pathfinder classes have all sort of special abilities and tricks they can use. If the rogue is just attacking with 2 1d4 daggers, that is going to be kind of sad when the barbarian rage pounces, the fighter hacks through the enemy for a ton of damage, or the druid turns into a bear and eats someone face.
I see your point. A "small package" that contains only the "essential" classes and feats would indeed be a different undertaking. As of now, this is just an attempt to streamline the underlying structure of the game.
But if possible, I'd like to keep the changes to a degree in which most content from all the books can be used. Which I why I'd prefer to leave class features and specific feats untouched.
Skills have not really been adressed yet, other than Stealth. But if anyone has ideas how to break some of the other skills down to neat packages of just 10 lines or so, always share them here.
I am kind of thinking that it would probably be a good idea to approach this whole thing with only levels 1st to 10th in mind. 10+ is always a difficult isssue with d20 games and things become a lot harder to anticipate and to understand all the possible interactions between abilities.
And to use that very phrase that I always hate to hear myself: If you would want to play a high level game with huge monsters and powerful magic, why not play a different game? In this case, regular Pathfinder.
Could be just my perception, but aren't people who love high level play the same ones who love the complex tactical combat rules anyway?
I see your point. A "small package" that contains only the "essential" classes and feats would indeed be a different undertaking. As of now, this is just an attempt to streamline the underlying structure of the game.
But if possible, I'd like to keep the changes to a degree in which most content from all the books can be used. Which I why I'd prefer to leave class features and specific feats untouched.
The problem is that some small changes can have very significant impacts on specific concepts. The obvious one is flanking and the rogue. I'd say making 90% of the rogues combat oriented class features something that happens at best once an encounter, is a really large change. Its a huge hit to a class that already struggles in the base game. Its one thing to not want to be all about balance, it is another to leave a character without something useful to do in a major part of the game (combat).
Skills have not really been adressed yet, other than Stealth. But if anyone has ideas how to break some of the other skills down to neat packages of just 10 lines or so, always share them here.
Other games like saga edition have done this pretty effectively
We already have a condensed acrobatics, we then have athletics (climb, swim, maybe putting jump back here), deception (bluff/disguise), roll sense motive into perception, those sorts of things. Maybe even moving the knowledges into a Generic 'Lore' skill, to simplify things.I am kind of thinking that it would probably be a good idea to approach this whole thing with only levels 1st to 10th in mind. 10+ is always a difficult isssue with d20 games and things become a lot harder to anticipate and to understand all the possible interactions between abilities.
Thats fine, after all the begginer box limited itself to level 5 for a reason. But it wont solve your rogue problem if thats what you are thinking, and you will still have issues with a lack of magic items in the upper side of 10 levels.
And to use that very phrase that I always hate to hear myself: If you would want to play a high level game with huge monsters and powerful magic, why not play a different game? In this case, regular Pathfinder.
Could be just my perception, but aren't people who love high level play the same ones who love the complex tactical combat rules anyway?
Thats not compeltely true. There are lots of interesting concepts to explore at high levels. There are just some stories that need large then life characters to tell. Some people just want to be able to punch demigods in the nose (in character) and dont necessarily care about which dice they roll to do it. I would think actually that one of the largest markets for a simplified ruleset would be high level fans, as its in the high levels where the complexity of the game starts to cause real problems instead of just slowing things down a bit.
Thats not compeltely true. There are lots of interesting concepts to explore at high levels. There are just some stories that need large then life characters to tell. Some people just want to be able to punch demigods in the nose (in character) and dont necessarily care about which dice they roll to do it. I would think actually that one of the largest markets for a simplified ruleset would be high level fans, as its in the high levels where the complexity of the game starts to cause real problems instead of just slowing things down a bit.And to use that very phrase that I always hate to hear myself: If you would want to play a high level game with huge monsters and powerful magic, why not play a different game? In this case, regular Pathfinder.
Could be just my perception, but aren't people who love high level play the same ones who love the complex tactical combat rules anyway?
Yeah, as a fan of high level play, I can vouch for this. High level play is loads of fun, but I could do with a lighter version for it.
Also, relevant to the magic item Christmas tree effect for simplification? Just found that today, so...
Maybe I should just make a new game based on D&D 3rd Edition and just use Skills and CMB from Pathfinder. I'm not a fan of all those crammed in class features anyway.
|
This isnt really a light version of pathfinder, it is a retro-clone version of pathfinder. There is a difference. It doesnt take all the +x's out of the game, or cut down on codification to make things more abstract and streamlined, it is just cutting things out of the game that you wish were different. Thats fine and all but you need to understand that that is what you are going for, and not a genuinely light version of the game.
That's not really a retro-clone. A retro-clone is, as the name implies, an attempt to replicate the rules of a past edition. For example, Swords & Wizardry is a 0E retro-clone, OSRIC is a 1E retro-clone, Labyrinth Lord is a B/X retro-clone, and Dark Dungeons is a Rules Cyclopedia retro-clone.
Maybe I should just make a new game based on D&D 3rd Edition and just use Skills and CMB from Pathfinder. I'm not a fan of all those crammed in class features anyway.
That is certainly an option, I know there are groups out there that play 3.5 with just some additional changes made by pathfinder. It would probably also be easier to accomplish what you are going for, though I would still caution you about the rogue being put in the back seat in combat.
"Warrios and Warlocks" by Green Ronin
Green Ronin, you've doomed us all! Now there's not only one Warrio, but several! And they're warlocks! Aaaaaaaaaaagggghhh! Call for Mario! Quickly!
...
More on topic, Yora, you might just want to strip most of the various class features off of the classes, but keep your PF-light idea, as the rules tend toward PF anyway, and it's mostly just the complicated class features that you'd be missing.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying you should just strip the class features out. Use the base of what you've done already, but also strip many of the class features out.
Simply reverting to 3.0 isn't going to work as cleanly as you like.