If PFS rules were the Pathfinder chassis, would it be an overall better game?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Omnitricks wrote:

The only reason I played PFS a few years back is because I can't play anything with my friends otherwise.

If I had any other choice I wouldn't even play PFS. Its needlessly restrictive and some of the restrictions don't even make sense.

I find PFS is far more permissive in player options than any home game I've seen.

How often do you see no monk/samurai/ninjas because I don't want Asian crap in my game? No gunslingers? No advanced class guide?

With very few exceptions you can play most of Paizo published content, which is seldom the case with home games.

I've never played a game where this is the case.


Rynjin wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Omnitricks wrote:

The only reason I played PFS a few years back is because I can't play anything with my friends otherwise.

If I had any other choice I wouldn't even play PFS. Its needlessly restrictive and some of the restrictions don't even make sense.

I find PFS is far more permissive in player options than any home game I've seen.

How often do you see no monk/samurai/ninjas because I don't want Asian crap in my game? No gunslingers? No advanced class guide?

With very few exceptions you can play most of Paizo published content, which is seldom the case with home games.

I've never played a game where this is the case.

I've seen "no UC Gunslingers" because Paizo was sloppy in writing the gun rules, and the 3.5 gun rules work much better. Also, Paizo's gun rules interact really badly with my house rules on critical hits, which I wrote years before Pathfinder came out.

No ACG is a rule I currently enforce....
of course I run 3.5 and don't allow any Paizo products with the exception of Ultimate Campaign (I do use Interjection and DSP stuff though).

I've honestly never heard of someone banning stuff because they "don't want Asian crap" outside of the Paizo.com forums. If someone did hypothetically one to avoid "Asian" content, they could always refluff it. Oh, except in PFS, which has a special rule against refluffing:|

So, no, I do not think PFS rules would make the game as a whole better.


I think the editing would be significantly better if PFS rules were the chassis. Heck, there are PFS "errata" in the Additional Resources on splat book material that should have never been printed as they were, but someone forgot how formatting works on certain items - Kitsune Style in DTT comes to mind, where all the path feats were labeled as Style Feats, but that breaks with the formatting rules for those and had real rule implications, so it was errata'd in the AR.

I'm not really up on the 3PP stuff, but saying that PFS is the chassis doesn't prevent or limit 3PP, so no biggie.

I prefer the 3xp levels of PFS over the needlessly complicated XP table model. Other than the initial restrictions, I think Prestige is a fine mechanic, albeit clunky and likely discarded in terms of purchasing power for many home games. Getting rid of crafting actually broadens the field of play and removes terrible subsystems, so I'm pretty cool with that. You don't feel compelled to take Craft Wonderous at 3 as a caster, so you can do more interesting things.

I find it funny that people think things are "inexplicably" banned. I tend to wonder why certain things are legal - Morphic Savant is a prime example of something that breaks tables, but it's completely legal. It somehow got through editing AND PFS review, though, so whatever. It's not like the PFS chassis saved anyone from that thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deranged_Maniac_Ben wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Omnitricks wrote:

The only reason I played PFS a few years back is because I can't play anything with my friends otherwise.

If I had any other choice I wouldn't even play PFS. Its needlessly restrictive and some of the restrictions don't even make sense.

I find PFS is far more permissive in player options than any home game I've seen.

How often do you see no monk/samurai/ninjas because I don't want Asian crap in my game? No gunslingers? No advanced class guide?

With very few exceptions you can play most of Paizo published content, which is seldom the case with home games.

I've never played a game where this is the case.

I've seen "no UC Gunslingers" because Paizo was sloppy in writing the gun rules, and the 3.5 gun rules work much better. Also, Paizo's gun rules interact really badly with my house rules on critical hits, which I wrote years before Pathfinder came out.

No ACG is a rule I currently enforce....
of course I run 3.5 and don't allow any Paizo products with the exception of Ultimate Campaign (I do use Interjection and DSP stuff though).

I've honestly never heard of someone banning stuff because they "don't want Asian crap" outside of the Paizo.com forums.

I think it is fairly common to have options or classes banned, CRB is usually allowed and other sources are on a case by case basis, often dependent on the books the GM has available.

I think the rules for PFS are quite understandable and fair to attract a wide range of players, expectations of the game simply vary too wildly to put random players at the same table without extensive guidelines.


Serisan wrote:
I prefer the 3xp levels of PFS over the needlessly complicated XP table model.

Except it only really works in the PFS context: strictly defined goals per session.

Very hard to apply in a more flexible game. You could just say "Every three sessions", but otherwise you'll have to railroad specific xp goals in.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No not all. Too much stuff is banned for my tastes. It's not because I can't get what I want. I find that they ban too many things that they consider overpowered that are not. I can get banning guns, Not because I'm one of those " I don't like guns in my fantasy". I just don't like how Paizo handles guns. Banning crafting. Seriously crafting.

I'm not sure if it was in this thread or another. Where someone posted a list of what is banned in PFS. Speaking for myself and remembering that list. To me at least. It looks like they want to play AD&D just with the Third Edition rules.

I have no interesting playing with such a restrictive set of rules.

Better no gaming than lousy gaming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

No not all. Too much stuff is banned for my tastes. It's not because I can't get what I want. I find that they ban too many things that they consider overpowered that are not. I can get banning guns, Not because I'm one of those " I don't like guns in my fantasy". I just don't like how Paizo handles guns. Banning crafting. Seriously crafting.

.

Yes. seriously. Crafting.

You would either need to track downtime (which is a PITA)

or

Casters can effectively double their WBL for the cost of a feat. Mind you, craft wondrous item is the real culprit here, but a Wizard walking around with twice their WBL is going to marginalize other characters


Imbicatus wrote:

I find PFS is far more permissive in player options than any home game I've seen.

How often do you see no monk/samurai/ninjas because I don't want Asian crap in my game? No gunslingers? No advanced class guide?

I don't want the game telling me what I have to include, even if it doesn't fit the setting or I dislike X.

I find the degree of permissiveness and restrictiveness varies. Just about all GMs I've played under allow some things that aren't supported by existing rules while banning other things that are permitted by the rules. I honestly can't say if you end up being more restrictive that way (it seems silly to make a simple count of illegal things permitted vs. legal things banned) but in just about every case I either don't mind or feel the decision makes the game better for adapting the rules to the setting and not the other way around.

I wouldn't want PFS to be the basis of PF but it really doesn't matter much because I'll house rule the shit out of any rule system I use to make it work how I want it to, and so will all GMs I know.
The only issue is to what degree I feel compelled to house rule things to make it comfortable to run and play with. If I have to do too much work I'll probably look for another system rather than alter an existing one too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
memorax wrote:

No not all. Too much stuff is banned for my tastes. It's not because I can't get what I want. I find that they ban too many things that they consider overpowered that are not. I can get banning guns, Not because I'm one of those " I don't like guns in my fantasy". I just don't like how Paizo handles guns. Banning crafting. Seriously crafting.

.

Yes. seriously. Crafting.

You would either need to track downtime (which is a PITA)

or

Casters can effectively double their WBL for the cost of a feat. Mind you, craft wondrous item is the real culprit here, but a Wizard walking around with twice their WBL is going to marginalize other characters

Im the only one that usually sees this feat being taken and the DM allowing the caster to craft for the whole party , not only for himself?

Yes , this powers up the PCs in general , since it increases the WBL of the whole party , but usually i dont find it much of an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Going from a more permissive rules set to a more restrictive one? Yeah, no thankyou.


I have more classes and races from 3PP than I do from Paizo. Not interested at all.


For organizational purposes, if they were to do a Pathfinder 2.0, they could make PFS rules (which judging from posts apply to a fairly large fraction of their market) be the Core Rulebook 2.0 rules, but not including the campaign setting-specific stuff, and then release supplements that broaden the horizons. This would have the advantage of making the Core Rulebook 2.0 easier to get out the door (since whatever they DON'T change going from 1.0 to 2.0 is well tested in an organized situation), and then other stuff could be tweaked separately (taking a longer time. This would also have the advantage of making the new Core stuff a lot easier to find, even for non-PFS people (who would also need a one or more supplements, but not so many as before, at least until a similar amount of time passes compared to the time between the original Core Rulebook and now, for future rules bloat to spread everything out again). If the transition from 1.0 to 2.0 was like AD&D 1st Edition to 2nd Edition (or at least 3.0 to 3.5), people could even keep using the stuff they already have, although I would expect that some people would buy the new Core even when they already have most of what it covers just for organizational purposes (and then the supplements that come out later would offer both reorganization and bug fixes, as well as new material, and thus have an attraction of their own).


Valantrix1 wrote:
Going from a more permissive rules set to a more restrictive one? Yeah, no thankyou.

Again, I think the disconnect here is that some people are seeing "PFS chassis" and thinking all the same stuff gets printed, but then everyone follows the campaign house ruleset. It's more of a "before things are printed, they're reviewed by campaign management and the banned stuff just doesn't get printed." This still isn't impacting 3PP or other sources - GMs could certainly opt to use those, along with any house rules they please - it's just impacting what actually gets released with Paizo's name on it. If it does have to be printed but isn't intended for players (like that super-broken cyclops mystery for Oracles), then it would flat out say that it's not a player option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People are mostly looking at this from a hindsight perspective. Presumably if PFS was the core rules, a lot of the options that are currently banned just wouldn't exist in the first place, and thus you would not notice there absence. As far as other races and evil character options, all that stuff would still exist, since GM's need that material for gaming.

In an alternative reality, where Paizo adopted the 3.5 psionics rules early on, someone is posting a thread about if you would be interested in the game if psionics wasn't included, and people are having similar reactions to the reactions in this thread.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

For organizational purposes, if they were to do a Pathfinder 2.0, they could make PFS rules (which judging from posts apply to a fairly large fraction of their market) be the Core Rulebook 2.0 rules, but not including the campaign setting-specific stuff, and then release supplements that broaden the horizons. This would have the advantage of making the Core Rulebook 2.0 easier to get out the door (since whatever they DON'T change going from 1.0 to 2.0 is well tested in an organized situation), and then other stuff could be tweaked separately (taking a longer time. This would also have the advantage of making the new Core stuff a lot easier to find, even for non-PFS people (who would also need a one or more supplements, but not so many as before, at least until a similar amount of time passes compared to the time between the original Core Rulebook and now, for future rules bloat to spread everything out again). If the transition from 1.0 to 2.0 was like AD&D 1st Edition to 2nd Edition (or at least 3.0 to 3.5), people could even keep using the stuff they already have, although I would expect that some people would buy the new Core even when they already have most of what it covers just for organizational purposes (and then the supplements that come out later would offer both reorganization and bug fixes, as well as new material, and thus have an attraction of their own).

The CRB is a hot mess currently, lacking definitions of key game terms (there is no definition for Burrow, for example) and including redundant and conflicting definitions of others (movement-impacting things, like difficult terrain). IMO, they could save multiple pages of wordcount by having a chapter glossary to start each chapter. Numenera was fabulous for including not only key game terms, but also margin notes with references for key game concepts throughout the entire book.

thejeff wrote:

Except it only really works in the PFS context: strictly defined goals per session.

Very hard to apply in a more flexible game. You could just say "Every three sessions", but otherwise you'll have to railroad specific xp goals in.

I co-wrote a game some years ago where there were 40 character levels and the rule was "you level up once after each session unless the GM says otherwise." Those levels were significantly less choice-laden, mind you, but the same principle applies: how effective is your storytelling if you can't finish it in 39 sessions? In PFS-style experience, 39 sessions = level 14. Capping at 20 is an additional 18 sessions, totaling 57. That's weekly for over a year. If you still feel constrained, you tell players that you'll be slow-tracking experience, resulting in up to 114 sessions. For reference, on full slow-track, you'd see level 10 after 54 sessions.

That is a lot of sessions. Even in a less-linear, more flexible game, I would expect that many players would be chomping at the bit for more mechanical growth after 6 sessions per level for 2 levels. I certainly don't want to be one-shot by an orc warrior after 5 sessions of character building! That's what you'd still be looking at in slow-track.

GMs would still have the option of fiat experience by targeting objectives, which many GMs already do: "You found the maguffin, you level up." Again, the presumption here is about what's printed, not what's foisted upon you as poor GMs and players.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Yes. seriously. Crafting.
You would either need to track downtime (which is a PITA)

It's no that difficult to keep track of it downtime. Compared to remembering all the bonuses from class abilites, spells, feats etc. With similar bonuses that don't stack with each other is more difficult imo. Crafting once one does it a few times is a breeze to me at least. If their one thing that did not need to be banned it's crafting.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Casters can effectively double their WBL for the cost of a feat. Mind you, craft wondrous item is the real culprit here, but a Wizard walking around with twice their WBL is going to marginalize other characters

It's still at the cost of a feat. Maybe it should cost more than one feat to build items. Feats are fairly important. So having to spend one to create a item has a cost. Maybe not a high enough cost like some wish it was. As well why not have more WBL. Why take a crafting feat and not craft a item. What would be the point.

So while I see your point about the restrictions. I still see no reason as to why the banning of so many rules.


memorax wrote:


It's no that difficult to keep track of it downtime. Compared to remembering all the bonuses from class abilites, spells, feats etc. With similar bonuses that don't stack with each other is more difficult imo. Crafting once one does it a few times is a breeze to me at least. If their one thing that did not need to be banned it's crafting.

Because one is tracked by the player at one table for one session. The other has to be tracked in between sessions. Previous campaigns that tracked downtime found it annoying.

Quote:
It's still at the cost of a feat.

Casters really don't need them. Their power comes from spells. Craft rods alone makes EVERY metamagic feat superfluous.

Quote:
So while I see your point about the restrictions. I still see no reason as to why the banning of so many rules.

Do you mean alternate systems like performance combat?

Because its a LOT for a dm to know how to do, as opposed to a class ability which is more or less kept track of by the player you want a dm to learn a new system... you actually need them to learn ALL of the systems because you could have a performance combat artist, a vehicle specialist, and a siege engineer all sit down at the same table.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

{. . .}

Casters really don't need them. Their power comes from spells. Craft rods alone makes EVERY metamagic feat superfluous.
{. . }

Not when you start combining metamagic feats. That said, I would like to see the magic item system (not just Crafting) redone -- not only is Crafting made too lousy for non-spellcasters (Master Craftsman doesn't do a very good job), but many of the magic items are too generic -- not just Metamagic Rods, but also Wands, Potions, and Scrolls. Yes, simple spell-storage items of these types should exist, but not be the primary items of these types. Recapturing the 1st Edition AD&D feel of magic items (without the mechanical flaws and the even worse Crafting system that had no equivalent of Master Craftsman at all) would improve things. For a Pathfinder 2.0, the new Core Rulebook would have a decent set of items to establish the flavor, and refer you to a future supplement for information on how to make them (with a note that in the meantime, continue using the Pathfinder 1.0 rules for this if you want to enable PC Crafting).


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:
Trust me,

No.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If PFS rules were what PF came out with as the standard. I would have stayed just homebrewing 3.5e. In my mind, if I wanted what PFS gives mechanically, I'd be playing 5e. I could add the stuff I liked in from 3.5e, but I honestly couldn't be bothered homebrewing in level 13 to 20 content for every new bit of PF content.

I mean hell, I wouldn't even be able to convert my 3.5e core characters over to PF if that ridiculousness was true.

Headfirst wrote:
Snip

And all of that is a good reason for it to not be the chassis for PF. Since PFS is a completely different environment than a standard homegame, you'd basically be going "Hmmm, who is my target market. Okay, these people, now lets ignore them and go to the second target market."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

PFS has it's place, and it does what it does well, but as a default set of rules I don't believe it is good for the game. Having options that you can leave out is a lot easier than designing/creating material for the missing gaps (for the most of us who aren't aspiring game designers, or who struggle to find time to manage our campaigns).
Give me the kitchen sink, let me decide what to put on the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My unreasonably large collection of house rules has managed to get the game to a place I really like. Had I been starting from the PFS rules, I'd have needed to do even more work. No thanks, Samuel.


PFS rules are good for supervising a game amongst non-recurring strangers. Not the best rules for conducting a "living game."


Serisan wrote:


thejeff wrote:

Except it only really works in the PFS context: strictly defined goals per session.

Very hard to apply in a more flexible game. You could just say "Every three sessions", but otherwise you'll have to railroad specific xp goals in.

I co-wrote a game some years ago where there were 40 character levels and the rule was "you level up once after each session unless the GM says otherwise." Those levels were significantly less choice-laden, mind you, but the same principle applies: how effective is your storytelling if you can't finish it in 39 sessions? In PFS-style experience, 39 sessions = level 14. Capping at 20 is an additional 18 sessions, totaling 57. That's weekly for over a year. If you still feel constrained, you tell players that you'll be slow-tracking experience, resulting in up to 114 sessions. For reference, on full slow-track, you'd see level 10 after 54 sessions.

That is a lot of sessions. Even in a less-linear, more flexible game, I would expect that many players would be chomping at the bit for more mechanical growth after 6 sessions per level for 2 levels. I certainly don't want to be one-shot by an orc warrior after 5 sessions of character building! That's what you'd still be looking at in slow-track.

GMs would still have the option of fiat experience by targeting objectives, which many GMs already do: "You found the maguffin, you level up." Again, the presumption here is about what's printed, not what's foisted upon you as poor GMs and players.

I've certainly played games that lasted longer than 40 sessions, without even reaching high levels.

Of course, there's also the definition of session: Does the the group that plays 8 hours on a weekend once a month count as one session and the group that gets in a couple hours on a workday evening every week also count as one session? Cause I've played in both.

But mostly that bypasses my original point: As I said, You could just say "Every three sessions", but PFS isn't actually structured that simply. It works that way because scenarios are designed for it: short self-contained adventures with neatly defined failure conditions. Every home game I've ever played in has been far more dynamic than that. "Sessions" often end in the middle of an adventure. Some sessions are mostly planning, roleplay or exploration, others mostly combat. Some are spent chasing our tail down blind allies, in others we make brilliant deductions and bypass whole sections the GM expected us to take.

PFS gives you xp only for success for the whole scenario - the standard experience rules give experience on a per encounter basis - you can gain xp even if you fail your short term goals or have to run.
I don't have any problem with fiat leveling, but that's not PFS rules, though obviously house rules apply.
I just think the structure of PFS XP sets a far different expectation - "Thou shalt play 4 hour sessions, with self-contained adventures and be judged on your completion of each of them."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

PFS and home games are both good if you enjoy them. That does not mean that everything is like peanut butter and chocolate and need to be combined.

I like ketsup, and I like twinkies. I would not like the combination of both together. Seriously, I just want to play an APG summoner with leadership and crafting skills sometime in the future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Omnitricks wrote:

The only reason I played PFS a few years back is because I can't play anything with my friends otherwise.

If I had any other choice I wouldn't even play PFS. Its needlessly restrictive and some of the restrictions don't even make sense.

I find PFS is far more permissive in player options than any home game I've seen.

How often do you see no monk/samurai/ninjas because I don't want Asian crap in my game? No gunslingers? No advanced class guide?

With very few exceptions you can play most of Paizo published content, which is seldom the case with home games.

You've never been in one of my games.

You want summoner classic? You want gunslinger? You want path of war? You want talented classes? You want crazy races? You want to try to combine classes but don't like VMC rules? If it's in a book I own, I allow it. If it's a book I don't own, I consider it if provided a copy.

Honestly, the only thing I would like to ban is multi-classing, but I still allow it. :P

I am permissive with what I allow also. I don't say "no" a lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deranged_Maniac_Ben wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Omnitricks wrote:

The only reason I played PFS a few years back is because I can't play anything with my friends otherwise.

If I had any other choice I wouldn't even play PFS. Its needlessly restrictive and some of the restrictions don't even make sense.

I find PFS is far more permissive in player options than any home game I've seen.

How often do you see no monk/samurai/ninjas because I don't want Asian crap in my game? No gunslingers? No advanced class guide?

With very few exceptions you can play most of Paizo published content, which is seldom the case with home games.

I've never played a game where this is the case.

I've seen "no UC Gunslingers" because Paizo was sloppy in writing the gun rules, and the 3.5 gun rules work much better. Also, Paizo's gun rules interact really badly with my house rules on critical hits, which I wrote years before Pathfinder came out.

No ACG is a rule I currently enforce....
of course I run 3.5 and don't allow any Paizo products with the exception of Ultimate Campaign (I do use Interjection and DSP stuff though).

I've honestly never heard of someone banning stuff because they "don't want Asian crap" outside of the Paizo.com forums. If someone did hypothetically one to avoid "Asian" content, they could always refluff it. Oh, except in PFS, which has a special rule against refluffing:|

So, no, I do not think PFS rules would make the game as a whole better.

The "refluff" conversation has been had a few times. Many people ban that also, sometimes with the idea that Paizo's flavor is the only flavor that matters or that refluffing to get the class into a game is "cheating".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

{. . .}

Some sessions are mostly planning, roleplay or exploration, others mostly combat. Some are spent chasing our tail down blind allies, in others we make brilliant deductions and bypass whole sections the GM expected us to take.
{. . .}

You know, that sounds really painful . . . .


It seems like almost everybody here is sort of weirdly approaching the question in the OP.

Personal private games will ALWAYS necessarily be totally up to the GM to change any given rules. That aspect of PFS doesn't make any sense as global core. Thus, I think the question in the OP can only really make sense from the perspective of "XYZ items/feats/etc. are banned by default unless house rule says otherwise" versus the reverse in core. And XYZ rules are modified by default unless house rule says otherwise. And so on.

The question purely boils down to "Are most people's home games as-is closer, after all house rules are applied, to PFS rules, or to book core?" If most real world games end up being modified closer to PFS anyway, then PFS would be a more efficient core to print, because your list of house rules you'd have to write out and your players would have to learn would be made smaller. If not, then it wouldn't be as good.

It's pretty much a factual, empirical question at its heart (but no trivial way to measure it)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many GMs allow crafting , allow summoners , allow leadership...

These options are perfectly fine in their home games , if others like this or not , agree with this or not , doesnt matter really , what matters is that this works for these GMs and their tables.

When we consider that the OP question would remove all of these options and thus have them not even exist to be an option to these groups in the first place , i dont really see why there so much discussion about this.

Having more options is just plain better.

PFS is a really restrictive set of "house rules" , it works for some , fair enough , but it doesnt work for everybody and for others the other options are there.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I look at the OP's question this way - to me, PFS is a lesser game than "full" Pathfinder, because of the restrictions inherent to OP. I generally have had fun when playing PFS scenarios, but no way would I want the campaign default to be the PFS rules.

-20 PB is too much for me. I can see why you'd want more powerful PCs when you don't have a cohesive group, but a group that plans out a team together doesn't need to be as powerful individually.

-I hate the wand/potion/scroll houserule because it makes no in world sense. Paladin's don't make potions of lesser restoration but they do make potions of paladin-only spells, e.g.(bless weapon? Huh? I also like arcane/divine distinctions on scrolls. An obvious kludge to patch a perceived hole in the system. (Honestly the game itself would be better if each spell had an official "crafting" spell level instead of using variable levels based on the list of whoever built it, but that change is neither PFS or base PF)

-I like Leadership and item creation feats. If Pathfinder lacked item creation, it creates the question of who the heck builds all these things.

Fundamentally, the OP question can almost be rephrased as: Do you prefer Pathfinder Imaginary, which has all the options, or the more restrictive set of normal Pathfinder, where they didn't develop all the extra stuff in the Imaginary rules system. Even in this silly thought experiment where all the PFS banned stuff was never made, I'd still say that more is more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


How would this impact you and your current games?

It would kill my games.

The best way to Play PF is as written in the 1st printings using no FAQs/Erratas.
Second best way is to use FAQs/Erratas.
Worst way is to use PFS rules.

Scarab Sages

Just a Guess wrote:

The best way to Play PF is as written in the 1st printings using no FAQs/Erratas.

It's a great way to play a Tetori. Three bonus feats that don't exist. Yup, that is the perfect way to play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

The best way to Play PF is as written in the 1st printings using no FAQs/Erratas.

It's a great way to play a Tetori. Three bonus feats that don't exist. Yup, that is the perfect way to play.

My GM is better at fixing real Problems than paizo.

Most of paizo's errata/FAQ is about rebalancing not about fixing errors. If more than 70% of it was error fixes and only the rest rebalancing I'd be more inclined to accept them. But most of the time it IS rebalancing and more often than not done in the wrong direction.


Just a Guess wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

The best way to Play PF is as written in the 1st printings using no FAQs/Erratas.

It's a great way to play a Tetori. Three bonus feats that don't exist. Yup, that is the perfect way to play.

My GM is better at fixing real Problems than paizo.

Most of paizo's errata/FAQ is about rebalancing not about fixing errors. If more than 70% of it was error fixes and only the rest rebalancing I'd be more inclined to accept them. But most of the time it IS rebalancing and more often than not done in the wrong direction.

So the best way is " Play PF is as written in the 1st printings using no FAQs/Erratas", but a bunch of house rules instead?

Probably true.

Of course you could also start with the FAQs/Erratas and fix the bits you don't like with house rules to get to the same basic spot.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair... The quality of Paizo's "pseudo-errata" FAQs tends to be pretty low. Most often it nerfs or even completely cripples balanced or even underpowered options because they are slightly different from what's expected or because they dare to be slightly better than mediocre.

And very often that's done just so a new option in a new book seems better by comparison. After all... You already paid for the old book, so they want you to want to buy the new book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

The best way to Play PF is as written in the 1st printings using no FAQs/Erratas.

It's a great way to play a Tetori. Three bonus feats that don't exist. Yup, that is the perfect way to play.

My GM is better at fixing real Problems than paizo.

Most of paizo's errata/FAQ is about rebalancing not about fixing errors. If more than 70% of it was error fixes and only the rest rebalancing I'd be more inclined to accept them. But most of the time it IS rebalancing and more often than not done in the wrong direction.

So the best way is " Play PF is as written in the 1st printings using no FAQs/Erratas", but a bunch of house rules instead?

Probably true.

Of course you could also start with the FAQs/Erratas and fix the bits you don't like with house rules to get to the same basic spot.

There are much more problems with the errata/FAQ than with the basic rules. So going that way is much more work. Using some sensible FAQs as houserules is the way to go for me.

Especially as many real problems don't get errata/FAQ.

Problems I see with PFS as base ruleset:
- Animal companions may only use certain magical items, not including horseshoes (unless that was changed since I read it. I'm not up to date with PFS as I don't play it.)
- You are not allowed to save the party is that means using friendly fire (because it is pvp)
Example 1: The party is attacked by high CR swarms that deal CON damage. The mage could fireball them but he would hit some PCs... not allowed.
Example 2: One PC is charmed/confused etc. not possible to use crowd control on him.
- How do we imagine PFS banning stuff working? If PFS was the base rules would that mean the banned stuff does not exist at all? I like a lot of stuff that's banned in PFS.

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / If PFS rules were the Pathfinder chassis, would it be an overall better game? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.