Recommended core corpus of current rules for a ``Pathfinder 1.5''?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Hello all,

after reading the extremely interesting discussions in the thread So, Pathfinder 2.0 based on Starfinder chassis when?, started by Gorbacz, I wonder: From the currently available Pathfinder rules, which rules/subsystems that are now spread over multiple rulebooks would you suggest to be included in a consistent nucleus of ``revised'' rules?

As an example, even though I wanted to limit the rules for our Runelords campaign to just CRB and APG, I have been convinced to add the Unchained rogue and the Slashing Grace feat from the ACG (to better support DEX-based fighters, in our case more for RP than optimizations reasons). Due to lack of time, I am certain I have overlooked many more of these little gems that can improve the base system without the bloat of adding rulebooks in their entirety.

Many thanks for all suggestions in advance!

EDIT: Fixed link to PF 2.0 thread.


Gnorr, your link took me to a blank page.

This one works!


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If you put into practice the many optional rules in Pathfinder Unchained (and other books) you'll already be pretty far from the standard PF rules. Things like armor as DR, alternate action economy and the many alternate magic rules change lots of things in the game.


Wheldrake wrote:
If you put into practice the many optional rules in Pathfinder Unchained (and other books) you'll already be pretty far from the standard PF rules.

That is of course true :-) To clarify: I am looking for suggestions for the minimum number of rules to achieve the greatest improvement of the existing PF system over CRB-only. So basically anything that might end up in a future Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Revised 10th Anniversary Edition. I understand that improvement will mean different things to different people, I would welcome all viewpoints in the discussion.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In terms of things put out by Paizo . . .

Unchained poison (but not disease, to my taste) is good.
Combat Stamina (as a bonus feat to fighters) is incredibly flavorful and fun. Use it, and use the Armor and Weapon Training rules, too.
Possession rules from Occult Adventures - make things a bit simpler.
Social Encounter rules from Ultimate Intrigue.
Mythic Monsters rules and the ship combat rules from Skull & Shackles are pretty popular. Same for kingdom-building rules from Kingmaker.
Background Skills.
UEidolon evolution costs.
My top three classes to include outside the CRB and APG are investigator, bloodrager, and occultist.

Things that would need to be modified slightly to implement:
A revised called shots system (based on percent rather than number of hp, or scaling based on level) would be good.
URage for all classes but keep the bonuses to Fort saves.
Starfinder encumbrance for Pathfinder equipment would be good, but hard to implement.

House rules that are popular:
Removing int requirement for Combat Expertise
Ignoring the timing rules for divine spell preparation
Quick Draw=Quick Sheathe, too
Vital Strike automatically scales up to Improved Vital Strike and so forth


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

But why complicate things to this extent?
Are you and your friends getting bored with Pathfinder?
Aren't the PF rules complex enough as it is?

At some point you have to ask yourself if the return on investment is high enough to make the changes worthwhile.

Take call shots and the underlying hit location system. It may be more "realistic", but does it really enhance the gaming experience?

I've seen this done time and again since the beginning of RPGs in the mid-70s.

There was a skirmish game (whose title I forget) where you had a hex map of the body, and used a plastic cocktail sword laid over it to represent the parts you were protecting.

There was the ICE system (which evolved into MERP) with dozens of deadly and highly detailed critical hit tables. Ouch! Anybody who entered combat on a regular basis was sure to get lots of practice in new character creation.

IIRC, Runequest had separate hit points and armor values for each body part. Talk about book-keeping headaches!

So my question is why, oh why would you want to inflict this kind of minutiae on Pathfinder? Don't we have enough minutiae to deal with already?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

But why complicate things to this extent?

Are you and your friends getting bored with Pathfinder?
Aren't the PF rules complex enough as it is?

To the contrary: Most of us believe that PF is already overly complex, and many of the more recent books just add unbearable (for us!) rules bloat. This has led to some of the PF groups that I know switching to CRB-only games, getting off the rulebook treadmill once and for all.

And indeed, there has been talk about switching to 5E. But, for now, that is off the table, as my groups all agree that 5E character customization options are too limited (compared to what we are used to and enjoy). Additionally, we just love Paizo's AP material!

So, I am instead looking to improve our Pathfinder games within the existing rules framework.

What would I consider an improvement? Examples could include ...

- ... more streamlined combats (that is going to be difficult, IMHO, but one can hope)

- ... sensible character customization that does not complicate/slow-down actual play. Here, sensible is intended to mean stuff like the Background Skills Gark mentioned above (many thanks!), or the Slashing Grace feat, which is a key component of DEX-based fighting (a common fantasy trope). What my groups do not need are 1500+ feats, many which appear to be highly situational (at best), or simply broken in conjunction with other game mechanics (at worst, this has already been discussed in the thread I mentioned in my initial post).

- ... class/mechanics cleanups (e.g., my Rogue players are delighted in the Unchained rogue)

- ... anything that reduces GM prep time. An example could include the Simple Monster Creation rules, but that is actually not that critical for me as (due to RL time constraints) I can only manage published APs these days instead of writing my own scenarios.

I am actually familiar with many of the more complicated RPG systems you mention (if memory serves, I considered FGU's Aftermath! to be the pinnacle of overly complicated systems ...). But with less and less time to game (RL catches up with all of us ...), we are looking for more manageable D&D-like systems that still give more class customization options than 5E.

So, until PF 2.0 shows up (note that this thread is not intended to discuss that can of worms, please see above for a pointer to a more suitable venue ;-), I would like to better tailor the existing PF system for our use by (very selectively) introducing optional rules (ideally, replacing earlier iterations, such as the CRB Rogue with the PFU Rogue).

@Gark: Many thanks for the pointers, I have already looked up some of your suggestions and they look pretty interesting, with only low mechanics overhead!


shameless plug


master_marshmallow wrote:
shameless plug

That looks very interesting, many thanks for the pointer. With regard to my original goals, does your system help to speed-up combat? If yes, from your experience so far, by how much?

We are already using a slightly modified combat system, employing the Trailblazer (by Bad Axe Games) approach instead of iterative attacks. That is starting to help at higher levels (currently L15+ in one game).


Gnorr wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
shameless plug

That looks very interesting, many thanks for the pointer. With regard to my original goals, does your system help to speed-up combat? If yes, from your experience so far, by how much?

We are already using a slightly modified combat system, employing the Trailblazer (by Bad Axe Games) approach instead of iterative attacks. That is starting to help at higher levels (currently L15+ in one game).

Combat flows much faster, and player agency makes the game overall feel like there's less filler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also in the realm of house rules, Michael Iantorno's rules reducing feat taxes have become quite popular.

The gist of his modifications:

- Power Attack, Deadly Aim, and Combat Expertise are no longer feats; they are just things you can do as part of the base system.

- The number of combat maneuvers feats has been sharply reduced, to just three: Unarmed Combatant = (Improved Unarmed Strike + Improved Grapple); Powerful Maneuvers = all of the maneuver feats that had Power Attack as a pre-req. Deft Maneuvers = all of the maneuver feats that had Combat Expertise as a pre-req.

- Weapon Focus works by picking a Fighter weapon group, not a specific weapon. Ditto for Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, and Improved Critical.

- Dodge incorporates the effects of Mobility. It grants you a +1 dodge bonus to AC that improves to +4 versus attacks of opportunity provoked by your own motion.

- Greater Two-Weapon Fighting incorporates the effects of Improved Two-Weapon fighting and scales with BAB.

Shameless plug, I wrote a Hero Lab mod that implements these rules.

Liberty's Edge

See, I'd be for removing feat taxes, but I have a specific problem with Power Attack and Deadly Aim* being classed in that category. They're really good. They're only feat taxes in the sense that you can't pick up Improved Grapple at first level on a non-human non-fighter. Which is a problem, but not one that's solved by giving every martial a +3 to damage. The system already has too few hp at higher levels to deal with optimized martials - that's like the one thing 2h fighters are known for.

*Deadly Aim isn't even a feat tax - it's just good for no reason. Who doesn't want a +2 to damage for basically no cost (to-hit bonuses being some of the cheapest commodities in the game, for martials and especially archers)? PBS is closer to a feat tax - except again, it's super good.

The problem as I see it is that there are feats locked behind Power Attack. And these are flavorful feats that maybe help martials almost pretend they are as good as casters. The problem is not that Power Attack isn't worth taking a feat for.

I don't have anything against Combat Expertise being a fighting stance, though. Defensive fighting could use a buff anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, so basically you want a Core game, but are looking for minimum to flesh that out / keep core gameplay more balanced?

Yeah, I think besides URogue, all the Unchained versions of Core Classes should be used.

UMonk: It just makes Monk work. There ARE a bunch of great Monk Archetypes that don't work with UMonk, but if you are playing an almost-Core game those aren't in contention anways. Allowing OGMonk to be used as base for APG Archetypes that need it (Zen Archer) and potentially anybody who just wants to (for me, OG Monk dip is great for Saves) is reasonable IMHO. But if you're really aimed at dialing down to the minimum, I think enforcing UMonk ONLY is the better choice vs keeping OGMonk ONLY.

UBarb: OGBarb was not bad. But UBarb is a bit more streamlined. And the main reason people seem to continue to prefer OGBarb is mechanical optimization (which you seem less focused on) including expansion abilities, which again aren't in contention for you. So IMHO you are better off dialing down to UBarb only which has advantage of putting basically everything you need (in Class Ability terms) in one location.

Fighter: You want to use the Weapon Training and Armor Training options. These do a good job of delivering what Fighter originally should have been, allowing more meaningful specialization around weapons/armor styles which Fighter is conceived around yet doesn't deliver (vanilla). With these and Core/APG, Fighter is FINE without archetypes.

APG Classes: I would only use Cavalier and Oracle. Those two are reasonable extensions of core concept, Cavalier mostly because you won't have Archetype splat for other classes that intersects with it's schtick. The other APG classes are more about pushing the boundaries out and aren't necessary. If you want to keep it simple, don't allow the other APG classes.

APG Racial Alt Abilties: Not needed but could work for you.

APG Class Archetypes: You only need Rogue, Ranger to keep them on-par. More optional might Sorceror BLs, Cleric Sub-Domains, Druid (many of which alter Domains), and Bard Archetypes. Wizards don't need s*%*, and I don't think other stuff is needed enough (re: Fighter, Barb, Pally)

APG Feats: No Extra Rage Power or Extra Revelation. No Spell Perfection, and no Persistent/Dazing/Sickening Spell (Metamagic). (my houserule is all casters get Heighten Metamagic for free: getting no benefit besides appropriate DC for higher spell slot is not worth a Feat in my book) No Steel Soul. No Point Blank Master.

APG Spells: Not really necessary, I'd say it's your call, banning them does remove strong options, but there are strong options in Core so it's as much issue of variety. But if you want simple core-ish game, removing them is reasonable.

I would consider the Pages/Ring of Spell Knowledge and Vest (from Ultimate Equipment) to allow Spontaneous Caster a wealth option that works with their spells known.

The Background Skills is good option. Using standard skills system, I give Sorcerors max ranks in whatever skill is associated with their bloodline.


Quandary wrote:
OK, so basically you want a Core game, but are looking for minimum to flesh that out / keep core gameplay more balanced?

Exactly! Many thanks for the excellent recommendations, it turns out that many of these options (e.g., UMonk, UBarb, Weapon/Armor Training, Cavalier) have already come up in our own group-internal discussions. It is great to get external confirmation of their usefulness :-)

Liberty's Edge

I'd add alchemist to your list, Quandary. They're much less game-breaking than the 9-level casters (or the "we can effectively cast gate but are not 9-level!" core summoners) and give a lot of flavorful options even with only the APG available.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Recommended core corpus of current rules for a ``Pathfinder 1.5''? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion