Gnorr's page

It is amazing to see Paizo seriously considering wider support for FoundryVTT!

My group has been a Pathfinder-only group ever since 2010. And the only reason we have jumped to 5E in these socially-distant times is the availability of ready-to-use adventure content for Foundry, in the form of DDB imports.

I sincerely hope that Paizo will indeed make their full APs available for Foundry, in comprehensively prepared form (artwork, journal entries, maps with pins, lighting, preplaced tokens), maybe even packaged music and sound effects provided by Syrinscape.

Even when things will return to normal, we will continue to use Foundry for our in-person-games, driving a touch-screen lying on the table. And having officially-provided quality-controlled content that does not require the fixes that DDB-imported content sometimes does, would be of significant value for me, now that I have less and less time to (prep a) game.

Note: I am aware that the APs are already available for Fantasy Grounds. But personally, I found that UI/UX to be less than accessible, and still feel that they have missed their chance to modernize when moving to Unity.

Is there a way to get descriptions of feats/skills etc. when picking them? As far as I can tell, the descriptions are only shown on the back-page after all selections are complete.

I would be grateful for ideas on how to better convince the players that it is reasonable for all air travel to be prohibited over Ukulam.

While I guess I can convince them that starship landings are prohibited for ecological reasons, I am sure I will get offered ideas on the eco-friendly use of solar-powered gliders (or even hot air balloons), instead of a week-long trudge through hostile jungle.

Any ideas?

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 :-)

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).

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!

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.

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.

... but the price doesn't look quite right. Usually, the downloads are cheaper than the CDs, aren't they?

I have already sent two emails to customer.service, but never received a reply, so I am trying this route. My order #3211607, which was supposedly shipped on 7/28, still has not arrived here. Please advise!

First, I'd like to thank STR and Mathwei for the excellent guide, and all other posters for the interesting discussion!

I do have two questions with regard to the last builds:

• For the Defiler example, could you please indicate which spell/feat etc. actually causes the listed conditions? I do have some trouble following the numerous effects, especially given that they should occur within a single round.

• For the Transmogrifist, I also have difficulties understanding the Monstrous Physique - Gargoyle example: As I read it, a Gargoyle normally has 2x claws + bite + gore attacks. The hexcrafter would need one hand to grip his Scimitar in, the second one for casting (spellstrike/spellcombat), and could then use the bite and gore natural attacks as secondaries. Giving a total of 2x Scimitar + bite + gore + touch spell damage. The example, however, shows 2 scimitar swings +claw+gore.
  

Many thanks from a future hexcrafter :-)

basic weapons attacks and damage are fairly easy to do
through in spells and magic items, uggh
this is what bogged my combat tacker down

Yes, that is of course correct. However, to be honest, I my experience I have more often needed to roll Morningstar attacks by eight bugbears than complex spells by eight casters.

The more complex effects (possibly also for certain feats and items) I would adjudicate manually anyway. But even rudimentary automation could be a real time-saver in battles with more than a handful of (rather simple) opponents (goblin mooks, bandits, etc.).

I just discovered CombatManager, and it looks very useful. However, I am not sure whether it has a capability I'd be very interested in: Can it use the assigned weapon/character/monster data to automatically roll attacks, apply damage etc., after the user has indicated who attacks whom? In my experience, this would speed-up combats enormously.

I'm using the Unearthed Arcana "spell recharge" rules for the game I'm currently DMing for the same reason.

True, they achieve the same aim. But (never having tried them) I fear that the required bookkeeping when a specific spell becomes available again could be tedious and error-prone. In my version, it's just one roll per spell cast right after the combat is over.

For the last few years, my main concern has been getting rid of the 10 minute work day. I just let all casters roll for each spell cast in the last encounter if they regain its use after they've had a 10 minute rest:

Lvl 0=90%, 1=80%, 2=60%, 3=30%, 4=25%, 5=20%, 6=15%, 7=10%, 8=5%, 9=1%

In my experience, this provides a nice compromise by making casters carefully consider the use of their next spell (especially the more powerful ones), yet still allows them options beyond using a crossbow after multiple encounters. If I want to deplete their resources, I just deny them the 10 minutes of rest by appropriate in-game measures.

Since these recovery rules also apply to healing spells, I haven't found it necessary to introduce alternate frameworks for that area (reserve points etc.). Even if not fully healed, the PCs generally feel healthy enough to continue on after multiple encounters.

For non-caster classes, we have been using techniques already suggested elsewhere (e.g., our paladins are pretty much Pathfinder-compatible with multiple uses of their signature powers etc.)