| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of us want PF 1.5 so a few dozen collaborators and I are working on making a community-driven, homebrew ruleset that achieves something like that. We work on a discord to vote to pass rules and are developing the wiki that stores our consensus ruleset.
We could use some more collaborators to vote, help refine rules ideas, help with the wiki grunt work, etc. If this interests you, drop your questions, notifications of interest, etc, here.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those who want to know more about our goals, here it is. Spoilered because long.
These are the goals of the Chainbreaker project from highest to lowest priority:
1. Small changes from PF 1e
Rationale:
We like PF 1e and just want to change it a little bit, not have something completely different.
If we did a big overhaul, there would be too many options for us to hope for much community consensus on what would be a good idea.
Two small changes are less likely to interact in unforeseen ways than two large changes.
Further, smaller changes help maintain greater compatibility with PF 1e players, monsters, and adventure paths.
A guiding principle is "Change as little as possible but as much as necessary".
Definition: The smallness of a change is defined by three factors:
The least impact on power: How much will the change alter the power of players, monsters, or certain builds up or down? Less alteration is more desirable. Specifically, we’ll want to watch out for power creep in which every popular change tends to make the PCs more powerful; this is especially a problem when buffs help the most powerful builds.
The least ripples throughout the whole system: Might the change interact with many other rules elements (undesirable) or is it fairly self-contained/modular (desirable)?
The least difficult to switch to: How much re-learning will this change require of PF 1e players coming to Chainbreaker? Less re-learning is more desirable.
2. Clarified content
Rationale: A significant amount of PF 1e has unclear interactions between mechanics. Where FAQ or errata rulings exist, we will give them serious consideration and potentially port them into their rightful place in the rules. Where they don’t exist, we will make the rulings (see #how-decisions-are-made).
Example 1: Does an invisible creature benefit from mirror image IF the attacker has see invisibility?
Example 2: You can’t take a 5-foot-step if your movement is hampered by darkness or difficult terrain. This holds the same if blindness is halving your speed, right? What about things that halve your speed but aren’t difficult terrain, e.g., winter’s grasp or caltrops?
3. Continual, community-based improvement
Rationale: Unlike an edition published in a book, we can keep improving in response to community comments. There are plenty of interactions or confusions we will not see immediately until the community brings them to our attention.
We will incorporate input and feedback from the FAQ, forum questions that requested an FAQ, and discussions on community platforms like reddit, facebook, discord, GitP, etc. Suggestions will be added frequently to a single, curated list of things to consider. Anyone in the discord can nominate things from this list or from their own ideas for discussion and potential voting (see #how-decisions-are-made). The decision process is very transparent and based on consensus. This process can also revise decisions that have already been made when further exploration reveals a need for tweaks, fixes, etc.
4. Improved labeling
Rationale: Some labels contradict each other, leading to confusion. Others overlap, also leading to confusion.
Example of contradiction: For breaking invisibility, the fireball spell counts as “an attack” but not for the purpose of miss chance. These terms need to be clarified.
Example of overlap: There is a feat called command undead as well as a spell called command undead. One of them should be renamed, preferably the one that has less pre-existing name recognition (in keeping with goal #1).
5. Better balance
Rationale: The incredible number of options that are mechanically meaningful is one of the best things about PF 1e. But some options are FAR stronger than others, reducing how many meaningful options are available to players. We want to rectify these somewhat but not so greatly that all options are equally powerful (which would leave player choice with little mechanical meaning). This rebalancing will include two main efforts:
Buff weak but flavorful options so that they are a reasonable choice compared to “powerful” options. We do NOT wish to make these choices more powerful than existing choices as that will contribute to overall power creep; we simply want them to be almost as powerful instead of far less powerful. Example: Startoss style is very flavorful but too weak as it is very hard to fight with thrown weapons. Buff the damage bonus slightly from 2+2 to 3+3.
Nerf some overpowered options so that they are not the obvious, go-to choice or something that is gamebreaking and will give GMs trouble. Example: Leadership is much too strong for a single feat while also potentially being a big problem for ease of play. Close obvious loopholes.
6. Backwards compatibility
Rationale: We want the vast amounts of useful, written PF 1e materials to be easily used in the Chainbreaker system. Bestiary entries and adventure paths are the primary targets here. While some changes may technically imply a re-calculation of monster stats, it will be more efficient to generally leave monster stats as is.
Example of a significant change that preserves compatibility well: Implementing the feat taxes Elephant in the Room system. This changes how PCs are built but doesn’t have to change monsters or how adventure paths can be written. If desirable. GMs can simply increase their CR budget slightly (which I tend to do anyway).
Example of a change that does not preserve compatibility well: Combining or splitting apart skills, e.g., combining perception and sense motive. If an NPC has very different listings for those two skills, a GM will have to figure out what is going on with the combination and which skill to use.
7. Improved organization and writing
Rationale: Some passages are written poorly or don’t contain important information where it is needed.
Example: Combat defines a 5-foot-step and says: “You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn’t hampered by difficult terrain or darkness.” But for a 5-foot-step, it’s EXTREMELY important if the square you are exiting or entering counts for the purposes of difficult terrain. You have to move over to Exploration & Movement to find out that the square you are entering matters for difficult terrain. A better writing might be “You cannot take a 5-foot-step into difficult terrain or while unable to see” since it has the relevant information right where you need it. This might be very slightly redundant to have the information in two places but you really need it with the definition of a 5-foot-step.
8. Simplified content
Rationale: PF 1e is a very complex system, which allows for a lot of fun. But the fun complexity is often bogged down with complexity that no one really wants to deal with. So we want to simplify to eliminate unnecessary complexity that doesn’t add much to the game.
Example of complexity that serves a point: Archetype stacking. It is complex but it seriously increases the number of different character builds that are possible.
Example of unnecessary complexity: You can draw a weapon as part of your movement if you have +1 BAB. This contingency is a little hard to learn and remember and realistically only arises in a minority of cases for 1st level melee characters who are not full BAB. Just let everybody draw a weapon as part of their movement so this is simpler.
9. Condensed content
Rationale: There are an incredible number of feats, spells, traits, etc. Some of them don’t contribute anything to the game and can be condensed with a little re-labelling.
Example: Lightning reflexes, iron will, and great fortitude could just be combined into a single “improved save” feat that can be taken multiple times for each feat. Same for their greater versions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go for a modular system like Pathfinder Unchained - so everyone can pick what they like. That means the single modules shouldn't be connected, or at least not much (Unchained spent a few words on combining modules).
Further, I'd go for an early release and steady improvements. This way you devs stay motivated and interested players / GMs stay intrigued. The result will never be "perfect" (whatever this is supposed to be), but it will contribute to fun at Pathfinder tables.
Be careful with community input. Over time, each community develops lopsided opinions that are barely questioned anymore but fiercely defended. Your best bet might be to draw from multiple, quite different communities.
Don't neglect flavor. Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will and Great Fortitude might be boring and repetitive mechanically, but at least they have flavorful names. So any replacement should keep up with that.
Good points. We are drawing community input from facebook, discord, reddit, and here so far and will keep casting a wide net. Will push for an early-ish release.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I might suggest ( given that apparently the revised material is to be stored solely in an online format, which means word count/space isn't a problem) is implementing a keyword/tag system. Get everything that counts as a death effect, labeled with the keyword Death for example, and so forth.
Yes good point. Could clear up some ambiguities in the PF 1e system
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great points, Wizard. Thanks for your input.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go for a modular system like Pathfinder Unchained - so everyone can pick what they like.Having spent some more time thinking about it, I would like to express my agreement with this sentiment. Make the core rules as clear and concise as possible. Then add the rest (like implementing the feat tax Elephant in the Room system, or adding rules for Called Shots and Stamina Points) as separate, optional rule-sets. That way groups can easily personalize their games to suit their preferred styles.
Also, what level of contribution are you looking for? People to actually do the work of rewriting, revising, reorganizing, or editing changes and submitting them directly, or are you just seeking general advice as the project progresses?
I'll try. It's tricky because some of the changes people are proposing are things like "clarify how stealth is supposed to work", etc.
Regarding contributions, we are looking for a range of thing. The lowest level would just be advice in this context. The next would be joining the discord and making formal rules proposals, voting as part of the semi-democratic process, etc. Above that is actually helping edit the wiki and implement changes. And at the top level, there's all that plus moderating the hole process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be interested in joining.
I'd like to clarify magic item creation. Pathfinder slapped in a rule to 3.5 letting you skip a prerequisite by raising the DC by 5. But the change wasn't reflected everywhere in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awesome! I'll PM you about details.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely interested
PMing you about details!
FYI to everyone: The reason I'm PMing people is to get to know folks a little before inviting them on. Our Discord has a semi-democratic process and we had some influx of troll recently when things were set up with a link for anyone to join. We're working on some infrastructure to deal with that but it's not in place yet.
We're ready to process mass joining now so here's the discord link.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awesome! I'll PM you about details.Count me in.
Just saw this, my bad! But the discord link is above so feel free to come join us!