Pathfinder ruleset grinder


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Why not play the game as it is?

Many, many of the threads I read talk about pages and pages and pages of house rules. I understand if you've been playing something for six months and want to make a small change, or if after a year or two you have an idea you'd like to try. But how can you have fifty pages of house rules based on 'the way you think things should be' until you see the way things are (which takes more than a month).

If I played Risk with you and you started complaining about how it doesn't accurately model supply lines, and pulled out a thirty page rule addendum, I'd finish my beer and leave.

Sometimes with some setups, I can understand rule changes made for speed and convenience after testing in play(In my hackmaster game, we use the 1e system, because each person runs multiple characters. Tracking initiative for 2 PC's and 4 henchmen is too time consuming.), Or suggestions made to increase or decrease randomness dependent on play style. I'm not suggesting never house rule.

I'm just suggesting that pathfinder is a whole game. Why not play that game and see what that game is like?

If you've got fifty pages of house rules, then you are not playing pathfinder, you're playing some other game. The key point of what I'm saying here is how can you claim to like or dislike pathfinder ruleset without actually playing through all twenty levels a few times.

Of course, you could always tell me at length about how the part of the elephant *you* saw was like a giant tree. That doesn't make it true.

There is a question here. It's right there at the top. and again in the middle. I'll repeat it: Pathfinder is a whole game. Why not play that game and see what that game is like?

-Campbell

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Nexusphere, I can't speak for everybody else, but here's my personal response:

"In something like a Pathfinder demo, or a Pathfinder Society session, of course I'll run the rules as written. That's part of the object, to play the Pathfinder RPG.

"But in my home game, my objective isn't to play a particular ruleset. It's to play a particular adventure, and have fun with friends. Playing D&D 3.5, or Pathfinder or "Arcana Evolved" or any other ruleset, doesn't factor into the purpose of the game session. So, I pick the parts I think will improve the game experience for my players (such as Pathfinder's redefinition of paladin's Smite Evil and companion mount) and incorporate them into my house rules.

"If I were starting a new campaign, I might be more inclined to begin everyone under the Pathfinder rules. But there are some serious differences between my campaign world and the world the Pathfinder rules present. I don't want to make all of those in-game changes."


I agree. The final version has a lot of tweaks from the beta. I'll play RAW. If, after a year (or more), there's a general consensus that some things just aren't working, there will be plenty of evidence and possible fixes to discuss.

As it is, PF is so much more fun to me than 3.5, it's a different experience.


Most of the houserules we're using are holdovers from 3.5.

The pathfinder rules in these cases are either a) not a change from 3.5 so the houserule should hold, or b) they doen't seem more appealing to me and my players.

There's a third situation I haven't encountered, but I sympathize with: people who houserule things back to 3.5. Maybe they like some pathfinder changes, but not all of them.

Of course, the people who go beyond this an start houseruling right out the gate... well, they probably just love house rules. Consider that they may in fact enjoy tinkering with the system as much as you enjoy whatever you enjoy. Where's the harm?


Because Weapon Finesse is a stupid feat and needs to go.


Frogboy wrote:
Because Weapon Finesse is a stupid feat and needs to go.

Why, exactly?


Because there's room in the world of gaming for both lawful and chaotic GMs...


Arakhor wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Because Weapon Finesse is a stupid feat and needs to go.
Why, exactly?

I don't think it needs to go, but I think it should be a readily available option.

Monsters get this feat for free, so why not players?


nexusphere wrote:

Why not play the game as it is?

Many, many of the threads I read talk about pages and pages and pages of house rules. I understand if you've been playing something for six months and want to make a small change, or if after a year or two you have an idea you'd like to try.

I'm just suggesting that pathfinder is a whole game. Why not play that game and see what that game is like?

If you've got fifty pages of house rules, then you are not playing pathfinder, you're playing some other game. The key point of what I'm saying here is how can you claim to like or dislike pathfinder ruleset without actually playing through all twenty levels a few times.

There is a question here. It's right there at the top. and again in the middle. I'll repeat it: Pathfinder is a whole game. Why not play that game and see what that game is like?

-Campbell

Trimmed your post a bit so I could keep it in front of me while I reply...

As somebody else mentioned, I'm playing my game. It's run for 34 years. I've (mostly) adopted it to 3.5 and (now) PF, but there are some parts of it where I prefer my houserule. It's what I'm comfortable with (and my players). I picked up Pathfinder to see their fixes for 3.5 and I like some of them. I like some of my own fixes better. And some bits of 3.5 don't, imo, need fixing. That's pretty much it. I've played / DM'd a long time. I don't need a long time to see what fits / doesn't fit in my campaign. If I had a new game (too much work to start over) or a brand new slate of players I might go strictly PF. As it is, no. Won't stop me from buying their books (I don't use the APs) or picking their brains for ideas though -- they're pretty good at coming up with them :)


People like houserules. People like making changes and doing their own thing that's one of the things that's great about the whole system.


We just started playing a Pathfinder game and have basically reset our old 3.5 houserule list. As far as I know the only thing we're doing so far that's not RAW is using the Paizo critical hit/miss decks. We'll probably see how things play before we change things too much.

Some of the stuff we used to do in 3.5 is just about taking away some of the suck and doing things *we* think make sense to *us*. One of those things is rerolling 1s on healing spell dice (only PCs, not NPCs)...because it just sucks to get a 1 on those. Another is getting back level + Con bonus hp after resting rather than just level. That one just seemed to make sense to us so we did it. These are currently suspended but we will likely bring them back. We probably won't be using Action Points anymore. They allow some cool stuff once in a while but they really take away a lot of the danger of the game.
M


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
People like houserules. People like making changes and doing their own thing that's one of the things that's great about the whole system.

I understand this, but have you read the boards lately? It seems like every thread is complaining about the basics of the game, by people who haven't yet played it.


nexusphere wrote:
I understand this, but have you read the boards lately? It seems like every thread is complaining about the basics of the game, by people who haven't yet played it.

Yes, and a majority of those fall into 2 categories:

A. Things they didn't like in 3.0 and 3.5 that they still don't like in Pathfinder.

B. Things they liked in 3.0 and 3.5 that they feel didn't need to be changed in Pathfinder.

They are mostly carryover and rollback.

In 1st and 2nd edition AD&D house rules became the norm rather than the exception. Back in the day, the DM's ruling always superseded the rules as written.


nexusphere wrote:
how can you claim to like or dislike pathfinder ruleset without actually playing through all twenty levels a few times.

So how many lvl 20's you have in 4E? =P


nexusphere wrote:
Why not play the game as it is?

Because of the most important rule of the game, perhaps?


evilash wrote:
nexusphere wrote:
Why not play the game as it is?
Because of the most important rule of the game, perhaps?

How do you know playing the rules as is won't help you with your "Most important rule" without trying?

That seems pretty assumptive.

Liberty's Edge

nexusphere wrote:

I'm just suggesting that pathfinder is a whole game. Why not play that game and see what that game is like?

If you've got fifty pages of house rules, then you are not playing pathfinder, you're playing some other game. The key point of what I'm saying here is how can you claim to like or dislike pathfinder ruleset without actually playing through all twenty levels a few times.

...

There is a question here. It's right there at the top. and again in the middle. I'll repeat it: Pathfinder is a whole game. Why not play that game and see what that game is like?

-Campbell

Campbell, you are right in many things... why play pathfinder if you will add a thousand house rules?

i am in this with you 100%... and almost didn't bought the book because of that

why? why if I haven't played 20 levels you say?

Campbell... I have played DnD and at least half a dozen different systems so I think I know what I will like and what not...

the changes may be subtle, less deep than 4E... but the changes for what it makes fun to me and my friends to play are there...

bards have become a lot more useful? well only if you play as Elan... but for a decent combat they are useless...

clerics? I HATE the Pathfinder domains... I loved the Beta domains... they (for me at least) felt more divine than the actual ones would ever feel... and the need to nerf the cleric again in every subtle way

skills? skills are seen as part of 2 classes... and everyone else is denied them because they have class features (which th others hve them too!), yes the new Class System is beutiful... but still there are skill taxes... useless skills that deserve more attention... but are made ore usless every time... ahh except for bards... its the only decent thing they are given this edition...

NERF AGAIN to all magic... things that are useful were destroyed because players or DM don't like it... SoS or SoD spells have been part of the system for years... but no!!!! they are "unfair!" so they need to go...

magic with every need dition vecomes more mechanical, less mystical... less fun and in general... less magic...

i think that after 15 years gaming I know what I would like and what i would not...

why did i buy the book? believe me, sometimes i ask myself the same...
but really its an easy question... Bulhman and Paizo are not the only ones who dedicated year and a half or 2 years to Pathfinder... we did it too... it was 1 year and a half of time dedicated, time playtesting, time in the forums... I grew enamored of a system that didn't existed... and when I saw that the things that I had liekd of the systems were the ones taken away... I was un happy... yes... so when people tell me... "its a beta... the changes you really need to check come between 3.5 and PF" I really want to say "go to hell"

so why not play PF as it is? well myself I don't... will never... BoXM is for that... the others fans of PF why they don't? I suppose because the game is seriously flawed that everyone need their own interpretation and the game unless its sosciety play is not worth playing RAW... but I am not to decide that... I don't play Pathfinder...


Dogbert wrote:
nexusphere wrote:
how can you claim to like or dislike pathfinder ruleset without actually playing through all twenty levels a few times.
So how many lvl 20's you have in 4E? =P

Oh snap.

You win the thread. :-)

(Seriously though - I hate it because I tried to use my paladin's lazer bomb to mine gold and it didn't work unless I was killing someone. ;-p)


Arakhor wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Because Weapon Finesse is a stupid feat and needs to go.
Why, exactly?

I guess I wasn't very specific. Weapon Finesse does need to be an option like the poster after you mentioned but shouldn't be a feat tax for higher DEX characters. It doesn't make sense that someone with a 30 DEX and 8 STR can't hit with a dagger or worse yet, can't touch someone standing next to them.

If a weapon can take advantage of Weapon Finesse then we allow the player to use their DEX if it's better without burning a feat.


Montalve wrote:
Buncha Stuff

Honestly, while I might not agree with the specifics Montalve listed, I do I agree with the general point.

Houserules exist (and we talk about them!!!) because its a more or less proven fact that gaming groups like certain playstyles, and have their own ideas of what they want in their game. No ruleset is going to fit that perfectly out of the box for everyone.

Here, let me say it....again...

No ruleset is going to fit every group out of the box for everyone.

So yes, groups find a ruleset thats close enough to what they want, and modify it. Why? Because most groups don't have someone who has the time or inclination to write a whole game system from scratch. Its been that way for quite a while, and honestly, I doubt thats going to change. At least in the mordern day and age, people have message boards like this one to share their ideas and such about houserules and conversions and homebrew stuff, so theres at least a sharing of ideas and thoughts.

And who knows, alot of these rules/complaints/dislikes/whateveryouwanttocallit might give the designers at Paizo some ideas, that end up getting incorporated into things like the Gamemastery Guide, or Advanced Players Guide, and might, just maybe, become popular enough so that 5 or 10 years down the road, Pathfinder 2.0 incorporates them into the core book.

Sovereign Court

I have about five houserules as of right now

1)Armor spikes, gauntlets,and spiked gauntlets have a reach of 0' unless you have IUS feat. [I kept this one because it didn't change from 3.5]

2)death and dying rules no more negative HP countdown, instead roll a d20 on a 1 you die, 2-10 get worse, 11-19 stay the same, 20 stabilize and recover to 0 HP and wake up. negative HP only matter if you take additional damage after falling. [I kept this cause I always hated the metagamed aspect of the negative hp countdown and wanted more drama in the dying rules, it's inspired by 4e changes, but modified for adults]

3)Paizo Crit hit, crit fumble decks are in play. [cause they're awesome]

4)on a nat 20, confirmed with a nat 20 followed by a hit, you cut (or bash to pudding, or pierce in a way that's non-recoverable) a creatures limb off determined by a d12, (this can be modified by non-humanoid, or multi-limbed creatures)
1= right hand
2= right arm at elbow
3= right arm at shoulder
4= left hand
5= left arm at elbow
6= left arm at shoulder
7= right foot
8= right leg at knee
9= right leg at waist
10= left foot
11= left leg at knee
12= left leg at waist [This is because I hate that there is no mechanic for limb loss in the game, I also allow stump weapons from the Arms and Equipment guide]

5)On a nat 20, followed by a nat 20, followed by a nat 20, you insta-kill the creature. On a nat 1, followed by a nat 1, followed by a nat 1, you insta-kill yourself. [just cause I think that kind of extreme luck and extreme bad luck should be respected]

none of these significantly change the pathfinder game and are all for making the game more my own, what's wrong with that? None of this is things I think I need to play the game RAW for a year or two to know I want.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder ruleset grinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.