http://iwattgaming.pbworks.com/True20-House-Rules
The above link will take you to my humble attempt to streamline the use of Pathfinder APs and Golarion with the True20 system. Well kind of, because I've streamlined and Pathfinderized the Power's system so as to maintain the flavor, but keep the True20 goodness.
WARNING: I converted all Powers into Saga-like powers. Each one is treated as it's own Saga like skill. The mechanics of powers are all standardized, unlike the RAW True20 that has way too many subsystems. If you are not a fan of skill based magic, this might be a problem. I also use SAGA skill progressions.
What's so useful for Pathfinder Conversions
- A Powers system (i.e charm, fireball, summon) divorced from the Rituals system (i.e. Speak with dead, arcane lock, knock).
- I'm particularly proud of my Arcane School divisions. They don't map perfectly to Pathfinder, but they do keep the flavor of d20 schools (IMHO).
- I like my "Domain" rules, but will happily hear opinions from Golarion fans on changes to those power lists to better define the clerics. I think these could be better (some of the deity lists sound familiars).
- Quick Monster Creation through Monster Roles (villain Classes) and template design (trait pricing).
I will be trying these out in my upcoming CoT campaign, so I will let you know how it goes.
The wiki assumes a working knowledge of d20 and True20 in some cases. I wasn't developing a stand alone SRD, but more like a game aid. If anything is confusing, feel free to ask.
Fixed the link for you.
Fixed the link for you.
Thanks.
Opinions?
I will be trying these out in my upcoming CoT campaign, so I will let you know how it goes.
Please do.
My cursory glance showed some editorial mistakes (all the roles refer to the Adept feat list when they level up, for instance).
I'm curious how you developed the Core Ability powers. They seem weaker than what's in the t20 rulebook. I like that you've allowed your players to choose an appropriate Ability; I had planned something similar, although I made a list for each of the three roles.
One note on spells: there was a supplement called True Sorcery that had a variant spell casting sytem that looked like it would allow d20/Pathfinder spells with the True20 system. It was a points-based system, with feats allowing the adept to cast higher-level spells. That would allow you to maintain the spellbook-based magic system while keeping the more useful "cast a low level spell an unlimited number of times" thing that True20 has going for it. I'm curious if you had looked at that, since it seemed to allow a nicer flow between d20 and True20.
One final note. The roles listed in the rulebook were based on "5 points." Some brief calculations seemed to indicate that with Pathfinder, the power-creep effect meant that 5.5 points was more realistic.
Hopefully I'll have a better chance to read the rules later tonight. Thanks for posting.
My cursory glance showed some editorial mistakes (all the roles refer to the Adept feat list when they level up, for instance).
Waiting for my Editor to actually get going on the editing. I've got chunky fingers... ;)
I'm curious how you developed the Core Ability powers. They seem weaker than what's in the t20 rulebook. I like that you've allowed your players to choose an appropriate Ability; I had planned something similar, although I made a list for each of the three roles.
Based on the Revised True20 handbook as well as some made up by myself and others in the True20 forums. In any case, the cleric, paladin, ranger, sorceror and Wizard are feats that grant additional conviction powered abilities
One note on spells: there was a supplement called True Sorcery that had a variant spell casting sytem that looked like it would allow d20/Pathfinder spells with the True20 system. It was a points-based system, with feats allowing the adept to cast higher-level spells. That would allow you to maintain the spellbook-based magic system while keeping the more useful "cast a low level spell an unlimited number of times" thing that True20 has going for it. I'm curious if you had looked at that, since it seemed to allow a nicer flow between d20 and True20.
I have TrueSorcery, and it was used as an inspiration, though it was stremalined quite a bit in my case. TrueSorcery was a good idea, but it was overwhelmingly complex for some people.
One final note. The roles listed in the rulebook were based on "5 points." Some brief calculations seemed to indicate that with Pathfinder, the power-creep effect meant that 5.5 points was more realistic.
That is True. I was thinking of giving players 7 points for abilities instead of the RAW 6 for True20. That would be equivalent to Pathfinder's +2 Net to races I believe. In my background system it would mean the base is 6 and not 5. I haven't done it yet, because I want to keep the numbers low. It shouldn't be much of a problem.
no worries. I was doing stuff off memory since I don't have my books in front of me. Barring a fussy baby I'll look at them more tonight.
Good stuff.
So I gave the rules a once-over. Pretty good stuff. I can tell you've put a lot of work into it. Overall, it does look like it'll translate well to Pathfinder.
Here are my specific points:
1) It seems like there is no downside to a Warrior taking Ranger/Paladin. For a feat, I get access to a list of Powers. Why wouldn't almost every warrior take "Ranger" as a feat (as I assume Paladin has specific behaviors associated with it), gain Favorite Opponent, as well as the option to take a Cure power at a later level?
It always seemed to make more sense for a Warrior to take a level of Adept, choose the appropriate Power (like "Cure"), and work it into his narrative. What was your thinking into making it this way?
1.5) I just notices that with a level of Ranger or Paladin, a Warrior can now use a Conviction Point to use any Power on the list. Seems kinda overpowering. What is the point of being a straight fighter?
2) Do sorcerers get 2 Core Abilities? The wording seems like it, as a trade off from not being able to use Conviction to use a Power they don't know.
3)Let me understand wizards. I spend a feat and take "Fly" as a Power. I also get to choose another. Say, "Polymorph." Now I have the option, every day, of choosing which Powers I can memorize for use. If I spend 5 feats, I have 10 powers, and may choose any 5 to memorize for the day. This might include choosing both Polymorph and Fly in the same day. Is that right? Interesting . . . I like it. Although, the wording around it can be greatly simplified. It took me a minute to grasp what you were going for.
4) I didn't see "Supernatural Focus" defined anywhere. A wizard gets to choose it as a feat associated with the "Wizard" feat. Per the core rules, he gets a +3 to powers associated with that school, but must choose 2 schools to receive a -5 in? I don't think I'd use that option as a player. Seems underpowered.
5) Rituals. Am I right in assuming that you've taken the more "utilitarian" spells and allowed these to be cast without spending a feat? So, a wizard would have x number in his spellbook, which he could cast at his leisure (minus the fatigue possibility), while a cleric would have them in a prayer book or on a scroll?
Interesting. I like the idea.
6) Magic items seem to be a bigger part of your game than a typical t20 game. I guess with limiting some of the options for Core Abilities, this makes some sense. Any worries that characters will become overpowered via magic?
7) Editorial catch: Attack and Defense section, Ranged Combat: Prone Target: You gain a -5 to attack that target.
8) Set shield: This is new to me. Seems like extra work to make a character ready shield against a missile attack. Is the extra bookkeeping worth it? For instance, I would just assume (as in d20) that a character is defending as best as possible against all attacks. Just to make my life easier.
I like a lot of what you've done. Some of it I don't quite understand, and hope you have time to explain.
I always wanted to run t20 more than I have. The player who usually plays the spellcaster couldn't get her head around the changes in Powers that t20 has. Elemental blast, for instance, needed a to-hit roll, and this infuriated her, since her attack bonus was so low. Pointing out that an empowered blast wouldn't require a roll didn't help . . . .
Thanks for posting these.
1) It seems like there is no downside to a Warrior taking Ranger/Paladin. ... What was your thinking into making it this way?
This is exactly the kind of input I needed. I copied those feats from Baduin, who started his own conversion. You are correct in that they present no downside at this moment. I was more interested in the fact that he'd come up with a good way of granting acccess to power Lists rather than in the fact that in how they stand they grant way too much power. Let me think:
Ranger (Warrior)
The key ability for Rangers is Wisdom. Rangers can take the following powers, when taking either Adept or Warrior levels: Cure, Detect, Energy Resistance, Enhance Abilities, Enhance Senses, Influence Others (Animal), Resistance, Restoration, Snare, Summon (Animal).
A Ranger can use any of those powers he had not learned by expending a Conviction point. He must still fulfill prerequisites.
In that version, it removes the feat benefit but it grants the benefit of power usage and access. I' m not sure about keeping it a Warrior feat though.
What is the point of being a straight fighter?
It's not overpowering in the sense that a) their Adept Level will be lower, limiting the level of benefit, b) Players are stingy with Conviction c) the power list is limited. The point of been a pure fighter is that you can have more combat feats and more staying power. Also, Ranger's that want to benefit from power usage have to have good Wis, or they'll fatigue quickly. Sure, a fully buffed Ranger might have a slight edge over a pure Warrior, but the Warrior didn't have to spend rounds and resources boosting up. Remember that true20 is balanced (mainly) on a per Encounter basis, not a per day basis.
2) Do sorcerers get 2 Core Abilities?
Exactly. Sorcerors have very little flexibility. In exchange they have their Core Ability (whichever they pick) plus the sorceror Ultimate Power Ability (I edited for clarity, hopefully). This makes Sorcerors very powerful but unflexible. I haven't allowed them to cast rituals either, further limiting their power. I like the flavor that gives. I might make a ritualist feat that allows sorcerors to cast rituals, with a -5 challenge though.
3)Let me understand wizards.
That's exactly how it works. They have great flexibility, but must must choose wisely before entering combat. I felt this was the best way to reflect that in True20, once again taking into account that True20 is balanced per Encounter.
4) I didn't see "Supernatural Focus" defined anywhere. .... Seems underpowered.
Sorry, editing problems ;) It should be called "Power Focus". Remember I use Saga Powers, and the Power Focus feat allows a +5 edge in the numbers game. That is huge. Unspecialized players can't Focus on any powers though. So even more flexibility at the expense of ultimate power versus focused effectiveness and some weaknesses.
5) Rituals. Am I right in assuming that you've taken the more "utilitarian" spells and allowed these...
That's exactly what I did. I also made the item crafting feats into rituals. I'm thinking of allowing non-spell-casters to use these rituals at a penalty with some other skills (master weapon smith for example), to reflect those kind of items.
6) Magic items seem to be a bigger part of your game than a typical t20 game. I guess with limiting some of the options for Core Abilities, this makes some sense. Any worries that characters will become overpowered via magic?
I ran RoTR with RAW True20. What my players missed the most was magic loot. Not for the munchkins or for powergaming, but because it is part of the essence of D&D, and now Pathfinder. I've done my best to limit the numerical effects of magic items, trying to make them flavorful. For example, a MW weapon already grants a +1 to attack. So I decided that magic weapons grant a flat +1 to damage. There is no way to increase the benefit of that damage (so no +4 swords). The weapons can have additional powers attached (flaming, ghost touch, etc..), that map to Pathfinder items for ease of conversion. I haven't finished the weapons though.
8) Set shield: This is new to me. Seems like extra work to make a character ready shield against a missile attack. Is the extra bookkeeping worth it? For instance, I would just assume (as in d20) that a character is defending as best as possible against all attacks. Just to make my life easier.
Yeah, this is new, something I made up. You can easily go with what you say. Notice that I changed how the Armor Training feats work. A pet peeve of mine. I also made a Shield Training Feat that allows to have the Shield Bonus always "on". It's mostly to add even more difference to Melee and Ranged combat. I was trying to offset the DEX is all problem of True20.
By the way, check out my rules for armor. This was inspired by the Iron Heroes forum. Sadly I don't remember who it was. The idea is to create hodgepodge armor, and to make items like helms actually have an ingame effect that is simple to quantify. So now a helm of teleportation has both an armor effect an it's associated power.
Cool.
I also used t20 for RotRL. We didn't even make it through the first book. The lack of "treasure" was confusing to the players. And magic . . . yeah, lots of misunderstanding.
I'm glad you aren't going to have +4 swords. That sort of thing in t20 causes a lot of pain. Heck, even adding a +1 to damage can have serious effects.
I'll be bookmarking that site later, so I can review at my leisure. There's definitely some good stuff I plan on borrowing!
As a side note, the first time my group tried t20 (I tried Iron Kingdoms), I had 2 players who maxed out their role-associated abilities to the detriment of their other skills. So, the Expert had a +5 Dex and +5 Cha, with a -5 Wis and a low Con. Meanwhile, the Adept (wizard) maxed out Int, ended up with a low Con, and regularly empowered his elemenal blasts.
This resulted in many fun situations, where the wizard would blast the bad guys, then effectively fall unconcious. Meanwhile, the rogue would be all "can't hit me! Can't hit me! Crap, I can't damage you! Ha! Can't hit me!" That is, until someone did actually manage to hit him. Then he crumpled like a cheap paper plate.
Fun times, to be sure!
Once again, thanks for posting this!
That is, until someone did actually manage to hit him. Then he crumpled like a cheap paper plate.
It's easy to create glass cannon's in True20 ;) My players have slowly been learning that a glaring weakness will get exploited at some point or another.