When I was 10, I learned 1E AD&D, and switched to 2E (Which had been out maybe 2 years) about 6 months later.
Things 2E didn't have:
Feats. Picking feats seems like it could be daunting.
Combat Options. This is the big one. We had: Roll THAC0 vs AC. That's it. No flanking, no CMB, no charge, cleave, power attack, etc. We still had backstab
That's it, really, we had skills, (sorta, although they were useless) we had spells (they were, and are, easy) We had most equipment and Magic Items. You couldn't buy magic items, though, they were rare and you had to find them. We had most classes. The only classes we didn't have was Sorcerer and Barbarian (Monk was in 1E) Classes get more features now, but all the features are in a handy table, rather than hidden in a block of text.
The only thing in PF that seems significantly more complicated is Combat. You'd have to dumb that down. Like maybe... Roll THAC0 ahem Attack Bonus vs. AC.
|
I really hope Paizo is really looking into the post that are here because every one is coming to the table with really good stuff
I'd like to suggest the following...
Races (this replaces the regular racial qualities)
Elf - +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Con, ( +1 to all attacks)
Halfling - +2 Dex, +2 Cha, -2 Str, ( Reroll one D20 roll)
Dwarf - +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha, ( +1 Hit point per level)
Humans - ( Same as core rule book)
Classes ( Jess has some very good points)
I been playing for years and I know of very few characters that actually prepare and keep track of spells. Too many times it comes to the wizards turn and he's flipping through the the core book/PHB for the spell that suits the situation, totally defeats the perk of the sorcerer class. The game should support a way of helping people keep track of spells, the chracter sheet in the book is not too much help with that.
Not just spells but class options, many of special features in some classes have to be kept track of, lay on hands, channel energy. The lite game character sheet should have a much easier way of keeping track of exhausted features like spells. I like the way the basic game from 3rd & 3.5 kept track of hit points
Most of the kids these days, when I say kids I'm thinking of my 10 year-old nephew, like videogames like Borderlands and Call of Duty where you level up alot but I've noticed that the game is pretty limites when you level up. You look forward to leveling up because you get something but the options are very limited. For that there should not be not too many feats to choose from nor class options. I know this could make the game too streamlined but when people understand the basics they'll appreciate the new options
I think compatibility should be a priority in a boxed set release. The game can be very simplified by scaling back options and the scope of levels, but if it remains compatible (or at least mostly compatible) with the core rules, it's easier to make the jump in-game. Play the boxed set for three levels, them jump over to the core rules.
I loved the D&D basic set, but one of the frustrations was that when I wanted to port my game from D&D to AD&D, I had to stop the game and figure out the minor but plentiful differences between the systems. Races changed, classes changed, hit points changed, levels changed, even Armor Class was on a different scale. I much would have preferred a boxed set that introduced the early levels of the AD&D game and didn't require a conversion process.
Also, the flip side remains true with compatibility - if the basic and core systems are compatible, someone who might not want to jump to the 500+ page rulebook could still port in, say, the paladin if they wanted that in their basic game without having to refigure how everything is done.
I don't think three levels is worth it -- it better be at least twice that. I'm for basic compatibility, but it needs to be greatly simplified so that they can get into the game, learn the basics, and have the foundation for adding the missing elements and complications when they move into full game.
|
|
I don't think three levels is worth it -- it better be at least twice that. I'm for basic compatibility, but it needs to be greatly simplified so that they can get into the game, learn the basics, and have the foundation for adding the missing elements and complications when they move into full game.
Mairkurion I agree, as I stated earlier kids like leveling up a lot. Even if it's not the getting something new at almost every level like in call of duty it's the prestige of rank like in Halo. Only getting to 3rd level is going make new players feel like they bought a demo. I'd say 10th level but I can see the lite version supporting these light classes as they go to 5th level then suggesting the users try the full version of Pathfinder
clarification...
Halfling - +2 Dex, +2 Cha, -2 Str, ( Reroll one D20 roll per day)
|
I'd rather it be a full game, levels 1-20, but with simplified rules. Like I said before, it should be the equivalent of BECMI D&D as opposed to Pathfinder's AD&D.
I would never claim to be anything approaching as knowledgable about the RPG market as the good people at Paizo, but I have one concern with this approach - a new simplified rules system for 20 levels of play will require a large investment in time and money, the resulting rules will either be almost unrecognizable as pathfinder or a much larger book than people are imagining, and the market crossover from a "full" version of "Pathfinder Lite" as opposed to a "demo" version might not be very large.
I guess the question comes down to Paizo's purpose. Do they want to invest in a new rules system designed to capture a new market? Or do they want to invest in a pared down introduction product that pulls new people into the old market? My understanding of their plan for a "boxed set" type deal is they are looking to create an introductory or "demo" product.
I would envision this as an introductory product to the full Pathfinder game. Thus, it needs to use all the same classes, stats and terminology as the "Advanced" game has. It just needs to have the overwhelming ammount of options pared down and pre-chosen for the archetypes. It really needs to have a complete theme from start to finish, that being the introductory adventure. Then when the players are level 3 and completely comfortable with how "Basic Pathfinder" works, they can get the core rulebook and it'll be like a candystore, full of the familiar but with TONS of "new" options (feats, combat maneuvers, more spells and magic items, classes, etc etc).This is one of the main points I was getting at. It should be an easier game - with some simplified mechanics but heavily based on the core rule set so transition isn't a whole new experience in gaming.
What Basic was to AD&D - with some heavy emphasis on teaching people how to play and on how to DM (walk-thru samples, simple instructions on creating encounters, modules).
Holy crap! We agree on something. :P
I'd rather it be a full game, levels 1-20, but with simplified rules. Like I said before, it should be the equivalent of BECMI D&D as opposed to Pathfinder's AD&D.I would never claim to be anything approaching as knowledgable about the RPG market as the good people at Paizo, but I have one concern with this approach - a new simplified rules system for 20 levels of play will require a large investment in time and money, the resulting rules will either be almost unrecognizable as pathfinder or a much larger book than people are imagining, and the market crossover from a "full" version of "Pathfinder Lite" as opposed to a "demo" version might not be very large.
I guess the question comes down to Paizo's purpose. Do they want to invest in a new rules system designed to capture a new market? Or do they want to invest in a pared down introduction product that pulls new people into the old market? My understanding of their plan for a "boxed set" type deal is they are looking to create an introductory or "demo" product.
Yeah, I think you're right, Jess: supporting two different games would be more stress than the system could handle.
Souphin: exactly. Kids like leveling up leveling up involves complex gaming, even if it simplified. Sixth level would let them practice this five times to get the knack and the feel of the ingredients.
|
|
Holy crap! We agree on something. :P
It was bound to happen!
I guess the question comes down to Paizo's purpose. Do they want to invest in a new rules system designed to capture a new market? Or do they want to invest in a pared down introduction product that pulls new people into the old market? My understanding of their plan for a "boxed set" type deal is they are looking to create an introductory or "demo" product.
This is an interesting dilemma - from a financial perspective it would make sense to create a product which is a simplified or pared down version of the core product. You buy the box, make the PCs and play the mod - next thing you are doing is going through the list in the back and picking up a copy of the core book and bestiary (if the DM).
It would make more sense for them to take this approach since
A) Cheaper - one shot so resource a are not shifted beyond set
B) Funnels people to their core game product - APs, rules and then other peripherals (gamemastery, fiction, etc)
C) Not a cross competition - it actually becomes a front loaded aspect of the core rules for those who have zero gaming experience.
There of course is another side to all this - and that is the simplicity.
This factor alone can draw people to a pathfinder lite and keep them there. People are looking for a solid old school style RPG which focuses less on complexity of character builds and feats and want to focus of more gaming and adventure. While there are many companies out there doing retro-clones (mostly AD&D, so it doesn't help) there are none doing the basic thing (C&C is an AD&D clone) with the name recognition and production values of Paizo/Pathfinder. So a product like this can also -
D) Draw in people who are turned off by 3.0+ and 4e (that includes Pathfinder RPG)
E) Function as an easier game for people who are either younger or not heavily interested in a very mechanical game (simple game, less errata, less need to follow current rulings, etc)
These last two factors are pretty big IMO, with D) poaching directly from the 4e crowd and people who have become disenfranchised (literally) with the D&D brand and looking for a simplified game experience. For those who really want an older-style and simplified game - more or less a "Basic set" with simplified skills and feats.
So they could go one-shot introductory, or they could try and fill the needs of an different demographic (one they are not hitting) and create a whole new basic game - one that is strongly cross compatible to increase the overall customer base (Core and Basic crowd) and maximize profits. The hook would be to have them also buy into the APs (or their own series of basic modules) and into Golarion - crunch incompatibility being a problem/more work. Of course if the standalone lite crowd isn't there then it starts to drain resources unless the main introductory box is still successful in getting people to transition to the core PF game.
One more note - of course the basic set in any incarnation (stand alone game or intro to core) has to be OGL compliant and be based off of the core Pathfinder RPG (and not 0E or any other closed content sources), even if it's just a very simplified version of the rules.
If anyone was going to try and do their own "legal" version the idea of transition would have to be the most important aspect. I'm only bringing this last point up because while there are some great suggestions in the thread, many would be useless since their sources are closed content. Everything has to be drawn from PFRPG, even if at the end it looks a lot like Basic D&D, it all has to be sourced from PFRPG.
Auxmaulous: the disenfranchied and disenchanted or new gamers?
I'm not suggesting that necessarily one should have only one or the other in mind, but I wonder if 1. these aren't two very different groups and 2. if the second group isn't more important. Identifying a target audience and how to reach them and keep them would seem key to the success of the Introductory Pathfinder boxed set, and more difficult than it was when Paizo came out with the AP and the RPG. (On another level, I have no clue which is the hardest to reach and which hardest to keep.)
Just a note of clarification: When I suggested looking at closed content, it was not from a lack of respect for PI, OGL, etc, but because I think there are important things to be learned from them.
|
|
Auxmaulous: the disenfranchised and disenchanted or new gamers?
I'm not suggesting that necessarily one should have only one or the other in mind, but I wonder if 1. these aren't two very different groups and 2. if the second group isn't more important. Identifying a target audience and how to reach them and keep them would seem key to the success of the Introductory Pathfinder boxed set, and more difficult than it was when Paizo came out with the AP and the RPG. (On another level, I have no clue which is the hardest to reach and which hardest to keep.)
There very well could be cross-over on both types of groups - I think a giant hardcover book based on the 3.5 ruleset can be both intimidating and a turn off to potential gamers and to players looking to get back into the game from 2nd or basic, etc.
I would say that new gamers and younger gamers should be the target demo.And yeah I agree on all your points - in addition: Marketing to them would probably be the biggest hurdle. When the APs were going to come out we had plenty of fair warning in the last print days of Dragon and Dungeon. The good thing now is that PFRPG is pretty well established in the gaming community as a force, it's getting to people outside of that circle that's the problem.
And the closed content point: again I agree with you, we should always look to other sources as inspiration on what to do and what not to do and there is a ton of small companies with cool niche games which can serve as a great influence on a new product, especially if they are already trying to do something similar.
I just wanted to emphasize that in the end all the crunch and rules need to be OGL and 100% derived from PFRPG core - for many reasons - transition, legal, and should not be based on an entirely different game system.
What I would suggest it do is present four classes that fill the four roles, but are simplified enough to be easy to pick up - call them Priest, Soldier, Trapspringer and Thaumaturge. Restrict the choices so that they are capable but you don't need huge feat and spell lists to make them work.
This way, when you 'upgrade' to Pathfinder core you are gaining a lot of new material that does not repeat much of what you already have. It also makes the game easier to pick up and play.
|
|
Dabbler, I think you are on to something stating that the classes should relect the major roles and should be four classes to remove confusion with the spell casting classes. But the names should be more simple for new players, i.e. warrior, their, mage, healer.
warrior - a fighter with less options but barbarian hit points
Thief - a rouge with less options but access to all skills
Healer - I spontaneous caster in using the sorcerer progression but having healing class features.
Mage - a wizard class showing new players how to prepare and exhaust spells removing original class features concentrating on casting spells and using magical energy.
I think of these new classes missing class features and concentrating on their roles but a class that concentrated on it's role could be too powerful. Maybe they still get a class feature but options are gone, when you level up in a class you get what you get without options like on ffxiii, cod, or the character sheet for advancement on the 3rd edition basic game
|
|
I would have to disagree here - I think the idea is to create familiarity, and while renamed basic classes may seem cool I think it would cause some confusion in transition (which should be the goal) to the core game.
I also think that a narrow skill system should be used with the same names, just lump many things into one category - Stealth including slight of hand, disable device, escape artist, etc. The naming conventions (IMO of course) should be as similar when possible. That includes skills, class names, spells, monsters, etc. They should function as close to the current ruleset as possible, with the emphasis on making it as simple as possible - skill checks similar to D20 roll to attack AC, just using DC. Teach it as a similar mechanic.
I never really transitioned from basic/expert to AD&D, I played both. I started with Basic - so the concepts, while considerably more detailed were not alien to me. As a matter of fact the issue with the racial elf and dwarf class caused more confusion since they were so different from AD&D. I played both for some time, but as the early 80's started to pass AD&D was the game being supported with a greater amount of product, but for a longest time I ran both Basic/Expert and AD&D modules interchangeably.
I think if people transition (again my opinion) it would be to play a more detailed and option oriented game, or the "advanced" version - not to get something wholly different.
I think new classes with fixed roles would actually be more attractive to current core players considering giving a "lite" game a try.
Anyway, just my take....
I do rem,ember the boxed set, and the limits on character progression were irritating - you couldn't just buy it and play more than a game or two. Hence why I think you need simplified classes rather than shortened classes - you can pick up the core rulebook later but your initial choice does not go out of the window.
I would make it 5 levels, 5 races, 5 Dollars...I also wouldn't make it a box set, I would make it a toned down softcover. Something a kid can afford...kids, especially in this economy, CAN'T afford $30 for a box set without parental knowledge.
Throw out the point buy system. have ability score sets based upon 20pt buy, with suggestions as to which ones are good for which classes.
Classes:
Fighter
Cleric (Good deities)
Sorceror (Arcane Bloodline)
Rogue
Races
Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling
Half-elf
I would trim the skill lists down definitely (have to think on it)
Spell lists would be VERY light Clerics fight and heal, Sorcerors nuke.
Feats would be light, but allow for a few different archetypes.
There would be a series of adventures in the back, event based encounters, levelling would be on the ultra-fast track, such as 4 encounters to reach level 2, 6 to reach level 3, 8 more to reach level 4 and 10 to reach level 5. Then 12 more encounters until the BBEG and level 6. This would provide a similar feel to a Computer game...very important with the ADD generation.
Event based dungeon, could easily be "Empty rooms" and as you head to the next room, it triggers the next encounter, random encounters would not count for advancement but would give them extra loot for the adventure.
No magic creation, alchemy, alignment system.
just my 2coppers
Again, I think you guys are going about it all wrong.
You want four classes? Okay.
What four classes are most enjoyed by new players?
I imagine the Cleric isn't on that list.I guess the four classes most enjoyed by new players are Bard, Druid, Fighter, and Thief. But, I'm sure there is room for discussion on what the four classes most enjoyed by new players are.
Clerics have good armor/weapon choices, and the ability to heal...
Bards are too complex, Druids aren't classic Sword & Sorcery.
... for the love of all you hold holy, do NOT call any class a thief. Seriously, NO. If you are selling this to kids, then class = thief = licence to steal from other PCs.
Box set for around $32.
64 Page rule book
32 Page module
Cardboard GM screen
Equipment and condition cards
Doublesided map with a dungeon on one side and a world map on the other.
Voucher for a free download of the core rules.
Dice
Unpainted plastic minis
Levels 1-6
Barbarian
Paladin
Sorcerer (Dragon bloodline)
Oracle (Life)
Rogue
Use pregenerated characters with only minimal choices each level. Basically turn the game into a semi board game similar to WFRP. The free core rules download is the hook to get people into the rest of the game.
And if you want to sell it in a big box store the healer must be either a Druid or Oracle. Clerics of pagan gods are a nonstarter in today's political climate.
I think a softback 100 page book is far more likely.
|
|
How about this:
Basic set:
4 Classes
Up to 3rd level
All races simplified
One or two adventures, including a solo adventure
Simplified form of combat, without combat maneuvers or lots of combat penalties or bonuses
Should include plastic minis, dice, maps
Advanced set:
Add more classes
4th to 10th level
Add more complicated race abilities
One or two adventures (maybe a continuation of the basic ones to make a box set adventure path)
Add some basic combat maneuvers, and other simple to understand penalties and bonuses
Should include DMs screen, extra monster minis from the adventures, and maps
Expert or Epic set:
Add everything else, basically if you have all the sets you have a basic knowledge of the Core Rules
10th to 16th level
Finish the Adventure path
Point them towards the Core Rulebooks for more info, on world-building, extra combat options, etc.
Should include more maps and minis, and maybe an expert DMs screen
I like this approach because its not a different rule set. It starts out with simplified rules and builds up until you have the same system. It works as an introduction to the book line. I would buy these for my kids. It should include tips on continuing play at the basic, advanced, or expert levels as well. A lot of kids cant afford 3 $30 boxed sets, but I think buying a boxed set with everything you need is much better than buying a book, then not being able to play without dice.
I think one book is better.
a) It's cheaper. You want something for $10-$20 or equivelant.
b) Any store selling he book will also sell the dice.
I don't think that the levels should be restricted - you want to sell something that is still worth having even if you have the full rule-set. That's why I think that the classes should be 'different' in terms of being easier to pick up and use very quickly and easily. For example, a version of fighter with, in effect, pre-selected bonus feats.
Cut down spell-lists and combat rules, I agree these are necessary.
|
|
From what I've been hearing most are saying 4 classes. I'd say basic generic classes to going to 5th level.
We do need a healer - Cleric of Good & Healing domain
( I'd suggest an actual new class called "Healer" that is new to the system but later introduced in a Paizo Divine splat book)
Everyone agrees on the fighter class simple enough
Rouge -- some one to disarrm traps
( I'd suggest a new class "Theif" but some one didn't like the name, how about "Maverick")
Spell caster - Wizard (evoker) or Sorceror (Arcane Bloodline)
The races should be simplified with not as many features as currently available but have something big to make everything even. The APG removed some regular race options to give the players something better. I don't see why that can't happen here and the option can be not for the lite players but available to everyone in a later spat book
Question.... if we agree and find something really cool from this how can we show this to Paizo to get this off the ground?
I would suggest:
Priest (a cleric-lite with one domain, limited spells, mainly healing/buffing, pre-selected abilities and limited spell levels {max at 7th level spells})
Scout (a rogue with selected abilities to enable them to scout anywhere, more a sort of rogue/ranger cross, no mention of the word 'thief' at all)
Soldier (sorry, fighters as-is require pages of feats and difficult feat selection - let's just make them here and have done as class abilities)
Thaumaturge (a kind of limited sorcerer/wizard crossover, limited spell list but more special abilities)
The idea is not to remove choices but make them simple. Also, keep lists of feats and spells down to a minimum. I'd rather not restrict skills lists or levels - I am thinking something that, in a pinch, you could use to run an adventure path with reference to the PSRD now and again.
Soldier (sorry, fighters as-is require pages of feats and difficult feat selection - let's just make them here and have done as class abilities)
Not really. What I did was use a fighter but include a set of pre selected feat "paths" Brut, archer, two weapon, sword and board.
All you did was selected on of theses paths and you simply gained the feats in that order.
Actually, I'm currently working on just about that - a newbie-friendly, easy variant of Pathfinder. I've been working on it for a while, until it got on ice, but when I read this thread I really felt for finishing it. As an E6 player, I of course felt that the concepts fitted perfectly with another, and so far what I've come to is this:
IN GENERAL: Avoiding unnecessary abbrevation is key. There's no reason to call the fighter a ftr the few times it's refered, but there's a big reason to call the constitution modifier CON. Avoiding rarely-used or unnecessarily complicated rules is another important thing. Encumbrance is kind of irrelevant as long as you're not trying to lift something really heavy, for example
Having clear rules in common language. It's better to be too clear than being unclear, as long as the language doesn't get too technical.
Having guidelines from the beginning up on how to play different kinds of encounters, both for players and for DM's. Some information on how to design adventures for the DM. Some advice on PC/NPC background creation.
ABILITY SCORES: No point buy or dice, just a simple array of 15, 14, 14, 13, 12, 8. Highest stat possible is 18 (15 + 2 racial + 1 increase at level 4).
No items or spells actually boosting or reducing stats, as those just add a lot more complexity to the abilities. Instead, a spell like bull's strength adds a +2 bonus to hit and a +2/+3 bonus to damage, and a +2 bonus to athletics checks.
RACES: 4 races, human, elf, dwarf, halfling. The same ability score adjustments as currently exists, but not as many racial abilities (for example, elves just get keen senses and elven immunities).
CLASSES: This is a bit more complicated. There's some reason to have 4 classes for the 4 basic roles, but I feel that all the preparing casters in core are complicated, and that healers aren't that needed anyway. Thus, my current idea is to just have 3 different classes: Fighter, ranger (guide from the apg), and sorcerer.
- Fighter for obvious reasons; it's a simple base concept but can be varied, he can take a beating and there's always someone who wants to play Gimli when you're with newbies. Reduced the sea of options somewhat by giving it Power Attack as it's bonus feat at 1st level, for all fighters. Also gave it perception.
- Ranger (guide) because it's simpler than the rogue, and more capable in combat. At low levels, you don't need a rogue specifically to find traps and the like, a ranger can solve 95% of the situations as well. It's also simpler, since you don't have to go into the whole sneak attack business, and it's easier to focus on ranged combat - something that the fighter can't take care of if he's the only fighter. Also, a ranger can use a wand of CLW. The party becomes less dependent of 4 characters, and I remember from when I started that we were often just 2 or 3 players. The 1-2 prepared spells per day it gets at higher levels will be from a list of maybe 4 spells. It's always a ranged fighter.
- Sorcerer because it's the simplest full caster. Spontaneous casting is oh so much simpler than prepared casting. All sorcerers are blessed by the gods (that's why they have arcane power): Only two bloodlines accessible; celestial and infernal, and it will be noted that infernal is first and foremost for villains. This allows the sorcerer to heal should the need really arise (at range, no less). Spell list radically reduced, to maybe 11 cantrips, 8 1st, 6 2nd, and 5 3rd.
SKILL SYSTEM: A reduction of the number of skills, and the removal of some. Climb + Swim = Athletics, all knowledge skills as well as spellcraft are consolidated into Knowledge (Magic), Knowledge (People) and Knowledge (Nature), diplomacy + intimidate = persuasion and so on. Also, instead of players putting ranks into different skills, they simply choose what skills to train and those are always maxed.
FEATS: Reduce the sea of options. A good amount of maybe 10 combat feats plus maybe 10 non-combat feats such as the save feats, toughness, improved initiative and skill focus.
COMBAT: Removing two-weapon fighting is a good start. Removing flanks, charges, bracing against a charge and all similiar special actions is a good way to continue.
I'm quite torn on combat maneouvers though. On one hand, are they the only real thing the fighter can do in combat besides hitting the other guy; without them, fighting might become boring. If they stay, this is what I'll do to them:
CMB is BAB+Str
CMD is 10+BAB+Str+Dex
No bonuses from feats that increase attack bonus, no bonuses from size and so on.
Only two combat maneouvers: Disarm and trip and incapacicate. Disarm works more or less as it does now, except that you don't get any bonuses or penalties based on weapon types. Trip works exactly like now.
AoO's get to stay, because they are by now such a central part of the game.
EQUIPMENT: Reduce the amount of weapons and armor. A lot of the weapons and armor can go. Instead of having dagger, punching dagger, sickle, short sword, longsword, rapier, scimitar, falchion, greatsword, kama, and kukri for bladed weapons, it's enough to have dagger, rapier, sword (longsword) and greatsword. The rest can be fluffed in.
MAGIC: Get rid of magic schools, they are unneeded. As said above, reduce the spell selection a lot. Get rid of material components and focuses (sorcerer has eschew materials)
|
If we remove the battle grid but include location maps people will want to have a scale and will start measuring distances with some string or a ruler.Which is just a more complicated, time-consuming version of the battle grid.
Then add a grid. It's not quantum rocketry, especially with basic dnd. Pick a grid. Any grid :)
Also, I recommended this version because it includes rules for ascending AC, since those backwards thac0s are not kid-friendly
You want to design a game to introduce kids to the game and you want to name one of the classes "thaumaturge"?
How many ten year old kids do you know who know what the word "thaumaturge" means?
Playing D&D has always been an educational experience. I guess you could use 'warlock' but that already has connotations, although it would work. How about 'magician'?
Not really. What I did was use a fighter but include a set of pre selected feat "paths" Brut, archer, two weapon, sword and board.
All you did was selected on of theses paths and you simply gained the feats in that order.
That was what I had in mind too, only maybe not even even that complex - have the feats available but have the more generic feats as standard, maybe.
... for the love of all you hold holy, do NOT call any class a thief. Seriously, NO. If you are selling this to kids, then class = thief = licence to steal from other PCs.Ever tried reading Hobbit?
Yes. They used the term 'burglar' and not thief. Sorry but I know kids, and some will use any excuse. I wouldn't plan on giving them extra ones.
Why not just reprint the:
Adept, expert, Warrior, and another Adept with wizard magic instead of divine. From the PHB. That way the basic set would represent commoners type classes adventuring, while the normal PF books represent the adventures type classes. Both types would still be compatible with each other.
Races: Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, and Human.
Design around 1-5th level.
2 simple rule books, dice, 5 sheets of hex paper, 5 sheets of grid paper, and one cheap plastic figure for elf, dwarf, gnome, and human.
PS = Personal request, I noticed in my old Red box set. The front and back inside covers showed lots of Map symbols. This was a nice feature, as it lets players design there own dungeons, castles, maps. While at the same time giving players a uniform systems of symbols so everyones maps would be comparable like secret doors, pits, stairs, etc.
I'm sorry, do you have a point?Again, I think you guys are going about it all wrong.
You want four classes? Okay.
What four classes are most enjoyed by new players?
I imagine the Cleric isn't on that list.I guess the four classes most enjoyed by new players are Bard, Druid, Fighter, and Thief. But, I'm sure there is room for discussion on what the four classes most enjoyed by new players are.
Clerics have good armor/weapon choices, and the ability to heal...
Bards are too complex, Druids aren't classic Sword & Sorcery.
Yes, I made it. for introductory, use the same formula that Paizo uses for Play Play Play for PFS (as in the 4 pre-made chanracters). The only change being from Wizard to Sorceror to prevent players from having to choose spells for an introductory game.
In addition, Druids=animal companions, which is not basic enough for an intro set.
|
Warrior (not the NPC class, but basically a simplified fighter)
Priest (simplified cleric, three varieties: Good, Evil, Neutral)
Mage (simplified sorcerer, arcane bloodline)
Scout (simplified rogue)
I'd say they should also, for the sake of simplilcity, eliminate giving out feats and skill ranks, and simply assign static choices.
Warrior (not the NPC class, but basically a simplified fighter)
Priest (simplified cleric, three varieties: Good, Evil, Neutral)
Mage (simplified sorcerer, arcane bloodline)
Scout (simplified rogue)I'd say they should also, for the sake of simplilcity, eliminate giving out feats and skill ranks, and simply assign static choices.
I think you could keep skills and feats, but shorten the lists of both. We don't want to take away all choices, otherwise the system leaves the players with no real 'customisation' options with their characters, and that will be a big turn-off for some.
leave out feats. all though you might have some build into the warrior by level. Skill have become part of the game, but leave out the craft, knowledge, profession, and magic creation skills. Also leave out any skill that can not be taken before 5th level.
There is a problem with using Burnt Offerings as an introductory adventure. Put simple: It's in a detailed town with lots of NPCs. What you need to introduce someone to the game is not a sandbox environment, but rather a pretty fixed setting where the options are more or less obvious. It sounds horrible to say it, but sometimes starting the game at the creak of the dungeon entrance doors is the best option. However, that does not preclude the possibility of meeting friendly people in the dungeon itself.
Take a look at published adventures aimed at low levels: Palace of the silver princess (yeah, I'm old...), the sunken citadel and scourge of the howling horde are good examples. The settings are similar, they have NPC interaction of a limited scope, and begin pretty much in the thick of it. Sunken citadel starts in a village, but the village is small enough that the options are very clear. Palace of the silver princess begins at the entrance gates. Scourge of the howling horde starts on the road, only later getting into a tiny village.
I'd suggest writing a new goblin-themed adventure.
It would need a custom adventure on the same style - flavour, restricted choices but enough to wet the appetite. I'd keep feats in because they are a mechanic of the game - we want to keep those so that the characters that are used initially can be slotted into an existing campaign if the players so choose.
|
|
What's the attraction with having Warrior, Priest, Mage, and Scout as the base classes? The game system hasn't had this concept of the base four since 2e and the decision doesn't seem to be guided by the question "what classes do newbie characters most enjoy playing?"
They're the classic archtypes for the game. And all the base classes are really variations or combinations of the four.
Barbarian - he's a warrior, only less civilized
Bard - he's a scout/rogue, with a bit of mage thrown in
Cleric - he's a priest
Druid - he's a nature priest
Fighter - he's a warrior
Monk - he's a warrior, only more Asian
Paladin - he's a warrior, with a bit of priest thrown in
Ranger - he's a warrior, only more outdoorsy
Rogue - he's a scout
Sorcerer - he's a mage
Wizard - he's a mage
They're the classic archtypes for the game. And all the base classes are really variations or combinations of the four.
They haven't been the classic archetypes of the game since 2e.
And if the goal is to buid all the other classes from these base four, I think you're going to find it will add complexity to the game which will defeat your purpose.
Ah, but that is not the goal. The goal is to present a game that is smaller, cheaper, faster to pick up and play, but that does not become totally redundant if you buy the core rulebook, and can be used to play a standard adventure with a bit of reference to the internet.
To keep the size of the rule-set down and to make sure it is quick to create characters we are suggesting presenting simplified but effective versions of the four main archetypes that people play and that you generally need to complete an adventure.
If you think about it, you need:
Somebody skilled at magic
Somebody who can heal
Somebody who can fight
Somebody who can scout