Pathfinder lite


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 148 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

LilithsThrall wrote:

There are a number of options for classes which can heal, for example.

So, what do new players like to play most; clerics, druids, bards, or paladins?
The same goes for all the other categories.

That's just the point - there are so many options you cannot include them all. That's called the Pathfinder RPG. If you have another way of making the classes easier to pick up and play in half an hour, I am all ears, but unfortunately restricting available choice is the only way I can think of to keep the page count down. I suggest making new classes in order that if somebody buys the 'basic' book, they don't find all the material completely superseded and rendered useless by the PRPG book.


Dabbler wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

There are a number of options for classes which can heal, for example.

So, what do new players like to play most; clerics, druids, bards, or paladins?
The same goes for all the other categories.
That's just the point - there are so many options you cannot include them all. That's called the Pathfinder RPG. If you have another way of making the classes easier to pick up and play in half an hour, I am all ears, but unfortunately restricting available choice is the only way I can think of to keep the page count down. I suggest making new classes in order that if somebody buys the 'basic' book, they don't find all the material completely superseded and rendered useless by the PRPG book.

What I meant, though in re-reading my post I wasn't as clear as I should have been is find out which healing class new players like to play most and then choose that one.


LilithsThrall wrote:
What I meant, though in re-reading my post I wasn't as clear as I should have been is find out which healing class new players like to play most and then choose that one.

Ah! I understand, yes, that makes a lot of sense. However, bear in mind it may not be practicable - druids are popular and can heal, but have so many abilities that they can overwhelm a new player as well as take up a lot of space. The class is likely to be a new one based on an old one, if you follow me, be it druid-lite, cleric-lite, or other.


Dabbler wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
What I meant, though in re-reading my post I wasn't as clear as I should have been is find out which healing class new players like to play most and then choose that one.
Ah! I understand, yes, that makes a lot of sense. However, bear in mind it may not be practicable - druids are popular and can heal, but have so many abilities that they can overwhelm a new player as well as take up a lot of space. The class is likely to be a new one based on an old one, if you follow me, be it druid-lite, cleric-lite, or other.

In which case, I'd prefer a druid-lite class.


By my point of view, a Pathfinder lite/introducing game should present

- 4 classes (warrior, wizard, cleric and rogue)
- 4 levels
- simplified but compatible rules (I mean by simplified just a * selection * of skills, feats, spells, etc)

And people who apreciate this basic game should switch to the full pathfinder game soon !


Druid-lite ... kind of like a shaman or mystic type? I can see that would work.

blueace wrote:

By my point of view, a Pathfinder lite/introducing game should present

- 4 classes (warrior, wizard, cleric and rogue)
- 4 levels
- simplified but compatible rules (I mean by simplified just a * selection * of skills, feats, spells, etc)

And people who apreciate this basic game should switch to the full pathfinder game soon !

I agree, except for the 4 levels thing, it was one of the problems I had with the basic set was it just advanced a bit and then stopped dead. I think people should know how far they can go even if they don't go there.

Dark Archive

I don't know how well the basic box or starter box has helped WOTC with bringing in new players but I do remember buying it myself and I've played it several times with new players, every single time we used the pregens'. After a while of people playing the pregens they state, "I wish my character could be like this...." Then myself already playing the full game you whip out the full book and we'd start creating characters. I see now where there should be options (not to many) to let characters make new user that are not copies of the pregens. So far people are talking of 4 races and 4 classes, 16 possibilities, again everyone is coming to the table with really good things. After playing the pregens the players and dm should have a good idea of the classes and abilities granted. I personally like the idea or new classes with names that "non-gamers" are familiar with but this debate is still up in the air. I'd like to see if we can find resolution.
I'd really like to see if we can really get this off the ground, does anyone know the process for that?


Dabbler wrote:
I agree, except for the 4 levels thing, it was one of the problems I had with the basic set was it just advanced a bit and then stopped dead. I think people should know how far they can go even if they don't go there.

ok, but up to level 20 is for me too much for a lite game. Let say up to 10 ?

For the race, the 4 basic ones for me are human, dwarf, elf and halfling.


blueace wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
I agree, except for the 4 levels thing, it was one of the problems I had with the basic set was it just advanced a bit and then stopped dead. I think people should know how far they can go even if they don't go there.

ok, but up to level 20 is for me too much for a lite game. Let say up to 10 ?

For the race, the 4 basic ones for me are human, dwarf, elf and halfling.

Ten is passable, yes: my own inclination is to go to 20 because that makes the classes 'complete' with regard to core, although I'd not add any extra abilities that need any description after 10 save the capstone. I agree on the races too.


I think five levels is best.

The reason is it breaks down fairly well into a story line. Also, kids have a limited attention span.

Five levels gives them the chance to explore the game without falling into a level grind.

My biggest concern is "which five levels?" The game isn't balanced between spell casters and fighters at either the low levels or the high levels.

Dark Archive

I would say 1st through 3rd level, the starting 1st through 3rd levels. It would make more sense for brand new players to be playing characters just stating out in the world. It makes more sense from a low-level introductory module perspective, simple plots, etc.

As far as balance, as long as each characters strengths and weaknesses are discussed and the wizard is always given something to do (even spam a weak magical ranged attack) then I don't see the class balance issue. As long as everyone can contribute and gets his/her moment to shine it will work.

There should be some suggestions for playing onto 4th or 5th, but the idea - unless Paizo wants to support a full "basic" game - is to give people a taste and understanding and then cross them over. Less spell levels means a smaller book which can leave more space for other details relevant to new gamers and DMs.


Auxmaulous wrote:
There should be some suggestions for playing onto 4th or 5th, but the idea - unless Paizo wants to support a full "basic" game - is to give people a taste and understanding and then cross them over.

The 'complete basic game' was what I was thinking of, and I think it's doable.

If you think about it:
Basics & introduction - 5 pages
races - 5 pages
Classes - 10 pages (tops)
Feats & Skills - 10 pages
Equipment - 5 pages
Combat - 5 pages
Magic - 20 pages
Monsters - 20 pages
Treasure - 10 pages
Basic Adventure & DMing advice - 10 pages

Paizo currently sell a 100 page book for US$20. You could probably add a dice set and still make a profit, and then you have a game system that can let you play an adventure path.

Dark Archive

I am for the 4 basic races
Human , elf , halfling, dwarf
And for the levels
1-10 ( I'm very good with)
-- this gives enough time to play with 3+ level spells
-- the lite box can include a mini champaign path ( equivalent to two adventure path books)
-- Like in the Neverwinter Pc games in the prelude the first three levels are to show the players how to do the very basics and 2 examples of leveling up.
p.s. The new 4th ED box set supports characters from 1-2 levels

Dark Archive

Dabbler wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
There should be some suggestions for playing onto 4th or 5th, but the idea - unless Paizo wants to support a full "basic" game - is to give people a taste and understanding and then cross them over.

The 'complete basic game' was what I was thinking of, and I think it's doable.

If you think about it:
Basics & introduction - 5 pages
races - 5 pages
Classes - 10 pages (tops)
Feats & Skills - 10 pages
Equipment - 5 pages
Combat - 5 pages
Magic - 20 pages
Monsters - 20 pages
Treasure - 10 pages
Basic Adventure & DMing advice - 10 pages

Paizo currently sell a 100 page book for US$20. You could probably add a dice set and still make a profit, and then you have a game system that can let you play an adventure path.

I think it can be done with smaller page count, 64 pages for the main rule book and a 32 page module. The basic box set did it, and I think the effort could be replicated with a PFRPG "lite".

Basics & introduction - 5 pages
races - 4 pages
Classes - 5 pages
Feats & Skills - 5 pages
Equipment - 2 pages
Combat - 5 pages
Spells - 5 pages
Monsters - 16 pages
Treasure - 4 pages
Basic Adventure & DMing advice Plus a walkthrough and samples- 10 pages
Tables -treasure/encounter - 3 pages

32 page module -starting town area in Golarian, local points of interest/adventure, main module.

Paizo has mentioned that if they did do a box set it would probably be for a introductory game - so a box is possible. If that would be the case I would also include a flip map or a small map of the local Golarion environs.

I would only include the flip map because the use of minis and battlemat are a core part of 3.5/pfrpg (regrettably). Paizo doesn't really put out their own minis so this is an unfortunate side effect of 3.5/wotc mini selling model. A Golarion map would do more to support the product which is the main focus of the company and that is APs and campaign material.


I strongly believe there are a lot of kids who will find the gnome's spell like abilities fun. I've never seen a newbie who didn't enjoy speaking with animals, prestidigitation, etc. For this reason, I believe gnomes should be one of the races.

Shadow Lodge

LilithsThrall wrote:
I strongly believe there are a lot of kids who will find the gnome's spell like abilities fun. I've never seen a newbie who didn't enjoy speaking with animals, prestidigitation, etc. For this reason, I believe gnomes should be one of the races.

The problem there is that if you include everything that someone might find fun, it quickly ceases to be Pathfinder Lite, and just becomes the Pathfinder RPG. Only the tables stop at level 3, or 10, or whatever.


Kthulhu wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
I strongly believe there are a lot of kids who will find the gnome's spell like abilities fun. I've never seen a newbie who didn't enjoy speaking with animals, prestidigitation, etc. For this reason, I believe gnomes should be one of the races.
The problem there is that if you include everything that someone might find fun, it quickly ceases to be Pathfinder Lite, and just becomes the Pathfinder RPG. Only the tables stop at level 3, or 10, or whatever.

I'd rather the tables went further and the restrictions were greater myself. I'd rather have something that even a seasoned Pathfinder player could buy for a few nice tidbits as well as a birthday present.


Kthulhu wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
I strongly believe there are a lot of kids who will find the gnome's spell like abilities fun. I've never seen a newbie who didn't enjoy speaking with animals, prestidigitation, etc. For this reason, I believe gnomes should be one of the races.
The problem there is that if you include everything that someone might find fun, it quickly ceases to be Pathfinder Lite, and just becomes the Pathfinder RPG. Only the tables stop at level 3, or 10, or whatever.

I didn't say we should include everything anyone finds fun. But if there are things that a lot of the potential customers (kids) find fun, we should include it.

I still don't buy into the notion that there will be more newbies who find halflings fun then find gnomes fun. From a newbie's perspective, halflings are just small people. Gnomes are small people with magical powers.

Sovereign Court

LilithsThrall wrote:

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?

As an English Teacher I can tell you with some authority that a lot of kids, especially the ones who might potentially want to play rpgs, love cool sounding new words.

I have met 10 year-olds who thought it was crazy that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was changed to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US. Why? Because 'philosopher' sounds cooler to them.
If it's fantasy you have to make it exotic and magical, fluff plays a large part in that.

Someone suggested that kids are going to want blaster-type wizards. I disagree: imaginative kids will adore illusions and spells like entangle and grease.

Sovereign Court

I think it should be a box set. A book would be cheaper but in my experience a lot of families don't go to book stores to buy presents for their kids, a lot of kids don't consider books to be games. By making it a boxed set that says Pathfinder Role Playing Game, they will know that there is a game in there somewhere.

Dark Archive

I agree on the boxed set, I can see how some people can think that they want to play a game and not read it.

On the gnome thing, the races should have features that don't require keeping track of thing, spells. We're already asking spell casters to keep track of spells, the races should be simple

I was in the regular pathfinder RPG each race not 1 page to describe it, in the starter kit that race section could be 2 pages next to each other, at the top half of the left page, this is a dwarf. Bottom half of left, this is an elf. Top of right this is a halfling. Bottom half of right this is a human. The 3.0 starter kit had about the same format almost all on one page.

What ever level 1 or 2 adventure path books go to that is the level the starter book should go up to, maybe one above that if the dm wants to have the characters a bit more power full.

If the classes go up to 10 each class can get one page.

One major thing that the 3.0 starter lacked was an into. I like how each chapter of the core book had awesome art at the beginning and a story excerpt. The should be at the start of the book then the next two pages are explaining what a rpg is.


Sissyl wrote:

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.

I'd suggest writing a new goblin-themed adventure.

How about Falcon's Hollow?

That was a freebie on pdf and makes a good introduction to pathfinder, will need a pathfinder update mind you, but it would be a good choice nonetheless!


Although this is neat, I think the pool should get deeper before it gets a larger surface area.


I'm trying to find more time to give thought to what I voiced earlier about the NPC classes being used as the chasses upon which to build intro classes for this Basic boxed set. Initial thoughts

Warrior - Obvious

Adept - would need to split out and be developed with two routes: Divine Adept and Arcane Adept

Expert - would give a broad basis for rogue and ranger type directions

Aristocrat - Okay, here I'm probably going to get laughed at, but honestly I'd include aristocrat so that (bracing self) girls who wanted to play "princess" type characters would be attracted to the game. It also might make a better basis for someone wanting to go in a bard direction than the Expert, but here I'm relying on memory.

I'd be grateful to anyone who wanted to kick in on this.


I will have to think on this one.

Basically it would be a "new" game with the basic rules and NPC classes as PC classes.

hmmm


The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:

I will have to think on this one.

Basically it would be a "new" game with the basic rules and NPC classes as PC classes.

hmmm

Well, can this be done in a way that boils down and introduces Pathfinder?


If it's an Introduction to Pathfinder game that we're looking at, I think I'd rather see it as:

Pathfinder RPG Introductory Box Set
• Player's Manual: Softbound book with the basics on classes, skills & feats. Included are Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric with only the first 5 levels. Races included are Human, Elf, Halfling and Dwarf.
• GM's Manual: Rules on running the game in the very basics. What the dice mean, how to make a roll, how to run combat.
• Adventure Book: One part PF Fiction, one part adventure book.
• Challenge Cards: 30 Cards with various monsters and traps on them. Stats are broken down to the basics, with a range of monsters from Orcs to Goblins to Skeletons. 1 Dragon card is also included.
• Tokens: 60 tokens included, with heroes and monsters.
• Unique Map Tiles: 12 Tiles which are unique to the set. They can be used to form a few different maps included in the Adventure Book.
• 6 Pre-generated Heroes: New heroes unique to the box all @ 1st level.
• Dice: Full set of dice.

This seems like a better Intro box, as it doesn't deviate from the main system and allows a good start. If they wanted to continue, they could pick up the main books and keep going with no conversion necessary. I think one of the flaws in Basic D&D/Advanced D&D is that the systems are a bit different. It's better to introduce players using the same rules that they'd use to move forward, rather than confuse them when they want to get more involved in the game. But again, this is only my opinion, YMMV :)

Sovereign Court

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Aristocrat - Okay, here I'm probably going to get laughed at, but honestly I'd include aristocrat so that (bracing self) girls who wanted to play "princess" type characters would be attracted to the game. It also might make a better basis for someone wanting to go in a bard direction than the Expert, but here I'm relying on memory.

Aristocrat = some aristo. skills, martial weapons, full armour and shields.

That doesn't scream 'princess' to me.

Being a princess is fluff, and most modern girls who like/want to be princesses don't want to be damsels in distress, they want to be cool, kickass, pretty and rich!

Fiona in Shrek only gets likable when she stops stropping and starts kicking ass and taking names.

Being able to play a princess suits the game, but it can be covered in fluff: "You can be a humble peasant, a dashing pirate, a beautiful princess, a daring thief or any other type of person you can think of. Even better, you can have magical powers..."


I wouldn't use the NPC classes myself, I'd use versions of the 'basic four' classes. The NPC classes are not designed to be used as adventurers, they are there as 'support' classes.

Liberty's Edge

I think that this would work, and would give Paizo entry to some new outlets. It is easier for most people to justify spending $20 bucks on an introductory product and then spending more if they really like something.


imo, the place where a lot of these suggestions falls down is on the emphasis of mechanics, even streamlined mechanics, over roleplay.

I think something like a session or two of DREAD wrapped in a fRPG shell would probably work out ok. Once the kiddos pickup on the roleplay aspect, I'd probably transition to the redbox, castle ravenloft, maybe heroscape or some possibly some retro-clone and run a short campaign or two and then transition into Pathfinder.

It's kind of like cookie -> cookie tray -> cookie store


F33b wrote:
imo, the place where a lot of these suggestions falls down is on the emphasis of mechanics, even streamlined mechanics, over roleplay.

Like it or not, it's a mechanics-heavy game. That said, we can discuss the mechanics until we are blue in the face, and dissect and analyse them as to what should or should not be included and what classes would and would not work. The instruction on how to role-play, though, is going to to be the same no matter what mechanics are used.


F33b wrote:

imo, the place where a lot of these suggestions falls down is on the emphasis of mechanics, even streamlined mechanics, over roleplay.

I think something like a session or two of DREAD wrapped in a fRPG shell would probably work out ok. Once the kiddos pickup on the roleplay aspect, I'd probably transition to the redbox, castle ravenloft, maybe heroscape or some possibly some retro-clone and run a short campaign or two and then transition into Pathfinder.

It's kind of like cookie -> cookie tray -> cookie store

Absolutely right.

Which is why I keep coming back to "what do newbies most like to play?" as opposed to "we should put the basic four classes in the game!"|"we should put (some arbitrary list) races in the game".
If the central focus isn't on fun and role playing (with mechanics being a distant if necessary focus), then this project is a waste of time and will most likely be a financial failure.


LilithsThrall wrote:

Which is why I keep coming back to "what do newbies most like to play?" as opposed to "we should put the basic four classes in the game!"|"we should put (some arbitrary list) races in the game".

If the central focus isn't on fun and role playing (with mechanics being a distant if necessary focus), then this project is a waste of time and will most likely be a financial failure.

Don't get me wrong, this is also a major consideration. Thing is, you can make up a quick, fun and interesting game ... that has nothing to do with Pathfinder/D&D. Whatever we introduce, even if it has cut-down mechanics. has to be D&D otherwise it's a waste, pure and simple, because they game they have gotten hooked on is not the game we are trying to sell them the full version of.

Yes, a strong emphasis on FUN is an absolute must. However, just polling people and saying 'what divine caster is most fun to play?' won't work because what you like as a newcomer and what you like as an experienced player are two different things. Personally, a wolf-totem variant druid would be great by me, but (a) I'm not a new player and I can handle the complexities of playing a druid and (b) it's a complex character class that isn't easy to fit on one page.


Dabbler wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

Which is why I keep coming back to "what do newbies most like to play?" as opposed to "we should put the basic four classes in the game!"|"we should put (some arbitrary list) races in the game".

If the central focus isn't on fun and role playing (with mechanics being a distant if necessary focus), then this project is a waste of time and will most likely be a financial failure.

Don't get me wrong, this is also a major consideration. Thing is, you can make up a quick, fun and interesting game ... that has nothing to do with Pathfinder/D&D. Whatever we introduce, even if it has cut-down mechanics. has to be D&D otherwise it's a waste, pure and simple, because they game they have gotten hooked on is not the game we are trying to sell them the full version of.

Yes, a strong emphasis on FUN is an absolute must. However, just polling people and saying 'what divine caster is most fun to play?' won't work because what you like as a newcomer and what you like as an experienced player are two different things. Personally, a wolf-totem variant druid would be great by me, but (a) I'm not a new player and I can handle the complexities of playing a druid and (b) it's a complex character class that isn't easy to fit on one page.

If it's decided that a wolf-totem variant druid is what newbies think is one of the funnest classes, then the mechanics of that class can be trimmed down to make it easy for newbies to play.

Mechanics should follow fun, not the other way around.


LilithsThrall wrote:

If it's decided that a wolf-totem variant druid is what newbies think is one of the funnest classes, then the mechanics of that class can be trimmed down to make it easy for newbies to play.

Mechanics should follow fun, not the other way around.

I agree - but first we have to know what newbies will prefer, or at least take an educated guess.


Sumthin like this: Paizo Twitter

Sketchpad wrote:

If it's an Introduction to Pathfinder game that we're looking at, I think I'd rather see it as:

Pathfinder RPG Introductory Box Set
• Player's Manual: Softbound book with the basics on classes, skills & feats. Included are Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric with only the first 5 levels. Races included are Human, Elf, Halfling and Dwarf.
• GM's Manual: Rules on running the game in the very basics. What the dice mean, how to make a roll, how to run combat.
• Adventure Book: One part PF Fiction, one part adventure book.
• Challenge Cards: 30 Cards with various monsters and traps on them. Stats are broken down to the basics, with a range of monsters from Orcs to Goblins to Skeletons. 1 Dragon card is also included.
• Tokens: 60 tokens included, with heroes and monsters.
• Unique Map Tiles: 12 Tiles which are unique to the set. They can be used to form a few different maps included in the Adventure Book.
• 6 Pre-generated Heroes: New heroes unique to the box all @ 1st level.
• Dice: Full set of dice.

This seems like a better Intro box, as it doesn't deviate from the main system and allows a good start. If they wanted to continue, they could pick up the main books and keep going with no conversion necessary. I think one of the flaws in Basic D&D/Advanced D&D is that the systems are a bit different. It's better to introduce players using the same rules that they'd use to move forward, rather than confuse them when they want to get more involved in the game. But again, this is only my opinion, YMMV :)


from Facebook

Jason Bulmahn, Game Designer: One of my secrets is out. We are working on a Pathfinder Intro set. Just thought I would spread the word.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Beek Gwenders of Croodle wrote:

from Facebook

Jason Bulmahn, Game Designer: One of my secrets is out. We are working on a Pathfinder Intro set. Just thought I would spread the word.

I was wondering when this would finally make the jump over here. That said.. someone should probably start a new thread with the title "Pathfinder Intro Game" instead of hoping folks wade through three pages to get to this news.. of course, we should have a blog about it soon I think.

Jason

Sovereign Court

sketchpad wrote:
This seems like a better Intro box, as it doesn't deviate from the main system and allows a good start. If they wanted to continue, they could pick up the main books and keep going with no conversion necessary. I think one of the flaws in Basic D&D/Advanced D&D is that the systems are a bit different. It's better to introduce players using the same rules that they'd use to move forward, rather than confuse them when they want to get more involved in the game. But again, this is only my opinion, YMMV :)

I agree.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The Alexandrian has an interesting blog post about D&D Essentials, in which he talks about Starter Sets in general and the fact that sets after the original Red Box were basically "pay-to-preview advertisements". It's a good read and a valid point, and it made me wonder if it's possible to avoid this problem when it comes to a Pathfinder RPG intro set, so it can become a product that can stand on its own.


Hi @all,

if you want to "grow the croud" i think it is essential for an Intro Set to not only be available at specialized shops, but also at larger stores, such as Toys'R' Us or something similar (don't know any store names in US/England). Here in Germany a lot of children go to such stores with their parents. I never saw parent and children in a RPG-specialized shop...So, to get their attention, you need a boxed set (not a book) because a boxed set looks like a game.

There should be some minatures in it: one hero for each of the classes and a small sample of monster miniatures. Best if they are prepainted, so that the box can have some transparent part at the top where the heroes are displayed. This will draw attention to the product...

The box has to be an eye-catcher and should be rather "big" or it will drown within all the other boxed games...But your marketing department should know better ;-) of how to "draw attention"...

Now to what should be in:

- an erasable battlemat
- charaktersheets (perhaps erasable too)
- an eraser pen
- a set of funky dice
- a PRPG rules light version: My suggestions:
- Races: the basics (elf, human, dwarf, gnome)
- Classes: the basics (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard)
- No alignment
- Stripped down list of skills, spells, feats, equipment.
- Covering of levels 1 to 10
- Remove AoO, no combat maneuvers

That's it from the top of my head...


The part I find players usually have the most problems with is actually choosing feats and spells. I think something as easy as a "suggested starting feats" box could work wonders here.

Shadow Lodge

I think a few things definately should be included: a coupon for $5 (or whatever Paizo finds practical) off of the Core Rulebook, a download code for a free download of the Pathfinder Lite set, and a few prominent mentions of the PRD website so that players can have more options opened up.

I also think that the system should be 100% compatible with PFS play. Minimum levels 1-11 (although I'd prefer 12, just because it's a prettier number to end on).


Allow me to throw my 2 cents in. I went looking for a Christmas present for my 13yo nephew and wanted to give him a starter kit for RPGing but all I could find was the Red Box 4E. I didn't want to get him a system that I myself don't favor and there wasn't any other options.
Come on Paizo. I think it's important to keep this pasttime alive in this world of electronics this and internet that. Give us an easy in option to Pathfinder or you're gonna force me to dredge up my old Basic system Red Box and give him that.


Sissyl wrote:
The part I find players usually have the most problems with is actually choosing feats and spells. I think something as easy as a "suggested starting feats" box could work wonders here.

I would suggest 'cut down' classes where a lot of the choices are already made would be a good idea. That way less choosing, but you could still take them from 1-20 and they would work for a player in a mainstream game.


I think I just saw the cover art :)
Besides, it's not a LITE version, but an Intro set.
How much the Intro set could be used as a rules lite game, we will see when it's out I am afraid :(


Yes, they have it on enWorld - looks great.

101 to 148 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder lite All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion