I'm a old geezer who runs very active group of mixed role players. We have been playing Swords and Wizardry and Castles and Crusades for a while now as several of us older types were more comfortable with that type of game.
Wanting to be fair towards some of our newer members we tried out 4E and after a good try have decided to move on to Pathfinder. $300 and a week of reading over the game im getting ready to start running it soon but there are a few things that don't fit my group very well.
We are NOT a very tactical group. Not once has anyone used minatures in our games. Not once has anyone really wanted to Sunder or Shield bash or really anything else very tactical.
We really do like combat but just seem to be much more abstract in how we use it in the games. All those little rules on combat sit unused and frankly unloved by us.
My 1st notion is just to ignore them. Run combat the same as we always have and just pretend they are not there. I doubt any of my players would pick any feats ect that would use them and the only A.O.O. we use is when fleeing battle.
My question is in playing this way do you see any huge issues with the game? Are those abilities more important in pathfinder and how do you think the game will play without them?
One of the reasons is a friend of mine who also runs Pathfinder seems to think the game would be broken if no attack of opportunity ect..
Also do you guys have any ideas on things I should use/not use in my goal to keep a more old school combat while playing a new school game like Pathfinder.
Thanks!
I played for a while 3.0/3.5 without map or minis or signs.
We just approximated or handwaved position and focused on powers/spells and so on where position were less relevant, drawing sometimes on a paper when the situation was more troublesome.
IMHO you can just ignore what you don't like and adjust the game accordingly. Yeah, you lose something of the game but remains alot to enjoy, so...
My 1st notion is just to ignore them. Run combat the same as we always have and just pretend they are not there. I doubt any of my players would pick any feats ect that would use them and the only A.O.O. we use is when fleeing battle.
Naturally, you can define what elements to include in your game and what to ignore. You might run into a couple of problems. Grappling is a major part of the game so if I were to choose anything to keep it would be that. Anything with a tail is likely going to have improved grab. Alternatively you could just write in your own mechanics for these abilities if you want to simplify things but if you are using the challenge ratings to balance your encounters just make sure that you adjust things accordingly.
My question is in playing this way do you see any huge issues with the game? Are those abilities more important in pathfinder and how do you think the game will play without them?One of the reasons is a friend of mine who also runs Pathfinder seems to think the game would be broken if no attack of opportunity ect...
I have to agree with your friend on this. Spatial relationships are a definitive feature of 3.X, but you need not break the bank by picking up a ton of figurines or a $50 battlemat. My recommendation is to grid out a piece of poster board and take it to staples. They can laminate it for about $15. You can then draw on it with markers. Obviously do not use permanent markers. Dry erase markers work poorly and will take a long time to erase. Windex and washable markers work best clearing the board in seconds.
I, personally, LOVE to use coins to represent monsters. A standard set of american currency can represent 8 different creature types in an encounter i.e. heads/tails.
Also do you guys have any ideas on things I should use/not use in my goal to keep a more old school combat while playing a new school game like Pathfinder
If you want that 1st edition D&D feel I would do away with any skills that are not combat related. Skills like diplomacy and bluff will probably not be very fun given the kind of game that you are trying to run. (Though bluff does have some combat implications). These skills would not have existed in 1st ed D&D. Just run down the list and cross out anything that you do not see working in your campaign.
I have also more or less handwaved maps in 3e/Pathfinder play. The only issues that come up are when Attacks of Opportunity. I just keep a map in my head or small sketch and just Assume PCs that the most advantageous route. It usually isn't an issue until you have to deal with masses of enemies or seriously confined combat space. In those case I will warn the Players if an enemy will get an Attack of Opportunity and allow the to change their action if they wish. Typically a good rule of thumb is if a PC is joining an active combat and wants to attack in the same turn they will suffer an AoO. If they take a full turn (double move) they won't. Same applies to any major repositioning, save that quick 5 ft step.
The advanced "Combat Maneuvers" have almost nothing to do with miniatures. Only Bull Rush (think any movie ever where a tail hits a hero and sends him flying into a wall) and the Advanced Players Guide "Pull" really move people around,
Shield Bash think that front rank of spearmen who press forward with their shield and then stab with a spear.
Sunder/Disarm, sometimes it's easier to break a foes weapon to end a fight then cut them to ribbons. Vader lopping off Lukes hand.
The best way to get your players to use combat manuvers is to have your NPCs use them. The will remember the fights when the Giant sends the Fighter or flanking Rogue flying, or when the BBEG capture team starts knocking weapons out of hands or tripping.
Nothing like a Whip using support villain disarming and tripping to make the point.
|
You should try considering combat manoevres as a standardised way of letting folks, primarily monsters, do stuff in combat that previously required special rules on a case by case basis e.g. grappling. A way to introduce the rules is by encounters featuring monsters performing the manoevres. Another option is to let the players describe what they are doing and then translate into game mechanics (e.g. I try and slip beneath the monsters swings to get behind him = acrobatics check). I've used minis since AD&D 1e to regulate combat, players should find it helpful for AOO, reach, flanking, and areas of effect issues in PF. You don't have to start using everything at once, just start with the basics. You may need to encourage use by pointing out possible adventages (e.g. if you move one square left you'd be flanking).
You didn't mention skills but that can be handled by translating what happens during normal roleplay into skill checks with appropriate situational modifiers. Anyone playing a rogue should find skill checks almost no different from before.
I'd probably be happier playing Castles & Crusades than playing a Castles & Crusades-style game with loose rules and calling it "Pathfinder". Sometimes I'm in the mood for a with a lot of complex rules and sometimes I'm in the mood for something more free-form, so I like to have "truth in advertising" so I can tell which is which.
My suggestion: take the few bits and pieces that you like from Pathfinder and apply them to your C&C game instead of the other way around.
So far the game has worked fine. I decided to just not worry about it and if someone wanted to use all those special attacks ect then fine. As it turns out not one person including the new guys made a character with feats that would use them and in game they have not come up.
We don't use the A.O.O. rules much other than when trying to flee combat and things are chugging right along.
Pathfinder is more detailed than I normal am used to but its still pretty good. Also im running the Dungeon Crawl Classics series so there is so much to play its not even funny.
So far im happy with the change to Pathfinder......even if im still rather fond of C&C.
So far im happy with the change to Pathfinder......even if im still rather fond of C&C.
Glad to hear everything is going smoothly!
I think I was just reading my own experience into things: Recently I went to a game advertised as a Pathfinder game, and it turned out to be more of a "make stuff up as we go along" game with a Pathfinder veneer. :-)
It was still fun, but I would have preferred a more standard Pathfinder game. I was too polite to criticise the GM's method, though.