|
In the past I've played 0e and 1e editions of D&D. I've been playing a house-ruled version of Swords and Wizardry.
I really like the quality of the Pathfinder adventures. Rather than convert them to Swords & Wizardry, I'm considering making the jump to Pathfinder/3.5 OGL and using the Pathfinder adventures and rules.
I had a bad experience a year ago playing a demo of D&D4e -- I had a high level character (12th level maybe?) and it took 40 minutes for a single combat. Booooring. Too many dice rolls slowing down the game. Also, I run a game group with kids 12-17 years old, and I'm not sure they have the patience to read a 300+ page manual to understand a game before playing.
Questions:
1) How long does combat typically take in Pathfinder? (I'm thinking 4th to 8th level range).
2) What kind of rampup time is there to learn Pathfinder if you've never played 3.5e? Are there any quick-start guides or anything to get people started in a game short of reading the huge manual? (I wish the Pathfinder boxed set being talked about was out -- I'd buy that for sure!)
Thanks in advance to any tips!
-- Dwilimir
About 20-40 minutes depending on the encounter for a party of 5. That's how our games run at least.
|
Honestly it varies a lot on how experienced the group is, how well they know their characters and how invested they are.
By invested I mean, if the players spend time between their turn already planning out their next move. So when it is there turn they act at once. Few things drag combat to a stand still than one or more player who doesn't even think about their next move until it's their turn. Then spends time looking at feats, spells etc deciding what to do holding the game up.
In my experience a good group that knows their characters well and the rules good enough. They can do a combat in the 20-40 min range depending on what they are fighting and terrain etc.
For your first question, I would have to say that the time is highly variable for combats, depending on such factors as what style you play, whether it is a typical encounter or a boss monster, and how efficient your DM and players are. In general, though, from what I have heard, I believe combats in PF are quicker than those in 4E. For example, some here say that optimized caster-dominated parties frequently finish most encounters within a round or two, maybe five minutes. Other folks, less into optimization, or with DMs better at challenging even optimized characters, regularly have epic combats that last half an hour or more. I think the rules are flexible enough that, with some work, you can make them work for any style between those two extremes.
As for the learning curve, PF does have a lot of rules. However, like every version of D&D, the only one who really needs to know (or at least be pretty good at looking up) all of them is the DM. The players can, with guidance from the DM, begin playng without having read much of the rulebook. Will their skill level be enhanced if they read the rulebook? Yes. Will they be able to pull their weight in a group of experienced players without being pretty familiar with the options in the rules? No. But can they have fun learning the game together grqdually as they play? Definitely yes.
To me, that has always been the strength of introducing the game to new players. I can give them a pregenerated character and a set of dice, sit them down at a table and tell them: "Tell me what you want your character to do and I'll tell you the mechanics for doing it, like what die to roll, where to find the right modifiers on your character sheet, and how to move your miniature." Then once they are hooked, they can start reading the rules at their own pace.
|
Excellent post.
+1
I've introduced new players to a Pathfinder while it was still in beta and the rules were changing every couple months. All I did was ask her what kind of character she wanted to play. After we worked out the details (She wanted to "play a paladin with big boobs"), I created her character and we just jumped into play. Her husband had played a little in the distant past, and another friend had played other rpgs but not Pathfinder or 3.5, and another friend was experienced with 3.5
The burden on me was higher for this group, because I had to be up to date on the rules to keep things moving, but the new player really had a blast, and picked it up quite quickly. As Brian said, as she played she picked up the basic mechanics for her character very quickly, picked up other characters' issues and mechanics as she watched them talk over spells with me, and we all had a great time!
As the DM of a group of new players, plan ahead (or read ahead and think about if running modules/Adventure paths) on what info you'll need for a session. Is there a good chance of needing diplomacy rules? A grappler they're going to run into? Flying rules? You can be prepared with the answer ahead of time yourself without having to have the whole book memorized, quite often.
Excellent post.+1
I've introduced new players to a Pathfinder while it was still in beta and the rules were changing every couple months. All I did was ask her what kind of character she wanted to play. After we worked out the details (She wanted to "play a paladin with big boobs"), I created her character and we just jumped into play. Her husband had played a little in the distant past, and another friend had played other rpgs but not Pathfinder or 3.5, and another friend was experienced with 3.5
The burden on me was higher for this group, because I had to be up to date on the rules to keep things moving, but the new player really had a blast, and picked it up quite quickly. As Brian said, as she played she picked up the basic mechanics for her character very quickly, picked up other characters' issues and mechanics as she watched them talk over spells with me, and we all had a great time!
As the DM of a group of new players, plan ahead (or read ahead and think about if running modules/Adventure paths) on what info you'll need for a session. Is there a good chance of needing diplomacy rules? A grappler they're going to run into? Flying rules? You can be prepared with the answer ahead of time yourself without having to have the whole book memorized, quite often.
Did she really say she wanted to play a "paladin with big boobs"? That brings a lot of seriously inappropriate images into my mind. Thanks for making me giggle again today! Ah well, I guess everybody's fantasies are different, and big boobs aren't that much different than me wanting to play a character with a six-pack somewhere other than my fridge.
|
|
I can give them a pregenerated character and a set of dice, sit them down at a table and tell them: "Tell me what you want your character to do and I'll tell you the mechanics for doing it, like what die to roll, where to find the right modifiers on your character sheet, and how to move your miniature." Then once they are hooked, they can start reading the rules at their own pace.
Thanks for everyone's comments. The quote above helps me understand how to get others into an otherwise rules-heavy game. Also, I think the combat can be frustrating at first while you learn the rules, but I'm sure that improves.
Honestly, having played both 4th and PF, I have found PF to be the slower system. There's a lot more options, a lot more rules, and a lot more to crank through. Some people really like that. For me, it means that I run a maximum of 2 combats a night, because they take over an hour each.
Neither 4e or PF compares at all to 0th and 1st E. Those were fast games. Both 4e and PF are slow games, sorry to say. They also require a thing called "system mastery" that really didn't exist in the "old school" days. And a player & GM's level of system mastery greatly effects the speed of play and style of tactics used.
|
|
Did she really say she wanted to play a "paladin with big boobs"? That brings a lot of seriously inappropriate images into my mind. Thanks for making me giggle again today! Ah well, I guess everybody's fantasies are different, and big boobs aren't that much different than me wanting to play a character with a six-pack somewhere other than my fridge.
I can't remember her exact words. But it was something like "big boobs" or "unbelievable rack" or something.
Yup. That was what she wanted, to start with. The character got fleshed out a little more over time.
I got her involved right off the bat when I had the crazy goblins (RotRL) yanking on the foot of one of the townspeople on stage. The human got away, but the goblin ended up with his boot. Said goblin then attacked the paladin with the boot - and got a hit! She was infuriated that that nasty goblin got her surcoat all dirty! She turned into a goblin killing machine.
|
|
In before Jess pops up with stories of two hour 4E battles that dragged forever and people ended up falling asleep by the end.Honestly, having played both 4th and PF, I have found PF to be the slower system. There's a lot more options, a lot more rules, and a lot more to crank through. Some people really like that. For me, it means that I run a maximum of 2 combats a night, because they take over an hour each.
Neither 4e or PF compares at all to 0th and 1st E. Those were fast games. Both 4e and PF are slow games, sorry to say. They also require a thing called "system mastery" that really didn't exist in the "old school" days. And a player & GM's level of system mastery greatly effects the speed of play and style of tactics used.
two hours? What kind of crazy fast 4E are you talking about?!? Our encounters take anywhere from 3 hours to 10.
I think this is partially because we are at the worst levels possible - just before getting epic.
|
|
Honestly, having played both 4th and PF, I have found PF to be the slower system. There's a lot more options, a lot more rules, and a lot more to crank through. Some people really like that. For me, it means that I run a maximum of 2 combats a night, because they take over an hour each.
Neither 4e or PF compares at all to 0th and 1st E. Those were fast games. Both 4e and PF are slow games, sorry to say. They also require a thing called "system mastery" that really didn't exist in the "old school" days. And a player & GM's level of system mastery greatly effects the speed of play and style of tactics used.
Erik, so having played 4e and PF, which do you like the best? (or, perhaps a better question, which do you find yourself playing more of these days?).
|
|
I've found that my combats generally run between 20 and 40 minutes as well. As others have said, this number is highly mutable, with one combat I ran lasting 12 hours over 3 game sessions. Of course, as I play with a bunch of Warhammer fanatics, this wasn't a bug, it was a feature.
As for which game is best between 4th ed and PFRPG, I think it really depends on what you want out of it, and what your initial expectations are. I strongly prefer PFRPG, but that is mainly due to the fact that, in achieving a high level of balance, they lost the soul of the game - a rogue's powers feel just like a wizard's, which feel just like a fighter's. This is just my opinion, of course. If your players have grown up on MtG and WoW - both of which I sincerely enjoy - I predict that they will prefer 4th ed.
Honestly, having played both 4th and PF, I have found PF to be the slower system. There's a lot more options, a lot more rules, and a lot more to crank through. Some people really like that. For me, it means that I run a maximum of 2 combats a night, because they take over an hour each.
Neither 4e or PF compares at all to 0th and 1st E. Those were fast games. Both 4e and PF are slow games, sorry to say. They also require a thing called "system mastery" that really didn't exist in the "old school" days. And a player & GM's level of system mastery greatly effects the speed of play and style of tactics used.
Yeah no system mastery at all -- just check your bonuses on the charts, roll the dice, compare to the other charts after seeing what your weapon speed is, and how effective your weapon is against this armor (again more charts), then check THac0 for your class and level...
Don't forget checking for surprise (which is always for the monsters, never for you, since you have no chance to not be surprised since they surprise you 1/6 or 1/3 times (if not always).
Then the wizard casts his spell, double check for any odd interactions, then magic resistance, then check the save throw charts and modify for stats and any other bonus the creature might have...
I can't speak for everyone- but for us, 2E combats took just as long as they do now in 3.0/5 and PF. Its just that in 2E it was due to "explaining" where everything was everytime something shifted, and now its due to the more tactical aspect of the game. Like it or not- it takes time to look over the map and move your mini around. I prefer it- but it still takes time.
The higher level you get, the longer combats take. At lower levels you are, presumably, fighting fewer foes.. but also have fewer swings. The higher you get, the more mobs there are, and the more attacks they- and you- get. It just makes it slower.
As for ramp-up time.. I'd start the game off simple and slowly make it more and more "difficult". Not unlike how a video game is extremely easy at level 1 and you get progressively more difficult as you move through the "learning the game" stage. (say, 1-10 being easy 10-20 being harder and 20+ being full on rules, assuming a 60 or 100 level computer game).
Slowly "ramp up" the rules as they gain in level and allow them to modify their characters gradually to take advantage of it. Things like-hold back on feats and concepts like AOO's and whatnot until they have a firm grasp of attack roles, spell DC's, saving throws and the like.. then gradually work in the feat idea then the AOO idea, and then SR and such.
Just thoughts.
-S
Erik, so having played 4e and PF, which do you like the best? (or, perhaps a better question, which do you find yourself playing more of these days?).Honestly, having played both 4th and PF, I have found PF to be the slower system. There's a lot more options, a lot more rules, and a lot more to crank through. Some people really like that. For me, it means that I run a maximum of 2 combats a night, because they take over an hour each.
Neither 4e or PF compares at all to 0th and 1st E. Those were fast games. Both 4e and PF are slow games, sorry to say. They also require a thing called "system mastery" that really didn't exist in the "old school" days. And a player & GM's level of system mastery greatly effects the speed of play and style of tactics used.
I have played a fair amount of both game systems and there is no 'best'. Its a matter of preference. There is no perfect game so developers make weighted choices.
4E is a game first. The choices the developers made choices to create a balanced and I think fun game. But is just that, a game. The powers and abilities are all very similar mechanically, so there is a disconect between the rules and the flavor. If the only difference between shooting an arrow and a magic missile is a few points of damage, then each option becomes (in my opinion) less special. It is very balanced, very easy to pick up, and while combats overall take longer (in my experience) then 3.5/pathfinder, there is less time between each player getting to do something.
3.5/pathfinder are worldbuilders first. Weight is given to creating a game that feels cohesive and makes you 'feel' like you are what you are. The powers of a monk are less concerned with being balanced against everyone else (though this is still taken into account it is just not the first priority) and more concerned with making you feel like a monk. There is also a higher learning curve then 4E for pathfinder. You need to have more understanding of the whole system to play a character then 4E does. But to go along with that there are more options and more dynamic ways you can use those options.
The biggest example for me and what made me choose pathfinder over 4E as my own preference (or had a big hand in it) is the Succubus. Mechanically speaking in 4E it is impossible for a Succubus to dominate even a level 1 commoner for any real length of time. This is because of the changes 4E made to continuous effects. Now mind you 'save or lose' effects like dominate were considered by many to be a problem in 3rd edition. Alot of people dont like them and dms endlessly post here about using such firepower against their player's treasured pcs. But in the end for me, the world loses cohesiveness, because the rules cant support the flavor of something like a succubus. They sacrificed flexibility and variety in the rules in the name of making a 'better' game.
So like I said, there isnt a 'better' its a matter of what's more right for you and your group.
At the moment I'm finding Pathfinder combat to be extremely quick - taking about 10 minutes an encounter on average. There is a number of factors for this, but one seems to be the improved lethality of the fighter class coupled with the way that 'smite evil' works now.
I can't remember her exact words. But it was something like "big boobs" or "unbelievable rack" or something.
Yup. That was what she wanted, to start with. The character got fleshed out a little more over time.
More flesh on the rack hurr hurr hurr... sorry! <_<
Memorised charts? I'd rather have system mastery than chart mastery :P
Combat time is very variable I think.
It does depend on the overall level (on higher levels, things tend to be more complex, there are more choices to choose from, and so on) and on how difficult the encounter is (more difficult encounters will probably take longer than easier ones, whether we're speaking about 5th-level characters against CR 7 or 3 monsters or 15th-level characters against CR 17 or 13 enemies. Things like damage output and hit points scale with level, as do saving throws and save DCs. On high levels, you might face enemies with more HP, but you will deal more damage per round, too. But if it's a difficult enemy, he'll have relatively more HP.).
But there's more going on here: "System mastery" (knowing the game rules well) and "character mastery" (knowing the rules concerning your character, what choices he has and how they work etc) will have a big impact. If you know how your spells and abilities work, you can just go ahead and do things, roll dice, and let the game move on to the next person. If you have to look up spells mig-fight, you'll hold up the flow. Same goes for GMs and knowing the enemies he uses and what they can do.
And there's always ways to speed up things: roll attack and damage rolls together, or roll all attack rolls at once (or even all attack and damage rolls together), thinking ahead and being ready to do your action when combat starts and things like that.
Personally, I don't mind encounters taking a long time - provided they take that long because a lot of stuff is happening, not because one guy needs to look up his abilities ("how does fireball work"?) and the other guy is on the can when his turn is up.
And it should not be every encounter, of course. The epic confrontations, sure, but not everything is epic all the time. Except Chuck Norris.
Learning the game rules:
You don't really have to do it all in one go. Players, for example, don't need to know everything. Not even GMs need to know everything!
The GM should know the things he thinks will turn up today: If he plans on using a critter with the grab ability, he should read up on grab, and the grapple rules.
Players should know about their characters' abilities, but the good thing here is that you usually start with one character at level one. That means the player will need to know how the basic abilities for that one class work, as well as some general stuff like what's a saving throw, how attacks work, how skills work, etc.
They don't need to know all classes in and out before they roll their first die.
The GM can control learning further by introducing things one by one. Don't introduce 100 different things in one go. The fact that many adventures will have a general theme (fighting goblins, hunting hell hounds, fight against the trolls and so on), you can focus on a few new rules and options at a time: At first, you'll have very basic enemies, mostly just warriors hitting people with weapons. Later, they might get some spellcaster back-up, and you introduce some magic stuff. Later, some enemies will be fond of tripping you, or use spell-like abilities, or have auras.
One thing at a time. Players will see new stuff every day (always a good thing) and will not be crushed by a ton of new information.