|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally understand the need to not split the Pathfinder product line by creating an entire new ‘Basic’ product line. Here is what I suggest as an alternative.
Just as there are different XP tracks in Pathfinder Society (so you can stay at 7th level for a long time if you want to), so there could be a different ‘combat complexity’ method, a sort of sanctioned house rule which is called out in future editions of the product. It would be consistent with much of the Beginner Box rules. The “Basic Combat Style” might look something like this:
-- No Attack of Opportunity
-- No Charging on Surprise
-- No Combat Maneuvers or Combat Defense
-- No Concentration checks to cast spells, you cannot cast spells when you are next to an enemy unless it is a touch attack spell
-- No Ability Damage or Drain (Poisons mostly give the sickened condition or penalties to whatever is affected by the stat they would normally be associated with. Level Drain replaced with an aging effect (touch = +1d6 years to your character's life). Ability damage/drain into a temporary effect which goes away on its one at a rate of 1 per hour.)
That’s it. All else would be the same. The idea here is GM’s could declare “I’m using ‘Basic Combat Style’ at my table to run this Pathfinder Society module,” and players would know what that meant. Also, new products might adopt the friendlier PFBB formatting, but that’s just a style thing.
You’d have one set of rules, but approving a slightly different style of gaming which would let those accustomed to the Beginner Box to continue to play a lighter combat style while still coming into the full game. Sure, you can do this in home games already, but I’m particularly wanting to see out a codified, sanctioned way to run the game which you could bring with you to a convention and still feel like you could legitimately run the PFS game with.
Another way to approach this would be to make the Basic Style the default option for combat (continuing the PFBB approach) and call out "Advanced Combat Style" in it's own section with all the traditional AoO type rules.
I’m sure the list I have above could be improved upon, but I wanted to see if anyone else shared an interest in a sanctioned ‘Basic Combat Style’ option within the game.
Level Drain replaced with an aging effect (touch = +1d6 years to your character's life). Ability damage/drain into a temporary effect which goes away on its one at a rate of 1 per hour.)
What's wrong with Energy Drain?
"takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense , saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed."
Combat maneuvers aren't an issue, the only "advanced" concept is the reduction in level dependent variables. Otherwise it's no different then other conditions, just nastier.
It is a nice idea, and could even work if a system was designed around it. However, Pathfinder wasn't. Tons of feats, abilities, and spells work based on the way things are currently written. While characters could easily just avoid such things, you would basically have to make a new stat block for most monsters. Grappling and tripping are popular monster abilities, as are ability drain and poisons. Weakening or removing those abilities would require at least a reworking of CR, if not the whole monster.
Oh, and I think Aging is a no-no. People used to get inordinately mad at creatures that did that in 2e.
Besides, I don't think this is the real source of complication in combat. Bad GMs are the source of complication. As long as the GM understand the rules, all the players need to know is "You are disarmed" or "if you do that, they will get an attack of opportunity." Things get tough when the GM doesn't know how things work either, and you have to break to look things up. And with the proliferation of mobile devices and GM-assistance programs (<3 Combat Manager), I feel like even GMs with a poor grasp of the rules will be a bit less of a problem in the future.
|
I will have to admit, from both the perspective of a player, and that of a PFS GM, i would balk at a "basic combat style' for PFS.
From a player's perspective
What if i have build a fighter / monk / rogue, around combat reflexes?
Oh what if i have a Damphir, (assuming the advance race guide covers it) the half vampire that has a resistance to energy drain?
I would not enjoy sitting down at a table, and not knowing if the "complicated" or "basic" rules set are being used.
From a GM's perspective
Player: i move my character around to flanking position.
Gm: the Ogre has 10' reach you are going to have to make a tumble check to avoid and Attack of Opportunity as you leave that square the ogre threatens.
Player: now I don't were playing "basic style" no attacks of opportunity.
GM; right i forgot about that.
I think it will open a can of worms in PFS that is best left closed.
Now if someone is running a Basic game, and we all know about it before hand, that would be fine. I would enjoy playing a basic game. I wouldn't enjoy going to a PFS game, and not being sure which rule set is being used....keeping one set in place is enough.
|
|
Now if someone is running a Basic game, and we all know about it before hand, that would be fine. I would enjoy playing a basic game. I wouldn't enjoy going to a PFS game, and not being sure which rule set is being used....keeping one set in place is enough.
That's exactly how I envisioned it, as mentioned in the OP:
The idea here is GM’s could declare “I’m using ‘Basic Combat Style’ at my table to run this Pathfinder Society module,” and players would know what that meant.
What I meant was that the GM would advertise that in the game ad, so there would be no surprises at the table.
The idea is that, just like you can configure a given scenario (module) to different tiers, so too you could configure play for Basic or Core.
I would envision Basic to be a subset of Core, meaning some characters which rely on Core features (Monks, etc., as you mentioned) would only play in Core games, whereas Basic characters (just the four or five classes currently included in Beginner Box) would 'play up' in a core game.
Alternatively, maybe PFS is ONLY for Core characters, but Basic is there for folks who want to do that in home play. The more I think about it, I think that would be more workable -- PFS is for Core only, but I think adding a bit more support for people who wanted to remain in Basic (think E6) is something I'd love to see.
|
|
Dwilimir, My apologies, I must have misread something. Often when i think i may need a new prescription for my glasses, all i really need is some warm water and soap to clean said glasses.
As long as it is mentioned before hand, in terms of a "basic" and a "Core" i would be fine with that, and i think i would even like to try some "basic "games.
I suppose i wouldn't want to sit down at a PFS table, and be told on the spot "Ok Folks we are going to be running "basic today" or "Core". It would feel like the goal posts have been moved on me. But i realize that isn't what you are suggesting.
Dwimilar, I am not familiar with E-6? what is that?
|
|
Thank you both for the link and the explaination.
While not for everyone the e6 system certainly allows for a more low magic gritier feel. Such spells as neutralize poison, cure disease, raise dead can put an end to the idea of "heroic sacrifice"
I wonder if the game is capped at 5th level why continue? why not start over?
Anyways thanks for the info.
|
|
I wonder if the game is capped at 5th level why continue? why not start over?
With E6, you technically aren't capped at 5th or 6th level. You progress normally till 6th level, then get feats (and maybe HP, I don't recall) when you level up thereafter. So you continue to level up, but it's in a different way.
So it's a lower-power level game definitely. If that's your style, you gain the simplicity of not having an explosion of new spells and other rules for the higher levels. If you like lower level characters, this can be a cool sweet-spot for play.
I played a 1e character for four years (1980 to 1984) usually for 8 to 10 hours a week, and the character was at 7th level at the end. Lot's of old-schoolers played this way, so this idea (E6, or extending PFBB) is just catering to this OSR style of play, while using the newer-style 3.x, PF rules.
In any case, there is no single style of play that will make everyone happy as people have different tastes. But, for my part, I'm voicing my taste for lower-levels and fewer rules :-)
|
|
Well it looks like i got involved just a little later then you. Mid to late 80s. I remember It would take a solid 4 years of gaming to get to 7th or 8th level. Yes i remember well, my character Elyas Ravenwood, I played him for years. I think 8 years, through more then one campaign. I eventually got the 2nd edition half elven Ranger/ Bard up to levels 12/13. He did have a whip, but for some strange reason, I kept rolling 1s when i tried to use the whip to trip opponents, and the DM would rule my character would only succeed in tripping himself. when the character was "reincarnated" for new games, with new rules over the years (3.0,35, Pathfinder) he still had a problem tripping himself.
Well the important thing is that you enjoy what you are playing. not everything is everyone's cup of tea.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
For years, levels 6 - 8 were considered "the sweet spot" for D&D 3rd Edition and 3.5. Take a look at the enormous support for adventures in that level range, as opposed to 2nd - 4th or 12th - 14th.
E6 is predicated on the question: If that's the fun place to play, why leave?