PFRPG Rules for a beginning GM

[Godaikin Engineer]

Good day folks,

I'm preparing to run a group through my first PFRPG game. I've never run it before, though I have run the Beginner Box, every version of AD&D/D&D, and many other RPGs. Right now I have the Core Rulebook, GameMastery Guide, Advanced Player's Guide, and the Inner Sea World Guide.

Three quick questions:

1. Is there anywhere in the rules that summarizes the different types of bonuses a roll can get, and which stack and don't stack? I seem to recall seeing something like this before, but damn if I can't remember where.

2. Basing my game around the core PFRPG rules + some stuff from the Inner Sea World Guide + some Advanced Player's Guide (not sure what I'm using from there just yet, still reading it), are there any RAW you'd recommend be used or not used/houseruled?

3. Following on that, are there any common house rules that makes PFRPG work even better than RAW?

Thanks for the advice!

[ciretose]

Godaikin Engineer wrote:

Good day folks,

I'm preparing to run a group through my first PFRPG game. I've never run it before, though I have run the Beginner Box, every version of AD&D/D&D, and many other RPGs. Right now I have the Core Rulebook, GameMastery Guide, Advanced Player's Guide, and the Inner Sea World Guide.

Three quick questions:

1. Is there anywhere in the rules that summarizes the different types of bonuses a roll can get, and which stack and don't stack? I seem to recall seeing something like this before, but damn if I can't remember where.

2. Basing my game around the core PFRPG rules + some stuff from the Inner Sea World Guide + some Advanced Player's Guide (not sure what I'm using from there just yet, still reading it), are there any RAW you'd recommend be used or not used/houseruled?

3. Following on that, are there any common house rules that makes PFRPG work even better than RAW?

Thanks for the advice!

1. I think you are looking for this for question 1. Basically types don't stack with themselves (the exception being dodge).

2. This would be a book in and of itself. You have to know your group and what will work, and that comes over time. Don't be afraid to say either "No" or "We will see, but I reserve the right to say no if it becomes a problem".

3. Lots. But they are all subjective. If you are a new GM, don't try to get to far off book until you are comfortable.

This thread will likely become more overwhelming than helpful. When you are starting out, keep it simple.

[Chemlak]

I'm not really the right person to answer 2 and 3, but 1 is fairly easy:

Bonuses of the same type don't stack, unnamed bonuses always stack.

The types of bonuses are wide and varied. Just off the top of my head: Enhancement, Morale, Circumstance, and Luck are the most common.

[mem0ri]

For questions 2 and 3 ... play your first few sessions by the rules before making such decisions.

Once you and your group are 'in a groove', you can start tinkering with things you feel can be improved. Don't expect to get it right the first time. Tinker and improve ... then tinker more and improve further. Pull out house rules that end up just not working. Keep house rules that do work. The real secret here is to do it as a group and keep communication open, honest, and complete.

In the end ... also remember that the DnD/Pathfinder system may not be perfect, but it's been around for a very, very, very long time. There are reasons the rules exist as they do ... trust that the game designers generally knew what they were doing and when/if you make adjustments, try to make them relatively minor.

[Godaikin Engineer]

ciretose wrote:

1. I think you are looking for this for question 1. Basically types don't stack with themselves (the exception being dodge).

2. This would be a book in and of itself. You have to know your group and what will work, and that comes over time. Don't be afraid to say either "No" or "We will see, but I reserve the right to say no if it becomes a problem".

3. Lots. But they are all subjective. If you are a new GM, don't try to get to far off book until you are comfortable.

This thread will likely become more overwhelming than helpful. When you are starting out, keep it simple.

Thanks! That list was exactly what I was looking for.

I'm definitely not afraid to say NO to players. Going to keep it simple for the time being.

[Godaikin Engineer]

mem0ri wrote:

For questions 2 and 3 ... play your first few sessions by the rules before making such decisions.

Once you and your group are 'in a groove', you can start tinkering with things you feel can be improved. Don't expect to get it right the first time. Tinker and improve ... then tinker more and improve further. Pull out house rules that end up just not working. Keep house rules that do work. The real secret here is to do it as a group and keep communication open, honest, and complete.

In the end ... also remember that the DnD/Pathfinder system may not be perfect, but it's been around for a very, very, very long time. There are reasons the rules exist as they do ... trust that the game designers generally knew what they were doing and when/if you make adjustments, try to make them relatively minor.

Appreciated, but it's always worth asking about potential traps & pitfalls (or stuff that the playerbase has determined just doesn't *work*).

Thanks for the response!

[Godaikin Engineer]

Another question:

I own various D&D 3.5 books. Is there anything from the core set (rules, options, etc.) that people have found works well in Pathfinder and is worth importing? A cursory glance tells me that PF is almost universally a more refined system, so I'm not knocking that ;).

Thanks!

[mem0ri]

Godaikin Engineer wrote:

Another question:

I own various D&D 3.5 books. Is there anything from the core set (rules, options, etc.) that people have found works well in Pathfinder and is worth importing? A cursory glance tells me that PF is almost universally a more refined system, so I'm not knocking that ;).

Thanks!

Pathfinder changes very little from DnD 3.5, but where it does change things it is almost always better ... and at the very least it is always more simple.

I occasionally get frustrated with some of the skills that Pathfinder has combined into one (for instance, I still think there's a difference between 'search' and 'spot or listen', whereas Pathfinder has lumped search in with the other two under Perception. I also think there's a difference between 'Gather Information' and 'Diplomacy' ... but again, lumped together). Even with those frustrations, I don't house rule anything to change them ... they are minor and the result can actually be positive ( before it could be hard to raise the skills you wanted, now you're likely to cover everything you want to cover ).

Go with straight Pathfinder.

[cranewings]

I'm a big house rules proponent, but I think new players and new GMs need to take a crack at running a game at least to level 8 or so as close to RAW as possible. My first campaign I ran with PF left me thinking a Core Rule Monk was broken with grappling because he choked out my crappy acid cloud stone skin wizard in a few rounds. I really thought grappling was OP. As I got more familiar with the game though, my opinions on what was too strong and what was too weak changed a lot, and it has everything to do with what sort of enemies you are dishing out for the PCs to fight.

The game might be more rocket taggy than you remember. It was for me. I found PF very jarring at first. A PC group with a grappler monk, sleep sorcerer, archer, and scout type will be able to own an awful lot of encounters because they target different defenses. The grappler can own clerics and wizards. The scout will kill enemies in their sleep. The sleep wizard with take out human and orc fighters and rogues, and the archer can kill everything else. It can be hard to put up a fair enemy against a balanced party that doesn't have a weakness against one player or anothers' kryptonite. Don't fight it. Just deal with it. Put more enemies out their at once if you have to.

[Greycloak of Bowness]

One rule that is a little sticky by RAW is Stealth because it says you can't attack and you can't sneak in the open under any circumstances. I don't mind the clarification in the Stealth Playtest:

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/2011/august/v5748dyo5lckz?Stealth-PlaytestSteal th

The house rule we use is more permissive than that. It works like this:

If a character is hidden (i.e. has beaten an opposed stealth/perception roll vs. their target), they are effectively invisible to that target. If they do anything that nullifies stealth, such as attack, cast a spell, move into the open, etc., they are no longer treated as invisible but their target is flat footed to the formerly hidden character until their next turn unless the target has a class or other ability that counters the flat footed condition.

This allows for a rogue to be hidden, sneak into the open and do a single sneak attack if they have beaten their target's perception. It also allows for full attack sneak attacks at ranged and allows for full attacks with a 5' step. Further, if the rogue is invisible and has beaten their target's perception (or close enough like with Hide in Plain Sight) and starts next to the target, they can also do a full attack sneak attack.

Rogues kinda got the shaft and are usually pretty weak in combat so this gives sneak rogues back some of the functionality they had in previous editions of the game.

[Quatar]

Godaikin Engineer wrote:

Another question:

I own various D&D 3.5 books. Is there anything from the core set (rules, options, etc.) that people have found works well in Pathfinder and is worth importing? A cursory glance tells me that PF is almost universally a more refined system, so I'm not knocking that ;).

Thanks!

PF was build with backward compatibility in mind. So you can use pretty much all you want from 3.5. you might have to make slight adjustments to prerequisits and so of course.

However personally I wouldn't advice it. Since then PF has developed into a full game of its own and introducing some of the more "dubious" 3.5 things might considerably throw the balance.