I had some ideas for giving my game a grittier feel and I'm annoyed by number creep. I wanted to see what people thought, and maybe get some more ideas.
First, things like HP, BAB, Saves and Skills don’t increase with level. You get your level 1 value plus relevant ability modifier. HP will be equal to CON score. I haven’t decided if certain classes will get a bonus to HP, but I'm leaning away from it. Those characters will likely have a higher CON anyway, and will probably be wearing some form of armour. Which leads me to…
Armour as damage reduction. The rules are straight from UC.
Classes will still grant all of their usual abilities, with some possible exceptions like Sneak Attack. That may have to be a flat bonus equal to half your level. That bonus could be applied to damage, or to bypass Damage Reduction.
Class still determines how many skills you may be trained in (+3 bonus), but the skill lists are irrelevant. Players can get their +3 bonus in whatever skills they want. I want to encourage players to make whatever character they feel like without having resistance from the rules.
For feats, all BAB requirements will be replaced with level requirements. I'm tempted to remove class restrictions. That might require playtesting. Has anyone here had success with that?
Spells will be a bit of a hurdle. I don’t know what to do about them yet. Damage is the big issue. I don’t so much mind the other effects of high level spells. The save DC will always be equal to 1st level spells I think.
I'm interested in any feedback you guys have.
Why not just play an E5 game or such?
I've tried low magic and slow progression. Half WBL and no magic-marts. Never tried E6.
I'm sorry. I'm unfamiliar with the terms E5 and E6.
Maximum class level is 5 or 6 each level after you either gain a Feat, a Single thing from your class, or Spell-&-CL progression.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Give everyone a free level of Gunslinger.
Bam! Grittier Pathfinder.
Give everyone a free level of Gunslinger.
Bam! Grittier Pathfinder.
I second this idea.
Maximum class level is 5 or 6 each level after you either gain a Feat, a Single thing from your class, or Spell-&-CL progression.
That has a certain appeal, but I am turned off by numbers increasing and then suddenly stopping arbitrarily. As my Statics prof said, "this does not make our lives more beautiful."
Give everyone a free level of Gunslinger.
Cute, but this doesn't do anything about number creep. Quite the opposite.
Number creep is an inevitable part of the game. The UC wounds system, combined with armour as DR, gives things a nice gritty feel without messing them around too much, and the slow XP track will keep characters low-level for longer.
Fundamentally though, number creep is part of the game. Take it out and it's not really Pathfinder/D&D any more.
Talk to your group, and see what they would prefer to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fine, if you want serious feedback: I find this to be a terrible idea, at least for Pathfinder.
It basically nullifies the concept of leveling up since you get nothing but the occasional class feature (which leads to a LOT of completely empty levels over the course of a game) and you've suggested that things like Sneak Attack would never progress.
Effectively what you're proposing is a game with no leveling because for some reason first level characters + higher level class features appeals to you. Pathfinder (and any other D20 game really) is not built for that kind of thing. I'm sure there's another game that has exactly what you're looking for (don't some Superhero games do away with leveling and just have power "Mutations" or just powers that evolve over time to become more versatile?), but you're basically taking the essence of the entire game and throwing it out. Taking away BaB, Saves, and everything else would require a total re-write of the entire game, since everything in the game is built around that.
It sounds like it would work in another system, and if you wanted to play "Pathfinder" I'm sure it wouldn't be too very hard to import Pathfinder's flavor into another game's mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, the system you describe sounds like it will fall apart fast.
Spellcasters will dominate however you nerf their spells, simply because their power is more about features than increasing numbers. Characters will die all the time, fighters will get number creep through weapon training anyway, or by reduced back to the 3.5 fighter, who wasn't the best at his own speciality.
I suggest trying to stick closer to the original rules, perhaps making number creep happen slower, matter less and stop sooner. If you're really dead set on not advancing raw ability at all, start the PCs at a higher level.
I have thought about this stuff many times and I am 100% certain that taking out numeric advancement and making the game gritty are two completely different things. You cannot get the former by doing the latter.
It sounds to my like you might be after a completely different game. Perhaps you should check out some indie RPGs or something in the Fate system?
|
I like your idea, ignore the naysayers (particularly those with the trite 'go play another game' knee-jerk reaction).
People not recognizing that sometimes, the game people want is simply not the game they are playing and reproaching to other to point this fact are equally annoying.
If someone comes to you and says : "See this old gasoline motorcycle ? I want it to go fast, to have 4 wheels, be able to hold my wife and two sons, my worktools, and it shall be able to drive in the forest. I want it to use diesel and be impervious to elements and wild animal attacks. I have a big budget."
... then the best logical and sane answer is to suggest him to buy a jeep.
The op's goal can't be done without completely overhauling the system, to the point that there must already be another system outh there sparing him weeks of headache and maundering.
The core design of Pathfinder RPG assumes characters leveling up and becoming better at their jobs. If you want the characters to suck it up, it's already possible: make it 15 or 10 point-buy, half WBL, average encounters as "challenging" or "hard" (after taking into account the lower group level due to harsh nerfing campaign attributes), wound points system, heavy damage sudden death, sparce healing. You may also find a classless variant of Pathfinder that has supposedly been proposed on the board, allowing full control over a character's creation and evolution.
Except that's not what he's asking for. He's asking for a complete overhaul of the game, which is an utterly pointless task when there are so many other games out there, many of them likely doing what he wants to do.
Maxx's analogy was spot-on. He's making work for himself for no reason, and even if he completes an overhaul of the game, what will he have gained that he wouldn't have been able to do more quickly and easily just using a system closer to the one he's trying to make?
Except what he wants isn't Pathfinder. Pathfinder is built on all of those things. That IS the game, the MECHANICS are the game. He can import the world of Golarion and any Pathfinder AP into any other system and it would work just fine.
And it's not laziness to take the most efficient route to do something. Am I lazy because I use a saw to cut a board in half instead of snapping it over my knee? No, I'm just using the right tool for the job.
He says he wants a game where HP, BaB, Saves, and Skills don't increase with level, as well as a game with freeform skills for classes.
Taking out BaB and Saves automatically radically changes how everything works in the game. Dropping HP would require a total rework of how all the monsters in the game deal damage. Now look at the Tiger. CR 4, meaning a 4th level party should be able to handle it pretty easy. That tiger gets two claws and a bite for 2d6 + 2d8 damage (we're not factoring in Str mods). Let's look at a 5th level Barbarian. He should have the most health of pretty much any character in the game, at around 22 (HP = Con score, remember?). That Tiger can deal a maximum of 28 ignoring any other damage modifiers it could possibly have. So the Barbarian can MAYBE take one hit from it before going down.
But can the Wizard? Or Monk? Or Rogue? Or any other class but Fighter and Paladin really? It rolls, on average, 16 damage. I dunno about you, but most of my non-tanky characters will have a maximum of 16 Con. A MAXIMUM, assuming a ludicrously good set of rolls or a high point buy, but it's usually at around 12 or 14. So the majority of the time this tiger with just its base damage can instakill pretty much every class.
Then you have to rework how all the PC weapons work unless you want them oneshotting everything. Ooh, and recalculate how AC works because their BaB never goes up, meaning you have to tweak all armor values as well. You'd have to hardcore nerf the Monks Wis to AC thing since you can't have that being about twice as good as any armor.
And you have to either ban Druid and the Beast Shape spells or make sure you hit up every animal in the bestiary so that it works without utterly shattering your delicate balance. The majority of the Feats in the game would have to be fully overhauled and/or removed, since they encourage "numbers creep" by their very existence in most cases. Power Attack would likely be completely incompatible with this new vision since it's the most "number creep-y" Feat there is, can't have yon Barbarian oneshotting everything by taking a measly -2 to hit their nerfed ACs. And a million other things to make Pathfinder work like a completely different game.
Oooooor, you could just swap Pathfinder's flavor onto another game's chassis.
I'm not sure you realize the difference between "levels capped at 3, 4 , 5 ,6, etc." and "People level but their numbers never increase".
And seriously, is it so hard for you to get through your thick skull that changing 90% of the core game mechanics is changing the entire game? If I turned Halo into a Maddden NFL game by changing pieces until they resembled the game, it would no longer be Halo. That's what this is. It''s technically possible to make a football game based on the Halo engine, but it's a lot smarter, easier, and more effective to just go out and buy a damn Madden game.
LoL, yeah, it's too hard to get your hyperbole through my thick skull. This equates to turning Halo into Madden NFL? Lmao. Clearly you have no interest in participating in this conversation in a constructive manner, so why troll his thread? Let me guess, whenever one of your friends plans to do something that's over your head you try to shut him down with a bunch of negativity? Well get over yourself. You haven't said one reasonable thing about the difficulty of doing this. Every single post is pure hyperbole and utterly baseless opinions.
And what have you done that's so constructive? I've given him the easiest method to accomplish his goals: Find any one of the games that already has the large majority of what he wants. Kthulhu suggested RuneQuest, which looks to be almost exactly like what he wants. I've even given him an outline of some of the hurdles he would have to tackle if he did choose to go through with this conversion, as noted in the post I made before the one you quoted here.
It's not "over my head" unless by that you mean that I am unwilling to do something pointless. Then yes, guilty as charged. I never make extra work for myself when I don't have to, I have too much to do a lot of the time as it is to be reinventing the wheel every time I want to try something. Nothing I've said is hyperbolic. I listed a bunch of the things he would have to face (besides the AC issue with armor, I forgot he was using the Armor = DR rules). Do you deny that the sheer amount of damage some creatures can deal would be a problem? Do you deny that Wild Shape becomes an issue if every creature is not brought in line with the new game? Do you deny that certain Feats exacerbate the issues he already has with the game by encouraging "number creep"?
He is trying to make a new game by adapting an existing engine, just as in my Halo/Madden analogy, when another existing engine is an already finished product of what he is trying to make, or damn close to it. Slight hyperbole I suppose, it's more like turning Halo into Call of Duty. They both share superficial similarities (they're FPS games, they have regenerating health/shields, you wield a variety of weapons) but in actuality are about as different as two games existing within the same genre can be.
As a fan of grittier fantasy, I can appreciate the OP's goal. However, as others have said, rewriting Pathfinder is more trouble than it's worth. The best OGL game to provide a grittier game while being d20-based was Mongoose's Conan OGL RPG (my 2nd favorite d20 game after PF).
My suggestions would be:
1. Pick a better-suited game. GURPS, Warhammer, BRP, etc.
2. Keep PF as is, but flavor with dark fantasy elements. Take inspiration from sources like Dragon Age & the Witcher video games. The grit comes from the themes, plots, & subject matter rather than relying on game mechanics.
3. Find a copy or PDF of Bad Axe Games' GRIM TALES. While built are the d20 Modern framework, the tweaks can be easily ported to Pathfinder. More lethal combat, dangerous spellcasting, etc.
I had some ideas for giving my game a grittier feel and I'm annoyed by number creep.
LOL - I love this part, because you basically went on to illustrate that by "number creep" you mean you are annoyed by the entire game progression. One might think you actually don't like Pathfinder much at all.
Why not just grab up a copy of Call of Cthulhu and throw some armor into it? In fact, I think Chaosium makes a fantasy or generic RPG. If it's anything like CoC, you'd probably like it.
Or, you could do what I've been doing lately: ignore the monsters' CR. My players have lately been into running away a lot. Their wish is my command.
I own a LOT of roleplaying games. I enjoy reading the books even when I can't find time to play. In my current group are new players who were excited enough to buy their own books. We've been playing Pathfinder for a while and I would like to do something different without making them feel that their purchase was wasted. I also enjoy the d20 mechanic and I really like the classes in Pathfinder.
I'm looking at this from a player perspective, so don't worry about monsters. Assume monsters are adjusted. They're the easy part.
In addition, I am not against numbers ever going up. I just find the continuous and inevitable climb to be pointless, especially when challenges are supposed to scaled to match. If monsters and characters are increasing their numbers at roughly the same rate I don't see the point.
Dead levels. There really aren't that many. Pathfinder classes are pretty well padded out. If there seems to be glaring hole, giving them a feat seems to be a good idea.
I'm currently keeping all feats.
Other than damage I don't think spells will be much of a problem. Since everyone will still be getting the class abilities they'd get otherwise, casters shouldn't be any more powerful than they usually are.
the point of the scailing is that a 1st level character cannot defeat a Dragon or a Balor, but a 20th level one can. The numbers go up so that characters can overcome challenges that were otherwise beyond them.
The numbers going up is what represents the difference between an infernal Duke and his lowly Imp servants. The differentiation between the different Enemies is, IMHO really what drives the need for "number creep" for the characters.
I highly recommend looking at this E6 post and maybe read These PDF's . The idea is that there are really only up to 6th level characters and CR10 monsters running around. Anything higher is truly God-like and can't really be handeled, although it could be fun to have the characters raise an army to slay the CR 15 Red Dragon since it'll take a nat 20 to hit and an army to actually deal wiht it, while it breath-weapons them all to death! fun times.
Are you ok with characters stopping progression at level 20?
You seem ok with numbers arbitrarily stopping at 1, so why not go E5, 6 or 8?
The idea is similar, but instead of seriously having to juggle the game, you just cap the players out at slightly more powerful than the most impressive heroes of myth, legend and fantasy, with a slow progression after that where they simply increase their knowledge and proficiency with things they already know how to do (more feats). If you're going to play around with monster numbers anyway, you could take high level enemies and scale them down to be threats for a party of lvl 6+ characters.
You're just moving the chains from lvl 20 to level 6. There was a well-written article that showed how the 3.5 rules system worked very well up to around level 6 at replicating typical heroic fantasy found in things like The Lord of the Rings, by demonstrating that people in the real world are generally level 1-2, people who seriously excel at their profession/tasks can be 3-4, and the once-in-a-generation-great sort of people are level 4-5. Making someone level 6, then, means they are slightly beyond the powers of the most impressive of mortal men, while still being mortal men. Part of his suggestion was that Aragorn was probably level 5 (ranger 3/paladin 1/fighter 1), and although he didn't make this point, I'll note that this makes sense if you review certain scenes where the hobbits, who are DEFINITELY no more than level 2 NPCs, if even that, are able to kill some enemies (orcs and goblins mostly) that pose SOME real threat to Aragorn, even though he cuts through a lot of them and comes out relatively unscathed. Compare throwing a couple of levels 1 or 2 NPC classed characters with magic weapons, along with a level 5 heroic-classed character against 2 dozen orcs. The results, if you can keep the orcs from focusing too heavily on the low-level guys, will likely be rather similar.
I just read the E6 article. Very interesting. The feel is similar but different. The article better explained the level halt. I have a pathological need for system and setting to blend and support one another. I try to take a holistic approach to world building.
E6 deals with monsters much the same as I was intending. Also, in case it wasn't clear, monsters HP will be equal to their CON, the same as PCs.
The one thing I am trying to reconcile with this is that I enjoy getting high level abilities, but I find high level numbers a snore. I just really like the idea of this.
I would ditch Toughness, as it would basically become a mandatory feat since it would be such a huge bonus.
Good call. Toughness will be removed.
I do intend martial characters to get their +1 BAB. As for iterative attacks I am completely undecided. If allowed I don't think cumulative attack penalties are necessary.
The one thing I am trying to reconcile with this is that I enjoy getting high level abilities, but I find high level numbers a snore.
Ditto. I like high level play, but the numbers and complexity under Pathfinder just become a chore. Combats take too long, there are too many rules to be consulted, and all of the high-power corner cases become a headache.
I think the OP is going too far - if you're going to make changes that drastic, a different system might be more appropriate.
E6 is a good idea (or just ending campaigns at level 6/8/etc, whatever level you like), but then you miss out on the higher level play.
Spellcasters will be broken in this system if you let them have their main feature.
You're essentially saying the main thing melee and skill classes have going for them (bonuses) will be taken away, but classes that depends on spells can have everything except direct damage.
In by-the-book Pathfinder, spellcasters sometimes steal the thunder of skilled classes already. Jumping pretty far is not impressive at 5th level if there's a flying party member.
In the system described here, that will ALWAYS be a problem, and a much worse one, because by level 5 skilled characters won't even be able to jump further than they could at level 1.
While the fighter gets minimal tricks out of his feats and can't qualify for the powerful late level ones, the wizard is turning invisible, grappling whole rooms full of enemies, crafting in moments, etc.
The fighter's bonuses are all that lets him stay relevant currently.
In some cases, like the cleric, class features are deliberately made worse by the progression of bonuses. Channel Energy's reletively poor scaling goes some way towards balancing out the spells, which progress ahead of the curve. That goes out the window when the bonuses stop, since hp (and presumably channel dice) become static.
High level abilities are only reasonable if characters are allowed to be great even when they're not using them, and everybody gets them. Your system doesn't do that yet.
Lastly, if you're going to set the bonuses to always be at a particular level, I don't see why you'd pick first.
The game isn't set up to work best there because you're expected to spend most of your time higher, the fighter is only one measly point of attack bonus ahead of the sorcerer, you'll have to change the monsters more and it'll mean the maximum possible deviation from the expectations of the system, which invites more unforeseen problems.
Ok, Vestrial. I can explain this. And I do understand the math, believe me. Perhaps I'm just not being clear.
Turning invisible has nothing to do with a fighter's BAB but it has everything to do with stealth, just like flying has everything to do with acrobatics and climbing. Equally, any spell that shoots one or more damaging rays has plenty to do with the fighter's BAB.
The difference between primary non-casters and primary casters is that the non-casters get better and better at the things they can already do (represented by increasing bonuses), the casters learn to do entirely new things (represented by increasingly potent new abilities).
If you take out the bonuses, but not the magic, you leave casters getting more and more raw power, while non-casters do not.
The fact that fighters get bonuses is extremely relevant to balance, because different bonuses progress at different rates. At 1st level, the fighter is only 1 BAB ahead of the wizard. By 20th level, his lead has increased 10 times over. 1 BAB matters little , but 10 is the difference between almost always hitting and almost never hitting.
The fighter's lead has to increase, because the wizard's lead on magic too. Every level of spellcasting is another level higher than the fighter.
If the fighter cannot progress, his BAB will never become relevant. The wizard's spellcasting, in contrast, cannot fail to be relevant.
Basically, if the fighter always needed an 8 to hit and the wizard a 9, you'd be right, but by the end of the progression of standard PF, the fighter still needs the same 8, but the wizard has to roll a 19! If that wasn't enough, the fighter can get twice as many attacks and qualify for more powerful feats.
BAB vs spellcasting is only one small example, but the problem is universal. It applies to literally every scaling number in the game that you freeze.
Now, I'm aware that the non-casters get new, more powerful abilities as they level too. Some of those are really good.
The trouble comes about when certain classes are more dependent on scaling stats than others. The faster a class' progressions, the more it loses in the long run.
I'm not making presumptions. I got the impression that things were pretty much left as-is, but without scaling damage dice or bonuses to checks with level. Specific changes to abilities have not been made yet, let alone presented, so I can't comment on them.
Changing every ability in the game to accommodate the lack of scaling is an insane project though. Pathfinder is its abilities. There are too many to catch everything, it won't always be apparent when an ability has to change if its to be kept in check and it will be difficult to balance the modified versions.
Your specific example of channelling is just wrong, by the way. You misunderstand me completely.
Channelling needs scaling in the game to ensure it becomes gradually LESS relevant. It's plenty relevant as it is, but as you level, it actually increases slower than HP and undead will make their saves against it more often. It becomes slightly less significant in encounters to help compensate for the increasingly important spells.
If HP and save bonuses didn't scale, that couldn't happen.
Also: Since HP is now not dependant on class, the classes which has the best AC lose out and the wizard is just as tough as the fighter. That's simply no good. d6 hd classes are delicate for a reason.
I think the heart of the problem here, quite apart from the complexity of the issue, is there's some confusion between the base progression of the game and class abilities in the form of numbers.
If you want to treat all classes equally, subtract the slowest progression, not the whole progression.
The issue is the wizard has more other tricks and less swing. He can learn to swing as well as a fighter, but he has to focus his tricks on the task to pull it off. In the system described here, he's practically already the fighter's equal, so the spells from about level 3 on can be used to exceed the fighter or do the job of a standard wizard in addition to the job of the fighter.
That fact that sword swinging wizards are already viable is only evidence that equal hp to the specialist melee combatants is the last thing the wizard should be given.
I also don't have a fighter vs wizard issue. I have an every class vs every other class issue. The fighter and the wizard merely illustrate the universal systemic problem quite well. I could have said barbarian and rogue, or oracle and alchemist.
Except what he wants isn't Pathfinder...So tell us, when does Pathfinder stop being Pathfinder?
When you are changing the game so much that it's easier to pick up another set of game mechanics and insert the fluff than to try and change all the mechanics of the game you are wanting to play.
Seriously, there are a LOT of other RPG systems out there that do not deal with levels or classes. Storyteller, Runequest (or Call of Cthulhu, BRP - they are all the same system), Shadowrun, Hero Games...
I built a fantasy system out of Storyteller once, and it worked just fine. Mainly because I let the players each create their own 'magic' system and design their own background culture.
The other thing you can do is import aspects of Pathfinder that you like into another game system. Feats can work just great in Runequest, Hero Games already has them after a fashion.
Pathfinder's a D20 game Vestrial.
Seriously, if you're going to go so far as to not even make it a D20 game, why wouldn't you just save yourself a lot of headache and pointlessness and use another game?
Have you ever played a system other than D20, one that's more gritty/realistic? The fighter doesn't have a 'job'that can be taken away in these sorts of games. He's a character. He happens to fight. In my experience, the party as a whole generally tries to avoid stepping on each other's toes, but nobody cares if the front line melee guy is actually a 'wizard,' a 'rogue,' or a 'cook.' You're trying to maintain balance in the same way that basic pathfinder tries to, and it's just not appropriate for this type of game-- You don't gain balance by artificially giving one character more hp. Humans generally can suffer around the same amount of physical damage. If you want a tougher character, you invest more in con. A tough wizard or a tough fighter can both be taken out with a single well-placed blow. The difference is the fighter has more feats, thus more combat tricks at his disposal without needing time to prepare. (A prepared wizard in these types of games is supposed to be a thing to be feared.)The issue is the wizard has more other tricks and less swing. He can learn to swing as well as a fighter, but he has to focus his tricks on the task to pull it off. In the system described here, he's practically already the fighter's equal, so the spells from about level 3 on can be used to exceed the fighter or do the job of a standard wizard in addition to the job of the fighter.
That fact that sword swinging wizards are already viable is only evidence that equal hp to the specialist melee combatants is the last thing the wizard should be given.
I also don't have a fighter vs wizard issue. I have an every class vs every other class issue. The fighter and the wizard merely illustrate the universal systemic problem quite well. I could have said barbarian and rogue, or oracle and alchemist.
There comes a point where, no matter how in-character, and party-focused the players are, people start to feel overshadowed when they swing for 2d6+4 once a round, maybe killing something, and the wizard says, "You 10 guys? Yeah, you're all dead this turn."
Also, there IS a difference in how much damage one person can take from the next. If you take a bookish professor who spends all of their time reading, and an elite soldier from the Seals/Special Forces/Mussad/whatever and punch both in the face, you're going to have very different results. Heck, if you shoot both in the arm, you will very likely have different results, because the latter DOES have more HP. Heck, the professor might even have a higher starting Con, but he's going to be more frail, and by more than 4 HP probably. While Die Hard may be fairly unrealistic, there ARE people who can take quite a beating and keep on trucking, and they generally can do so because they've trained in a higher HD class, so to speak.
That's why E3, even, makes more sense than not advancing at all. The prowess between the BEST guy at whatever and the WORST guy at level 1 is just too close. A fighter should be better at hitting things than a wizard, due to training, but at level 1 the difference is 1 point, which is fairly insignificant. The fighter can take Weapon Focus, for a 2 point difference, but you're only slightly shifting things, and because the fighter is hyper-specialized, not because he's simply been training with the weapons as his career.
A fighter's feats do not equate to a wizard's spells--the spells are more powerful by a longshot. Fighters stay a little close, later in the game, by being significantly better at some things--hitting and surviving and not running out of gas.
Fighters get Weapon Training. There are also plenty of feats that only Fighters get. They will in all likelihood have higher STR and CON. Iterative attacks give them a boost too.
I'm a little amused at the comments claiming that I'm "changing the system so much." I'm not actually changing that much. Aside from a couple of class abilities I'm not changing how anything works.
Suggestions that I "play another game" and that there are "lots of other systems" indicate that you haven't actually read everything I've posted.
I own a LOT of roleplaying games. I enjoy reading the books even when I can't find time to play. In my current group are new players who were excited enough to buy their own books. We've been playing Pathfinder for a while and I would like to do something different without making them feel that their purchase was wasted. I also enjoy the d20 mechanic and I really like the classes in Pathfinder.
Wizards seem to be the main sticking point for people. So lets assume for the moment that the Wizard and their spells have been fixed. Can anyone think of anything else that might cause a problem?
Grittier Pathfinder? No need to redesign the entire ruleset.
Use 10-point buy, Slow Progression (or even Slow Progression with all XP/treasure awards halved), campaign ends when characters reach 5th or 6th level (basically, when they start to exceed without magic what people can do in real life). Use the Words of Power system from Ultimate Magic to reign in spellcasters a bit. Use both the Armor as Damage Reduction as well as the Wounds and Vigor systems in Ultimate Combat to make combat more deadly.
Opponents will be limited to CR 8 or 9 (or maybe 10), which can be a good thing for simplifying combat. Low-CR/level opponents are still dangerous in groups and should account for the bulk of encounters. NPCs with more than 2 or 3 levels should be rare. Creatures of CR 6+ are considered legendary and should be extremely rare.
I like the irony that while forums like this are trying to find ways to make pathfinder darker and grittier and tougher and more intense...
The publishers are trying to playtest a book on how to make everything heroic and legendary and uber and sparkly.
I like the irony that while forums like this are trying to find ways to make pathfinder darker and grittier and tougher and more intense...
The publishers are trying to playtest a book on how to make everything heroic and legendary and uber and sparkly.
That's more like the game we've already been playing. A powerful cabal of dwarven sorcerer nationalists are searching for artifacts to activate an unstoppable golden mechanized army to destroy the humans who are currently having a civil war while the elven kingdom from the desert across the sea is taking advantage of the situation by assassinating key people and sabotaging a dangerous prison on the back of a giant turtle.
It sounds kind of silly when you just lay it out like that.
Ninja, the more I think on it, the more static skills just feels unnatural to me...If you want static skills, I would say you should ditch skill focus feats too, since +3 would effectively double their rank.
I'm actually kind of fine with that. One is untrained, trained, or specialized. Ability increases will help the skill a little as well.
Use the Words of Power system from Ultimate Magic to reign in spellcasters a bit.
I haven't tried that system yet. Does it really reign them in at all? It seems to me that there are some spells they can't recreate but they make up for it in general versatility...and paperwork.
For the people who think the Wizards will terrorize this; Is it Wizards specifically or arcane magic in general?