Grittier Pathfinder


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vestrial wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Except what he wants isn't Pathfinder...

So tell us, when does Pathfinder stop being Pathfinder? And what makes you qualified to make that claim? "Pathfinder" denotes a lot. "Grittier Pathfinder" denotes some changes. I doubt he really cares if Rynjin or Maxximilius would call what he ends up playing at his table "Pathfinder" or not. I know I don't.

As to the rest of your hyperbole-filled post, there's really no reason to go into it. I get it. You think it's too hard for you to tackle. So don't. Other's aren't so turned off by a challenge, particularly if what they value at the core is some Pathfinder-ness other than what you consider it to be.

Then perhaps the real question to the OP, is what of Pathfinder DO you want to keep? Because lets not underestimate the task involved in the changes you want to make. It's very much a nontrivial project, and if the only thing that you really want is the flavor, there are gritty and deadly systems to use with it. I could see using the Warhammer mechanics easily enough.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vestrial wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Except what he wants isn't Pathfinder...

So tell us, when does Pathfinder stop being Pathfinder? And what makes you qualified to make that claim? "Pathfinder" denotes a lot. "Grittier Pathfinder" denotes some changes. I doubt he really cares if Rynjin or Maxximilius would call what he ends up playing at his table "Pathfinder" or not. I know I don't.

As to the rest of your hyperbole-filled post, there's really no reason to go into it. I get it. You think it's too hard for you to tackle. So don't. Other's aren't so turned off by a challenge, particularly if what they value at the core is some Pathfinder-ness other than what you consider it to be.

Then perhaps the real question to the OP, is what of Pathfinder DO you want to keep? Because lets not underestimate the task involved in the changes you want to make. It's very much a nontrivial project, and if the only thing that you really want is the flavor, there are gritty and deadly systems to use with it. I could see using the Warhammer mechanics easily enough.

If you just want to cut out magic and work with 3.5, there's Iron Heroes to look at.


Ninjariffic wrote:
Jhidurievdrioshka wrote:

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.

Vestrial wrote:
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.

Dragonchess Player wrote:
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?

Well it really depends on how you plan to have spell DCs scale versus saving throws. I actually think casters will be strong as buffers. With enlarge person and power attack, 3d6+12 is reasonable damage at level 1. A 20 con monster will go unconscious in one hit the majority of the time. A crit will probably flat out kill anything with less than 22 con and will unconscious anythign with less than 45. So a fighter or barbarian can kill an average enemy in one round. Even a super tanky monster will be dead in two rounds.

Then at level 5 Haste enters the picture and the damage will double on a full round attack.

And this only gets worse with level. HP doesn't scale, but feats and rage powers let the martial classes hit things even harder. A paladin with smite evil will explode even he tankiest of enemies as he gets a huge damage boost on his first swing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
yeti1069 wrote:
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...

Seriously, at the level where a wizard can take out ten foes like that the fighter is doing a LOT more than 2d6+4 damage once a round....

Fighters are the best damage dealers in the game. At the end of the day, dealing damage to the enemy is important. So fighters do one thing, but it's an important thing and they do it well.

Ninjariffic wrote:

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.

Actually, we are reading what you are saying. The changes you are making change some serious fundamentals in the game, and I think what you are looking to do is simply better represented under other systems with less effort. Pathfinder is a heroic game, where you gain power as you gain levels. That's just the way it works. Take it out and everything changes, particularly monsters, challenges, treasure, the works.


Dabbler wrote:

Seriously, at the level where a wizard can take out ten foes like that the fighter is doing a LOT more than 2d6+4 damage once a round....

Fighters are the best damage dealers in the game. At the end of the day, dealing damage to the enemy is important. So fighters do one thing, but it's an important thing and they do it well.

You're only looking at absolute values instead of relative values. Normal 10th level fighter in pathfinder: 2d6+16 or so? (don't argue if it's not maximized, that's not the point) That's an average of 23 damage, or about 17% of a Dire Crocodile's hp, a random CR 10 critter. With the 'gritty system,' the fighter will be doing that same 2d6+16 or so, but that croc only has 25 hp. That means the fighter is doing 92% of it's health in one blow. The fighter is doing WAY more relative damage than in standard PF.(Even if the fighter never gets another bonus, and only does 2d6+6, that's still 52% of the crocs hp, more than twice what he can do in standard)

Ninjariffic wrote:
I'm actually kind of fine with that. One is untrained, trained, or specialized. Ability increases will help the skill a little as well.

I didn't see mention of the specialization, how does that work? Are you keeping standard magic items? The stat boosters become much stronger with this system too. I would probably halve their bonuses. In general, I'd probably halve (or more), the bonus from most magic sources. Magic weapon+heroism+inspire courage, bulls strength... all the sudden the fighter just trippled his attack bonus...


I'm actually with Vestrial on this one, the Fighter would have a much higher raw damage output than the Wizard or whatever (at least to a single target).

Big problem I see with magic is debuffs being proportionately a lot more effective. And at higher levels spells like Fireball would still be roughly equal to that Fighter's damage output


Rynjin wrote:

I'm actually with Vestrial on this one, the Fighter would have a much higher raw damage output than the Wizard or whatever (at least to a single target).

Big problem I see with magic is debuffs being proportionately a lot more effective. And at higher levels spells like Fireball would still be roughly equal to that Fighter's damage output

Except that he wants to use armor as DR rules from Ultimate combat, which means armor and natural armor is treated as DR. Most low CR creatures are going to have 3-5 DR, with an Ogre (probably the highest CR a first level party will encounter) at DR 9. Of course, it's AC is going to be 8, so it will be pretty much always hit, but with that DR, you're going to need a lot of damage to break through.

The only combat types that will be able to break through the DR are going to be 2 handers, no finesse fighters, two weapon fighters or archers need apply. So power attacking barbarians or fighters are pretty much it. Halflng or gnomes are right out.

Spell casters on the other hand, tend to do energy damage, or bypass hit points entirely. A lowly ray of frost is going to be more effective against the ogre than a longbow or rapier. There is also things like sleep and color spray, which is limited by HD. Well, there is no HD any more, so sleep and color spray will still be useful for a lot longer.


Dilvias wrote:

Except that he wants to use armor as DR rules from Ultimate combat, which means armor and natural armor is treated as DR. Most low CR creatures are going to have 3-5 DR, with an Ogre (probably the highest CR a first level party will encounter) at DR 9. Of course, it's AC is going to be 8, so it will be pretty much always hit, but with that DR, you're going to need a lot of damage to break through.

The only combat types that will be able to break through the DR are going to be 2 handers, no finesse fighters, two weapon fighters or archers need apply. So power attacking barbarians or fighters are pretty much it. Halflng or gnomes are right out.

Spell casters on the other hand, tend to do energy damage, or bypass hit points entirely. A lowly ray of frost is going to be more effective against the ogre than a longbow or rapier. There is also things like sleep and color spray, which is limited by HD. Well, there is no HD any more, so sleep and color spray will still be useful for a lot longer.

Except that the armor as DR rules are rather broken as written, and will require some work (particularly to maintain that gritty feel). That croc, for instance, will have a DR of 15/magic. 15 is crazy, but /magic makes it irrelevant. /magic is also bypassed by just getting an enlarge person cast on you, which is rather dumb.

In order for the dr as armor to work, I think there needs to be some non-binary way to bypass it. Meaning, you don't just juice your sword then ignore all armor forever more. In the most successful games I've seen with it, defeating armor has to do with how well you hit. I was thinking about adding an 'armor defeat' value to weapons, like a crit range, but to bypass the armor. (which would likely entail reducing crit ranges across the board.) So a rapier might crit on 18-20, but it threatens a bypass on 15+ (not real math, just example). Or just say that crits bypass armor... I need to math it up to see which I like better...


johnlocke90 wrote:
How would iterative attacks work without increasing the base attack bonus?

They'll still be gaining levels. They would just get another attack at the appropriate level.

johnlocke90 wrote:
Well it really depends on how you plan to have spell DCs scale versus saving throws.

They won't scale. High level spells will have the same saves as first level spells. So far anyway.

LazarX wrote:
Then perhaps the real question to the OP, is what of Pathfinder DO you want to keep?

I like the underlying theory of d20, and I really enjoy the Pathfinder classes. I just don't believe constantly increasing numbers are integral to the system.

Vestrial wrote:
I didn't see mention of the specialization, how does that work?

Sorry, I was generalizing. Specialization would be skill focus.

As for armour, maybe it should give DR/-? That should counteract magical weapons, would it not?

As for tons of bonuses from stacking spells, it's not an issue. The group would never stack that many things together at once.


Ninjariffic wrote:

Sorry, I was generalizing. Specialization would be skill focus.

As for armour, maybe it should give DR/-? That should counteract magical weapons, would it not?

As for tons of bonuses from stacking spells, it's not an issue. The group would never stack that many things together at once.

Yeah, that might work with the skills. As a player I'd still want to be able to learn more skills as I go, are you going to let them do that? Maybe one skill every other level or something. Maybe every other level let them either learn a new skill, or specialize in one they already have...

DR/- is too good. It means anybody in a breastplate is basically immune to daggers, and can just take a ton of punishment in general. There really needs to be away around the armor, imo, or you end up back in the slugfest that you have with high hp.

I kinda like their way of handling crit confirmations. I may keep that, and use the attacker confirmations to bypass armor. So if you threaten, defender rolls to try to prevent the crit, you roll confirm to bypass their armor...


They can take a feat to get more skills or raise their INT.

Might be easier to just have crits go through armour. A bit of slugging it out is fine, since that's kind of what armour is for in the first place. It's just nice that the slugging happens without stratospheric HP.


I just had a thought about the DR/armour. How about magic armour retains DR against magic weapons? That should solve that problem.

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Grittier Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.