| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love OSR.
I love Pathfinder.
Is there some sort of unholy union of the two that exist somewhere? I very much would like to find something like that..
Have you looked at the Beginner Box? That's kind of "old school", in the sense that it's a stripped-down version of Pathfinder.
What's OSR?
Old School Renaissance - basically, people who like the feel of older editions of Dnd.
Dungeon Crawl Classics is a pretty good system to try, if you're looking to branch out. I certainly wouldn't recommend it over Pathfinder, but it is fun and has a very old school feel, while offering the familiar D20 mechanics. Similarly, you could look at DCC's modules and convert them to PF; they offer a very good retro-feel.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love OSR.
I love Pathfinder.
Is there some sort of unholy union of the two that exist somewhere? I very much would like to find something like that..
I occasionally work on something like what you're asking about. It's basically Mentzer BECMI re-jiggered to replace THAC0/AC/saves with something more d20-ish. My end goal is to put together a hybrid ruleset for my home group and then run them through a Falcon's Hollow mini-campaign using those rules. Part of me wants to just toss the d20 part and go hardcore BECMI and see what happens.
It's funny you bring this up since i was just reworking Clerics the other night. :D
-Skeld
@JohnLocke - I haven't checked out DCC yet. I have people in my Gamers Circle on G+ that rant and rave about it.
I've played many different systems, and find that I like the rules-lite systems like Swords & Wizardry are more to my liking. I'm also a fan of the Dragonlance 5th Age Saga System's magic system. Though, I started with 3.0, and very much enjoy PRPG, I recognize that I just don't have the patience or attention span to play PRPG anymore.
Which is why I'm curious about, basically, if S&W were to incorporate some stuff from PRPG.. what would it look like?
I too am interested in a PF+OSR breed (POSR?)
First, you have to decide what to keep and what to toss. In my case I decided
Keep skills, toss skill points, more consolidation
keep feats but modifed to take same resources as race traits and class talents
keep spells, toss lots of extra spells
Keep combat manuevers, toss the clunky cmb system
Keep variety of classes and races, toss archetypes
Saving throws and skills; keep the d20 toss the arithmatic
What I came up with was:
Saves - as 1st edition - look up number on chart and roll above that. Add bonuses for stats and magics (always less then 5)
Combat Manuevers - treat as saves Ex)trip is a Ref save
I came up with 12 broad classifications with 2 tied to each ability score.
Str - ride and athletics
Dex - acrobatics and sneak
Con - stabilize and endurance
Int - knowledge and investigate
Wis - awareness and discipline
Cha - communcations and oaths
I treat these like saves too. From the chart that correlates class and level get a number. roll d20+stat above that number.
For surprise and initive and breaking doors I use the d6 since it responds to stat modifers more quickly.
I too am interested in a PF+OSR breed (POSR?)
What would you do for classes? It seems like they get a LOT of stuff in PRPG compared to OSR.
I too am interested in a PF+OSR breed (POSR?)What would you do for classes? It seems like they get a LOT of stuff in PRPG compared to OSR.
I treat every ability as a feat. Racial, class, actual feat - doesn't matter. Except for the exceptions of course :)
power attack is a feat
dwarven stability is a feat
sneak attack is a feat
but you can't take a feat unless you are of that class or race.
Everybody gains a race and class feat at first level plus an extra feat at every level and you can't take the same category twice in a row.
Haven't playtested it yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basic Fantasy is worth looking at as an OSR/PF hybrid.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here was my stab at mixing the OSR with modern rules.
Book 1 PC Guide
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzYaSvmA-OpUUmU0Ym4tbS0zZVE
Book 2 Spells
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzYaSvmA-OpUV3hJRVU3Q012N3M
Book 3 Monsters
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzYaSvmA-OpUX2p1d24xMUJKRGs
Book 4 GM Guide
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzYaSvmA-OpUYTA2LURxck5TMkk
Book 5 PC Guide 2 Additional Races and Classes
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzYaSvmA-OpUdWh3RGtjYzJFdEU
Character Sheet
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzYaSvmA-OpUOFdrYzF5dERkNjg
SO print these out in booklet form and fold them over and read them.
If you decide to play it then let me know how you enjoyed it.
BTW it's free to download and print out for personal use.
I'm interested in taking a look at this, as I've been spending a lot of time looking at some OSR style games. Castles & Crusades and Barbarians of Lemuria both seem to have some real strengths to them.
I love OSR.
I love Pathfinder.
I'm not sure I've ever seen those two sentences uttered in the same breath (or, in this case, typed in the same paragraph).
Which is why I'm curious about, basically, if S&W were to incorporate some stuff from PRPG.. what would it look like?
My game of choice as DM is a Paizo AP using swords and wizardry. I generally leave the PC stuff as is (I have a stat-check system which I use liberally when such seems useful. For knowledge and skill checks I just rely on PC classes and backgrounds - so if you used to be a hunter you might get a wisdom check to follow tracks).
I often import subsystems - I ran Serpents Skull using DCC and used the rules for camps/NPC morale and so forth pretty much as is. Same with my current kingmaker campaign - that's using S&W plus the kingdom building rules. The only change I needed to make for those was to tweak the stat bonuses for the various leadership positions.
I've tried adding a skill system, but found that the result was quite unsatisfactory to me. Giving rules for how to do something results in closing down a lot of the descriptive experimentation that OSRIC games thrive on, in my experience. Once people can search for traps or secret doors, there's less paying attention to the room descriptions and less experimentation (at least with our group).
I'd quite like a feat system, I think but haven't actually got around to it yet. It's definitely true that OSRIC characters are much more similar to one another. An ability to specialise or diverge every couple of levels might be nice for those who enjoy the mechanics/options side of character generation.
I occasionally work on something like what you're asking about. It's basically Mentzer BECMI re-jiggered to replace THAC0/AC/saves with something more d20-ish. My end goal is to put together a hybrid ruleset for my home group and then run them through a Falcon's Hollow mini-campaign using those rules. Part of me wants to just toss the d20 part and go hardcore BECMI and see what happens.It's funny you bring this up since i was just reworking Clerics the other night. :D
-Skeld
Great minds think alike. Well, similarly at least :)
BECMI is one of my favorite systems, and I pretty much house-rule Pathfinder to a similar style. While I still stick to d20 mechanics, I've got them paired down to a minimum (mostly on the combat side) so the rules don't get in the way of the game anywhere near so much. Balance is probably totally screwed (or, even more screwed to some points of view), but tbh that's not the sort of thing my group worries about. I keep meaning to write it up properly some time.
I love OSR.
I love Pathfinder.
I'm not sure I've ever seen those two sentences uttered in the same breath (or, in this case, typed in the same paragraph).
Certainly isn't common it seems.
I've recently been on an OSRIC and Palladium Fantasy (OS, no R) kick lately so a hodge podge of OSR and Pathfinder would be pretty cool.
Check out Frog God Games' material. It manages to work within the Pathfinder rules and still keep that old-school feel.
They have conversions of most of their stuff for both Pathfinder and Swords & Wizardry.
Check out Frog God Games' material. It manages to work within the Pathfinder rules and still keep that old-school feel.
They have conversions of most of their stuff for both Pathfinder and Swords & Wizardry.
I'm curious as to what people mean when they say/type, "It manages to work within the Pathfinder rules and still keep that old-school feel."
I only recently tried playing Pathfinder rules and I mostly played AD&D or Basic D&D modules converted to Pathfinder, so I am unfamiliar with the "feel" of Pathfinder AP's/adventures. How do they differ from the "old-school"?
To my way of thinking, if you are using Pathfinder rules it is basically impossible to accommodate an "old-school" feel to the game but I am, as I pointed out, a Pathfinder novice so I would be interested to hear further discussion on the subject.
Which is why I'm curious about, basically, if S&W were to incorporate some stuff from PRPG.. what would it look like?I'd quite like a feat system, I think but haven't actually got around to it yet. It's definitely true that OSRIC characters are much more similar to one another. An ability to specialise or diverge every couple of levels might be nice for those who enjoy the mechanics/options side of character generation.
I also like the idea of having feats or some mechanism to allow players' to customize their PC's somewhat in an OSR game. It is one of the few things about modern games (D&D 3.X/Pathfinder) that I actually like. Unfortunately, even this improvement seems to have serious "issues" IMO as the sheer number of feats and their potential for unbalancing game play is problematic for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only recently tried playing Pathfinder rules and I mostly played AD&D or Basic D&D modules converted to Pathfinder, so I am unfamiliar with the "feel" of Pathfinder AP's/adventures. How do they differ from the "old-school"?To my way of thinking, if you are using Pathfinder rules it is basically impossible to accommodate an "old-school" feel to the game but I am, as I pointed out, a Pathfinder novice so I would be interested to hear further discussion on the subject.
Any discussion attempting to define "old school" is likely to end in people attempting to out-grognard each other, followed by the clanking of walking frames being knocked together.
I'll give my absolutely non-definitive, personal version:
"Old School" D&D meant not having specific rules for the majority of things that weren't "hit X with my equipped weapon", and relying on generic checks against attribute scores made up on the spot by the DM.
Adding skills, feats, etc. to the system doesn't prevent people playing that way. Letting the rulebook tell you every situation in which they can be applied and how to apply them does, though. I GM "Old School Pathfinder" by throwing out a lot of what the rulebook says and making my own judgement calls on task resolution, plus stripping away a lot of the combat complexities such as Attacks of Opportunity.
For someone else, "Old School" could just mean it's printed in 3 column black and white format, of course, and based around a location-keyed map ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why I'm curious about, basically, if S&W were to incorporate some stuff from PRPG.. what would it look like?I've tried adding a skill system, but found that the result was quite unsatisfactory to me. Giving rules for how to do something results in closing down a lot of the descriptive experimentation that OSRIC games thrive on, in my experience. Once people can search for traps or secret doors, there's less paying attention to the room descriptions and less experimentation (at least with our group).
You mean you are NOT a fan of Perception (aka Uber skill) allowing players' to detect everything the moment they step into a room?!? Or players' being able to get an NPC to reveal the entire plot to them because they rolled a natural '20' on their Diplomacy check? ;)
I only recently tried playing Pathfinder rules and I mostly played AD&D or Basic D&D modules converted to Pathfinder, so I am unfamiliar with the "feel" of Pathfinder AP's/adventures. How do they differ from the "old-school"?To my way of thinking, if you are using Pathfinder rules it is basically impossible to accommodate an "old-school" feel to the game but I am, as I pointed out, a Pathfinder novice so I would be interested to hear further discussion on the subject.
Adding skills, feats, etc. to the system doesn't prevent people playing that way. Letting the rulebook tell you every situation in which they can be applied and how to apply them does, though. I GM "Old School Pathfinder" by throwing out a lot of what the rulebook says and making my own judgement calls on task resolution, plus stripping away a lot of the combat complexities such as Attacks of Opportunity.
That sounds pretty cool. Like I stated earlier, I am very new to Pathfinder but I have already started thinking about how I might house-rule the game to make it more in line with what I would want to play. Attacks of Opportunity were FIRST on my list to get the axe. I would also severely reduce the number of feats available and the frequency with which players' received them.
Serious question: Do you run any of your "Old School Pathfinder" games here on Paizo as PbP games? Your style sounds like one I would actually enjoy playing.
I'm a huge fan of Castles & Crusades. It sits somewhere nicely between 2nd Edition AD&D and 3rd Edition. A much more streamlined game with a simple resolution mechanic that provides tons of flexibility. You can import feats without a whole lot of effort.
I would check it out.
Adding skills, feats, etc. to the system doesn't prevent people playing that way. Letting the rulebook tell you every situation in which they can be applied and how to apply them does, though. I GM "Old School Pathfinder" by throwing out a lot of what the rulebook says and making my own judgement calls on task resolution, plus stripping away a lot of the combat complexities such as Attacks of Opportunity.
That sounds pretty cool. Like I stated earlier, I am very new to Pathfinder but I have already started thinking about how I might house-rule the game to make it more in line with what I would want to play. Attacks of Opportunity were FIRST on my list to get the axe. I would also severely reduce the number of feats available and the frequency with which players' received them.
Serious question: Do you run any of your "Old School Pathfinder" games here on Paizo as PbP games? Your style sounds like one I would actually enjoy playing.
Not currently, but hoping to put together an online game later this year. It'll probably run live through a virtual tabletop rather than be PbP though (actually, more likely a combination of the two). I'll almost certainly be putting up a post asking for players in these forums though :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone seen Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition? It's sort of a nostalgia-fueled reskin of the D20 system.
I guess Chris Perkins works for Wizards, but given the amount of old TSR art AD&D Third Ed. uses, anyone who tries to make money off it should expect to get sued till they don't have towels left in their bathroom! :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any discussion attempting to define "old school" is likely to end in people attempting to out-grognard each other, followed by the clanking of walking frames being knocked together. ... I GM "Old School Pathfinder" by throwing out a lot of what the rulebook says and making my own judgement calls on task resolution, plus stripping away a lot of the combat complexities such as Attacks of Opportunity.
Hey, I resemble that remark! ;-)
Yes, you have to dump Attacks of Opportunity. This gets rid of the 'chess-move" like issues with new-school.
Skills are Old School.
Any discussion attempting to define "old school" is likely to end in people attempting to out-grognard each other, followed by the clanking of walking frames being knocked together. ... I GM "Old School Pathfinder" by throwing out a lot of what the rulebook says and making my own judgement calls on task resolution, plus stripping away a lot of the combat complexities such as Attacks of Opportunity.
Hey, I resemble that remark! ;-)
Yes, you have to dump Attacks of Opportunity. This gets rid of the 'chess-move" like issues with new-school.
Skills are Old School.
I use attacks of opportunity - in the sense that you can try and push past the enemy if you don't mind them getting a free swing. It's not terribly codified though.
There was nothing wrong with 2nd Edit. D&D.
Only reason Hasbro quit making it was they thought old gamers like myself where going race out and buy it, guess that was a failed bet.
And we see Hasbro's track record with Rpgs, that's why Pathfinder's so popular.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was nothing wrong with 2nd Edit. D&D.
Only reason Hasbro quit making it was they thought old gamers like myself where going race out and buy it, guess that was a failed bet.And we see Hasbro's track record with Rpgs, that's why Pathfinder's so popular.
Well, the opinion on 2nd Edition sorta depends on just how "old-school" you are (see Matt Thompson's insightful and witty comment on this subject...). Personally, I think 2nd Edition is where D&D started to "turn to the Dark side" with all of the splat books that gave the kits for class customization. This was the dawn of the "optimization age" of D&D.
IMO, optimization/customization == not Old-School. That is not to say that these options are bad/wrong fun just not Old-school fun.
I still buy the occasional PF product but I have gone full OSR after burning out on 3.5/PF after 12 years.
IMHO the main contenders are.
Adventurer Conquer King. (ACKs)
Basically a clone of BECMI but it has neo feats (actually called proficiency's). Uses ascending ACs but 17 is AC7, AC 16 becomes 6. Kinda basic and fun, compatible enough with TSR era material although ACKs PCs are a bit more powerful than BECMI ones. If you have a 4-5 man party though its OK as BECMI adventures were designed for 6-8 players. No skill system.
Myth and Magic
Clone of 2nd ed but overhauled. Has talents which are basically feats and uses fort/ref/will. More or less a 2.5. Game is not supported though, math is a bit wonky at higher levels and the game is incomplete. Not to hard to adapt some d20 monsters from 4th, 3.5/PF and D&DN to though. Vewry good basic skill system similar to 2nd ed/3.5 hybrid. Power creep in M&M makes the few monsters they did convert kind of weak and squishy. Very good system but requires a time investment to make it work.
Castles and Crusades.
Kind of a hybrid between 1st ed and 3rd ed with ascending ACs and Clerics and Druids get level 8 and 9 spells. Has lots of support via books and adventures as well and seems to be one of the biggest clones after Pathfinder. Basic attribute system/skill system, no feats/talents/proficiency.
The other clones do not tend to fall far from the TSR era D&D apple tree though. These 3 are the most d20ised as such of the OSR type clones. Basic Fantasy is more or less d20 BECMI no real options,Labyrinth Lord is basically BECMI etc.
PDF of ACKs is $10 for the complete rules, C&C is a bit more expensive to get into, Myth and MAgic has free PHB//DMG playtests you can look at to get an idea.
Myth and Magic
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/100492/Myth--Magic-Players-Starter-Guide
Basic Fantasy. Free Rules/Adventures.
http://www.basicfantasy.org/downloads.html
ACKS ($10)
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/99123/Adventurer-Conqueror-King-System
Castles and Crusades PHB ($14 PDF, often on sale for cheaper)
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/105322/Castles--Crusades-Players-Handbook
M&M is fun if you like hacking game systems, C&C and ACKs are good in terms of fun and quality product. If you go down this path be prepared for black and white interior art. Hell you can port Myth and Magics saving throws into Pathfinder as a house rule. Fighters get +5/+4/+4 at level 1 IIRC.