| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of ideas, my primary problem is high level combat bogging down with extreme amounts of dice rolling. 2nd edition's simplicity of maxing at two attacks is a peaceful thought, though mechanically the system and bestiary are based off the notion of increased attacks, increased potential for damage output. Huge undertaking.
Check out Trailblazer RPG's approach to this problem.
In a nutshell, they remove additional attacks beyond the second, and they make up the damage difference by raising the attack bonus on full attacks.
The math proves to be remarkably consistent in all but extreme cases. You can import this rule into PF with no problems whatsoever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mainly writing this down, because i have been thinking about a simple, quicker, more Board game type feel system. That would be easier for kids to play with.
While i started out with a pathfinder system, it quickly melted down into something else. If you do not like it, just ignore the post. This should be a good Hack and Slash system at low levels, but the higher the character levels, the more deadly the game become, unless you change the play style over to a more role-play, story type game feel, kind of like Doctor Who or some such.
-----------------------------------------
Mind = 3d6
Used for = Starting Skill points. Placed in any skill the player wants, up to a max of 5 point into any one skill.
Skill roll = 1d6 = 1 is auto-success. 6 is auto-fail. Meet or beat the number of skill point that the player has in that skill. (no bonus or penalty allowed (Fate Point an exception) = you can either make the skill roll or you can not).
example: Jon has 4 skill points in Stealth. He rolls a 1d6, and get a 4. He meet the skill point check, and successfully used stealth this round.
+1 skill point per character level.
-----------------------------------------------
Body = 3d6
Used for Hit Points = Starting hp for character.
Player regains hp at 1 per hour of meditation or 2 per hour of sleep.
+1 hp per character level.
-----------------------------------------------
Spirit = 3d6
Used for Fate Points = Base fate point character has.
+1 Fate point per character level.
Player regains Fate Points at 1 per hour of meditation or 2 per hour of sleep.
- You can not use more fate points in a round that you have character levels. A 5th level character can only use 5 fate point per round or less, in a given round Also. A 5th level character could spend 2 fate point on his initiative roll, 2 fate point on his to-hit roll, and 1 fate point on his damage roll. All during the same round.
- Fate point must be allocated to the roll, before the roll is made. Extra points spend, that were not needed, are lost.
- You can not change a natural rolled 1 or 20 on attack rolls, or natural rolled 1 or 6 on Skill checks. Fate point can not be used to exceed the dice roll at all. Example: Jon spends 4 fate point on his damage roll. He rolls a 1d6 for damage and rolls a 5. The fate points push this up to a 6, but can not exceed the dice roll of 6. The other 3 fate point over this are simple lost.
- You can only use fate points on dice rolls, that your character makes. A 5th level character, decides to spend 3 fate points on his Diplomacy skill check. He has 2 skill point in Diplomacy to begin with. He rolls a 5 on his skill check. 2+3 = 5, which meets the skill roll of 5. So he succedes on his Diplomacy skill check this round.
- Fate point can NOT be used, to effect DM dice rolls, other player dice rolls, or monster dice rolls that are made against you.
---------------------------------------------------
Combat
1) Roll Initiative.
2) When it is your turn, Roll movement = 1d6 = number of (5 foot) square your character can move this round.
3) After your move (only after), you may make an attack. Melee if you end your movement next to a target, or range attack if not.
4) Next !!You can only make 1 attack per round; regardless of the number of attack you "might" make. Yes, your pet cat "might" make 1 bite, and 4 claw attacks this round... But your only allowed to make 1 attack with one of them. So pick just 1! ===For every rule there is an exception, for every exception there is a rule === Would i make an exception for a octopus: NO only one head. Would i make an exception for a 8 armed 2 headed demon: No only one body that all arm are attached to. Would i make an exception for a 4 headed hydra: Yes, all 4 head have reach with long necks, each head can make its own bite attack independent of is body due to reach. Should any PC, NPC, or creature that might become even remotely a PC or DM character have more than 1 attack per round = NO.
You can make only 1 Shield/Weapon Block with your Off hand only. Meet or beat the attacker attack roll, to Block the attack. If you miss, you take max damage instead ( 1d6 damage would become a 6 damage ) = That is the risk of choosing to make the block. If you your successful, then the weapon or shield can block up to 10 points of incoming damage from a Blunt/Piercing/Slashing attack. Any damage over 10 is carried over to first your armor and then you.
Attack Roll = 1d20
Player call, body shot, aimed shot, or called shoot = Body shot default if noting is called.1 = Total Miss
1-4 = Miss
5+ = Body shot = normal damage
10+ = Aimed Shot = hands, arms, legs, head, etc. Normal Damage. If player aim for the hands, and hands do not have the armor normal protection glove/gauntlets on that character/creature, then armor is bypassed for that attack; with DM approval. Also, hand hit will drop item this round, hit a leg -1 to movement next round, hit the head and Dazed for 1 round.
15+ = Called Shot = eye's, ear's, nose, mouth, fingers, internal organ like heart, lungs, kidneys. Basically, this is here because of the need to hit a beholder eye stocks, the missing scale of snmog dragon hide, and the need to stake a vampire in the heart. Two eyes, and your blind, two ear's and your deaf, lungs and you might have the wind knocked out of ya for 1d6 rounds or worse depending on DM. etc.Aim Shot 9 or below & Called Shot 14 or below = Is a miss. This is to encourage them not to be used unless they are needed. Less bookkeeping if they are not used, which as DM, i prefer.
20 = Critical Hit = Base dice damage is doubled. This does not include Adventure class precision damage bonus.
-----------------------------------
Damage by weapon size: cope and past chart got squished. Large plus sized amount have had there number reduced, for lower level damage.
Base Damage by Size*
Fine Dim. Tiny Small Med. Large Huge Garg. Col.
Bite/Percing 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 1d12 2d10
Claw/slashing - 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 2d8
Gore 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 1d12 2d10
Hoof, tentacle, wing - 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 2d8
Pincers, tail slap 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 1d12 2d10
Slam/blunt - 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 2d8
Sting - 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 2d8
Talons - 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 2d8
Other - 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 1d10 2d8------------------------------------
Armor
Armor has hit point, that buffer the damage that character take. Med-evil and modern armor is not full environmental, and does not protect against Acid, Fire/Cold, Sonic, Lighting, or Magic Force attacks. These effect just pass right throw the armor as if it was not there.
Med-evil to modern armor = Protect vs Blunt/Piercing/Slashing
Light = 10 Hit Points
Medium = 20 Hit Points and -1 to movement roll
Heavy = 30 Hit points and -2 to movement rollAdvance/Environmental Armor = Same as Med-evil and Modern armor Plus
- Subject, when they have there helmet on, Is protected from Gases attacks.
- Subject, when they have there helmet on, Is protected from spell damage such as Acid, Fire/Cold, Sonic, Lighting, or Magic Force attacks. While the subject is protected, the armor is taking the damage.
Light armor = extra plus 10 Hit points
Medium armor = extra plus 20 Hit points
Heavy = extra plus 30 hit points.All damage, regardless of type, is first taken from these extra hit point.
Once the extra hit point is gone, then armor is no longer environmental, and function like med-evil to modern armor.Example: Jon is wearing a Heavy Space suit. It has 30 base armor hit point + 30 extra hit points. He get blasted by a 3rd level fire ball for 3 damage, then hit by a 1d6 sword for 5 damage, then shot in the arm for another 5 damage. He now has 30 base armor hit points + 17 extra hit points. (5+5+3= 13-30 = 17).
-----------------------------------
Spells = No saving Throws, No Spell Resistance.
Max spell damage is reduced: to Spell level per round. A 9th level spell, can only do a max of 9 points of damage per round. A 3rd level fireball, can only do a max of 3 point of damage per round.
Some spell,
- Require attack rolls = Called shot to brain to charm creature.
- Some have shorter duration = Charm spell only last 1 hour (1st level spell), A 5th level spell could last 5 hours.
- Some have a percentage chance based on level. 1st level entangle spell only has a 10% change of reducing movement per round. 4th level entangle type spell might have a 40% change of reducing movement per round.
examples
3rd level fireball = AoE = Hits all target in area. (Adventure class can roll a body shot to hit single target as center of blast, to take extra adventure class bonus damage to single target, if miss, then treat as normal AoE hit). All target take 3 points of Fire Damage. All target have a 30% change of catching on fire for 1d3 rounds, and suffering 1 point of fire damage each round they are on fire.1st level Charm = Called Shot Brain (DM, ask player were the target brain is located, :) if player said head, and creature brain is in its butt, spell fails). Roll a Called shot, 15+ to hit brain. If you make the attack roll, then the creature is charmed for 1 hour. Attacking creature or give creature suicide order break charm immediately. Creature treats the caster (and only the caster ) as his best friend (not family, not loved one, but as best friend). How the creature normal treats his best friends, the dynamic of why his best friend is surround by stranger or enemy, and "If" his new best friend can communicate a good reason what is going on, is up to the DM and Player role-playing. :)
---------------------------------------
3 Classes
Adventure class : 60% of NPC/Moster fall under this class. This is what most Warrior, Rogues, and other base class are. They easily use any weapon they get there hands on, and wear any armor they want; including any power armor they take skills in.
Can wear any Armor
- =Adventure class ability: Damage!! When making any kind of attack, the adventure can single out one target to be the center of the attack. This one target, if hit, take bonus damage equal to the Adventure Class level, for one round only. So a 5th level Adventure, could swing a sword and do +5 extra damage, throw a AOE grenade at one target as a body shot, and if they hit the single target will do +5 extra damage, if they miss then the target just takes normal AoE grenade damage.
- =At 5th level: Movement: +1 to the Adventure personal combat movement roll.
[*}=At 10th level: Movement extended: +10% to Adventure Personal Vehicle movement rate. It take 1 week of tinkering, to gain this movement rate, and the vehicle losses this bonus after one week, of not being under the Adventure care.
- =At 15th level: ( Work in progress: not sure yet ).
.........
Mage Class = 20% fall under this class. Wizard, Sorcerers, some Druids, Witches and Witch Doctors.
Can only cast spells while in Light Armor.
- = Caster gain 1 spell per spell level. Spell gained can be any spell that is equal to his level or less. ( A 5th level mage, could learn a 5th level spell at 5th level ).
- = Caster can at 2nd level, and each level there after, swap out any one spell he knows, for a new spell. The new spell, can be any spell that the character can cast.
- = Caster can not select the same spell twice. Similar spell, yes, just as long as it is not the same spell.
Casting spells:
What is required for ANY casting: 8 to 10 full hour of sleep, depending on how much or good of sleep you got (see DM). After which you can cast spell for the next 15 hour, before needing more sleep.
Quick Cast: The Mage can quick cast any spell he knows, once per day, as a melee attack action. =Point fire and shoot, no concentration check, no chance of interruption, does not matter if your on fire, in lava, getting spit on by a black dragon, you can quick cast your spell= Mage regain the Quick cast spell, after the full night of sleep.
Slow Cast: The Mage can slow cast any spell he knows (even spell he has already Quick cast for the day). The Mage can even cast spell he does not know, from a spellbook or scroll with the spell. Slow Casting take 10 minutes per spell level of spell being cast. (5th level spell take 50 minutes, 9th level spell takes 90 minutes).
..........
Psionic = 20% fall under this class. Psionics, shamen, cleric, priest, mind mages.
Can wear medium armor while casting spells.
--cope and past from mage-- i did have a spell point system set up, but in the end, i changed my mind. Just more bookkeeping with spell points, and i did not feel like keeping track of them. The end result would have been the same, so why bother....
- = Caster gain 1 spell per spell level. Spell gained can be any spell that is equal to his level or less. ( A 5th level mage, could learn a 5th level spell at 5th level ).
- = Caster can at 2nd level, and each level there after, swap out any one spell he knows, for a new spell. The new spell, can be any spell that the character can cast.
- = Caster can not select the same spell twice. Similar spell, yes, just as long as it is not the same spell.
Casting spells:
What is required for ANY casting: 8 to 10 full hour of sleep, depending on how much or good of sleep you got (see DM). After which you can cast spell for the next 15 hour, before needing more sleep.
Quick Cast: The Mage can quick cast any spell he knows, once per day, as a melee attack action. =Point fire and shoot, no concentration check, no chance of interruption, does not matter if your on fire, in lava, getting spit on by a black dragon, you can quick cast your spell= Mage regain the Quick cast spell, after the full night of sleep.
Slow Cast: The Mage can slow cast any spell he knows (even spell he has already Quick cast for the day). The Mage can even cast spell he does not know, from a spellbook or scroll with the spell. Slow Casting take 10 minutes per spell level of spell being cast. (5th level spell take 50 minutes, 9th level spell takes 90 minutes).
............................................
Class Ability are based on class, so a 5th level Adventure / 3rd level mage, who cast a 3rd level fireball, would do 3 damage to all in AoE, but if he make the body shot, then he could do 3 + 5 damage to one single target at the center of the fireball spell.
............................................
............................................Over All world Change to Spells.
Mage: Loses Summon Monster spells, create undead, Polmorph spells, and any spell that only effect a single target are change to AoE spells. All mage spell are Area of Effect spell, of some type, line, cones, spreads, bursts, etc. All Mage spell take effect 10 feet or more, from the mage.
Psionic: Keep Summon Monster spell ( but only 1 monster summoned, and not under there control, and does not get sent back at end of spell ), Gain all Polmorph spells ( single target only), and all spell now can only effect a max of 1 target per casting. Psionic, also lose any spell that does direct Damage to target. The effective casting range of Psionic is 4 inch + 1 inch per level of caster.
===================================
Ya, done writing this :) bloody idea been rumming around in my head for months, glade to get it down. Still just a draft, but anyway, just ignore it if not to your taste. To other, hope if give you some idea's of your own, to work off of, or create your own system.
Hexagon grid! If you allow movement between two hexs, allows you to travel in a straight line to any point on the board from any other, and much easier to of area of effect.
Mainly writing this down, because i have been thinking about a simple, quicker, more Board game type feel system. That would be easier for kids to play with.
While i started out with a pathfinder system, it quickly melted down into something else. If you do not like it, just ignore the post. This should be a good Hack and Slash system at low levels, but the higher the character levels, the more deadly the game become, unless you change the play style over to a more role-play, story type game feel, kind of like Doctor Who or some such....
Looks like a similar approach to some of the Microlite systems. Drill down through their site - there is a PF-specific version if you want to keep feats, otherwise the OSR variants are great for quick-n-dirty play.
Another option is to play off the Beginner Box with its reduced feat and skill lists and other rules (combat, etc...) to keep things a bit simpler EdOWar on has converted all the core and prestige classes, as well as races and other details to fit the BB template
edowarsblog.
I haven't had the chance to play with them yet other than experiment with character generation, but it gives some flexibility. Pick and choose at will...
Hexagon grid! If you allow movement between two hexs, allows you to travel in a straight line to any point on the board from any other, and much easier to of area of effect.
You need 2 color battlemats so you can use square mapped products and move hex. Your hexes, black lines, while squares will be red lines.
The caotic neutral have laws. They are all jokes and many are impossible to follow. Hail Eris! ;)
You need 2 color battlemats so you can use square mapped products and move hex. Your hexes, black lines, while squares will be red lines.
Not really, I think we discussing a theoretical 2.0 of Pathfinder. Everything would have to be redone anyway, so wouldn't be any harder to reprint the battle maps as hexes then squares.
So the new Pathfinder would not be backward palatable.
Dungeons and buildings have straight walls and 90% corners. A 10 by 10 room would be hard to hexmap.
So the new Pathfinder would not be backward palatable.
Dungeons and buildings have straight walls and 90% corners. A 10 by 10 room would be hard to hexmap.
I find that dungeons and buildings are often much more square than they should be because they are designed over a square grid. Even lego castle builders achieve a lot more curves and angles than D&D/Pathfinders map designers...
The grid should support movement through the map, not regulate the map. I understand that square grid brings a convenient Cartesian rationalization of space, but I often find it goes too far and inhibits more than it helps.
|
I would eliminate around 80-90% of the feats and abilities that add binary values. This includes stat boosting spells and skill boost magic.
Basic theory - all current feat task should be attemptable (the martial or maneuver based ones) by everyone with a good change of success according to level + class ability vs. threat. Feats would give a bonus to these, but the default would follow the numerical curve vs. being behind it (as it current exists in PF). Anyone can try a bull rush with an effect if you have the stats, but a bull rush feat would add a small numerical bonus and an effect bonus (which is more important than the numerical bonus).
So no feats boosting to-hits (besides a select few) or DC boost out of range.
Most feats would create an ability you cannot do or a significant alteration (to the feat bearers) action that can already be conducted. No DC manipulation beyond reasonable CR/level range. If you are hyper-optimized under my ideal system, you may be at +1 on variance above others at you level at best if you were to go that route of specialization, and at a heavy operational cost.
Dump the numbers game/race entirely.
Very few numerical modifiers, so a sub-optimal guy, or a guy running with low gear is not behind very much on the math - since the variance to the numbers and choices selection (feats) would be limited. A spell that boosts Jump, does not add crap +X numbers to Jump skill - it gives the ability to Jump - far, how well you do it would still be based off of your skill/ability but the effect would be changed (range, magical effect, etc) making it feel more like magic than just +10 which is a skill trump/toestomp on skill characters (terr-bad design of 3.0+).
Spells have effects, and not just by applying numerical changes to stats - I would dump all of that.
I would severely limit the overlapping buffs, maybe an override system based on buffs (sort of like a buff miscibility table, akin to mixing potions in the old game). Spells that have positive effects would also have drawbacks to them (oh the horror!) so that you don't cycle over the same spell for every combat (Haste, etc). Some spells will work better than others at different times due to the types of benefits and drawbacks they afford.
I would also streamline the stat bonus array, maybe no modifiers till around score 15. Since the number range and spread to do things would be lower overall, I wouldn't want those numbers to be swing too much between a STR 11-14, 15 to 18.
By narrowing the modifiers and eliminating selectable numerical bonuses/range from items you deal a death blow to the "xmass tree effect". If you want an ability, you get the item that gives it but +X items would not be need in the game to maintain the arms race (in reality they just wouldn't exist). The numbers would not scale in the way that is offered up by some internal ability boosts systems offered in this forum, which are noble attempts to fix the unfix-able. There just wouldn't even be a need since everyone would be scaled down at the same time (no competing with some with more or less gear on a math level). No internal number boost, because there is very little in number variance.
That way a 12th level fighter with 3 magic items isn't far behind an 12th level fighter with 8 magic items on the math game, the latter just has more magical options - none of them being numerical.
Focus would be on playing your character with the options you have at your level, not on build optimization/numerical advantage. Thematic would rule over "default" selection and arrays. If you do optimize you will have an unbalanced, narrow and uneven character and will probably pay for it in the game (system wise) due to lack of adaptability.
Not so much a streamline as much as a re-write dumping around 80% of the game rules.
Anyway.
So weapon focus, like stat boosts, should be given out automatically at certain levels. Exotic weapons should be automatic with classes and races. In essence, you are -4 to use a gnome claw hammer if you are not a gnome. You are -4 to use monk weapons if you are not a monk and did not grow up in an oriental setting.
No more jokes about exotic weapon live rats.
I agree with the common thoughts here.
Feats - all the new feats being produced now are junk and pointless. It should be replaced with a wildcardable benefit system and maybe a stunt system.
Just today I was reading the new Dragonslayer's Handbook and groaning at the feats. "+1 on saves vs dragon abilities!" Make one set of "better saves - +4 vs something super specific, or +2 vs something kinda specific, or +1 vs something real general" and be done with it. "When you crit someone you can take their wing out." Great, sounds like a combat maneuver/stunt for everyone to use, and again, have some basic "better at X combat maneuver!" feat. Having "Improved X, Improved Y, etc" is just pointless word count and the chance for errors. "When you crit reduce natural armor..." Yeah, just have a smaller set of conditions and have a basic "Crit Gives Condition *" feat.
Same with combat maneuver creep; combo reposition/bull rush/etc.
Spells are a mess. Kill some sacred cows and revisit spell levels. "I can make a little bit of nonmagical stuff temporarily - level 4 spell!" Good Lord. Take an "evoker", "conjurer," etc. and build up a better conceptual tree of what they should be able to do at level 1/2/3/etc and make it simple. Like with the Basic Cure * Wounds spells - do we really have to write them out so many times? "Cure Wounds, can be cast as a level X spell, cures Xd8+level damage."
I can't really say I have more "fun" based on the rules than I did in 2e or even Basic; but I sure have to read thousands more pages to have it.
If this were WotC I would despair that they would bother to do this as selling splatcrap is lucrative, but I think Paizo understands that their real original content is the big draw and we don't need more feats/spells/etc that are "same as X with 2 words changed".
It wouldn't hurt my feelings to collapse weapons into a couple set damage/crit combos, too.
Also, consider futureproofing. Basic stuff, like when they add new monk-style weapons the monk's not proficient in them because the class doesn't list them - but the class was written first. Think about that and make it easier to add keywords - "a weapon labeled as monk, monks are proficient with, durr." They kinda did that with racial weapons ("anything saying halfling...").
Cap damages or remove stackable bonuses to get rid of the Xmas tree effect and ubermegadamage.
Grapple should be reduced to simply a Pin combat maneuver, like in Star Wars Saga. Pinning really does everything you want when you would like to start a grapple.
Kill some sacred cows and revisit spell levels.
There's a good reason why they don't do this, but I agree it would mean huge progress.
Better, I think, to leave the spells at their current levels and just adjust the spell text, inventing lesser or greater versions of them as necessary. That way you don't invalidate a huge swath of stat blocks in published content.
I'm thinking you could cut out the caster level factor of spell durations and spell range and the game really wouldn't suffer. I use an abstract duration houserule to cut down on the fiddliness of tracking buffs in minutes and hours, but I still have to look up durations and cross reference the level. I would rather see spells just have a range and duration appropriate to their use and be done with it!
I'm also wondering (actively) what it would take to just use the short spell descriptions from the class spell lists instead of the full spell description. Is there a rule of thumb you could apply? Do we really need 2-5 paragraphs describing all of the things you can or cannot do with the spell? Would it get out of hand without any of that?
</thoughts>
The caotic neutral have laws. They are all jokes and many are impossible to follow. Hail Eris! ;)
Or don't, if you want.
I'm thinking you could cut out the caster level factor of spell durations and spell range and the game really wouldn't suffer. I use an abstract duration houserule to cut down on the fiddliness of tracking buffs in minutes and hours, but I still have to look up durations and cross reference the level. I would rather see spells just have a range and duration appropriate to their use and be done with it!I was thinking about that recently and I really can't see why not. It would tend to boost the power of very low level casters and drop that of high level ones, which would be a good thing. There are a lot of good spells that just aren't worth it at low levels because 1 round/level is just too short. Then at high levels, those same low level spells are good because you can cast them before combat starts.
Flatten it out and gameplay gets better not just simpler.
Any thoughts as to the ideal "generic" level?
I'm thinking 5th, 7th or 10th.
Until your post, I was thinking I would leave rounds/level duration alone. Now I'm vacillating. One generally remembers which spells are rounds/level, and it's not too much of a hassle to track because it falls within the initiative count. Minutes, minutes*10, and hours are the problematic ones, AFAIC.
For my part, I'll just be calculating the generic level (leaning toward 7th right now) and then converting it to "scene" or "act" duration. Life is much easier for the GM and the players when spells have nice, predictable, simultaneous terminations. The GM doesn't have to draw an awkward line after every encounter, and the players can strategize their durations.
Some great suggestions here. One I have not seen, that is a real problem IMO is the profusion of class powers and complexity, made worse in pf with school powers, bloodline powers, rage powers, more feats for all, etc. Reducing these will not be popular with players but IMO is necessary, as interactions and stack-ons involving these powers can be weird, and as a DM building monsters or npcs with class levels gets to insane stat blocks at higher level.
I can handle wizard complexity as an exception (though id get rid of school powers) but when every class has to approach that complexity with all their powers, animal comps, archetypes, etc its too much IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also wondering (actively) what it would take to just use the short spell descriptions from the class spell lists instead of the full spell description. Is there a rule of thumb you could apply? Do we really need 2-5 paragraphs describing all of the things you can or cannot do with the spell? Would it get out of hand without any of that?</thoughts>
Oh, I agree. Spells work just as well as they did "back in the day," but are many hundreds of percent more verbose - mainly because WotC decided "GM and player judgment is bad, we must stomp it out via legalese".
Here's the Knock spell I first learned, from D&D Basic.
Knock (122 words)
Range: 60’
Duration: See below
Effect: One lock or bar
This spell will open any type of lock.
Any normal or magically locked door
(by a Hold Portal or Wizard Lock spell),
and any secret door, may be opened
when found (but a secret door must be
found before it can be Knocked open).
Any locking magic will remain, however,
and will take affect once again when the
door is closed. This spell will also cause a
gate to open, even if stuck, and will
cause any treasure chest to open easily. It
will also cause a barred door to open,
magically forcing the bar to fall to the
floor. If a door is locked and barred, both
will be opened.
Then here it is in 1e AD&D.
Knock (Alteration) (153 words)
Level: 2 Components: V Range: 6" Casting Time: 1 segment Duration: Special Saving Throw: None Area of Effect: 70 square feet/level
Explanation/Description: The Knock spell will open stuck or held or wizard-locked doors. It will also open barred or otherwise locked doors. It causes secret doors to open. The Knock spell will also open locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It will loose shackles or chains as well. If it is used to open a wizard-locked door, the Knock does not remove the former spell, but it simply suspends its functioning for 1 turn. In all other cases, the Knock will permanently open locks or welds - although the former could be closed and locked again thereafter. It will not raise bars or similar impediments (such as a portcullis). The spell will perform two functions, but if a door is locked, barred, and held, opening it will require two Knock spells.
And now in Pathfinder. With all love, Gygax had a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth, but we're still managing to significantly outdo him.
Knock (215 words)
School transmutation; Level inquisitor 2, sorcerer/wizard 2CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components VEFFECT
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one door, box, or chest with an area of up to 10 sq. ft./level
Duration instantaneous; see text
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance noDESCRIPTION
Knock opens stuck, barred, or locked doors, as well as those subject to hold portal or arcane lock. When you complete the casting of this spell, make a caster level check against the DC of the lock (see table at right) with a +10 bonus. If successful, knock opens up to two means of closure. This spell opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains (provided they serve to hold something shut). If used to open an arcane locked door, the spell does not remove the arcane lock but simply suspends its functioning for 10 minutes. In all other cases, the door does not relock itself or become stuck again on its own. Knock does not raise barred gates or similar impediments (such as a portcullis), nor does it affect ropes, vines, and the like. The effect is limited by the area. Each casting can undo as many as two means of preventing access.
Am I having 100% more fun with the game now than I was in Basic days? No.
Are more people playing D&D/Pathfinder now than during Basic days? No, that thing sold millions of copies.And in the end, are any of these signifcantly better than having some standard power-by-level rules and then Knock just saying
Knock: Opens locked or magically sealed door.
Yeah, I'm not sure either.
There's a basic economic concept here most people miss, the standard value curve. Is the more detailed spell "better," does it convey more information and cover over more holes? Sure it does. But enough more for the cost? In software, for example, people are often tempted to cram more and more features into something until its cost approaches what its value is - the "break even point." But this is bad, because lean thinking shows us the place of most value (and profit) is where the cost and value curves are the farthest apart - adding more to the product after that point, each added bit has less value. In an RPG the costs are complexity of play and cost of the actual rulebook/printed word. The question isn't whether another sentence of clarification is "better," it's whether it's worth the cost, and often it is not.
|
Spells work just as well as they did "back in the day," but are many hundreds of percent more verbose - mainly because WotC decided "GM and player judgment is bad, we must stomp it out via legalese".
I think the irony is that because it's written in such legalese, players (and sometimes GMs) interpret it like legalese, and end up with ridiculous loopholes based on the misplacement of a comma or something similarly inane.
@Earnest: Yes. Yes. You've given me the overwhelming urge to replace all of the spell text with the following: "Does what it says. No shenanigans." Say hello to the 200-page core rules!
@theJeff: My definitions for scenes and acts are actually quite a bit more rigid than 4e's encounters. It's based on the size of the areas and the speed you move through them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Earnest: Yes. Yes. You've given me the overwhelming urge to replace all of the spell text with the following: "Does what it says. No shenanigans." Say hello to the 200-page core rules!
Or just put the standard - "does what it says, in special situations the DM will adjudicate."
This would be a big surrender of power and trust back over to the DM which will make the player entitlement crowd jump. But the reality is - the DM already holds the power and should already hold a strong degree of trust. Even in a heavily ruled and structured game there is nothing holding the DM back from hitting the party with encounters (within CR) that just overwhelm the party, or to throw so many difficulties (at CR) and hurdles that the party could not succeed just on long string probability, even if the party minimized the use of all their resources to get through the gauntlet.
That trust needs to already be there. So I don't see a big issue of a spell/ability entry stating: this is how it works, why it works that way, and if you try anything weird with it the DM makes the final call.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I personally like descriptive entries on spells - not all the technical spells, but the hows and whys of how it’s supposed to work. That way when I as a DM, am hit with a corner case use of a spell or item I can extrapolate a result that is well within the spirit of the spell entry, if not covered by the detailed mechanics.
I'll cite another example of a failed area of over-description: familiars/animal companions. In PF we have every technical detail as to what a familiar does to aid its caster, but almost no to little detail on use, abuse, where it comes from, etc. To me this is a huge blind spot - are they throw away NPCs, are they sent by the gods or force of nature? What happens if they are wasted, abused or neglected?
So I don't think it's a question of the amount of material per se, I think it’s how the material is covered.
In PF, the entries are the most soulless and colorless around; just pure mechanics with no how’s and why’s as to function. Where do wishes come from, what are the governing laws besides the hard limits on what can be asked for? If you have a question on an alt use of a spell, you won’t get answers besides the governing basic mechanics which serve as a binary yes/no to its use. I’d rather get more detail on fireball and summon as they interact with the world/magic law than less, and more theory/detail/world function that the raw numbers and metrics currently provide.
Paizo has not created a true DMG to address any of this stuff. I mean, knock Gygax all you want, but when he wrote the 1st DMG he tried to cover all the weird stuff and gray areas that he could see in the game. Where did magic come from, what happens after you cast a spell, how do spells work on different planes and environments and a DMs section listing many of the strange spells and issues not covered in their PHB entries. Paizo standard MO: write out the mechanics and leave the 100% of the gray stuff alone until there are a storm of FAQ request to deal with the annoying situation/spell/mechanic that was not explanined beyond the most basic mechanical function. This is bad game design theory imo.
So I don't think it's a question of the amount of material per se, I think it’s how the material is covered.
In PF, the entries are the most soulless and colorless around; just pure mechanics with no how’s and why’s as to function. Where do wishes come from, what are the governing laws besides the hard limits on what can be asked for? If you have a question on an alt use of a spell, you won’t get answers besides the governing basic mechanics which serve as a binary yes/no to its use. I’d rather get more detail on fireball and summon as they interact with the world/magic law than less, and more theory/detail/world function that the raw numbers and metrics currently provide.Paizo has not created a true DMG to address any of this stuff. I mean, knock Gygax all you want, but when he wrote the 1st DMG he tried to cover all the weird stuff and gray areas that he could see in the game. Where did magic come from, what happens after you cast a spell, how do spells work on different planes and environments and a DMs section listing many of the strange spells and issues not covered in their PHB entries.
Wow, I couldn't agree more. This is one reason I keep recommending a magic supplement for Pathfinder that just delves into the cosmology and all that. Ultimate Magic and Inner Sea Magic were good books, but they failed to deliver these details which I was salivating for. Well said.
Paizo standard MO: write out the mechanics and leave the 100% of the gray stuff alone until there are a storm of FAQ request to deal with the annoying situation/spell/mechanic that was not explanined beyond the most basic mechanical function. This is bad game design theory imo.
Now, I disagree that it is bad game design. Separating the concerns of the rules and the concerns of the setting is actually a very good policy, since it leaves room for published and homebrew settings to make creative interpretations of the rules implications.
You're right, the material you and I would like to see sits exactly at the juncture of the setting and the rules. I think that's why they've tiptoed around it. It's NOT bad design, in fact, it is quite wise and helpful. You just have a different set of priorities (and I share them) which makes it a poor design for your intentions.
I wish they would pin down some of the metaphysics, especially where spells interact with the cosmology. But I totally understand why they haven't, and why they probably won't. Still, it would be cool, wouldn't it?
Echoing Auxmaulous and Evil Lincoln, I wanted to give an example of how good information design in and of itself can streamline a game. The other day, a player asked about how bow and arrow enchantments were handled. Before answering him, I wanted to be sure the information I gave him was correct. Since I could not recall if the default price assumed 50 arrows or 20, and how this applied to other forms of ammunition, I went to look it up.
Now, to preface this, I've been playing for quite some time. I also end up answering and adjudicating quite a few questions like these, and so PRD-reference is something I employ frequently in the search for answers.
To uncover this tidbit, I went to the PRD and began to search the "creating magic items" section.
I wasn't able to find it.
I then went to the "magic weapons" section and began reading the text. Though there were two sections on ammunition and arrows, it wasn't there, either.
Instead, I found it as a footnote within the magic weapons table.
|
|
Now, I disagree that it is bad game design. Separating the concerns of the rules and the concerns of the setting is actually a very good policy, since it leaves room for published and homebrew settings to make creative interpretations of the rules implications.
I would agree with your premise on this - if that was the promoted feeling and philosophy of the game.
That is, basic rules mechanics, subject to DM/campaign interpretation. Unfortunately (or fortunate to many) the game since 3.0 has been moving more and more into rigid structure and subsequently specific function of actions/spells/abilities, etc. So while writing a very basic description will work in a practical sense, the very legal format/mindset of the players of the current game works against any kind of liberal or open interpretation.
I actually prefer open interpretation. If that was heavily pushed by the game designers as a DM philosophy I would embrace it. There would be less stigma for making changes, house rules and modifications to your own home game. Now they say that "it's your game", but in the last few years/editions open interpretation of rules/abilities is generally frowned upon (only one way to do it according to the makers) or subject to heavy scrutiny, let alone derision if you make home rules (aka, "the Devs are always right so why are you changing it" argument).
And there may be an issue on what you and I define as "setting" for this discussion EL. I would say that setting for me, here is: the most generic assumed world where game play will take place. So generic that they do not really impose on the mechanics of the game - I would leave that up to how specific campaigns decide to handle magic variants and meta rules(Shadow Weave, etc). I would still like some generic meta rules on magic though as a starting point.
You're right, the material you and I would like to see sits exactly at the juncture of the setting and the rules. I think that's why they've tiptoed around it. It's NOT bad design, in fact, it is quite wise and helpful. You just have a different set of priorities (and I share them) which makes it a poor design for your intentions.
I wish they would pin down some of the metaphysics, especially where spells interact with the cosmology. But I totally understand why they haven't, and why they probably won't. Still, it would be cool, wouldn't it?
It would be the best.
And to address the bad/not bad design issue. My take on this is this: if they write a string of mechanics for a spell, but no meta theory behind how it works - it sort of invites much of the conflict that we are seeing when it comes to how that spell works. So when I say bad design, I mean it in the sense of rules integrity and clarity, ease of play and avoiding problems. By leaving things undefined they invite interpretation, to what amounts to a very rigidly rules structure game. Both issues working against each other and hurting the system, IMO of course.I don't want them to over define something, in effect – to do so much detail on a spell or system that there is no creative room for the DM spin on things, but we are talking about two extremes here. Right now we have a string of mechanics and nothing much else. I wouldn't want a huge codex of how this works (and only this way), but some basic notions of how most magic works, and maybe some alternate meta suggestions.
But I do agree, something - anything structurally, would be appreciated. Even some abstract guidelines can work as seeds for the DM and help out with corner case interpretations when they arise.
Good points EL, that line of defining abilities + meta philosophy, while keeping in mind the "generic" world assumptions is an issue. You want to provide the framework, but not so much structure that it limits creativity. That’s a tough one.
|
|
Instead, I found it as a footnote within the magic weapons table.
Try finding a list of all the stackable effects in the game.
I checked the book for a list and eventually had to just go online to find the list. This could just be some issues with rules layout and the transition from 3.5 to PF, so I don't want to hit them too hard on that. But I'm not sure if they incorporated those into an errata'd version of the core yet (was a while ago) which is not helpful when running the game.
Luckily, I was running the game at my house so I just jumped online and it took a few minutes to find and save them in a word file.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To illustrate some of how information design can streamline a game, I'll put my money where my mouth is, so to speak.
Below are a few documents I'd crafted on topics where rules were presented in multiple places, or were otherwise difficult to understand.
Now, these may not be the best of presentations. That is, for this demonstration I've had to migrate them from another format and I typically work without the benefit of an editor. With that caveat, let it illustrate a concept or a start.
Sharing these documents does not state that I wouldn't support streamlining mechanics--this is to illustrate that streamlining can and should be approached from multiple directions.
I'd also like to emphasize that I don't view the current layout as a fault of Paizo's. One of their staff spoke on it once, and I believe them--there just wasn't time, and it is a lot of work.
1. How to Design an Encounter in Pathfinder - Our games use medium progression. However, this document could easily be modified to include a larger table and an explanation.
2. Magic Weapons and Armor in Pathfinder
3. Magic Item Crafting in Pathfinder
4. Actions in Pathfinder - There are a few errors here regarding the 5' step. I just haven't been able to fix them yet.
5. Grappling in Pathfinder - One I was lucky enough to have a collaborator on, and I think it shows. Two sets of eyes will be better than one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Echoing Auxmaulous and Evil Lincoln, I wanted to give an example of how good information design in and of itself can streamline a game. The other day, a player asked about how bow and arrow enchantments were handled. Before answering him, I wanted to be sure the information I gave him was correct. Since I could not recall if the default price assumed 50 arrows or 20, and how this applied to other forms of ammunition, I went to look it up.
Now, to preface this, I've been playing for quite some time. I also end up answering and adjudicating quite a few questions like these, and so PRD-reference is something I employ frequently in the search for answers.
To uncover this tidbit, I went to the PRD and began to search the "creating magic items" section.
I wasn't able to find it.
I then went to the "magic weapons" section and began reading the text. Though there were two sections on ammunition and arrows, it wasn't there, either.
Instead, I found it as a footnote within the magic weapons table.
If they released Pathfinder 4th Edition tomorrow, and it contained NOT ONE SINGLE NEW RULE, but instead had a completely overhauled presentation with an eye toward a usable information architecture, I would buy 8 copies.
One for me, and one for all of my players.
I really do believe that the game is functional, but the presentation is so obscure that most people just can't be bothered to know the rules.
Heaven help you if you try to do an exhaustive search on such rare issues as "stealth" or "mounted combat".
Maybe I'm hyper-sensitive because of my background, but this has always been a big point of contention for me and Pathfinder RPG. It just so happens to be on-topic as well, so I've permitted myself this rant.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ruggs, if I could favorite that post twice I would.
It would be nice, though, if your writeups presumed no prior knowledge. The editorial mode seems to presume a 3.5 player.
Still, commendable work. I'm gonna look it over in depth. Would you like more feedback? If yes, how?
Ruggs, if I could favorite that post twice I would.
It would be nice, though, if your writeups presumed no prior knowledge. The editorial mode seems to presume a 3.5 player.
Still, commendable work. I'm gonna look it over in depth. Would you like more feedback? If yes, how?
EL:
Yes, thank you! A thousand thanks. :)
If you PM me an email address, I'll simply open them up to you. Alternately, if you prefer a different format, let me know.
You're right, they do assume a prior knowledge. At the time, I was writing them from that angle. However, enough time has passed that 3.5 isn't as assumable. They need updated to keep them usable for a more modern audience.
As an aside...had I a bloodstream which consisted entirely of the magic of Red Bull, I would consider making a streamlined version of the PRD via a collaborative wiki. No rules updates, just informational design. It would be done in the hope of, eventually, enabling ease of use for the greater Pathfinder community.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If BaB/AC, DCs/Saves all go up as you level - why bother having them increase at all. You're just making bigger numbers with little net effect in the dice rolls.
Some other system where you don't need to have a constant arms race with "number stacking tricks" would be nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Below are the last of my collection. These documents need more work than the ones above. I am almost embarrassed to present them, but hope that by sharing them here they may prove of use to someone or the other. EL, this is not a demand that you edit them--you've been kind enough, by far, to offer assistance on the previous ones.
In the case of the maneuvers document, I view it as more of a launching point from which another document could be birthed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they released Pathfnder 4th Edition tomorrow, and it contained NOT ONE SINGLE NEW RULE, but instead had a completely overhauled presentation with an eye toward a usable information architecture, I would buy 8 copies.
Damn straight!! Count me in!
Most animals have 1-3 intelligence and wisdom. Special cases such as cats, foxes, and dolphins can all be treated as awakened if the GM and players like.
Here's a little thought exercise about how a streamlined PRD might be approached. I encourage others to take a stab at it based on your own experiences. I suspect you might frame up your own version quite differently than I have, here.
Sigh. I'm really fighting myself in wanting to make this. The trouble is, I know what would be involved. It doesn't stop my fingers from twitching on the keyboard, though.
I don't know what I was thinking there.
Of course I meant 2nd edition.
But none of this "e" business. Nor fractional editions, thanks.
If BaB/AC, DCs/Saves all go up as you level - why bother having them increase at all. You're just making bigger numbers with little net effect in the dice rolls.
Some other system where you don't need to have a constant arms race with "number stacking tricks" would be nice.
On the one hand, I agree that the number race is uninteresting, but thew reason they increase is that you are not really supposed to be just facing "CR appropriate" critters. Yes, if as you level you are always facing CR=APL maybe plus a couple, you could just do away with the scaling, but that's a weird artificial world to live in.
I'll cite another example of a failed area of over-description: familiars/animal companions. In PF we have every technical detail as to what a familiar does to aid its caster, but almost no to little detail on use, abuse, where it comes from, etc. To me this is a huge blind spot - are they throw away NPCs, are they sent by the gods or force of nature? What happens if they are wasted, abused or neglected?So I don't think it's a question of the amount of material per se, I think it’s how the...
I agree here - especially because Paizo's strengths lie in fluff and world-stuff. Instead of rules text, give me an in-game description/explanation of a spell. Flavor it up; make me feel like I'm casting magic in Slayers or Bastard!!!. Then let me come up with reskinned variants if I want the same effect but with a different set of special effects. Icy chains... entangle you! Plants... entangle you! Shadowy tentacles... entangle you! Depending on whether you're a White Witch or a druid or a Kuthite. That's interesting variation, without me having to know "well this spell is like that other spell except the numbers are slightly different. Yay, numbers. Let's all be accountants and lawyers in our real lives and not when we're playing a game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's all be accountants and lawyers in our real lives and not when we're playing a game.Amen. That's all I feel I see on the forums is debate on how to best bend numbers and artfully interpret language.
Well, in defense of lore-vested posters here (I'm not one) they run with whatever the Devs put out. I have seen some fantastic concepts bandied around the Dark Tapestry, outer planes, planets and barely touched upon regions of Golarion.
I think the problem is that the numbers are more accessible to players, the game is very build focus and players out number DMs by a considerable ratio. But if the lore/fluff is thrown out their via product (even in small portions), it is worked on, re-worked on, expanded and reinterpreted by many creative posters here.
They just don't draw as much controversy or conflict due to the fact that their changes/mutations/interpretations are based in pure creativity.
How would I streamline it? Remove all Spellcasting from the game. Done.
How would I streamline it? Remove all Spellcasting from the game. Done.
Make that a separate topic...for me to hide!
the entries are the most soulless and colorless around; just pure mechanics with no how’s and why’s as to function.
That is the strong point of the game far as I'm concerned, and one of the reason I really got into Pathfinder/3.X instead of AD&D.
|
|
the entries are the most soulless and colorless around; just pure mechanics with no how’s and why’s as to function.That is the strong point of the game far as I'm concerned, and one of the reason I really got into Pathfinder/3.X instead of AD&D.
And why I'm getting out of it/not running it anymore.
The system as written works for some people - the lack of detail and structure beyond the most basic mechanics and all the questions/dead ends, problems, contradictions and conflicts it creates - doesn't work for me.For a good magic system to exist, you should have a basic premise on magic theory which can then be customized for each individual campaign world. That way you at least have the background to adjudicate every other eventual question which comes up while you play - the DM has a theoretical starting point to adjudicate.
At least a basic premise on magic. On top of all the other mechanical problems with the game (and this not being my "prime" game I run), I just don't have time to write out the hows and whys of spells to explain away all the contradictions, world impact, black holes, inconsistencies and to address a slew of questions. IMO, AD&D (1st/2nd) were just superior games, even with all the missing information at least there was an effort to create theory and consistency within each edition. So if I run any kind of sword and sorcery game again I doubt it will be PF as written.
Anyway, good for you dunelord -glad you found a game system that works for you.