Do these feats that give bonuses to skills all stack? How high can they stack?
Yes, Alertness, and Skill Focus (Perception) would stack, for example. As for a limit, there is no stated limit, though bonuses of the same type will not stack.
So with Alertness, Uncanny Alertness, and Skill Focus (Perception) - bonuses from feats would be +9 at level 10? Is that as high as it stacks?
We're considering limiting allowed feats, but wanted to check to see how much it would affect balance first.
You could probably manage a lot higher with traits, racial abilities etc.
Why, exactly, are you limiting this? None of these feats are exceptionally good, even in concert. Said character has a beastly perception check.... and has paid for it in opportunity cost.
|
What is this blasphemy?Lucky for you, these are all untyped bonuses, that stack.
For now.
Of course, these may become "typed" untyped bonuses, in the future.
Some bonuses, are just bonuses, but sometimes, a single bonus, can have simultaneous multiple sources, creating "typed" untyped bonuses, due to one of the multi-sources, being the same.
It's all clearly stated in the unwritten rules.
My group prefers to keep things simple. So I've been tinkering with limiting or eliminating feats, looking at starting with a basic, well-rounded spell list, etc.
|
My group prefers to keep things simple. So I've been tinkering with limiting or eliminating feats, looking at starting with a basic, well-rounded spell list, etc.
You may find that trying to simplify PF is actually more work than just using it as-is.
The existence of these feats doesn't make the game more complex; if you don't take the feats you're not bothered by them. If you do take them, you apply the bonuses and you're done with them.
Simpler spell lists... just because something is on your spell list doesn't mean you have to use it. As a wizard, learn some spells and ignore the ones you didn't learn. As a cleric, focus on the 30% of the CRB cleric spells and the 10 or so spells from other books that everyone wants. The rest are only of interest if you need to come up with a solution to an unusual problem.
My group prefers to keep things simple. So I've been tinkering with limiting or eliminating feats, looking at starting with a basic, well-rounded spell list, etc.You may find that trying to simplify PF is actually more work than just using it as-is.
The existence of these feats doesn't make the game more complex; if you don't take the feats you're not bothered by them. If you do take them, you apply the bonuses and you're done with them.
Simpler spell lists... just because something is on your spell list doesn't mean you have to use it. As a wizard, learn some spells and ignore the ones you didn't learn. As a cleric, focus on the 30% of the CRB cleric spells and the 10 or so spells from other books that everyone wants. The rest are only of interest if you need to come up with a solution to an unusual problem.
It's both the many options and the many things that have to be determined at leveling. Each group is different, right? My group includes both people new to rpgs and very young players. Having to search for the appropriate feat every 2 levels from a long list is not something that appeals to them. A couple dozen in a list could work, though - so checking to see if that's even worth doing or if we should houserule feats out completely.
Not sure why people always ask why in threads like this. The answer is always the same - 1. My group likes it that way 2. I enjoy a bit of tinkering. However, defending tinkering is getting tiring.
I could demand they play by official PFS rules - but they've made it clear that that's too much detail for them. And yes, we want to keep playing Pathfinder instead of a different game - or at least parts of it ;)
Instead of simplifying the game through changing the rules simply create a list of recommended feats and spells. There are a ton of very situational spells and feats that probably won’t ever get used. This way the players who don’t want thing complicated have a single list to go over. But if another player wants something not on the list he can have it. This will probably be greatly appreciated by the players who don’t want to spend time pouring over books.
You are creating a lot more work for you and your players by changing the rules. For every rule you change you have to inform the players of the change. If a player is just learning the rules it makes it worse because now instead of just reading the book he has to also learn your house rules. If he forgets about the house rule and learns the R.A.W it creates confusion. The best solution is to use the rules pretty much out of the book, but only use the rules that your group is going to actually use. If no one is playing a samurai you can ignore those rules.
Keeping the number of house rules to a minimum creates a much simpler game. I usually try to keep the number of house rules to no more than a single page.
Perhaps try a simpler game?
Or use the Beginner Box rules?
Because despite what they say, they obviously DON'T want to play Pathfinder.
Pathfinder without all the options is a pretty bad game. The options are pretty much its selling point, because the basic rules themselves are pretty complex (not by design, in many cases).
Eliminating Feats pretty much eliminates character builds entirely. When you eliminate Feats, you also need to adjust your party' CR, because a good 50% of many class' power comes from Feats.
You may as well ban Fighter while you're at it, because its one claim to fame is "more Feats".
You're basically doing a lot of work to make a crappy watered down version of a game whose core ruleset is already complex and frankly not very well put together.
You would be far better off going to a rule-light system and just setting the game in Golarion if you like the PF fluff.
|
|
It's both the many options and the many things that have to be determined at leveling. Each group is different, right? My group includes both people new to rpgs and very young players. Having to search for the appropriate feat every 2 levels from a long list is not something that appeals to them. A couple dozen in a list could work, though - so checking to see if that's even worth doing or if we should houserule feats out completely.
If you were to remove feats completely, you'd totally throw game balance out of whack. That means that as a GM your life becomes much more complicated, because it becomes much harder to predict what your players can and can't handle.
I know the list of feats can be a bit daunting, but there are some easy things you can do to make it simpler to use, that will be a lot less work than making houserules.
1) Remind your players that the CRB has many of the best and most important feats, so if they have limited time or motivation, it's sufficient to only look at that.
2) Make a list of recommended feats for each class/character concept, at least the ones actually being used. If every player has a list of five feats they should keep an eye on, that's enough to play with for a few months before they have to worry about all the other feats out there.
3) Point out to your players that there are numerous build guides out there, that provide them with a good starting point. If they're interested, those can be found here
4) Tell your players not to worry too much about making the perfect choice rightaway. If they later find a feat that'd be a much cooler choice, that they can change their character. If you don't have to get things right the first time, it's easier to experiment a bit to see what you like.
Not sure why people always ask why in threads like this. The answer is always the same - 1. My group likes it that way 2. I enjoy a bit of tinkering. However, defending tinkering is getting tiring.
I've done a lot of tinkering with house rules myself, and I'm just trying to save you some grief.
I'm not saying that it's bad to want a simple game, but from my experience, the way you're trying to do it is likely to work out poorly. You're trying to invent a wheel that we've already seen.
In this case, I think you're trying to "simplify" something that doesn't need simplification. Stacking two skill feats doesn't make the game more complex; it's a one-off calculation that you note on a character sheet and don't look back on for six levels or so.
In my experience house rules often make the game more complex, because whenever you read a rule in a book, you also have to look up in the house rules if that rule actually functions as written.
I could demand they play by official PFS rules - but they've made it clear that that's too much detail for them. And yes, we want to keep playing Pathfinder instead of a different game - or at least parts of it ;)
As others have said, are you sure that Pathfinder is the right game for your group? The strength of PF is that it's got lots of crunchy options. If you don't actually like those, then PF isn't a great game for your group.
Maybe you actually want a very simple game but that's basically about the same things (dungeons, fighting monsters etcetera). Something with the same kind of setting and adventures, but with different and less mechanics.
Instead of simplifying the game through changing the rules simply create a list of recommended feats and spells. There are a ton of very situational spells and feats that probably won’t ever get used. This way the players who don’t want thing complicated have a single list to go over. But if another player wants something not on the list he can have it. This will probably be greatly appreciated by the players who don’t want to spend time pouring over books.
You are creating a lot more work for you and your players by changing the rules. For every rule you change you have to inform the players of the change. If a player is just learning the rules it makes it worse because now instead of just reading the book he has to also learn your house rules. If he forgets about the house rule and learns the R.A.W it creates confusion. The best solution is to use the rules pretty much out of the book, but only use the rules that your group is going to actually use. If no one is playing a samurai you can ignore those rules.
Keeping the number of house rules to a minimum creates a much simpler game. I usually try to keep the number of house rules to no more than a single page.
Thanks. I like the list of recommended feats idea - already been working on recommended spells.
The rest of you: I bow to your collective wisdom. The Pathfinder that we play is a mirage, and is badwrongfun. We're going to go resolve everything by coin tosses.
I like aspects of the OSR, and I like aspects of Pathfinder. So I try to combine the two. One is too simple in areas we prefer complexity, and the other is to complex in areas we prefer to be simple. We've also played around with things like the escalation die from 13th age, among other things.
I have no interest in continuing to defend what we enjoy from people who would rather assume they know what I'm *really* thinking instead of just accepting what I wrote. I've had my life ruined for years in RL by people like that, and not going to stick around for more of the same here.
I hesitate to add to this thread, as it got way off topic.
However, I see the boards as a community resource, and would be remiss if I did not provide links that would help with the main subject of this thread: Examining the possibility of limiting feats in Pathfinder.
I apologize if my sarcasm was seen as offensive - a nerve of mine got struck. Doesn't happen often, but I realize I do it to other people as well.
Here are links to blog articles I've been reading that discuss the situation (note that some of the comments are as good as or better than the articles:
http://panzerleader.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/house-ruling-pathfinder-beginn er-box-into-old-school-basic/
http://irontavern.com/2013/11/25/the-thing-i-hate-about-pathfinder/
https://sites.google.com/site/microlited20/pathfinderlite
|
|
I hesitate to add to this thread, as it got way off topic.
However, I see the boards as a community resource, and would be remiss if I did not provide links that would help with the main subject of this thread: Examining the possibility of limiting feats in Pathfinder.
I apologize if my sarcasm was seen as offensive - a nerve of mine got struck. Doesn't happen often, but I realize I do it to other people as well.
Here are links to blog articles I've been reading that discuss the situation (note that some of the comments are as good as or better than the articles:
http://panzerleader.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/house-ruling-pathfinder-beginn er-box-into-old-school-basic/
http://irontavern.com/2013/11/25/the-thing-i-hate-about-pathfinder/
Linkified.
Note: Others were making the asssumption, since you posted about young and/or new gamers, that, you, too were new or young, and trying to help you avoid the pitfalls in where you seemed to be heading. New DMs often try to "improve" the game, any game, and, even more often, screw things up by the numbers.
Note that, because of your expressed attitude about feats, no one suggested going the E6 route, since that is a simpler way to handle the game, but relies, heavily, on feats instead of levels.
To be honest, for a situation like the one you mentioned, I would tend, myself to recommend Hero System or GURPS, as both are front-end intensive, but game play is very easy. Leveling up is mathie, but your players can save up points for bigger stuff, or spend a few points to improve something they already have. YMMV
Nope, neither new nor young. Was asked to DM Queen of the Demonweb Pits and another module back in the day - I should have said yes, but that was only my second exposure to roleplaying, so was afraid I wouldn't know how to "referee" the "sport" properly. (First exposure was Black Leaf, who really got me interested in the game. My mother would be shocked and dismayed if she ever learned that she was the one that introduced me to D&D)
Now my memory is getting worse, so keeping complicated rules and options in my head while still dealing with real life on occasion is getting more difficult for me as time goes on. So between my decreasing INT score and my players' short attention spans, have played around with simplifications and borrowings from other systems for a few years now.
Looked at E6 off and on, but would rather things be more fantastic rather than less.
Thanks for posting again, Kinevon. I hope I haven't upset the others upthread - I'd rather keep the drama in real life where it belongs instead of bringing it here.
Part 2.....
I did do GURPS for awhile, in the interim between getting sick of 4e and before finding Pathfinder. Love how you can simulate everything, but the hero points creation system and lack of published adventures eventually caused me to move on. They're also difficult to borrow pieces from for other games. I think I still have a chart somewhere I comparing the racial abilities of GURPS races, and I still have a soft spot for tech levels.
I guess there's a bunch of things I wouldn't mind playing if someone else is doing the heavy lifting.