|
As much as I like organised play, it can be a little too easy at times (though our lodge hasn't reached season 4 yet, I've heard exciting things). For a little fun, I thought I'd come up with some rules for home games of PFS to increase the challenge beyond that of the core campaign.
When calculating ability scores, no ability score can be higher than 15, or lower than 8 before racial modifiers. This restriction varies for certain classes.
Half-Elves: +2 to one ability score can only be used to improve Dexterity, Intelligence or Charisma
Half-Orcs: +2 to one ability score can only be used to improve Strength, Constitution or Wisdom
Humans: +2 to one ability score can only be used to improve an ability of 14 or lower
The human bonus feat must be used to take one of the following feats; Acrobatic, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Athletic, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Persuasive, Run, Self-Sufficient, Skill Focus, Stealthy, Toughness
Cleric: The Travel domain is prohibited
Druid: Must select one of the Cleric domains for its Nature Bond
Fighter: Starting Strength may be 16 before racial modifiers
Monk: Starting Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom may all be 16 before racial modifiers
Rogue: Starting Dexterity may be 16 before racial modifiers
All characters must purchase a wayfinder as soon as they are able
All chronicles and boons must have been earned by that character (no credit from pregens, GM credits, convention boons etc.)
No free rerolls from organised play shirts or character folios
|
We have a version of this as well in our Lodge. - Self-limiting core campaign. Similar ideas, although we don't worry about max abilities - we just don't allow dump stats. No ability can be lowered except by racial adjustments. I'm not sure why you want to force certain races into certain ability modifiers, though - a half-orc with +2 to Charisma is no mor powerful than a human with it. it's been runnning weekly for about a half-year with good feedback.
The key point is, this is an opt-in thing for players.
|
|
I wanted to try and incentivise Half-Elves and Half-Orcs a little more while giving each a stronger identity, as they tend to be lacklustre compared to humans in core. It is certainly unnecessary though.
Are they any other self imposed limitations that the players have put on themselves, or just the no dump stat restriction?
|
Gosh, considering the higher death rate we've encountered during our Core games, it sure seems like Core is already on Hard Mode.
The highest level Core characters we have now, from running Core games twice a week, are around level 7-8. We'll probably offer some more 5-9 games before jumping right into the 7-11 tiers, but we're very cognizant that it'll be a challenge.
|
|
I developed a system that I use, which basically eliminates pet classes plus barbarian, no dump stats, and rquires skills be put into knowledge and other "Pathfinder-y" skills. When I presented it to our Lodge council, many felt the class restrictions were too much, but in practice we aren't seeing people play pounce-kitty druids or barbarians in the self-limiting core campaign games. (I should note, we are lucky enough to have enough games that standard campaign and regular core campaign games are also available, so no one is excluded based on their style of play.)
|
|
I developed a system that I use, which basically eliminates pet classes plus barbarian, no dump stats, and rquires skills be put into knowledge and other "Pathfinder-y" skills.
I like the idea of requiring players to build PCs that meet the requirements of a pathfinder.
My attempt to lessen the appeal of the barbarian was to have the fighter and monk as the only classes that can begin play with a 16 strength before racial modifiers.
When I presented it to our Lodge council, many felt the class restrictions were too much, but in practice we aren't seeing people play pounce-kitty druids or barbarians in the self-limiting core campaign games. (I should note, we are lucky enough to have enough games that standard campaign and regular core campaign games are also available, so no one is excluded based on their style of play.)
I'm hoping to present these rules to the players at our lodge who have been finding the regular campaign too easy, and to get some feedback from them. These games a likely to be rare unless our lodge grows some more.
Amusing note: My highest level CORE characters are a pounce-kitty druid (7) and a Bardbarian going Dragon Disciple (1Bar/4Bard)
Sounds about right, I can't see myself doing anything too dissimilar from that.
Any party adventuring in subtiers 6-7, 7-8, 8-9 or 10-11 must include at least one Pathfinder Chronicler.
|
Just because all the options are available, even in Standard campaign, doesn't mean that they all need to be used. Restriction on character creation can be done anywhere. A barbarian doesn't need a 20 strength to be effective. A 14 will do just fine.
PFS scenarios have been, and always will be, written for the beginner to average player.
|
Any party adventuring in subtiers 6-7, 7-8, 8-9 or 10-11 must include at least one Pathfinder Chronicler.
You might want to rethink the 10-11 requirement once you've seen how much a 6th level Pathfinder Chronicler can alter the battlefield. (Full attacks for the melee! And I just happen to have the one 3rd level scroll that invalidates the enemies' advantages!)
|
|
Just because all the options are available, even in Standard campaign, doesn't mean that they all need to be used. Restriction on character creation can be done anywhere. A barbarian doesn't need a 20 strength to be effective. A 14 will do just fine.
PFS scenarios have been, and always will be, written for the beginner to average player.
Agreed, but core seemed like the best place for it as this is where the PFS veterans will be replaying old scenarios. I'm happy the difficulty aimed at in PFS scenarios and would certainly rather use my own opt-in challenge for those looking for it rather than whine about thing being too easy.
You might want to rethink the 10-11 requirement once you've seen how much a 6th level Pathfinder Chronicler can alter the battlefield. (Full attacks for the melee! And I just happen to have the one 3rd level scroll that invalidates the enemies' advantages!)
I long for that day.
|
|
My advice is to keep it simple. No class-specific limitations to try and make things match your idea of what you want to see - no one else will want to use it. (Trust me, I know this from experience). I'm also a big fan of only using limitations that have some basis in the game world; why would a fighter be able to have a higher starting strength than a barbarian in the game, for example? Or certain races having to play to stereotypes?
Eliminating stat dumps and requiring Pathfinder skills is about all you can do rules-wise and expect to make it stick. Everything else is philosophy. If a player comes in and wants to break the system, they can do that in Core just as easily as in the standard campaign.
|
|
My advice is to keep it simple. No class-specific limitations to try and make things match your idea of what you want to see - no one else will want to use it. (Trust me, I know this from experience). I'm also a big fan of only using limitations that have some basis in the game world; why would a fighter be able to have a higher starting strength than a barbarian in the game, for example? Or certain races having to play to stereotypes?
Eliminating stat dumps and requiring Pathfinder skills is about all you can do rules-wise and expect to make it stick. Everything else is philosophy. If a player comes in and wants to break the system, they can do that in Core just as easily as in the standard campaign.
I think I will have to defer to your experience on this matter if we do start running a self limiting campaign, thanks for the input.
Alternatively... only rogues and bards ;)
|
|
There has never been anything wrong with a rogue, regardless of what most on the boards will tell you. However, they need to be in flank. Once you have two in a game, they are very, very effective together (been there, run that, cried when they flanked with each other).
[Begin rant]
I know from personal experience (playing outside of my home lodge, which happens to be with Lamplighter) that people don't get Rogues. I've begged and pleaded for people to take a DANG 5' STEP, or WHY ARE YOU FLANKING WITH THE WIZARD, or "But I'm not effective in combat" or some other such drivel.
You may not be, but all I need is you standing there waiving a pointed stick to be very effective.
[End rant]
|
|
Sorry Dave, looking at my comment and the context of this thread, it 100% looks like I'm complaining about the power level of rogues & bards.
While they certainly aren't powerhouses, my remark was more in line with Lamplighter's comments on asking that PCs have Pathfinder skills. The bard & rogue class are called out on page 7 of the Pathfinder Society Primer as a 'Pathfinder Savant' with suggested talents, skills, feats, gear & languages.
Also, both of these classes are at their best when played as part of a team, requiring cooperation and coordination to succeed. I think it could make an enjoyable challenge for a group where everyone is happy with that kind of restriction. I wouldn't think to run a table like this at a public venue, especially with a lodge as small as ours.
Regarding your rant :D
I've seen plenty of players that don't know how to play with rogues, and also plenty that don't know how to rogue when they pick up the class. This will have certainly skewed my perspective on the class, but I think you may have convinced me to play a rogue when I write up my next PFS character. I'm currently playing a sanctified slayer inquisitor when I get the chance, and having a blast (though he does have a roc animal companion as a flanking buddy which makes things a lot easier).
