|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is a good question, and I think for me the answer is no, but I do not believe it would make the game better. PFS puts certain restrictions in place because of the necessity of organized play to have a different mechanic for handling wealth and item creation, game play time balance, flavour and limits of table variation Those same restrictions aren't necessary outside of gameplay balance.
That being said, the character creation rules for PFS certainly mimic many groups house rules, and are a good starting point for new gamers as safely carving out some of the more complex elements that cause table variation.
Once you are sufficiently skilled with the system, one begins to appreciate that the rules are just a pallet of colours from which you paint your campaign, and you get to pick and choose what colours suit your needs.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
- You are not allowed to save the party is that means using friendly fire (because it is pvp)
Incorrect. Just ask the player if they would like you to hit them anyway. I've had plenty of characters call for fire on their position.
The No PVP rule says you can't intentionally kill other PCs. It leaves any further ruling on PVP up to the GM to decide on a case by case basis.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would this impact you and your current games? Would they be more balanced? More boring? Too limited? And most importantly, would you have purchased Pathfinder after you understood that the rules of PFS are also, in fact, the rules of the standard Pathfinder game, or would you have went to a different system, or even reverted to 3.X?
Honestly, my game wouldn't change too much. We already run 30/40 point buy or ridiculous high rolling sets. It might cut down on the bookkeeping of tracking treasure and purchases. We're already pretty wide open about character options in most games. And I'm already open to bringing 3.5 rules into PF and vice versa. So like every good GM, I'd be picking and choosing what I use on a case-by-case basis regardless of what the rules say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think of this question in a few different ways. I don't play PFS, and am not particularly aware of their specific rules.
1. Balance: PFS has the advantage of looking at things after the fact and deciding if they are on par with other options. They have a centralized mechanism for collecting feedback from lots of GMs in different regions. I think if their philosophy decisions were always applied before publication, it would be awesome. That being said, I think they generally are, but things always get missed and PFS just has the benefit of crowdsourcing after the fact with no deadlines. It is more or less impossible to apply these advantages before publication, so they cannot be added to the core game. The best they could do is more errata, which I am not convinced is a good thing. (Note this is not the only reason they ban things, and things banned for other reasons I would not necessarily agree with)
2 Player Behavior: Many PFS rules are based around keeping a group of people who do not know each other friendly. This is why you have the no PVP or Evil characters rules. Applying this rule to home games unilaterally is a mistake. My favorite games are generally set up with the PCs at odds with each other. My most memorable game moments almost all involve a PC's betrayal, or being tempted and choosing not to betray. I think adding these nanny rules into the base game serves no purpose. Talk with your GM about what type of game you want.
3. Maintain setting consistency: PFS has a setting and needs to maintain it. Rules related to the setting have no place in the broader core rules, but are perfectly fine when set up ahead of time. Guns, tech, "Asian themes" are all reasonable to ban on a campaign level, as long as players know why. Hell, I've seen Cleric banned because Gods did not exist in a campaign, and players knew it going in and were fine with it.
4. Maintain inter-character consistency: They need rules for downtime management, character growth, and resource management. The base rules do not scale to be consistent across characters with different histories. They work fine for continuous campaigns, but the PFS rules strain my belief (they are premised on the idea of the players working for an organization and don't conceptually work with looser campaigns). Not to mention many rules are set up around strict mission format that not every game is going to follow. Dictating how parties split loot in the core rules does not work and is dumb. Every party is going to split loot differently. Finally, downtime management in organized play is very different than home games. While I'm not sure any of the core crafting rules are good, eliminating them is not what I would want.
Im the only one that usually sees this feat being taken and the DM allowing the caster to craft for the whole party , not only for himself?
Yes , this powers up the PCs in general , since it increases the WBL of the whole party , but usually i dont find it much of an issue.
Its not an issue in a home game because the DM can ramp up the power to compensate and provide challenging fights. Thats one of the areas where a pfs dm actually IS more or less stuck with something they're not supposed to change. You'd also get areas of wildly different power levels just because someone played a wizard named Etsy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can safely say if PFS rules were Pathfinder, our home Rise of the Runelords campaign would have died a horrible bloody death in 'Burnt Offerings', and definitely by the time we hit 'Fortress'.
So not particularly keen on that for 'the main rule set'.
I look at it more as a niche challenge to be able to sift through the bulk of rules I have access to and then create a character with the restrictions.
I wouldn't encourage that for everyone. Or in the words of a really cool GM I ran into this weekend... 'Play what you want...'
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost all of my time playing Pathfinder has been PFS, and whilst I dislike some of the rules, overall I think most of them are necessary for a mostly fair, overall enjoyable experience. However, I do think that a good number of the PFS rules would be pointless in a home game.
One of the main reasons for PF's immense similiarity and backwards compatibility with 3.5e rather than implimenting more rulechanges is because the whole point of PFRPG was so they could continue publishing adventure paths and didn't want their old adventure paths to be useless. If they decided to use PFS rules as the chassis for PFRPG then it would invalidate their old adventure paths.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with others that there are good reasons to not use portions of the PFS rules in a home game. Several things are banned in PFS because they use up too much table time to adjudicate in that environment or do not fit the campaign style. The legality of various non-core races changes depending on which season you are in. There is additional tracking caused because of the shared world environment.
There are lots of things that PFS needs which are not necessarily appropriate to a home game.
That said, I really wish that Pathfinder would publish errata / FAQs to handle game balance problems in a much more expedient manner. These things should not be tied to when the next printing of a product is ready.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I really wish that Pathfinder would publish errata / FAQs to handle game balance problems in a much more expedient manner. These things should not be tied to when the next printing of a product is ready.
Can I favorite this until my fingers break?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^+1 on that, but I will add that I really wish they would proofread Errata/FAQs to handle game balance problems in a much more thorough manner. (*cough* *cough* Scarred Witch Doctor change.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite character is a Lawful Evil Drow Death Knight focusing on raising the dead and utilizing fear who multiclasses several third party classes and uses the Spheres of Power magic system and an Archtype for the Psionic class Dread that gives it access to some Path of War maneuvers, and uses the Rank and File Games Arte Mortis book for necrocrafts, and Fleshcrafting rules.
Despite all that, because of my carefully not choosing any options that would make me overpowered (my cherry picking is to make my dream of a fear and necromancy melee combatant who uses a whip a reality), hes completely balanced, sometimes underpowered.
So essentially, my character is 110% not Pathfinder Society playable, you couldnt salvage a single thing from my character for Pathfinder Society play. Im pretty sure even mentioning this character in Pathfinder Society would get you put on some kind of wanted list. Im good with the normal rules being flexible.
What's that about being underpowered? Impossible! Everyone knows that the more sourcebooks a character sheet references, the more powerful you are, and using more than three sourcebooks automatically DESTROYS THE UNIVERSE!
Oh, and multiclassing automatically makes you more powerful, right?Plus, your character is a drow, meaning it is clearly a Drizzt clone. The facts that it is the wrong alignment for a Drizzt clone and doesn't fight in remotely the same way are just futile attempts to disguise your obvious Drizzt clone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
^+1 on that, but I will add that I really wish they would proofread Errata/FAQs to handle game balance problems in a much more thorough manner. (*cough* *cough* Scarred Witch Doctor change.)
"handle game balance problems"? No, no, no. They where coming out with a CON based class and they couldn't have something close to that. It was quite similar to when the unchained rogue came out and slashing grace got nerf hammered. This time however they missed a little with the hammer and forgot 1/2 orcs can take the Scarred Witch Doctor so they can take a +2 to the int and a +2 for casting.
LOL Now it's the best witch archetype a 1/2 orc can take in a brilliant case of unbalancing in an effort to make the new book look better...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I probably wouldn't play if PFS were pathfinder rules. I play a lot of evil characters so that would be an issue for me. The biggest issue I have is that, if what is true, you can't refluff anything! If I find Slippers of Spider Climbing do I have to make the choice between being able to climb flat surfaces and not looking utterly ridiculous? I don't know about anyone else but my characters have some dignity...
I play a lot of evil characters so that would be an issue for me.
The issue is not only PCs who ARE evil but ones that dance the edge of becoming evil, too.
Right now I play a CN follower of Lamashtu in our Serpent Skull game.
He tends to be a party player because he knows he needs the other PCs but now and then he does evil stuff, so he is always in danger of becoming evil. As is that's now a big concern but with a no evil policy it would be.
Because my PC liked the cleric (not only because he could mock him and leave him puzzled why a follower of Lamashtu is that nice) he then tortured the one attacker who survived the fight with us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- You are not allowed to save the party is that means using friendly fire (because it is pvp)Incorrect. Just ask the player if they would like you to hit them anyway. I've had plenty of characters call for fire on their position.
The No PVP rule says you can't intentionally kill other PCs. It leaves any further ruling on PVP up to the GM to decide on a case by case basis.
So I got this wrong. As I said in my previous post I don't know the PFS rules by heart. But often, when I read something about how PFS handles stuff my reaction is: "Really? I'm glad I don't play PFS." But it is hard to remember such things later.
|
|
But often, when I read something about how PFS handles stuff my reaction is: "Really? I'm glad I don't play PFS." But it is hard to remember such things later.
Yeah, I don't expect people to know or like PFS rules. I just correct errors when I can.
Personally, I have that same reaction when people talk about their home game houserules. Thankfully, no one has to play a game they don't like.
Thought: if PFS rules were the core chassis, the next upcoming AP would never exist.
So I got this wrong. As I said in my previous post I don't know the PFS rules by heart. But often, when I read something about how PFS handles stuff my reaction is: "Really? I'm glad I don't play PFS." But it is hard to remember such things later.- You are not allowed to save the party is that means using friendly fire (because it is pvp)Incorrect. Just ask the player if they would like you to hit them anyway. I've had plenty of characters call for fire on their position.
The No PVP rule says you can't intentionally kill other PCs. It leaves any further ruling on PVP up to the GM to decide on a case by case basis.
Its one of those rare things that actually works much better in practice than it does in theory
|
|
So I got this wrong. As I said in my previous post I don't know the PFS rules by heart. But often, when I read something about how PFS handles stuff my reaction is: "Really? I'm glad I don't play PFS." But it is hard to remember such things later.- You are not allowed to save the party is that means using friendly fire (because it is pvp)Incorrect. Just ask the player if they would like you to hit them anyway. I've had plenty of characters call for fire on their position.
The No PVP rule says you can't intentionally kill other PCs. It leaves any further ruling on PVP up to the GM to decide on a case by case basis.
I think you have to appreciate that rules like that exist to deal with social situations where there isn't a more permanent social construct usually able to resolve issues of balance and fairness, and to eliminate griefing.
Frankly, while is represents less then 1% of the PFS players I have met, there are PFS players who play PFS because they have been asked to leave every organized game they play. Who, giving the benefit of the doubt here, are social awkward and not self-aware of that deficiency, and create inadvertent friction. The PFS rules create an unambiguous, and absent of judgement way of keeping these issues in check without hurting feelings.
Basically none of this is required in most home games, and rules around this don't add to a home game.
Did you mean that the other way around?
No not all. Too much stuff is banned for my tastes. It's not because I can't get what I want. I find that they ban too many things that they consider overpowered that are not. I can get banning guns, Not because I'm one of those " I don't like guns in my fantasy". I just don't like how Paizo handles guns. Banning crafting. Seriously crafting.
.Yes. seriously. Crafting.
You would either need to track downtime (which is a PITA)
or
Casters can effectively double their WBL for the cost of a feat. Mind you, craft wondrous item is the real culprit here, but a Wizard walking around with twice their WBL is going to marginalize other characters
IME this has been more of a theory issue than an in practice issue.
Back in 2011 or so, our group made the big leap from 3.5 to Pathfinder. I think had the GM found that everything was PFS and he had to make lots of changes (he has always said he plays the game to relax), we would still be playing 3.5. Skipping over 4 we would have played 5E.
IME this has been more of a theory issue than an in practice issue.
Do you have the experience of 100,000 players and having to make rules for all of them?
|
No.
I like a lot of the standard assumption that Pathfinder has. For example, I have never known a group not to roll stats. (Though I shall be keeping a much closer eye on how certain people "roll" stats in future.) While point buy is obviously needed for Society it would feel weird as a core assumption as dice rolls and chance add a certain spontaneity.
We haven't ruled for stats in YEARS because it's just fundamentally unfair.
Someone rolls an 18 and someone else rolls a 4.
How is that fair? You can't make a workable character that has a 4 in...basically any stat. So the randomness only serves to create really powerful characters. Much better to have a point buy system so everyone (including the monsters you will encounter) are on equal footing.
The lack of crafting is something I can take or leave - it encourages players to invest feats in wealth which is something that tends not to work in their favor. I just adjust their income to compensate so they aren't too far past their expected wealth for their level. These are important things to keep track of to have an even experience. PFS values these things because it makes things fair across thousands of instances of the same game but I think it has value in the home game too. How many people have ever heard people complaining about one particular PC being too good and overshadowing everyone? Build expertise will always lead to some level of it, but cutting out the unfair random variations goes a long long way to mitigating that.
|
|
IME this has been more of a theory issue than an in practice issue.No not all. Too much stuff is banned for my tastes. It's not because I can't get what I want. I find that they ban too many things that they consider overpowered that are not. I can get banning guns, Not because I'm one of those " I don't like guns in my fantasy". I just don't like how Paizo handles guns. Banning crafting. Seriously crafting.
.Yes. seriously. Crafting.
You would either need to track downtime (which is a PITA)
or
Casters can effectively double their WBL for the cost of a feat. Mind you, craft wondrous item is the real culprit here, but a Wizard walking around with twice their WBL is going to marginalize other characters
No its definitely a practice issue. If the GM doesn't adjust for the face that everyone in the partys WBL is effectively close to doubled the entire game becomes a laugh. And if you do seriously crank down on the treasure then the party wizard effectively wasted a feat at best or at worst you punish the entire party for how awesome the wizard has become. There is no fair way to do it.
^+1 on that, but I will add that I really wish they would proofread Errata/FAQs to handle game balance problems in a much more thorough manner. (*cough* *cough* Scarred Witch Doctor change.)
"handle game balance problems"? No, no, no. They where coming out with a CON based class and they couldn't have something close to that. It was quite similar to when the unchained rogue came out and slashing grace got nerf hammered. This time however they missed a little with the hammer and forgot 1/2 orcs can take the Scarred Witch Doctor so they can take a +2 to the int and a +2 for casting.
LOL Now it's the best witch archetype a 1/2 orc can take in a brilliant case of unbalancing in an effort to make the new book look better...
Coming out with multiple new Int-based spontaneous spellcasters in Occult Adventures didn't induce them to change Sage Sorcerer away from being Int-based, so I don't think Kineticist is what induced them to change Scarred Witch Doctor away frmo being Con-based. Other than that, what you said is pretty much what I'm talking about.
^+1 on that, but I will add that I really wish they would proofread Errata/FAQs to handle game balance problems in a much more thorough manner. (*cough* *cough* Scarred Witch Doctor change.)
"handle game balance problems"? No, no, no. They where coming out with a CON based class and they couldn't have something close to that. It was quite similar to when the unchained rogue came out and slashing grace got nerf hammered. This time however they missed a little with the hammer and forgot 1/2 orcs can take the Scarred Witch Doctor so they can take a +2 to the int and a +2 for casting.
LOL Now it's the best witch archetype a 1/2 orc can take in a brilliant case of unbalancing in an effort to make the new book look better...
Coming out with multiple new Int-based spontaneous spellcasters in Occult Adventures didn't induce them to change Sage Sorcerer away from being Int-based, so I don't think Kineticist is what induced them to change Scarred Witch Doctor away frmo being Con-based. Other than that, what you said is pretty much what I'm talking about.
Con casting was unique, Int casting is FAR from unique. The new 'caster' has to repeatedly punch himself in the face to get his power to work [burn] while the old Con caster didn't, as was repeatedly pointed out. The old con caster vanished so now the only con 'caster' is left with punching themselves cuz con...
I'll stick with my conclusion. Axing the Scarred Witch Doctor's Con casting was to make the new class and burn seem better. The timing is WAY too coincidental, just like many other nerfs that JUST happened to show up when similar new options came out. It's long past happenstance and is now a pattern of behavior and/or their modus operandi.
Well, PFS is much more restrictive, demanding of a universal setting and expectation, and eliminates some unique options which are not entirely game breaking.
Its more restrictive than every game.
It is less restrictive than most games.
The first is true for virtually any other game.
So it's a decent guideline in some cases and particularly for possibly new DMs. However, I don't think it should be the global standard for the game and could introduce unnecessarily restrictive settings and possibilities.
Most PFS DM's I know have been Dming longer than some of their players have been alive.
Grain of salt, I have not actually played a PFS game, but I am somewhat aware of how it works and what kind of game it produces.
These are a little mutually exclusive.
We haven't ruled for stats in YEARS because it's just fundamentally unfair.
Someone rolls an 18 and someone else rolls a 4.
How is that fair? You can't make a workable character that has a 4 in...basically any stat
I agree with the first sentence in this quote, but over the years I've seen characters with 4 or less in one of strength, wisdom and charisma - I played the 4 charisma guy and it was the most fun aspect of that sleazy rat. The guy who played the Dread Wizard McDeath enjoyed his 4 wisdom. I've seen a character played with a 5 con, and having a ready justification for her extreme paranoia actually made her successful. I'm not actually sure what the intelligence of the upper-class twit of a paladin who did everything his friends told him to was, but it certainly wasn't more than his mount.
Be careful with generalisations - like the last sentence I quoted of yours - is what I'm saying.
I normally do not play in games where stats are rolled but sometimes I'd like to play a PC with less than 7 in a stat just for the fun of it.
- Strength: A caster who doesn't walk by himself but always rides because his legs barely carry his weight
- Dex: Very easy as an oracle with cha to AC but doable with other classes, too. No fun idea yet, thou.
- Con: Always coughing, short of breath guy. Take the feat with flat +6 hp plus toughness and choose hp as FCB and you are good unless hit by mean SODs with fort save. Humans can take fast learner in addition to the rest.
- Int: A human fighter could not care less about int. Not matter how low he always gets 2 sp, 3 with FCB. Other classes and races lose more but are still playable.
- Wis: Bad for classes with weak will save and worse for wis casters. No problem for other casters.
- Cha: No real problem except for cha casters. With traits you can even get at least one good social skill.
Most of the above is about the mathematical options of reducing the drawbacks. The fun part would be how you play that guy. My somewhat autistic empiricist investigator might well have had a cha of 4 with no change in how I played him in both the mechanical or RP way.
|
I have never, in any game for any system I have run, allowed every single thing. Sometimes, stuff doesn't fit the campaign, other times the rules for X aren't well-written, and some of it is just a matter of style.
I'll give you a real example: I am currently running, for my home group Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition. When the characters were created, they were limited to the books that were available when the AP came out. Why? Because the AP was designed around a certain sub-set of all of the game materials that are currently available. As they level up, feats and spells from other sources get reviewed to make sure that they are at least in-line (from a thematic or power sense) with the AP. I think I have only disallowed one or two things.
Keeping the characters in-line with those has made the AP more of a challenge for them, but not an impossible one.
This is pretty consistent with every campaign I have ever run. Even with telling my group, "You are limited to the CRB, and a few things from the ARG and APG", they still have PLENTY of options.
Some GMs like to allow everything; more power to them! My experience over 30 years of gaming is that most GMs (that I either know or in whose games I have played) do not allow everything - most, if not all, of them apply some limitations.
YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll give you a real example: I am currently running, for my home group Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition. When the characters were created, they were limited to the books that were available when the AP came out.
That... doesn't really work with that one specific example. RotR came out during late 3.5e and the anniversary edition didn't really change that much (some characters even have feats that don't exist in pathfinder), so tonnes of 3.5e options are what are expected to be available. So the opposite of "Because the AP was designed around a certain sub-set of all of the game materials that are currently available."
No. I've been GMing for decades. Pathfinder is just another version of D&D as far as I'm concerned. I use the rules the way I want to use the rules. For the most part I use them as written, but I'll throw in home brew material, allow stuff in that I liked from 3.5 (even 3.0), use critical hit and or fumble tables from time to time.
The players will know my house rules from the outset, and have always been cool with them - because I run a fun game. I don't bow to the "gods of Paizo". It's head scratching to me that so many do. In the AD&D days- every table I played at had house rules they used, it was pretty known and accepted as the "wild west" and every game would have some commonalities, but unique variances, depending on what worked for that particular group.
I was under the impression that most home games had houserules. Pathfinder rules are a nice framework but it does lack in some areas (specifically grapple). Honestly what you described in your AD&D days doesn't sound too different from what happens nowadays. Many home tables determine how much HP they have by taking average HP for each level after 1st level for example. Many tables also allow 3.5 material. What is considered common may have changed but the idea of tables having commonalities with house rules has certainly not changed.
|
|
I'll give you a real example: I am currently running, for my home group Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition. When the characters were created, they were limited to the books that were available when the AP came out.That... doesn't really work with that one specific example. RotR came out during late 3.5e and the anniversary edition didn't really change that much (some characters even have feats that don't exist in pathfinder), so tonnes of 3.5e options are what are expected to be available. So the opposite of "Because the AP was designed around a certain sub-set of all of the game materials that are currently available."
Except, it does work for my campaign. I was using it as an example of a GM who DOES limit materials, and why. Hence, why I included "YMMV" at the end, because really, it's all just a matter of campaign style and preference.
It certainly works just fine for my group.
Considering how I wrote up a fantasy world that was a mixture of rennasance and Victorian age technology, no. I don't really care to run paths or premade adventures and like to create rules that cover things in my world that pfs doesn't.
No.
I like a lot of the standard assumption that Pathfinder has. For example, I have never known a group not to roll stats. (Though I shall be keeping a much closer eye on how certain people "roll" stats in future.) While point buy is obviously needed for Society it would feel weird as a core assumption as dice rolls and chance add a certain spontaneity.
We haven't ruled for stats in YEARS because it's just fundamentally unfair.
Someone rolls an 18 and someone else rolls a 4.
How is that fair? You can't make a workable character that has a 4 in...basically any stat. So the randomness only serves to create really powerful characters. Much better to have a point buy system so everyone (including the monsters you will encounter) are on equal footing.
The lack of crafting is something I can take or leave - it encourages players to invest feats in wealth which is something that tends not to work in their favor. I just adjust their income to compensate so they aren't too far past their expected wealth for their level. These are important things to keep track of to have an even experience. PFS values these things because it makes things fair across thousands of instances of the same game but I think it has value in the home game too. How many people have ever heard people complaining about one particular PC being too good and overshadowing everyone? Build expertise will always lead to some level of it, but cutting out the unfair random variations goes a long long way to mitigating that.
I dont really think so and quite enjoy rolling stats.
To begin with , all classes arent equal and while all benefit from multiple high stats , some just need multiple good ones , reason we talk about stuff like MAD/SAD classes and how point buy actually just favors SAD classes usually.
Which only means point buy is also unfair anyway.
Second the DM can allow the player to reroll if he thinks the result is bad compared to others , the DM may actually colect all results of all players and say pick 2 arrays people can select from...