[Legendary Games] Corefinder

[Thedmstrikes]

Dragon78 wrote:

I hate it when they make perception a non-skill, you can no longer use things like skill focus, skilled kineticist(greater) utility wild talent, etc. on it plus some people like being bad at it (and other skills).

I disagree here, perception is not really something you can train yourself for in a traditional sense. You can hone your senses through actual use, but not through the practice of using them over and over (which is something you actually do everyday). Perception should never have been a skill IMO, but the skill system in general was still new and they needed a way to "find" things. Since Perception is not a skill, you can still have new traits or Feats to modify it, they just will not be called "skill focus" etc. this would be a way to differentiate those with "highly honed senses" from the rest of us normals.

[OmniMage]

kevin_video wrote:

OmniMage wrote:

Can you start at first level with ability scores of 20? You could do that in pathfinder. It feels like a small downgrade to reduce the cap a little at first level.

Another problem. Since characters get to improve one of their ability scores each level, it is temping to buy ability scores low, and use their +1 ability each level to get high ability scores over time. I did some math and with a 25 point buy, you're starting ability score can be 4x 14, 1x 13 and 1x 12. I'm not sure if that is your intent.

It's reading like you can't get a 20 at 1st level. As for it being a small downgrade, considering the new rule is 18 + half level for your max stat, meaning you can't go higher than 28 at 20th, as written now, PF 1e with the right capstone you could get a 33 before magic items, topping you out at 44. This version doesn't seem to allow that.

That likely wasn't their objective, but most games don't do 25 point buy. If you take it as per the adventure paths, it's usually 15 points, or 20 points for Organized Play. I can see GMs sticking to the older numbers. Still, that's a good point to bring up.

In pathfinder, you had to make a trade off of whether you wanted to max out the number of ability points you get against maxing out an ability score or 2. This proposed change (get 1 ability point per level) makes it possible to max out an ability score while getting maximum ability points (assuming you gain enough levels). Though, this change would it possible to have a character change over time. A dumb fighter gains the potential to become a smart wizard.

How do you get an ability score of 44?

[kevin_video]

OmniMage wrote:

How do you get an ability score of 44?

From the last published book. Start with 18 plus racial modifier to 20. Add +1 for each ability score boost at 4th until 20th for 25. Add a +6 enhancement bonus item and a +5 inherent bonus tome/manual for 36. Finally, take 20 levels in the same class and take the new alternate capstone that adds 8 points to your ability scores and dump it all onto your main stat (which you’re 100% allowed to do) for 44.

[Jason Nelson]

Corefinder Design Digest #3: Other Bonuses and [/url="https://www.patreon.com/posts/43307571"]#4: Alignment are up! [/url]

[kevin_video]

Fixed it.

Jason Nelson wrote:

Corefinder Design Digest #3: Other Bonuses and #4: Alignment are up!

[JoelF847]

Jason Nelson wrote:

Corefinder Design Digest #3: Other Bonuses and #4: Alignment are up!

More interesting changes here. Definitely a big fan of consolidating the bonus types, but a bit confused by some of the specifics.

Quote:

"Unless otherwise specified, bonuses of the same type cannot be combined. Instead, you simply use the highest bonus of that type available to you. Bonuses of different type can be combined, adding together all that apply; this is called “stacking.”"

This is the same base rule as PF1. However, with the new grouping of bonus types, there's some weirdness here. The only CF bonus type that stacks with itself seems to be circumstance, as long as they come from different circumstances, which makes sense. So if you're flanking, and you have an aid another bonus, those stack. I do wonder if this means aid another cannot stack from multiple characters now though, since "aiding another" could be the same circumstance, or "being aided" by Fred the fighter can stack with "being aided" by Finieous the rogue, since each bit of aid is a separate circumstance.

Gear is now a bonus type that includes armor, shield, and enhancement bonuses. However, does this mean that armor and shields no longer stack to AC? That would be a very odd choice. Also, if enhancement bonuses don't stack with other gear bonuses, does that mean an enhancement bonus to your armor doesn't increase the AC bonus since enhancement and armor don't stack now? I'm assuming both of these aren't the case, but as written in the blog, I'm not clear how this works. Also, I'm assuming that this includes bonuses from weapons, and miscellaneous equipment as well. I also wonder if this is another category which is supposed to stack with itself, if from different pieces of equipment. Otherwise, there's lots of equipment from books to adventuring gear which might not work so well together (maybe this is intentional). For example, if you have a book that gives you a +1 on knowledge planes check, and a book that gives you +1 on knowledge planes checks on demons, you only get a +1 now, which doesn't really model how having more than one reference source works very well. I assume this category also includes alchemical type, though some of those could also potentially be circumstance.

I like the combination of luck, sacred, profane, deflection, and morale as various types of supernatural in ephemeral aid. However, I don't like the new category being called luck. Alternate suggestions could be blessing bonus, or supernatural bonus. My biggest gripe about calling all of these luck is that most of them are specific boons from other sources, and luck doesn't describe those well. I'd much rather luck be reserved for abilities which impact the dice directly, such as reroll abilities or being able to count a natural 1 as a 10, choose to take a 10 or a 20 instead of rolling (in situations where you couldn't normally Take 10 or Take 20), etc.

Natural blends things together which makes sense, but I hope that not all racial bonuses become natural bonuses, and instead only the biological ones do, while more cultural ones become competence bonuses. For example, Dwarfs should have Hardy and Stability as natural bonuses, but Greed and Stonecunning should be a competence bonus. Similarly, I hope traits get the same split, with some being tied to natural and others (most of them I suspect) become competence. Resistance is a bit weird in this category though, since the most common type is magical in nature and not natural at all. I would think all magical resistance bonuses should go under the luck bonus type, but any which instead come from race would be fine to become Natural.

Finally, there's a few bonus types from PF1 not mentioned. Alchemical and Trait I've already mentioned, but Inherent and Size haven't been yet. I'd assume that Size would become circumstance, and be allowed to therefore stack. Inherent is pretty much only from wishes and magical tomes, and I'd guess/suggest they become competence. Then there's the untyped bonuses, which in PF1 stack with everything. I hope that they simply go away and CF has a rule that all bonuses have a type.

[Thedmstrikes]

I do recall a clarification that an exception will exist for armor and shield bonuses to stack. I think your take on Aid another is a good one to bring up as one of the stated design goals is to eliminate such questionable rules statements as much as possible.

[avr]

Five bonus types may be enough. Question though, are there still untyped bonuses? Also with dodge bonuses not stacking with each other & some bonus types collapsed into one bigger category you'll need to be careful not to make feats which give e.g. +1 dodge/competence to AC, which could rapidly become useless, or a dwarven abiliy of +2 racial/natural bonus to some saves which might likewise rapidly become useless.

[Dragon78]

A +2 racial bonus to a save stays useful for all levels for me. Dodge bonuses stack so every +1 is useful;)

I would love to get rid of amulets of natural armor and rings of protection and just make AC= 10 +1/2 level + armor(and shield) and other bonuses like doge, natural armor, etc. that you get from race and class.

If you want to keep rings of protection just make them a flat out +2 deflection bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus to saves.

Would love to get rid of cloaks of resistance.

I would love to get rid of most stat boost items though still having belts of giant strength would be fine. Though make the belt make anyone with less then 18 Str make it 18 Str and if you have 18+str just add +2.

Having magic items that increase spell levels, spell DCs, spell penetration checks, and/or concentration checks would be nice.

[avr]

Dragon, read the patreon posts linked above.

Further comment of mine: not doing anything to change alignment is disappointing IMO. Listing a bunch of problems and then deciding to do nothing is more so.

[Ghostwheel]

avr wrote:

Dragon, read the patreon posts linked above.

Further comment of mine: not doing anything to change alignment is disappointing IMO. Listing a bunch of problems and then deciding to do nothing is more so.

It may simply be a recognition that Alignment is a largely intractable subject from a rules standpoint. I am comfortable with the way that it plays out at every table that I have ever been at: GM guidance, GM rules, everyone try to muddle through by cooperation.

[Garydee]

I really like how this game is going to have a lot of optional rules. One thing I would like to see are some optional rules for certain spells that can be campaign altering like resurrection and teleport.

[Jason Nelson]

Ghostwheel wrote:

avr wrote:

Dragon, read the patreon posts linked above.

Further comment of mine: not doing anything to change alignment is disappointing IMO. Listing a bunch of problems and then deciding to do nothing is more so.

It may simply be a recognition that Alignment is a largely intractable subject from a rules standpoint. I am comfortable with the way that it plays out at every table that I have ever been at: GM guidance, GM rules, everyone try to muddle through by cooperation.

This is pretty much it. Corefinder is, at its heart, a streamlined and (ideally) perfected version of PF1. PF1 has alignment, so Corefinder does as well.

We'll offer clarifying details on the alignments in the final version and people will play as they play.

[Jason Nelson]

Garydee wrote:

I really like how this game is going to have a lot of optional rules. One thing I would like to see are some optional rules for certain spells that can be campaign altering like resurrection and teleport.

That's our plan!

[Jason Nelson]

CDD #5: Who's On First? is up!

[Jason Nelson]

@JoelF847 - mad props for the Fineous Fingers and Fred and Charly refs! :)

As for bonus naming, we've considered renaming "luck" to "power," though we'll see.

Things like alchemical and trait and inherent bonuses will likewise be rolled into the core bonus types and/or go away.

Size is a funny corner case, as we're playing around with ways to deal with size that aren't necessarily just numerical bonuses. We have a current Alpha version of how size affects things, but it may be subject to tweakage like everything.

At the moment, I don't think we'll be having any untyped bonuses, but we'll see how it all shakes out.

[Dragon78]

I would prefer deflection over luck, other then that I am fine with the names.

If we get max HP per HD and all skills are class skills, we wouldn't need traits and favored class bonuses. So no need for the trait bonus type.

Interesting to use Cha for initiative for social encounters, not that my party plays them out like a combat.

[Set]

I like that Luck bonuses have absorbed Sacred and Profane, since I always hated the misuse of those terms (sacred to an evil god is still sacred!) and the mechanical wonkiness that resulted (I can't stack sacred bonuses from two allied good gods, but I *can* stack a sacred bonus with a profane bonus from gods that hate each other?).

'Luck' might not be the best term though. Fortune or Favor bonus might feel more inclusive of the former bonus types it is now encompassing.

Still, cool. Definitely a 'less is more' situation, IMO.

[Dragon78]

Set, I agree about the profane/sacred bonus thing. Though since the bonuses exist, never understood why they weren't used for protection from evil/good type spells.

[Garydee]

Could someone from Legendary Games give me a Discord invite?

[Jason Nelson]

CDD #6: Are You Ready? is up!

[Jason Nelson]

Here's a permanent Discord invite link that anyone and everyone can use!

And, of course, we would love your support on our Patreon, even as little as $1 or $3 a month adds up!

[Dragon78]

I see a reference to poison damage, are getting that as a damage type or did you mean ability damage from poison?

Glad you made that ever changing initiative rule optional, because that would slow down combat way too much.

[Jason Nelson]

CDD #7: SURPRISE! is up!

[Jason Nelson]

Dragon78 wrote:

I see a reference to poison damage, are getting that as a damage type or did you mean ability damage from poison?

Both. Poison can do hit point damage, ability damage, or any other kind of effect; all of it refers more to timing of when an ongoing effect happens than to the specifics of what it does. The same could be said for damage you take from being crushed under an avalanche or being burned at the stake or whatever.

Dragon78 wrote:

Glad you made that ever changing initiative rule optional, because that would slow down combat way too much.

Round-by-round initiative was the standard method back in AD&D. It's not substantially faster or slower than any other way of taking turns. Cyclical is certainly more orderly - it just keeps going around the same order - but we figured we'd put in some options for people who want to try different things.

[Ghostwheel]

I rather like initiative changing each round. It actually revalues the Improved Initiative feat upward. And it helps model the chaotic nature of combat. And a little nostalgia doesn't hurt.

[SunKing]

Jason Nelson wrote:

CDD #6: Are You Ready? is up!

I like the clarity provided here. It’s not actually obvious when poison, for example, affects PCs, in the current rules.

[JoelF847]

Jason Nelson wrote:

CDD #7: SURPRISE! is up!

Not sure I'm following this. So surprise isn't a separate round, but just an extra action on the surprising creature's turns? Does that mean the surprising creatures get a full round plus an extra action before the other creatures get to go? Sounds even more powerful than a surprise round in PF1.

[SunKing]

SunKing wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

CDD #6: Are You Ready? is up!

I like the clarity provided here. It’s not actually obvious when poison, for example, affects PCs, in the current rules.

Thinking out loud, do we need to know the ORDER / SEQUENCE of how various effects would impact the PC? Or is this not worth worrying about, because it’s so rare that effects stack...

[nightflier]

Do you have any plans about introducing spell points of some kind (mana points in my games) for spontaneous spellcasters?

[JoelF847]

I thought of a corner case relating to bonus types and Size. While many Size adjustments are static bonuses to attack, AC, Str, etc. one type isn't, and doesn't have a type per se. When damage dice increase/decrease from Size changes by a step or more, as well as effects which increase damage dice without changing Size categories, such as improved natural attack, strong jaw, etc. I'd suggest that this type of damage die change also explicitly get a type and rules around stacking, so that there's not confusion about what should or shouldn't stack.

[Ghostwheel]

JoelF847 wrote:

I thought of a corner case relating to bonus types and Size. While many Size adjustments are static bonuses to attack, AC, Str, etc. one type isn't, and doesn't have a type per se. When damage dice increase/decrease from Size changes by a step or more, as well as effects which increase damage dice without changing Size categories, such as improved natural attack, strong jaw, etc. I'd suggest that this type of damage die change also explicitly get a type and rules around stacking, so that there's not confusion about what should or shouldn't stack.

Clarification on this point would be helpful for Corefinder, but as for PF1, I have always treated it as: Actual size increases give the appropriate increase in n damage dice, and one virtual increase can be applied in addition.

And since it gets most interesting with Vital Strike: yes all of those size increases get multiplied.

[Jason Nelson]

nightflier wrote:

Do you have any plans about introducing spell points of some kind (mana points in my games) for spontaneous spellcasters?

That's a maybe for whenever we do Corefinder: Advanced Fantasy, but not in the first batch of things.

[Jason Nelson]

JoelF847 wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

CDD #7: SURPRISE! is up!

Not sure I'm following this. So surprise isn't a separate round, but just an extra action on the surprising creature's turns? Does that mean the surprising creatures get a full round plus an extra action before the other creatures get to go? Sounds even more powerful than a surprise round in PF1.

The surprise "round" is replaced by a cycle of one action per creature using initiative order. It's explicitly not a separate round, so effects that last for "x rounds" don't elapse during that surprise action.

Once each creature that's aware during surprise takes their *one* action, you go back to the top of initiative and the first round of combat begins.

You're not functionally getting any more actions than you would in PF1; it's just explicitly stating that the surprise "round" is not a round per se.

[JoelF847]

Jason Nelson wrote:

JoelF847 wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

CDD #7: SURPRISE! is up!

Not sure I'm following this. So surprise isn't a separate round, but just an extra action on the surprising creature's turns? Does that mean the surprising creatures get a full round plus an extra action before the other creatures get to go? Sounds even more powerful than a surprise round in PF1.

The surprise "round" is replaced by a cycle of one action per creature using initiative order. It's explicitly not a separate round, so effects that last for "x rounds" don't elapse during that surprise action.

Once each creature that's aware during surprise takes their *one* action, you go back to the top of initiative and the first round of combat begins.

You're not functionally getting any more actions than you would in PF1; it's just explicitly stating that the surprise "round" is not a round per se.

Ah, got it! And also continual damage applied in the surprise action won't actually happen an extra time.

[Garydee]

Jason Nelson wrote:

nightflier wrote:

Do you have any plans about introducing spell points of some kind (mana points in my games) for spontaneous spellcasters?

That's a maybe for whenever we do Corefinder: Advanced Fantasy, but not in the first batch of things.

I noticed that you said you don't want to do large books like Pathfinder but are you looking at the 256-320 page range?

[Jason Nelson]

We'll see how it goes. An omnibus of Corefinder: Basic and Corefinder: Fantasy will most likely be on the big side, but we'll see how it all shakes out.

[Jason Nelson]

CFF #8: Aaand ACTION! and CFF #9: Save Me! are up!

[JoelF847]

Are there rules for replacing longer actions with a shorter one? for instance, I'm assuming you can still use a move action in place of a standard one, to double move. What about using a use action (awkward phrase there, maybe use isn't the best terminology) to open a door, then moving through the door - can you convert your standard action to a second use action to close the door?

Also, do 5-foot steps still exist? Are they a use action since they're shorter than a move action and generally can be combined with a full round action (in PF1 at least).

[Garydee]

Jason Nelson wrote:

We'll see how it goes. An omnibus of Corefinder: Basic and Corefinder: Fantasy will most likely be on the big side, but we'll see how it all shakes out.

Any chance we could see archetypes with the classes or will that be just an Advanced Fantasy option?

[Oceanshieldwolf]

@Jason - I read the Action piece - I note that Corefinder
I using the original action economy and not Unchained’s three
action system. I understand that you are attempting to stay true to PF1e, and the three action system is a PF2e thing.

How are you navigating martial agency and narrative breadth? I’m thinking of one of the chief shortcomings of the original system which was the martial’s reliance on a Full Attack to dish out iterative attacks at the cost of movement.

Is this a concern and how will you manage it? If not, why?

Apologies ahead of time if it’s right there in the post and I missed it!

[kevin_video]

Reading actions, I must have missed it, but are you allowing attacks and movement to be broken up?

[JoelF847]

@Kevin_video

you did miss it, in the description of the move action, 2nd paragraph.

Quote:

When you move, you can take other actions at any point during your movement, though some actions may require your movement to stop.

[kevin_video]

That's fantastic.

[SheepishEidolon]

Jason Nelson wrote:

The first Corefinder Design Digest: Rolling for Stats... or Not! is now up and available for everyone!

Reads like you want a higher power level, but at the same time aim to tame it with some caps (not above 15, not above 18 + lvl/2 etc.). From my gut feeling, classes relying on 2 to 3 scores will profit most - they can get around the caps by simply increasing another important score.

Getting an ability score increase every level actually fits the game IMO, if you are looking at monsters and the patchwork increases through belts and headband - but it takes the special out of such increases.

Having two additional rules (+2 on a score at level 1, option to add a flaw) makes character development more complicated. If you want more 14s, 15s and 16s, why not slightly reduce the cost for them? And given the upper caps, why not allow a second score below 9?

Personally, I made up a concept for a really dumb sorcerer - a former village idiot who accidentally got eldritch powers but is still handicapped by both Int 7 and Wis 7. For that, I need the option to really dump two stats. I don't even care about the ability points gained from dumping - as a sorcerer, I will be fine anyway.

[Jason Nelson]

SheepishEidolon wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

The first Corefinder Design Digest: Rolling for Stats... or Not! is now up and available for everyone!

Personally, I made up a concept for a really dumb sorcerer - a former village idiot who accidentally got eldritch powers but is still handicapped by both Int 7 and Wis 7. For that, I need the option to really dump two stats. I don't even care about the ability points gained from dumping - as a sorcerer, I will be fine anyway.

If you've got a character concept that relies on stat dumps, I'm sure your GM would be happy to let you set them as low as you like (whether that be 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, etc.). We just wanted to remove the mechanical incentive for it.

The stat modifier is basically a replacement for "racial ability modifiers" from PF1, so it's no more inherently complicated than picking a race that would give you the stat bonus you want for your character. Essentially, for the purpose of racial stat mods, everyone works like a human (PF1 style), with an option to trade a flaw for two +1's. Don't want to do that because you think it's too complicated? Easy solution: just don't do it. Use the standard +2 to whichever stat you like and call it a day.

[Jason Nelson]

Garydee wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

We'll see how it goes. An omnibus of Corefinder: Basic and Corefinder: Fantasy will most likely be on the big side, but we'll see how it all shakes out.

Any chance we could see archetypes with the classes or will that be just an Advanced Fantasy option?

Not yet decided for sure. You definitely won't see a massive number of archetypes in CF: Fantasy - it's just one book, and there are over a thousand PF1 archetypes out there.

Some things that are currently archetype-locked also may become class features for their "parent" class, or may even become general actions you can do in the game. Some archetypes opened up new concepts in gameplay that weren't in there before, but taking a look retrospectively if they make sense to include everywhere then why not?

[Jason Nelson]

JoelF847 wrote:

Are there rules for replacing longer actions with a shorter one? for instance, I'm assuming you can still use a move action in place of a standard one, to double move. What about using a use action (awkward phrase there, maybe use isn't the best terminology) to open a door, then moving through the door - can you convert your standard action to a second use action to close the door?

Yes. You can use a standard action to "take a move action" and you can use a move action to "take a use action."

JoelF847 wrote:

Also, do 5-foot steps still exist? Are they a use action since they're shorter than a move action and generally can be combined with a full round action (in PF1 at least).

They do, and they are a move action (with a specific exception where you can take one as a swift action if you also are taking a full action). Those action previews are coming up starting today!

[Jason Nelson]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

@Jason - I read the Action piece - I note that Corefinder

I using the original action economy and not Unchained’s three
action system. I understand that you are attempting to stay true to PF1e, and the three action system is a PF2e thing.

How are you navigating martial agency and narrative breadth? I’m thinking of one of the chief shortcomings of the original system which was the martial’s reliance on a Full Attack to dish out iterative attacks at the cost of movement.

Is this a concern and how will you manage it? If not, why?

Apologies ahead of time if it’s right there in the post and I missed it!

Martials definitely will have more options on actions, including more variation in how they can attack and deal damage (including one big attack, dual wielding, and full attacks, all of which are standard actions in Corefinder).

All classes also have things they can do both inside and outside of combat.

[Jason Nelson]

And finally, speaking of actions, the first preview of action types is up: CFF #10: So Full... (part 1)