| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi everyone,
As the title implies, I have been wondering if there would be any interest in playing a game of Pathfinder 1st edition using Classes from all Paizo sources (except Occult), but all the rest (races, feats, spells, etc) from the Core Rulebook only?
Let me know!
Always happy to play Core, GM-Obermind, what do you have in mind?
Hey Robert!
Don’t have anything specific in mind, but it would make sense to make it a non megalomaniac project, in case people get sick and tired of their Core characters faster than expected :D
So I guess… Something starting at level 1, 2 or 3? A scenario, or a one-shot of some sort - open ended as always in case players and GM feel the urge to continue into a story of epic proportions. Restricting the scope to core means it should be easier to adapt to even older modules, so we have a lot of possible options.
I would be interested, probably as a spell caster. I find all of the spell options overwhelming at time, and core definitely reduces that.
Starting a little above level 1 would be nice. I think there are many people looking for that.
Sounds good! I am thinking level 2, but will depend on the actual adventure. Level 3 may be a better fit.
I would be very interested, everything gets inadvertantly too optimised sometimes.
Will some of the non-core classes struggle without having access to their 'class' feats? I suppose this will just bring them in line with the core...
My first character ever was a Ranger/Horizon Walker. I'd love to revisit that concept!
Will some of the non-core classes struggle without having access to their 'class' feats?
This is also a doubt of mine, so I think it will be interesting to see how it pans out. Don’t think any class will be ‘broken’ by it though.
While I'm mulling this over, what are your thoughts on archetypes GM?
Hmmmmm, I am inclined to say no to Archetypes for this ‘experiment’. But this is not set in stone.
Second level, not a bad place to start. Are we rolling stats or using a point buy?
May I assume that the 'unchained' classes are not on the list of "all Paizo sources" along with occult?
Scrolling through the Core Rulebook now, I keep forgetting that 'traits' aren't core. Not a problem though. I will probably put together a frontliner or skill monkey; someone I've played before and would like to play again, like Boram or Ivar.
Do we know how many players you're looking for?
Second level, not a bad place to start. Are we rolling stats or using a point buy?
I would say 20, min 8/max 18 after racials.
May I assume that the 'unchained' classes are not on the list of "all Paizo sources" along with occult?
Unchained Summoner is to be used instead of the core one.
Scrolling through the Core Rulebook now, I keep forgetting that 'traits' aren't core. Not a problem though. I will probably put together a frontliner or skill monkey; someone I've played before and would like to play again, like Boram or Ivar.
Do we know how many players you're looking for?
That I do not know yet - this is supposed to be an ‘Interest Check’ thread :D
Nope :P
@Corsario: Thank you for your interest :)
Do you think you could give me an example of issues a non-core class may face without the stuff in its non-core book? I am gathering as much info as I can before deciding on the final character creation 'rules'.
Thank you hustonj! I think the Shifter may still be worth a try ;)
Also to make it easier let us start adding 'modifications - no Gunslingers :D
----------
So far we have:
- 20pt buy (min 8/max 18 after racials)
- Level 2 (maybe 3)
- Core rules only, except;
- Classes from any Paizo source (except Occult and Gunslingers);
- Unchained Summoner;
- No Archetypes (not set in stone)
Am I missing something from the posts so far?
I was thinking about a hunter I played in an AP that died. A halfling mounted on a wolf. But teamwork feats play a big part of the build.
I think that's the sort of thing Corsario was speaking of. I agree with them, I think I would just play a core class.
I think I know what you mean Robert - I am also a big fan of the Outflank + Paired Opportunist + Pack Flanking combo.
But may I venture forth the fact that even without Teamwork Feats, it is still cool to be an halfling mounted on a Wolf? And there are still mechanical advantages ;)
But may I venture forth the fact that even without Teamwork Feats, it is still cool to be an halfling mounted on a Wolf? And there are still mechanical advantages ;)
True enough.
At present I'd lean towards a frontliner or skill monkey build, less moving parts. If we needed a support divine caster I'd consider the halfling hunter. Hmmm might even make him a Druid (I've never played one)
So, do we have enough interest to look at a recruitment?
I guess there would be conflict where specific class features call for non-core feats or content. There's nothing stopping one from playing an Inquisitor for instance but without inquisitions and teamwork feats they're somewhat toothless.
How would allowing non-core for specific class features but not free choice feats/spells sound?
Ultimately, no-one has to choose a non-core class. If they're too limited by core only content, don't play one.
So what AP?
I guess there would be conflict where specific class features call for non-core feats or content. There's nothing stopping one from playing an Inquisitor for instance but without inquisitions and teamwork feats they're somewhat toothless.
How would allowing non-core for specific class features but not free choice feats/spells sound?
Yeah, I see the clear disadvantage there for the classes based on Teamwork Feats… But I don’t want to open the Feat Pandora’s Box, so we will have to roll with it. I would want the Feats to remain Core.
So, do we have enough interest to look at a recruitment?
It seems we definitely have.
So what AP?
Wasn’t thinking about any AP - seems like too much to commit to an experience like this, but now you got me thinking some APs do have a really nice ‘low-level’ portion.
Consider me very interested. I like the back-to-basics vibe this gives off. While it's fun having a shmorgishborg of choices when playing Pathfinder, it's kind of cool to see that it can be played without all the frills and still be fun.
Wasn’t thinking about any AP - seems like too much to commit to an experience like this, but now you got me thinking some APs do have a really nice ‘low-level’ portion.
Is there an AP that has a good starting chapter/book to base a campaign on, that 1) Hasn't been played to death or at least in a little while on these boards, and 2) Doesn't almost require you play the storyline beyond it if the group/GM chooses not to?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what AP?Wasn’t thinking about any AP - seems like too much to commit to an experience like this, but now you got me thinking some APs do have a really nice ‘low-level’ portion.
If your considering an AP now, do you want to do a first level adventure, like "Master of the Fallen Fortress" just to acclimate folks to each other's style? Also, if we're doing an AP, do we want traits?
As far as I'm concerned, wouldn't even need to announce more than that. If the game goes well, we could start something else afterwards.
Is there an AP that has a good starting chapter/book to base a campaign on, that 1) Hasn't been played to death or at least in a little while on these boards, and 2) Doesn't almost require you play the storyline beyond it if the group/GM chooses not to?
You make a good point, but one of the (hidden) objectives of this experiment is also for me to get a handle on how easy/hard it may be to port 3.0 and 3.5 content to PF1e, if you play only with Core rules.
So that being said, I may grab something completely different ;)
If your considering an AP now, do you want to do a first level adventure, like "Master of the Fallen Fortress" just to acclimate folks to each other's style? Also, if we're doing an AP, do we want traits?
No traits :P
The first level adventure to acclimate players is a good idea, but I think level 2 works almost the same.
Is there an AP that has a good starting chapter/book to base a campaign on, that 1) Hasn't been played to death or at least in a little while on these boards, and 2) Doesn't almost require you play the storyline beyond it if the group/GM chooses not to?You make a good point, but one of the (hidden) objectives of this experiment is also for me to get a handle on how easy/hard it may be to port 3.0 and 3.5 content to PF1e, if you play only with Core rules.
So that being said, I may grab something completely different ;)
Nice, I've only played 'Pathfinder's Stuff' and some homebrew. Be fun to see some of the stuff that came before.
Didn't D&D have that series of semi-linked modules that stretched from 1 - 20? (Runs off to check GOOGLE) Sunless Citadel or Forge of Fury might be a good starting point.
I can’t say I disagree - am currently mulling over 3 or 4 options (and re-reading them), but only one is PF tbh :)
This sounds like fun! I've been wanting to play an arcane sorcerer for a while. Just the basic stuff makes it so much simpler!
Would this limit to just the spells listed in the Core book as well? Shorten the list from forever to a couple dozen!?!
Correct! :}
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey GM-Obermind, once you sort it out will you run the recruitment here or start a new page?
Good question. Beat me to it. :)
Good question indeed - I am not sure yet :P