Pathfinder 1E I have been asked to try this again

[Michael Silverbane]

Those house-rules sound fine. The rules of the game are more or less inconsequential. Does the premise for the campaign sound fun and do you enjoy the company of the people you would be playing with?

 

[athos]

House rules proposed:
1)Different characters will use different xp advancement, FULL caster will use the slow chart, half caster the medium chart and non casters the fast chart. This will be based on your concept not changing every level. (So a cleric taking a level of fighter doesn't use the fast chart, still the slow one)

2) Saves can be calculated using the 4e best of 2 stat approach (so Will is wis or cha, Fort is Con or Str, and Reflex is Dex or Int)

3) 1st level everyone gets bonus HP equal to there Con score instead of Con bonus.

4) you can take 1 over average on hit point rolls as you level (so d6=4, d8=5, d10=6, d12=7) instead of rolling if you want.

SO based on these house rules what do you people who play pathfinder think the effect of them would be?

1) Really dumb. All characters should use the same leveling speed.
2) Either way, personally I like the non 4th ed. way, but could live with this one.
3) Not sure I like this, seems like a Hackmaster thing that I don't think PCs need.
4) Always have used this, and like it.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

You seem very obsessed with the mechanics of the game. Why are you worrying so much about that sort of thing if you're the player? Is the GM the same way?

I am a big believer that a good GM can run a game or an entire campaign using any rule system and still make it fun and engaging for the players, even if they wouldn't normally choose to play under that system. An inventive one could run a spooky Cthulhu game using the Toon rules as the base system, even (assuming that they used fear as the base emotion, rather than humor). It wouldn't be hard to cobble together a sword and sorcery combat resolution system based on backgammon, even, without significantly interfering with the player experience. You can easily stick virtually any setting on any system.

All of that is assuming that the main point of the game is roleplaying, though. I have met a number of players and GMs who view roleplaying games as wargames with some fluff added, or as rule systems to manipulate like puzzles. There's nothing wrong with that, if that's their thing, but you have to make sure that you have a GM (or players) who share that approach, or the game won't be satisfying for everyone.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You seem very obsessed with the mechanics of the game. Why are you worrying so much about that sort of thing if you're the player? Is the GM the same way?

I'm not understanding what you mean. I've played a lot of different types of games, and some mechanics I enjoy and others I don't...

I am a big believer that a good GM can run a game or an entire campaign using any rule system and still make it fun and engaging for the players, even if they wouldn't normally choose to play under that system.

whole heartily agree, but none of the 3 GMs I trust to run anything even like pathfinder, so that wont matter here. One of those 3 GMs is the other player on Saturday night who is MORE against this then me.

All of that is assuming that the main point of the game is roleplaying, though.

yea, I guess

I have met a number of players and GMs who view roleplaying games as wargames with some fluff added, or as rule systems to manipulate like puzzles.

I've meet many players like that.

There's nothing wrong with that, if that's their thing, but you have to make sure that you have a GM (or players) who share that approach, or the game won't be satisfying for everyone.

right now we have 5 of us for Saturdays, and for the most part are more role player then wargamer.



Now to add last night at my game I talked with one of the players from Saturday (the one that hates pathfinder much more then me) He is pretty close to just out right Vetoing the whole game. He sent the DM an email before coming to my house that said He never really wants to play 3e again, but if that is what everyone wants he will bite the bullet and do it, but pathfinder is nothing but a "money grab by a plagiarizing company working off someone elses work and he will A not support that and B is not interested in someone elses house rules just because they had the money to publish them." He then suggested 4 alt ways to run the game 1)Savage world, 2) Gurps, 3) DnD Next play test and 4) 4e DnD

I did get him to calm down enough to at least discuses the idea of doing it 3.5, I brought up that we could call it a way to play classic editions before the big roll out of Next all for the 40th, but he made a good argument to me that if we were doing that we should use those leather 1e reprints we bought.


He and I did agree that the DM doesn't understand what we like about 4e DnD and those house rules where most likely his way of trying to throw us a bone. However not one of them really replicates what we like about 4e.

I also see there is no agreement on how there house rules will effect the game. Some people say almost not at all and some think they will make it not work. I do know if I play a wizard I will get annoyed being multi levels behind the party, but if we don't limit casters I would hate to be the player stuck being the non caster half way through the campaign.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

1) Really dumb. All characters should use the same leveling speed.

I assume this is a way to limit the CODzilla LFQW problem of the edition, and I agree not the most elegant, do you have an idea I could take to the DM?

At the end of 3.5 we didn't use wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, or fighter at all we used warlock, dread necromancer, warmage, beguiler, knight, swordsage and warblade in there place... but I don't think any of those options exist in path finder...

2) Either way, personally I like the non 4th ed. way, but could live with this one.

I'm not sure what he is trying to do with this...I can only think that he is trying to pull 4e things in to say 'see we can use 4e things too' without actually taking what we would want...

3) Not sure I like this, seems like a Hackmaster thing that I don't think PCs need.

well it does stop 1 crit from an orc killing the highest HP PC... but again it seems like lipstick on a pig, so I don't know

4) Always have used this, and like it.

Yea this seems the only house rule no one has said is bad yet...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Myself, I'm more of a take-it-or-leave-it DM, and would not cater to one or two players in particular.

where that may work in a game that is just your game, in a rotating game were everyone has already agreed not to alienate anyone it comes off too heavy handed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Those house-rules sound fine. The rules of the game are more or less inconsequential.

if that were true then there would be no reason not to run 4e ( the version everyone at the table currently likes best)

Does the premise for the campaign sound fun and do you enjoy the company of the people you would be playing with?

I am atleast intrigued by it, his email said he had a whole write up on the world but he described it as

1 part forgotten realms 1 part ebberon with large themes like Star Wars and the third iron man movie

 

[Cadence]

Just making sure I have the lay of the land ok (direct supporting quotes from above snipped for space savings).

The setting: A rotating game where everyone has agreed not to alienate everyone by coming off too heavy handed.

The DM: One of a group of rotating DMs has an idea he wants to run using PF. He knows two of the players aren't huge fans of PF but like 4e and one really likes 3.5. He apparently doesn't understand why they like 4e (even though its the most popular game at the table) and so he suggests a few things he thinks might 4e-ify PF a bit.

Player 1: Player 1 thinks PF is just a small tweak of 3.5. In the past when he had money he purchased slightly upgraded editions (3.5 from 3 for example), but since he doesn't have it now, and since he has all the 3.5 stuff he doesn't like Pathfinder even though the rules are on-line for free. He'd rather they ran 3.5 even though he doesn't trust most of the DMs at the table to run anything even like PF (which is only slightly different from 3.5). (EDIT: Add [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] 's remarks from the next post .)

Player 2: Thinks that just publishing stuff from the OGL is just house rules unless you made the original game and even though Paizo gives the rules away for free they're money grubbing and evil, so he loathes everything about Pathfinder.

 

[N'raac]

Cadence, the added aspect as I see it is that Player 1 likes a lot of the later additions to 3.5 that moved in a direction different from Pathfinder. In particular, he favours many of the late 3.5 Ed classes over the early classes, or the ones added in Pathfinder. He seems OK with many mechanical changes as he suggested adopting some in his proposed 3.5 game. At least that's my read on it.

Oh, and they both prefer 4e for reasons not specified in the discussion (maybe the OP can elaborate), but which are not addressed by the GM's house rules proposed.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think you're overthinking this. Give your friend's game one session, and if you're not having more fun that you would be having with another hobby, tell him "Gave it a shot, still hate PF, I'm sitting this one out."