Advice - Fixing the Escalating Numbers

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I'm looking for some advice as to how to maybe fix/house-rule things in our PF game.

Current Situation:

My GM is a long-time player of many systems and we have been playing Pathfinder (using the SS AP) for about 8 months now in a group that he put together. The other day he emails us and tells us that he's not having fun with the system, he doesn't like the escalating numbers (hit points, damage, AC) and the focus on combat that PF places on most everything including the feats. I think this all stemmed from when we did a 1-shot with some high level characters and it took us like 2+ hours to resolve a combat encounter. His thoughts are that the escalating numbers - as we gain levels - take the fun out of the game for him and sap his creativity, giving us less time to actually role play.

I can certainly see where he is coming from and as an example: one of the guys in the group when we played the high level 1-shot was a paladin wielding a double-bladed orc axe and had a worg mount. I think all together between himself and his worg he had like 12+ attacks that he had to resolve each round adding in all the bonuses et cetera.

Our current game we are all level 4's and we all got together last night to talk about the state of the game and what we wanted to do going forward. The GM is a huge fan of GURPS (which I've never played before) and after we had discussed everything, it was decided that we'd try out that system in the PF setting with the GM converting our characters over to the GURPS characters.

A few other options where thrown out that a couple others could GM games, but then the current GM doesn't really like to play, he loves to GM.

I'm just not sure what to do because I like PF a lot, really like the group I'm in, and have spent a lot of time researching and tweaking my current character having even "built out" what I want to do with him up to level 20 (in case we ever got that far). I am a bit hesitant to learn a brand new system when I'm finally comfortable with most of what PF has to offer, but at the same time I understand where the GM is coming from and his thoughts on why GURPS is a better system for him to run for us. I would hate to leave the group because I end up not liking the GURPS system, but I'm afraid I might have to at some point. I was just skimming over the GURPS stuff and it reminds me a lot of the Savage Worlds system, which I absolutely hated when I played it a couple of years ago - but maybe that was the the GM at the time and I should keep a more open mind here and try out something new.

Has anyone else experienced the long combats in D&D 3.x/PF and do they have any advice to give as to how to perhaps shorten the combats so that they don't take most of the night for one encounter? Have you ever switched up systems in the middle of a game that most everyone is enjoying to make things a bit more fun and streamlined? Any advice would be appreciated and sorry for the wall of text!

Trav

 

[billd91]

Wow. He doesn't like the number crunching in PF and wants to go to GURPS instead? I would guess the real problem is he prefers a certain kind of number crunching and combat grind than another kind...
I find that interesting because we ditched a GURPS-based game and converted over to Star Wars Saga Edition rules - closely related to the 3.5 family that also spawned PF - because it was a lot less bogged down than GURPS.

All that said, he's the GM and if he's not comfortable with a system, he shouldn't have to run it. The game will only suffer for it. I would recommend you give GURPS a try. It's fun at a certain level (but also really deadly so it may not scratch the same D&D-esque fantasy itch like PF would). Try to keep an open mind about it and take what you can from the experience. You may not favor the system, but he might make a really good game out of it. You'll never know until you try.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Yeah I'm not totally sure what GURPS has to offer, I'll keep an open mind and if I don't like it then I'll have to rethink what I want to do. What do you mean by a it being bogged down with number crunching as well?

I've never seen the Star Wars Saga Edition rules, how is they different from PF and do they allow for faster combat?

I also agree that the GM has to have fun when running a game and that's why I'm willing to try out GURPS and see how he runs it and how it works out for our group. He's the kind of GM that is much more into role-playing than roll-playing and I can appreciate a really good story, but I still like some good combat to go along with it.

 

[Spatula]

Has anyone else experienced the long combats in D&D 3.x/PF and do they have any advice to give as to how to perhaps shorten the combats so that they don't take most of the night for one encounter?

Yeah, that's high-level 3e for you. Combats tend to last 2-3 rounds (getting shorter as the levels go up) and take about 30-45 minutes per round at the top end, IME. That was with a group of 4 players. You could push everyone to have spell descriptions at hand or memorized, have buffs written out ahead of time, or make other changes at the margins, but any real fix is going to require changing the system fundamentally. Like get rid of multiple attacks and give everyone the effects of the vital strike feat chain for free, summoned monsters or mounts can only make 1 attack, that sort of thing.

Have you ever switched up systems in the middle of a game that most everyone is enjoying to make things a bit more fun and streamlined? Any advice would be appreciated and sorry for the wall of text!

4e split my old group, and we ended up switching to a houseruled version of C&C as a compromise mid-adventure. That campaign didn't last much longer, though.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I ran a 4E game last year and ran into the same issues with regards to combat rounds taking longer and longer as the character leveled up. It was like levels 1-10 took an hour per combat, 11-20 took two hours per combat, and 21-30 took three hours per combat. I just wish there was an easier way to "fix" the systems so that they weren't this way. Maybe 5E will come up with a way to streamline combat more so that it is easier to scale and faster to do, but until then I guess we'll just have to experiment with different systems to see what works best for my group.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yeah I'm not totally sure what GURPS has to offer, I'll keep an open mind and if I don't like it then I'll have to rethink what I want to do. What do you mean by a it being bogged down with number crunching as well?

If you are playing a standard D&D type AP and switch to GURPS then you won't be bogged down very long. I reckon the party might last one session.

GURPS combat is deadly. A typical character might have 10-16 hp (and they don't keep going up just because you get more skilled) while a regular sword attack will do something around 2d6 damage. The main difference is that you get active defenses. These are limited so if you have,say a sword and shield then you get a block and a parry. After that you are down to dodging ( mostly futile). So if you find yourself in 3 to 1 or worse odds then you will most likely be cut down.

I really hope your DM understands how deadly being outnumbered is in GURPS compared to D&D.

In general, try to solve problems without bloodshed. On the plus side, a loaded crossbow aimed at someone means a whole lot more.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I really hope your DM understands how deadly being outnumbered is in GURPS compared to D&D.

In general, try to solve problems without bloodshed. On the plus side, a loaded crossbow aimed at someone means a whole lot more.

Yeah, he's played GURPS for a long time and I'm pretty sure he understands the nuances of combat, though I obviously don't yet. He was talking about resolving things w/o the need for combat all the time and this must be what he's talking about. That GURPS gives you more options outside of combat to resolve the situation(s) that pop up.

Has anyone tried to speed things up in PF by adjusting the HP/Damage of NPC's (i.e. 50% less hp & 25% greater damage output) or capping the number of attacks done in a round? I don't know if something like this could be done and not "break" the game or make it unfair for one side or the other.

 

[S'mon]

Since your PCs are 4th level, my advice to the GM would be:

1) Don't switch systems. This is a reliable campaign-killer, IME.

2) DO adopt E6 or a similar E-number approach. I use E5 Beginner Box Pathfinder: max level is 5th, PCs get an extra Feat every 5,000 XP beyond 5th. He should choose whatever is the highest level he enjoys GMing, then set the E-number there. Probably somewhere between E5 and E10 is good; with E6 a good default.

 

[S'mon]

Has anyone tried to speed things up in PF by adjusting the HP/Damage of NPC's (i.e. 50% less hp & 25% greater damage output) or capping the number of attacks done in a round? I don't know if something like this could be done and not "break" the game or make it unfair for one side or the other.

Using the Beginner Box rules hugely speeds up combat IME. Taking out attacks of opportunity alone roughly doubles combat speed.

 

[S'mon]

Has anyone tried to speed things up in PF by adjusting the HP/Damage of NPC's (i.e. 50% less hp & 25% greater damage output) or capping the number of attacks done in a round?

Pathfinder Beginner Box has no iterative attacks, as it caps at 5th level. Yes, this does greatly speed up play.