Anyone interested in cooking up a simplified PFRPG?

[Scurvy_Platypus]

In my eyes, AoOs are a generalized, simplified way of handling "free attack" situations.

Fair enough. I don't happen to agree (obviously) but I'm also in the minority of people that don't like miniatures-based combat either.

More generally, what is the aim of this product? I'll be honest, if you want to write a new game engine inspired by the Pathfinder rules, it doesn't belong on this part of the forum. It's not Pathfinder, and you can't put a Pathfinder-compatible logo on it. I'm not really sure why Pathfinder seems like a really good base for creating a new game, as the use of the Pathfinder conventions as a lingua franca is only likely to appeal to a limited subset of gamers: those to whom Pathfinder feels like D&D "as it should be" and yet want to convert to simpler rules. Just as a for instance, why not start with Castles & Crusades as a base, and then start morphing the game conventions to match 3e and Pathfinder's campaign tropes? Or Dark Dungeons?

If you've read the thread, you'll note that I've already asked the OP similar questions. He's already indicated his goal and I've simply tossed in some of my input and thoughts. I even suggested Dark Dungeons in post #4.

Frankly, I'm not basing my own personal project on Pathfinder. I also outlined part of the reason for that in post #4. My reference to the "Footpath" system is as as much to distinguish the discussion (to avoid confusions) from the Pathfinder Basic project Paizo is working on, as well as a theoretical exercise in the approach I would take (which would likely be different from anyone else participating in this conversation), not a current project. If I were to do the "Footpath" system, I would start with a fundamentally different base than Pathfinder.

Well, then, I'm in agreement with Pawsplay - I'm not sure why this is in the Pathfinder forum.

Again, already addressed. Aus_Snow has it as a hacked version of Pathfinder; despite what some people might say, Pathfinder is different in a number of respects from base 3.x and he's even referred to it as "House Rules." I'm kinda confused on what he should have done with it.

If you want less rules in your RPG, I'm not sure any 3.X version of D&D is a good place to start. I don't think you can get there from here, without ... well, without essentially making a whole new game, related to the original only in the use of polyhedral dice.

I'll simply say "I disagree" and leave it at that.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Having not-enough-rules can be as bad as too many, especially for a novice.

It can be, yes. But "not-enough-rules" is pretty subjective, I would say. Also, having sensible guidelines in place of tons and tons (...) of "hard-coded" rules could be seen as a viable alternative, and in fact, more useful to more GMs. Arguably.

Sure, some hard-coded rules is a good thing. But too many? Well, this is why such approaches as the one in question here are even thought about, discussed, acted upon, on- or offline. And they are, quite often. It's not like this thread is such an anomaly... despite, on balance, its reception, gotta say.

Is it just me, or are Pathfinder fans, by and large, a little um... resistant to these things, as compared to 3e fans per se?

Actually no, it must just be [some of] those here, because paizo.com seems considerably less biased thusly.

Or, as I have suspected, many of those previously (definitely!) interested in just such a rules hack, have moved on, dropped off the radar, or whatever. Perhaps, if this thing gets off the ground properly, some will come back to check it out. Or yeah, if it gets done, links could be posted elsewhere - like, at paizo.com for example.

More generally, what is the aim of this product? I'll be honest, if you want to write a new game engine inspired by the Pathfinder rules, it doesn't belong on this part of the forum. It's not Pathfinder, and you can't put a Pathfinder-compatible logo on it. I'm not really sure why Pathfinder seems like a really good base for creating a new game, as the use of the Pathfinder conventions as a lingua franca is only likely to appeal to a limited subset of gamers: those to whom Pathfinder feels like D&D "as it should be" and yet want to convert to simpler rules. Just as a for instance, why not start with Castles & Crusades as a base, and then start morphing the game conventions to match 3e and Pathfinder's campaign tropes? Or Dark Dungeons?

"Product" is a bit, er, ambitious. Also, not really the idea here. But okay, okay, taken literally as can be, the aim? Well, to make a simplified, streamlined Pathfinder, in the form of a neat, printable house rules document. For free, using the OGL, for those who are interested. That is all.

If you think this thread should be elsewhere, posting about it here isn't the way to go about it - contact a mod, and they'll move it for you. Assuming they agree, natch. If indeed that's the correct protocol for this discussion, I'll not attempt to "resist arrest".

Why not start with Castles & Crusades, or Dark Dungeons? Because I have Pathfinder in mind. Simple as that. Furthermore, if you truly require "justification" of what amounts to proposed house rules, I'd offer the observation that there's already a veritable googleplex of games of that nature. Also, if *you* wish to hack C&C or DD, who am I to stop you!

I might be mistaken - or living in the (not so distant) past... - but I really do think there is a genuine niche within a niche within a niche here that could be explored and "catered to", after a fashion.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Another Footpath bit, this one related to monsters...

Warning, Part one has the potential to be somewhat involved. Part two is much less so in comparison.

Part One:

I haven't really gone over the Bestiary (or however many of them there are) so I don't know how consistent the monster design/changes are. But there's room for some standardization. I'm again working on this in relation to something else (and using some different numbers) but Pathfinder has laid down some of the groundwork for it; you'll just have to decide if A) you trust their numbers, and B) if it's worth the work. Anyway, you start here:

Monster Creation

Check out all those charts. That's your core right there. What you're basically going to do is set up 13 sheets, which is one for each creature type. Each sheet will have the basic statblock for a creature type from CR 1 - 20. The "Table: Monster Statistics by CR" is basically what forms the core, with the specific numbers changing based on creature type. This means that some of the columns will be modified slightly. For example, the "Good" saves would simply be called "Will" for Aberrations, and the "Poor" would be "Other". Or in the case of Dragons, you'd simply drop the "Poor" column.

You'll need to decide how to handle skills. Again, I favor the simpler skill approach but whatever works for you. In this case, we'll say for Footpath that we use the following formula: A creature's Skill bonus is equal to CR/2, round down. This means that if you have a CR 10 creature, any skill check it makes will be a d20+5. If a creature would logically excel in a particular area (for example, Dragons could be considered to logically excel at the Flying skill), then add an additional +3 bonus. So a CR 13 Dragon would roll a d20 + 9 [(+ 6 from CR 13/2) + 3 for Skilled/Trained]. Like I said, I'm approaching it from a somewhat different approach, but the overal method (flat skill bonus based on creature type, regardless of the actual skill in question) is still the same.

Once you've got your 13 sheets worked out... you've basically got every monster you're ever going to run. You can vary the stats if you need for some reason, but this is the core. For example, you might say "Oh, but I've got [critter] which is supposed to be tough to kill!" I'd say it's easy and I'd immediately look to one or two things. The first is Hit Points. Everyone like to inflate them and add this or that feat to puff 'em up... remember, base 3.x HD are exactly that... dice. They give an _average_ number of HP. That means you _could_ simply Max the HP without actually shifting the CR. Pathfinder changes it slightly, but you can apply the same basic idea.

The other cheat is to simply give a basic DR. DR 2 can go a long way for extending the life of something, depending on the level.

After you've got your combat sheets worked out, all you need to do after that is simply thumb to whatever critter you're after and look at their special abilities. This basically helps you out for using a creature from just about any d20 source too; you look at the critter and go "Oh. Snuffleupaguss is considered a CR 8 Magical Beast". Grab your Magical Beast sheet, find the CR 8 line, and you've got all your stats. Now all you care about for the Snuffleupaguss entry is any funky abilities it has.

So I've said that it's a "lot of work" but really... it's a front-loaded amount. They've done 90% of it for you, you just have to knuckle down and set up your sheets. Once you've got that done... your monsters are going to be _significantly_ easier for you to deal with as a GM. Both in terms of prep-work as well as actually running them.

Simplistic and a bit different from the full rules? Sure. But I'm wagering that folks would find it a lot less intimidating if they had all the monster stuff reduced to 13 sheets covering the entire CR range and then seperate entries detailing the special abilities along with a pretty picture.

Part Two:

Templates. I find it interesting how Templates seem to have dropped by the wayside. Part of that I'd wager is simply because templates can get kinda messy to apply and then there's always the question of whether or not a template is "accurate" or "balanced" for it's theoretical CR.

Still, I think it's time to revist them. While everyone loves adding class levels to critters of one sort or another, I think for my Footpath system that I'd just drop it. Most of what we care about templates for is a funky ability or two and then it messes with some of the creature's base bits, changing vulnerabilities or whatever. Especially in combination with Part One, templates can basically do all that still and have a lower overhead than messing with class levels. Want something to Sneak Attack? Fine, give it a template. Heck, just _give_ the critter Sneak Attack and call it good. How do you know how much to bump the CR by? *shrug* As a rule of thumb, if you're adding class abilities to something, I'd say the ability counts as however many abilities the class is getting per level. Sorry that's a really unclear statement, but I'm not sure how to phrase it better right now. So an example:

Sneak Attack. This is usually an ability granted along with something else when a Rogue is getting it. So, call Sneak Attack worth half a CR point for 1d6, a full CR for 2d6, and 2 CR for 3d6.

You'll need to figure out something for figuring out _when_ you can give something, but... *shrug*... it's not an insurmountable idea.

Templates of course are also good for "theming" a setting or campaign; having a series of templates available from the start can help a GM (new or experienced) inject both a consistency to creatures, as well as mixing up things a bit so that even experienced players can't be 100% certain of how to deal with that Troll-looking thing. You can even link templates into classes or skills, allowing characters that might ordinarily not know something about a creature to have a useful tidbit simply because of the template that's been used on it.

There's some fertile ground here and I think both GMs and designers have gotten lazy over the past few years. Simplify the creatures down, augment them with Templates for additional bits.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Why not start with Castles & Crusades, or Dark Dungeons? Because I have Pathfinder in mind. Simple as that. Furthermore, if you truly require "justification" of what amounts to proposed house rules, I'd offer the observation that there's already a veritable googleplex of games of that nature. Also, if *you* wish to hack C&C or DD, who am I to stop you!

I see a man who ignores a car, gets in a plane, and thinks, "how can I make this thing go on land?"

With that out of the way, may I suggest just spamming the core mechanic for everything? Whenever an issue comes up, just ask for a D20 roll. Then you decide the outcome based on your judgment and the roll. You can do all the modifier counting in your head if you like but you can get away with not doing that too.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I see a man who ignores a car, gets in a plane, and thinks, "how can I make this thing go on land?"

With that out of the way, may I suggest just spamming

Well, quite. And of course, you may.

Not that I'll be joining you in that endeavour, mind you. But, to each their own.