Pathfinder 1E Are there any plans for a Pathfinder "basic"?

[Sunsword]

Since we have the Advanced Player's Guide for Pathfinder, why not just create a Basic Player's Guide as a counterpoint? Strip out feats, adjust skills, maybe create races as classes as an option...

 

[fireinthedust]

Since we have the Advanced Player's Guide for Pathfinder, why not just create a Basic Player's Guide as a counterpoint? Strip out feats, adjust skills, maybe create races as classes as an option...

Not a bad idea; I'm beginning to think a boxed set would be key to this, however. Have the guide in the boxed set.

Player Book
- Intro to the game (what is this thing in your hands?)
- Short Story introduction (maybe a page long, with several "what would you have done?" sidebars)
- Character creation rules
-- Races (Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Human)
-- Classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Bard [or another "5th person" class])
- Equipment
- Game Rules
- "Try it yourself" scenario

Hand-Out Pamplet(s)
- photocopyable Character Sheet
- Feat/Background/Trait list (as an advanced topic)*
- Spell list

GameMaster's Book
- What is a gamemaster, and what is he/she responsible for
- Organizing a game
- Game Rules
- Monster List
- Adventure Samples
- Introduction to Golarion
- Downloadable adventure coupon

Dice, Blank battlemat or poster sheet and counters

Yeah, that looks good, I suppose.

Okay, so yes the Rule book is dense for new players. However, kids aren't the only group for this. The ideal would be having a set that can be given to newbs across the board, to whet the appetite for the real thing.

The adventure sample could be a multi-level dungeon. Three character levels, three levels of the dungeon. You complete the dungeon, your characters should be level 3. You like it that much, get the whole set.

The dungeon should be a whole poster map, or three of them. The counters fit the squares, and you get to take away a three-level dungeon poster map. Levels 1 & 3 on one sheet, 2 on the other; or three sheets. The players can see better the whole process, and we worry less about visualizing until they're stronger players.

The puzzles should be as classic as possible: pit traps, lettered floors, big doors you have to (ooooh) roll a str check to open, that sort of thing.

The villain at the end should either have a dragon or be a dragon. None of that Dragon Skeleton nonsense either, we need a full dragon. Size Large at least. Maybe a magic item that gives a bonus to his *that* dragon (not all of them), and some anti-breath weapon tokens (like a mummified dragon's paw that negates one breath weapon on a subject per clawed finger on the paw, automatically).

 

[MortonStromgal]

here is what I would have
Dwarf, Elf, Human
Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard
level 1-5 (no feat at level 3, or attribute bump at level 4)
Very few feats, just enough to flavor the fighter and give a couple non-combat options (1 page of feats, tops)
remove all movement/minis rules from combat,
remove fly possibly some other skills
1 page of cleric spells
1 page of wizard spells
2 Sample 1st level adventures
1 Sample level 1-5 adventure path
A few pages of monsters and a page of traps.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Since we have the Advanced Player's Guide for Pathfinder, why not just create a Basic Player's Guide as a counterpoint? Strip out feats, adjust skills, maybe create races as classes as an option...

Because feats are kind of core to the game?

Seriously, I have run games for kids, and never had any difficulty with feats.

Maybe limit the feats available in the set, but stripping them out? No, bad idea, in my opinion. It is one of the places where a player makes the character their own.

The Core Rulebook and SRD are awesome. Great books and resources and are well laid out for experienced gamers to get into the Pathfinder game. 576 page rulebooks can be intimidating for new gamers though or our younger gamers.

Not to mention crushing smaller players under the sheer weight of that doughty tome.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* @ Jeff Wilder - Doughty in the sense of 'worthy'.

 

[pawsplay]

Because feats are kind of core to the game?

Seriously, I have run games for kids, and never had any difficulty with feats.

Adding further to that, removing feats would make it more difficult to customize characters to something a player may want. Making life difficult for players is not a design goal for a basic game. And seriously, only listing the feats possible to take by 6th level vastly trims down the list. Seriously, Improved Critical, Greater Weapon Focus, gone. Perfect Two Weapon Underwater Tripping? Gone.

 

[IronWolf]

Because feats are kind of core to the game?

Seriously, I have run games for kids, and never had any difficulty with feats.

Maybe limit the feats available in the set, but stripping them out? No, bad idea, in my opinion. It is one of the places where a player makes the character their own.

I agree, definitely keep feats in a Basic Game just use a much smaller list of choices to keep one from getting overwhelmed. I've played with IronPup and feat selection is pretty much a discussion of what does he want his character to be good at, then I offer him a couple of choices from which he chooses one.

Plus if you keep feats in a Basic game when you top out in that box set and expand to the core rulebook, the beginner player understands the concept of feats, just they now have a whole lot more options to choose from when breaking into the expanded ruleset.

 

[prosfilaes]

And seriously, only listing the feats possible to take by 6th level vastly trims down the list. Seriously, Improved Critical, Greater Weapon Focus, gone. Perfect Two Weapon Underwater Tripping? Gone.

I've trying to make a sort of Pathfinder Basic to make a small translation target, and maybe 2/3rds of the feats in the main book have no level requirements and could be taken at first level.

 

[UHF]

My friend has had no trouble teaching original AD&D to his kids. 8-12.

I think that what you'd need is something that just limited levels. Pick a maximum level of like 5 or 10. But otherwise, give them the full breadth of rules and such. Limit alternate character builds... a bazillion different build variants won't help the kids.

I think you'll find that this really reduces the amount of material you'll need for the final product. Also, taking a page out of WOTCs Essential playbook, the characters would be drop in compatible with the full game. The kids could even buy the regular products and use them.

Umm... Pathfinder modules.... isn't there a lot of evil stuff in that? Would the local church group be happy to discover the Skin Saw Murders in little Johny's bag?

 

[IronWolf]

I've trying to make a sort of Pathfinder Basic to make a small translation target, and maybe 2/3rds of the feats in the main book have no level requirements and could be taken at first level.

Yeah, but just lop off the ones that require a higher BAB than you are going to get in a "Basic" set or other requirements that have some implication of being a certain level will reduce the list right off the bat.

Then you go back through and trim other feats, some of the ones not taken as frequently and such. This is of course subjective, but a lot of the classes have feats that most people will take to act as the foundation of their character in the early stages. Keep these feats, let the others fall to the wayside for the purpose of a Basic set.

If you keep the Basic set, drop in compatible to the main core rulebook, a person can easily go out as they feel the need, pick up the main core rulebook or APG and then start selecting feats from their to broaden their choices as they feel necessary.

 

[IronWolf]

Excellent! It has now gone beyond just the hinting phase the Paizo guys were doing here.

First from the Paizo Twitter

I wanted to spoil this in my blog post on Friday but there wasn't time:we're working on a Pathfinder Intro set. More details later. -H.

And then from Jason Bulmahn's facebook status update

One of my secrets is out. We are working on a Pathfinder Intro set. Just thought I would spread the word.