log in or register to remove this ad

 

PF1E Back to the basics

was

Explorer
I am playing in a new PF campaign on Saturday and was creating a new character. I soon got tired of looking at all the options out there and went with a simple fighter. Made it straight out of the PHB, except for the traits. Do you ever get the urge to chuck all the 'extra stuff' out there and go with a basic pc straight out of the PHB? Or is it just me?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Ezequielramone

Explorer
last month I introduced my girl to rpg. we created a character only with the core rulebook. and was pretty fast and easy (for my standards). so it could be a time to relax.
but since IMHO pathfinder shine with archetypes, you could search those "fighters handbook" guides or something like that. I'm talking about those guides in witch the autor discuss different option to reach the character you want. If you could ignore the maximization, you will find filtered options.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
We did it in the 3.5 days and played Age of Worms with only the PHB options allowed. It worked wonderful!
 

gamerprinter

First Post
Eh, I've done the opposite, ignored all classes from the Core, only allowing the extra stuff from books, not guides, nor 3PP - APG, UM and UC, only. I didn't miss the original classes at all. I have no urges, none, to go back to the basics.
 

biotech66

Explorer
Guess I'm more into the new and shiny. I open the flood gates and let my players chose from whatever books are official for the system.
 


Razjah

Explorer
My preference leans either towards core only classes or non-core only. The game I'm playing in has mostly core classes. Cleric, Sorcerer, Fighter, Bard plus we have a couple players using stuff from the APG a summoner and Rogue/Alchemist (we have a pretty large group). As a player and GM I prefer more restrictions because it allows me to focus some character choices. Being told, any PF book and most 3rd party stuff makes my brain melt. Too many options.

Core only lets everyone keep default assumptions, once you add psionics, advanced classes, 3rd party stuff, it becomes a vichyssoise of options that makes the world seem very patchwork. Non-core would be cool since it allows for some really interesting group combinations and makes the players think about the world differently.

What I would really like to see is a thematic restriction, for example an Orc campaign. Races: Orc, Hobgoblin, Goblin. Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Druid, and maybe Sorcerer. Possibly add Cleric since my group doesn't like the PF math of encounters being a 20% of resources thing, so the fights are epic but the PCs get really beat up. In a different group I would only allow a cleric if they asked for it.
 

gamerprinter

First Post
What I would really like to see is a thematic restriction...

I don't find it worthwhile to play any other way, all my games are thematic, whether that means all Core, no Core, or all 3PP varies with the game. Heck when I run games in my published Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG), I don't even allow the other Asian based classes and races from Paizo, only allowing the classes, archetypes and races already included in Kaidan - for example. I'd say for 15 years now, all my D&D/PF games are thematic games, which is probably why Golarion offers absolutely nothing interesting for me nor my group, let alone most of Paizo APs.
 

Razjah

Explorer
I don't find it worthwhile to play any other way, all my games are thematic, whether that means all Core, no Core, or all 3PP varies with the game.

I envy you. My group is in love with kitchen sink stuff. Three GMs in the group share a setting including:
  • Dragonlance
  • Forgotten Realms
  • Greyhawk
  • Lord of the Rings
  • Star Trek
  • Star Wars
  • Dark Sun
  • Planescape
  • Spelljammer
  • In Nomine

Three major worlds with travel between them using several different methods of planar travel, plus other stuff they felt like adding. Whenever we play Pathfinder the games are these huge "save the world" adventures. But nothing makes any sense to me because there is so much in the universe. Even when we played a Star Wars FATE game and the FATE Dresden Files they added a billion things (may be hyperbole for effect). Our Dresden Files game was awesome, but I had to do a lot of reading about stuff I didn't know like Buffy, Percy Jackson, other Dresden books I haven't read yet, Highlander tv series, 24, and more.

I'd love to play something grittier, grimmer, and more down to earth. I'm not trying to badmouth my group, but it can be frustrating when I'm the only one in a group of 7 who doesn't seem to like the kitchen sink approach.
 

gamerprinter

First Post
We have 3 GMs at our table, sometimes we rotate the GMs chair while in the same setting, though more often each will run a short campaign where each is the only GM for that game. All 3 GMs create our own settings, I don't think I've played in anything, but Greyhawk, in the earliest days, and even back in 1e we were developing our own settings then. We did run Dark Sun back in 2e (I was a player, and for whatever reason, I hate Dark Sun), because a 4th GM, who has since passed away loved psionics and loved Dark Sun. Now we might have borrowed aspects of Menzobarrenzan boxed set in one of our Underdark games, but even then we didn't use that city as is. I've never been a fan of the kitchen sink.

Consider that I've even published a homebrew for Pathfinder through Rite Publishing with the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) which is an extremely specific setting, not just feudal Japan, but as the first of its kind with Japanese horror as its theme. Kaidan, although designed for PF is very gritty, but more esoteric than down to earth.
 

Lord Mhoram

Adventurer
Actually with all the great stuff from 3rd party companies, I am seriously considering running a game with no Paizo classes allowed, only 3rd party ones.
 

TarionzCousin

Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
I envy you. My group is in love with kitchen sink stuff. Three GMs in the group share a setting including:
  • Dragonlance
  • Forgotten Realms
  • Greyhawk
  • Lord of the Rings
  • Star Trek
  • Star Wars
  • Dark Sun
  • Planescape
  • Spelljammer
  • In Nomine

Three major worlds with travel between them using several different methods of planar travel, plus other stuff they felt like adding.
All this in one game setting? I think this may be a record.
 

Razjah

Explorer
All this in one game setting? I think this may be a record.

Yeah. It is... extensive. They took the worlds of Dragonlance, FR, and Greyhawk and put them in the same plane. So Prime Material Plane is three worlds and an asteroid or two. There are two suns or something. Spelljammer, Sigil, high end spells and a Celestial Road are the ways that I know can get a person from one world to another. During a PF game like 2 years ago the Table Lands teleport/crashed into Krynn (I forget where). There are In Nomine angels and demons available to be used by GMs (last campaign used them a lot). I don't know how LotRs got involved and we haven't been to the FR planet enough in the games I've played with this group to understand. Same with Star Trek and Star Wars. But they exist.

Aside from me, the group is mainly players in the 40-50 range. They've been gaming since they were in college. The other guy has been with the group for a long time too. This setting evolved since 1e or 2e and kept going, now in Pathfinder. There is history and reasoning in this setting, I just don't know it and don't want to read a novel to know what the hell is going on.

Oh, and add plenty of the high level NPCs giving out quests.
 

Razjah

Explorer
Back more on topic:

but since IMHO pathfinder shine with archetypes, you could search those "fighters handbook" guides or something like that. I'm talking about those guides in witch the autor discuss different option to reach the character you want. If you could ignore the maximization, you will find filtered options.

This would be my only concern with limiting archetypes. Though I suppose you can wait for players to ask if an archetype is allowed and you can still apply thematic restrictions to the allowed archetypes.
 

Kinak

First Post
We recently made a bunch of characters for shared play (basically, whoever wants to shows up, grabs a character and sits down). They're pretty carefully chosen to keep the complexity down, so lots of Core Rulebook stuff.

I don't think any of them have non-core feats or spells, but a few simpler non-core classes are in and races are all over. And we found the right archetypes, like the archeologist bard, can actually make things easier to track.

Cheers!
Kinak
 

GameOgre

Adventurer
Dude, I would so slap a Klingon Wizard on a quest to find the one ring so I could defeat Iuz and turn into the Universes first World Dragon(think Dark Sun's dragon only more EPIC!) in that game!
 

No, I want even more character options. I'm not a min-maxer/optimizer, but I enjoy designing unique characters. I prefer classless systems, but it's hard to find anyone around here who will play anything other than Pathfinder and D&D.

Having said that, I enjoy playing Fighters.
 

carmachu

Explorer
I am playing in a new PF campaign on Saturday and was creating a new character. I soon got tired of looking at all the options out there and went with a simple fighter. Made it straight out of the PHB, except for the traits. Do you ever get the urge to chuck all the 'extra stuff' out there and go with a basic pc straight out of the PHB? Or is it just me?

Yes. I sold almost everything. My plan is to start again with a new game some day with just one or two books and no softcover splats. Pathfinder has too much stuff. I want to do the same thing and just use only a few things.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top