Comprehensive Trait List

[ancientvaults]

But they are looking for character traits, which unfortunately are not covered in the Core Rule Book, Bestiary, or Advanced Player's Guide (that I know of). For these traits you have to delve into pathfinder subscription products.

Also, just my opinion as I too only use the Core Rules and Bestiary, Running without the Advanced Player's Guide when it releases would greatly hamper your game in that it gives player's more to enjoy, but not more to complicate.

And just tonight a new player voted for Labyrinth Lord and against Pathfinder, which he deemed unneccessarily complicated for an rpg.

So, even without traits I have votes against Pathfinder.

 

[Treebore]

And just tonight a new player voted for Labyrinth Lord and against Pathfinder, which he deemed unneccessarily complicated for an rpg.

So, even without traits I have votes against Pathfinder.

That's why I don't run Pathfinder. Its still too much like 3E, overly complicated.

Labyrinth Lord will be a lot of fun, just like the older editions of D&D are still fun to play. I know, I have played them all over the last year. Running Hackmaster Basic right now too, and Castles and Crusades is still my favorite system. I firmly believe "simple is better". I want to PLAY when I am at the gaming table, not spend a lot of time looking up rules clarifications.

So I buy Pathfinder primarily because its awesome material that is very well presented. I may get to play it one day, but in the mean time I get to use what I really like in my C&C games, which is why I like C&C. I get to use my stuff, and it stays easy.

You will be able to do the same with Labyrinth Lord, just to a significantly lesser extent, with more decisions to make about how to do it.

 

[Sylrae]

Hmm. Simple is Better is a good way to look at it, sometimes, but I'm unusually picky about HOW its simplified.

the All-Brains-Must-Be-Eaten style, or anything based on d6s doesnt tend to appeal to me.

The best 'simple' RPG I've seen the system for is WoD. A few elements were improved in nWoD, combat was worsened, but between the two, IMO you have a good simple RPG. I haven't seen a fantasy one that was done in a way I would like yet though.

didn't like Castles and Crusades much. it was simple, but didnt have enough options.

I need a massive number of options. So that means something classless or something complicated. =/

But a comprehensive trait list would be mouthwateringly amazing. And if someone makes one I will thank them muchly.

 

[ancientvaults]

didn't like Castles and Crusades much. it was simple, but didnt have enough options.

I need a massive number of options. So that means something classless or something complicated. =/

The less rules you have, the more options you have. Having a set number of a mechanic like Feats is actually more limiting, as long as one has imaginative players.

Do you believe that OD&D didn't have fighters that used a Mighty Cleave on an opponent? It happened over and over, there just wasn't the need for a mechanic. Skills and Feats give you limitations, not liberations. Working with the DM/GM/referee is all a player needs to do anything in a OD&D, B/X. BECMI or 1E that anyone can do with 3.0+

But the Pathfinder book is very neat looking. If Paizo could have gotten Pete Mullen to do some art for the game it would be a bit closer to perfect.


Sorry for the derail, but I wanted to state my side of the equation.

 

[Jhaelen]

The less rules you have, the more options you have. Having a set number of a mechanic like Feats is actually more limiting, as long as one has imaginative players.

Do you believe that OD&D didn't have fighters that used a Mighty Cleave on an opponent? It happened over and over, there just wasn't the need for a mechanic.

Sure, but that freedom comes with a cost, too.

For me, one big problem with D&D and AD&D 1e was that it wasn't possible to find two gaming groups that used the same rules. They were effectively playing different games because everyone was required to house-rule pretty much everything. Trying to play with a new group was a terrible culture shock, you never knew what to expect.

I prefer systems codifying as many commonly required rules as possible. This also serves as a protection from a DM's arbitrariness. I've met lots of DMs who were great at describing things and roleplaying npcs but absolutely sucked when they had to come up with a rule for something.

 

[ancientvaults]

Sure, but that freedom comes with a cost, too.

For me, one big problem with D&D and AD&D 1e was that it wasn't possible to find two gaming groups that used the same rules. They were effectively playing different games because everyone was required to house-rule pretty much everything. Trying to play with a new group was a terrible culture shock, you never knew what to expect.

I prefer systems codifying as many commonly required rules as possible. This also serves as a protection from a DM's arbitrariness. I've met lots of DMs who were great at describing things and roleplaying npcs but absolutely sucked when they had to come up with a rule for something.

There is nothing wrong with this approach either, as I have always said, any game that works for your group and yourself is the perfect game, regardless of edition. Basically what I like about Pathfinder is fleshed out classes that run well together. Skills and Feats I could have lived without, but they are an integral part of the game, so they must stay. The down side is that NPCs and monsters take a while to put together logically for a character that might show up for one session.

 

[Remathilis]

The less rules you have, the more options you have. Having a set number of a mechanic like Feats is actually more limiting, as long as one has imaginative players.

Do you believe that OD&D didn't have fighters that used a Mighty Cleave on an opponent? It happened over and over, there just wasn't the need for a mechanic. Skills and Feats give you limitations, not liberations. Working with the DM/GM/referee is all a player needs to do anything in a OD&D, B/X. BECMI or 1E that anyone can do with 3.0+

But the Pathfinder book is very neat looking. If Paizo could have gotten Pete Mullen to do some art for the game it would be a bit closer to perfect.

Sorry for the derail, but I wanted to state my side of the equation.

I REALLY hate this line of argument. The assumption that things like skills should be the pervue of "DM fiat" proves that D&D began as a combat game. No game would go like this:

DM: The two orcs lunge at you! What are you going to do?
Bob: I kill it with my sword! I'm a trained warrior who lived on the borderlands for years, so I know how to fight orcs, right?
DM: Yeah, ok, you kill an orc. You know how to do that. Next?
Sam: Ok, I also grew up near a borderland, so I know how to kill orcs too, right?
DM: Well, you might, but you're a wizard so you have to suck at combat. The orc swings at you and cuts off your arm.
Sam: ...

Now, nobody would except a game like that, but its perfectly fine to assume the same when a fighter tries to climb a cliff, a thief tries to smooth-talk a guard, or a cleric tries to swim to escape a flooding dungeon, right? At best, they'll be treated as some "roll a die, if it beats the arbitrary number in my head, you win."

I like things like skills and feats overall. I like anything that doesn't require a DM playing "Mother-may-I?" to do things like tumble between a foe's legs, fight using my dexterity, or to figure out what spell a foe just cast.

Perhaps I gamed with too many DMs whose default answer to "Can I look outside the rules?" is "No!" to really buy the whole "less is more" view. Simpler? Yeah, it could be. But if simpler is best than D02: Know No Limit is the best RPG ever.

 

[ancientvaults]

I understand your point of view here, Remathilis, and I have also been in games like this, and have had players abuse Player Fiat as well, so this breaks even at a point.

When running a game I would rather allow out of the box things to happen than put limitations on my players, therefore when running 3.x/Pathfinder I am very lenient with player intentions that go beyond their abilities.

The wizard is knocked to the side of battle and finds an orc machete? Pick it up and see what happens! This adds more tension and chance than a wizard seeing a machete lying on the ground and not even trying because that mechanic is not written on his character sheet. I prefer running a game like this, not with DM Fiat, but with open communication between all of us at the table.

This argument, aside from going beyond the scope of the thread (my threadjack, sorry) also goes beyond edition, genre and game. Finding a great vibe between the person running the game and the players isn't easy, but when it happens the particulars of the game are set aside to focus on the experience of the game.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

That's why I don't run Pathfinder

Then why are you here in the Pathfinder forums?

Also for the love of god, we get it. You love Castles and Crusades. Christ.

 

[ancientvaults]

That is a bit of a point. Even though a player has voted against Pathfinder, that doesn't mean that we won't be playing more of it. He is new to the group and I am sure that I can sell Pathfinder to him. The depth of the classes is really an excellent selling point.