Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder 1.5 rumblings: Corefinder

[Jack Daniel]

Is that going to be considered 3.875th edition?

I hate that this is how version numbers apparently work in RPGland. Like... everyone knows that "3.5" was basically D&D v3.1, right?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I hate that this is how version numbers apparently work in RPGland. Like... everyone knows that "3.5" was basically D&D v3.1, right?

If I were to have inserted it in my ISO manual id have made it a 3.1. Maybe edition numbering only offers the choice between next whole number for half the distance to the goal???

Then there is the Xbox scheme....

 

[Ancalagon]

I hate that this is how version numbers apparently work in RPGland. Like... everyone knows that "3.5" was basically D&D v3.1, right?

There were a few critical changes to spells. The cleric buffing spells were nerfed. The duration of statboosting spells were nerfed. Haste (which was super good) was nerfed.

I'm sure there are other important changes, but I stopped playing 3e roughly .... 12 years ago? So my memory is a bit hazy.

Edit: but yeah, 3.5 is a lot closer to 3.0 than 4e....

 

[glass]

I've seen plenty of people I disagree with who LIKE the super complicated "PC/NPCs have same rules" dealios though <_< So even changing that is somewhat controversial depending on who you ask

I can kinda see the utility in it for certain kinds of play, but the cost can often be a little hight. I would say that this is one area where PF2 got things right; building NPCs like PC is possible, but not mandatory.

_
glass.

 

[nevin]

Building PC's wasn't mandatory in 3.0 anymore than 3.5. Unless you had very little knowledge of the system and needed to do that to keep track of it. I always had a little cheat sheet, and a paragraph with all the pertinent skills, and notes on how many attacks what +'s etc. Honey badger aint got time to make every NPC 3rd edition or Pathfinder style.
That being said for the DM like a friend of mine who has to document everything and make up all the bad guys because he's OCD it can take over your life very quickly. But people like that play every edition that way.

 

[Retreater]

When I went from DMing 3.5/PF to 5e, I was surprised by the speed of prep. Even running pre-published adventure modules took a lot of prep, studying up on spells, monster tactics, etc. This freed up time for me to work on crafting, painting minis, creating handouts, making maps.
I judge new systems based on "can I run this with minimal prep?" and "can I run this on a VTT while eating and enjoying a beer?" 3.5/PF is not one of those games.

 

[Don Durito]

I gotta be honest, everytime I read a thread and get interested in thinking about a return to PF1E or D&D 3.5, then a discussion on the finer points of (to use this example) kneeling vs. prone or something grapple related pops up, and a cold chill grips my heart and I realize I'm just fine with PF2E and D&D 5E.

Hopefully despite focus on Corefinder Legendary will still release future Aegis of Empires adventure paths for use with PF2E, I finally ordered my copies and love the two that are out so far.

Yeah. I want a 3.5 clone that lets me use my 3rd edition and Pathfinder material while simplifying and being friendlier for people who haven't played it before (this is necessary because the pool of players is dwindling).

A lot of things in the 3rd edition ruleset are just needless complicated, and with the benefits of hindsight could be rewritten in a cleaner and clearer manner without ending up in the vagueness of 5E.

 

[amethal]

Yeah. I want a 3.5 clone that lets me use my 3rd edition and Pathfinder material while simplifying and being friendlier for people who haven't played it before (this is necessary because the pool of players is dwindling).

A lot of things in the 3rd edition ruleset are just needless complicated, and with the benefits of hindsight could be rewritten in a cleaner and clearer manner without ending up in the vagueness of 5E.

Are you familiar with the Pathfinder Beginner Box? I thought it did a very good job of getting across game concepts in an easy-to-follow way e.g. when we say Constitution we mean the actual contitution score, when we abbreviate it to Con we mean the constitution modifier.

I had hoped that Pathfinder 2 would be written in the same way. I don't own it, and I'm not that familiar with it, but from flicking through the book it looks like they didn't adopt that approach.

If I was simplifying Pathfinder I'd stick to the modifiers rather than the scores. I was briefly excited to see the monsters in the P2 Bestiary have ability score modifiers listed rather than the scores themselves, only to be disappointed to find that player characters still use the scores.

The actual constitution score is relevant in one major way and several minor ways, so I'd then derive a "secondary" ability e.g. Stamina to replace it (Stamina = Con x 2 +10). You die when negative hit points equal your Stamina, you can hold your breath for Stamina rounds etc.

In theory you could do the same for Strength with e.g. a Might score for carrying capacity, but I don't really see the need to distinguish between the carrying capacity of Strength 16 (+3) and Strength 17 (+3).

 

[Don Durito]

Are you familiar with the Pathfinder Beginner Box? I thought it did a very good job of getting across game concepts in an easy-to-follow way e.g. when we say Constitution we mean the actual contitution score, when we abbreviate it to Con we mean the constitution modifier.

I had hoped that Pathfinder 2 would be written in the same way. I don't own it, and I'm not that familiar with it, but from flicking through the book it looks like they didn't adopt that approach.

If I was simplifying Pathfinder I'd stick to the modifiers rather than the scores. I was briefly excited to see the monsters in the P2 Bestiary have ability score modifiers listed rather than the scores themselves, only to be disappointed to find that player characters still use the scores.

The actual constitution score is relevant in one major way and several minor ways, so I'd then derive a "secondary" ability e.g. Stamina to replace it (Stamina = Con x 2 +10). You die when negative hit points equal your Stamina, you can hold your breath for Stamina rounds etc.

In theory you could do the same for Strength with e.g. a Might score for carrying capacity, but I don't really see the need to distinguish between the carrying capacity of Strength 16 (+3) and Strength 17 (+3).

I haven't looked at it. Perhaps I should. But it's not really that I need a game that's written in a player friendly way to learn. I want it to be a little more friendly to play.

For examples Iterative attacks should not still be around in their current form. They're overcomplicated and lead to time being wasted rolling additional attacks that often only hit on a natural 20. Trailblazer proposed one simpler solution years ago. Two attacks at -2 at BAB 6 reducing the penalty to -1 at BAB 11 and 0 at BAB 16.

I simplified them by drawing on 13th Age's Ranger Mechanic. At BAB 6 you get to make a second attack at full BAB if your D20 roll on your first attack is an even number, and then you just get two attacks at full BAB at BAB 11. Both solutions are pretty much mathematically equivalent to the original (except at extremes)

This is Paizo's attempt to offer a way to remove Iterative Attacks.

When making a full attack, roll only one attack roll and compare your result to the target’s AC. If your attack result is lower than the target’s AC by 6 or more, you miss and deal no damage. If your result is lower than the target’s AC by 5 or less, you deliver a glancing blow, dealing an amount of damage equal to 1/2 the minimum damage you would normally deal on a hit with the weapon you’re using. Effects that trigger on a hit do not trigger on a glancing blow. If your attack result equals or exceeds the target’s AC, you score a hit, plus one additional hit for every 5 by which your roll exceeds that target’s AC, up to your maximum number of hits. At first level, you can score a maximum of only one hit, but at base attack bonus +6 and at every +5 to your base attack bonus thereafter, you can score another. This is shown on Table: Maximum Hits, and also matches the progression of iterative attacks you’d gain if you were using the core rules for attacks. For each hit you score, roll damage separately; damage reduction applies to each hit.

Seriously that's just awful.

There's some things that were done right. For example, the Unchained Barbarian has a far more user friendly version of Rage then the the Core one or the 3.X one.

Much more in that direction is needed.

 

[Don Durito]

When I went from DMing 3.5/PF to 5e, I was surprised by the speed of prep. Even running pre-published adventure modules took a lot of prep, studying up on spells, monster tactics, etc. This freed up time for me to work on crafting, painting minis, creating handouts, making maps.
I judge new systems based on "can I run this with minimal prep?" and "can I run this on a VTT while eating and enjoying a beer?" 3.5/PF is not one of those games.

I feel that a lot of the prep issues could be greatly mitigated by having good software available. That's another advantage of 5E right now. Sure it's a lot simpler, but there's plenty of software out their that lets you offload a lot of the work. This I think really needs to be a priority for anyone who wants to keep D20 alive.

I also don't know why the concept of Villain classes that Mike Mearls brought in for Iron Heroes was never carried forward. Basically they were fairly straighforward classes that were meant to be capable of providing threats for the party while having a GM friendly level of simplicity i.e (their feats were basically just built in with things like greater hitpoints or damage).