Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Alpha "crunch" discussion

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, to be honest, I doubt you can "fix" this for D&D as it was up to 3.5, which is probably why they are trying to remake it into something new with 4E. It has to be seen how well that works, but that's beside the point.

The best workaround, in my opinion, is to settle the game very solidly in the "expected average" of the spectrum, and make sure both extremes are VERY far away from it. Then you try to make as sure as possible that at the very least the DMs, better every player, knows what to expect when the group deviates into that kind of extreme game, and try to give advice about what to take out respectively put in to make it kind of feasible to play in those extremes.

A few good examples are those threads here about "rare magic" or "low magic" campaigns. D&D is simply not made to play those out of the box, most especially not 3E. You have to tweak a bit, and take care about interaction with monsters. A good guide on how to do so would do a lot more than simply handing DMs a CR system and a wealth-by-level guideline and telling them to "adjust according to their campaign needs". Same goes for extremely high and common magic scenarios (Magic-Mart scenarios, for example).

In other words, make very clear what the D&D average is supposed to look like...write your assumptions out in "Designer's Notes" and "Sidebars", and don't hope the players will see them from your rules alone.

For example, I'm pretty sure the wizard as 3E has it was supposed to use Scribe Scroll a lot more in early levels to bolster its cache of ammunition. The buffer spells were supposed to make sure booster items wouldn't have to be handed out that often. Spells like Magic Weapon could help out the odd group that suddenly found itself confronted by some DR/+1 nasty. Likewise, the clerical Endure Elements and other resistances spells were good to help them over a sudden encounter with a thoqqua or a winter wolf. That's at least my impression, that there was a much greater amount of synergy assumed by the designers, while they set the item creation rules up so those few who were actually willing to spend XP on a magical item would have solid rules instead of the very obscure ones in 2E. I don't think they really imagined it would lead to this "magic item shopping" phenomenon that set in after a while.

But all that is speculation on my part, since the assumptions of 3E were not written down anywhere, sadly enough. It's like the designers' assumption that everybody knew diagonals are longer than orthogonals, and would account for that...an assumption that was wrong, since 3.5 had to write it out, resulting in the infamous 1-2-1-2 rule. I bet there's plenty more assumptions about 3E gameplay hidden in the rules, and never spelled out. In a way, I prefer Gary Gygax's verbosity...he at least told the players in (mostly) clear words how he thought D&D worked best, and what assumptions had gone into the rules. I miss that.

Yes, I agree. That's one of the reason why I also liked the Races & Classes and World & Monsters books. I also loved stuff like Monte Cooks "Design Diary". You really get to understand how the designers come to their conclusions. I like side bars explaining the "behind the scenes". These exist in 3.x, too, but they are far and in between.
Don't just give us tables, explain how you came to the conclusion that these tables work, or at least under which assumptions they do. Sure, it won't protect you from power-gamers (like me) or muchkins (like every other power-gamer beside me ), but at least they can't put the blame on the game system, because they were warned that "breakage" could happen.

I think there is a certain sign that more of this design intentions are finally written down, and the open playtest and the discussion on Pathfinder can certainly help the game a lot in that regard. There might be issues remaining, since Pathfinder is based on a system that didn't hint all the base assumptions. But in the end, the system will benefit from it.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

ok back to the crunch
I had a thought alot of the dislike of alpha seems to be that if you pick a skill up at 6th level its as good as say ones you had at first.
so maybe something like 3+modifier+level{starting when you took it}
like so 6th level fighter
climb 3 str17+3 that's +12 at 1st and if taken at
2nd 3+3+5=+11 and cross 3+3+2=+8
4th 3+3+3=+9 cross 3+3+1=+7
6th 3+3+1=+7 cross 3+3+0=+6
still fast and easy to figure out but it scales so your better with skills you have had longer and more easily ports over to the 3.5 skill system.

any thoughts on this.

 

[Gansk]

ok back to the crunch
I had a thought alot of the dislike of alpha seems to be that if you pick a skill up at 6th level its as good as say ones you had at first.
so maybe something like 3+modifier+level{starting when you took it}
like so 6th level fighter
climb 3 str17+3 that's +12 at 1st and if taken at
2nd 3+3+5=+11 and cross 3+3+2=+8
4th 3+3+3=+9 cross 3+3+1=+7
6th 3+3+1=+7 cross 3+3+0=+6
still fast and easy to figure out but it scales so your better with skills you have had longer and more easily ports over to the 3.5 skill system.

any thoughts on this.

Yes, this seems to make more sense.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Yes, this seems to make more sense.

thanks man your the first comment i have had on it over here or at paizos board folks just glance over it . but i liked it myself and was wondering if it made sence to anyone else so thanks .

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

ok back to the crunch
I had a thought alot of the dislike of alpha seems to be that if you pick a skill up at 6th level its as good as say ones you had at first.
so maybe something like 3+modifier+level{starting when you took it}
like so 6th level fighter
climb 3 str17+3 that's +12 at 1st and if taken at
2nd 3+3+5=+11 and cross 3+3+2=+8
4th 3+3+3=+9 cross 3+3+1=+7
6th 3+3+1=+7 cross 3+3+0=+6
still fast and easy to figure out but it scales so your better with skills you have had longer and more easily ports over to the 3.5 skill system.

any thoughts on this.

Why not simply keep skill points, and just grant more points per level, and possibly some extra points beginning at certain levels?

Your approach reaches very similar results to the skill point system, and requires people to keep in mind when they started picking a skill. That's very similar to feats, and it is always work for creating high level NPCs and PCs alike. At least with skill points, you don't have to be that nit-picky. With the new system, you never need to think about that part.
In the end, none of the approaches fixes the "expanding gap"-problem between untrained to trained to maximizer, and so all in all, I can't really see a benefit.
I repeat myself, but I would just eliminate extra cost for cross-class skills (and add more skill points per level to all classes). Suddenly, a major part of the paper-work goes away.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I repeat myself, but I would just eliminate extra cost for cross-class skills (and add more skill points per level to all classes). Suddenly, a major part of the paper-work goes away.

The skill system definitely is one of the hottest debated topics over at the Paizo boards, and it brings up a lot of interesting points. There's a little list of suggestions I've collected about how to "simplify" the 3.5 system while still keeping a large degree of compatibility, and I think they will work nicely as houserules in any case. I tried some of them in my current Lone Wold OGL game, and am pretty happy with the results so far.

- Fold skills together in a reasonable way. This will shorten the skill list, and eliminate a lot of synergy bonuses outright (Persuasion instead of Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate for example).

- Eliminate the cross-class distinction to simplify skill point expenditure, or leave it only for max ranks. In second case, allow all skills from classes in a multiclass to be class skills for the purpose of raising.

- Allow retroactive INT bonus for skill points. Details up to be determined (personally, I'd allow them only to raise already trained skills).

- Synergy bonuses should either be heavily simplified, or eliminated (personally, I'd simply like to see them simplified and better organized in a table).

A shorter skill list means people can get more use out of their skill points. Allowing retroactive INT bonuses to skill points expands the skill point pool, and the elimination of cross-class costs makes it easier to keep up with those. Personally, I like the suggestions, and am going to implement them as far as I can, even though I'm going to do my own skill-folding.

 

[Woas]

I don't know. I'm not a big fan of retroactive skill points. Actually I'm not a big fan of retroactive anything, even HP to be honest.

Definitely need to fold in certain skills as they already seem to be which is a good start. Climb, swim, jump could all become athletics. Disguise could get folded into deception as well.
The next step is to either erase skills that will never get used or make up new uses for them. Prime example is appraise. Thats just a waste of skill points. Either can it or make appraise do something like 'assess opponents' and allow characters to spend an action to figure weak points in an enemy for a bonus to hit (or reduced AC for the opponent). Another one is the jump skill. Jump shouldn't be a skill. And if it is going to be a skill there needs to be some moderately sane cap on it. None of this 1 foot = 1 DC nonsense. People just don't jump 30+ feet on a daily bases for fun. And flying? No way. Another dead skill that only two classes will use. Heck, if fly is going to be a skill, why not drop Base Attack Bonus as a class ability and make "fighting" (aka: BAB) a skill too?

As for how to handle skill points and such, it seems like quite a hot debate. Personally I agree that skills shouldn't be 'automated' and just go up with level for being class skills.
After playing some Iron Heroes though, I like having certain skills for classes be 'bulk' rate when purchasing them and would suggest a system like that. Not verbatim but close to it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The skill system definitely is one of the hottest debated topics over at the Paizo boards, and it brings up a lot of interesting points. There's a little list of suggestions I've collected about how to "simplify" the 3.5 system while still keeping a large degree of compatibility, and I think they will work nicely as houserules in any case. I tried some of them in my current Lone Wold OGL game, and am pretty happy with the results so far.

- Fold skills together in a reasonable way. This will shorten the skill list, and eliminate a lot of synergy bonuses outright (Persuasion instead of Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate for example).

- Eliminate the cross-class distinction to simplify skill point expenditure, or leave it only for max ranks. In second case, allow all skills from classes in a multiclass to be class skills for the purpose of raising.

- Allow retroactive INT bonus for skill points. Details up to be determined (personally, I'd allow them only to raise already trained skills).

- Synergy bonuses should either be heavily simplified, or eliminated (personally, I'd simply like to see them simplified and better organized in a table).

A shorter skill list means people can get more use out of their skill points. Allowing retroactive INT bonuses to skill points expands the skill point pool, and the elimination of cross-class costs makes it easier to keep up with those. Personally, I like the suggestions, and am going to implement them as far as I can, even though I'm going to do my own skill-folding.

Want some ideas added to your list?
Look at the Skill Groups in Iron Heroes for a first idea on what to fold. I guess you won't see many surprises there, but anyway, inspiration can't hurt, can it?
Next, think about what happens if someone really wants to specialise in one of the skills you folded into something else? One of my ideas for a homebrew game that I will never get finished or use was to have the broader skills, and allow "specialisation" in subskills. For example, people might be interest to pick Athletics (Swim). So, you might have two types of skill focus. Something akin to Combat Casting (which is Concentration (Casting on the Defensive)) and the standard Skill Focus. this might also allow you to retain older feats like Alertness. Skill Focus (Skill) grants a +2 bonus, Skill Focus (special skill) grants a +5 bonus, and things like Alertness grant +3 to two Perception (Spot, Listen). Or something like that.
I would recommend removing all synergy bonuses. Maybe you have a chance to remove the +27 Diplomacy skill at 3rd level...

 

[Mark]

Let's face it, "great friends with dwarves" is the description of a henchrace, not a hero race.

Well put. Gnomes have always fallen into categories that make them similar to but different from one race or another, be it Halflings (Hobbits), Dwarves, Elves, etc. Part of the problem is the move away from legendary/mythological descriptions for those others races, too.

 

[Arnwyn]

If the Paizo class has the money, there's nothing preventing them from spending the money on the Xmas tree items just like before.

And there's the rub - that's a pretty huge "if". It would not surprise me one bit if Paizo reworks the wealth guidelines (and that's my prediction).

Seriously, when did gnomes become a magical fey race? At the beginning of 3.0 in the PHB, they're listed as inventors/alchemist and great friends with dwarves and this remains the same in the 3.5 PHB.

When did gnomes start be equating with fey and NOT dwarves?

Since these are Pathfinder (read: Golarion) gnomes? Make no mistake, this "Pathfinder RPG" book is simply a big lead-in to their Pathfinder line, set in their world of "Golarion". (Note that I'm withholding comment on whether that's a good or bad thing.)