Products That Overwhelmed You

[amethal]

I loved pathfinder and I think they came up with many good idea. But when they game got so complex that we were using hero lab to create characters we quit. They keep adding layers of complexity like archetype (different than 5E) and traits and I can’t remember what else.

Traits are a great idea in theory - a couple of "half-feats" that you pick at character creation to add a minor bit of customisation to your character and also give a few role-playing hooks.

Of course, this being Pathfinder it was implemented in as complicated a way as possible.

Lots of categories of traits, including the Basic category which was split into 4 sub-categories, and you couldn't have two traits from the same category, except that for Basic ones you could have more than one so long as they were from different sub-categories (I have absolutely no idea why the sub-categories weren't just made into categories and the Basic part just ditched).

A category called race traits, which is something completely different to "racial traits" (which are what you get as your racial abilities per the races chapter). Then you get the "adopted" trait which allowed you to get the race trait from another race, making the distinction moot but also making people think they could get racial traits with it, such as stonecunning or darkvision. But you could in theory get things like a halfling brought up by orcs being able to get a bite attack or a very ugly (and therefore intimidating, since this is D&D) face.

And of course the rush to create as many traits as possible, so there are literally hundreds to choose from, some of which are objectively better than others (e.g. granting a +2 instead of +1), some of which are exactly the same as others but in a different category, and some of which are exactly the same as others and in the same category. And many of which are either useless in themselves or useless except in very specific circumstances that almost never happen.

And campaign traits, which are flat out better than other types of trait to reward you for picking something campaign-appropriate. But which are lumped in with all the other traits if you do a search on Archives of Nethys, so you then have to explain to your players that they can't pick those unless you are playing a specific campaign.

But technically one of your traits has to be a campaign trait, so are you going to design some for your homebrew?

And, of course, there is a feat to get extra traits. Which you can take more than once.

And "exemplar" traits which count as two traits (so how does that fit in with the requirement that one of your traits is a campaign trait?) which allow you to ignore the rule about no more than one trait from each and actually gives you benefits the more traits you have in a specific category.

And absolutely no guidance as to whether NPCs get the free traits or not (I just give them to NPCs as needed, but usually only one rather than two.)

And traits give trait bonuses, so they don't stack with each other but do stack with everything else. Everybody involved in Pathfinder was crying out for a new type of bonus to go with the hundred it already has.

 

[Sithlord]

Traits are a great idea in theory - a couple of "half-feats" that you pick at character creation to add a minor bit of customisation to your character and also give a few role-playing hooks.

Of course, this being Pathfinder it was implemented in as complicated a way as possible.

Lots of categories of traits, including the Basic category which was split into 4 sub-categories, and you couldn't have two traits from the same category, except that for Basic ones you could have more than one so long as they were from different sub-categories (I have absolutely no idea why the sub-categories weren't just made into categories and the Basic part just ditched).

A category called race traits, which is something completely different to "racial traits" (which are what you get as your racial abilities per the races chapter). Then you get the "adopted" trait which allowed you to get the race trait from another race, making the distinction moot but also making people think they could get racial traits with it, such as stonecunning or darkvision. But you could in theory get things like a halfling brought up by orcs being able to get a bite attack or a very ugly (and therefore intimidating, since this is D&D) face.

And of course the rush to create as many traits as possible, so there are literally hundreds to choose from, some of which are objectively better than others (e.g. granting a +2 instead of +1), some of which are exactly the same as others but in a different category, and some of which are exactly the same as others and in the same category. And many of which are either useless in themselves or useless except in very specific circumstances that almost never happen.

And campaign traits, which are flat out better than other types of trait to reward you for picking something campaign-appropriate. But which are lumped in with all the other traits if you do a search on Archives of Nethys, so you then have to explain to your players that they can't pick those unless you are playing a specific campaign.

But technically one of your traits has to be a campaign trait, so are you going to design some for your homebrew?

And, of course, there is a feat to get extra traits. Which you can take more than once.

And "exemplar" traits which count as two traits (so how does that fit in with the requirement that one of your traits is a campaign trait?) which allow you to ignore the rule about no more than one trait from each and actually gives you benefits the more traits you have in a specific category.

And absolutely no guidance as to whether NPCs get the free traits or not (I just give them to NPCs as needed, but usually only one rather than two.)

And traits give trait bonuses, so they don't stack with each other but do stack with everything else. Everybody involved in Pathfinder was crying out for a new type of bonus to go with the hundred it already has.

I so loved many of the classes of pathfinder that I wish they would have had a pathfinder basic where everyone played one class with no multiclassing and a simpler list of feats. But paizo does not understand simple.

 

[Voadam]

I so loved many of the classes of pathfinder that I wish they would have had a pathfinder basic where everyone played one class with no multiclassing and a simpler list of feats. But paizo does not understand simple.

Well they did have their beginner box rule sets. I didn't delve into it in PF 1e but it was supposed to be a fairly stripped down more straightforward Pathfinder rules set. I see they have one for PF2e now too.

 

[Sithlord]

Well they did have their beginner box rule sets. I didn't delve into it in PF 1e but it was supposed to be a fairly stripped down more straightforward Pathfinder rules set. I see they have one for PF2e now too.

No. No. People say that over and over again. It was just level 1-3 or something like that for beginners. It was not a full 1-20 game. It was just an introductory low level adventure for new players.

 

[Retreater]

I so loved many of the classes of pathfinder that I wish they would have had a pathfinder basic where everyone played one class with no multiclassing and a simpler list of feats. But paizo does not understand simple.

Couldn't a GM just curate such a list, remove the options to streamline the experience?

 

[Voadam]

No. No. People say that over and over again. It was just level 1-3 or something like that for beginners. It was not a full 1-20 game. It was just an introductory low level adventure for new players.

Yeah the 1e beginner box covered 1-5. So very close to the E6 d20 variant. And more than the 1-3 Moldvay, and Mentzer Basic D&D sets. Moldvay did have the follow up Cook Expert set and Mentzer had the whole BECMI follow up sets though.

Also it had a transition book on how to go from beginner box rules to full Pathfinder which also included how to convert stuff from normal pathfinder into Beginner Box.

It looks like it did not use AoOs or combat maneuvers, so a lot like OSR D&D.

I would imagine extrapolating past level 5 the big issue would be iterative attacks and how to progress with some class features.

 

[Ace]

I love settings like tekumel. But one thing I learned is most players really don’t want to do the homework to play in such a system.

I can't get my players to read lore period and its not just "The Internet attention span" some people think it is Players who are into the lore in any game, video or TTRPG are a small subset of all players. This includes history. In one group I was in decades ago , i was the only player with the slightest notion of how to play Wooden Ships and Iron Men. I don't think the group who were decently educated had the slightest idea what was going on and nor did they care. That buy-in cost tends to reinforce D&D Standard play styles with the exception being Vampire back in the day.

In all honestly I care only about enough to play well which means if the setting is complex or strange, I can be a good player but it won't do anything for me. I've read Forgotten Realms books have a grasp of the basics but eh. its just D&D. Same as everyone else.

Same withe being a DM which is why I use homebrew, I made it, I can care about it.

 

[Weiley31]

I would like to run Rappan Athuk. Especially after getting the 5E physical copy for basically free from Frog God Games after purchasing it alongside 5E City of Brass and using a 50% off code promotion they were offering customers at the time.

Keyword being I would like to run Rappan Athuk

But after reading a portion of it................it's a mother of a beast.

 

[Zaukrie]

I would like to run Rappan Athuk. Especially after getting the 5E physical copy for basically free from Frog God Games after purchasing it alongside 5E City of Brass and using a 50% off code promotion they were offering customers at the time.

Keyword being I would like to run Rappan Athuk

But after reading a portion of it................it's a mother of a beast.

True! I can't imagine anyone running the whole of it.

 

[Retreater]

I've run a few levels of Rappan Athuk, but I'm honestly getting more mileage out of Barrowmaze currently.
For Rappan Athuk, I have stuck with the classic, original 3rd edition levels. There are many added from Rappan Athuk Reloaded ("RARE" for 3.5), and then more for the Pathfinder & 5e releases. As it is, 15 levels (and sublevels) is more than enough, and it's more consistent in tone than trying to run everything.