Out of curiosity, has anyone tried playing Pathfinder after consigning feats and skills to the flames? I've only played a few sessions of the game a couple of years ago, so I have no real sense of what it's all about, but every time I pick up the book in B&N to leaf through it I keeping thinking, maybe there's a good game in there buried beneath the landfill.
Quote from: aspiringlich;747291Out of curiosity, has anyone tried playing Pathfinder after consigning feats and skills to the flames? I've only played a few sessions of the game a couple of years ago, so I have no real sense of what it's all about, but every time I pick up the book in B&N to leaf through it I keeping thinking, maybe there's a good game in there buried beneath the landfill.
FWIW you may want to look at RPGs like Castles and Crusades, which keeps the d20 chassis yet removes most of the discrete power mechanics like skills and feats.
I'm not on the market for another game. I'm 100% satisfied with Labyrinth Lord. But the huge popularity of PF is hard to ignore and it's making me wonder if a really stripped down version of it would be playable.
To what end? If the desire is to take advantage of the playerbase, a really stripped down Pathfinder isn't Pathfinder.
I think it's called AD&D.
Quote from: CRKrueger;747298To what end? If the desire is to take advantage of the playerbase, a really stripped down Pathfinder isn't Pathfinder.
To the end of satisfying my curiosity. Jesus Christ people, can't you ask a question around here without being accused of having ulterior motives?
Quote from: aspiringlich;747300To the end of satisfying my curiosity. Jesus Christ people, can't you ask a question around here without being accused of having ulterior motives?
I don't think the goal was to accuse you of having ulterior motives. I think the goal was "what are you trying to accomplish with this?" Which is a fair question, and pretty far removed from "you must be Swine trying to destroy the industry!"
I know from experience when CRKrueger is accusing someone of being Swine ;)
I think CRK's question is genuine as well.
Quote from: aspiringlich;747296I'm not on the market for another game. I'm 100% satisfied with Labyrinth Lord. But the huge popularity of PF is hard to ignore and it's making me wonder if a really stripped down version of it would be playable.
If you simply removed them without doing anything else, it would be an issue. Not only would there be a lot of references to them that would have no effect but they cover certain matters that are assumed by the mechanics e.g. the fighter class is balanced by feats, how would PCs get better at stuff without skills.
As said, there are RPGs that have done some of that additional work to make a PF without feats and skills work, such as Castles and Crusades (being distinct from Labryinth Lord which is much further removed from D20 in being a B/X retroclone). So, may be worth exploring provided you don't need the Pathfinder label attached (of which CRK made enquiry of).
Quote from: robiswrong;747301I don't think the goal was to accuse you of having ulterior motives. I think the goal was "what are you trying to accomplish with this?" Which is a fair question, and pretty far removed from "you must be Swine trying to destroy the industry!"
I know from experience when CRKrueger is accusing someone of being Swine ;)
I'm not trying to accomplish anything. Short of getting cracked on the head with a mace and ending up with a new personality, I have no plans on playing PF, I was simply wondering if anyone has experimented with taking out the things that I find unbearable and what the results of that experiment were.
It's bland without the skills and feats.
I don't know specifically about Pathfinder, but I went through and did that with 3.0 D&D and made a d20 version of OD&D's Man and Magic as a proof of concept for my local group and on paper it looks like it would work fine.
Didn't Pathfinder just release a beginners box set that does exactly what this post asks? I thought about picking it up but waiting to see what Next does. Besides DCC effectively removes the skills/feats from d20 yet adds back in the cool.
I believe that's called Castles & Crusades.
Quote from: Benoist;747322I believe that's called Castles & Crusades.
I've never played C&C. And isn't the "siege engine" different from the PF d20 mechanic?
Quote from: aspiringlich;747324I've never played C&C. And isn't the "siege engine" different from the PF d20 mechanic?
Its the same d20 mechanic (roll d20 + bonuses v DC), with some minor differences in implementation.
In C&C, you set a DC that is recognisable as a D20 DC which operates in the same way. However, instead of using the standard set of DCs that are in D20, it sets the default DC at 18 and increases this by way of Level of the effect.
Likewise, instead of Skill ranks, PCs get a bonus for Prime Attributes (which is similar to the increased cap for class skills) and Level. The bonus operates the same as in D20 but its derived in a way that removes the need for Skills.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;747318Didn't Pathfinder just release a beginners box set that does exactly what this post asks? I thought about picking it up but waiting to see what Next does. Besides DCC effectively removes the skills/feats from d20 yet adds back in the cool.
The PFBB has Skills and Feats.
Actually Tombs and Terrors may also fit the bill. Its has even less ties to AD&D that C&C attempts to maintain but pretty much does the same thing in presenting D&D3e with no feats and much reduced skills.
Quote from: Skywalker;747327The PFBB has Skills and Feats.
Thanks for the info. You just made that decision for me. I'm not against skills/feats completely but I think the 3.x/PF model is over kill for my taste.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;747329Thanks for the info. You just made that decision for me. I'm not against skills/feats completely but I think the 3.x/PF model is over kill for my taste.
PFBB is just Pathfinder with less options, level cap and better presentation.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;747318Didn't Pathfinder just release a beginners box set that does exactly what this post asks? I thought about picking it up but waiting to see what Next does. Besides DCC effectively removes the skills/feats from d20 yet adds back in the cool.
No, that still has feats and skills, though in a somewhat stripped down form.
OP, you could do this, but it'd take some retooling to keep from making non-casters even more gimped than they already are in that system.
Kind of an interesting, if slightly perverse idea.
One way to "eliminate" feats: just choose feats for each class and hard-wire them in as class features.
I think one of the trickiest classes to rework would be the Rogue, which has Talents (basically just Rogue-only feats) and derives a lot of its efficacy from its very high number of skill points.
There are lots of other features - like a Ranger's Track, quite a few spells, and plenty of magic items - that don't really work without a skill system. You could redo them all, but it'd take a lot of work. Or you could remove all the abilities that link to skills... but that'd be a big chunk of the game.
Overall, it's probably not worth the effort, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
Almost more interesting, to me, would be to experiment with eliminating classes. Make class features and spells into feats similar to Minor Magic (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---rogue-talents/minor-magic-sp), Monk/Rogue Evasion becomes a feat, Ranger's Favored Enemy becomes a feat etc. Probably give everyone 1d8 HD and 6+Int Skills, give them 1 feat/level, and let them choose which saving throw to boost by +2 every level. Or something like that.
Quote from: Steerpike;747335Kind of an interesting, if slightly perverse idea.
One way to "eliminate" feats: just choose feats for each class and hard-wire them in as class features.
I think one of the trickiest classes to rework would be the Rogue, which has Talents (basically just Rogue-only feats) and derives a lot of its efficacy from its very high number of skill points.
There are lots of other features - like a Ranger's Track, quite a few spells, and plenty of magic items - that don't really work without a skill system. You could redo them all, but it'd take a lot of work. Or you could remove all the abilities that link to skills... but that'd be a big chunk of the game.
Overall, it's probably not worth the effort, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
Almost more interesting, to me, would be to experiment with eliminating classes. Make class features and spells into feats similar to Minor Magic (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---rogue-talents/minor-magic-sp), Monk/Rogue Evasion becomes a feat, Ranger's Favored Enemy becomes a feat etc. Probably give everyone 1d8 HD and 6+Int Skills, give them 1 feat/level, and let them choose which saving throw to boost by +2 every level. Or something like that.
I tried that once with D&D 4E. You do the first 3 or so levels (In line with BECMI redbox stuff) they decide it's too much work. (you hardwire a few feats in for class distinctions, and double fighter damage, that seems to work)
I'd love to play a really popular game that has support and market penetration like PF, but without the skill and feats and bloat and crap. But I can't. Yet. D&DN, Don't Let Me Down....
Quote from: Barefoot GaijinI'd love to play a really popular game that has support and market penetration like PF, but without the skill and feats and bloat and crap. But I can't. Yet. D&DN, Don't Let Me Down....
You could just restrict the Pathfinder feats list. Very easy to do without fundamentally altering the system.
It's also pretty easy to just treat everyone as if they already have a lot of basic combat feats to eliminate the "feat tax" issue some dislike (example of such a hack here (http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/)).
The skill system
really isn't that bad. There are 26 skills, and one of them is Fly, which almost no one takes. Lots of the excessive skills found in 3.5 (which had 36 in all, not counting whacky splatbook skills) were condensed - Hide and Move Silently become Stealth, Open Lock is absorbed into Disable Device, Gather Information into Diplomacy, Jump and Tumble into Acrobatics, Spot, Search and Listen into Perception etc. Others, like Use Rope, were just eliminated because they're ridiculous.
Still might not be for you, of course.
The game balance wouldn't work too well without Feats. Skills could be replaced with eg roll-under attribute checks.
I would suggest start with your preferred version of D&D (eg Labyrinth Lord) and then treat Pathfinder as a buffet of options, add in any bits you like from it such as magic items, or funky subystems in the supplements & various Adventure Paths. Expanding from a lean core seems to work much better than cutting down a huge beast.
BTW D&D-Gamma World kinda does this - no Feats, Skills are just some +4s on rolls that you get at chargen (bit like C&C Primes); instead you add your Level to all d20 rolls, and (AIR) most damage rolls too.
Likewise, you could get rid of skills & feats in PF beyond say +3 to some skills at chargen, instead adding Level to all checks. If you add Level to weapon damage that'd even up casters vs non-casters quite well too.
Quote from: S'mon;747345BTW D&D-Gamma World kinda does this - no Feats, Skills are just some +4s on rolls that you get at chargen (bit like C&C Primes); instead you add your Level to all d20 rolls, and (AIR) most damage rolls too.
Likewise, you could get rid of skills & feats in PF beyond say +3 to some skills at chargen, instead adding Level to all checks. If you add Level to weapon damage that'd even up casters vs non-casters quite well too.
I think you could get pretty close to PF skills via all checks +1/2 level +3 if a class skill.
If you remove feats, though, you're gutting most classes. Imagine the poor Fighter...
After a few years do 3.5 and PF, our group did exactly that. First we got rid of the Feats... Played a few sessions... Got rid of the skills... Played a few sessions... The quality of the playing experience went up - a lot fewer bonuses and modifiers to keep track of, a lot fewer "roll perception to see what's in front of you" checks, and we didn't feel like we were missing out on anything.
Pretty quickly, after looking at version upon version of houserule documents, I ditched PF and went back to my long-preferred games: B/X and AD&D. Another DM went for Savage Worlds (he didn't like it), then to OD&D. The other DM, probably the most inherently 3rd editiony of all of us, went to Microlite then on to Blood and Treasure.
Of all of them, Blood and Treasure is the closest to our house rule documents. There are some minimal feat rules, but these are very-much optional. What Skills there are are traditional thief skills or bend bars and the like, but streamlined into one single subsystem based nicely off saving throws.
GM#3 runs PF and S&W modules in Blood and Treasure without fuss. If you'd like to see 3e without the skills and feats, I'd suggest you check out B&T. It's well supported and, for those who like a pile of character options, John Stater puts lots of interesting classes, races, and beasties on his blog or in NOD magazine
Quote from: mcbobboI think you could get pretty close to PF skills via all checks +1/2 level +3 if a class skill.
This is certainly feasible, but I wonder if it would address the issue most people have with skill systems. My impression - and I could be wrong - was that people who deeply disliked skill systems in rpgs just didn't like the idea of rolling for tasks they feel that their character should already be capable of doing. So, like, if they're riding a horse in combat they don't want to have to make an additional Ride check, because it's assumed their character knows how to ride well enough to keep their mount under control.
Quote from: Steerpike;747389This is certainly feasible, but I wonder if it would address the issue most people have with skill systems. My impression - and I could be wrong - was that people who deeply disliked skill systems in rpgs just didn't like the idea of rolling for tasks they feel that their character should already be capable of doing. So, like, if they're riding a horse in combat they don't want to have to make an additional Ride check, because it's assumed their character knows how to ride well enough to keep their mount under control.
That's possible. Kind of comes at me sideways, though. See there's already rules for that in PF.
"A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions, increasing the odds of success."
So you made a quick house rule that says "characters with X ranks in ride can take 10 when riding a trained mount in combat".
Far, far easier than ripping out the system entirely, IMO.
Quote from: mcbobbo;747380If you remove feats, though, you're gutting most classes. Imagine the poor Fighter...
Maybe Fighter gets +Level to weapon damage, other classes only get 0.5xLevel, since they get half as many Feats?
Quote from: languagegeek;747384After a few years do 3.5 and PF, our group did exactly that. First we got rid of the Feats... Played a few sessions... Got rid of the skills... Played a few sessions... The quality of the playing experience went up - a lot fewer bonuses and modifiers to keep track of, a lot fewer "roll perception to see what's in front of you" checks, and we didn't feel like we were missing out on anything.
Pretty quickly, after looking at version upon version of houserule documents, I ditched PF and went back to my long-preferred games: B/X and AD&D. Another DM went for Savage Worlds (he didn't like it), then to OD&D. The other DM, probably the most inherently 3rd editiony of all of us, went to Microlite then on to Blood and Treasure.
Of all of them, Blood and Treasure is the closest to our house rule documents. There are some minimal feat rules, but these are very-much optional. What Skills there are are traditional thief skills or bend bars and the like, but streamlined into one single subsystem based nicely off saving throws.
GM#3 runs PF and S&W modules in Blood and Treasure without fuss. If you'd like to see 3e without the skills and feats, I'd suggest you check out B&T. It's well supported and, for those who like a pile of character options, John Stater puts lots of interesting classes, races, and beasties on his blog or in NOD magazine
Thanks, this was the sort of thing I was interested in hearing about. I understand that PF 2e is in the air. They might take a page out of WotC's current playbook and rework the system so all that crap is made modular.
Quote from: mcbobboSo you made a quick house rule that says "characters with X ranks in ride can take 10 when riding a trained mount in combat".
Far, far easier than ripping out the system entirely, IMO.
I totally agree, but then I'm fine with skill systems. Some people seem to have a kind of philosophical dislike of them (I suspect aspiringlich falls into that category?).
Quote from: Steerpike;747594I totally agree, but then I'm fine with skill systems. Some people seem to have a kind of philosophical dislike of them (I suspect aspiringlich falls into that category?).
I'm not sure "philosophical" is the right adjective for my dislike. It's born out of experience. I've had short stints playing 3.5, 4e and PF, and the constant refrain of "give me a perception check" and "roll a knowledge: dungeoneering check" and "should I roll an acrobatics check or an athletics check?" just grated on my nerves like fingernails down a blackboard. I learned the language of D&D when that sort of thing was unheard of, so it's gibberish to me.
I'm sure it's feasible but the amount of effort it would require to make it completely without skills and feats (as opposed to say varying how they worked) would pretty much mean it's not PF anymore.
At a certain point of changing things you transition to making a new game vaguely based on the old one
Quote from: aspiringlichI'm not sure "philosophical" is the right adjective for my dislike. It's born out of experience. I've had short stints playing 3.5, 4e and PF, and the constant refrain of "give me a perception check" and "roll a knowledge: dungeoneering check" and "should I roll an acrobatics check or an athletics check?" just grated on my nerves like fingernails down a blackboard. I learned the language of D&D when that sort of thing was unheard of, so it's gibberish to me.
Is it primarily the frequency with which skill checks get invoked that bugs you, or more their unfamiliar nature?
Quote from: aspiringlich;747585Thanks, this was the sort of thing I was interested in hearing about. I understand that PF 2e is in the air.
What makes you say that? I haven't heard any news, or even any serious speculation.
Honestly I don't think they can afford a 2e, at least not one that involves any major restructuring of 3.5's sacred cows.
Quote from: LibraryLass;747643What makes you say that? I haven't heard any news, or even any serious speculation.
Their last hardcover book was a collection of reprinted material. Plus, they just went on a hiring spree and their "name" designers aren't attached to anywhere near as many products as they have been in the past.
All of the signs that WotC displayed in the run up to 4e are there. I assume that they'll announce it to try to steal 5e's momentum.
If another edition of Pathfinder does appear my guess is Paizo will takes pains to make it largely backwards compatible - I'd wager the differences wouldn't be much more significant than the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 or 3.5 and Pathfinder.
Second for Blood and Treasure, also check out:
ADND3e (super groovy, an evolved C&C)
Legends & Labyrinths from the Alexandrian (scaled down 3e and free to download)
Myth & Magic (it is more a of 2e scaled upped to 3e but with AD&D math and an options sorta feat system). There is a preview on rpgnow (though the final rules are a bit different)
I have found that lots of players like to have crunchy options (even thought it could be a fluffy idea e.g. Thunder Mage). Of course, it is just as easy to reskin things, but not everyone seems to grok that.
Quote from: Chairman Meow;747646Their last hardcover book was a collection of reprinted material. Plus, they just went on a hiring spree and their "name" designers aren't attached to anywhere near as many products as they have been in the past.
All of the signs that WotC displayed in the run up to 4e are there. I assume that they'll announce it to try to steal 5e's momentum.
Hm. In that case, seems like a reasonable inference to make. Can't wait for the PF/PF2 edition wars, that oughta be fun.
Quote from: aspiringlich;747596I'm not sure "philosophical" is the right adjective for my dislike. It's born out of experience. I've had short stints playing 3.5, 4e and PF, and the constant refrain of "give me a perception check" and "roll a knowledge: dungeoneering check" and "should I roll an acrobatics check or an athletics check?" just grated on my nerves like fingernails down a blackboard. I learned the language of D&D when that sort of thing was unheard of, so it's gibberish to me.
I try and train my players to ask questions with dice already thrown. E.g. "I'm looking around the room for anything out of the ordinary. Does a... (roll)...22 find anything?" This was the same way we ran elves in Basic, too. Except it was 'seach for secret doors' and a d6.
Simply stripping out skills and feats in PF won't work.
Skills are the easiest to dump but you'd need to substitute something back in like "class checks" or "backgrounds" to make up for it with regards to thief abilities etc.
Feats can't easily be dumped. They're the only thing that keeps fighter types in the running a little bit. Removing them would only complicate matters further.
I could definitely see removing feats for everyone but martial characters, however.
Quote from: GoOrange;747738Simply stripping out skills and feats in PF won't work.
Skills are the easiest to dump but you'd need to substitute something back in like "class checks" or "backgrounds" to make up for it with regards to thief abilities etc.
Feats can't easily be dumped. They're the only thing that keeps fighter types in the running a little bit. Removing them would only complicate matters further.
I could definitely see removing feats for everyone but martial characters, however.
You could have fighters choose each round to either add their level to damage, or not get -5/-10/etc.. on secondary attacks. Maybe give fighters saves that don't suck.
Always hated the 'fighters get bad saves' concept.
Quote from: Steerpike;747624Is it primarily the frequency with which skill checks get invoked that bugs you, or more their unfamiliar nature?
For me it's often a matter of:
1) How little actual decision-making actually occurs.
2) How in many cases they can cause a greater focus on mechanics rather than the imaginary shit in our heads.
Quote from: robiswrong;747832For me it's often a matter of:
1) How little actual decision-making actually occurs.
2) How in many cases they can cause a greater focus on mechanics rather than the imaginary shit in our heads.
As for '2' I'd argue that this has its uses. For example, know it all players who don't have know it all characters. "Yes, but your untrained skill check was a 2, your character doesn't know that." It is less imaginative, in a way, because it is more structured.
Also I would add that the typical 3e player prefers these types of limits.
Quote from: mcbobbo;748048As for '2' I'd argue that this has its uses. For example, know it all players who don't have know it all characters. "Yes, but your untrained skill check was a 2, your character doesn't know that." It is less imaginative, in a way, because it is more structured.
I'm not against skills in general. I'm against certain types of play that I've seen with skills.
Quote from: mcbobbo;748048Also I would add that the typical 3e player prefers these types of limits.
I'd agree. I think that focusing on "the shit in our heads" isn't really a focus of 3.x/PF. Which is why I prefaced it with "for me", and part of why I typically don't play 3.x/PF.