This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

PF w/o feats & skills?

Started by aspiringlich, May 06, 2014, 08:12:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions

S'mon

#30
May 07, 2014, 12:28:43 PM
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?

aspiringlich

#31
May 07, 2014, 09:09:38 PM
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.

Steerpike

#32
May 07, 2014, 09:24:03 PM
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?).

aspiringlich

#33
May 07, 2014, 09:32:10 PM
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.

tanstaafl48

#34
May 07, 2014, 09:56:53 PM
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
"When a debater's point is not impressive, he brings forth many arguments."

Steerpike

#35
May 07, 2014, 11:22:48 PM
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?

LibraryLass

#36
May 08, 2014, 01:26:28 AM
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.
http://rachelghoulgamestuff.blogspot.com/
Rachel Bonuses: Now with pretty

Quote from: noismsI get depressed, suicidal and aggressive when nerds start comparing penis sizes via the medium of how much they know about swords.

Quote from: Larsdangly;786974An encounter with a weird and potentially life threatening monster is not game wrecking. It is the game.

Currently panhandling for my transition/medical bills.

Chairman Meow

#37
May 08, 2014, 01:41:58 AM
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.
"I drank what?" - Socrates

Steerpike

#38
May 08, 2014, 01:46:56 AM
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.

Teazia

#39
May 08, 2014, 02:11:42 AM
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.
Miniature Mashup with the Fungeon Master  (Not me, but great nonetheless)

LibraryLass

#40
May 08, 2014, 05:09:27 AM
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.
http://rachelghoulgamestuff.blogspot.com/
Rachel Bonuses: Now with pretty

Quote from: noismsI get depressed, suicidal and aggressive when nerds start comparing penis sizes via the medium of how much they know about swords.

Quote from: Larsdangly;786974An encounter with a weird and potentially life threatening monster is not game wrecking. It is the game.

Currently panhandling for my transition/medical bills.

mcbobbo

#41
May 08, 2014, 07:12:51 AM
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.
"It is the mark of an [intelligent] mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Hackmaster

#42
May 08, 2014, 10:07:38 AM
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.
 

Bill

#43
May 08, 2014, 12:31:41 PM
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.

robiswrong

#44
May 08, 2014, 02:24:22 PM
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.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions