Coming to Terms With Pathfinder II

Page by Page ... Well almost. The idea here is to take a look at the PF rules and bring up things that bother me. This is not a rant session--it is a way for me to talk with myself, and perhaps others who are interested about issues I have with Pathfinder. Perhaps I can work them out and find a way for me to be comfortable with the system that all of my current club players prefer.

Overall Feelings

• I don't like slickness in my RPG. I'm an old school guy and loved the black & white art, the archaisms, the stilted speech, the historical rootedness of the game and the like. But this is a cosmetic issue at best, but it does matter to me. Not likely this will change much, as it started with 2e and just kept on getting slicker. And in fact with the dwindling market share for gaming books overall I don;t think it makes much sense to go slick--keep costs down and content high.
• I do like splat books however. And all of the systems since 2e are splat heavy--PF too. That makes me happy.
• I like gaming subscriptions and PF has that in spades, but I do wish they still had a magazine like Dragons. But I don't hold that against them.
• The company is aces as gaming companies go, great community at Paizo, and Jason Buhlman is awesome.
• It's d20--which I'm actually okay with. Because d20 is so lite, intuitive and logical it fits perfect into a rules lite approach. Unfortunately that's where the rules lite ends for PF.
• The fact that it's d20 makes me sad in that its not D&D. d20 has a decidedly different feel from D&D, and though you can opt out of a lot of the other rules it does play a bit differently. For awhile I really thought that any game is played pretty much the same way depending on the players involved. But if that was the case, none of this would have come up for me. Don't know what to say about this. It's more about me letting go of something I love (D&D mechanics) to embrace a new way of doing things. I can see how d20 might be more efficient, but it feels a little different and that's something I'm just not quite comfortable with yet--even though I can handle it overall.

Details

• Chapter 1 Getting Started
• No real problems here. Except I prefer a standard ability generation to 3d6--no big deal
• Chapter 2 Races
• Standard starting races--Good
• Racial ability bonuses are a little high for me, but overall I can live with them. Truth to tell those hefty ability bonuses should make cheating on ability generation less of a problem; and it can steer racial choice as well.
• Chapter 3 Classes
• Single XP table, don't like that--it genericizes the classes some
• Also don't like optional XP advancement. This is a product of a broken XP award system (see below), but sends the wrong message to players that there is an easy, medium and difficult way to game. May have seemed like a good idea at the time, but it sets the wrong tone for the game.
• I do NOT like advancing ability scores. I don't think this should be automatic, other than by age, special circumstances or magic.
• Absolutely HATE the multiclassing rules--could go into that more here, but suffice it to say that it makes no sense whatsoever in a class based system. Favored class as the only motivation to stay in your class is weak at best an seems a product of the multiclassing rules.
• Lack of racial restrictions make no sense. Elvish Barbarians? Dwarf Wizards?
• All classes are souped up in power--don't really like that.
• Barbarian is less barbarian like than previous definitions of the class--Rage rules are no good. Should not be able to affiliate with spellcasters. No payoff for commensurate abilities.
• Bard--I have never liked single class Bards.
• I like the Cleric domains--well done. I hate Channel energy however. Stupid power just designed to up damage taking capacity of an adventuring party. Bring back turn undead and spells to heal.
• Pathfinder Gods and mythos rock!
• Druid is iffy for me too. The only Druid I have ever really liked is the AD&D + UA Druid. This one is okay, but meh. And all Druids should be true neutral, balance is integral to their ethos. Otherwise you are just a nature priest. To me this seems indicative of the misunderstanding later designers show about the original intent of the classes.
• Fighters are fine.
• Monks are pretty good. Monk is a hard class to define. I really like the AD&D monk best, but the interpretation here isn't bad.
• Pallies are good. I like the idea of giving the Pallie more abilities like the old Druid had. Good work here.
• Rangers are okay. They don't feel woodsy enough--but this has been a complaint of mine since they were first introduced into the game. I don't like the idea of a Ranger as a woodsy fighter. I think more of a scout or woodsman or forester. Fighting should be secondary to them. Can't fault the Ranger here for that as all Rangers seem to suffer from this stigma. Except maybe for C&C Rangers, I like them.
• Rogue is a class I liked when 2e introduced it. Thief was always a little too narrow for me. That being said I really don;t like the whole talent notion of Rogues here. I mean it's okay, but not the direction I would have gone.
• I hate sorcerers! Magic in AD&D should be Vancian in nature and driven by spellbooks if it is arcane in nature. Sorry, not a favorite class for me.
• Wizards and their schools are awesome. We have a basic repeat of 2e Wizards here and that is good with me.
• Overall the classes feel templated to me. They are all sort of designed to balance moreso than in the past; and I think that is completely unnecessary. And each and every class has some sort of special ability they gain as they advance. Also unnecessary to me. A customized skill system would be better. We don't need nifty new powers every level. It isn't very hard core in my opinion, and feeds into powergaming.
• Chapter 4 Skills
• Overall the system for skills is good. but in my opinion it makes the mistake 2e made in giving too many. I do like that skill ranks are limited to overall level, but that doesn't preclude a PC having as much as a +8 on a given skill at first level. Rare, but possible. Too high if you ask me. And skill points every level is also a bit of a stretch for me.
• Chapter 5 Feats
• Are entirely unnecessary if you ask me. Not only do we get power ups almost every level we also get feats. As a method or character customization they have potential, but not in the number which PF awards.
• A PC at level 11 for instance is going to have 6 feats! And humans are going to have 7. A human fighter will have 13!! In addition to all their class abilities.
• Let's face the music, high level class based Fantasy RPGs top out pretty quick. It becomes hard to challenge a PC after a certain point. Adding more power is not the answer to this dilemma.
• Chapter 6 Equipment
• Lots to say here mainly about how the combat rules add a level of complexity that I really don;t think is needed. This is where my biggest beef is with PF--that and power creep. But it is really hard to just play streamlined combat without simply ignoring all of the combat rules. I suppose one could do this, and with a better controlled group of players I might be able to work something out in this regard.
• I can't say I don't like the rules here, they all make some degree of sense; and are at least as good as most other RPG combat rules. There's just so many that are assumed to be part of the game that combat can slow things down, and become a cumbersome rule-look-up session.
• PF has made some improvements on 3.5 however, where combat was even more cumbersome--especially with CMB and CMD--which is a good idea, but if everything is so complex why only simplify grappling?
• My ultimate opinion on this is it ALL needs to be optional--NOT a part of the core system.
• The actual equipment, money and the like is just fine though. Nothing special to turn my crank however.
• Chapter 7 Additional Rules
• 9 point Alignment system--good.
• Ages, sizes, and such should be in the PC section--but no big deal. However, they miss a huge opportunity in offering actual PC background tables and information. That might mitigate some of the need for all the power based customization all over the place.
• The rest of the rules here, encumbrance and miscellaneous stuff I can live with. I never used much of this stuff in AD&D, so the deets here don't shake me much--but it is nice to see it.
• Chapter 8 Combat
• Sigh
• What can I say? this is where the recent d20 systems lose all of their potential elegance.
• d20 combat can be so quick--quicker than D&D ever was. But now? Well, PF is better than 3.5 and it aint as bad as 4e, but still. I hate PF combat rules. When players will let me run it fast and loose all goes well, but all we need is a couple of rules lawyers and you almost _have_ to have the rules. It isn't taken well when I wing it, or make GM calls outside of the RAW either. So I'm almost forced--moreso with every session--of incorporating more and more rules into PF combat.
• I do have some problems with specific rules, like Attacks of Opportunity, and negative Con to death, nonlethal damage and maybe one or two others I'm not too familiar with. But whatever, additional combat rules, get so technical that you could go one way as well as another.
• Creating such a detailed system for combat is a huge bugaboo, because you are essentially trying to write a computer program to simulate actual melee or ranged combat. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson learned long ago that this is a subject fraught with differences of opinions and difficulties. D&D took the approach that abstract was better and left it at that. d20 has generally gone in the other direction. Though to be fair, 2e really started the ball rolling with its options books.
• Sigh--if I could rewrite PF combat I would prolly have lots less problems with the system. Just do it d20 man and leave the deets up to the players.
• Chapter 9 Magic
• Pretty good coverage of the main factors affecting spells without becoming burdensome
• Like the counterspelling, but I might tweak the results info
• Chapter 10 Spells
• I know I'm in the minority here, but I like spell descriptions separated by level.
• Chapter 11 Prestige Classes
• Puhleeeeze ...
• I find no use for these beyond flavorful additions for GM use
• These are PC developments that should be confined to specific campaigns and GM/Player creation. I definitely do NOT think they should be a part of a core system
• Chapter 12 Gamemastering
• This is where I went before and became very displeased with PF
• Encounter design is broken
• XP design is wrong
• XP should be focused on the purpose of the game, which would include treasure, exploration, roleplaying, overcoming and/or negotiating with monsters/pcs, traps and the like. When you wrap XP into an encounter level or challenge rating you miss this element of flexible encounter creation and adaptation. It also constricts play and purpose within the game. Bad, bad, BAD idea.
• Treasure value and worth is a good rule of thumb, but it should be made clear that this will vary greatly based on campaign type, to which only two sentences is afforded on pg 400.
• There are some other good hints here, but I find them distasteful to my style of GMing, and can't help but wonder if others do too. I suppose a GM can simply ignore all this, but since this is the only real chapter on GMing, you would expect the heart of running a game to be here--the heart of the system, but instead it is a slanted approach to game play that turns me off somewhat.
• Alternative races list should be out; not mentioned in the core game. This is a topic for later splat books.
• Chapter 13 Environment
• Good basic info on mundane stuff
• Traps section is not bad, but suffers from lack of detail. Need better description than just a name. This might have been better used in a splatbook with more room--but this isn't really bad.
• I don't really like CR ratings for environmental factors, but I suppose it is useful for some who desire to keep things carefully balanced.
• Need MUCH more info on planes, but the basic stuff is here. Splat book material really.
• Chapter 14 NPCs
• Good useful info
• Chapter 15 Magic Items
• Overall I'm impressed with this chapter--the descriptions are decent
• Appendices
• Special Abilities
• Good info: like the diseases, and poisons.
• Conditions
• Not a fan of mechanically driven conditions, but I suppose it allows for consistency
• Inspiring Reading
• Not a bad list--a new take on Appendix N
• Game Aids
• Like the heads up about their subscription lines
• Player Character Sheet
• You already know I hate the PF PC sheet
• Index
• Not bad, not bad at all--but far from complete

Coming to Terms With Pathfinder I

Okay, so here we are full circle again. Allow me to recap the past couple of weeks with you:

• I am frustrated with my group. They continue to infight, make stupid mistakes, and die left and right. Nothing I do seem to make any difference. The group is over 14 players strong (most 13-16 years old) and we are playing twice a week.
• In my effort to resolve the issue I delve deeper into the Pathfinder system to find answers
• What I discover bothers me. I get the distinct idea that in this version of d20 PC power has continued to rise, and yet the rules seem to foster a "take it easy approach". This frustrates me. But I can't help but wonder if my old school style GMing (even tho' we are playing PF) has led to over 35 PC deaths in the past 7 month period.
• First assuming that it is the game that is the problem I decide to quit Pathfinder. I feel like taking their focus on power down a notch by gaming with an old school system will help them learn that good playing is what will help them survive--not power.
• We begin with Labyrinth Lord, though I allow a student GM to continue the groups Pathfinder game once a week.
• In considering LL vs my favorite expression of a rules system--Swords & Wizardry I come to realize the kind of game I really want to play. I don't know if its S&W interpretations of the rules per se, but Matt Finch's tone and writing and spirit truly inspire me. Truthfully they always have, but in his writings I find my greatest inspiration as a GM. So I really decide it is the ultimate freedom offered by a 0e clone/simulacra that I desire as a GM. I want the freedom that offers, and I love Matt Finch's dark Swords & Sorcery tone in much of his work; as well as his solid old school ethos.
• I announced I would no longer GM pathfinder and immediately was dealing with a lot of hate from players that really could only see playing Pathfinder and wanted nothing to do with old school games, and worse dissed them heavily and insulted me personally for suggesting we try them. That was hard for me.
• So I realized that I am only seeing half of the issue. My players also have desires. Now, granted my current players are young players. They are all new to the game and so have little experience with one system let alone multiple systems. They also are very in love with the system we started with this year Pathfinder. I decide I need to see things from their point of view for awhile.
• I start playing as a PC in the PF game while continuing my LL system (strongly influenced by S&W). This is a good experience for me, and more than a little fun. I realize several things. 1) Players are worried about staying alive 2) anything that helps you attain #1 is worth having in a PCs eyes. 3) Given a chance players will almost always go for power--failing that a really "cool" concept 4) our groups are really too big, players have to wait a long time to act or shout out to be heard, lots of them have little chance to contribute, and play is generally chaotic.
• I found in my Labyrinth Lord game that players acted pretty much the same and that it was likely due to the size and dynamics of the group instead of my GMing style or the game we were playing.
• I also started a second S&W/LL campaign at home with my own children and one of their cousins.This game went brilliantly. But there were only 4 of them and they really tried to work together. This confirmed for me that the group size and dynamics are critical to success. I have runs groups of this age for the last 5 or 6 years, and never have I had trouble like I am having this year--and Pathfinder is the biggest variable so far. But I have had one other group have success with PF (last year) at least to 3rd and 4th level.
• So begins my analysis of the systems I am most likely to play, and I realize several things. 1) D&D is very distinct from d20 2) player options and "power-ups" have been creeping into the game since AD&D and have just grown exponentially from there 3) The goal is to try to find a game that offers GMs as much freedom as possible and players the most options possible.
• My initial feeling is that a good, solid skill system that fits in with a flexible and lite core system is probably the best system to look for. So I am initially drawn to two games I really love--Castles & Crusades and Adventures Dark & Deep, but I also spend some time with Hackmaster and GURPS.
• Hackmaster is now so different from both d20 and the original D&D that, though I like lots of what they do I decide not to pursue that very far. GURPS I spend some time looking at simply because it is likely the best skills based system out there (bold statement I know, but it is what it is : )
• With this out of the way and some conclusions drawn, I return to Pathfinder to reanalyze the system  in light of what I learned so far.

Some Games Getting it Right

There's an art to crafting titles. And I aint no artist in that regard. What my title means is that given the course of my recent discussions on crafting a game that allows for extensive players options and customizability, while keeping a rule system lite and flexible there are a few systems I think are getting it right. Maybe not spot on--but doing a good job at giving players a start.

Before I jump in I want to make one last point clear in what balance I think needs to struck if a game is to offer options to players and fight munchkinism. Options must be balanced by a commensurate level of sacrifice by the player. We must be cautious against offering options and therefore access to increased PC ability and or power. Such options and power-ups (as GURPS calls them) must be counterbalanced by an increase in difficulty or challenge in the campaign itself. Otherwise our game degenerates into a farcical melodrama of the superpowered against the rest of the worldly worms. So, with that in mind I want to talk about two systems that I think are getting this right.

Adventures Dark & Deep

The first is ADD by Joseph Bloch. I've already reviewed ADD, and make no bones about my love for this system. Joseph has cleaned up the Original AD&D system and using well crafted twists and techniques he here presents us with a very solid system, more rational than Gary's first, but still very firmly rooted in the original system. He has incorporated many of Gary's hints at what he might include in a second edition of AD&D were he to write it; and done so very well I might add. But what really captures our attention here is what he has done with the the skill system. In the ADD system skills are purchased with experience points. So a Player who wishes to develop or add skills to his PC must sacrifice hard earned experience towards a level advancement to get such skills. This is an elegant and just tradeoff in my opinion. Now, I vaguely recall Joseph saying at one time that his skill system was inspired by someone who did or wrote something similar, but can't now find the reference. The point here is that he has within a very finely retooled system, faithful to the original spirit of the AD&D game, a wonderful solution to PC customization and development question with his XP for skill system.

Not to mention Joseph also incorporated numerous new classes into his system that had been contemplated by Gary in the interim between 1e and 2e. These also offer options above and beyond what might normally be available. This would be sure to please players looking for new classes to play. And we also find here all the race and sub race variants to gratify the imagination of players hungry for new PC fields to plow.

Castles & Crusades

The second is another system I have raved about on my blog for some time now, Castles & Crusades. C&C has strong ties to the original system, but has chosen instead of sticking to the traditional system to embrace a rules lite d20 approach. This undoubtedly gives the game a very lite and fast feel, different from the original in important ways. But it takes all that is good in the d20 system and enshrines it within a very AD&D 1e feel.

And who can blame them for such an approach? We all have to admit that the original system was clunky, referent tables slow down game play, and noone could really call 1e lite. Very few of us, in fact played 1e as 1e. We used the combat and saving throw tables, but not alot else. d20 offers to the old school gamer a way to achieve that lite, fast and flexible feel like never before, and incredibly intuitive in so doing. And C&C takes this approach a step further with their Siege Engine or attribute based saves and checks. It is in fact in this that they easily resolve the skills based issue.

Recall in my post of February 22nd that I mentioned several possible solutions to this dilemma of giving increased player options while maintaining a lite system. How does one go about doing this? Two suggestions I made involved handing the player the reigns under GM guidance to make up the skills they can use. A sort of anything goes approach so much a part of the 0e game. Well, that is exactly what C&C fosters in it's Castle Keepers' Guide. On pg. 263 begins the section entitled "Role Playing Skills" and reads,

"The easiest approach to integrating extra character abilities is through role playing, allowing the Seige Engine, or the combat mechanic, to resolve any check or action the skill generates. If a player desires a certain ability for his character, that is not specifically written up for his class or race description in the Players' Handbook, attempt to accommodate it through game play. Discuss the ability with the player and determine whether it fits in teh context of the game, and if it is, determine how best to integrate the skill. often some type of sacrifice is needed, whether in experience points, weapons proficiency or other pre-existing trait. Once the skill is determined, assign the player character a bonus for making the roll against the Siege Engine."

And then the CKG goes on to explain how a player worked the swimming skill into her backstory and was awarded a +1 on swim checks. The marvelous thing about such an approach is that it leaves the creativity up to the player, and the GM gets to adjudicate based on the nature of the game. Both player and GM are empowered and neither are beholden to a predetermined rules matrix.

The CKG also describes how a GM (or in their case CK) can award skill bonuses based on the nature of an unfolding campaign. Say a campaign features lots of undead and necromantic magic. After a while of such adventuring, these players might be awarded an ability to identify certain types of undead, have +1 against such knowledge checks and even to determine weaknesses against new types of undead based on previous knowledge. 

And lastly the CKG offers an optional secondary skill table for players to choose or roll from. Such a table could also be used in the manner described above later in PC development if they are wiling to make large XP sacrifices. 

In my opinion C&C has managed to do several things in it's approach to PC development (and as another aside the CKG is literally full of other options for PC development at creation as well as over time). In embracing a rules lite core, very few additional rules have been introduced due to skill and PC option usage. It also has ecnouraged and preserved the original creative spirit in the game, keeping the ability of players and CKs to hold the creative reigns. Again, literally anything is possible in this system, and  you need very few new rules to make your vision a reality. And keep in mind that all of the CKG is considered optional to the C&C game. None of it has to be implemented; it is offered as an optional enhancement to play if you desire to use it. Which brings us to the last thing I wish to mention about how well C&C answers this question: options are optional. The Troll Lords offer numerous tools, and options and resource, but none of it is central to the game. None of it has to change how the basic game is played. You get to decide which of these opotions work best for you. And I love the consistent fact that the first option always encouraged and recommended by the Troll Lords is that which preserves the free, lite, and imaginative orientation of their game.

* * *

So, having considered this issue carefully, trying to balance the GMs desire for the utlimate ion fast, lite flexible play which allows his imagination to go in whichever direction he likes--with the desire for Players to creatively develop their PC in new and exciting ways I think we have our answer.

For those of us who deisre a system very faithful to the original with a wonderfully designed skill system I would heartily reccommend Adventures Dark & Deep. While not as rules lite as some, it is certainly more well crafted than AD&D and should play more smoothly.

For GMs like myself who like lite flexible systems, and want to to hold creative power over their game i would definitely reccommend C&C. Though C&C abandons the traditional approach to a table oriented mechanic it's embrace of d20 lite offers better, quicker more intuitive play--and that can only be a good thing. As this game doesn't fall into the pit of many other d20 models that pile rule on rule until you simply can't play the game RAW by any stretch. C&C somehow manages to preserve the fast, loose and incredibly open creativity of 0e, while offering a well crafted system of guidance--not mechanics--in offering expansion to the game that so many players crave. In short both you and your players will be satisfied with what the Troll Lords have crafted for your gaming pleasure.

(By the way this is my 200th post! Hoody Hoo!!!)