Pathfinder

[dmw71]

Who here plays it?

Based on my uninformed impression, with all the skills and various checks, there is a lot of die rolling. Is it conducive to play-by-post games?

[saalaria]

Not me I am afraid Dave

[dmw71]

Thanks, Sam.

I've been buying some of the Adventure Path's from Paizo, and the few that I've selected have been pretty high quality. Trying to run them as 2E (or 1E) is... well, very difficult. The PDF for the core Pathfinder rulebook was only $9.99, so I just bought it and am reading through it now. My initial impression is that Pathfinder characters are more powerful, but I hear the monsters are, too. From what I've seen in the Adventure Paths I've purchased, I'd agree with that. I also hear the rules for combat are more complicated as well.

I'm just interested in hearing from players who are familiar with Pathfinder and whether or not they think those rules can effectively be used in a play-by-post format. Initially, I'm thinking it would be more realistic if the DM was responsible for making all rolls (or at least all non-combat rolls) to speed things up, but I really don't know.

[GreyWolfVT]

I've never played it but in looking at the phb it really "to me" id not really much different from 3e, 4e, 5e so if those can be played in pbp i see no reason that pathfinder cannot.

[hedgeknight]

Pathfinder is often touted as "3.75E" and has swept the D&D community since the official Core Rulebook was released at Gen Con in 2009. Even before then, using the 3.5 rules, Paizo had a winner. Over on Paizo.com, there are hundreds of games going on all the time. I've led a couple with some success and been in a slew of others with little to no success.
The problem for me is not the rule set itself, but rather translating all of that to a pbp game > there is a TON of dice rolling from all of the skill checks, feat checks, etc. And there are modifiers for this and that, coupled with more powerful spells and monsters > combat can be challenging to roll up and write up.
That said, some of the adventures are top-notch and are well-received among Pathfinder enthusiasts. Personally, I have a love/hate relationship with Pathfinder > I want to love it so much, but have struggled and become frustrated from playing it online.

[dmw71]

As someone who's never played any edition after 2E (and only reluctantly tried 2E after joining this board), I don't really have a frame of reference as to whether 3E+ or 4E would work in play-by-post, either.

Gary, I was hoping you'd chime in. I've been reading through the Core Rulebook from the beginning. I kind of skimmed the chapters on race (2) and class (3), but did just finish reading the chapter on skills (4). Feats (5) are next, but then I'll probably skip or skim over the next few chapters ('Equipment' and 'Additional Rules') and jump into the chapter on combat.

I'm sure running a Pathfinder game is possible, but the chapter on combat will really go a long way in helping me decide whether or not it will be realistic. I'm probably going to try and check out some YouTube videos of Pathfinder games to get a feel for how the game plays. I'm intrigued by it, though. Especially with some of the other reference books also available, and the non-stop publications of Adventure Paths.

We'll see.

[dmw71]

Over on Paizo.com, there are hundreds of games going on all the time.

This might be the best test. I'll have to check some of them out to see how they work.

[hedgeknight]

I agree > lurk or jump in a low-level PFS game (Pathfinder Society) and see how it works. Like I said, I've played in a bunch of games and while some of them have been fun, most have been just okay...and a few barely that. The problem is there are thousands of players...thousands...and so you never really know who you're gaming with or playing styles...and the game tends to attract some odd birds

[OGRE MAGE]

I agree > lurk or jump in a low-level PFS game (Pathfinder Society) and see how it works. Like I said, I've played in a bunch of games and while some of them have been fun, most have been just okay...and a few barely that. The problem is there are thousands of players...thousands...and so you never really know who you're gaming with or playing styles...and the game tends to attract some odd birds

I have only played a few times myself and only in con type settings but I would definitely agree with Gary's last assessment.

[hedgeknight]

Just visited the boards over there and checked on all the games I used to play in > all are dead in the water > either inactive or just gone. Such is the nature, I've found, of pbp gaming over on Paizo. High turnover rate, lots of meta-gamers, ton of newbies who act like they just crawled out from under a rock (or the couch in their parent's basement)...you get the picture.

[dmw71]

The nice thing is, I don't need to even see an active game. I'm just curious how a Pathfinder game actually plays. I could probably tell pretty quickly how well (or not) a game works.

Gary, are these the games you were talking about: Forum Games.

It's definitely not the link above.

[hedgeknight]

This is the link you want > http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community

Check out Online Campaigns > Recruitment/Play-by-Post/Play-by Post Discussion

[dmw71]

This is the link you want > http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community

Check out Online Campaigns > Recruitment/Play-by-Post/Play-by Post Discussion

Thanks. I'll have to check them out.

[hedgeknight]

Also, you can check out these games for some examples:

http://paizo.com/campaigns/Hedgeknights ... lay&page=1
http://paizo.com/campaigns/DMBerwicksSe ... lay&page=1
http://paizo.com/campaigns/ShadowbornsW ... lay&page=1

1st link is to my old game (kinda rushed and finished it toward the end), the other two are games I played in for quite a while before moving on.

[dmw71]

Also, you can check out these games for some examples:

http://paizo.com/campaigns/Hedgeknights ... lay&page=1
http://paizo.com/campaigns/DMBerwicksSe ... lay&page=1
http://paizo.com/campaigns/ShadowbornsW ... lay&page=1

1st link is to my old game (kinda rushed and finished it toward the end), the other two are games I played in for quite a while before moving on.

Bookmarked.

Thankfully, I'm in no rush here (I expect my current game to run for a long time yet), but that gives me plenty of time to familiarize myself with the Pathfinder game and, once I get a feel for the rules, I'll be sure to check out the games you linked above.

[Keehnelf]

My own feeling, from the PF that i've played (my FtF group only wanted to play 3.5 for a long time, and they viewed PF as a natural progression...sigh), is that PF is a little bit like D&D emulating Dragonball Z. Every class gets flashy, powerful-feeling abilities right out of the gate and that changes the feeling of the game to me. Survival does not feel very hard-won, and the scale and the scope of encounters have a tendency to balloon really quickly.

That aside, I think it could be totally doable as a PbP if you were to take a really heavy hand in making skill check rolls for your players in response to their narrated actions and if they were OK with you doing that. That would streamline things by about 60% of the game-slowing mechanical stuff. Then, combat will be relatively simple apart from combat maneuvers (which, again, you could do the die-rolling for to speed up considerably), but it will be a lot of lists of dice rolls from your perspective, which could be an unpleasant change of pace depending on what you're looking for.

Hope this helps

[dmw71]

Hope this helps.

Aside from not knowing what Dragonball Z is, it did. Thanks!

Based on your "sigh," I take it you're not a fan. While I only skimmed through the chapters on races and classes, it was pretty obvious that characters begin more powerful. Especially when you add feats on top of everything. My understanding is that monsters are more challenging, too. I would think/hope the two would offset each other.

Another challenging problem I already see is the character sheet itself. It is a lot of information! I'm thinking, if I do attempt to run a Pathfinder game at some point in the future, that I will create a character sheet template as a text document or spreadsheet that the players would need to fill out. Since there is so much information needed at any given moment, there would definitely need to be consistency in where to find what's needed. I'm thinking a Google Sheets might work for this, using Greg's new 'doc=' or 'ss=' tags. I'll definitely play around with those if it gets to that point.

Regarding die rolls, I almost immediately suspected that a DM would need to be heavily involved in making most die rolls in order to keep a game moving. I'm thinking the "typical" rolls (e.g. initiative, attack, damage) could still be rolled by players, but most everything else would need to be rolled by the DM. As long as that is stated up front, and players are okay with it, that shouldn't be a problem. As a DM, I know I would be fine with it (and would much prefer making as-needed rolls to working through a bank of player-provided rolls). My biggest concern, as someone so new to the game, is that I wouldn't know the rules well enough to know what rolls or checks even needed to be made in every situation. Best way to learn is by playing, I guess.

Thanks for the feedback, man. It's been an interesting discussion so far.

[Keehnelf]

I'm not a big fan of the power creep it represents. In general, it's designed so that monster challenge does stay relatively steady with player power, but at the same time it feels a bit weird to me because everything is just more powerful, so it's hard to understand why your first level characters aren't running mercenary companies or vying for control of the local kingdom, except tha everyone else with a modicum of training is similarly powerful. It's just a different implied setting, and it works for a lot of people, but my D&D sensibilities are firmly in B/X territory by choice so that's almost as far left field to me as 4E. Not to mention the implicit and explicit encounter design philosophy based around everything being navigable by characters of a certain level (in combat).

Because of that, there feels like there is rarely a reason to come up with an alternative to "kill it!" For resolving monster problems unless the GM starts from the assumption that the players will not be able to win via force of arms. For me, both assumptions are bad to inject into the game (the expectation of winning and the expectation that players cannot win via combat).

[dmw71]

My Early Impressions
The game is a pretty radical change from 2E or earlier, which are the only editions I'm familiar with. This isn't unexpected, but it does explain why it's taking me so long to "get" some of the material. I mean, how many different types of actions are there? Six? Seven? It's very detailed. This detail can be good or bad.


Like
1) Core Rulebook I like how, like the OSRIC rulebook, this single volume contains everything (except monsters) that a person would need in order to play. The players’ information is the first 11 chapters and the GM material immediate follows in chapters 12-15.

2) Monsters I purchased an Adventure Path well before I purchased the Core Rulebook, but I could tell from the details about the monsters included in it (the AP) that they were well treated. Even the most common monsters (e.g. goblins) are so widely varied and have their own abilities, skills, types of equipment, etc…. There are, I think, four full “Bestiary” volumes, and each Adventure Path guarantees at least so many new creatures be included in it. Now, new or different doesn’t necessarily guarantee they’re good, but the options are plentiful. Again, though, even if no new monsters are ever used, just the treatment given to the most common creatures from D&D is pretty fantastic.

3) Online I love that all the material, directly from Paizo, is freely available online in the form of the Pathfinder RPG Reference Document. I’ve barely looked and easily managed to find a handful of other sources of material freely available online as well.

4) Artwork Most of the artwork I’ve seen is really top notch. Very evocative.

As for the game rules themselves...

5) Armor Class Ascending armor classes are brilliant. I liked THAC0. I really like this! I like how, on the character sheet in the back of the Core Rulebook, the armor class is determined by a sum of its many calculations – base AC, armor adjustment, shield adjustment, dexterity adjustment, etc… I also really like the “flat footed” rule. It makes sense.

6) Equipment I purchased the ‘Ultimate Equipment’ guide PDF and it’s 402 pages! I haven’t looked at it yet, but I imagine these items are on top of the items included in the Core Rulebook. Even if not, it’s still pretty impressive. In my opinion, having more options like this is a great thing (especially for people (like me!) that don’t have a deep knowledge of medieval history and crave more than the simple, unillustrated lists found in the Player’s Handbook).

7) Skills I’ll admit, I was torn on this. My instinct was to put these in the ‘Dislike’ grouping but, over time, I’ve been warming up to the idea. Okay, skills are hardly a new thing, but Pathfinder (and, apparently, later editions of D&D itself) have taken them to a whole new level.

Can the reliance on using skills detract from actual role playing?

I have to imagine that question is one of the biggest obstacles “old school” gamers (of which I could classify myself) have to overcome before accepting this new system of play.

Player: I walk into the room.
DM: Make a ‘perception’ check.

Okay, that is kind of lame… and definitely not the D&D game I grew up playing (and still play). However, when a certain skill is called for, and how it is applied, is up to the DM. Right? I haven’t read far enough into the Core Rulebook (or I just missed it?) but I believe I heard in some YouTube video that there are active and passive checks. In D&D, an elf has a chance to automatically detect a secret or concealed doorway if they pass within 10 feet of them. Passive check. A human character declares they want to search for a secret door. Active check. Yes, I can see how this skills system could easily be abused, but I’d like to think the DM has control over this. Consider the following example:

A group of players walk into a room with a simple trap of some kind in the center of the room.

A “new” DM could automatically call for a perception check from each player as soon as they enter the room. (passive)

An “old” DM could only request a skill check if a player specifically indicates their character is looking, even generally, for something in the area of the trap. (active)

Now, I only participate in play-by-post games (no face-to-face or even Skype), but even calling for an active skill check would potentially set off alarms for the player or players (If a check is being called for, there must be something there, right?). This could easily be curbed if the GM makes the skill check roll.

In the above example, the rogue character indicates they want to check for traps. Not a very specific request, but an active check could still be made. Maybe, because the request did lack specifics, the task would have a higher level difficulty? Say, a 15 (the trap is simple, after all). If, however, the rogue specifies that they use their 10’ pole and run it over the floor where the trap is (role playing), the level of difficulty would be much lower… maybe a 5. Yes, there’s still a chance for failure (isn’t there always?), but role-playing can be rewarded by lowering the difficult of the task.

A lazy or less skilled player will still have a chance, but not as easy of one as does a player that puts in the effort.

Also (and this is the actual reason that swung me over to listing skills in the “like” grouping), but I can see how this skill system could really help with the whole ‘player vs character’ ability “problem.”

This was previously discussed here: Character Skill vs. Player Skill.

Under-Playing
I’ve never liked to play a magic user (or mage) because I’ve never felt comfortable accurately playing a character with a much higher intelligence than I, as a player, actually possess.

Over-Playing
A fighter with a very low intelligence or charisma is able to solve a tricky puzzle or win a negotiation with a NPC because of the player actually controlling the fighter is more clever than their character actually is.

In Pathfinder, every skill is tied to an ability score. Want to try attempt a skill that requires intelligence? In this case, a skill check could be called for and, if the character is unskilled and has a low ability score, it will be more difficult for them to accomplish their intended objective. Handling this type of situation is built into the actual game mechanic.

I may be way off here (I haven’t even played game yet), but this is my current mindset after reading through the ‘Skills’ chapter. I imagine the system, while very different, can feel less extreme in the hands of a DM able to adjust the game to the preferred style of play.

8) Experience Points I kind of like how every class now needs the same number of experience points to advance to next level. I also like how there are different tracks – slow, medium and fast.

---

Unsure
1) Races and Classes I haven’t really dug into every single rule for every single race and class, but it’s pretty obvious that the various races and classes are more powerful from the very start. I’m not sure (yet) how I feel about this. I suppose I’m not opposed to having players being play with more heroic characters, but I’m a little nervous about how quickly characters become too powerful. I suppose this advancement could be offset somewhat by using the “slow” advancement track for experience points, so I’m not ready to consider these new powerful characters a “dislike” yet.

Knowing the little I know about the monsters in Pathfinder, this extra power may actually turn out to be necessary.

2) Feats Just as with the previously discussed skills, I had an initial unfavorable opinion of feats. I’m still there. This kind of ties into the extra power new characters have. I suppose I’m not terribly opposed to feats in theory, but I haven’t read through all of them in detail either. Some of handful I’ve looked at are pretty powerful. I’m sure some of the more advanced feats with a bunch of pre-requisites are… well…

I also fear that some feats will never be used. I can easily how min/maxers will always just take the most advantageous feats and not necessarily some of the fringe feats which might be better suited to the actual character they’re playing. I’m not sure.

If every character started with one feat… sure, this probably isn’t too bad. Humans get a bonus feat to start. So do plain fighters. If I understand what I’ve read correctly, a starting human fighter begins play with three feats, and they get a new feat each level. That is my biggest concern, because I could see how the skills of a character could quickly grow out of hand.

Maybe not?

I’m leaving ‘Feats’ here in the “unsure” group at least until I’ve had a chance to personally try to create a new character or two and advanced them some levels to see what they’re capable of. Especially a new human fighter.

---

Dislike
Nothing yet.

[Keehnelf]

Fighters get all those extra feats because they don't get spells, or rogue abilities, or similar types of things--the fighter feat splurge is intended to provide fighters with the ability to tailor their character toward a specific style of play and give them interesting abilities.

In practice, however, fighters still often feel a bit two-dimensional if you're inclined to think of someone who takes hits and dishes them out as two-dimensional.

This is exacerbated in 3e and PF by the fact that basically every class has been turned into a damage-dealing class, plus many other classes also have utility features on top of that, so you're stuck with fighters that replace non-combat utility with extra melee and ranged combat options. It's OK, but to my mind it doesn't work as well as the clear role demarcations you get in early D&D editions. I ran a 3.5e (basically PF-lite) game for a few years weekly and really, really prefer B/X as a direct result of those experiences