What's new

Pathfinder 2.0 Character Upgrading

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dannigan

Kaerri's Man. =)
Supporter
Heya Gang! Update: I have not forgotten about this - I am in the process of researching my thoughts with some newly-purchased RPG material before I share them with you, hopefully by tomorrow. (I also feel I owe a post to Sherwood's fun Rifts game now that we are back on track there.) =)
 

Dannigan

Kaerri's Man. =)
Supporter
@Psychie @Kaerri @Captain Hesperus @Sherwood @Wolf Rawrrr

(Part 1 of 2 - A Disappointing Conclusion)

Okies, friends! Let's get to it and talk some serious nuts-and-bolts Shop Talk. =) After months of working with Pathfinder 2.0, I have come to the conclusion that it is a magnificent fantasy RPG for tabletop gaming.

But for play-by-post RP Nation? Not so much... I don't want to play Sharseya using Pathfinder 2.0..

I'm having to watch videos just to understand the system.

Here's an example. Basic Initiative rolls are now performed using the skill the PC happens to be using at the time of encounter. On play-by-post, that means I have to either surmise or ask each of you individually what your character is doing every time there might be an encounter. And just asking is enough to let you know something is up.

Rolling on surprise makes sense on tabletop, but Initiative rolls can switch up automatically depending on who knows what at a given moment. It makes great sense in tabletop; I think it would take us 1-2 days just to resolve it here in RP Nation. Here's what I'm talking about:


Other issues include everyone (bad guys included) have 3 actions every round. This means, when your turn comes up, you basically get to work it out something like this. Your character...
1. Runs up to the bad guy,
2. Smacks at him with your hammer,
3. and smacks at him again (with a -5 penalty for swinging twice in one round).

Or if you're casting, you might even cast two spells in that same round, like so...
1. Cast cantrip
2. Cast a spell's verbal component
3. Cast that same spell's somatic component.

Now, to me, that's neat stuff - on the surface. However, on play-by-post, it can get confusing, fast. If you or the bad guy miss an action, this DM must see it, post it, get a reply from said PC, make certain that the action applies, then post. Again, another day or two goes bye-bye as we wait for replies.

Another issue? Just about everything you can think of costs an action.

1. Flip the table over to use it as cover.
2. Duck down behind the table.
3. Draw your bow to use it (next round because that's all you can do this round).

Now, it can argued that this makes things easier or worse for a Play-by-post, but the more of this I see the more complicated it gets in the long run... unless, everyone playing the game is well-educated in Pathfinder 2.0's rules system. By well-educated, I mean each of us must master the basics of Pathfinder 2.0..

Here's what's required (and we're talking about just mastering the basics):

I think that's a difficult achievement for some of our players who are lucky to find much gaming time (mine, as you have probably noticed, comes and goes). We have players here who just don't have the time to sit down and learn this new language that is Pathfinder 2.0 to the point everyone can run the game smoothly here on RP Nation. It's a wonderful system; it's also has one heck of a learning curve, that once is cleared, things go great!

It's in reaching that hilltop that I don't think everyone has time for. I believe it literally might take us six months just to do that. Do we really want to spend the time doing that?

* * *​

(Part 2 of 2 - So! What do we do about it?)

Well, I love Sharseya and I definitely want to keep playing it in one form or another. I think it would be really stale for us to stop just because of a difficult gaming system. So... one of the ideas in my head involves combining gaming systems. However, there we go again with my having to rewrite things and us not playing the game (at least as far as combat is concerned) until this is resolved. So... instead of just saying "what's your opinion?" let me add some options.

1. We go back to Pathfinder 1.0, add a level to the Wayward Wanderers, and keep playing with some adjusting to Pathfinder 1.0's rules. (This is the easiest method.)

2. I attempt to combine Palladium combat system with elements of Pathfinder 2.0 (difficult, and I don't know if it will work).

3. I attempt to combine Palladium combat system with elements of Pathfinder 1.0 (less difficult, more feasible, but I don't know who here will like that approach).

4. Other options that you think up?

Years ago, during our Rifts tabletop game, I got sick of all of the darned dice rolling (basically my problem with Pathfinder 1.0). So... I created a system that combined elements of Palladium and D&D 3.0/3.5.. Here's what took place basically:

Palladium - I kept the combat system and skills. I threw away Palladium's magic system not because I dislike P.P.E./I.S.P. (I do like the system mathematically!) - it's the damned spells and psionic powers I can't stand. I mean - Carpet of Adhesion. If you fail your save, you're stuck. Fine! If you make your save , you're still stuck! Even if you rolled a Natural 20! Magic Net - why cast anything else in combat?
 

Sherwood

Luna's Concubine
Supporter
I have put a lot of time and effort into making Luna, and I for one do not want to see this game go by the wayside. Too many spells for me to cast still! Now, for my part, while I like some of the changes of 2.0, I don't want to make Dannigan's hair fall out (assuming it hasn't already! Ha!) by making him go through the efforts of converting our characters to the new system without making some fundamental change to them that will 'ruin' the fun for the player of said characters.

My official vote will be to just go back to 1.0. I have the PDFs for that, along with the work I have put into making my wish lists of Feats and Spells.
 

Psychie

Princess Psychie
First, thank you for the chance to offer my own feedback to this decision! That means a lot.

Second, I had originally wanted Oreleth to be a Arcane Archer to make her stand out from just a regular fighter with a bow, and it seems that at this time, that Prestige Class is not available to us in 2.0. It sounds like a lot of crazy work on Dann's part to try and convert the class to the 2.0 stuff, and once more I thank you for at least offering to make the effort.

If we stick to 1.0, I have access to the rules on the Arcane Archer, and can add to Oreleth accordingly. I'll toss my vote in for that, too.
 

Dannigan

Kaerri's Man. =)
Supporter
In Pathfinder 2.0, there are no Prestige Classes. Making one up is a challenge. And yeah! All of your opinions mean something to me - I don't feel comfortable moving in directions that will change your gaming experiences when I'm at the helm without at least opening it up to all of you! =)
 

Wolf Rawrrr

Wolf-Knight
Supporter
Ok so, I'm probably the least qualified person to vote on this, considering how I had no idea how Pathfinder 1.0 worked, I have no idea now how Pathfinder 2.0 works, and I had never even heard of this Palladium thing before now - but...

Let me just reiterate what Dann keeps saying: That the point of playing this game is for everyone to have fun. Right? That includes the Storyteller. So, for me that automatically eliminates any option that would make managing the game too complicated/tedious or even just involve too much thinking, planning and adjusting for Dann. So while I'd initially be tempted to say something like "well try to take the best of each system and try to make it work", I realize that's easier said than done (if achievable at all).

On the other hand, we've played 90% of this game using Pathfinder 1.0. And it worked. There's proof of that. And if the fine folks over at whatever company makes Pathfinder hadn't come up with 2.0 when they did, well lookie here - we'd still be just fine playing 1.0 like we were in the start.

So. My vote? Let's just go back to Pathfinder 1.0.

Now, if there's some things that Dann or someone else likes from Pathfinder 2.0 or the Palladium thingy, well you can try to make an adjustment or port something over etc. If. And when. And if. But it doesn't have to happen. And as for classes and spells and all that other jazz... Well, the first rule of tabletops is that it's fine to break the rules, isn't it? So we can do as we see fit, just as long as it keeps the game going and fun.

*woof*
 

Kaerri

Dannigan's Lady
Administrator
Supporter
Well, Dannigan's heard most of my thoughts on this already (last night, which is why I wasn't on RpN at all yesterday -- too busy talking and didn't get around to getting on the computer).

Short version? I've spend a lot of hours learning Pathfinder 2.0 and I like it a lot. But frankly, it doesn't seem like everyone here is able to learn it, and that, to me, is the real problem with changing systems. It's not a system that you can just rely on the GM for everything -- you have to be able to know what your options are for yourself, and that takes time to learn, which not all of us have.

It sounds like everyone's wanting to go back to the original Pathfinder, which I'm fine with. As Wolf says, Sharseya was going very well under that system, so clearly it wasn't "broke." ^;3^
 

Dannigan

Kaerri's Man. =)
Supporter
Yes, Pathfinder 1.0 was far from broke and I like the system, but there were strong reasons why I wanted to try a different system. PF 1.0 carries the nickname "Mathfinder" for good reason.

I plan on taking a fresh look at PF 1.0 rules along with our Shop Talk. You can expect at least one change; for the sake of my sanity, Fighters equipped with a melee weapon (or the Unarmed Strike Feat) will be allowed to make Attacks of Opportunity. That is one part of Pathfinder 2.0 that I like a great deal.

Are there any other rules or things you guys would like to see in our Sharseya game (like Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition Advantage/Disadvantage rule)? It doesn't matter what rules system your ideas comes from.
 

Wolf Rawrrr

Wolf-Knight
Supporter
DnD 5E seems to have simplified a great deal of the game (less math, more fun), but I can't say for sure since I never played the glorified 3.5 and I hardly remember 4E. I don't think I'm qualified to make concrete suggestions until I actually play a session or two. All the stuff I read in the handbook is all jumbled in my head at the moment...

I'm actually thinking about just buying the Starter Set and playing through the Lost Mine of Phandelver scenario, apparently it's pretty good *woof*
 

Psychie

Princess Psychie
I have been holding on leveling up Oreleth until the decision has been confirmed that we are going back to 1.0, but I am ready to continue. I would just need some hit point rolls for my two level jumps.
 

Dannigan

Kaerri's Man. =)
Supporter
@Psychie The word is given. =) Back to 1.0 we go! Give me time to make some necessary changes. Other than that, let me know what you want to do.

@Wolf Rawrrr Kaerri and I have played 5th edition. I only played it briefly, but from everything I've gathered, it would be a poor fit for Sharseya.
 

Wolf Rawrrr

Wolf-Knight
Supporter
No, I implied nothing of the sort - it's just that you specifically mentioned DnD 5E and its Advantage rule so... What I'm saying is that there might be stuff like that, I just don't know yet. Never mind :X:P
 

Dannigan

Kaerri's Man. =)
Supporter
Sorry, Wolf. =) I didn't mean to imply that you did. The question arose in my own (hyperactive) mind and (my ADHD and) I wanted to answer it in case other folks who have played it before or have it, like yourself, might have been wondering. =)

Concerning the Advantage/Disadvantage rule, I don't know exactly how it works, but I think it can be found in the free rules. I am not in front of my home computer right now. If anyone out there has the time and opportunity, could you please post the rule here? I'm curious about it.

This is a good time for anyone to recommend changes to Sharseya. So I'm trying to remain open to whatever is mentioned from whatever direction it's mentioned. And "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer (better than silence, that's for sure).
 

Kaerri

Dannigan's Lady
Administrator
Supporter
D&D 5e Player's Handbook said:
Sometimes a special ability or spell tells you that you have advantage or disadvantage on an ability check, a saving throw, or an attack roll. When that happens, you roll a second d20 when you make the roll. Use the higher of the two rolls if you have advantage, and use the lower roll if you have disadvantage. For example, if you have disadvantage and roll a 17 and a 5, you use the 5. If you instead have advantage and roll those numbers,
you use the 17.
If multiple situations affect a roll and each one grants advantage or imposes disadvantage on it, you don’t roll more than one additional d20. If two favorable situations grant advantage, for example, you still roll only one additional d20.
If circumstances cause a roll to have both advantage and disadvantage, you are considered to have neither of them, and you roll one d20. This is true even if multiple circumstances impose disadvantage and only one grants advantage or vice versa. In such a situation, you have neither advantage nor disadvantage.
When you have advantage or disadvantage and something in the game, such as the halfling’s Lucky trait, lets you reroll the d20, you can reroll only one
o f the dice. You choose which one. For example, if a halfling has advantage on an ability check and rolls a 1 and a 13, the halfling could use the Lucky trait toreroll the 1.
You usually gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, or spells. Inspiration (see chapter 4) can also give a character advantage on checks related to the character’s personality, ideals, or bonds. The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.
 

Dannigan

Kaerri's Man. =)
Supporter
Thanks, Beautiful (and, no, I don't mean you, Sherwood! Ha ha!)!

Sometimes I just have to roll a fun-filled bowling ball down a good friend's alley just to see what they will do with it! =)

Would you guys and gals be interested in trying to use this rule? Or does it not seem like a good role-playing tool to you?
To be clear, I don't mean to attach it to a spell or a racial ability, but instead perhaps to a rare magic item (like Otiorin's Half-elven stone of luck) and most importantly, to situations in general. It might open up some fun role-playing ideas.

What do you think, Gang?
 

Kaerri

Dannigan's Lady
Administrator
Supporter
For certain situations and for a few magic items, I like it.

Adding to spells, racial/class abilities, etc., while nifty, might get complicated. (I know you said you don't mean that, but I'm answering the point anyway).
 

Wolf Rawrrr

Wolf-Knight
Supporter
I like it. Besides, it's basically only called upon at the Storyteller's discretion, looks like. You could simply use it when you feel that the situation calls for it, to breathe a little more realism into the game. But at the same time, not let it complicate things when you don't think it should.
 

Dannigan

Kaerri's Man. =)
Supporter
I don't think we need this thread anymore so I'm closing it down. It served its purpose well. =)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top