[Legendary Games] Corefinder

[N. Jolly]

Welcome all, N. Jolly here to introduce a new project from the Legendary Games team. Here's what Jason Nelson, the publisher, has to say on it:


PROJECT #2: COREFINDER - This is Pathfinder Refined. It retains the core structure of Pathfinder 1st Ed and is intended to be generally backwards compatible with it, in particular on the GM side, so that existing PFRPG monsters and adventures can be used without the need for massive revisions. It has a lot more room for innovation and redesign on the player side when it comes to classes, feats, and spells. This is an edition that distills the very best of Pathfinder 1E - it fixes the broken, clarifies the muddy, purges the chaff, condenses the redundant, reins in the OP, improves the lame, and polishes what's already good.

It also has a second purpose, which is to extract the core essence of Pathfinder 1E to its Core (hence the Corefinder name) in a way akin to the 1980s Rules Cyclopedia for the BECMI series of D&D modules, and it will present genre-free core for the rules that can be adapted to any genre, PLUS a Corefinder Fantasy module that incorporates magic, magic items, and all the trappings of a traditional PF/D&D-style game. Whether we publish these as separate books or an omnibus is more of a logistical question than anything else, but we would like to have the root Corefinder able to be adapted to different genres and styles.

This project is going to be to Pathfinder what Pathfinder was to 3.5, revised by the best of the third party scene. Considering the pedigree of our developers and designers, I can promise that this is going to be the definitive version of the game, and the base rules will be made with lots of ideas and concepts that have helped make Pathfinder great in mind.

For those who would like to stay in the loop directly, there's also the Legendary Games Discord (https://discord.gg/zJzx4dF), a place where you can speak with the designers directly about this new project, make suggestions, and use that one emote I have of myself!

[DrMartin]

This sounds fantastic.

is there going to be a wiki? PFSRD is pathfinder's greatest asset in my mind.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, that's certainly ironic.

But I think there's a marked difference here... when 4E was released, WOTC did their best to bury 3E (although that didn't work) and Paizo was already famous for their adventures and Dragon magazine. Whereas now, when P2 is released, Paizo continues to support the older game P1, and Legendary is decidedly less famous and well-known. In other words, is there anything that makes this stand out from the plethora of 3E Heartbreakers?

[137beth]

Well, I'm interested. I was always fond of LG's Pathfinder 1 supplements.

[N. Jolly]

This sounds fantastic.

is there going to be a wiki? PFSRD is pathfinder's greatest asset in my mind.


Well, I'm interested. I was always fond of LG's Pathfinder 1 supplements.

We do have plans on a wiki, yes. And we've generally enjoyed writing them too!


Well, that's certainly ironic.

But I think there's a marked difference here... when 4E was released, WOTC did their best to bury 3E (although that didn't work) and Paizo was already famous for their adventures and Dragon magazine. Whereas now, when P2 is released, Paizo continues to support the older game P1, and Legendary is decidedly less famous and well-known. In other words, is there anything that makes this stand out from the plethora of 3E Heartbreakers?

There's quite a few things to touch on here, so let me try to take it piece by piece.

1. Legendary Games doesn't need to sell this project on the same scale of Pathfinder for it to be a success. There's a lot of these projects that think they need to do better than they do in order to be a success, but due to the size of the team, we're not beholden to the same numbers as Paizo is when denoting what is a specific project. Because of this, we have quite a bit more freedom in what we can do with the system, and a better sense of scope for what is needed to be done.

2. The Legendary Games team as a whole. Having worked with a lot of these people, I can say I trust them a lot more than others I've seen to innovate the concepts that have made 3.X such a successful game. Also for anyone who has ever participated in my playtests, I'd like to believe that I've shown a willingness to accept feedback and critique. In a lot of cases, feedback has helped make for a better and more exciting project, and I can say the entire LG staff is going to bring that same openess to this project. I'm aware of GitP and their history with Paizo regarding feedback, bannings, and other such things. So I hope that we can invite constructive feedback from the community and treat you all with respect for your varying viewpoints. Plus no other project had me, and I'm awesome.

3. Go ahead and check Legendary Games's history with kickstarters and delivering on large scale quality products. It would be hard to find another third party publisher who has as good a track record for keeping promises and quality with their projects on a large scale. Legendary Games has constantly shown its ability to produce results on larger projects, meaning something of this scope is entirely within the publisher's capability to put out. Paizo themselves trusted Legendary Games to do the second edition version of Kingmaker.

4. Legendary Games is one of the (if not the) highest rated third party publisher on a consistent basis, showing an understanding of the 3.X system that I believe outstrips many others who have attempted similar ventures. The quality of our adventures, class supplements, races, and other content has garnered near universal praise in review, and the studio has been acknowledged by the industry at large, having been nominated at the ENnies.

So if you're interested, come check it out, we always welcome people. At the end of the day though, we're going to keep making the best games we can because that's the kind of people we are. A lot of us are life long gamers who simply want to re imagine something that's given us endless hours of enjoyment. In that way, we're no different from anyone else who has tried, because this is absolutely a labor of love. We love our games, our community, and our dice. And if we've done our job right, hopefully you'll love our games too ;)

[Kurald Galain]

Let me clarify that a bit.

It's great that you're doing this for the art. However, I think it will be hard (for me, at least) to find anyone willing to play it. There are dozens of D&D'esque games in the market and everybody has their own personal favorite, but the only systems with enough support/interest to actually form a group for are PF and 5E.

[N. Jolly]

Let me clarify that a bit.

It's great that you're doing this for the art. However, I think it will be hard (for me, at least) to find anyone willing to play it. There are dozens of D&D'esque games in the market and everybody has their own personal favorite, but the only systems with enough support/interest to actually form a group for are PF and 5E.

And that's fair, seeing as this project is still new, we're going to be working on advertising it more as well as drumming up interest for the idea. Considering how wide the RPG sphere is, you'd be shocked how many smaller games are able to find a sustainable player base. Stuff you've barely heard of is still getting groups together, and again, we don't need to have a player base the size of PF or 5.e to be successful here. So yeah, you may not be interested, but we've done enough research to see that quite a few people are interested in this to the point that it is a viable business model. And we may not sway you, that's fine. We just have to generate enough interest to make a sustainable market for ourselves, which we believe we can do. And part of that involves posting about it wherever we can while keeping people updated on it, like we are here. We're cool answering any questions you or anyone else have about this project, and if it's not your thing, that's fine too.

We aren't just doing this for the art, and a lot of market planning has gone into this. Trust me, this wasn't a whim.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by N. Jolly
We aren't just doing this for the art, and a lot of market planning has gone into this.

Can you elaborate on this? What's involved in your market planning?

[Psyren]

While Paizo certainly has my undying loyalty, not just for continuing/improving my favorite TTRPG 3.5 but for proving that open-source gaming can be (very) commercially successful - I'm happy to keep a close eye on this project, especially if it's backwards compatible with PF1. For example, if the Corefinder Wizard gets toned down/split into schools, and the problematic spells on its list themselves like Planar Binding get suitably nerfed or some spells get moved to other schools etc, I'd be interested in either playing Corefinder directly or just taking their wizard and porting it into my PF1 or 3.P.C games.

My preliminary impression is that this seems MUCH closer to what I wanted PF2 to be than PF2 itself (or Legend) did.

[N. Jolly]

While Paizo certainly has my undying loyalty, not just for continuing/improving my favorite TTRPG 3.5 but for proving that open-source gaming can be (very) commercially successful - I'm happy to keep a close eye on this project, especially if it's backwards compatible with PF1. For example, if the Corefinder Wizard gets toned down/split into schools, and the problematic spells on its list themselves like Planar Binding get suitably nerfed or some spells get moved to other schools etc, I'd be interested in either playing Corefinder directly or just taking their wizard and porting it into my PF1 or 3.P.C games.

My preliminary impression is that this seems MUCH closer to what I wanted PF2 to be than PF2 itself (or Legend) did.

I find it funny that you bring up the wizard, because we're actually working on the Legendary Wizard right now. I'm not sure if it'll be perfect, mostly because the Wizard is less a class and more a collection of spells. And spells are what are most broken, so this is mostly trying to make a more interesting frame from which to hang those spells. Doing that is well...it's rough. What we are doing is making specialization matter more and giving more metamagic options to help make them more fun to play. We're also giving the option of arcanist casting because I love that kind of casting.

Ideally, Corefinder will slot into PF and 3.P.X games as well as PF did with 3.5; there'll be issues, but we'll be keeping a mind on making sure things are reasonably comfortable. And as stated in the original post, this isn't just going to be for sword and fantasy, we're looking on diverging into sci fi, modern, and other such concepts (god, modern d20 seems like it's gonna be so fun to design).


Can you elaborate on this? What's involved in your market planning?

Let me try to get you a proper response here. I'm just a writer/project manager/community manager, so the market planning isn't in my scope.

[LegendaryGames]

Can you elaborate on this? What's involved in your market planning?

We look at sales trends for PF1, PF2, 5E, and other game systems we use in our design, feedback from our customers, conversations with other companies, and even message board conversations, and having done that over the past two years we think there's a viable market for a refined, streamlined, and improved version of the basic PF1/3.x generational chassis.

It's less a brand-new system and more a (hopefully) perfected version of what a certain slice of the gamer-sphere is already playing. They keep playing "Pathfinder" (1st Ed), but with an improved ruleset, classes, etc., but still able to use their existing PFRPG bestiaries and adventures. Plus we aim to create a more modular system for broadening the base PFRPG engine for other genres. We'll see how it goes.

As noted upthread, the scale at which we're operating allows us to do things differently from what WotC or Paizo would need to do. We have a long history of taking on and delivering massive projects across multiple systems, from adventure sagas to rules expansions and campaign world books, so the scale of this project is in no way daunting for us. At the same time, we can have a profitable venture with Corefinder even if at the end of the day our sales are in the hundreds rather than the thousands.

P.S. Of course, thousands and more would be great!

[Psyren]

I find it funny that you bring up the wizard, because we're actually working on the Legendary Wizard right now. I'm not sure if it'll be perfect, mostly because the Wizard is less a class and more a collection of spells. And spells are what are most broken, so this is mostly trying to make a more interesting frame from which to hang those spells. Doing that is well...it's rough. What we are doing is making specialization matter more and giving more metamagic options to help make them more fun to play. We're also giving the option of arcanist casting because I love that kind of casting.

I suggest that, if you stick with any version of Vancian at all, that you do indeed go with the Arcanist approach (i.e. divorcing the preparation of a spell from the slots or other resources used to cast it.) 5e did that with all of its prepared casters, and we know how successful that turned out. If anything, the other approach (e.g. "I prepared exactly three fireballs this morning, and hopefully I don't need more") should be the optional variant.

Also, borrow scaling cantrips from 5e - whipping out the crossbow feels pretty bad. Having scaling at-will magic in the core game also gives you a lot more design space to benchmark other classes with at-will powers later.



Ideally, Corefinder will slot into PF and 3.P.X games as well as PF did with 3.5; there'll be issues, but we'll be keeping a mind on making sure things are reasonably comfortable. And as stated in the original post, this isn't just going to be for sword and fantasy, we're looking on diverging into sci fi, modern, and other such concepts (god, modern d20 seems like it's gonna be so fun to design).

Urban fantasy is indeed a criminally underrepresented niche. But it certainly is a niche - I'd recommend nailing the crunch/feel of the medieval variant first and then branching out, but you guys know the publication/marketing arm of this better than I do.

[Jeff the Green]

Considering how wide the RPG sphere is, you'd be shocked how many smaller games are able to find a sustainable player base.

Expanding on this, it's much easier to pick up a game as your side if it's not that hard. Part of the goal of CF is streamlined rules. That means if someone's primary game is PF2e but a GM wants to try out CF, it will be much less hard for the player to make a character and play their first game. It's less of a time investment. That's part of why "it has a lot more room for innovation and redesign on the player side when it comes to classes, feats, and spells," is important to me, both as a designer and a player.


Urban fantasy is indeed a criminally underrepresented niche. But it certainly is a niche - I'd recommend nailing the crunch/feel of the medieval variant first and then branching out, but you guys know the publication/marketing arm of this better than I do.

I too am chomping at the bit for this, not least because I very much want to write the Pacific Northwest setting I've been pondering for a while, in which there are a number of portals to Faerie you can accidentally wander into from downtown Portland (notably in Powell's Books) and there's a shadowy cabal of aboleths who appear to have their fingers tentacles in Washington politics, trying to create the next big earthquake and sink Seattle into the sea...

[exelsisxax]

Could you lay out the specific design goals of Corefinder? If it is intended strictly as a 3.X revision, then clairifying how it is intended to be used or work compared to previous iterations would also be useful. You certainly have my attention, I want to see where this is heading.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by LegendaryGames
We look at sales trends for PF1, PF2, 5E, and other game systems we use in our design....

Extremely interesting, thanks. Where do you find the data on the sales trends?

[VladtheLad]

"so that existing PFRPG monsters and adventures can be used without the need for massive revisions"

For me this is the major thing, I wish you the best.

I also want to say that this seems to me weirdly long overdue. Pathfinder was in need of a revision and since paizo isn't doing it, its true legendary games is probably the next best company to go for it.

[LegendaryGames]

Extremely interesting, thanks. Where do you find the data on the sales trends?

Our own sales numbers, tracking sales rankings on sites like Amazon and DrivethruRPG, and talking with other publishers.

It's not perfect, but sales information never is. It gives us enough of a snapshot to make some informed decisions and educated guesses.

[LegendaryGames]

Could you lay out the specific design goals of Corefinder? If it is intended strictly as a 3.X revision, then clairifying how it is intended to be used or work compared to previous iterations would also be useful. You certainly have my attention, I want to see where this is heading.

I think Jolly linked it above, but in a nutshell:
1. It's a refinement of Pathfinder RPG (1st Edition), so it's another evolutionary step along the 3.x tree.

2. There will be changes to gameplay mechanics in how the game runs at the table. It's not going to be just a "pile every rule into one big book" project.

3. Most other changes will be on the players' side - how classes and characters work, how you gain and use feats and skills. Each player can be the expert on their character, so there's a lot more room to play around with the system.

4. Monster design is likely to lean closer to PF 2nd Ed or 5E in style, with top-down design of "what does this monster do - make it do that and just add the pieces you need" rather than bottom-up 3.x/PFRPG design of "assemble all individual pieces to make every monster conform exhaustively to PC-facing rules."

5. The general scope of numbers will still be close enough on the GM side that you *should* be able to use most of your monsters and adventures without a lot of need to retrofit. Just use the numbers as they exist; don't try to rebuild creatures from the ground up. The skeletal structure of a PFRPG monster will look different than what the PCs look like, and that's okay. If we're making new monsters (and if the project is a success, I'm sure we'll produce monster books), then sure, we'll build them using the Corefinder assumptions and structures, but they'll arrive at a very similar destination.

6. The intention is that a GM will be able to use their existing GM resources to run PFRPG adventures and use monsters they already have without having to do radical alterations. We do plan to create adventures for the system, but really, the biggest challenge in using an existing Pathfinder adventure with Corefinder might be in the realm of treasure, since "Big Six" magic items are so common as treasure.

7. A lot of the process is winnowing out redundancies, including things that currently exist as extras that were bolted onto the system along the way and weaving them directly into the system. Notably, tons of feats that do things that should just be ordinary "everybody can do them" abilities or features of skill use or equipment use.

Importantly, this is a core rules root system and then a primary fantasy module. It will not contain everything in a single book that has accrued over a decade of PFRPG and another decade of 3.x before that. But we like to think that a retrospective understanding will allow us to create a fun and exciting evolutionary iteration of that game engine that will be less cumbersome and more fun from low level to high level.

[Psyren]

Extremely interesting, thanks. Where do you find the data on the sales trends?

In addition to what LG said, IIRC you can purchase market intelligence from sites like ICv2 as well.


The skeletal structure of a PFRPG monster will look different than what the PCs look like, and that's okay.

Excellent. This is one of the major areas where I thought Legend's design failed.


6. The intention is that a GM will be able to use their existing GM resources to run PFRPG adventures and use monsters they already have without having to do radical alterations. We do plan to create adventures for the system, but really, the biggest challenge in using an existing Pathfinder adventure with Corefinder might be in the realm of treasure, since "Big Six" magic items are so common as treasure.

I highly suggest that you include Automatic Bonus Progression (or something similar) in core, even if only as an option, and provide the GM guidelines for running low-treasure adventures/stripping item bloat out of APs. This is going to be your best bet as far as killing Big Six while still being compatible with existing modules.


7. A lot of the process is winnowing out redundancies, including things that currently exist as extras that were bolted onto the system along the way and weaving athem directly into the system. Notably, tons of feats that do things that should just be ordinary "everybody can do them" abilities or features of skill use or equipment use.

Yes! All of this!

[TheTeaMustFlow]

This project is going to be to Pathfinder what Pathfinder was to 3.5, revised by the best of the third party scene. Considering the pedigree of our developers and designers, I can promise that this is going to be the definitive version of the game, and the base rules will be made with lots of ideas and concepts that have helped make Pathfinder great in mind.


So, what major mechanical changes can we expect - or at least, what can you tell us about right now? Are there any particular modifications to Pathfinder you can highlight?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
In addition to what LG said, IIRC you can purchase market intelligence from sites like ICv2 as well.

Interesting, thanks.

As it happens, I just came across this site from another angle and noticed an item about a new president at Paizo. I don't know much about Paizo's internal operations, so not sure what this means.

[AmberVael]

Extremely interesting, thanks. Where do you find the data on the sales trends?

Data is pretty hard to find. A lot of publishers are quiet about their own numbers, and even publishers can struggle to have the full picture on their own sales (as there's a difference between how many copies you may have sold, and how many copies a reseller may have sold).

As previously said, ICv2 is a source of information, and on Drivethru you can get a sense for sales on specific products and publishers through their medal system. Some publishers are willing to share their data, most notably Evil Hat who openly shares theirs. (https://twitter.com/fredhicks/status/1250520343611084808)

While it's not quite the same, you can also get a sense of a game's audience through online game stats, such as Roll20's Orr Report (https://blog.roll20.net/post/617299166657445888/the-orr-group-industry-report-q1-2020) and Fantasy Grounds (https://www.enworld.org/threads/fantasy-grounds-stats-show-massive-pandemic-bump.671486/).

[LegendaryGames]

Interesting, thanks.

As it happens, I just came across this site from another angle and noticed an item about a new president at Paizo. I don't know much about Paizo's internal operations, so not sure what this means.

Entirely coincidental and unrelated.

Lisa Stevens has been considering retirement for a while and this is the next phase of that "off-ramp" transition. She's remaining CEO for the next few years as Jeff Alvarez, the new President (who was previously the COO), takes on an increasing share of day-to-day operations. Lisa's legendary track record speaks for itself, but Jeff also is an amazing guy, talented, smart, and one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, and I'm sure he'll do great.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by LegendaryGames
Lisa's legendary track record speaks for itself, but Jeff also is an amazing guy, talented, smart, and one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, and I'm sure he'll do great.

As someone who doesn't follow Paizo that closely, and who's not familiar with individual staff, can you tell me more about what makes Lisa legendary?

[Psyren]

As someone who doesn't follow Paizo that closely, and who's not familiar with individual staff, can you tell me more about what makes Lisa legendary?

Uh, you mean besides founding Paizo?

Her background speaks for itself I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Stevens

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by AmberVael
While it's not quite the same, you can also get a sense of a game's audience through online game stats, such as Roll20's Orr Report and Fantasy Grounds.

These are fascinating, thanks.

I don't have the industry immersion to finely parse these numbers, but I do notice a difference in percentage for Pathfinder between the two reports. FG is reporting nearly twice the percentage of Pathfinder games as Roll20, more than would be expected from simply combining the percentages from PF1 and PF2 on Roll20. Does this mean FG is slightly more amenable to running Pathfinder games, or is there some other factor involved?

[AmberVael]

These are fascinating, thanks.

I don't have the industry immersion to finely parse these numbers, but I do notice a difference in percentage for Pathfinder between the two reports. FG is reporting nearly twice the percentage of Pathfinder games as Roll20, more than would be expected from simply combining the percentages from PF1 and PF2 on Roll20. Does this mean FG is slightly more amenable to running Pathfinder games, or is there some other factor involved?

Glad to help! It's something I've taken an interest in, so I've been collecting the resources I can find.

It's hard for me to know exactly why the numbers differ on the platforms as I don't have much experience with them. But most such platforms strongly supports specific systems, and the strength or weakness of that support can certainly influence popularity. I've heard that Roll20 may be having some issues with its support of the Pathfinder system, which may be driving its numbers down (specifically PF2, I believe, which would help explain the very low percentage it has on Roll20). A similar gap can be seen in the size of their Call of Cthulhu games, with Roll20 displaying a much larger audience.

[Kurald Galain]

FG is reporting nearly twice the percentage of Pathfinder games as Roll20
Oh, I can explain that. The default Pathfinder sheet on roll20 is an overcomplicated multi-page monstrosity that is just very slow and awkward to work with, so a standard solution is to learn macro language, write your own macros, and ignore the sheet.

Mind you, these sheets are not made by the site but by the community; and this one just happened to end up with a "technically correct is the BEST KIND of correct" situation. A much better/simpler/smoother sheet also exists, but not everybody knows that, and it's not the default. That could easily explain why PF players tend to prefer a different platform.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

4. Monster design is likely to lean closer to PF 2nd Ed or 5E in style, with top-down design of "what does this monster do - make it do that and just add the pieces you need" rather than bottom-up 3.x/PFRPG design of "assemble all individual pieces to make every monster conform exhaustively to PC-facing rules."
[...]
The skeletal structure of a PFRPG monster will look different than what the PCs look like, and that's okay. If we're making new monsters (and if the project is a success, I'm sure we'll produce monster books), then sure, we'll build them using the Corefinder assumptions and structures, but they'll arrive at a very similar destination.

While I'm definitely all for making monsters more distinctive instead of just a grab bag of standard monster qualities, I feel that monsters and PCs using the same chassis is one of the absolute best design aspects of 3e and PF1 from a DM perspective because their approach of "an Orc Warrior and an Orc Shaman are Orcs with levels in Fighter and Cleric, done" is much easier, more consistent, and more extensible than the 4e approach of "an Orc Skullsmasher swapping out his club for a spear makes it an Orc Gutpoker with a completely different stat block for no reason" or the AD&D/5e approach of "an NPC Orc Wizard is an Orc with a handful of arbitrary spells slapped on and zero resemblance to a PC Orc Wizard."

So if you must ditch PC/NPC transparency (which I personally can't stand but do acknowledge that it's more popular these days), I'd suggest you at least keep the common use cases of (A) players wanting to play PCs with monster races and (B) DMs wanting to quickly and easily customize humanoid NPCs with class-like abilities in mind when figuring out your monster chassis so that you can provide robust rules for those (or at least reasonable guidelines) instead of requiring players to hack things together on their own to make those cases work.

[Psyren]

Mind you, these sheets are not made by the site but by the community; and this one just happened to end up with a "technically correct is the BEST KIND of correct" situation. A much better/simpler/smoother sheet also exists, but not everybody knows that, and it's not the default. That could easily explain why PF players tend to prefer a different platform.

Just to be sure I'm using that better sheet - could you shoot a link to it by any chance, or instructions to reach it?


While I'm definitely all for making monsters more distinctive instead of just a grab bag of standard monster qualities, I feel that monsters and PCs using the same chassis is one of the absolute best design aspects of 3e and PF1 from a DM perspective because their approach of "an Orc Warrior and an Orc Shaman are Orcs with levels in Fighter and Cleric, done" is much easier, more consistent, and more extensible than the 4e approach of "an Orc Skullsmasher swapping out his club for a spear makes it an Orc Gutpoker with a completely different stat block for no reason" or the AD&D/5e approach of "an NPC Orc Wizard is an Orc with a handful of arbitrary spells slapped on and zero resemblance to a PC Orc Wizard."

I took their statement to mean "monsters and PCs will have some things in common like they do in PF1 today, like type/subtype/HD/feat every odd level etc - but not every monster will be built with the assumption that you could play it starting from level 1." Some monsters have abilities that are difficult to balance at any level except the one they are CR'ed for, like a vampire's weaknesses combined with its difficulty to kill.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I took their statement to mean "monsters and PCs will have some things in common like they do in PF1 today, like type/subtype/HD/feat every odd level etc - but not every monster will be built with the assumption that you could play it starting from level 1." Some monsters have abilities that are difficult to balance at any level except the one they are CR'ed for, like a vampire's weaknesses combined with its difficulty to kill.

Could be. I took "the skeletal structure of a PFRPG monster" to mean the basic HD/feat/stat boost/etc. progression, so that structure looking different from the PCs' would imply a more 4e-like setup.

LegendaryGames, could you go into a bit more detail regarding how you generally plan to handle monster creation and advancement?

[Ignimortis]

I'll be watching this with interest, really. I still feel that 3.PF is the best D&D has ever been, and I would certainly welcome a 3.99 of sorts.

However, I'm wondering about some specifics...

1) How extensively redone will the corebook be? Personally, I feel that the corebook is the weakest part of both PF and 3.5, mostly due to containing both Wizard/Cleric/Druid and Fighter/Monk/Paladin. PF 1e tried to fix that, but IMO it's impossible to fix without rewriting at least one trio of the two.
2) Will there be some streamlining, just as PF did for 3.5? I.e. skill-list fixing up, streamlining combat maneuvers, etc? Less random modifiers?
3) Will there be feat compression? I.e. I think that, for example, two-weapon fighting is an excessively bloated feat line, when it should probably be something like Two-Weapon Fighting -> Two-Weapon Defense -> Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting (removes the penalties). Anything of that sort?
4) Anything about core gameplay changes, like Full Attack while moving being possible or at least somewhat accessible?

[Lemmy]

Ah, cool! I alwyas like d N.Jolly and LG, so I'm looking forward to this... Maybe I'll even be motivated to adapt all ym homebrew to a new system... haha!

[N. Jolly]

I took their statement to mean "monsters and PCs will have some things in common like they do in PF1 today, like type/subtype/HD/feat every odd level etc - but not every monster will be built with the assumption that you could play it starting from level 1." Some monsters have abilities that are difficult to balance at any level except the one they are CR'ed for, like a vampire's weaknesses combined with its difficulty to kill.

Right now, monster creation in PF is REALLY rigid with a lot of rules that only end up taking additional time to fit into a framework that isn't even advantageous to design work. Our goal is to remove theses restrictions, but really, if you still want to add class levels to monsters, that'll be possible. But I don't think that framework of 'everything has a way to be built' like it is now is going to work for us.


I'll be watching this with interest, really. I still feel that 3.PF is the best D&D has ever been, and I would certainly welcome a 3.99 of sorts.

However, I'm wondering about some specifics...

1) How extensively redone will the corebook be? Personally, I feel that the corebook is the weakest part of both PF and 3.5, mostly due to containing both Wizard/Cleric/Druid and Fighter/Monk/Paladin. PF 1e tried to fix that, but IMO it's impossible to fix without rewriting at least one trio of the two.
2) Will there be some streamlining, just as PF did for 3.5? I.e. skill-list fixing up, streamlining combat maneuvers, etc? Less random modifiers?
3) Will there be feat compression? I.e. I think that, for example, two-weapon fighting is an excessively bloated feat line, when it should probably be something like Two-Weapon Fighting -> Two-Weapon Defense -> Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting (removes the penalties). Anything of that sort?
4) Anything about core gameplay changes, like Full Attack while moving being possible or at least somewhat accessible?

1. We were actually in discussion about classes just last night. Not every concept for a class from the base book is going to make it through, like we all agree sorcerer and wizard are conceptually the same space. We would like to include different core options that better cover what people are looking to have in their games instead of rehashing old concepts for the sake of legacy.

2. Yep, skills are a big focus on what we want to improve, and CMB/D while a nice idea, is going to be retweaked to further allow it to work in the framework of this new design.

3. Dear lord, yes. We have a thread about feats that should be skills, and we're also discussing removing 'feat taxes' in the discord every so often.

4. I dislike full attack, and I'm going to be doing my best to give people reason to use different styles of combat, if through SoM style tricks and such.


Ah, cool! I alwyas like d N.Jolly and LG, so I'm looking forward to this... Maybe I'll even be motivated to adapt all ym homebrew to a new system... haha!

Thanks, always glad to have people's support. We're going to be setting up a homebrew section on the discord which should help with that!

[Psyren]

Right now, monster creation in PF is REALLY rigid with a lot of rules that only end up taking additional time to fit into a framework that isn't even advantageous to design work. Our goal is to remove theses restrictions, but really, if you still want to add class levels to monsters, that'll be possible. But I don't think that framework of 'everything has a way to be built' like it is now is going to work for us.

Okay - I think I get it but will likely need specifics to comment further then.

One thing I'll offer you (that you're likely already aware of) is that PF made rules that allow you to add class features/spellcasting to monsters without adding class levels - Simple Class Templates. (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/simple-class-templates/) If you don't want to follow the standard paradigm of advancing monsters by adding levels or HD, refining and expanding this system could be an option.

[Lirya]

I have been writing a fair amount of monsters lately, and the forced relation between HD, BAB, Save progression, and the actual hit points, attack bonus, cmb/cmd, and save bonus is in my opinion more limiting than beneficial. Having enough transparency to be able to progress a monster with class levels and having games where the players play as monsters is a good thing, but you can still do that with fiat base HD, BAB, and Save values.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost
So if you must ditch PC/NPC transparency (which I personally can't stand but do acknowledge that it's more popular these days)....

I'm not that up on monster design, so I'm not sure what this term means.

.

[Psyren]

EDIT: Moving Legendary Bard comments to the playtest thread.


I have been writing a fair amount of monsters lately, and the forced relation between HD, BAB, Save progression, and the actual hit points, attack bonus, cmb/cmd, and save bonus is in my opinion more limiting than beneficial. Having enough transparency to be able to progress a monster with class levels and having games where the players play as monsters is a good thing, but you can still do that with fiat base HD, BAB, and Save values.

I guess I'm still really unclear about what exactly the problem is with current monster design that is trying to be solved. Having a baseline for every monster by type, such as "Dragon HD have this many hit points, BAB, saves and skill points" is useful imo, and most monsters will either stick to that baseline or spike above it once you layer on their ability scores or other special abilities. In the rare case when you need a monster to dip below that baseline, you can do this with an ad-hoc ability (or template) specific to that monster.

[AmberVael]

I guess I'm still really unclear about what exactly the problem is with current monster design that is trying to be solved. Having a baseline for every monster by type, such as "Dragon HD have this many hit points, BAB, saves and skill points" is useful imo, and most monsters will either stick to that baseline or spike above it once you layer on their ability scores or other special abilities. In the rare case when you need a monster to dip below that baseline, you can do this with an ad-hoc ability (or template) specific to that monster.

Y'know in video games how you can customize your character's appearance, and you do it via sliders?
Imagine all those sliders being linked together, adjusting each other in ways you don't want whenever you try to customize one piece or another.

With the system as is, a designer can't just say "I want X hp, Y AC, and these other numbers, that'll make a balanced monster." Instead, we have to juggle and balance a bunch of equations to get the results we want, and sometimes have to hack and tweak those equations to make it work right. It's a headache.

[Psyren]

Y'know in video games how you can customize your character's appearance, and you do it via sliders?
Imagine all those sliders being linked together, adjusting each other in ways you don't want whenever you try to customize one piece or another.

With the system as is, a designer can't just say "I want X hp, Y AC, and these other numbers, that'll make a balanced monster." Instead, we have to juggle and balance a bunch of equations to get the results we want, and sometimes have to hack and tweak those equations to make it work right. It's a headache.

See, the sliders are a good analogy, because I think a system should have baseline linkages like that. Just like in an RPG character creator I wouldn't want to inadvertently make a character with jug-ears or a completely disproportionate nose; I should really have to go out of my way to make something ugly or unworkable like that, which in the monster creation analogy would be needing an ad-hoc penalty or bonus layered on top of what they get from their chassis if I want to deviate from that baseline.

As an example, if I want to make a "frail dragon" - I would consider that enough of an outlier that I could simply make up an ability called "Frail (Ex)" or something, and use that to reduce my frail dragon's hit points, without changing the baseline dragon chassis to not be d12s.

[AmberVael]

See, the sliders are a good analogy, because I think a system should have baseline linkages like that. Just like in an RPG character creator I wouldn't want to inadvertently make a character with jug-ears or a completely disproportionate nose; I should really have to go out of my way to make something ugly or unworkable like that, which in the monster creation analogy would be needing an ad-hoc penalty or bonus layered on top of what they get from their chassis if I want to deviate from that baseline.

As an example, if I want to make a "frail dragon" - I would consider that enough of an outlier that I could simply make up an ability called "Frail (Ex)" or something, and use that to reduce my frail dragon's hit points, without changing the baseline dragon chassis to not be d12s.

The point in the analogy was lack of precision, lack of control. Lack and precision and control is not something you want your designers to have to deal with.

To go back to the analogy, there's a reason you hand those to players, and not your artist. The player needs the guidelines of sliders to make something sensible. The artist is going to struggle to do their job if that's their only tool.

[Psyren]

The point in the analogy was lack of precision, lack of control. Lack and precision and control is not something you want your designers to have to deal with.

To go back to the analogy, there's a reason you hand those to players, and not your artist. The player needs the guidelines of sliders to make something sensible. The artist is going to struggle to do their job if that's their only tool.

I understood your point but I disagree. The GM is certainly a designer, but they are very often going to start out on the same footing as the players when it comes to experimenting with the system and making their first custom creature (or altering/advancing an existing one). Those guidelines/linkages therefore are just as useful for them as they would be for a player.

As I said before though, the devil here is very much in the details so it may well be that I completely agree with what they have in mind once I see it.

[AmberVael]

I understood your point but I disagree. The GM is certainly a designer.

Ah. I see the miscommunication.
Designer as in writer, developer. The authors, editors, and team behind a product.

I can see such guidelines being helpful to GMs and players. But from the other side of the book, it's been a hindrance and pain to have to conform to them. The monsters and statblocks I've published have been more time consuming and annoying than any other type of design.

[Psyren]

Ah. I see the miscommunication.
Designer as in writer, developer. The authors, editors, and team behind a product.

I can see such guidelines being helpful to GMs and players. But from the other side of the book, it's been a hindrance and pain to have to conform to them. The monsters and statblocks I've published have been more time consuming and annoying than any other type of design.

I guess this boils down to whose life you want to make as easy as possible. For me the answer is the GM, since module writers and other professional designer have more external incentive to dive into and wrestle with a system to get it to do what they want. And they won't have any desire to do that for a system that nobody wants to GM because it's more difficult for them to use. That's just my two cents though, and it assumes a dichotomy between ease for the designer and ease for the GM that doesn't necessarily need to be there.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'm not that up on monster design, so I'm not sure what this term means.

"Transparency" in this case means that PCs and monsters operate on the same basic concepts, so that a spell/feat/roll/etc. applied to one applies to the other transparently. Both have hit dice that work the same way and come in the same sizes, both have saving throws and skill points that progress according to hit dice in the same way, both gain feats and ability boosts at the same number of hit dice, both have types and subtypes that interact the same way with various effects, and so on.

AD&D and 4e are examples of mildly and highly non-transparent systems, respectively: 4e monsters share basically none of their basic framework with PCs such that all their combat stats are calculated differently and PCs have wildly different amounts of hit points than monsters do and so on, and AD&D monsters do operate pretty closely to PCs but don't even have ability scores or AC calculations or the like listed so there are a bunch of places where interactions are undefined.

In 3e, if you put a belt of giant strength on a troll you know exactly what mechanical effects that has and those effects are identical to the effects a PC would gain from the belt, while in AD&D and 4e if you tried the same thing you'd get a Divide By Cucumber error because the troll's Str modifier has zero relation with its other stats assuming it even has a Str score at all.


Notably, a 3e-derived system retaining PC/NPC transparency does not mean that it has to retain the exact same type-based system 3e uses. It might change or condense a bunch of types and subtypes (like how 3.0 merged Beast and Magical Beast or made Shapechanger a subtype), or allow "multityping" so a Dracolich is a Dragon/Undead and gets the best of both types, or swap out type-based stats for something like 4e monster classes so an Illithid's stats come from being a Trickster instead of an Aberration and a Vrock's stats come from being a Skirmisher instead of an Outsider, or go back to an AD&D-like setup where all monsters have the same stat progressions instead of e.g. Fey and Monstrous Humanoids having different good and poor saves, or all sorts of different takes on the idea. The important part for transparency is that monsters use the same building blocks as PCs do, whatever form that takes.

There are also plenty of ways to do sort-of-transparency that get you most of the way there, like the class templates Psyren linked that staple enough class features onto a monster to make it look like the monster took levels in a given class, but the problem with doing things that way is that it's all edge cases and you need to print new class templates (or whatever) for each new class you make, thus requiring more effort on an ongoing basis instead of providing a single way upfront to make classed monsters that just work automatically with whatever class you use.

[Alexvrahr]

I'm not that fussed about transparency as such, but if you end up with something like PF2 where you have to change the monster's stats if it allies with the PCs because monster stats are incompatible with PC-side stats - then you lose my interest rapidly.

[Psyren]

I'm not that fussed about transparency as such, but if you end up with something like PF2 where you have to change the monster's stats if it allies with the PCs because monster stats are incompatible with PC-side stats - then you lose my interest rapidly.

Does PF2 really do that? Ugh.

[Batcathat]

Does PF2 really do that? Ugh.

My thought exactly. That seems wildly annoying.

[stack]

Even for PF1 monster design, the transparency is something of an illusion. You choose target numbers to conform to the desired CR, then work backwards to make the stats fit. Much of the design exists purely to generate the numbers that you selected up front, with various adjustments then rolling down to other points. It leads to a lot of unnecessary work and makes very little difference in the end result aside from encouraging your skill line being 1 point off here and there or missing the odd feat that doesn't actually get used.

Creature types carrying so much baggage is a big part of this. You want to make a fey type bruiser? Inflate those HD, which pumps saves, meaning you need to tweak attributes to bring them back in line, which moves the skills...

[zlefin]

I'd like it so the effects of large monsters work better; instead of relying on massive STR and CON bonuses to get the numbers right. As sizes increase, the monsters often have ridiculous HD bloat, which has alot of implications due to how many things are set to scale by HD.

One experiment I did that showed alot of promise is, instead of having massive CON boosts; let HD size scale using the weapon size scaling rules. ie 1d8 base HD becomes 2d6 per HD if the creature becomes large. (not sure how CON interacts with that, I've long wanted to have CON be a +/- 10% effect per actual point rather than the flat +/- 1 per modifier point). At any rate, I hope you find a solution that works well for your system goals.

I'd also like it if the even/odd numbers effect on modifiers was changed; it's irksome to have this weird space where odd numbers don't change the modifier, and largely don't affect anything.

[exelsisxax]

Also going to join in on saying that PC/NPC transparency is an unconditional necessity. Going the 5e/PF2 way of things would be a nonstarter, throwing out one of the best parts of d20 systems for no benefit. There's definitely much better ways of doing it than PF1 racial HD, but not playing by the same rules is 10 steps back for the ruleset.

[Psyren]

Even for PF1 monster design, the transparency is something of an illusion. You choose target numbers to conform to the desired CR, then work backwards to make the stats fit. Much of the design exists purely to generate the numbers that you selected up front, with various adjustments then rolling down to other points. It leads to a lot of unnecessary work and makes very little difference in the end result aside from encouraging your skill line being 1 point off here and there or missing the odd feat that doesn't actually get used.

Creature types carrying so much baggage is a big part of this. You want to make a fey type bruiser? Inflate those HD, which pumps saves, meaning you need to tweak attributes to bring them back in line, which moves the skills...

"Buff (Ex): Compared to other fey, Custom Bruiser Fey are dummy thicc and gain 5 extra hp per HD."

That's all of one sentence; There's no need to mess with HD and anything connected to them at all. I really don't see what's so difficult about putting an ability like that in there for your "bruiser fey" and calling it a day. Hell, it's much easier than 3.5 where you have to worry about a PC gaining access to stuff like this through a polymorph spell, because the PF polymorph spells are very specific about what special abilities you get from them. Use the system to your advantage instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, is my stance.



I'd also like it if the even/odd numbers effect on modifiers was changed; it's irksome to have this weird space where odd numbers don't change the modifier, and largely don't affect anything.

I would definitely remove all odd numbered requirements from the system. I think we had a long-ish thread debating this topic some time back.

Alternatively, let's take a page from Starfinder/5e and let you get multiple stat boosts at a time - that makes odd numbers for PCs much more palatable.

[Ignimortis]

Right now, monster creation in PF is REALLY rigid with a lot of rules that only end up taking additional time to fit into a framework that isn't even advantageous to design work. Our goal is to remove theses restrictions, but really, if you still want to add class levels to monsters, that'll be possible. But I don't think that framework of 'everything has a way to be built' like it is now is going to work for us.



1. We were actually in discussion about classes just last night. Not every concept for a class from the base book is going to make it through, like we all agree sorcerer and wizard are conceptually the same space. We would like to include different core options that better cover what people are looking to have in their games instead of rehashing old concepts for the sake of legacy.

2. Yep, skills are a big focus on what we want to improve, and CMB/D while a nice idea, is going to be retweaked to further allow it to work in the framework of this new design.

3. Dear lord, yes. We have a thread about feats that should be skills, and we're also discussing removing 'feat taxes' in the discord every so often.

4. I dislike full attack, and I'm going to be doing my best to give people reason to use different styles of combat, if through SoM style tricks and such.


That sounds great. Consider me fully interested. Even if the end result isn't exactly what I need, I feel that maybe Corefinder might still become a very close base that will need very few houserules to make it do what I want D&D systems to do.


Also going to join in on saying that PC/NPC transparency is an unconditional necessity. Going the 5e/PF2 way of things would be a nonstarter, throwing out one of the best parts of d20 systems for no benefit. There's definitely much better ways of doing it than PF1 racial HD, but not playing by the same rules is 10 steps back for the ruleset.

Seconding that. Yes, building monsters like PCs is somewhat annoying, but it's the only way that works properly in d20. Trying to reduce things to be more gamist only works if monsters are clearly not intended for anyone but the DM's use.


I'd like it so the effects of large monsters work better; instead of relying on massive STR and CON bonuses to get the numbers right. As sizes increase, the monsters often have ridiculous HD bloat, which has alot of implications due to how many things are set to scale by HD.

One experiment I did that showed alot of promise is, instead of having massive CON boosts; let HD size scale using the weapon size scaling rules. ie 1d8 base HD becomes 2d6 per HD if the creature becomes large. (not sure how CON interacts with that, I've long wanted to have CON be a +/- 10% effect per actual point rather than the flat +/- 1 per modifier point). At any rate, I hope you find a solution that works well for your system goals.

I'd also like it if the even/odd numbers effect on modifiers was changed; it's irksome to have this weird space where odd numbers don't change the modifier, and largely don't affect anything.

Also seconding that. Massive CON would be more fine if it didn't inflate Fort saves as much, but since it does, perhaps other solutions would be in order.

Odd numbers are clearly a leftover from earlier editions, since the only time they come up is ability drain/damage and the ability to learn spells, which can still work with very minor changes (so half size on damage/drain dice? and spell learning would just be "you can learn a spell of any level lower than your (INT/WIS/CHA)x2+1" if stats become a straight +X instead of 18 (+4).

[Sneak Dog]

Will ability scores get a pass? Strength primarily bothers me as it is meaningless without knowing the size of the creature; carrying capacity and breaking objects both scale greatly with size and are classic ways to measure strength. On top of this, bigger creatures also get more strength.
It's really hard to say that a raging barbarian is as strong as a giant when the giant is huge and the barbarian is not.

[Psyren]

It's really hard to say that a raging barbarian is as strong as a giant when the giant is huge and the barbarian is not.

A raging barbarian going toe-to-toe with a giant is something I would like to be possible though.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Even for PF1 monster design, the transparency is something of an illusion. You choose target numbers to conform to the desired CR, then work backwards to make the stats fit. Much of the design exists purely to generate the numbers that you selected up front, with various adjustments then rolling down to other points. It leads to a lot of unnecessary work and makes very little difference in the end result aside from encouraging your skill line being 1 point off here and there or missing the odd feat that doesn't actually get used.

I don't do the working-backward-from-CR thing at all in 3e, and I'm not sure if that's an official thing in PF1 with an average-numbers-by-CR chart you're supposed to make things fit but I doubt I'd do that even if it is. I find the whole "all monsters of CR X must have number Y be within 2 points of benchmark Z or the math is completely broken forever!!!" paranoia of 4e/5e/PF2 to be ridiculous, because (A) monsters are much more tactically engaging if players can't just go "Okay, its AC is X, so it's a CR 6 or 7 monster, therefore all of its other numbers are [blah]" and (B) one of the strengths of 3e/PF1 is that it isn't this fragile glass sculpture that breaks in half if the math is different by a few points in either direction.


Creature types carrying so much baggage is a big part of this. You want to make a fey type bruiser? Inflate those HD, which pumps saves, meaning you need to tweak attributes to bring them back in line, which moves the skills...

This is why I mentioned that going with a monster-class-based setup instead of a type-based setup is an option. A Succubus and a Balor are both Outsiders, but role-wise a Succubus has more in common with a Dryad than it does with the Balor so statting the Succubus and Dryad out with the same monster class would make plenty of sense. For all the many (many many...) things wrong with 4e monster design, splitting type (which should influence a monster's theme and abilities) from role (which should influence a monster's tactics and numbers) was a good idea conceptually.

Failing that, at least getting rid of nonabilities would help the unnecessary Construct and Undead HD inflation used to get their numbers up. Undead HD diverges from CR pretty quickly past CR 5 or so because half BAB and Con -- require much higher HD to keep up, so just...don't do that, give them full BAB and give everything a Con score (making it "strength of animating life force" instead of "strength of metabolism" flavor-wise) and the issue completely goes away.


I'd like it so the effects of large monsters work better; instead of relying on massive STR and CON bonuses to get the numbers right. As sizes increase, the monsters often have ridiculous HD bloat, which has alot of implications due to how many things are set to scale by HD.

Yeah, the thing where you can have 24 HD and be CR 11 because a developer or DM is trying to hit some arbitrary CR-based benchmark (like the Undead HD thing above) should really go. In an ideal world, the benchmark would be that HD = CR by default, plus or minus a few points; if your 14-HD Frost Giant can't keep up numerically with a Fighter 14, that doesn't mean you should slap a CR 9 on that and call it a day, it means you have a problem with the progression(s) of the Giant type or the Brute monster class or whatever and it should be fixed there.


One experiment I did that showed alot of promise is, instead of having massive CON boosts; let HD size scale using the weapon size scaling rules. ie 1d8 base HD becomes 2d6 per HD if the creature becomes large. (not sure how CON interacts with that, I've long wanted to have CON be a +/- 10% effect per actual point rather than the flat +/- 1 per modifier point). At any rate, I hope you find a solution that works well for your system goals.

I dislike the multiple-hit-dice-per-hit-die solution, personally (there's a reason the Ranger didn't keep it past 1e, after all), and while proportional Con is better it isn't really necessary, as big monsters don't need to have oodles of HP to "feel" big, you can achieve the same effect with damage resistances and such which is better anyway from a "doesn't go down to a half-dozen commoners with pointy sticks" perspective.

[stack]

"Buff (Ex): Compared to other fey, Custom Bruiser Fey are dummy thicc and gain 5 extra hp per HD."

That's all of one sentence; There's no need to mess with HD and anything connected to them at all. I really don't see what's so difficult about putting an ability like that in there for your "bruiser fey" and calling it a day. Hell, it's much easier than 3.5 where you have to worry about a PC gaining access to stuff like this through a polymorph spell, because the PF polymorph spells are very specific about what special abilities you get from them. Use the system to your advantage instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, is my stance.


If the rules require a bunch of fiat fixes, what are they adding? Monster design starts at the target and works backwards, I don't see the value in requiring every monster be worked all the way back to PC rules when they are just going to have arbitrary non-PC facing abilities anyway. In Legend, the system was heavily burdened by making monster builds line up with player builds, but at least the mechanics were transferable; you have a 'dragon' specific path, it can be dropped onto a PC as-is. If you aren't making the mechanics transferable, then you are making extra work. In my experience, writing 5e/PF2 monsters is much easier and faster than PF1 monsters.

If you save a bit of space in the bestiary with a simplified stat block, that benefits you too; either less cost or more product.

If you want PCs to be able to play monsters, then you have a bit of extra work, yes. Given the HD inflation of many monsters, you are better off making some kind of monster class progression anyway. The case of low HD monster races that haven't been printed as PC races is a valid point; including the PC options for them in the same product would be nice.

Edit - PairODice's idea if redefining the monster build framework is also a good solution, I think.

[Psyren]

If the rules require a bunch of fiat fixes, what are they adding? Monster design starts at the target and works backwards, I don't see the value in requiring every monster be worked all the way back to PC rules when they are just going to have arbitrary non-PC facing abilities anyway.

The value they add comes from letting you know what the base case is. Fey are generally physically frail manipulators, and the Fey type rules tell you that. If you want to make a "Fey Bruiser" then I would say yes, you should be coming up with something ad-hoc to represent that, because "fey bruisers" are outliers by definition.



If you save a bit of space in the bestiary with a simplified stat block, that benefits you too; either less cost or more product.

What could be simpler than "This creature is Fey and has no other addon abilities or templates, and that's how you know the hit points, saves, BAB and skills are accurate?" None of that is spelled out in the statblock besides simply listing the stats and saying that the creature is Fey, and I consider that to be a win.

[legomaster00156]

Is mounted combat going to be refined into a less confusing combat style?

[N. Jolly]

Is mounted combat going to be refined into a less confusing combat style?

Yes, yes it is.

[Jeff the Green]

One thing I'll offer you (that you're likely already aware of) is that PF made rules that allow you to add class features/spellcasting to monsters without adding class levels - Simple Class Templates. (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/simple-class-templates/) If you don't want to follow the standard paradigm of advancing monsters by adding levels or HD, refining and expanding this system could be an option.

This is something I've brought up. I think it's a good option, though it definitely needs a massive rework.

A hill giant druid doesn't need a generic wildshape ability and a dozen prepared spells. They need a few spell-like abilities and an alternate form. It's much easier on the GM, who doesn't have to completely rework stats, and the designer, who doesn't have to worry about number balance as much.


Is mounted combat going to be refined into a less confusing combat style?

Yes.

I don't recall any conversation about it for CF, but Jolly and I were planning something on that for PF1e a while back because it's such a mess. (It was scuttled because PF2e was announced.)

[exelsisxax]

Are you going to finally kill off vancian spellcasting? I know it's one of the sacred cows, but it has really been poisoning the game for a while.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Are you going to finally kill off vancian spellcasting? I know it's one of the sacred cows, but it has really been poisoning the game for a while.

Heresy! Blasphemy! Sacrilege! :smallwink:

But seriously, there are a bunch of things Vancian does better than other casting system.
Preparing a few dozen spells in discrete slots gives you access to a wide variety of effects without the massive option paralysis of "You know a hundred spells, here's your mana bar, go."
Discrete slots help with balance and limit nova potential because they aren't completely fungible, or really fungible at all except under certain circumstances.
Being able to prepare a spell loadout for a specific scenario incentivizes researching enemies and planning ahead in a way systems with a fixed repertoire of capabilities do not.
Being able to prepare separate "adventuring" and "downtime" loadouts let you play a utility-focused caster without "letting the team down" in combat, or vice versa.
Lots of niche spell effects often only get used in a Vancian setup because you can prep them when needed and ignore them otherwise, something that doesn't happen in a fixed-repertoire system (the classic wizard vs. sorcerer spell selection problem).
Adding spells to Vancian casters is usually easier than other systems, because a single spell doesn't steal conceptual space from existing options, doesn't combinatorially explode with other spell seeds, doesn't break any sort of symmetry in a fixed power setup, etc.
Build-your-own-spell systems usually neglect the more interesting spells that are hard to procedurally generate from a set of seeds, as shown in 3e's own Epic Spellcasting system.
And so on.
Now, that's not to say that the 3e/PF1 implementation of Vancian is perfect or that it can't be modified to taste without losing all of its advantages. Things like limited spontaneous casting of signature spells in 3e or at-will cantrips in PF1 were both good tweaks to the classic formula, and you can play around with a bunch of parameters to adjust power levels/versatility/endurance/etc. as desired. But Vancian casting gets a lot of unfair knee-jerk mechanical hate for no good reason, much like the irrational flavor hate psionics gets (at least Truenaming deserves it :smallamused:), and I feel getting rid of it entirely would be a bad idea.

[Psyren]

5e has proven that what I'll call "soft Vancian" (i.e. segregation between the spells you prepare and the quantity of those spells you have available to cast - Arcanist preparation in other words) is very easy for newcomers to pick up and for GMs to track. As much as I like the idea of alternate casting systems like spell points and recharge/cooldowns, those are a pain to track in tabletop compared to soft Vancian, while still being easy for players.

Another innovation I like from 5e is the removal of bonus spells. No need to consult two different tables to learn how much ammo you have per day, no need to recalculate your loadout if you get an ability score reduced or level-drained - instead, cantrips and short-rest powers are your "filler magic" that allow you to conserve the limited ammo you do get.

[Batcathat]

As much as I like the idea of alternate casting systems like spell points and recharge/cooldowns, those are a pain to track in tabletop compared to soft Vancian, while still being easy for players.

Cooldowns I can understand but why would spell points be more of a pain to track than a Vancian system? "I know these spells and I have X spell points remaining."

[Psyren]

Cooldowns I can understand but why would spell points be more of a pain to track than a Vancian system? "I know these spells and I have X spell points remaining."

"Pain to track" was perhaps a misnomer - sure deducting amounts from a pool that refreshes each day is not that complicated. But spell point have other issues that Vancian doesn't.

For starters there's the question of how you calculate the "X" - In 3.5 for instance, compare the power points available to a 20th-level Psion, the spell points available to a 20th level Wizard, and the spell points available to a 20th level Sorcerer, and you get three different numbers seemingly for no reason. Even WotC themselves couldn't be consistent about it. Then add in other cost considerations like augmenting spells that don't automatically scale (including figuring out which spells those should even be) and adding metamagic.

Even more dangerous however is the fact that a pool of points isn't segregated by level like slots are. In effect, this means you can trade your lower-level slots for higher-level ones. This can make anticipating PC resources - their most powerful spells in particular - to plan encounters around very tricky for a GM. A Psion 14 for example can manifest up to 12 7th-level powers per day before accounting for bonus PP, cost reducers and the like.

[legomaster00156]

I do like bonus spells, but they could definitely be more streamlined. As just one idea, minimum casting stat for the level +5 for a single extra spell, and +10 or more for 2 extra spells.
For example, you gain the ability to cast 1st-level Wizard spells with 11 INT, and if you have 16 INT, you can cast an extra level 1 spell per day. If you have 21+ INT, you can cast 2 extra level 1 spells per day.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

5e has proven that what I'll call "soft Vancian" (i.e. segregation between the spells you prepare and the quantity of those spells you have available to cast - Arcanist preparation in other words) is very easy for newcomers to pick up and for GMs to track. As much as I like the idea of alternate casting systems like spell points and recharge/cooldowns, those are a pain to track in tabletop compared to soft Vancian, while still being easy for players.

I freely admit that I hate 5e's pseudo-Vancian with the fury of a thousand portals to the Quasielemental Plane of Radiance, but that's mostly because (A) it's obvious the designers were half-assing everything about 5e's spellcasting setup so it's somewhat understandable and (B) everyone keeps giving the devs credit for the breathtakingly novel "prepare a set of spells each day and cast them spontaneously" thing when the Spirit Shaman did it back in 2004.

If Corefinder were to have some pseudo-Vancian classes while retaining some actual Vancian classes--heck, if they at least let the Wizard retain real wizard casting while the others do their own thing--that could help ease new-to-prepared-caster players into things with the former while showing off the benefits of actual Vancian with the latter. In that case I'd only hate it with the fury of, say, fourteen and a half portals. :smallwink:


Another innovation I like from 5e is the removal of bonus spells. No need to consult two different tables to learn how much ammo you have per day, no need to recalculate your loadout if you get an ability score reduced or level-drained - instead, cantrips and short-rest powers are your "filler magic" that allow you to conserve the limited ammo you do get.


I do like bonus spells, but they could definitely be more streamlined. As just one idea, minimum casting stat for the level +5 for a single extra spell, and +10 or more for 2 extra spells.
For example, you gain the ability to cast 1st-level Wizard spells with 11 INT, and if you have 16 INT, you can cast an extra level 1 spell per day. If you have 21+ INT, you can cast 2 extra level 1 spells per day.

Bonus spells really aren't that complex (you get a bonus spell of level X when your stat mod is +X or higher, a second when it's +X+4, a third at +X+8, and so on, so you don't need to reference the table if you remember the formula), and they're an elegant way to give casters a few low-level spells at low levels and a bunch at high levels without making the base charts too complicated.

Getting a handful of spell slots back per encounter or per short rest or whatever is a way to achieve the same thing, but if you're going to do that you might as well go full AD&D and let them reprepare all the spells they want at a cost of X minutes per level or the like. 5e letting you restore a handful of slots at a time plus making an arbitrary subset of spells ritual spells (when by Vancian flavor you should be able to cast every spell that way) was an annoying snarl in the lore for me.

But really, without knowing Corefinder's pacing mechanism(s) it's hard to say what would work better; whether the default pace is "all the downtime you want" vs. "intense many-encounter adventuring days with breathers before and after" vs. "rest time? what rest time?" will obviously point to certain ways of handling the number of slots being better than others.

[Morty]

Will you be making any alterations to the class list?

[EldritchWeaver]

It was mentioned on the discord that they are considering merging sorcerer and wizard. Not sure what other considerations are currently.

[Psyren]

I freely admit that I hate 5e's pseudo-Vancian with the fury of a thousand portals to the Quasielemental Plane of Radiance, but that's mostly because (A) it's obvious the designers were half-assing everything about 5e's spellcasting setup so it's somewhat understandable and (B) everyone keeps giving the devs credit for the breathtakingly novel "prepare a set of spells each day and cast them spontaneously" thing when the Spirit Shaman did it back in 2004.

Bold of you to assume people actually played Spirit Shaman :smalltongue: I didn't see a single article about it on the entire Wizards archive, and this is a site that expanded on the Divine Mind and Truenamer!


If Corefinder were to have some pseudo-Vancian classes while retaining some actual Vancian classes--heck, if they at least let the Wizard retain real wizard casting while the others do their own thing--that could help ease new-to-prepared-caster players into things with the former while showing off the benefits of actual Vancian with the latter. In that case I'd only hate it with the fury of, say, fourteen and a half portals. :smallwink:

"Benefits of actual Vancian" - good one
:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin:


Bonus spells really aren't that complex (you get a bonus spell of level X when your stat mod is +X or higher, a second when it's +X+4, a third at +X+8, and so on, so you don't need to reference the table if you remember the formula), and they're an elegant way to give casters a few low-level spells at low levels and a bunch at high levels without making the base charts too complicated.

I'm glad that comes so easily to you - but if they agreed with you about how simple it was, they wouldn't have needed to create a table for it in the first place.


Getting a handful of spell slots back per encounter or per short rest or whatever is a way to achieve the same thing, but if you're going to do that you might as well go full AD&D and let them reprepare all the spells they want at a cost of X minutes per level or the like. 5e letting you restore a handful of slots at a time plus making an arbitrary subset of spells ritual spells (when by Vancian flavor you should be able to cast every spell that way) was an annoying snarl in the lore for me.

Restoring slots is a class feature for specific caster classes (subclasses in some cases) and normalizing its presence increases the design space available to the others. For example, 5e Druids don't have a slot recovery mechanic (except for Circle of the Land) - but because of that they get wild shape uses back instead, which is much more fun at low levels instead of having to say "I turn into a wolf to help the party scout, then i change back, and that's all the shapeshifting I can do today."

In other words - when everyone can be expected to have encounter powers / get something back on a short rest, everyone wins.


But really, without knowing Corefinder's pacing mechanism(s) it's hard to say what would work better; whether the default pace is "all the downtime you want" vs. "intense many-encounter adventuring days with breathers before and after" vs. "rest time? what rest time?" will obviously point to certain ways of handling the number of slots being better than others.

The beauty of modifying Vancian is that you don't have to pigeonhole every single playgroup into one of these avenues. The ones that prefer endurance days with minimal resting will still have some magic available to still feel fun instead of only having crossbow-time, and the ones that have minimal combat each day instead can make those combats as challenging as they need to be to account for the party having most of its resources.

[exelsisxax]

It's also so much easier to deal with tracking when you can dump vancian casting. I am continually surprised at how everyone takes at face value that all your magic comes back every morning. If you don't have a variable number of variable-value units of spellcasting alone, you can just calibrate attrition to recovery directly, rather than have to deal with emergent suckitude like the 15 minute adventuring day, or 5e's "balance" around an impossible rate of encounters to make half the classes get anywhere close to parity.

[Psyren]

It's also so much easier to deal with tracking when you can dump vancian casting. I am continually surprised at how everyone takes at face value that all your magic comes back every morning. If you don't have a variable number of variable-value units of spellcasting alone, you can just calibrate attrition to recovery directly, rather than have to deal with emergent suckitude like the 15 minute adventuring day, or 5e's "balance" around an impossible rate of encounters to make half the classes get anywhere close to parity.

Thing is, "get your resources (particularly innate ammunition like spells) back after a good night's sleep" is a component of... more RPGs than I can probably count in a lifetime, so it's reasonable to expect that D&D would use this mechanic too.

The way you avoid 15-minute adventuring day is to have some decently impactful abilities that aren't daily - at-will and encounter/short-rest powers in other words, or at the very least intra-day recovery mechanics.

[exelsisxax]

Thing is, "get your resources (particularly innate ammunition like spells) back after a good night's sleep" is a component of... more RPGs than I can probably count in a lifetime, so it's reasonable to expect that D&D would use this mechanic too.

The way you avoid 15-minute adventuring day is to have some decently impactful abilities that aren't daily - at-will and encounter/short-rest powers in other words, or at the very least intra-day recovery mechanics.

But why do you get it all back? Especially in an adventure RPG that often uses themes of exploration and survival, you get all your magic juice back every single day regardless of circumstances. This is really weird, and I can't think of a single fantasy setting where this is the case outside of D&D derivatives. I don't even think Vance had his spells work this way, couldn't they upload new spells whenever they had the time at hand?

If you don't just reset magic resources instantly daily, the 15-minute adventuring day problem is gone (extremely drawn-out open sieges may need to be prevented though). It does require a better unification of resources, but I personally think that can only be a benefit from where we're standing now with PF. There's so many variable pools of miscellaneous stuff, x/day abilities from race/class/items on top of 9 levels of spell slots. Not giving some types of classes 12 kinds of variable benefit resources that can powercreep and other kinds of classes a single resource (hit points) definitely makes it easier to maintain balance and keep the flow of gameplay pointed where you want.

[EldritchWeaver]

But why do you get it all back? Especially in an adventure RPG that often uses themes of exploration and survival, you get all your magic juice back every single day regardless of circumstances. This is really weird, and I can't think of a single fantasy setting where this is the case outside of D&D derivatives. I don't even think Vance had his spells work this way, couldn't they upload new spells whenever they had the time at hand?

If you don't just reset magic resources instantly daily, the 15-minute adventuring day problem is gone (extremely drawn-out open sieges may need to be prevented though). It does require a better unification of resources, but I personally think that can only be a benefit from where we're standing now with PF. There's so many variable pools of miscellaneous stuff, x/day abilities from race/class/items on top of 9 levels of spell slots. Not giving some types of classes 12 kinds of variable benefit resources that can powercreep and other kinds of classes a single resource (hit points) definitely makes it easier to maintain balance and keep the flow of gameplay pointed where you want.

So what is then the alternative? Getting some uses back at set intervals?

[exelsisxax]

So what is then the alternative? Getting some uses back at set intervals?

Yes. Condensing a bunch of things into one pool of whatever magic juice, and it recovering at some rate, depending on features or ability scores or other things. x/day resources definitely have a place, but not goddamn everywhere and for everything.

[Psyren]

Yes. Condensing a bunch of things into one pool of whatever magic juice, and it recovering at some rate, depending on features or ability scores or other things. x/day resources definitely have a place, but not goddamn everywhere and for everything.

This is just recharge magic with extra steps. Which is a cool idea in a videogame where every second is being tracked anyway, but a pain in the neck for tabletop.

[Caelestion]

The Fixed List casters were a useful innovation, I think. Limited spell lists, but spontaneous casting from said lists.

[exelsisxax]

This is just recharge magic with extra steps. Which is a cool idea in a videogame where every second is being tracked anyway, but a pain in the neck for tabletop.

To clear up the ambiguity: I mean the rate being as fractions of the whole per day, not as anything that recovers over the course of combat. Such a system is indeed totally inappropriate for a TTRPG. A lot of my point was about how recovery was too fast, not letting magic users freely burn through resources without consideration is part of the solution that ties in much better with the roots of most fantasy RPGs.

[Psyren]

To clear up the ambiguity: I mean the rate being as fractions of the whole per day, not as anything that recovers over the course of combat. Such a system is indeed totally inappropriate for a TTRPG. A lot of my point was about how recovery was too fast, not letting magic users freely burn through resources without consideration is part of the solution that ties in much better with the roots of most fantasy RPGs.

That removes the need to track cooldowns during combat, but you still need to track them during the other two gameplay pillars (exploration and social interaction.) To which I still say, AWED is much easier on both sides of the GM screen.

[Lucas Yew]

4. Monster design is likely to lean closer to PF 2nd Ed or 5E in style, with top-down design of "what does this monster do - make it do that and just add the pieces you need" rather than bottom-up 3.x/PFRPG design of "assemble all individual pieces to make every monster conform exhaustively to PC-facing rules."

5. (...) The skeletal structure of a PFRPG monster will look different than what the PCs look like, and that's okay. If we're making new monsters (and if the project is a success, I'm sure we'll produce monster books), then sure, we'll build them using the Corefinder assumptions and structures, but they'll arrive at a very similar destination.

It heard interesting at first ear, but ugh, not this again...


While I'm definitely all for making monsters more distinctive instead of just a grab bag of standard monster qualities, I feel that monsters and PCs using the same chassis is one of the absolute best design aspects of 3e and PF1 from a DM perspective because their approach of "an Orc Warrior and an Orc Shaman are Orcs with levels in Fighter and Cleric, done" is much easier, more consistent, and more extensible than the 4e approach of "an Orc Skullsmasher swapping out his club for a spear makes it an Orc Gutpoker with a completely different stat block for no reason" or the AD&D/5e approach of "an NPC Orc Wizard is an Orc with a handful of arbitrary spells slapped on and zero resemblance to a PC Orc Wizard."

So if you must ditch PC/NPC transparency (which I personally can't stand but do acknowledge that it's more popular these days), I'd suggest you at least keep the common use cases of (A) players wanting to play PCs with monster races and (B) DMs wanting to quickly and easily customize humanoid NPCs with class-like abilities in mind when figuring out your monster chassis so that you can provide robust rules for those (or at least reasonable guidelines) instead of requiring players to hack things together on their own to make those cases work.


"Transparency" in this case means that PCs and monsters operate on the same basic concepts, so that a spell/feat/roll/etc. applied to one applies to the other transparently. Both have hit dice that work the same way and come in the same sizes, both have saving throws and skill points that progress according to hit dice in the same way, both gain feats and ability boosts at the same number of hit dice, both have types and subtypes that interact the same way with various effects, and so on.

AD&D and 4e are examples of mildly and highly non-transparent systems, respectively: 4e monsters share basically none of their basic framework with PCs such that all their combat stats are calculated differently and PCs have wildly different amounts of hit points than monsters do and so on, and AD&D monsters do operate pretty closely to PCs but don't even have ability scores or AC calculations or the like listed so there are a bunch of places where interactions are undefined.

In 3e, if you put a belt of giant strength on a troll you know exactly what mechanical effects that has and those effects are identical to the effects a PC would gain from the belt, while in AD&D and 4e if you tried the same thing you'd get a Divide By Cucumber error because the troll's Str modifier has zero relation with its other stats assuming it even has a Str score at all.

Notably, a 3e-derived system retaining PC/NPC transparency does not mean that it has to retain the exact same type-based system 3e uses. It might change or condense a bunch of types and subtypes (like how 3.0 merged Beast and Magical Beast or made Shapechanger a subtype), or allow "multityping" so a Dracolich is a Dragon/Undead and gets the best of both types, or swap out type-based stats for something like 4e monster classes so an Illithid's stats come from being a Trickster instead of an Aberration and a Vrock's stats come from being a Skirmisher instead of an Outsider, or go back to an AD&D-like setup where all monsters have the same stat progressions instead of e.g. Fey and Monstrous Humanoids having different good and poor saves, or all sorts of different takes on the idea. The important part for transparency is that monsters use the same building blocks as PCs do, whatever form that takes.

There are also plenty of ways to do sort-of-transparency that get you most of the way there, like the class templates Psyren linked that staple enough class features onto a monster to make it look like the monster took levels in a given class, but the problem with doing things that way is that it's all edge cases and you need to print new class templates (or whatever) for each new class you make, thus requiring more effort on an ongoing basis instead of providing a single way upfront to make classed monsters that just work automatically with whatever class you use.

The transparency was the very reason why I moved on backwards from 4E to 3.X, despite the former system being my first introduction to the concept of RPGs played with dice and pencils + the smelly LFQW problem inherent in the latter. It was not long after I learned about the 3.5 SRD when I found out about this certain NPC paladin in Madness at Gardmore Abbey whose stats somehow "transform":smallfurious: into some completely different combat stats because his role shifted from a NPC helper to an adversary unit, then something in my mind SNAPPED... and I finally learned how barbarians would rage in RL. (medium blue because it's a half joke, half heartfelt testimony).


I'm not that fussed about transparency as such, but if you end up with something like PF2 where you have to change the monster's stats if it allies with the PCs because monster stats are incompatible with PC-side stats - then you lose my interest rapidly.


Also going to join in on saying that PC/NPC transparency is an unconditional necessity. Going the 5e/PF2 way of things would be a nonstarter, throwing out one of the best parts of d20 systems for no benefit. There's definitely much better ways of doing it than PF1 racial HD, but not playing by the same rules is 10 steps back for the ruleset.

As such, I can always proudly state without fear of backlash that I treat the game rules as the physics of the in-game universe for all things written as text in it, and upholding the transparency is one major keystone of said philosophy...

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Bold of you to assume people actually played Spirit Shaman :smalltongue: I didn't see a single article about it on the entire Wizards archive, and this is a site that expanded on the Divine Mind and Truenamer!

It was actually reasonably popular on the old Wizards forums, back when the first series of Completes were the cutting edge, and it comes up a lot in Tier discussions because of its weird list of advantages and disadvantages compared to the druid.

But the point I was getting at is that 5e has basically been positioned as "D&D: Nostalgia Edition" from the start, so it's weird that DMs Guild is chock full of ported older edition content by fans of older editions yet when people talk about the 5e spellcasting mechanic online they act as if it's some innovative ex nihilo creation when the basic idea is also a ported older edition thingy. Maybe it's because everyone who jumped from 3e to 5e forgot about it. Poor spirit shaman. :smallfrown:


"Benefits of actual Vancian" - good one
:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin:

I mean, I did post upthread a list of things Vancian does better than points, drain, at-will, spell creation, and other kinds of magic systems out there, and nearly every "the 3e wizard is better than the 3e sorcerer because..." discussion point is a benefit of actual Vancian over a Vancian variant like spontaneous casting. Knee-jerk Vancian hate is just as bad as knee-jerk psionics hate.


I'm glad that comes so easily to you - but if they agreed with you about how simple it was, they wouldn't have needed to create a table for it in the first place.

They created a table for it because it's the first bit of math in the first chapter of the 3.0 handbook, back when BAB instead of THAC0 was cutting-edge technology, not because the formula is particularly complicated. They put BAB and base saves in 3e class tables, too, when the formulas for those are similarly straightforward, and they repeat 5e proficiency bonuses in every single class table when they don't even have multiple proficiency progressions!


The beauty of modifying Vancian is that you don't have to pigeonhole every single playgroup into one of these avenues. The ones that prefer endurance days with minimal resting will still have some magic available to still feel fun instead of only having crossbow-time, and the ones that have minimal combat each day instead can make those combats as challenging as they need to be to account for the party having most of its resources.

None of that requires you to move to a non-Vancian or pseudo-Vancian setup, though, is what I'm getting at. For instance, if you wanted a fully encounter-based game without much attrition over multiple encounters, you could take every class, cut its slots by 1/4, and require 5 minutes instead of a night's sleep to re-prepare spells, and everything would still be Vancian. A lot of people look at AD&D's or 3e's particular implementation of Vancian, throw up their hands, and go "This doesn't do exactly what I want, Vancian sucks, mana bars for everyone!" when in fact there's a lot of room for customization and tweaking within the Vancian paradigm.


So what is then the alternative? Getting some uses back at set intervals?

Yes. Condensing a bunch of things into one pool of whatever magic juice, and it recovering at some rate, depending on features or ability scores or other things. x/day resources definitely have a place, but not goddamn everywhere and for everything.

AD&D required 10-15 minutes per spell level per spell to prepare spells and 3e let you prep up to 1/4 your spell allotment in 1/4 the normal time (15 minutes). As noted above, you can do staggered ability recovery without throwing out Vancian.

[legomaster00156]

Ok, another question. Please tell me grappling rules aren't... well, grappling rules (https://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0233.html).

[Psyren]

It was actually reasonably popular on the old Wizards forums, back when the first series of Completes were the cutting edge, and it comes up a lot in Tier discussions because of its weird list of advantages and disadvantages compared to the druid.

But the point I was getting at is that 5e has basically been positioned as "D&D: Nostalgia Edition" from the start, so it's weird that DMs Guild is chock full of ported older edition content by fans of older editions yet when people talk about the 5e spellcasting mechanic online they act as if it's some innovative ex nihilo creation when the basic idea is also a ported older edition thingy. Maybe it's because everyone who jumped from 3e to 5e forgot about it. Poor spirit shaman. :smallfrown:

Making softer preparation a core mechanic (and thereby killing traditional vancian dead for the entire edition) is absolutely innovative/creditworthy, regardless of what obscura it may have originated from.


I mean, I did post upthread a list of things Vancian does better than points, drain, at-will, spell creation, and other kinds of magic systems out there, and nearly every "the 3e wizard is better than the 3e sorcerer because..." discussion point is a benefit of actual Vancian over a Vancian variant like spontaneous casting. Knee-jerk Vancian hate is just as bad as knee-jerk psionics hate.

It's not knee-jerk hate if there are legitimate reasons for it. And I read your list - all of it either still benefits soft vancian, or is a detriment rather than a feature.


They created a table for it because it's the first bit of math in the first chapter of the 3.0 handbook, back when BAB instead of THAC0 was cutting-edge technology, not because the formula is particularly complicated.

And yet the formula you believe to be so simple is never actually printed anywhere either, just the table. They knew exactly how much of a turnoff it would be.


None of that requires you to move to a non-Vancian or pseudo-Vancian setup, though, is what I'm getting at. For instance, if you wanted a fully encounter-based game without much attrition over multiple encounters, you could take every class, cut its slots by 1/4, and require 5 minutes instead of a night's sleep to re-prepare spells, and everything would still be Vancian. A lot of people look at AD&D's or 3e's particular implementation of Vancian, throw up their hands, and go "This doesn't do exactly what I want, Vancian sucks, mana bars for everyone!" when in fact there's a lot of room for customization and tweaking within the Vancian paradigm.

I never said anything about wanting "mana bars" so I'm not sure who this is directed at :smallconfused:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Ok, another question. Please tell me grappling rules aren't... well, grappling rules (https://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0233.html).

Grappling rules get a lot of grief, but seriously, "touch attack -> grapple check -> you're grappling" in 3e or "combat maneuver check -> you're grappling" isn't the nightmare people always make it out to be. The list of allowed actions while grappling certainly looks long and complicated, but it basically boils down a reminder/explanation of bunches of ways in which the target is immobilized and can't freely use their hands, the verbiage of which can be cleaned up in Corefinder with keywording and such without significant mechanical changes.


Making softer preparation a core mechanic (and thereby killing traditional vancian dead for the entire edition) is absolutely innovative/creditworthy, regardless of what obscura it may have originated from.

Oh, I'll certainly credit(/blame) them for making it the default, it's the "thank god it's not Vancian, the devs are amazing, no one's done this before!" bit I don't get. Which I mostly see on Reddit, granted (aka "a D&D forum for people who actually hate D&D"), so that might be my problem. :smallwink:


It's not knee-jerk hate if there are legitimate reasons for it. And I read your list - all of it either still benefits soft vancian, or is a detriment rather than a feature.

They're not all still benefits with pseudo-Vancian, or at least certain benefits are reduced by other ones; for instance, when casters can prepare more spells than they have spell slots, that doesn't incentivize careful planning preparation because you have many more choices for each slot, and while that does (for instance) still allow you to include some niche spells in your loadout it makes the option paralysis much worse.

Now, if your view is that the "prep -> adventure -> downtime" loop isn't something that should be incentivized, then I can see why you might view some of those things as negatives instead of positives...but given that the whole game is based on that loop and resource attrition is a big thing, you'd have to change a heck of a lot more about the game before a non-prep-focused non-attritive non-paced etc. spellcasting system makes sense as the default.


And yet the formula you believe to be so simple is never actually printed anywhere either, just the table. They knew exactly how much of a turnoff it would be.

They never print that a good save is 2+1/2 level either, yet it's true nonetheless. Again, not saying that all the tables should be replaced with math formulas, just that they're not so complicated that they're worth removing. Specifically, I was responding to legomaster's suggestion of a staggered-bonus-spells-by-stat method which is exactly the same methodology as the standard 3e/PF one, so you don't actually "streamline" anything by changing up bonus spells, merely change the numbers involved.


I never said anything about wanting "mana bars" so I'm not sure who this is directed at :smallconfused:

That last part wasn't directed at your specific suggestion, sorry if it seemed like it, just a comment on the general trend of wanting to replace Vancian with something points-based, like batcathat's and exelsisxax's suggestions.

[Aotrs Commander]

And yet the formula you believe to be so simple is never actually printed anywhere either, just the table. They knew exactly how much of a turnoff it would be.

The correct answer is always to do both, do the table and footnote it or something with the formula for the mathmatically inclined.




I find the problem with Vancian casting - and associated spontaneous spell-slot casting - is that while it is a perfectly functional mechanic that works perfectly fine in its own context, it more or less fails entirely to model any type of magic casting found elsewhere in popular media or fiction. (E.g. LotR, Valdemar, Belgariad, Harry Potter, Doctor Strange/Gwen Tenneson/Zatanna etc etc.) Mana points is still not good in many of those cases (still far better than cooldowns, though which is very Video Games because it's purely a game mechanic that works there), bu it's a little easier to kludge credibly as at least you can pretend like it's exhaustion or something. (Psionics shows that a mana-point system it can work perfectly well.) I attemped to change remove it spell-slo9t casting got a mana-point system for my own campaign world - which, while it uses D&D rules, is not strictly a "D&D" campaign world (we play much less frequently and currently at low level, so as far as it's gone, its worked thus far.) But for D&D worlds (like Golarion), I think it's perfectly fine and left it alone.





Grappling rules get a lot of grief, but seriously, "touch attack -> grapple check -> you're grappling" in 3e or "combat maneuver check -> you're grappling" isn't the nightmare people always make it out to be. The list of allowed actions while grappling certainly looks long and complicated, but it basically boils down a reminder/explanation of bunches of ways in which the target is immobilized and can't freely use their hands, the verbiage of which can be cleaned up in Corefinder with keywording and such without significant mechanical changes.

I think grappling has never been handled especially well by 3.5 or Pathfinder; it was the only section I basically through away both versions and re-wrote entirely from scratch, using the better elements of both. And it IS mostly the wording of it, becaise it is a more comp0lictaed subsystem. ("More complicated," relative to normal, because it resticts - rightly - actions.) They were never clear and most importantly, never THOROUGH enough. 3.5 COMPLETELY failed to do address the fact that by FAR the most common instance of grappling is monster-on-character, for example and I think that was its biggest problem. The rules for Improved Grab should have been RIGHT THERE in the grappling rules alongside everything else, not parcelled off in the MM.

I thought it read a lot better by defining the grappler and grapplee, and then making a list of actions, making the background of some of them green and saying "the grappler had to do at least one of these actions as his first one, or the grapple ends" worked much better.

[EldritchWeaver]

I find the problem with Vancian casting - and associated spontaneous spell-slot casting - is that while it is a perfectly functional mechanic that works perfectly fine in its own context, it more or less fails entirely to model any type of magic casting found elsewhere in popular media or fiction. (E.g. LotR, Valdemar, Belgariad, Harry Potter, Doctor Strange/Gwen Tenneson/Zatanna etc etc.) Mana points is still not good in many of those cases (still far better than cooldowns, though which is very Video Games because it's purely a game mechanic that works there), bu it's a little easier to kludge credibly as at least you can pretend like it's exhaustion or something. (Psionics shows that a mana-point system it can work perfectly well.) I attemped to change remove it spell-slo9t casting got a mana-point system for my own campaign world - which, while it uses D&D rules, is not strictly a "D&D" campaign world (we play much less frequently and currently at low level, so as far as it's gone, its worked thus far.) But for D&D worlds (like Golarion), I think it's perfectly fine and left it alone.

The issue with using spell points for vancian casting is that it was never designed in mind for this. Obviously, psionics or spheres of power (which has another approach) work because the effects in those systems have been modeled for the basic design, how casting works on the fundamental level. Admittedly, SoP is my favorite for the simple reason that learning and using it is comparatively easy to Vancian. After playing several wizards (I just like magic) I got fed up with how the mechanics that I switched to non-casters, but those sucked for other reasons. Not being able to have a "it just works" magic is a problem for me.

I just don't want to spend that much time in figuring out the worthwhile spells, then figuring out which spells I should know (or in case of prepared, actually have memorized), then either running in game into a situation, where I can't use the spell or not daring to use a spell, because there might be another situation where I need it later before I can refresh my spells. And often enough noticing that I don't have such a later situation, which makes my earlier hesitation in me losing an opportunity for some more interaction. In other words, Vancian is exactly the way how to have not fun as wizard for me.

[Morty]

The argument about PC/NPC transparency is amusing, because I remember arguing very strongly for it, before I realized that it's usually more trouble than it's worth. Classes and levels are designed for adventuring, combat-capable PCs. Applying them to non-adventurers and non-combatants causes them to get wobbly really quickly.

[Aotrs Commander]

The issue with using spell points for vancian casting is that it was never designed in mind for this.

Yeah, on top of D&D's existing spells, it's a patch, certainly. But I wasn't intending to re-write QUITE everything when I started that. It would have required on 3.Aotrs even more work (and y'know 1000+ pages was quite enough...!) and would have meant that I would have to have changed all the caster stats for all the APs I run and part of doing 3.5 was to hit a point between PF1 and 3.5 where I would minimise having to do much to the stats, so it would have been counter-productive as well.





The argument about PC/NPC transparency is amusing, because I remember arguing very strongly for it, before I realize that it's usually more trouble than it's worth. Classes and levels are designed for adventuring, combat-capable PCs. Applying them to non-adventurers and non-combatants causes them to get wobbly really quickly.

I flat-out back-apply it to Rolemaster now. I wouldn't DM a system now that didn't explictly have it. (I dropped 4E more or less instantly and that was part of the reason.)

The only place I'm prepared to even bend is giving some boss monsters essentially a bit of video-game-boss treatment via template, essentially, so they actually last longer than half a round against 6-8 PCs.

[Morty]

I could see it being useful in a system with more flexible character creation - I can take it or leave it in such a case. But D&D's character creation and advancement are so hyper-focused on a very particular kind of person that using them for people who don't fit that mould is hammering a square peg into a round hole.

[Psyren]

They're not all still benefits with pseudo-Vancian, or at least certain benefits are reduced by other ones; for instance, when casters can prepare more spells than they have spell slots, that doesn't incentivize careful planning preparation because you have many more choices for each slot, and while that does (for instance) still allow you to include some niche spells in your loadout it makes the option paralysis much worse.

Worse paralysis than agonizing over whether you might need two fireballs tomorrow or four? Or trying to guess how many sendings (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0733.html) will be enough to cover all your recon and coordination needs? Nonsense.


Now, if your view is that the "prep -> adventure -> downtime" loop isn't something that should be incentivized, then I can see why you might view some of those things as negatives instead of positives...but given that the whole game is based on that loop and resource attrition is a big thing, you'd have to change a heck of a lot more about the game before a non-prep-focused non-attritive non-paced etc. spellcasting system makes sense as the default.

You still get that loop with soft vancian. Every spell you don't prepare is a spell you can't use that day.


They never print that a good save is 2+1/2 level either,

They did actually - Unearthed Arcana pg. 73.

[exelsisxax]

The argument about PC/NPC transparency is amusing, because I remember arguing very strongly for it, before I realized that it's usually more trouble than it's worth. Classes and levels are designed for adventuring, combat-capable PCs. Applying them to non-adventurers and non-combatants causes them to get wobbly really quickly.

You shouldn't build all monsters with PC class levels, but building them with fundamentally different rules is a terrible idea. You could use monster classes, racial classes, type racial HD, role templates, etc but if they don't use PC rules you're making the GM learn two systems for no benefit.

[Morphic tide]

You shouldn't build all monsters with PC class levels, but building them with fundamentally different rules is a terrible idea. You could use monster classes, racial classes, type racial HD, role templates, etc but if they don't use PC rules you're making the GM learn two systems for no benefit.
Not to mention the hellish mess that comes with the PCs wanting to play monsters when you have two wildly different systems for them. Having on-track numbers and giving monsters the same usage paradigm(s) available even if they aren't used as such streamlines the whole process. Even if it results in monster PCs being near universally mandatory hybrid builds because the monsters are forced into such themselves so that innate spellcasters don't turn into enforced rocket tag from always going full nova because there's never a reason not to.

The flip side of it, of course, is also giving the PCs a lot of similar compensations for fighting when outnumbered to what monsters need to fight back the party, so that a purely class-leveled enemy can still be a perfectly viable encounter.

[lightningcat]

There needs to be some level of PC/NPC transparency, but more often than not that transparency is more of an illusion than anything. They do not need to work on the exact same system - that way lays HERO, they need to feel similar.
And basing rules on feeling is likely the least helpful idea on the internet, it doesn't really change the fact that what people feel from a game matters. People complain 4e D&D isn't Dungeons and Dragons, when what they really mean is it doesn't feel right, when it is a perfectly fine game that fits every checklist item of D&D.

[Jeff the Green]

There needs to be some level of PC/NPC transparency, but more often than not that transparency is more of an illusion than anything. They do not need to work on the exact same system - that way lays HERO, they need to feel similar.

This is more or less what's being proposed. Monsters will have all (or nearly all) the same stats as PCs. It's just that some of them will be arbitrary, rather than calculated from, e.g. dodge, dexterity, and natural armor bonuses. (Though, really, it already is arbitrary. We just have to shove in some random dodge bonus or increase their natural armor to make the math work, rather than just say "okay this monster has an AC of 28".)

[Morty]

You shouldn't build all monsters with PC class levels, but building them with fundamentally different rules is a terrible idea. You could use monster classes, racial classes, type racial HD, role templates, etc but if they don't use PC rules you're making the GM learn two systems for no benefit.

Define "fundamentally different rules". If they still use hit points, AC, three saves, spells (if they have them) and skills, is it fundamentally different if they don't have classes and levels? Hit dice are 12 years past their expiration date at the best of times, so I don't think PCs should use them either.

[Caelestion]

What would you use instead of hit dice?

[Psyren]

This is more or less what's being proposed. Monsters will have all (or nearly all) the same stats as PCs. It's just that some of them will be arbitrary, rather than calculated from, e.g. dodge, dexterity, and natural armor bonuses. (Though, really, it already is arbitrary. We just have to shove in some random dodge bonus or increase their natural armor to make the math work, rather than just say "okay this monster has an AC of 28".)

I'm fine with this personally, though some examples might help.

[exelsisxax]

This is more or less what's being proposed. Monsters will have all (or nearly all) the same stats as PCs. It's just that some of them will be arbitrary, rather than calculated from, e.g. dodge, dexterity, and natural armor bonuses. (Though, really, it already is arbitrary. We just have to shove in some random dodge bonus or increase their natural armor to make the math work, rather than just say "okay this monster has an AC of 28".)

Personally not a fan of making the math work post-hoc. But if necessary, just give them an (Ex) with the bonuses they apparently need and it will be less arbitrary than 3.PF. Still 100% transparency and no conversion problems.

[Psyren]

Personally not a fan of making the math work post-hoc. But if necessary, just give them an (Ex) with the bonuses they apparently need and it will be less arbitrary than 3.PF. Still 100% transparency and no conversion problems.

I for one am a big fan of post-hoc math and showing your work, as I described earlier. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?614714-Legendary-Games-Corefinder&p=24587143&viewfull=1#post24587143) This gives the best of both worlds - statblocks that can be reverse-engineered for ease of tinkering, and monsters that have the statistics that the game needs them to have for them to be appropriate challenges.

[Jeff the Green]

I'm fine with this personally, though some examples might help.

One from my own work is the cù-sìth (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/sphere-bestiary#toc10), from the Auspician's Handbook. It's a CR 10 fey that primarily uses its natural attacks with its Su abilities as a secondary tool, so to keep its attack in line with what's needed to actually hit PCs at that level without also giving it absurdly high HP and saves (or making it stronger than a dragon) I gave it its Charisma to attack and damage. Its Charisma isn't expected to change, so that's really just equivalent to giving its attacks and damage an arbitrary +6. A Corefinder cù-sìth would look pretty much the same, just without the extra text explaining why its attacks are 30% more likely to hit than you'd expect from a fey of that HD and Strength.

(Natural armor in general is a similar hack, just in general. I try to keep it in line with what's reasonable for the fluff, but I do definitely adjust it up or down depending on the number I need to hit for the given CR and relative tankiness.)

[Psyren]

Gotcha - so does that mean that Corefinder creature type entries won't have the expected BAB and saves by hit dice for those creatures that would necessitate such an explanation? e.g. Fey won't automatically be 1/2 BAB etc.

[Madsamurai]

I want to chime in on PC NPC transparency. I think the the principle is useful because it helps designers achieve immersion. I'm going to lead with a couple of examples from the Pathfinder 2 playtest.

In session 3 or 4, the players cross a river to fight a small band of monstrous humanoids. The baddies have a giant scorpion pet. Of course the DM had the baddies order the scorpion to attack us, but it _got 3 actions_. A PC hunter's pet can't get 3 actions... That was immersion breaking for me.

Second example is more of a system issue. In PF2 NPCs are balanced around having really high to-hit numbers and low damage, while PCs are the reverse. Now, even if all the math works out, my "sword master" does not feel very skilled when he hits 60% of the time, but random goblins hit on 80% or whatever.

PC/NPC transparency is a constraint that adds more work in some ways, but it helps the world make sense. The key here is that the transparency is a means to an end. We, armchair designers, say that it's important because we see 4e and PF2 drop transparency and their world goes wonky. But that's because they did not replace the transparency with anything that serves the same goal. Or more likely, they just did not value that flavor of realism as much as I do :)

[N. Jolly]

I want to chime in on PC NPC transparency. I think the the principle is useful because it helps designers achieve immersion. I'm going to lead with a couple of examples from the Pathfinder 2 playtest.

In session 3 or 4, the players cross a river to fight a small band of monstrous humanoids. The baddies have a giant scorpion pet. Of course the DM had the baddies order the scorpion to attack us, but it _got 3 actions_. A PC hunter's pet can't get 3 actions... That was immersion breaking for me.

Second example is more of a system issue. In PF2 NPCs are balanced around having really high to-hit numbers and low damage, while PCs are the reverse. Now, even if all the math works out, my "sword master" does not feel very skilled when he hits 60% of the time, but random goblins hit on 80% or whatever.

PC/NPC transparency is a constraint that adds more work in some ways, but it helps the world make sense. The key here is that the transparency is a means to an end. We, armchair designers, say that it's important because we see 4e and PF2 drop transparency and their world goes wonky. But that's because they did not replace the transparency with anything that serves the same goal. Or more likely, they just did not value that flavor of realism as much as I do :)

So hey, you bring up interesting points here, and there is some gamist issues of "CR 15 goblin hits really good despite being goblin because it needs to hit those benchmarks"

There's situations where monsters need different rules (bosses for example) or even just unique monster types; hydras who can only attack once make you wonder why they have X amount of heads and so on. I think rules for monsters should be flexible to allow for dynamic encounters, and some of the times, that means bending or breaking the rules. It's a fine line between bending the rules to make something interesting and bending the rules to make something annoying, and a lot of us are being quite weary of that. We do want NPC creatures to play by a lot of the same rules, but some rules just aren't designed for them, and making them follow such rules just makes for worse encounters.

So trust us that we're trying to strike the ideal balance here. And we'll let y'all be the arbiters of if we've done that, and how we can do better in the future.

[exelsisxax]

For sticking right to the 3.PF d20 implementation and staying compatible, I think that dramatically reworking special qualities and rewriting universal 'monster' abilities are where to start. Instead of half the monsters in the bestiary having identical or nearly so one-offs, systemize everything. Cover all your bases forever with things like a universal quality for each of dodge, nat armor, and various attack or defense bonuses. So that Carapace: HD+Con (7 nat armor) instantly gives all the relevant info to GMs, makes them so much easier to advance, and also saves space and cognitive load. Then all the efficiency can be used to buy off actually cool things, like monsters that have multiple initiative counts and sectioned/multi-phase creatures.

[Segev]

I'll chime in as "cautiously optimistic." A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to be trying to talk about systemic (or at least subsystemic) changes when the pitch is a systemic "cleanup" and "update," which is a little concerning, but I don't think I saw the project people involved in that aspect.

There's nothing wrong with systemic changes, mind, in new editions and new games, but it's important to keep the goal clear and aligned with the pitch.

[Madsamurai]

So hey, you bring up interesting points here, and there is some gamist issues of "CR 15 goblin hits really good despite being goblin because it needs to hit those benchmarks"

There's situations where monsters need different rules (bosses for example) or even just unique monster types; hydras who can only attack once make you wonder why they have X amount of heads and so on. I think rules for monsters should be flexible to allow for dynamic encounters, and some of the times, that means bending or breaking the rules. It's a fine line between bending the rules to make something interesting and bending the rules to make something annoying, and a lot of us are being quite weary of that. We do want NPC creatures to play by a lot of the same rules, but some rules just aren't designed for them, and making them follow such rules just makes for worse encounters.

So trust us that we're trying to strike the ideal balance here. And we'll let y'all be the arbiters of if we've done that, and how we can do better in the future.

Ya, the hydra is a good example. I guess my thesis can be summarized as: "when NPCs do things that PCs can do, the mechanics should also feel the same."

So when a player days "why is this goblin hitting so much harder?" It's fine to say "well he has 15 class levels." Or "he is possessed by seven Devils!"

The issue is that if in lore, these are literally the same goblins you've been fighting yesterday... You just gained a level so they need to be more challenging now.

And I don't think anyone would complain about a hydra having many attacks :)

[exelsisxax]

I'll chime in as "cautiously optimistic." A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to be trying to talk about systemic (or at least subsystemic) changes when the pitch is a systemic "cleanup" and "update," which is a little concerning, but I don't think I saw the project people involved in that aspect.

There's nothing wrong with systemic changes, mind, in new editions and new games, but it's important to keep the goal clear and aligned with the pitch.

I guess that depends on exactly what you think cleanup is as compared to changes. I would consider rewriting every single feat to conform to some semblance of usability to be cleanup, just as I do for completely redoing the backend for monster creation rules and another pass on polymorphing. Earlier, a dev (N. jolly himself perhaps?) mentioned doing away with having both sorcerer and wizard as disparate classes. All of these can meaningfully streamline the game, but none (necessarily) fundamentally alter it. Not a single one even necessarily changes math, balance, or any decision-making during play or when making characters.

But i'd also advocate for cutting most classes, so this may just be a perspective thing.

[Segev]

I guess that depends on exactly what you think cleanup is as compared to changes. I would consider rewriting every single feat to conform to some semblance of usability to be cleanup, just as I do for completely redoing the backend for monster creation rules and another pass on polymorphing. Earlier, a dev (N. jolly himself perhaps?) mentioned doing away with having both sorcerer and wizard as disparate classes. All of these can meaningfully streamline the game, but none (necessarily) fundamentally alter it. Not a single one even necessarily changes math, balance, or any decision-making during play or when making characters.

But i'd also advocate for cutting most classes, so this may just be a perspective thing.

"Doing away with wizard and sorcerer as classes" would be one of the things that worries me as going too far, yes. I understand the motivation, but it risks treading too far away from the thing it's trying to be a "cleanup" of, and into "heartbreaker" territory, because it starts to reflect specific designer preferences rather than designer judgment on what qualifies as "cleanup."

But more concerning is things like "well, we could do away with Vancian casting." It's not that Vancian casting is required for a good game, or even a "D&D game." See: 5e. But it is in 3e and PF1, and anything that's claiming to retain the "core" of PF1 should have it as the central casting system for the core classes. At least in a recognizable form of what it was in 3.PF. This is also why "wizard" and "sorcerer" should be there.

If you want to make Wizard more...limited...you can lean more heavily into school specialization and having it start to more strictly dictate spell access or the like, but the class needs to be there and recognizable.

[exelsisxax]

"Doing away with wizard and sorcerer as classes" would be one of the things that worries me as going too far, yes. I understand the motivation, but it risks treading too far away from the thing it's trying to be a "cleanup" of, and into "heartbreaker" territory, because it starts to reflect specific designer preferences rather than designer judgment on what qualifies as "cleanup."

But more concerning is things like "well, we could do away with Vancian casting." It's not that Vancian casting is required for a good game, or even a "D&D game." See: 5e. But it is in 3e and PF1, and anything that's claiming to retain the "core" of PF1 should have it as the central casting system for the core classes. At least in a recognizable form of what it was in 3.PF. This is also why "wizard" and "sorcerer" should be there.

If you want to make Wizard more...limited...you can lean more heavily into school specialization and having it start to more strictly dictate spell access or the like, but the class needs to be there and recognizable.

Going to far away from what? They're names of mechanical fictions. You could replace all of wizard, sorcerer, arcanist, and witch with one class without losing anything. The stated goal of corefinder is streamlining, cleaning, and clarification of the best parts of PF. It is trivially easy to simply condense arcane fullcasting into a single chassis that has feature packages to emulate the rest. This is pretty much a solved problem that we can see fixed in vigilante and oracle class design. Within the space, it becomes so much easier to burn the trash and keep the good parts of each, with so much less duplication.

I haven't seen anyone request the extermination (with prejudice) of vancian magic other than myself, with regard to newfinder - a different thing. But thinking that is how 3.PF must be strikes me as just your own opinion, especially since many casters in PF are either not vancian in practice or try their best not to be. For compatibility's sake, vancian slots are going to be used, but there is no other compelling reason other than appeal to tradition.

[Morty]

While major changes to the class list are direly needed, I feel like there are classes that should be a higher priority for changing/removing than wizards and sorcerers.

[exelsisxax]

Really? I can't think of anything more important to tackle, if anything will be, than the fullcasters. The massive redundancy in the hybrid and alternate classes doesn't even need to be addressed immediately - brawlers can't break the game by not existing. Fullcasters are the problem classes, so if anything deserves a chopping block or total rework they are it. Rip the companion off of druid, do a few passes pruning spell lists and reworking outliers and power creep, call it a day.

[Psyren]

"Doing away with wizard and sorcerer as classes" would be one of the things that worries me as going too far, yes. I understand the motivation, but it risks treading too far away from the thing it's trying to be a "cleanup" of, and into "heartbreaker" territory, because it starts to reflect specific designer preferences rather than designer judgment on what qualifies as "cleanup."

But more concerning is things like "well, we could do away with Vancian casting." It's not that Vancian casting is required for a good game, or even a "D&D game." See: 5e. But it is in 3e and PF1, and anything that's claiming to retain the "core" of PF1 should have it as the central casting system for the core classes. At least in a recognizable form of what it was in 3.PF. This is also why "wizard" and "sorcerer" should be there.

If you want to make Wizard more...limited...you can lean more heavily into school specialization and having it start to more strictly dictate spell access or the like, but the class needs to be there and recognizable.

If you define "Vancian" as "you have to prepare each instance of a spell ahead of time in its own discrete slot to use it" - then yes, 5e got rid of that, and good riddance. But if, like me, you simply define it is "you get to change your tactical spell list each day" - i.e. Arcanist/Spirit Shaman casting - 5e still has that, and I think it's how every prepared caster should work.

With that said, I do agree there is room to have both the intellectual (prepared) caster and the innate (spontaneous) caster as character archetypes - and "wizard" and "sorcerer" are as good labels for those archetypes as any.

(It's funny because some settings invert the two - Diablo for example considers "Sorcerers" to be the formally trained and educated ones while "Wizards" are the uncouth savants coasting by on natural talent.)

[Jeff the Green]

With that said, I do agree there is room to have both the intellectual (prepared) caster and the innate (spontaneous) caster as character archetypes - and "wizard" and "sorcerer" are as good labels for those archetypes as any.

Absolutely! I personally don't think that's good enough of a justification to make a class-based distinction. Instead, you might choose one of a few different sources—patrons, heritage, training, "I'm so pretty the universe does what I want"—and get abilities based on that, but if they're running off the same core mechanic and the same spell list, why make it a harder split than a subclass?

[Ignimortis]

"Doing away with wizard and sorcerer as classes" would be one of the things that worries me as going too far, yes. I understand the motivation, but it risks treading too far away from the thing it's trying to be a "cleanup" of, and into "heartbreaker" territory, because it starts to reflect specific designer preferences rather than designer judgment on what qualifies as "cleanup."

But more concerning is things like "well, we could do away with Vancian casting." It's not that Vancian casting is required for a good game, or even a "D&D game." See: 5e. But it is in 3e and PF1, and anything that's claiming to retain the "core" of PF1 should have it as the central casting system for the core classes. At least in a recognizable form of what it was in 3.PF. This is also why "wizard" and "sorcerer" should be there.

If you want to make Wizard more...limited...you can lean more heavily into school specialization and having it start to more strictly dictate spell access or the like, but the class needs to be there and recognizable.

All of that depends on your vision for "cleanup". Personally, I would want sorcerer and wizard to just be archetypes - unless they make Sorcerer distinct from Wizard in a significant way. Do you remember the 5e playtest sorcerer, who was a gish-in-a-can instead of being Wizard with a worse spell list and metamagic? That sort of thing might've warranted to keep sorcerer, the current 5e iteration doesn't. But PF already has magus, which is one of the best d20 class designs, so sorcerer would need another niche.

[Segev]

Going to far away from what? They're names of mechanical fictions. You could replace all of wizard, sorcerer, arcanist, and witch with one class without losing anything. The stated goal of corefinder is streamlining, cleaning, and clarification of the best parts of PF. It is trivially easy to simply condense arcane fullcasting into a single chassis that has feature packages to emulate the rest. This is pretty much a solved problem that we can see fixed in vigilante and oracle class design. Within the space, it becomes so much easier to burn the trash and keep the good parts of each, with so much less duplication.

I haven't seen anyone request the extermination (with prejudice) of vancian magic other than myself, with regard to newfinder - a different thing. But thinking that is how 3.PF must be strikes me as just your own opinion, especially since many casters in PF are either not vancian in practice or try their best not to be. For compatibility's sake, vancian slots are going to be used, but there is no other compelling reason other than appeal to tradition.You could also go all the way to 3e's Unearthed Arcana generic classes, and have "Warrior," "Expert," and "Spellcaster" be the only classes.

Or you could make Corefinder use 4E class design.

"Streamlining" might involve reducing the number of classes, but if you start taking out the basic subsystems and the classes that make them distinct, you are moving away from being what is advertised here: a continuation/cleanup of PF1. You're moving into being your own d20 system. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but the fewer things you can point to and say, "Ah, this in Corefinder is that in Pathfinder," the more it will feel like a bait-and-switch if you advertise it as a "cleanup and continuation" of PF1.


If you define "Vancian" as "you have to prepare each instance of a spell ahead of time in its own discrete slot to use it" - then yes, 5e got rid of that, and good riddance. But if, like me, you simply define it is "you get to change your tactical spell list each day" - i.e. Arcanist/Spirit Shaman casting - 5e still has that, and I think it's how every prepared caster should work.

With that said, I do agree there is room to have both the intellectual (prepared) caster and the innate (spontaneous) caster as character archetypes - and "wizard" and "sorcerer" are as good labels for those archetypes as any.

(It's funny because some settings invert the two - Diablo for example considers "Sorcerers" to be the formally trained and educated ones while "Wizards" are the uncouth savants coasting by on natural talent.)

I do mean that they probably will need to retain spell slots, likely with the 3.PF paradigm of prepared vs. spontaneous more-or-less as 3e laid out the distinction. I do like 5e's spell system, but we are not discussing "make a new d20 system," here. We're discussing cleaning up and doing a little modernization of PF1. If Corefinder has only (say) "Magic-User" as its "arcane caster class," and uses a 5e-like subclass system to let you pick whether you have a spellbook or bloodline abilities, it's going to be not-particularly-backwards-compatible. Since anybody who comes in saying, "I want to update my Sorcerer to Corefinder," will learn quickly that there isn't an easy place to find his class. Either he has to play the PF1 sorcerer, or he has to shoehorn an entirely different build that wouldn't be much different than deciding to update his PF1 Sorcerer to a D&D 5e spellcaster, and debating whether Bard or Sorcerer fit it better.

Again, this isn't a criticism of the notions for improvement, but a caution that Corefinder is advertised, here, as being to PF1 what PF1 was to 3.5. Say whatever else you will about it, PF1 did an EXCELLENT job of keeping the feeling that it was 3.75, especially at the beginning. All the major pieces were there and identifiable. And I think that's going to be important for Corefinder, too.

[Morty]

Really? I can't think of anything more important to tackle, if anything will be, than the fullcasters. The massive redundancy in the hybrid and alternate classes doesn't even need to be addressed immediately - brawlers can't break the game by not existing. Fullcasters are the problem classes, so if anything deserves a chopping block or total rework they are it. Rip the companion off of druid, do a few passes pruning spell lists and reworking outliers and power creep, call it a day.

I'll rephrase. If you make one change to the class list, I really don't think merging wizards and sorcerers together should be that change. Of course full casters need a lot of reworking to make them less at odds with the system at large, but I don't think this particular change really serves that purpose. Making one class that covers both wizards and sorcerers just doesn't really change much or address any issue on its own.

Besides, you could do a lot with casters by altering spells and their access to them, while keeping the classes. Non-casters are more fundamentally flawed.

[Morphic tide]

I very much think the Wizard and Cleric ought to keep per-slot preparation, but having the mechanic for that preparation be set up to a per-encounter time table, including limiting how many spells can be prepared at once. So instead of the extreme system mastery needed to get ahead of a decently built Druid by preparing the spells up front for the entire day, the two classes have their mechanic play very directly into their problem-solver status, where they can pull out a does-literally-just-this-thing spell the moment it comes up. The catch is in keeping all the stuff that lets one run over combat out of their spell lists, so they're confined primarily to the problem-solving utility functions the classes are supposed to be doing.

As for Sorcerer, they could be worked into the CoDzilla mold, though obviously at a power level low enough to call balanced instead of the 3.5 glory. Where the Magus and Warpriest are martials who enhance that with magic, the Sorcerer could be made so the base version is a Martial because of their magic, like the Cleric buff-stack or Druid Wild Shape. The main method that comes to mind is having the Bloodlines each give a set of spells that forms a viable combat routine when combined with the Bloodline abilities and base chassis, so no Sorcerer has to spend Spells Known on basic combat, because their class features cover that. That sort of thing, giving a mandated niche-filling set of spells, could be used to keep the PF1e Spells Known mechanic by forbidding disfunction, essentially forcing a useful optimization floor from which the player can dig for versatility or power.

[Silly Name]

Moving away from the monster discussion, I feel like Wizard and Sorcerer could very easily be reworked as subclasses of a more generic "Magic User" class: the distinction between spontaneous and prepared casters isn't so big as to justify two classes that have that difference as their core mechanical identity (esp when one ends up being strictly better than the other), especially if they share a spell list. The other option is, of course, to make them more unique to justify the separation, but I feel they're equally valid choices.

I'd love to see an integrations of Psionics (or they copyright-free equivalent) from the get-go, rather than being reserved for a later date.

Can I ask for some info on how you're planning to handle Paladins? They've always been my favorite class, flavor-wise, and it's always what I check out first when reading D&D/PF books.

[exelsisxax]

I'll rephrase. If you make one change to the class list, I really don't think merging wizards and sorcerers together should be that change. Of course full casters need a lot of reworking to make them less at odds with the system at large, but I don't think this particular change really serves that purpose. Making one class that covers both wizards and sorcerers just doesn't really change much or address any issue on its own.

Besides, you could do a lot with casters by altering spells and their access to them, while keeping the classes. Non-casters are more fundamentally flawed.

I think that the problem with casters is built into those classes (I am considering spell lists part of the class) but the flaws with mundanes are also built into casters and the rest of the game. I'd focus on the caster classes first, because there is nothing you could to do martial classes themselves to 'fix' them. It first requires a deep revision of feats and the skill system and nerfing casters.

And a huge problem that starts to be addressed by consolidating some of those classes is spell lists. It opens up a lot more room to make changes without sacrificing compatability when those spells are coming from a more consistent source.

[Psyren]

I do mean that they probably will need to retain spell slots, likely with the 3.PF paradigm of prepared vs. spontaneous more-or-less as 3e laid out the distinction. I do like 5e's spell system, but we are not discussing "make a new d20 system," here. We're discussing cleaning up and doing a little modernization of PF1.

I do consider "let's take the better version of Vancian that Paizo rolled out late in PF1's run, and make that the standard" to be modernization. Just like I would view making advancements like Combat Stamina or Advanced Weapon Training into baseline features to be modernization. The fact that 5e only further proved the success of this casting model is certainly a great data point in support of that, but that wasn't my primary consideration here.


If Corefinder has only (say) "Magic-User" as its "arcane caster class," and uses a 5e-like subclass system to let you pick whether you have a spellbook or bloodline abilities, it's going to be not-particularly-backwards-compatible. Since anybody who comes in saying, "I want to update my Sorcerer to Corefinder," will learn quickly that there isn't an easy place to find his class. Either he has to play the PF1 sorcerer, or he has to shoehorn an entirely different build that wouldn't be much different than deciding to update his PF1 Sorcerer to a D&D 5e spellcaster, and debating whether Bard or Sorcerer fit it better.

I agree with this - keep them separate classes (the sheer volume of archetypes, bloodlines, schools etc. for both show that there is enough design space to justify them being separate, to say nothing of their tactical and strategic differences in session-to-session play) and just tone them down.


Again, this isn't a criticism of the notions for improvement, but a caution that Corefinder is advertised, here, as being to PF1 what PF1 was to 3.5. Say whatever else you will about it, PF1 did an EXCELLENT job of keeping the feeling that it was 3.75, especially at the beginning. All the major pieces were there and identifiable. And I think that's going to be important for Corefinder, too.

Yes, but I also think Corefinder has a bit more room to take risks than PF1 did, so it shouldn't simply be looking at core PF1 to start with the way PF1 only looked at core 3.5 to start with. They should look across PF1's lifespan (including popular third-party!) and choose what worked, regardless of how late or early a given innovation debuted. IT should, in short, be more to PF1 than PF1 was to 3.5.

When PF1 was conceived, there was a lot more uncertainty - it was the first true test of the OGL to make a competing system for D&D, and many of the publishing tools we take for granted today (like crowdfunding sites, and well-organized wikis) were only just beginning to debut. Corefinder has the benefit of those tools and of hindsight, as well as everything it can possibly draw from being open content instead of a hodgepodge, and it should use them.

[Segev]

I do consider "let's take the better version of Vancian that Paizo rolled out late in PF1's run, and make that the standard" to be modernization.

I think I'm getting lost in the backlog of this thread. Can you please explicitly spell out what it is that Paizo rolled out late in PF1's run that is "the better version of Vancian?"

[stack]

I think I'm getting lost in the backlog of this thread. Can you please explicitly spell out what it is that Paizo rolled out late in PF1's run that is "the better version of Vancian?"

Believe the reference is to arcanist (previously seen in the 3.5 spirit shaman class) casting.

[exelsisxax]

I think I'm getting lost in the backlog of this thread. Can you please explicitly spell out what it is that Paizo rolled out late in PF1's run that is "the better version of Vancian?"

spontaneous spellcasting is vancian, except not terrible.

[Psyren]

I think I'm getting lost in the backlog of this thread. Can you please explicitly spell out what it is that Paizo rolled out late in PF1's run that is "the better version of Vancian?"

Arcanist/5e-style preparation.

[Segev]

Arcanist/5e-style preparation.

Tricky to do universally without eliminating the distinction between Sorcerer and Wizard. I like 5e, but the 5e Sorcerer suffers GREATLY in that change. I also am not as opposed to "prep spell, expend spell" because I came up with an explanation that works for me years ago, so I'm happy with the fluff. It is a valuable limiting factor on the admittedly-problematic wizardly "do anything" power.

[exelsisxax]

Tricky to do universally without eliminating the distinction between Sorcerer and Wizard. I like 5e, but the 5e Sorcerer suffers GREATLY in that change. I also am not as opposed to "prep spell, expend spell" because I came up with an explanation that works for me years ago, so I'm happy with the fluff. It is a valuable limiting factor on the admittedly-problematic wizardly "do anything" power.

This may be the rub: I can't see any meaningful distinction between them on either a mechanical or thematic level that has justified the existence of two separate classes. That spontaneous vs prepared spellcasting warrants a distinct class is just outrageous to me. It is patently false that they can't be reconciled, demonstrated by the existence of the arcanist and the many, many cross-type archetypes for almost every spellcasting type.

[Segev]

This may be the rub: I can't see any meaningful distinction between them on either a mechanical or thematic level that has justified the existence of two separate classes. That spontaneous vs prepared spellcasting warrants a distinct class is just outrageous to me. It is patently false that they can't be reconciled, demonstrated by the existence of the arcanist and the many, many cross-type archetypes for almost every spellcasting type.

Like it or not, they also have distinct flavor differences by default, and the 3.0 distinctions between them actually do feel pretty good as fits for the flavor differences.

Much as I like the arcanist mechanically, it’s actually rather poorly flavored, and their casting mechanism links not at all with the fluff except by fiat.

I think a lot of these suggested changes will doom the project to being seen as “why didn’t you just play 5e” if the philosophy is followed too much.

All I’m really saying is: remember the purpose here. Are you making the perfect game for you (a “d20 heartbreaker”), or are you trying to continue the tradition started by Pathfinder?

[thelastorphan]

Like it or not, they also have distinct flavor differences by default, and the 3.0 distinctions between them actually do feel pretty good as fits for the flavor differences.

Much as I like the arcanist mechanically, itÂ’s actually rather poorly flavored, and their casting mechanism links not at all with the fluff except by fiat.

I think a lot of these suggested changes will doom the project to being seen as “why didn’t you just play 5e” if the philosophy is followed too much.

All I’m really saying is: remember the purpose here. Are you making the perfect game for you (a “d20 heartbreaker”), or are you trying to continue the tradition started by Pathfinder?

For what it's worth I think the answer to the Wizard/Sorcerer distinction should be to give them different Spell Lists. There can be a good bit of overlap, but I am for every Spellcaster actually having a unique list rather than any spellcaster just sharing lists.

I like the flavor difference between the two classes quite a lot and having different casting stats and the prepared vs spontaneous split feels right to fit that flavor. I am not a fan of the full casters in the ACG, they feel muddled flavor wise to me. The Arcanist is far to close to the wizard fluff wise imo and the Oracle fits the flavor the Shaman goes for already pretty easily.

Its really important to me as someone who has been playing since 3.0 released that the flavor of the classes feels right, the mechanics need to follow from that. Though I am excited to see what comes of this project. The sentiment expressed above is one to look out for in some way ( I don;t think its necessarily going to doom the project) but its good to examine the reason behind choices you might make design wise.

You should always ask the question: If something you want to change is something that people expect from a system that would be a 'continuation from Pathfinder'? Don't change something only because you think there is a cleaner way for it to be done, it should also be something that feels necessary. If you change too many things that people associate strongly with 3.5/Pathfinder I think you do risk alienating a portion of the potential player base you are after. But the flipside is that if you do shave the edges and stream line a lot you may be able to capture some of the crowd less interested in such a high complexity game as what we currently play.

I expect the 11 core classes to be present, but definitely not unchanged. I expect things like HD and BAB and Saving Throws and Feats and the 6 Stats. Because if something isn't easily backwards compatible with the mountain of 3.5 and Pathfinder books I have then I am less likely to get into it. I hope for the inclusion of other subsystems, especially Incarnum and Initiating, into the base assumption in some way, possibly a way to make the Ranger more distinct from the other classes with Incarnum. Give The Fighter and Monk Initiating. With a short list of Soul Melds and Maneuvers rather than full disciplines. Do the full versions of the subsystems later and build off the small pool of Core options. (I am not a big fan of the combat stamina system, I think its really cumbersome, but I can't deny that its powerful)
These are just my thoughts though.

[Batcathat]

Don't change something only because you think there is a cleaner way for it to be done, it should also be something that feels necessary.

While this is probably technically true, I'm guessing you could ask ten people and get ten different opinions on what sort of changes would be "necessary" (several of them probably mutually exklusive).

[137beth]

Also, this is an entertainment product. Literally none of it is "necessary." RPGs are not food. Those of us who are interested in Corefinder are interested because we want to buy and play it, not because we need it.

[thelastorphan]

While this is probably technically true, I'm guessing you could ask ten people and get ten different opinions on what sort of changes would be "necessary" (several of them probably mutually exklusive).


Also, this is an entertainment product. Literally none of it is "necessary." RPGs are not food. Those of us who are interested in Corefinder are interested because we want to buy and play it, not because we need it.

Context matters: In the context of my post Necessary is referring to the needs of the product, assuming that Corefinder is expected to be a 'continuation of Pathfinder' and not a new game entirely. I thought that was clear, but maybe not.

[Batcathat]

Context matters: In the context of my post Necessary is referring to the needs of the product, assuming that Corefinder is expected to be a 'continuation of Pathfinder' and not a new game entirely. I thought that was clear, but maybe not.

Clear to me, at least. But my point was that even with context what's necessary for that particular goal probably depends a lot on who you ask. Everyone can probably agree that it should keep some stuff and change some stuff but what's necessary to keep and what's necessary to change is extremely subjective.

[Psyren]

Tricky to do universally without eliminating the distinction between Sorcerer and Wizard. I like 5e, but the 5e Sorcerer suffers GREATLY in that change. I also am not as opposed to "prep spell, expend spell" because I came up with an explanation that works for me years ago, so I'm happy with the fluff. It is a valuable limiting factor on the admittedly-problematic wizardly "do anything" power.

The mechanical distinction between them still exists in 5e and works quite well. Just like in 3.P - one arcane caster can learn any number of spells, but must prepare a rigid subset of those each day they can cast from; while the other is more limited in the spells they can learn, but has unparalleled flexibility within that allotment. In fact, 5e's innovation of floating "sorcery points" you can use to gain additional slots or spontaneously alter your spells on the fly is something I wouldn't mind seeing in 3.P or CF.

5e also once and for all ditched the pointless spell access delay Sorcerers have been shackled with.



Much as I like the arcanist mechanically, it’s actually rather poorly flavored, and their casting mechanism links not at all with the fluff except by fiat.


I agree that Arcanist doesn't need to exist at all; the design space of "I'm a wizard by training who also has sorcerous talent and wants to advance both" can be filled by an archetype or prestige class, preferably the former. All the exploits can be wizard school powers, bloodline powers, feats, or discoveries.

[WarDragon]

I'll give it a shot, but whether its backwards compatibility includes Spheres of Power and Might will be a big determinant in whether I play it

[thelastorphan]

Clear to me, at least. But my point was that even with context what's necessary for that particular goal probably depends a lot on who you ask. Everyone can probably agree that it should keep some stuff and change some stuff but what's necessary to keep and what's necessary to change is extremely subjective.

That's true, I think we can also agree that a system that looks more like 5e is a bridge too far.

Also, PF2 has most of the same visual and flavor trappings of PF1 and very much missed the mark.

There must be a handful of things that the community has reached a near consensus on, maybe not on balance points and the like, because that is probably the most subjective aspect of the game for people, but I am an irregular here and usually just poke around for things that look interesting to me and so I am unsure what those handful of things are. I am definitely interested in Corefinder if it continues to feel like Pathfinder the way Pathfinder felt like 3.5. Articulating that is difficult though, I guess a phrase like.. It should be a Step up not a whole Floor. More smoothing, less redesigning of whole systems.

I would like the inclusion of subsystems Paizo had no interest in updating that 3rd parties then had to do. Small pieces anyway, attached to some classes in core, then full books later to give them the breadth they deserve. I love the idea of seeding ways the system CAN expand in a core book, and then expanding on those things in a later release, and I like classes having unique mechanical identities and like to see a little more variety in that regard.

I have a lot of faith in Legendary, I love their class re designs for some of the under-loved classes, especially Samurai.

[Silly Name]

Also, PF2 has most of the same visual and flavor trappings of PF1 and very much missed the mark.


That's because while flavour and visuals are important, there's the third important element of "feel".

PF2 maintains the same flavour and visuals style of PF1, but it (intentionally) aims for a different feel during gameplay. And while it can be appreciated, it obviously doesn't scratch the same itches as 3.X/PF1, so if you're looking for a game that continues to build on those systems you'd be disappointed.

I think you're quite right on your assessment of "one step up, not another floor" being what should be the aim. 5e is still recognisably D&D and even takes some bits and ends from 3.5 and even 4e, but it's a different enough system that people who prefer 3.5 wouldn't be satisfied.

PF demonstrated you can keep the feel of 3.5 while also streamlining and refining its mechanics and even alter some of the basic assumptions (for example, Prestige Classes are pretty damn fundamental for the vast majority of 3.5 builds, while PF mostly did away with them in favour of class archetypes). I expect Corefinder to continue in this direction, and I have very high hopes.

[N. Jolly]

I'll give it a shot, but whether its backwards compatibility includes Spheres of Power and Might will be a big determinant in whether I play it

Considering how many SoP and SoM devs are working on CF (including one of the SoM writers), I can say that there is a good chance of this. We also have a good relationship with DDS, and would have little problem helping with working on a conversion doc to make sure the two play nice.

[Segev]

The mechanical distinction between them still exists in 5e and works quite well. Just like in 3.P - one arcane caster can learn any number of spells, but must prepare a rigid subset of those each day they can cast from; while the other is more limited in the spells they can learn, but has unparalleled flexibility within that allotment. In fact, 5e's innovation of floating "sorcery points" you can use to gain additional slots or spontaneously alter your spells on the fly is something I wouldn't mind seeing in 3.P or CF.

5e also once and for all ditched the pointless spell access delay Sorcerers have been shackled with.

I actually think that's one of the weaknesses of 5e. The Sorcerer fails in the task of "unparalleled flexibility." Metamagic is nice, but it doesn't do nearly enough to make spells truly customizable. It just provides some nice power-ups. They haven't gotten nearly creative enough, and, in their defense, it's hard to do when you're not designing metamagic specific to particular spells. Sadly, the sorcerer also fails in the task of "more raw arcane might," because the 2nd level Arcane Recovery feature keeps up very, very well with the Font of Magic, and moreover, Sorcerers are more likely to burn spell slots into SP for metamagic than the other way around. Giving them Font of Magic a level before they can do anything with SP other than turn them into spells, and so few that Arcane Recovery actually is better for spell slot "juice" at that level, makes it not nearly as exciting as it should be.

The Bard, like the Sorcerer, also just feels WEAKER than the wizard due to their "known spells" restriction. They know fewer spells than the wizard has prepared, let alone has access to. The reason that spontaneous casters in 3e and its heirs had the delayed progression was because it was (incorrectly, it turns out) believed that spontaneous casting from a more restrictive list of known spells was more powerful than prepared casting from a broader list. They have fixed that in 5e, thankfully, but it's arguable that 3e-style Prepared Casting would still have been more powerful than known/spontaneous casting; that wizard, clerics, etc. now get to change spells known daily and still get spontaneous casting is really nice from a playability standpoint, but holy cow does it make "known spells" casters weaker in comparison. Bards get more class features and to pick a small selection of spells off-list to make up for it, which keeps them viable. Sorcerers get metamagic...but while it's nice, it's not really enough when saddled with the rest of the Sorcerer spellcasting chassis.

If this weren't being billed as "Pathfinder 1.5," I'd say sure, experiment. Try new things. But with the explicit goal being at least as much backwards compatibility to PF1 as PF1 had to D&D3.5, you really should keep the core classes primary conceits in place.

If they want to make a project around a d20 system that chucks quasi-vancian magic and introduces Spheres of Power as its core magic mechanic, that could be very interesting. But it won't be what this is being billed as. It will be its own new system.

Ironically, PF2 could have gotten away with fully adopting Spheres of Power, because it's a "new edition," where Corefinder is trying to be a continuation of PF1.

[exelsisxax]

I actually think that's one of the weaknesses of 5e. The Sorcerer fails in the task of "unparalleled flexibility." Metamagic is nice, but it doesn't do nearly enough to make spells truly customizable. It just provides some nice power-ups. They haven't gotten nearly creative enough, and, in their defense, it's hard to do when you're not designing metamagic specific to particular spells. Sadly, the sorcerer also fails in the task of "more raw arcane might," because the 2nd level Arcane Recovery feature keeps up very, very well with the Font of Magic, and moreover, Sorcerers are more likely to burn spell slots into SP for metamagic than the other way around. Giving them Font of Magic a level before they can do anything with SP other than turn them into spells, and so few that Arcane Recovery actually is better for spell slot "juice" at that level, makes it not nearly as exciting as it should be.

The Bard, like the Sorcerer, also just feels WEAKER than the wizard due to their "known spells" restriction. They know fewer spells than the wizard has prepared, let alone has access to. The reason that spontaneous casters in 3e and its heirs had the delayed progression was because it was (incorrectly, it turns out) believed that spontaneous casting from a more restrictive list of known spells was more powerful than prepared casting from a broader list. They have fixed that in 5e, thankfully, but it's arguable that 3e-style Prepared Casting would still have been more powerful than known/spontaneous casting; that wizard, clerics, etc. now get to change spells known daily and still get spontaneous casting is really nice from a playability standpoint, but holy cow does it make "known spells" casters weaker in comparison. Bards get more class features and to pick a small selection of spells off-list to make up for it, which keeps them viable. Sorcerers get metamagic...but while it's nice, it's not really enough when saddled with the rest of the Sorcerer spellcasting chassis.

If this weren't being billed as "Pathfinder 1.5," I'd say sure, experiment. Try new things. But with the explicit goal being at least as much backwards compatibility to PF1 as PF1 had to D&D3.5, you really should keep the core classes primary conceits in place.

If they want to make a project around a d20 system that chucks quasi-vancian magic and introduces Spheres of Power as its core magic mechanic, that could be very interesting. But it won't be what this is being billed as. It will be its own new system.

Ironically, PF2 could have gotten away with fully adopting Spheres of Power, because it's a "new edition," where Corefinder is trying to be a continuation of PF1.

I just had a very useful conversation on the LG discord that really clears up a few things. In summary: maximum compatibility will be attempted for GM-facing content like monsters, number scaling, and general statistics. There is NOT an assumption of player-facing compatibility.

So while vancian-like mechanics (spell slots) are definitely not going to get cut, there is not an expectation at all that you can just port over your class X PC. I think this is a pretty good thing for making corefinder a good game, rather than just another OGL reprinting.

[thelastorphan]

I just had a very useful conversation on the LG discord that really clears up a few things. In summary: maximum compatibility will be attempted for GM-facing content like monsters, number scaling, and general statistics. There is NOT an assumption of player-facing compatibility.

So while vancian-like mechanics (spell slots) are definitely not going to get cut, there is not an expectation at all that you can just port over your class X PC. I think this is a pretty good thing for making corefinder a good game, rather than just another OGL reprinting.

This sadly causes me to a lose a lot of interest. A continuation should also be both gm and player facing in regards to compatibility. This is disappointing.

[Aotrs Commander]

I just had a very useful conversation on the LG discord that really clears up a few things. In summary: maximum compatibility will be attempted for GM-facing content like monsters, number scaling, and general statistics. There is NOT an assumption of player-facing compatibility.

So while vancian-like mechanics (spell slots) are definitely not going to get cut, there is not an expectation at all that you can just port over your class X PC. I think this is a pretty good thing for making corefinder a good game, rather than just another OGL reprinting.

That doesn't sound like being akin to "PF1 to 3.5," I'll be honest.

[Segev]

I just had a very useful conversation on the LG discord that really clears up a few things. In summary: maximum compatibility will be attempted for GM-facing content like monsters, number scaling, and general statistics. There is NOT an assumption of player-facing compatibility.

So while vancian-like mechanics (spell slots) are definitely not going to get cut, there is not an expectation at all that you can just port over your class X PC. I think this is a pretty good thing for making corefinder a good game, rather than just another OGL reprinting.


This sadly causes me to a lose a lot of interest. A continuation should also be both gm and player facing in regards to compatibility. This is disappointing.

I hate to seem like I'm beating a drum, but I actually think DM-facing compatibility is the LESSER of concerns, and player-facing compatibility is the GREATER one. A GM is going to be running a system; he's rarely going to be running a hybrid of mechanics. A player sold on "let's play Pathfinder" will actively want to bring the mechanics from PF or even 3.5 into this. Consider how many hybrid 3.PF games are really just PF1 with 3.5 classes and feats and spells allowed. They work perfectly well because while there are SOME adaptations needed, they're minimal and generally easy to figure out. Use CMB/CMD instead of whatever grapple rules 3.5 had, and usually even a bonus to grapple becomes a bonus to CMB. That kind of thing.

Yes, it'll be nice for a DM to be able to directly lift a Bloody Skeleton from PF1 if Corefinder doesn't happen to have that particular brand of undead, and use it without adaptation, but the DM's side of adaptation is easier in general because he just needs a few key numbers and a little shakiness between how many hp a 3.5e zombie and a PF zombie might have is of minimal concern.

I think thelastorphan's reaction will be common, and there are simply more players than GMs. It's the players' nostalgia and desire for continuity that needs to be appealed to with a project being billed in this fashion.

[exelsisxax]

What are these mechanics that you think players are so wedded to, then? What are these sacred cows you can't handle being slaughtered?

[Morphic tide]

More importantly, the issues of the d20 system that people constantly want solutions for are overwhelmingly player-facing and consequences of very basic structural choices for those player-facing elements. The frequent big selling point of "fixing Martial/Caster imbalance" fundamentally requires throwing out the previous iteration of one of the two, because the causes are so widespread in design that you literally can't fix the issue without gutting the use of the prior options. Garbage in, garbage out, so as long as the inputs are bad, the output will be bad. Therefore, to get a non-bad output, you need to remove the bad input.

The biggest stand-out is magic items. Doing away with the blunt must-have "Big Six" effects means that a lot of previous player material has to be seriously reworked, because a basic assumption in design has been overhauled. The Warpriest and Magus, for instance, could swing wildly above or below curve if just directly carried over, as their features are heavily concerned with internally answering the Big Six item needs, and so if that becomes automatic to character progression they have an automatic bonus that is unexpected, while if it's a standard of features they end up having a lot of their class power budget in something that's normal now, leaving them with less than they were designed for.

[Aotrs Commander]

What are these mechanics that you think players are so wedded to, then? What are these sacred cows you can't handle being slaughtered?

Okay, let me put on what passes for my business face and ask Legendary Games directly. (Clarification: So I'm completely clear, I am not trying to be snarky or reductive. This is me, wearing my Professional Business Hat1, asking a serious question.)



What exactly are you guys/girls/etc. offering to me, as a prospective customer, that is going to be better than the thousand pages of 3.5/PF1 houserules I've written? As if it is not something that I can relatively easily patch back into that as even more additional content, its going to have to be so much better enough to cause me to want to abandon all that for Corefinder.

(GM-facing content is irrelevant to me. If I'm running a module or something, I'll do the conversion myself, regardless of how much effort it is (I did it for AD&D => 3.5). Regardless of how close or usuable your numbers are; if it's not 100%, it's not 100%, so I'll do it; just like I did from PF1 back to 3.5 and then BACK AGAIN later on when I moved more towards PF1. I will do that. I'm anal-retentive enough, that's how my brain works.)

It took PF1 a decade (and the first Kingmaker CRPG) to convince me to yoink large parts of PF1, and I supported Paizo not through rulesbooks, but by buying APs and Golarion sourcebooks (as I pretty much bought all of the latter and it remains the only campaign world I bought stuff for just solely to read for fun - and will continue to do if they do more, even if its PF2). So what are you doing with Corefinder to pursuade me to part with my hard-earned cash for your rules if I functionally am going to have to abandon or re-do all of my 3.5 stuff, my house rules and material and such?

Fundementally, then, what are you offering that I couldn't do myself?



I fully appreciate the might be "nothing, Bleakbane, you're clearly not the target audience," which is perfectly fine (but itself a useful answer for both of us, I think); but I feel that SOMEONE ought to ask that question. (I might be the extreme end of the spectrum, but I won't be completely alone in that sort of sentiment.)




1Yes, yes, it's a ludicrously small business, and most youtubers and streamers probably make money money by going to the toilet that I do (let alone the folks at Legendary Games), but it IS still one and I literally have the paperwork to prove it.

[thelastorphan]

More importantly, the issues of the d20 system that people constantly want solutions for are overwhelmingly player-facing and consequences of very basic structural choices for those player-facing elements. The frequent big selling point of "fixing Martial/Caster imbalance" fundamentally requires throwing out the previous iteration of one of the two, because the causes are so widespread in design that you literally can't fix the issue without gutting the use of the prior options. Garbage in, garbage out, so as long as the inputs are bad, the output will be bad. Therefore, to get a non-bad output, you need to remove the bad input.

The biggest stand-out is magic items. Doing away with the blunt must-have "Big Six" effects means that a lot of previous player material has to be seriously reworked, because a basic assumption in design has been overhauled. The Warpriest and Magus, for instance, could swing wildly above or below curve if just directly carried over, as their features are heavily concerned with internally answering the Big Six item needs, and so if that becomes automatic to character progression they have an automatic bonus that is unexpected, while if it's a standard of features they end up having a lot of their class power budget in something that's normal now, leaving them with less than they were designed for.

The answer in my opinion is to not have nearly as many spells, and really focus on what spells do. Reworking what spells do can fix alot of issues without changing most of the mechanics of the game. Also smaller Spell Lists and less overlap between spell casters. Give Non-Magic classes number boosts built in to keep up with the combat math of the Big Six. What else needs to be done? Make Full Attack a standard action. Add things like Initiating and Incarnum into the core system. And I don;t want full versions in the core book. I am talking maybe a couple dozen of Manuevers and a couple Dozen melds total to help the classes that need it, short lists. Expand on them later. Thats how I would see a continuation that doesn't 'gutting' what came before.

[Morphic tide]

The answer in my opinion is to not have nearly as many spells, and really focus on what spells do. Reworking what spells do can fix alot of issues without changing most of the mechanics of the game. Also smaller Spell Lists and less overlap between spell casters.

The problem is that if it's backwards compatible, people will just bring in their broken spells from PF1e/3.x. You have to re-write every last thing that's beyond your desired power level, say that players don't get to bring forward game mechanics, or very bluntly inform the DM that they have to adjudicate for power level of anything brought forward. Or they'll find some way to break it with metamagic, or archetypes. If classes are portable, then the Magus will be hidously overpowered with Standard Action Full Attacks, while the Warpriest is left in the cold because you're rather obviously ripping out the CoDzilla buffstack the class is specifically designed around while simultaneously making two of their quite few other features into standard class design.

To fix the problem, you have to say no to the content that caused it.

[Aotrs Commander]

The problem is that if it's backwards compatible, people will just bring in their broken spells from PF1e/3.x. You have to re-write every last thing that's beyond your desired power level, say that players don't get to bring forward game mechanics, or very bluntly inform the DM that they have to adjudicate for power level of anything brought forward. Or they'll find some way to break it with metamagic, or archetypes. If classes are portable, then the Magus will be hidously overpowered with Standard Action Full Attacks, while the Warpriest is left in the cold because you're rather obviously ripping out the CoDzilla buffstack the class is specifically designed around while simultaneously making two of their quite few other features into standard class design.

To fix the problem, you have to say no to the content that caused it.

But then it's not a continuation of the previous versions like PF1 was to 3.5, which they seem to be trying to market it as.

If it's NOT backward compatible, how is it different to 4E/5E/PF2?

[Elves]

Tricky to do universally without eliminating the distinction between Sorcerer and Wizard. I like 5e, but the 5e Sorcerer suffers GREATLY in that change.

Sorcerer and wizard shouldn't be separate to start with. The distinction of "I went to college" vs "a dragon banged my grandma" was an artificial one that was made up to support the mechanical difference. It's become ensconced in the game since then, but it doesn't really have much grounding in fantasy -- a lot of spellbooks and staves wizards are 'inherently gifted' or have magical ancestry.

I'd rather have a single mage class with "wild magic" and "collegiate magic" [or whatever] subclasses.

[Morphic tide]

But then it's not a continuation of the previous versions like PF1 was to 3.5, which they seem to be trying to market it as.

If it's NOT backward compatible, how is it different to 4E/5E/PF2?

The statement is that they're trying for DM compatibility, which is to say closely translatable gear, monsters, and non-combat challenges. The player-side mechanics have so many layers of unwanted behavior that truly being backwards compatible would fundamentally violate the design goals, particularly the "big six" items. Sure, conversions can be relatively easy as they are for 3.x to PF1e, but finishing off CoDzilla by ripping out their buffs and making the more basic itemization bonuses a standardized element of Martial classes would mean the Warpriest would have to be rebuilt practically from scratch, because its entire basis of functionality is gone.

Furthermore, a break of compatibility is NOT a break of style. The intent is a "fixed" d20, where Martials aren't utterly dependent on rather specific items and a given spellcaster can't run over every situation not specifically set up to counter them. The nature of the incompatibility I'm expecting from the statements so far is going "we have decided to overhaul the player's options to provide a tighter, more balanced experience, and so we're telling you to leave Pazio and WotC stuff out, because that stuff is outside our design assumptions".

There's all sorts of 3.X builds that can utterly ruin Pazio modules because they do all sorts of things the module designers had no expectation of dealing with. Some of them aren't even that extreme by 3.x standards, likely including anything to do with properly leveraging the Crusader because useful per-encounter healing and heavy damage mitigation are pretty bluntly outside Pazio's standards. To say nothing of the escalations that arise with the AFC stacks or good PRCs getting their hands on the improved versions of the Martials.

If there's any sort of big spellcaster nerf, then you're going to have to throw out pretty much everything that Dreamscarred Press published for Pathfinder, because all of that is specifically made to keep up with the well-built casters Pazio products can be used to construct, and the fundamental operation of Path of War and Akasha aren't conductive to playing down much because they have far narrower optimization space following from their base mechanics than spellcasting does, resulting in them being well ahead of their 3.x predecessors that failed to truly compete.

[thelastorphan]

The problem is that if it's backwards compatible, people will just bring in their broken spells from PF1e/3.x. You have to re-write every last thing that's beyond your desired power level, say that players don't get to bring forward game mechanics, or very bluntly inform the DM that they have to adjudicate for power level of anything brought forward. Or they'll find some way to break it with metamagic, or archetypes. If classes are portable, then the Magus will be hidously overpowered with Standard Action Full Attacks, while the Warpriest is left in the cold because you're rather obviously ripping out the CoDzilla buffstack the class is specifically designed around while simultaneously making two of their quite few other features into standard class design.

To fix the problem, you have to say no to the content that caused it.

That's just the same thing Pathfinder games already do with 3.5 content. Pathfinder is backwards compatible, but when it comes to 3.5 content the assumption with most games is that you need to ask about content from the other. This wouldn't be any different. You dont have to blanket allow everything that came before. Most play groups dont do that with pathfinder. Or the other way with 3.5 and PF1 stuff. Its case by case, I would imagine, for the vast majority of groups.

This should not be any different and being compatible is a strength if you make the core assumptions of power level clear from the beginning. One of the things 3.5 and PF did poorly.

There being broken stuff in the previous version doesnt make a new version built on the same system invalid, Pathfinder and 3.5 work independently of each other. They CAN mix, and that's a good thing for players and GMs. Yes there are plenty of things we can argue about design wise, but if authorial intent is clear and they build the band of power they want, however broad or narrow and make sure to communicate that, then I see no reason to assume what you do about the game.

People will allow what they allow and disallow what they dont. That happens already between two systems. Adding a third wont change that. If people see the Magus as broken, it wont be allowed to port into most games. Some people will still be fine with it. The new game wont have it by default, it being compatible is a good thing.

Spells outside the new game wouldn't be available by default. Some people will allow them. Some wont. But being compatible is a good thing.

Same for feats, skill tricks, soul melds/veils, ToB/PoW, SoM/P. Everything. The default assumption of the core game doesnt assume all of these things. But them being compatible is good.

[Aotrs Commander]

The statement is that they're trying for DM compatibility, which is to say closely translatable gear, monsters, and non-combat challenges. The player-side mechanics have so many layers of unwanted behavior that truly being backwards compatible would fundamentally violate the design goals, particularly the "big six" items. Sure, conversions can be relatively easy as they are for 3.x to PF1e, but finishing off CoDzilla by ripping out their buffs and making the more basic itemization bonuses a standardized element of Martial classes would mean the Warpriest would have to be rebuilt practically from scratch, because its entire basis of functionality is gone.

Furthermore, a break of compatibility is NOT a break of style. The intent is a "fixed" d20, where Martials aren't utterly dependent on rather specific items and a given spellcaster can't run over every situation not specifically set up to counter them. The nature of the incompatibility I'm expecting from the statements so far is going "we have decided to overhaul the player's options to provide a tighter, more balanced experience, and so we're telling you to leave Pazio and WotC stuff out, because that stuff is outside our design assumptions".

Which to me says "we're really writing our own edition that's not really compatible with what you're playing currently, except that you could fudge the monster statistics if you don't think to hard about it."

And as a potential paying customer, I'm just not interested in that, if that is indeed the case. (Base scenario in that case is if they do a "CFSRD" I might swipe the odd good idea, like I did from 4E and 5E, but nothing more than that.)

As I said, what then, it is offering that I haven't already done for myself? I'm straight not interested in a new edition, if that's the only thing that's on offer.

A lot of what you're talking about "fixing" (which, granted, is somewhat of a problem in 3.P) sounds a lot more like 4E/5E/PF2 sort of thing though -and if I wanted that, I wouldn't be playing 3.P - or stuff I have in part done myself.

Fundementally, whether I remain at all interested to the point I am prepared to spend money is predicated on exactly two conditions: 1) stuff I can use to add to my existsing games or 2) something SO much better than 3.P that I throw away the last 20 years of my house-rules or spend several more hundred hours converting. (I do not find the latter particularly likely, but am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt for the moment.)

[Psyren]

I'm getting a little nervous too. Compatibility matters to me as a player - if it didn't, I'd have simply picked up PF2.

I get that you want to fully move away from the unbalanced stuff that came before, but what truly stops people from using overpowered spell/class/item/X is having your own version of it that is fixed. Unchained Summoner for example was a clear nerf, but I've seen countless groups (not to mention sanctioned play) say "we're using that one." Or when PF introduced nerfed versions of Wish and Disjunction, I've seen even otherwise 3.5 groups say "please use that one." Sure, if the framework is close enough, they still could play CoDzilla or something, but with an easily-accessible toned-down version making the rounds most people simply won't. And you can do that without unraveling the whole tapestry.

[Aotrs Commander]

I'm getting a little nervous too. Compatibility matters to me as a player - if it didn't, I'd have simply picked up PF2.

I get that you want to fully move away from the unbalanced stuff that came before, but what truly stops people from using overpowered spell/class/item/X is having your own version of it that is fixed. Unchained Summoner for example was a clear nerf, but I've seen countless groups (not to mention sanctioned play) say "we're using that one." Or when PF introduced nerfed versions of Wish and Disjunction, I've seen even otherwise 3.5 groups say "please use that one." Sure, if the framework is close enough, they still could play CoDzilla or something, but with an easily-accessible toned-down version making the rounds most people simply won't. And you can do that without unraveling the whole tapestry.

Yes.

If "balance" or "caster/martial disparity fix" is the only thing on offer (and I look meaningfully in the direction of 4E); sorry, but I don't need to pay for a set of rules to do that; I can do that myself for my own group. You need to offer me something I CAN'T do myself.

(I mean at the moment, I have literally nothing BUT free time to rules-smith, if I so chose; and if the Plague Apocalypse has its way I may never get to actually PLAY ever again, so it's going to have to be pretty dam spectacular if all I can do with it is fundementally theory-crafting.)



And this, I think, is a danger. If this set of rules is not really compatible except in the cursory sense, it's not going to get wide acceptancelike PF1 did, I think. The people that didn't switch from 3.5 aren't going to switch to it. The people happy playing PF1 (or 3.P) aren't going to switch to it. The people playing 4E/5E/PF2 aren't likely to switch to it - so your market is the people that don't like those last three but aren't happy with 3.P. How big is that market? I don't know; if this is indeed what Legendary Games is doing, presumably they think it is big enough.

I'm not convinced, at the moment, by anything I've heard so far, I'll be brutally honest.

[exelsisxax]

I do not understand why a lot of you are freaking out. Just like the 3.5 to PF move, nothing will line up 1:1. There will be a massive rework of feats, that alone requiring every single PC to rebuild, but just like 3.5 the overall rules system is the same and you could play a 3.5 hexblade/incanatrix/red wizard or whatever.

Things will change, otherwise they wouldn't have a product.

[Aotrs Commander]

I do not understand why a lot of you are freaking out. Just like the 3.5 to PF move, nothing will line up 1:1. There will be a massive rework of feats, that alone requiring every single PC to rebuild, but just like 3.5 the overall rules system is the same and you could play a 3.5 hexblade/incanatrix/red wizard or whatever.

Things will change, otherwise they wouldn't have a product.

That's not what of osme the poster like Morphic Tide are suggesting, though.

[exelsisxax]

That's not what of osme the poster like Morphic Tide are suggesting, though.

I cannot find any such claims that everything is going to change by morphic tide. Only statements of the fact that importing everything from PF1 is unreasonable and that balance will be attempted in a vacuum without such material. Emblem of greed is not going to return. Feeblemind won't be in CF. Druids, I can assure you, will not be able to do all of: turn into bears, summon bears, and cast spells while riding a bear automatically as a matter of course. Corefinder is trying to be a better successor, and part of that requires intentionally ripping out the rot in the system.

[Morphic tide]

Okay, since the two of you seem to be unable to put pieces together, or are wildly exaggerating my statements, possibly from assuming I'm authoritative in some capacity rather than trying to predict the way it'll go, I'll try and explain the compatibility breaks I see so far:

1. The Big Six. They have bluntly stated that they want to move away from any simple +x magic items being necessary to the math of a character working. If this is done as part of basic character construction, like baking a significant portion of the Automatic Bonus Progression into the level table, then classes like the Warpriest and entire subsystems like Incarnum/Akasha become markedly more powerful than intended, as they're balanced around an assumption of those parts of your character math taking up item space they're conflicting with.

If they have it as a baseline of class design, like bumping up Base Attack Bonus or making features like the Warpriest's Sacred Weapon be present in every class, then these same classes become underpowered because they expect to be compensating for something that everyone compensates for to begin with. If an Akasha character is well-built to fall within Corefinder's same gameplay expectations, then it falls behind from a blunt port to Corefinder because a sizable part of your character's power is now the baseline.

In the event that the method used is nerfing monster scaling to make those bonuses not be necessary, something that still falls in the bounds of formulaic conversion, then any mechanic that substitutes or readily acquires the Big Six results in a character rising above the curve, as they're accessing math that is not supposed to be in the player-facing system. In this case, most of the Pathfinder optimization would readily end up well above the intended power level because Pathfinder has a lot of ways to get ahold of those items you're not supposed to need anymore.

2. Bardic Music. The one "teaser" we've seen so far is the beginnings of the Bard rework, and one of the things they've done that actively pisses me off is that they moved the Inspire line to a separate, passive, feature. My issue with it is that it's the opposite of the typical game design answer to the problem they identified with overuse of Inspire Courage, as it's taking the stronger option and making it even more often used, but the important thing is that these effects are now no longer Bardic Music uses.

The consequence of this change, and the fact they didn't flinch about making it, is rather significant. Because every single thing in the entirety of d20 before Corefinder that references Bardic Music in particular now does nothing at all to the stuff that the baseline Bard had to offer for combat to begin with, being the quite genuine entirety of the 3.5 version's buff offering to my recollection of the playtest document, and those that mention Inspire Courage specifically are abruptly at-will. Fundamentally, all those feats, AFCs, PRCs, anything else do not work like they're expected to, because the underlying feature is massively different in how it works.

If that is even slightly a habit, then huge chunks of previous content quickly stop working. If they decide to resolve the power issues of full casters by slashing the lists, then you have yet more huge swaths ejected because the basic assumptions of what spells fit have removed major elements of what the casters did previously, and the Warpriest again is likely to face big problems because the list it runs on will probably lack the effects it was built around.

---

In general, my expectation of Corefinder is that it's changing enough of the basic player toolbox to fundamentally break the math of what came before, and introduce a wide array of underlying mechanical clashes, in the interests of having magic items be somewhat optional and mostly special and getting martials and casters vaguely similar in impact, and because of breaking that math and changing things in ways resulting in those clashes, very little content for players will neatly slide in. As opposed to the 3.X/PF conversion having the worst of the underlying system difference be consolidating the various attack-alternative actions under Combat Maneuvers thereby entirely replacing how you optimize for them, and otherwise being almost purely one-to-one replacements that directly relate to the 3.5 version of the function.

This isn't getting into the messes that would go off for compatibility from having Arcanist casting be universal, or the ways things could break down from specific changes to particular classes. There are a lot of interconnecting pieces of the d20 system, that is in many respects the point of wanting a d20 derivative. There are a lot of ways the math can be tweaked and features altered to try and answer the priorities set forth so far, and few of those ways result in a system that plays nicely with the player options contacting the altered functions, because there's so many layers of math that need gone through if it's going to be truly more balanced that it's supremely unlikely the player numbers will line up remotely safely, nor do I expect features to be very likely to cleanly follow on a broad scale given how casually they upended the Bard's usage patterns.

Again, the compatability issue I'm expecting is a complete breakdown of math when trying to drop a non-Corefinder PC into the system. Given the DM compatibility, I fully expect the technical ability to operate a 3.5 or PF1e character sheet in Corefinder due to the root of the math staying the same, but I expect the numbers will become utter nonsense in need of extensive reconstruction of the involved character options to actually bring it in line, because of the wide-reaching impact of the changes to how those numbers are reached and quite possibly some serious changes to the targets some of those numbers are for.

[exelsisxax]

Hold up - the LG bard playtest is a teaser for CF bard design? Source on that?

[Naru]

Something I haven't seen anyone mention yet is whether system mastery will be required to make an effective character in CF.

The thing I hate most about PF1e is that I have to sift through a gazillion bad archetypes / bloodlines / feats to find the handful that are actually good, in order to make a decent character. Same, to an extent, with races. Why make kobolds a playable race if they're so bad? Why are some playable races 6 RP and others 15? It's an absolute waste of time for players, and it's utterly daunting to new players. How many times in the past 5 years have I considered trying to introduce new players to PF1e? None. And I don't really care for 5e; we just wind up playing in something else entirely, or I have to hunt around for players who already know PF1e.

How many times have I started to read the archetypes for a class I've never made a character in before, only to give up by #3 of 24 and just go and find a guide on the web? Lots.

I love the level of customization that archetypes and feats enable - but dang, does the chaff ever need to be winnowed, and do the races ever need to be balanced.

I would love for a new player to show up for a session 0 and say, "I think I like the nature theme of a druid, but these archetype choices are daunting - several different kinds of animal, each of the four elements, fey, undead/abomination slayer... which ones are good?" And I get to say: "There are no bad choices. Just pick whichever one you like thematically."



I think a lot of these suggested changes will doom the project to being seen as “why didn’t you just play 5e” if the philosophy is followed too much.

All I’m really saying is: remember the purpose here. Are you making the perfect game for you (a “d20 heartbreaker”), or are you trying to continue the tradition started by Pathfinder?

Yeah - the more the CF drifts away from PF1e, the less compatible it is with same - in a mechanical sense, and in a flavor sense. I play PF1e because I love the crunchiness of it, of being able to put together some weird classes and archetypes and make a character that's something more interesting besides just 'a rogue' or whatever. That provides a lot of windows of roleplaying opportunity as well.



I like the flavor difference between the two classes [Wiz & Sorc] quite a lot and having different casting stats and the prepared vs spontaneous split feels right to fit that flavor.

Same. The sorc's bloodlines are what makes that class really fun to play, IMO. It adds so much flavor on top of just 'it's like a wizard, but does spontaneous casting'.



I expect the 11 core classes to be present, but definitely not unchanged. I expect things like HD and BAB and Saving Throws and Feats and the 6 Stats. Because if something isn't easily backwards compatible with the mountain of 3.5 and Pathfinder books I have then I am less likely to get into it.


A player sold on "let's play Pathfinder" will actively want to bring the mechanics from PF or even 3.5 into this. It's the players' nostalgia and desire for continuity that needs to be appealed to with a project being billed in this fashion.

^ This, and many similar quotes to the same effect.

[Ilorin Lorati]

then classes like the Warpriest and entire subsystems like Incarnum/Akasha become markedly more powerful than intended, as they're balanced around an assumption of those parts of your character math taking up item space they're conflicting with.

Neither Warpriest nor Akasha conflict with item space. Warpriest bonuses stack with all existing weapons/armor, and Akasha got rid of the wholesale item replacement that Incarnum did.

Edit:



I would love for a new player to show up for a session 0 and say, "I think I like the nature theme of a druid, but these archetype choices are daunting - several different kinds of animal, each of the four elements, fey, undead/abomination slayer... which ones are good?" And I get to say: "There are no bad choices. Just pick whichever one you like thematically."

I, too, would like to see intentional trap options ignored, but the fact of the matter is that in game design some things are going to work better than others, and perfect balance is a myth. The best thing we can hope for is a valuable opportunity cost. And while Paizo might have been more than happy to intentionally add trap options, I haven't seen any good 3pp dev for Pathfinder do that.

[Mithril Leaf]

I am just now noticing this thread and I have some thoughts about the idea from my perspective.


Player/Monster+NPC Transparency is a huge one for me personally. I have little interest in playing or running a system where they are arbitrarily seperated.
I don't personally like Vancian casting very much but I recognize it as the sacred cow that it is and see other enjoy it. With this in mind I hope that design takes place with alternative magical systems considered, rather than as an afterthought as in base PF.
Probably the largest reason I am sticking with PF 1 rather than switching to 2E is the lack of multiclassing support.
As a DM, the biggest part of backwards compatibility that matters to me is that the challenge numbers are roughly analogous so that I don't have to do on the fly conversions. Character options require more overview in the first place to allow or not allow them, and will be likely less frequently used, so conversion is easier less immediately needed.
One of the systems that I have been playing quite a bit lately and really respect some of the choices of is Star Wars Saga Edition. While it is far from a perfect system, it is in my opinion a surprisingly enjoyable middle ground between 3.5 and 4e. It might be worth looking at how it structures mechanics.

[Aotrs Commander]

Okay, since the two of you seem to be unable to put pieces together, or are wildly exaggerating my statements, possibly from assuming I'm authoritative in some capacity rather than trying to predict the way it'll go, I'll try and explain the compatibility breaks I see so far:

*snip*

If that is even slightly a habit, then huge chunks of previous content quickly stop working. If they decide to resolve the power issues of full casters by slashing the lists, then you have yet more huge swaths ejected because the basic assumptions of what spells fit have removed major elements of what the casters did previously, and the Warpriest again is likely to face big problems because the list it runs on will probably lack the effects it was built around.
*snip*

Again, the compatability issue I'm expecting is a complete breakdown of math when trying to drop a non-Corefinder PC into the system. Given the DM compatibility, I fully expect the technical ability to operate a 3.5 or PF1e character sheet in Corefinder due to the root of the math staying the same, but I expect the numbers will become utter nonsense in need of extensive reconstruction of the involved character options to actually bring it in line, because of the wide-reaching impact of the changes to how those numbers are reached and quite possibly some serious changes to the targets some of those numbers are for.

That's what I mean though. (I think we're kind of agreeeing with each other, fundementally, just from slightly different angles.) If that is the approach they're taking (and from my current impressions and especially from your more detailed analysis I would concur), they're not really making the game a follow-on from PF1/3.5 in the same sense PF1 was a follow-on from 3.5, it's really their own version of 4E/5E/PF2 only with maybe slightly less divergeance in the magnitude of the maths.

Which again causes me to ask them (I mean, them, in the actual, not you in the hypothetical) what Corefinder offers me as a customer, if it tacitly expects to completely replace what came before.



(At the moment, my instincts are telling me "probably nothing," but, y'know, I was sort of trying to give them a chance to maybe sell me on stuff, but I don't know if they're following the discussion at this point.)

[Jeff the Green]

Something I haven't seen anyone mention yet is whether system mastery will be required to make an effective character in CF.

Frig. No.

We've had this discussion explicitly, both in a CF context and in others. Everyone in the team hates the idea of trap options or Ivory Tower Game Design. While you obviously couldn't just pick randomly-chosen abilities and be good (a Dex-focused character isn't going to benefit from Heavy Armor Proficiency, for example). I think that the designers' collective ouevre shows that, even if we fail on occasion, we strive to make all thematic choices viable, mechanically. One of Jolly's and my goals on Legendary Alchemists, for example, was to weed out the things that had no business being archetypes and making them talents roughly on par with all the others.

[Morphic tide]

That's what I mean though. (I think we're kind of agreeeing with each other, fundementally, just from slightly different angles.) If that is the approach they're taking (and from my current impressions and especially from your more detailed analysis I would concur), they're not really making the game a follow-on from PF1/3.5 in the same sense PF1 was a follow-on from 3.5, it's really their own version of 4E/5E/PF2 only with maybe slightly less divergeance in the magnitude of the maths.

I think the better comparison would be their own 3.5 to PF1e's 3e, but with the big structural shakeups having more to do with itemization and usage patterns. Because those tie into damn near all of the previous player content, it's likely to end up much more completely breaking that old content than the 3e to 3.5 shift. Again, likely giving the same feel as the previous d20 stuff due to the design goals, but from very different numbers, making pulling forward very unlikely to work.

[exelsisxax]

I think the better comparison would be their own 3.5 to PF1e's 3e, but with the big structural shakeups having more to do with itemization and usage patterns. Because those tie into damn near all of the previous player content, it's likely to end up much more completely breaking that old content than the 3e to 3.5 shift. Again, likely giving the same feel as the previous d20 stuff due to the design goals, but from very different numbers, making pulling forward very unlikely to work.

I don't see how something like ABP but good is going to break the math, seeing as how it is specifically designed to achieve a certain numerical escalation. What do you suppose is going to make numbers totally diverge?

[EldritchWeaver]

Doesn't integrated ABP and similar math changes mean, that if you want to use old material, you use also the rules foundation of that old material? It doesn't strike me making sense to actually update old stat blocks partially, if the old stats are somewhat in the power are you are comfortable with.

[thelastorphan]

I don't see how something like ABP but good is going to break the math, seeing as how it is specifically designed to achieve a certain numerical escalation. What do you suppose is going to make numbers totally diverge?

I am not a designer but I am a long time player and DM. In my estimation I think the idea that changing to ABP as a baseline would require a total rework of all the math to be untrue. You just remove stat and save boosting items from the game and spells that boost stats, that's it really. The rest of it is either trivial or easy to work around. If some classes have built in boosts, that's fine, every class has tricks, increased accuracy is and the ability to nova if you want is a fine one. People can always run games where the 15 minute adventuring day isnt the norm. I have rarely been in games where it was. And when it did happen mostly t was either downtime or sessions focused more on roleplaying.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Wait, so you are proposing a genre-neutral core rulebook using PF mechanics that then is supplemented by a Fantasy module? With said module possibly coming with the core rulebook because it's the traditional setting, but with the essential mechanics clearly separated?

Because that sounds like most of the good parts of GURPS without any of the downsides of GURPS.

[Jeff the Green]

Wait, so you are proposing a genre-neutral core rulebook using PF mechanics that then is supplemented by a Fantasy module? With said module possibly coming with the core rulebook because it's the traditional setting, but with the essential mechanics clearly separated?

Because that sounds like most of the good parts of GURPS without any of the downsides of GURPS.

Yes. Though last I heard Jason's planning on having two options, Core and Core+Fantasy, with the latter being only slightly more. That way, once other modules are available, anyone who's only interested in, say, sci-fi or gothic horror doesn't have to buy half a book they don't plan on using.

[Madsamurai]

I used to play with ABP but in my last few campaigns we went back to normal items. I find that ABP takes away your ability to patch-up weaknesses in your build or to prioritise, say, defense over offense.

For example, I'm playing a character right now with bad saves, so I bought a +5 cloak long before the ABP table would and given it to me.

[EldritchWeaver]

Try this ABP variant instead: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/445719915333156864/470976975087861761/Big_6_Bonuses_Handy_Reference_Sheet.pdf

[exelsisxax]

I used to play with ABP but in my last few campaigns we went back to normal items. I find that ABP takes away your ability to patch-up weaknesses in your build or to prioritise, say, defense over offense.

For example, I'm playing a character right now with bad saves, so I bought a +5 cloak long before the ABP table would and given it to me.

Paizo ABP does, because it's an annoying perfectly rigid structure. Most homebrew ABP is better, like the one Weaver posted, because it offers flexibility in distributing bonuses as if you had a big pile of gold for big-6 items.

I think is is strictly superior over the feast-famine problems in normal campaigns and the necessity of the big6.

[Chemlak]

Hold up - the LG bard playtest is a teaser for CF bard design? Source on that?

It's not. The Legendary Bard is intended as a fully PF1 compatible alternative version of the bard which can replace the existing PF1 bard from the Core Rulebook. Mechanics used for the LBard might make it into Corefinder, but it will only be because those mechanics fit within the Corefinder class design philosophy, not because the LBard is in any way intended to be the version we'll use in Corefinder.

[Psyren]

It's not. The Legendary Bard is intended as a fully PF1 compatible alternative version of the bard which can replace the existing PF1 bard from the Core Rulebook. Mechanics used for the LBard might make it into Corefinder, but it will only be because those mechanics fit within the Corefinder class design philosophy, not because the LBard is in any way intended to be the version we'll use in Corefinder.

Given how that thread went, this is great news.

[EldritchWeaver]

Given how that thread went, this is great news.

Not sure how I should read this.

[Psyren]

Not sure how I should read this.

To be clearer: I am happy that that bard won't be the Corefinder bard, nor will that playtest be emblematic of Corefinder playtests.

[Jeff the Green]

To be clearer: I am happy that that bard won't be the Corefinder bard, nor will that playtest be emblematic of Corefinder playtests.

I'm not sure what objections you have to the playtest (I have not been following it), but because this is a large project with many writers and developers, we'll be centralizing somewhat. There will be only a few point people interacting with the community, filtering helpful comments from hostile or extraneous ones (because, let's be honest, playtests get a lot of those) to the rest of the team. Anything else would be utter chaos and unfair to writers who aren't getting paid to interact with the community.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure what objections you have to the playtest (I have not been following it), but because this is a large project with many writers and developers, we'll be centralizing somewhat. There will be only a few point people interacting with the community, filtering helpful comments from hostile or extraneous ones (because, let's be honest, playtests get a lot of those) to the rest of the team. Anything else would be utter chaos and unfair to writers who aren't getting paid to interact with the community.

No problem - I didn't intend to elaborate any further as it's not really on topic for this thread, I was merely answering the question that was asked.

I'm looking forward to reviewing any preview examples of Corefinder design on their own merits :smallsmile:

[Darkholme]

>Design Goal Summary

Intriguing. I just heard about this project today.

>I like level 10-15 Full-Caster gameplay (particularly horde summoning, transmutation, battlefield environmental changes, buffs, and debuffs) - that's the most entertaining part of 3.X, and the fact that 5e lacks that contributes to it's boring bland combat. I definitely want the option to build characters who are useful in and out of combat without regularly directly interacting with the HP subsystem.
>3.x martials are not good enough outside combat.
>I think the skill rules are too fuzzy and leave far too much to 'mother may I' making them frustratingly unreliable.
>I think WBL is obnoxiously impractical, and Paizo's alternative only really helped you keep up with the math on the martial side, not offering the sorts of items casters look for at all. The best alternative I've come across essentially let you buy 'magic items' as universal character creatures via points, based on having ~75% of WBL available for such points. The setup came from someone on the Paizo forums years and years ago.
>Tedious prerequisite planning. The prerequisites on feats (and to a lesser extent PrCs) are hair-pullingly frustrating to plan in advance, and very easy to not qualify for the ones you want if you didn't plan them all out in advance. Feat-Trees are some of the worst of this, but feats that require specific skills can also be a huge nuisance.
>All the junk you end up having to dig through to find the good options.
>The Math for CMB/CMD doesn't keep up with monster progression, thanks to the proliferation of multi-legged opponents and monsters that get bigger and bigger. CMB/CMD is just kindof broken.

Based on that, do you think Corefinder will appeal to me as a gamer / customer, or are you targetting a demographic with very different likes and dislikes?


[Edit]
These are the basis of that WBL replacement I was talking about. Their 'pool of flexible points that directly correlate to gold' made it easy to add in more effects
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ih7v?Magic-Items-Fixing-the-Big-Six-Three-Rules
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2krje?An-alternative-to-magic-items-please-review

[Particle_Man]

OP: I am intrigued, and wish you and your project well.

[ideasmith]

We were actually in discussion about classes just last night. Not every concept for a class from the base book is going to make it through, like we all agree sorcerer and wizard are conceptually the same space. We would like to include different core options that better cover what people are looking to have in their games instead of rehashing old concepts for the sake of legacy.
If someone has a book of NPCs built for Pathfinder that they like to use, how much work will it take to adapt the NPCs to Corefinder? Assume that some of the NPCs are sorcerers/wizards.


There will be only a few point people interacting with the community, filtering helpful comments from hostile or extraneous ones (because, let's be honest, playtests get a lot of those) to the rest of the team.
In my experience, hostile comments can contain useful information.