Well, at least the character creation isn't as complex as in GURPS. GURPS is great (I think... I have yet to play it, even though I have a ton of books), but the character creation can take days there.

Like many people said, the best way to go about rules is to have the SRD handy and check the necessary rules whenever they come up - you don't really need to know them by memory and you'll soon learn the ones you need more often.

On the matter of the setting, improvising is likely less hard than you think - get yourself a few dozen fantasy maps, cobble them together and rename/repopulate as necessary to fit your player choices and concepts. Using real-life cultures as models is also pretty easy, particularly the less known time periods - everybody has an idea of what happened in France during the Revolution, but the time period after the Restauration is much less well known, despite being the choice setting for a number of famous fiction. As for gods, the SRD offers stats for a multitude of them - here's the link, just pick the ones you like the most, or which fit your setting choices the best.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classe...ains/gods-pantheons/

That said, if you're using Pathfinder as a system, why not use the in-house setting of Paizo, Golarion? It has a perfectly free accessible wiki, a setting that allows for pratically every plotline or ideas you could possibly want to explore, and offers a wealth of fluff for many classes, seeing as they were created with the setting in mind. I can understand not wanting to use the modules/adventure path if you have a story of your own you want to use (even if, as said, a lot of them are really good) but the setting itself can be used indipendently.

As for those rules who seem strange, that's because a good number were inherited from D&D 3.5, which itself was adapting an ever older system. Sorcerer use Charisma to cast because the amount of power they control is supposed to depend on the force of their personality, which is what Charisma controls; and hits depend on Strenght on the simple principle that stronger characters are better at close combat (unless special training is involved, which is what feats are supposed to represent).

If you were asking from a mechanical standpoint, though, STR determines to hit because otherwise it'd be fully useless (since it only determines melee to-hit and damage, and the two most useless skills; compare with DEX, which is the strongest stat in the game as it determines a whole ton of things). In fact people drop it enough already in character creation as it is, since most casters don't need it and archery is superior to melee anyway.

About the Sorcerer, the truth is that it was designed to be weaker than the Wizard. Thus, since casters become deadlier when they can maximize their casting stat, they were assigned CHA because it is the most useless stat in the game, as it only determines the effect of a few skills. Most of the other spontaneous casters simply followwed the Sorcerer because, ironically, it's more balanced: spellcasting is the most powerful ability in the game, so tying it to the weakers stat makes it slightly harder for casters to dominate everything, at least at the lower levels and/or with lower point-buy options.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:44, Thu 20 Apr 2017.

I sort of feel from this like you're not being serious here. Who says goblins are funny, cute and cartoonish? It seems like you're blocking your own process more than the game itself is.

If you could assure me that you really want explanations for these things, and that you're not just pulling our legs, I'd be happy to help you come up with ones that work for you.

In reply to GammaBear (msg # 7):

Mathmaster called, said their dad could beat up Pathfinder's dad. :P

Just a quick reply before I hit the bed (work in the morning...):

Engine, I assure you that I am serious! Really... And I do consider goblins cute. Just look at the official Paizo art.

They are like gremlins or critters... and both of these races were created for comedy horror movies. They were funny and goblins are funny, too!
This message was last edited by the user at 21:53, Thu 20 Apr 2017.

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 12):

They're funny, yes, but they can be horror too if you want to handle them that way; Paizo AP/modules offers plenty of examples of this. And besides, mood whiplash is a thing, too - nothing wrong with graduating from fighting fools to actual serious threats. If anything, that's pretty classic as far as fantasy tales go.

intimidating is more the word... lol

Scary is some of the stuff in WoD ... o.o
Not many table top companies had multiple source books that shops refused to carry due to the content in them.

From what I'm told some of the worse books read like snuff films in parts. x.x

A lot of the best PF I've ever played just uses the 3 basic books and maybe 1-4 more.

I'm having fun in one thats like 4 pages long. lol

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 12):

They are whatever you want them to be. Gnomes and halflings were invented to be funny, but Eberron took them and made them pretty terrifying.

The thing with most fictional stuff is that you have to buy-in for it to work. You have to agree with whatever premise is explicitly or implicitly being put forth. You may think that goblins are funny and goofy, but if you were playing in a game in which the GM was trying to make them a frightening horde, then you would need to buy in for that GM's game to work.

Questions asked of fictional worlds have no real answer. In the real world, most things work a certain way for some objective reason. That's not the case with anything fictional. In fiction things work a certain way because someone decided they should. Maybe that someone is very clever and hardworking and can make it seem like it's only natural that things should work that way, but since things don't really work that way, there's a falsehood somewhere. The audience can pick at the idea (maybe the author even hopes they will) but eventually they'll just unravel it and then they don't have the fun fiction anymore.

So, why do sorcerers depend on Charisma? The books, or I, or most people here could probably give you an answer, but that answer is only as "correct" and "real" as you want it to be. The only real reason for it is the same reason bishops can only move diagonally: because it's an attempt to make the game more interesting.

Basically, I advise not fighting the rules. If something is true, accept it as true, don't worry about the explanation. Buy in.

I like Eberron, but Dark Sun did it first and made both far more terrifying ;)

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 18):

Okay, thanks. The point stands.

I totally agree about the gods. There has to be some idea of who and what they are and how they relate to one another and to man. Even if they are "unknowable" their worshippers THINK they know them. So, the players have to know at least what the priests are saying about the gods.

Demons, devils, and imps from hell, unless that is going to be a focus of your campaign, of your world, you can bring in a one-off without a lot of background. Since they aren't part of the natural world, characters might only know that the priests say that there is a netherworld inhabited by foul creatures of the dark who might emerge (rarely) to prey on the unwary or unprepared. Especially, if you're going with a pantheistic, multi-god setting, you don't need much demonology. They really only come up in dualistic theologies (Christianity/Islam) where they are the counterpart of a singular (albeit perhaps tripartite?) deity and her/his helper angels.

Finally, races... I started with OD&D. We had humans, dwarves, and elves as playable races. That was plenty. If YOU really want to have halflings and orcs and such as playable races, cool. Or if you want to include other races to accomodate a player's wish, cool again. But those other races can be left for future discovery.

I always thought (if I went back to fantasy settings) that I would start with a single town and the region within a day's walk. That's all the PCs would KNOW beyond vague rumors. They're all from right around the town, have never travelled farther than that day's walk, and we'd all fill in the wider world as we go.

I guess what I'm saying is, keep it simple.

This is exactly how my brother-in-law does it. I tend to use the published settings, but my brother-in-law always starts off with a very small area, usually a single village. He is also fairly tight on allowed races for the characters starting off from there - usually anything in the core rules of the ruleset - and then he'll allow more wonderful and strange things later on.

Basically, I'd agree with what everyone else says. I like the Pathfinder system, but it can get overwhelming if you let it. Unless you're feeling very confident do not allow a 'anything goes'. Establish yourself first, figure out the way the rules work. Start off by either allowing core rules only or, at the most generous, 'anything from the following sources' - but no more than 2 or 3 other books. There's time enough for all the stranger stuff later.

And don't let someone's RTJ bully you into stretching what you have decided to do. You don't have to run a game for everyone. You'll find your players that are content with your boundaries and those who aren't can find another game.

Or just run a setting without actual gods. Divine magic comes from a person's inner strength, or the positive and negative forces of the universe or whatever.

I'm not completely familiar with Pathfinder, but I assume they stepped away from the requirement in most editions of D&D that some poor soul play a cleric (or gin up a complicated replacement), so if having gods is problematic, just say "no divine spellcasters."

Oh, back when I was thinking of what my GURPS fantasy game could be like, I went even further and decided  that such a game wouldn't have any spell-casters, divine or otherwise... But I guess that wouldn't fly in PF or other DnD-derived games, as too many creatures there have magic powers and vulnerabilities. Playing without casters could be tricky...

BTW. You know which spell-casting class I'd very tempted to ban from my PF game? Bards. I just don't buy the idea of magical bards at all...

As for the "start with one village" idea, it's an interesting approach, but it works only for beginner characters, I think? Meanwhile, I'm not sure I'd like to start with 1st-level PCs - there aren't many interesting creatures you could pit them against...

Don't use those monsters then.

Don't use them then. However, figuring out how, within the rules, one can make them interesting and exciting (or dark, or gritty, or whatever), is a helpful mental exercise. If one can do it with bards, one can do it with almost anything.

Why do you think that?

That depends entirely on your imagination and what you mean by "pit them against."

Why do I think that "one village" idea works only for beginner characters? Well, if you put high-level characters there, it'd just look strange - how come one small village has master warriors, experts mages etc.? Also, you'd need to explain how come these experienced people don't know anything about the world outside their village...

As for monsters, I don't think you could have a successful game with 1st level character fighting a powerful demon, or something? Unless it'd be a game of "how can we stop the threat of the demon without fighting the demon directly". I guess this could be interesting...

Is it your position that there's no possible answer to that question?

There's also a range between "beginner characters" and "master warriors, expert mages."

I think you're too focused on extremes, and you're too focused on the players knowing what the characters know. Characters know much more than players, like magic, and non-existent languages. So, just because your game isn't doing much beyond one small area doesn't mean the characters don't know more.

"There needs to be an explanation" isn't a reason for not doing something. Come up with that explanation, ideally in collaboration with your players, or just assume there is one and move on.

Exactly. The Fellowship of the Ring has no hope of fighting Sauron... but they don't have to. They just have to deal with threats that are closer to their level, so that they can deal with Sauron indirectly. Thorin's party can't hope to fight stone giants, but they can still survive an encounter with them.

I think you're seriously overthinking things from a campaign setting perspective.  You truly don't have to develop a full cosmology to start a fantasy game with clerics.  You can do that if you want to, but you don't have to.  The alternative is to make it up as you go, possibly with player assistance.

I strongly recommend you read Dungeon World.  It has fantastic advice for how to run a game with virtually nothing planned before the first play session.

With respect to determining a campaign's tone, I again think you are overthinking it somewhat.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with telling your players after a couple encounters that you think goblins would be more interesting in this particular campaign if you change them up from how they were initially presented.  Let your players know you're new to running Pathfinder and you may adjust things as you go to make for a better game.  Solicit player opinion on the changes if you like.  Good players will not freak out at this.  You don't even have to have an in-game explanation for the change.  Just do it.  If you can't let go that much, decree that the first goblins they encountered were a different type of goblin from the new ones and that both exist in the campaign world (the party just won't be seeing the first type again).  Maybe the first goblins were under the influence of some magical effect that altered them.  Coming up with explanations is just a question of applying a little imagination, but I would encourage you not to put yourself through that effort.  The game won't implode if you just announce some things are being changed and move on.

Varsovian, what's a game that you consider not to be "scary" and why not? Why are you feeling the need to engage with Pathfinder, if it doesn't suit you and you are leery about customizing it?

I want to chime in on a couple of things.

TL;DR  Pathfinder's cruch has advantages.  Attributes are a bit deeper than you may think, and Charisma totally makes sense for sorcerers when you go down that rabbit hole of thought.

First, while PF is very, very crunchy and has an overwhelming amount of content to track, there are definite advantages to having those conditions.  The biggest one is that any (and I mean ANY) player concept can be realized if you know how to pull the strings behind the system.  You want to run a martial artist that shoots magic out of his body?  You can do that (Qinggong Monk).  Want to run a half-undead cleric trying to get in touch with nature even while he's wasting away?  Playable (Oracle).  Or let's get weird, how about a sneaky assassin who specializes in a gigantic two-handed weapon and an acrobatic fighting style?  That's a thing you can do (Bladed Brush feat and the like combined with Unchained Rogue).  For me and a lot of others, one of the biggest selling points for Pathfinder is how well you are rewarded for increasing your system mastery.  Once you start getting a handle on things, you can start breaking away from standard stereotypes to do some seriously cool stuff.

Second, I want to address the Strength/Charisma questions and expand them a bit.

There's a good bit of misconception about what the six attributes have to say about a character.  Strength does reflect the brute strength of a character to a degree (in the total ability score, this is definitely true), and it also shows how good a character is at bringing about success through that ability's use (this is shown with the ability modifier).  So let's put that in perspective with the math.  In Pathfinder, most basic checks have a Difficult Class (DC) of around 15 and most commoners have a high ability score of perhaps 13 or 15 with modifiers of +1 and +2 respectively.  You may checks by rolling a d20 and adding your modifier to the roll.  If you meet or beat the DC, you succeed.  So, the average joe who is doing something that they're physically capable of doing (judging by ability score and modifier) needs to roll a 14 or 13 (or higher) on the d20 to succeed at something for which they have no training.  That's about 40% odds of success.  Not awful, but not amazing.  But Pathfinder also shows that training matters through the Skills system.  Each Skill Rank increases your odds by 5%, and if it's a skill your naturally disposed to learning, you get an additional +15% (one time bonus) as soon as you invest a Skill Rank.  So a first level commoner with a Skill Rank in something that they're naturally disposed to doing ends up with something more like 60% odds of success or better.  And then the commoner can even get additional modifiers by using certain bits of equipment (+1 to +5 boon), getting help from someone (+2 to +4), or by specializing in a particular skill with a feat (+2 to +6).  Then the odds go way up to being basically a guaranteed success.  Taken together, that all makes realistic, mathematical sense, and now to circle back to the point.  The attributes are meant to merely reflect a person's natural potential for accomplishing different types of tasks.  Training, investment, aid, and equipment are necessary to unlock that potential, and Pathfinder does a good job of reflecting that.

A good visual might be to envision different sorts of folks trying to climb a rock wall with varying physiques, training, help, and equipment.  From the bare-knuckle natural without a rope or helpful friend to the seasoned, muscular veteran with good gear and a buddy on the safety line; there's a big range in between those extremes.

I say all that first to help give the frame of mind for how I look at the six attributes.  At their core, ability scores a reflection of a character's inner potential to do a thing.  Strength shows not only how physically strong or athletic a person is, but how well he is able to bring that strength to bear.  That doesn't necessarily make him good with a weapon though.  Training does that (weapon proficiency) and experience fuels his development (BAB, feats, class features).  Dexterity is a reflection of a person's coordination, reflexes, and agility.  With training, it's possible to use that natural ability to hit folks with a weapon (Weapon Finesse), but untrained folks lack the understanding and experience to accomplish such a thing.  You could say that Strength is how good a person is busting down a door while Dexterity shows good you are at picking the lock.  Another common dichotomy exists between Intelligence and Wisdom.  My favorite way to show the difference is this: "Intelligence is knowing what side of the street a car drives; Wisdom is knowing to look both ways before crossing one."

But lets get to Charisma specifically.  The common perception is that Charisma is a reflection of attractiveness, personality, and leadership.  Those all ring true for me as well, but I also view it as the "brightness of a person's soul" so to speak or at least in that they appear that way to others.  A person with a higher Charisma is more noticeable, influential.  They are highly capable of expressing themselves in meaningful, powerful ways.  In other words, Charisma is a measure of how much ability a person has to change the world around themselves through their own innate power.  Looking at Paladins, they are mostly a martial based class that relies on their Strength and training to deal with most situations, but they can also dial it to eleven when the circumstances are right with their ability to Smite as well as bolstering those that stand with them just through their presence with their Aura.  Moving on to Sorcerers, Charisma makes a good bit of sense with their flavor.  Their power is literally in their blood; it's a part of them indivisible from their bodies.  If Charisma is a measure of effectual expression of inner potential, then this makes quite a bit of sense as a spellcasting attribute for them.  A Sorcerer is literally using the power within their bodies to effect the world around them.  At least within the Pathfinder context, I think that this makes total sense.

In 3.0 or 3.5 D&D, it is also true that Charisma was the spellcasting statistic at that time.  However, the flavor was much, much different.  In that system, the sorcerer's power came from spirits with whom the sorcerer communed to gain power.  Even in that context, the Charisma choice makes sense because the sorcerer would need to effectually influence other beings in order to gain and use their powers.

In my home Pathfinder game, we're eight sessions in to the current game and the paladin still hasn't bothered figuring out which god he worships (and it's standard Golarion, so figuring it out would take ten minutes on a wiki).  That kind of stuff can enhance the game, but it's not required by any means.

About the goblins.

I don't see why all goblins have to be the same. Not all Native Americans are/were the same, even among the same cultural/language group.

Maybe the first group was less warlike or more 'civilized'or more worn down. Then the next group is a wilder bunch, more vengeful toward humans or just have come under the sway of a more warlike leader.

And who knows what the next bunch will be like?