I've been toying with pathfinder for some time now, and I *believe* I'm ready to start a game that works with my concept.

The concept is the players are all members of a company that contracts them out to factions and individuals who need their skills for particular jobs. Anything from clearing out mines to escorting VIPs.
Players would have vast amounts of freedom in making their character, I would allow any and all classes, races, third party material, etc.

Now for the advice...is this feasible? Is there anything I should outright ban or be aware of in terms of balance?

Would people be more interested in 5e or Pathfinder?

Also any advice for running a pathfinder game here on rpol, or just running pathfinder in general?  I've got the basic advice for gming a game on rpol down,  but anything specific to pathfinder?

Then of course is there any interest?

Thanks guys!

Let's break this down. lol

Is it feasible? Absolutely. Just be VERY aware that there is an INSANE amount of material for Mathfinder. I highly suggest limiting available material to a specific selection of source material. The problem with Mathfinder, especially 3PP, is that it really isn't that balanced. Each new series of classes grossly eclipses the previous series. Summoners, c'mon. Unchained...really? Systems like 3.5 and Mathfinder are a munckin's and powergamer's dream come true. There's sooo much potential for crazy broken builds.

Personally, I am far more interested in 5e than Mathfinder. 5e is much simpler, more basic, and it shifts the focus from trying to peck and hunt every little attack and AC bonus back to saying "hey, let's just play. The numbers aren't that important."

I do believe there is still a healthy Mathfinder community here, though it seems like 5e is more popular.

In reply to GammaBear (msg # 2):

Apparently, you have never played Rolemaster if you consider PF math intensive.

In response to the question of which game to run?  Both systems seem to have a huge following here. I personally do not find 5th ed even vaguely interesting after having looked at it (probably for the same reason GammaBear likes it).  I would highly suggest not allowing 3rd party stuff for PF though, it tends to not be very balanced (at the very least I would accept it on a case by case basis).

I would be interested in 5e.

i will leave previous comments alone and just say that this all comes down to how comfortable you are running the game and looking at character sheets in rtj's. i would say absolutely allow all PF including 3PP. some of that stuff can be pretty fun. when you create the game, just tell your players what level of optimization you are looking for.

i can give you two examples.

1) i'm currently running a low optimization, epic level, anything allowed (save epic casting) 3.5 game. i told the players it was low optimization, roughly what damage the warriors were doing in a single round, etc. characters were built with this in mind and it's going great.

2) i briefly took over and ran (till most players disappeared) a very epic gestalt 3.5 game in which anything was allowed. when players were alone, it went great. however, players had created the characters they wanted to play and it was obvious to me that some of them were looking for a much higher powered game than others. the difference in power level made it difficult to put the characters in the same party (which was the goal).

if you want to do an anything allowed PF game, i think it's perfectly feasible. i would suggest you give a summary of what power level you are looking for (i.e. what level of optimization, damage potential, etc, and not just what character level), and then make sure that all the characters in the party are roughly equivalent in power. that way no one will feel useless or left out.

also, be sure to create challenges for each character. if there's a rogue in the party, put something in that will allow him to contribute by being sneaky or flanking. put combat in for the warrior types. puzzles and challenges for the spell casters. by creating different scenarios to allow each character to shine, you also alleviate possible power disparities (not everyone has to be perfect in combat if there are times when they can do their thing and the combat people aren't as good). also don't be afraid to split the group up. if a tactical team has a combat side and a sneaky side for example, it makes sense they would split up to come at a problem from two coordinated angles (team A frontal assault while team B slips in the back).

allowing maximum options for character creation by no means guarantees anyone will try to take it to god mode. there's nothing wrong with doing things on a case by case basis, but i would suggest erring on the side of allowing things. just be up front with your players about your expectations, and if something turns out to be far better or far worse than you thought it would be, discuss it with them and adjust (let them know in the beginning that you will do this if it happens).

i don't know anything about 5e. can't help there.

I'd be interested in both, but I prefer Pathfinder; but 5E is slightly easier as long as you're making your own adventures; or doing lots of adaptions of the created works.

I would second (third?) the idea of no third-party in Pathfinder though. I'd even be tempted to go with just the hardbacks at first.

I know Pathfinder and don't know 5e, so I'm obviously biased towards a PF game.

Would you have it where you put up job advs and then the players put forward which they wish to do, having groups made that way? Or based on what jobs you want to do, you would suggest groups so you get a more cohesive entity?

Ooo... i like the job advertisement idea. if you wanted to, you could do a new advertisement for each new adventure/job. then offer the option to create a new character for the new job. have a running total xp pool for each player so all a player's characters are the same level (obviously they can only play one at a time). if you get a good group of core players, that would be a good way to fill out the guild's membership while also allowing the players to try out different characters if they want to without falling behind the rest of the group.

i should also mention that i might be interested in a PF game, depending on posting rate, when it starts, etc.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:23, Sat 22 Apr 2017.

This sounds interesting to me. I'd definitely give me an outlet for making multiple characters. I'd be purely working from SRD for PF, but that would be preferred for me. I definitely would be interested, even moreso if there's room for some flavor flexibility with magic items

Pathfinder please! And yes I would be interested as well!

While getting everyone on the same page for optimization is a good general practice, a system that essentially requires you to calculate your DPR in order to meaningfully participate seems like a failure of design...

5e is simple and playable, and designed to keep the math from spiralling too far out of control with tottering towers of multipliers and bonuses.  Sure there are the edge case warlock stacking builds, but you don't have to k'nex together a Rube Goldberg machine of feats to stay relevant in a given party.

While I appreciate rewarding system mastery, I feel Pathfinder leans waaaay to far towards rewarding and punishing decisions made during character  generation and advancement.  Actions, strategies, and intelligent decisions made during play will never compensate for your colorful and characterful but behind-the-curve build.

Understandable. My main issue with 5e is a complete lack of access to anything but the core. Unless theres an SRD source out there I'm unaware of?

The major Campaign Paths has a player's guide on Wizards' site, including spells, races, and some other material.

Classes? That is somewhat crucial, after all. ^^; Actually, do you have a link, for the curious? I still like some of Pathfinder's flexibility and options, though. Regardless, the core idea here by OP is interesting, either way.

There's a bit more, but it is all play test material at this point.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles-tags/unearthed-arcana

actually, the OP concept would take care of the problem of needing to pick just the right feats at each level. when one character is in downtime, and the player is playing a second character (assuming the OP goes with this idea), then the character in downtime can be retraining a feat or other decision that was made during level up.

i would have to do a lot of reading to be familiar/comfortable enough with 5e. what i've read so far has not impressed me at all. regardless, i'll take a look at that link.

The flattened mathematics and strict action economy of 5e mean that there is only so much throughput your character can have, especially in combat.  Concentration, spell compartmentalization, and mechanics like Bonus actions and Reactions are designed to keep characters from stacking the dominoes too high.

The game is designed to facilitate focused concepts that don't rely on the alchemical admixture of classes, feats, and mechanics.  This means that the opportunity cost of suboptimal advancement and character building decisions (such as feats, suboptimal Race/class combos, spell choices, etc) have a much lower opportunity cost.  You can stat and play a straight bard with no "tricks" and come out the other end as an effective and meaningful member of the team, which is no mean feat in any D&D game or derivative.  No amount of retraining is going to help your single-class Necromancer make a difference in a party of carefully tuned arcanists and do-all clerics.

Furthermore, the limitations on stacking mechanics lets you much more easily look under the hood.  It is much simpler for a GM to allow a houseruled customization of a class or race, simply because he doesn't have to worry about the seven billion knockoff effects it'll have.  It'd almost be impossible to create accidental Pun-Pun.  The potential for customization and broad concepts are there, but they require dialogue with your GM and a tacit acknowledgement of Rule 0.

And the tone, the writing of the game encourages it.  The Class, Background, and even the Race sections quietly encourage you to tweak, modify, and make the best changes for your character, your players, and your game overall.

Pathfinder might be a box of nuts and bolts and a thousand tools, but the raw material it gives you to work with is like a handul of ball bearings, and it expects you to build a MIG welder out of stuff you find around the house.  D&D 5 gives you a chisel, a lathe, some sandpaper, and a nice, clean piece of hardwood.  And then it tells you not to be ashamed if you need to use a bit of glue now and then.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:38, Sun 23 Apr 2017.

Based on some of what i've seen of the UA, I'd be game to try and pick up 5e if desired... I've done a few things briefly with it last year; including a dragon age setting thing where I played a Rogue as a Dragon Age style bard, and my GM let me use the rogue caster stuff with the bard spell list flavored as magical trinkets she'd collected. It was... pretty neat. Sadly the game didn't last long.

But yeah, I haven't touched 5e in over half a year. But my curiosity is piqued.

So this is a go!

I will be doing pathfinder. I love 5e but I'm going with pathfinder because it has more number crunching and options for players to feel unique. I'll allow third party material on a case by case basis, but anything else goes.

I'm taking a "nothing is broken/overpowered" approach to this. I'm sincerely going to try and figure out a way to handle the different builds, and if a player seems to be "abusing" something I'll find a way to counteract it.

Keep in mind this won't be RAW. If I feel your interpretation of the rules doesn't mesh with how I want things to work then I'll make a ruling.

We won't be starting at level 1. I want to start as low as we can but at a point where people have options and can really get into character. Suggestions?

Yes people can have several characters,  depending on how active and "good" of a player they are.

The jobs will be put on a notice board and anyone can apply, resumes will be reviewed and then applicants selected. How that works will be a secret from players, but the more jobs your character completes the more they will be paid, the more jobs with high risk they'll be accepted for.

I have some other rpol responsibilities to take care of,  but you guys can expect a game up by Wednesday:)

Perhaps you should add people to your game and use the OCC to discuss what level everyone wants to start at?

and be sure to let players know what posting rate you're looking for. that's very important and sometimes overlooked.

Either this game happened, and has already died, or some delay is going on.

If it is still in the works and you are looking for suggestions about what Pathfinder level characters start to really come into a unique position I would say 8-11 is a good target range as you begin to have features from prestige classes available and are not quite yet in the 'only casters matter' level range.

I do however think 5e would have been a better choice as it has quite a bit of easy to use specialized capability and once you get into the 8-12th level range you start to see characters being differentiated by feats as well as class and archetype choice.