Scentfinder: a manifesto

I - Where A Path Is Lost & Found

My rational brain insists indulging in these thoughts is a waste of time. However, these brainworms I call "thoughts" have been gnawing at the back of my mind through each houserule, each custom-made creature, each ruling & each hacking I have made in my weekly game for so long I have to excise them, lest they fully devour my mind.

 

I've been playing Pathfinder 2nd Edition (abridged as "PF2") for 3 years, on a weekly basis, in a total of 5 campaigns, 2 of wich I was game master in -- still am for one of them. I kind of wish I wasn't.

Quick reminders:

- Pathfinder's first edition (PF1) started as a clone of D&D 3.5. It features a diverse, high fantasy world, intricate, bellicose gameplay, & sprawling, bloated character customisation options. (All of which can be a whole lot of fun, depending on one's mood & tolerance for wild imbalance)

- PF2 was an endeavour by Paizo (Pathfinder's publisher) to make what feels like a whole other game: it kept its predecessor's principles of humongous heaps of character customisation options and rules-heavy gameplay, but thoroughly streamlined the game's systems through very tight math, ensuring gameplay that's very reliably both challenging & balanced -- something that PF1 notoriously failed at, & is rare enough in the post-3.5 D&D tradition to be not only mentioned, but even lauded.

- PF2, in brief, will appeal to those approaching RPGs as fair, coherent & elegant combat games, to players avid of customisation, & to game masters who like the idea of knowing they can rely on the game as there are balanced --if sometimes unwieldy-- rules for everything & lots of pre-existing content. (It will also appeal to fans of Wayne Reynold's style of illustrations, but I digress.)

PF2 is a bit of a weird game, though; not in itself, but because of what it represents to me. The game feels both audacious & conservative. It has great, novel ideas that seem almost too clever & inventive for a bellicose blockbuster RPG of the D&D tradition. But it also refuses to kill a few sacred cows in a manner that makes me think the game didn't dare to go as far as it could in reinventing itself. The problem, or rather my problem is that I like the direction the game took, much more than PF1, so it stays caught between 2 stools in my eyes.

I want Pathfinder to go all the way. And since I know deep down that an eventual 3rd edition will neither satisfy my immediate fad, nor ever go as far as I want to go, I'm going to do it it myself. I'll hack this game to pieces, make it an unrecognizable, streamlined mess, and have the audacity of calling it "PF2-but-better", or "PF2-without-PF1", or as it currently goes by in my head: Scentfinder.

 

II - Where The Sacred Cows Go To Die

So, what do I like? What do I want to keep, to lean into? And what do I want to leave out? Before even going into specifics, I want to lay out the things that interest me in the system & that I'll twist into something more personally pleasing.

As a design goal, this hack should not stray from my personal ideal of PF2's design. I can simply go & play other games, so I'll have to be very careful about preserving the essence of PF2 as i see it through these changes lest the game is reduced to a mere homebrew system, which is not what I'm trying to make.

I should not skew towards neither simulationism nor narrativism, I should not make it less of a fair combat game, &  I should make it even more of a transparent & modular one.

The core mechanic

The heart of PF2 lies, I think, in 2 components of its core mechanic. First, the fact that the degree of success is directly tied to the final result of a roll (as written, rolling over DC+9 is a critical hit, & rolling under DC-9 is a critical failure). Second, that the values are artifically streamlined as to give similar chances of success at all levels (the game levels up along the players, in a way that makes masters shine bright, but not that much brighter than merely basically proficient allies).

This last point is contentious: the system gives an illusion of vertical growth where it in fact both demands & nearly guarantees its consistency. With its bloated numbers & its roll-over-difficulty logic, it only looks like other iterations on 3.5's legacy, but doesn't its much more controlled & consistent inner workings remind you of anything else? I want to keep this functionning of similar chances of success through the whole character progression with small improvements in actual effectiveness: in effect, I want to make this a roll-under-stat system, valuing horizontal progression more than anything.

Additionally, crits must stay both accessible & impactful.

3 actions per turn

Keeping the 3-action system is a no-brainer. 'Tis one of the most distinctive things about the system, & to do without it would make this whole "Scentfinder" endeavour pointless. 

The reactions are something I'd like to fiddle with though. I love the restricted-use bonus reactions some classes get, and I'd like to make it a more important part of the game (keeping players invested between their turns with back-&-forth dynamics), although I don't know yet if NPCs should get a similar treatment (I'd be very cautious about it, let's not overwhelm the GM).

Activities & traits

Trying to predict every possible move of the players, the system has a wide set of pre-determined, specific named actions or "activities", spelled-out in the rules & ready to use by the PCs, & they can unlock more through customisation choices (a bit like, now that I think about it, PbtA-style "Moves"). 

I like this, but as I aim to make this hack lighter on rules-text, I wonder if I could either reduce their number through making each activity more flexible, or simply do away with them. For the latter to be even possible though, there would need to be some very tight structure in place, so I'm not betting on it.

Furthermore, I love traits as "small, one-word bundles of rules applied to any game element to characterise it", & I hope I can do something with those that are truly useful.

Spellcasting

Oh, spellcasting sure is something. The first thing that made me want to play PF2 was the idea that spells would not all take the same number of actions, that they would generally cost as many actions as they'd have components & that some would even have several variants depending on the number of actions used to cast them.

Disappointingly, most (combat-oriented) spells in PF2 as written cost 2 actions & have only one version -- modular spells exist, and they're some of the most interesting in the game, but they're rare. The much more extensively utilised mechanic of heightening spells is however an interesting way of powering them up: spells often specify that they can be made more powerful when cast with a higher level spell-slot. Which lead me to... vancian spellcasting.

Archaic, unwieldy, book-keeping-intensive vancian spellcasting is indeed PF2's main magic-system, while other, dare-I-say better forms of magic management are also present in the game. Wile vancian spellcasting in itself is fine enough & can be thematically appropriate (for some settings & classes), it is my conviction that it is a thoughtless holdover from PF1, unfit for a game of "heroic fantasy", & a crutch to give artificialy staggering amounts of choice to spellcasters. It goes without saying that I'll try to either completely do away with it, or remake it into something more manageable: my hope is to arrive to less book-keeping, the same strategic depth, & more class identity & player expression.

However, I like the 4 magic traditions as a way to support large amounts of customisation choices (much, much more manageable than individual caster spell-lists), I find focus spells marvellous, and PF2's staves are a very interesting way of interacting with the limitations of vancian spellcasting, so I hope I can salvage them even if I completely scrap the rest.

Progression

What are the chances of success of rolls in PF2 as written, & how do they evolve?

• Values below don't take into account items, status effects or circumstance modifiers, which can affect chances of success by 0 to 15% each (up to 20% for items because of Apex). Natural critical results of 20 or 1 on the die are likewise ignored.
• At level 1, a character's best skill has on average 65% chances of success. Their worst possible trained skill (trained with a -1 attribute modifier) has 35%.
• At level 10, a character's best skill has 75% chances of success, their worst possible trained skill 20%.
• At level 20, a character's best skill has 75% chances of success, their worst possible trained skill 10%.
• The difference between a character's best skills & their barely proficient skills ranges at most from 30% to 65% .
• As written, a character's untrained skills are generally useless and I did not consider them here. Either they'll play a greater role in this hack than in PF2, or I'll make the choice to simply forbid attempting them & rework "follow the expert" rules to make it all about the expert guiding their group.

We can see that throughout the whole progression, chances of success barely vary without items, statuses or circumstance modifiers. To me this distinguishes the 2 real ways of progressing in PF2:

• Increasing the efficiency & availability of items, status effects & guaranteed circumstance bonuses.
• Obtaining abilities allowing more efficient or varied play; or as I like to call it, horizontal growth.

I want to intensify this horizontal progression and flatten the game's progress, straying away from levels entirely if need be (although keeping them could be a good way of indicating how many feats one character has, much as it is already).

Furthermore, we can see that improving skills in PF2 does not mathematically makes them better. 'Tis only preventing increasing loss of relevance in face of level-appropriate challenges. This is not something I'm very interested in replicating (it feels really bad now that I've realised it), and I am likely to simply have characters never changing their base stat distribution, only gaining abilities allowing more versatility or specialised efficiency. 

Skills & skill feats

I plan to fuse skill improvements & skill feats together. At creation, characters will have determined their stats & they won't change. What will change is that players are going to chose skill feats, or their more refined equivalent. I currently plan on giving 4 "slots" to each skill (replicating PF2's 4 stages of proficiency), into which feats chosen by a player will be assigned. These feats will either give new uses to the skill (ala "Lie To Me"), passive abilities (ala "Catfall"), or a guaranteed circumstance bonus in specific situations (ala "Intimidating Prowess"). These skill feats could get better as the concerned skill has more feats alloted to it, or be locked behind having some prerequisite number of them already. Yay, balance, yay, satisfying progression.

Lore will be replaced by guaranteed circumstance bonuses on appropriate Recall Knowledge checks. 6 different skills for knowledge, analysis & craft is already good enough, I wager.

General feats are a weird thing, but enough of them are interesting that I want to find a place for them. I'll try.

Damage & HP values

Oh they'll shrink, you'd better believe it. I never played high-level Pathfinder on a real table (most of my games are run on a VTT), but there is no way I'm going to put up with rolling fistfuls of 17 d6s & adding them all up myself. Since the system is going to be roll-under and do away with artifical inflation of numbers, damage values do not need to evolve much either, especially since PF2's fights last about as many rounds at level 1 than at level 20, so gamefeel will be preserved.

I'd like to keep rolling damage, as it can open the way to fun mechanics I'm partial to: variations on roll-&-keep, die-size modifications, matching dice shenanigans... I want to limit the number of dice, though, as well as simplify weaknesses & resistances.

Attack rolls & armour

I admit I don't know what to to with them. I'm considering a few ideas. 

First, obviously, reproduce the system as written, & treat attack stats as a sort of separate skill. Why not, but it is not very exciting. Although they could then benefit from class feats in a manner similar to my skill feats rework, so it wouldn't be such a lost cause...

Another option is to have attacks be made through saves or skills. Here is a pandora box full of exciting design ideas that feel like they could iredeemably change the essence of the game. 

Especially as I'm considering dropping AC & fusing it with Reflexes. They often already benefit from the same bonuses anyway. What's making me hesitant is that armoured classes -- like Champion--  are not really supposed to be quick & mobile as one assumes a high-Reflex character to be, but I could make armour into more of a damage-reduction thing.

Conditions & modifiers

PF2's conditions are fine enough already, but I feel even they could be streamlined further. Status bonus or maluses could be fused with conditions, which could even be mirrored (each status bonus having its opposite penalty). 

"Frightened" is broken, though, and will have to change, probably to interact with "flat-footed".

Character creation, ancestries & stats

I'm torn on what to do here.  I feel like the high fantasy conceit of  being able to embody an ancestry and having it influence your abilities somehow is essential to Pathfinder, however, Paizo created such a plethora of ancestries & heritages -- some of them very obscure & specific to the Golarion world (on which I do not want to rely) -- that I do not plan to merely recreate the whole array. I'll probably make a way of creating an implied species through bonus feats, obtention of unique unarmed attacks, special senses, innate spellcasting... this kind of stuff. It remains to be seen if I keep ancestry feats, as they feel kinda weird to me (they feel like they should only be obtained through growing up or cultural osmosis, not leveling up) & I admit I care little for them. I'll try to throw a bone to players who do like them, though.

As to the stats... apart from throwing the pointless "value / modifier" distinction away (another needlessly convoluted vestige from previous games), I'm not sure of how I want ot handle them yet. I've considered removing them, but it seems extreme at the moment. I like systems with fewer core stats, especially since the game has more than enough skill diversity to support meaningful differentiation. I am drawn to the idea of using the three saves as the three stats, but I recognize using them as both saves & bases for skill proficiency bonuses would make saves harder than skill checks, which is not a component of PF2 as written.
I'll see if can make any of these ideas work.

Classes & progression

Classes might not need to change much. I'll try to get at their essence and to keep what makes them feel like themselves. Each will probably get its own dedicated post.

Items & consumables

Items asking for a save will always use a player's class DC or its equivalent. You're welcome.

I think simplifying crafting of consumables to the extreme & making it a daily resource would be both fun & get players to have a healthy relationship with them. Aside from the various crafting classes & archetypes, skill feats too could allow such thematic abilities. I'm actually considering replacing archetypes by skill feats (or general feats).

Weapons

If something is a mess in PF2, 'tis the weapons. The weapon selection is a plethora of ideas, which I find range from the good ("agile", "fatal", "trip"), to the baffling ("backstabber"), to the actually insane (who ever wanted to keep track of whatever "forceful" or "sweep" do?). 

Weapons will be streamlined, traits will be refined (by which I mean most of them will be culled), & a clear, accessible tool will be given to players to design their own weapons. No more endless tables to choose from & clearer customisation options are the goal.

The economy

I'm conscious my experience isn't universal, but few things are as handwaved in PF2 games I've ran or played in as the economy (sometimes for in-universe reasons, but often because tracking fictional benefits & expenses isn't the most exciting thing in an epic combat game).

The game bases its economy on the level system, gating the obtention of more powerful items behind a level destined to indicate when players are supposed to get them, or rather, with what level's values it is intended to compete. Prices, then, do not really reflect any credible economy, rather, they're another way of ensuring players never get their hands on something too powerful through ridiculously inflating prices only looters (wealthy through adventure) or workers (wealthy through earning income) of the appropriate level are able to afford. I respect PF2's attempt, I hate the result, as it both hurts belivability & forces GMs to heap loads of cash & loot onto the players to keep them at the level of efficiency the game expects them to be anyway.

Thanks to my flattening of the game, though, this will not be needed, and price-ranges will flatten too. Item levels will be replaced by crafting or obtention difficulty, which will be reflected in their prices. No more five different version of the same item. Not to say players won't be able to get high quality gear, but it shouldn't be a race to keep up with ever-increasing number requirements.

Exploration & travel

I might be an idiot, but having the same set of codified activities for exploration on the scale of minute to minute, hour to hour, & day to day always sat weird with me. Thus, I'll introduce a very OSR-like structure of slightly abstract, distinct exploration turns (about 10 minutes) & travel turns (1 to 6 hours).

Mobility & tabletop

I've only played PF2 on a virtual tabletop (VTT), making heavy use of their accessible & satisfying grid-based mesuring tool. However my in-person games have always entirely been "theatre of the mind", & I am not vey enthusiastic about playing with miniatures on a real tabletop; seems more of a hassle than what I believe it is worth.

However, precise positioning in combat is something I love PF2 for. I am tempted to rework the positioning as to make it abstract & theatre-of-the-mind-friendly, but it would be work I don't think takes priority in this hack. So, for now, I'll assume people will manage with distances & positioning as they always have in similar, mesurement heavy games. If I get to designing this abstract positioning system, though, I plan to take inspiration from The One Ring's second edition & the Darkest Dungeon games.

 

III - Where doubt comes in

I admit, nay, I fear this might very well be wasting time on a personal project that won't ever be as good as fully-fledged games of similar make. Lancer or Gubat Banwa are already the combat games I look for. Blackbirds is already in many ways the refined, streamlined, roll-under system I'm setting out to carve out of PF2. 

But PF2 is the only game of the D&D style I know that I feel like it could be so good in this particular strategic-combat-heavy, streamlined way. Consider this hack an experiment & a love letter to what I appreciate most about PF2 & to the kind of games I want to use it for.

And, with luck, my players will humour me & accept to play it with me; or, even better, other TTRPG gamers will see this & know it as their jam. And I couldn't be happier if this comes to pass some day.

To be continued, in various posts where my ideas will be discussed in more detail.