Pathfinder 1E Can you Pathfinderize Wheel of Time d20?

[fireinthedust]

So I have the old Wheel of Time d20 book. It's in mint condition (well, carefully opened by me), never been played, beautiful art.


Thing is, I don't know that it works on its own. Very 3e, right? So I'm wondering whether it could be "pathfinderized" a bit to tie up loose ends.

Pro: classes like Armsman look less like Warrior and instead use Fighter; and I can sub in particular monsters for the Trollocs and Darkspawn; and add class levels to make Trolloc leaders more interesting (barbarian, etc.).

Con: there's an internal math that I don't understand, for the PrCs and the charm of using "wanderer" rather than a straight Rogue (which could be over the top cartoony by comparison), and that misses the point. Bard isn't a good sub in for Gleeman, for example, due to spells and powers the Bard has that aren't in WoT.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think it would be a pretty massive undertaking, because the books aren't just very 3E, they're very early 3E - lots of dead levels, really poor balancing between classes, etc.

I've always liked the idea of the channeling system, however, and as you point out, making the armsman a PF fighter is a quick, painless upgrade.

Good luck with this, if you decide to take it on.

 

[fireinthedust]

books? You mean the adventures? I'll need to check those out.

I don't see myself doing anything huge. Sort of a cut & paste, likely.

For the most part the Woodsman could work as a fighter/ranger, no spells.

The Gleeman could do with some bardic melodies, perhaps, but things like countering song-based magic... just. won't. come. up. in WoT.

Armsman = PF fighter, I guess.

Really the trick is keeping things... either Aes Sedai or else non-magical, sort of. Most people are normal folks, some of whom have talents that are outside their classes.


But yeah, really early 3e. How to fill in empty levels is more the issue. PFrpg isn't a balanced game.

 

[Kaisoku]

There are two big things that will need to be converted over: classes and channeling.

Classes
There are a number of hurdles to Pathfinderizing.
- First of all, they are designed with a heavy use of "half saves" (+1 to +9). Not a bad idea, as long as everything that targets saves didn't assume high saves. Enemies have low saves too, and channeling might not be overpowered as well, but if you use anything Pathfinder (diseases, poisons, etc) you now have to take this into account. Better to have higher saves.
- The game used a Defense Bonus. This was essentially a dodge bonus that didn't really stack with armor, kind of an odd attempt to fit in "higher levels = better defending" that ends up making all high level people dumping armor. It'd be a great way to introduce armor-as-DR, but they didn't do it.
- Dead Levels: MASSIVE amount of dead levels (some have no magic and 4-5 levels of nothing). Some classes would basically need to be completely rewritten or replaced if you want to follow the Pathfinder standard.
- A reputation system (favors, infamy, etc) was intrinsic to the game, so everyone has reputation scores and some have class abilities based on this system. You'd have to make sure this system is pathfinderized too.

Channeling
The problem I found with channeling was that it was trying to shoehorn a freeform magic idea into a vancian slot system. They did pretty well with having varying effects based on the slot used, but overchanneling was kind of awkward in my experience.
Also, the pathinder "unlimited cantrips" was something that actually feels closer to the way channeling one power worked. Doing small things all day long, but higher level stuff "wore you out longer".

Honestly though, the psionics system felt MUCH closer to how channeling worked in the books. I'd almost look at converting the system over to that instead.


I'd be interested in doing something with this, but the only problem is putting it up somewhere online could amount to "publishing" (even if it was fanwork), so I'm not sure on the legality of making such a conversion.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I get the impression that most of the non-casters are represented either as fighters or rogues, with the occasional barbarian and monk thrown in for taste, with custom prestige classes and feat chains to aid in differentiation.

For channelers, I agree with Kaisoku, that really cries out for some variant power point system. Honestly, with more power points, 4e psionics is just about ideal.

Brad

 

[fireinthedust]

The big issue, as I see it, is that the d20 game did a fair enough job of simulating the books rather than creating a modern (10+ years now, give or take) game system like Pathfinder.

Part of me wishes 3e had more SWSE talents in it, but oh well. A fantasy version of that system would cover so many bases for WoT!


My issue with Pathfinder for this project is that PF has more special effects built into the system for standard characters than WoT has or needs. Most characters in the books are rogues or fighters (or aristocrats/commoners, etc.; and the Woodsman is a sort of spell-less fighter/ranger; I could see adapting the Barbarian as a Borderlands warrior; no idea who the monk would be), or else they're Channelers.


Defense: yeah, I guess. It's not a heavy armor setting. And the higher level armsmen add their AC to their Defense bonus. Sure, DR could have fit in, but would it have been in with WoT?
It is food for thought, though. Given the lack of buff spells for all, the setting does need that help. I think low saves might also be a feature, but I'll need to look at that again.


Maybe the trick is converting Pathfinder aspects into it rather than just porting over the Channeling system? Like, making the Armsman a fighter with the defense and reputation bonuses; ditto the Wanderer and Rogue.


I like the Channeling so far. It does work (though I can see 0-level channeling ad infinitum working; I'll need to re-read the books before I can comment), I think.
It's not Vancian, though, not at all. They are all sorcerers, who can pick up virtually unlimited numbers of weaves/spells. They can use higher-level slots for lover level spells, and cast all spells on the fly. That's not vancian (though according to Joseph Goodman, neither is D&D; not Jack Vance entirely, at least, but a mix of him and of another group; check out the design blogs for the DCCrpg).

Should the Channeler get anything additional, the way the Wizard did? I don't think so, as they seem to have enough power right now (overchanneling, on-the-fly & variety, etc.).


Has anyone actually *played* the system?

 

[Kaisoku]

I played it a bit.

I had started with the given adventure, and then had a horror session with different characters.

The channeling felt awkward on one hand, and show stealing on the other.

Probably the best way to handle it is to tell players to completely ignore the idea that they are anything like the main characters from the book. And emphasize that 1st level Initiates and Wilders should feel like women who've "just" learned to channel (because it feels like they do so little compared to in the books), and 1st level non-channelers can be experienced warriors.

There were things I felt missing even back in the early years, and I wrote up a number of tweaks for channeling, and giving people access to "mental focus" stuff (I recall Lan talking to Rand about the void and flame, and that ends up being how he accesses the one power.. so it's something a lot of warriors do).

There simply were a few too many things that felt like they didn't jive with the books. You have to remember, the series is only ending now (I think the 2nd last book was just out).. so the rules were written when the entire concept hadn't been released. A lot of the nitty gritty on high level Channeling ability wasn't out yet, because most of the Forsaken and the info from the past wasn't written when the rules were published.
I recall playing the game and feeling a number of things felt like they were based on preconceptions about the One Power that didn't jive with what the later books implied.

I'll see if I can find the info I had written a while back on this... might be helpful.

*Edit*
Oh,and the "vancian" mention was just referring to the spell slot system. It works okay like that, after a fashion. I think Monte Cook had a spell system that worked very similarly (spells had varying effects for a range of slot levels).

 

[fireinthedust]

cool!


I re-read the book looking for item bonuses, and there are none that I can find. It's all mundane equipment all the way through, thus the Defence bonuses. Even at high levels AC is going to come out to about 24-26, I'm thinking. For Armsmen that means +8 for class, +8 for full plate, so 26 at 20th level, basically (unless I missed something; maybe somehow allowing higher max Dex). Other classes, like the Aiel, have about +13, can add Dex, and maybe +2 for leather armor, so we're looking at 28 maybe? Compared to attack bonus (still Str + bab + feats) they're not going to be avoiding a lot of hits at high level.

It's not bad from an RP point of view, especially if Trollocs aren't levelled or templated (sort of a Star Wars mob of low level troopers vs. high level Jedi). Occasionally lethal foes compared to superior heroes, basically. Not a scaling dungeon experience.

 

[fireinthedust]

also: it was approved by Robert Jordan, who wrote an introduction that I like as GM advice. Maybe he wanted it to do certain things system-wise?

 

[Kaisoku]

Having a decade of 3e experience behind me now, I'm looking at the book again and it really looks like they wanted to emulate some kind of "low powered" gameplay.

Most abilities for non Channelers kick in before 7th or 8th level. Everything higher seems to be just slightly scaling stuff. The Algai'd'siswai gets nothing but +4 more initiative over the last 8 remaining levels, for example.

Channelers get more weaves that just keep increasing in power (and more feats really too.. the Initiate gets a ton in comparison).

I think that's how they made it so the mundane still feel mundane next to the Channelers. It goes against every "balance" or "fairplay" grain we currently call for today.

While that emulates the books very well (Channelers really stole the show), it would be pretty tough to emulate that in Pathfinder d20, without going against a lot of the principles of Pathfinder's changes.


Volaran and I were talking about it, and we've come to the conclusion that a Wheel of Time game would probably fit the best as an E6 game, with the channeling continuing with feats after 6th level, etc.
It keeps the mundane much more mundane, without having to spread a bunch of bonuses across 20 levels.