|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Well a number of the changes I would like are tied to our house rules.
I would put limitations on utility spells, specifically those that warp economies. Light,Dancing lights, Mending would be boosted in level.
Remove the concept of confirming critical hits.
0 level spells would have a cast limit per day of 4 + the primary caster stat's bonus. So a 17 int wizard can cast 7 0 level spells per day and that's it.
Evocation spells would all increase by 1 die step. They are too weak being stuck doing 2nd edition damage against current day HP. Fireball should be feared at 5th level, not be stuck waiting until it can be stacked with metamagic feats.
Skill points: classes with 2+ int would all increase to 4+ int
I would like to see monks re-designed with something like domains for clerics but based on styles.
I would like to see multi-classing fixed for caster combos, specifically a caster's spells should be cast with the caster level equal to their character level. So a F3/W4 would only have the spells of a 4th level wizard but when cast would go off as if the caster was 7th level.
Undead should be draining XP, not this laughable negative level crap.
Crossbows should be able to have Str ratings like bows.
I would trash and replace both the wealth by level and challenge rating systems. Both have done nothing but enforce a "right way" to play the game.
I would make permanent magic items cost Xp to craft with 3 ways of paying the cost. (without spelling out the fine details) Direct loss by the crafter, slowly draining xp from victims, researching exotic components that substitute in part or wholly the xp cost.
I would like to see prestige classes that actually deserve the name. Difficult to qualify for, Non dip-able (by fiat rule that once selected you cannot level in another class until complete)
I would undo the design philosophy that druids have to sacrifice melee if they want to be good casters and vice-versa.
Well that's enough for now. Honestly it doesn't matter though. We just house rule the game to make it fit our style of play.
Personally my players aren't that interested in crafting.
Potions and scrolls work the same as raw. I'm on the fence about wands, not sure what would be best for them.
Crafting permanent magic items is going to have an Xp cost that is payable in a few different ways.
Ex. Lets take a typical flaming longsword +1. Base price is 4,000 GP
There are 4 ways to pay for the XP cost.
2.) Direct drain from a wiling subject, most likely the person
3.) Siphon Essence: An evil spellcaster can drain XP from an unwilling victim. The victim must be restrained and in the presence of the item to be enchanted. Each hour the victim is subjected to the crafting ritual (the caster must be present and actively working on the item) the victim must make a will save.
The Dc of the will save is 10+ the caster's level + his primary casting ability bonus.
EX. Baphazar the black is a 9th level caster with a 16 int. So the DC is 10+9+3 = 22.
For each point the victim fails the save by he is drained of 50XP which is fed to the item being crafted. A successful save prevents progress and xp drain.
4.) Researching exotic components:
EX. Merklin spends 8 hours in a library, after the first 4 hours he makes a knowledge arcana roll. He rolls an 18.
Once he reaches the total the DM gives him information on a exotic component that if used in the crafting process will pay the XP cost.
Now Merklin can go adventure for said item, purchase it for additional gold or even find it in a treasure hoard.
Ex. you've slain the bandits and find their hoard, along with the usual gold, items, etc.. you find 3 bottles of preserved fire beetle glands. They are worth 600 xp towards crafting a fire based magic item.
I think the easiest way to rationalize it for you, and maintain verisimilitude has already been pointed out.
The Ac bonus increases as the size of the shield goes up not because the shield is more durable or thicker (thought it usually is to a degree), but because it's covering a wider area and harder to get past.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Um yes it is.
You mean it isn't gifting.
And maybe it's just me, But I'm not doing all of this work as a gift to my players. And I seriously doubt that the majority of DM's are as altruistic as you are trying to claim.
I do expect certain things in return for my services as a DM. Particularly attendance, appreciation and respect for the time and effort I am putting into crafting the campaign, not playing something that is going to make unwelcome extra work for me, or insisting on playing a class or race that is going to break the verisimilitude of the campaign world. I don't think that's is too much to ask.
Because the GM is doing all the work. The player just has to show up and enjoy it.
If I bake a cherry pie(adventure) and invite you to have a piece. All you have to do is show up with a spoon(character) to enjoy it.
It is DAMN RUDE to show up and complain that the pie isn't apple, or that you brought a fork and are having a hard time eating said FREE pie.
Hmm, I suppose this is a pitfall. Most players will not understand or appreciate the amount of work required to be the GM of a game until they try to run a game themselves.
As for what it takes to make a good GM. There are books written on the subject. It's too complex to answer in just a forum post. It comes down to which style of play you are leaning towards.
You know it's interesting but it's only in the last few years that I've started to see this more and more.
It's the Dm, sitting there and doing the vast majority of the work, crafting a story, shaping encounters, planning out treasure. etc. and having the players look at the DM and asking "what's my motivation".
We call it role playing yourself out of the group. You the player have come up with this elaborate back story that really in no way makes sense for your PC to become an adventurer or associate with the other adventurers. He would be more content raising sheep. And somehow it's the DM's fault for not accommodating you.
Or a player asking why his character would want to continue adventuring with the group.
As a DM this is fustrating. You (the player) have come up with this logical reason why your character shouldn't stick around. Rather then expending that energy coming up with a reason why you should.
I read everything you wrote.. And essentially you're dumping a lot of extra work on the DM if he wants to maintain verisimilitude.
And let me get this straight.. if another player spends a night drinking with you he basically gets a draw from a walking deck of many things. And if he doesn't like the card he pulled he has to spend 48 hours not adventuring with the rest of the group? You don't see something wrong with that? Or the fact that your character is basically a walking artifact?
Also you refer to a "main character",
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Come on now, this is just silly talk.If the wizard wants to cast mage armor and start flailing about with his staff then let him.
It's the same as the fighter trying to use Use Magic Device and zap stuff with a wand.
Again this mentality that this class must do this and that class must do that is not what this game is about. That line of thinking comes from computer games, not the historical rules of DnD that fostered your imagination.
DnD is not supposed to be a set of rules that regimented what you had to do, or how you had to play if you wrote down a specific class on your character sheet. THAT mentality is what brought us the obnoxiousness of roles, like striker, controller, tank, etc.
Now the concept of limiting magic items that replicate spell casting (scrolls and wands) isn't that terrible on paper. But I think it is already controlled by the DM well enough, simply by how much treasure you hand out. Scrolls and Wands are very expensive once you start getting into higher level spells. A 9th level character with a wand of fireballs (9th level-9d6) has 1/4 his entire wealth (if you are militant about the WBL tables-which I am not)invested in that wand. And when it's depleted it's gone! For the same price the melee can have a weapon with +3 worth of bonuses and it never runs out.
I don't see the problem here.
Yes you have a point. The problem is that, as with most things, those that scream the loudest and most often (no matter how much of a minority) have a tendency to be the ones that get heard. And are the ones developers wind up listening to. And therefor the ones that wind up getting the rules shaped they way they want.So unfortunately if you don't like something you have to raise your voice and make a fuss, even if it's obvious to the majority that the rules should be written one way. If they just assume it will, the minority crying for change will be the ones that get their way. And then you wake up one day and realize... where did my game go? This isn't what we wanted.
yeah but if you read it closely, no offense intended, he doesn't care if it does. He's going to do what he thinks is best and those groups are out of luck.
Look... this post is a rant. I realize that. You've been warned.
This article here
I am sick and tired of these developers telling me that for the past 20 years I have been doing it wrong, not been having fun and that they know better then all of the developers that came before them. That only the players who played wizards at my table had fun in my games and that fighters and rogues cried themselves to sleep at night over the injustice of it all.
I am sick to death of this fighter fan base that was beat up by a wizard in kindergarten and has dedicated their life to getting revenge by nerfing(to use an mmo phrase) wizards into the ground.
It annoys me to no end that this mentality has crept into pathfinder (by the way blasting spells have suffered) to some extent and is proselytized on the boards here almost daily.
I'm tired of it. It's called resource management. Wizards spells are the most powerful in the game and should do more damage then melee attacks because they are limited in resource. Letting your players get away with 15 minute adventuring days so the melee characters never shine means you're doing it wrong as a DM NOT that the system is flawed.
But it's this mentality that has led to 4th level archers in pathfinder doing 30+ points of damage per round, every round, all day while a 4th level wizard is lucky if he can pull off a 15 point damage spell 2 or 3 times the entire day.
This entire article is nothing but a massive nerf to wizards.
Reduced number of spell slots.. spells don't scale with level..BUT hey you can cast cantrips all day!!
Haste is for fighters.. anyone else with a haste spell shouldn't get as many attacks as an unbuffed fighter... WTH... why does this sounds like SUMMMON FIGHTER I-IX should be the most powerful spell in the game?
The article has more examples of this.. grease to help the rogue. web to entangle the villain's horse but not the villain himself. Heaven forbid the wizard actually do something to win the encounter. That's everyone else's job. You should be happy we let you cast light. Not that it was necessary. The fighter just used a power and can see in the dark now silly wizard.
I grow weary of this. Leave the wizard alone or they aren't going to be worthy of the name for much longer!
I don't get it. Why are you concerned your players are dumping stats, or min maxing?
Don't forget the posting poles around town. You can post extra jobs on them for the party to gain trust. As well as Xp if you have a larger party that might need it to maintain levels.
I do not find the alignment system to be arbitrary or artificial.
By historical definition Good is the hard path requiring constant vigilance. Evil is the easy path of unfettered self indulgence and damn the consequences. People fail sometimes at staying on the good path, but no one likes to admit it when it happens. So it's not their fault. It must be a fault in the alignment system that's pointing the contradiction out.
I'm sorry this is ridiculous, I'm calling the OP a troll.
This statement just proves my point. Claiming that Monks, Rogues and Paladin are somehow lesser classes is bunk.Either the players of these classes don't know what they are doing or your DM is failing at crafting an appropriate adventure.
The OP voiced his feelings and I have to say I agree with a lot of it.
I have found asking what previous characters they have played can be a good tell.
This is so wrong on so many levels. It is exactly the type of mentality that does not need to be applied to the game. This is a group play game. It's not about me me me.
For me, the main issue with Golarion is how tightly packed together the nations are. There isn't enough wilderness, uncharted land, for a DM to make their own stuff. Or for players to found their own kingdom. If you try to maintain verisimilitude.
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
and makes combat take 5 times as long as everyone suddenly has multiple actions in a single round. no thanks.
No, I've no interest in cookie cutter characters. A Cleric that rolls well will be played differently then one that rolls poor for HP. I see no reason to remove anything that promotes differences from character to character. Homogenization is something 4e embraced. Frankly I find it anathema.
I don't see the need to change this. It offers no benefit, it's just different then what's been done.
I don't find the current list to be cumbersome. If someone is trying to hit you with a pointy object don't stand there and try to ignore them.
I could see this as an archetype for Fighter or Paladin
seriously? Pathfinder is too technical for you? I will say this, I find it frustrating having to look up status effects in the back of the book instead of having them in the spell or monster description. That could definitely use some improvement in pathfinder. But that's a format/layour issue rather then a technical rules set issue.
100 time No
meh, It just bogs things down as written in 4th. To me some sort of penalty, as an optional rule, when your hp drop to a certain % would be more appealing. But not necessary. The idea that you get a special free attack when reduced by a % doesn't sit well. It comes across as rule enforced dramatization instead of role played.
I've no formed opinion on this.