|
Presuming at some point there will be a major revision (but hopefully not a new edition...) which classes would best be served by another pass of "Pathfinderization"*
*(Pathfinderization being defined as doing a lessons learned on the existing class and tweaking where needed, as they did from 3.5 to Pathfinder.)
My opinion, feel free to add your own. They are like certain orafices, everyone has them and they are all full of...stuff...
Core.
1. Barbarian is good. It matches flavor to mechanics, and remains effective in it's role throughout. Only complaint is it needs non-core to do so, but that is nit-picking.
2. Bard is great. Well balanced, fits a role, beloved by those who love bards. No change needed.
3. Cleric is good, perhaps adding a more "preist" like spell caster option, but that is complaining around the edges.
4. Druid is very good, the polymorph fix worked, well done.
5. Fighter is ok, but could use some more high level options/abilities. But it basically serves it's role.
6. Monk needs a way to increase unarmed attack bonus. That is it. Period. Full stop. Do that, monk is fine.
7. Paladin is great, bad ass when they are supposed to be, without being overpowering at other times. Good class, leave it alone.
8. Ranger is damn near perfect.
9. Rogue needs a boost. The shrinking number of skills and the change to the trap and lockpicking have made the "skill" class role less critical. Letting them sneak attack more things helps, but they need a little more to keep up.
10. Sorcerer is fine, although I think metamagics need a major overhaul, and spell clarification would be helpful with some of the more abusable options. I get GM deference, but adding a "high risk" component to spells working in exceptional ways may allow story to proceed while still giving GM's way to balance cheese casters.
11. See above about sorcerers.
APG
1. Alchemist is...ok. It could use some tweeking, as the flavor can't seem to decide between mad bomber and mad scientist. I would be ok with a major overhaul of the "bomb" stuff to make it more standard spell casting actually. It feels tacked on and at times kind of silly. A 3/4 caster with 3/4 attack doesn't need ranged sneak attack, so replace it with something that better fits the class and make the mad bomber an archetype. It isn't "Bad" but it could be better.
2. Cavalier is good at being a Cavalier. The fact people don't want to be Cavaliers because horses don't fit in dungeons is beside the point. It does what it is supposed to do, and fills the role it is supposed to fill. If that role doesn't fit in your campaign, that is a separate issue. No changes needed.
3. The inquisitor is mind-blowingly well made. Don't change a thing. I honestly think it is the class all other classes should be judged against, it's that well balanced.
4. The Oracle is fine, it does what it is supposed to do and does it well. I wish there were another pathfinder spontaneous divine caster option that didn't require curses (and the benefits of them) like favored soul, but I can also just port over favored soul.
5. The summoner is an amazing idea that I can't figure out how to execute, in the same way Words of Power are an awesome idea that just doesn't quite work. I don't want to be to critical of it, because I can't think of a better way to do it, and it is a great idea, but I also don't think it works currently.
6. The witch needs some small tweaks of the hexes, and the fluff could use work (feeding them scrolls...come on, you can do better...) but only tweeks.
Others
1. Samurai...dude...I get linking it to Cavalier, but let them trade the horse for an awesome sword like the paladin. That is the Samurai we want, give it to us. Being married to archetype ruined them.
2. Ninja...again, the ninja being tied to the rogue ruined both the ninja AND the rogue (since the ninja is clearly better than the rogue at being a rogue). Base the ninja off the ranger, with light armor instead of medium and ninja powers as the 4 levels of spell casting. I know this means losing sneak attack, but that is rogue iconic anyway.
3. My love for the concept of the gunslinger is only slightly outweighed by my dislike of the pathfinder gunslinger. Why does the gunslinger need martial proficiency? What the hell is this grit mechanic that overcomplicates a concept that is a person who shoots people with guns. And why are all guns touch attack for everyone? I've got an Eldrich Knight Gunslinger in the party torching everything, because who cares about those 1/2 caster levels when you are against touch AC. Hell, why make it a full BaB class if it hits against touch AC? The whole thing needs to go back to the drawing board and start over.
Thoughts? This isn't a "The Devs suck" thread. Quite the contrary, this is a "Hey, you did great with the last lessons learned, lets run it through the machine again and see how much better they can make it."
Presuming at some point there will be a major revision (but hopefully not a new edition...)
I hate to argue semantics, but a revision on the scale you are talking about would be a new edition. It wouldn't be any different than when D&D went from 3.0 to 3.5. It required the purchase of entirely new rule books, because so many things had changed. Calling it Pathfinder 1.5 doesn't take away the fact that it would be a new edition creating the need for current players to either decide to play 1.0 or 1.5. I for one hope that no "tweaking," other than errata with new printings, happens with Pathfinder for quite some time. If, in ten years, the developers want to look at a complete overhaul and call it PF 2.0, so be it, but then, at least, my groups get to decide whether we want to stick with what we've been doing for ten years, or look at the new and fantastic changes Paizo has come up with.
|
|
Presuming at some point there will be a major revision (but hopefully not a new edition...)I hate to argue semantics, but a revision on the scale you are talking about would be a new edition. It wouldn't be any different than when D&D went from 3.0 to 3.5. It required the purchase of entirely new rule books, because so many things had changed. Calling it Pathfinder 1.5 doesn't take away the fact that it would be a new edition creating the need for current players to either decide to play 1.0 or 1.5. I for one hope that no "tweaking," other than errata with new printings, happens with Pathfinder for quite some time. If, in ten years, the developers want to look at a complete overhaul and call it PF 2.0, so be it, but then, at least, my groups get to decide whether we want to stick with what we've been doing for ten years, or look at the new and fantastic changes Paizo has come up with.
If I'm not wrong, 3.5 came in less time after the release of 3.0 than has passed since Pathfinder was released.
And you could still use your 3.0 material with 3.5 material with minimal conversion. Unlike full edition changed. Similar in fact, to converting from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
Pathfinder is to me 3.75 for all intents and purposes. I'm ready for 3.85.
|
Prestige classes:
- Revamp the core prestige classes. They are way too much drawn back by their 3.5 origins and could pretty much all need a good buff (Arcane Archer worse at archery than an Eldritch knight, plus his imbue arrow that doesn't stack and doesn't get much versatility = could emulate the magus's arcane pool ; mystic theurge could -really- appreciate "early", equal entry level for spontaneous casters...).
Classes:
- Nerf wizards. At least tone down their spells a bit at mid-to-high levels and remove some shinies they get and do not need, like the bonus spell/day of any level from their bonded object.
- Rogues need some love. Please, please look at Cheapy's "Vicious Opportunist" variant and make it an option any rogue can trade and select right at 1st level. Easy to convert and to apply to any archetype.
- OH HAI MONK'S FLURRY.
- Sorcerers should deserve to be more than an awesome level-dip for blasters.
- Summoners. Oh lord, summoners. Nerf-bat the synthesist and master summoner.
Mechanics:
- We need a mechanic allowing a character to shine without being a wondrous items christmas tree ; which would by the same opportunity give a bit more magic into existing wondrous items. Some kind of point buy system, eidolon-like, providing magic benefits as the characters becomes more and more imbued with arcane and divine energies ?
Other than that, pure awesomeness !
I'm in agreement with a lot of things ciretose has said, but I will add:
Monk - needs a bit more than just an enhancement to hit, but that's the main thing. Some way to bypass DR and some way to minimise MAD a little more would be nice.
Rogue - yes, I agree. The rogue needs some better talents, and they need a talent at first level where they need it (90% of the time this talent will be Finesse Roague, but might not be).
Samurai - I agree, they should have the weapon bond, not the steed bond. You become a samurai to carve people in two with a katana, not ride around on horseback. See many horses in The seven Samurai? Me neither.
Ninja - honestly, I think the ninja should have been a monk archetype. Admittedly it then would have made the monk look crap, but that's not news to anyone, it does that anyway by getting ki way earlier than the monk.
Gunslinger - yes, this class should have simple weapon proficiency, not martial. How many gunfighters really knew how to swing a sword? Not many, I will warrant. Not sure about full BAB.
Edit:
The end is the sun exploding. But along the way we eat drink and be merry. Or tell people on the internet they are wrong!
I did my degree in Astrophysics, and I can assure you the sun will not explode. It will, however, expand into a red giant and consume the Earth, but the devil is in the details.
Everything you know and love will burn, so what's the difference?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did my degree in Astrophysics, and I can assure you the sun will not explode. It will, however, expand into a red giant and consume the Earth, but the devil is in the details.
Bah! Thats just exploding in slow motion!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bah! Thats just exploding in slow motion!
I did my degree in Astrophysics, and I can assure you the sun will not explode. It will, however, expand into a red giant and consume the Earth, but the devil is in the details.
I don't think Gorbacz anticipated this outcome for the thread. A long protracted discussion of how the world will end.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Gorbacz anticipated this outcome for the thread. A long protracted discussion of how the world will end.Bah! Thats just exploding in slow motion!
I did my degree in Astrophysics, and I can assure you the sun will not explode. It will, however, expand into a red giant and consume the Earth, but the devil is in the details.
Aren't all Monk threads about that? ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally I'm against an edition-overhaul no matter what name they give it.
That being said- I'd like the rogue to be tweaked. How? I dunno. Making rules isn't my forte. Its rather sad though that the rogue is now the ninja, with the red pen taken to the old favorite because he's just not up to par.
The monk likely needs fixing as well.
The rest? I'm not so sure about. Aside from the need for some errata or clarifications on some things I don't see that most classes need to be fixed.
Regardless of the actual intent behind the 3.0/3.5 conversion the actual effect was "go buy more books". I like my books, and don't really want to go around buying new ones. A "path.5" would mean any new books they printed went off the new rules, meaning basically everyrule book they put out prior to now would be invalidated or require the DM and players to sit and have to convert it.
What we have may not be perfect (not that we, the board, could ever agree on perfection anyway) but i'd rather keep it than to have to convert it to some new system and/or buy it all over again.
-S
I will offer this as I am playing a barbarian right now: please eliminate the time bomb aspect of the class! Every time I end a rage I have an chance of going from single digits to -23 hp. I don't know if this accomplished with the use of temporary hit points or what, but there needs to be a solution in the class feature, not in a feat.
CMB and CMD are a mess except when fighting humanoids with no racial hit die (and possibly even then). Many things dependent upon them flat out can't work on anything equal CR even with heavy investment.
To be honest, how easy is it to grapple/trip non-humanoids? Maneuvers are and should be difficult against creatures with different anatomy.
I second this idea. Let us hear from the people.
The irons I would throw in the fire for PF 1.5 (or 2.0):
1) Saving throw bonuses - trash the slow track. Everything goes up 1/2 per level. Strong saves reflected as a class bonus. Prevents most of the multiclassing issue of packing up the strong saves, gives the weak save a boost.
2) Stat cap - No +5 inherent bonus, +6 enhancement bonus, +whatever all contributing. All PC-race stats cap at 24.
3) Longer casting times for many higher level spells (level 5+) than a standard action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there should be a Pathfinder 1.5 the only thing that I wish for is that they rearrange the formating to be more like the Beginner Box layout. It was clear and easy to use, much more than trying to search back and forth in the Core Rule Book.
Presuming at some point there will be a major revision (but hopefully not a new edition...)I hate to argue semantics, but a revision on the scale you are talking about would be a new edition. It wouldn't be any different than when D&D went from 3.0 to 3.5. It required the purchase of entirely new rule books, because so many things had changed. Calling it Pathfinder 1.5 doesn't take away the fact that it would be a new edition creating the need for current players to either decide to play 1.0 or 1.5. I for one hope that no "tweaking," other than errata with new printings, happens with Pathfinder for quite some time. If, in ten years, the developers want to look at a complete overhaul and call it PF 2.0, so be it, but then, at least, my groups get to decide whether we want to stick with what we've been doing for ten years, or look at the new and fantastic changes Paizo has come up with.If I'm not wrong, 3.5 came in less time after the release of 3.0 than has passed since Pathfinder was released.
And you could still use your 3.0 material with 3.5 material with minimal conversion. Unlike full edition changed. Similar in fact, to converting from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
Pathfinder is to me 3.75 for all intents and purposes. I'm ready for 3.85.
Saying you could use your 3.0 material with 3.5 was much like saying you can use your 3.5 material with Pathfinder. It's possible, yeah, but many groups (at least in my neck of the woods) don't do it, because of the necessity to convert. I get that Pathfinder was touted as 3.75, and I'm not trying to say it isn't backward compatible. What I'm saying, is that for many people using Pathfinder was a nice switch of rules (and I do whole-heartedly believe it was a rules switch) because the base of the ruleset is familiar. You're adding in new things to rules that you already know. That doesn't change the fact that it is a new "edition." I don't play D&D 3.5 I play Pathfinder, and there is a clear distinction. Even if that distinction is only .25 away from its original source, it is still far enough away to have caused me to buy all new rulebooks. In my mind, that's a new edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Had to go look up prognostication.
Learn somethin new everyday!
-S
I wouldn't mind a small revision for certain things. Although I disagree with the rogue being bad, I would like to see some talents fixed. Like that one that makes 1s on sneak attack dice equal to 2s.
|
|
I think the game is far and away from needing a second edition, let alone calling it x.5. That is indirectly comparing it to what Dungeons and Dragons did with 3.0/3.5. 3.0 was a terrible, incomplete game that should have not been put out. I wasted a lot of money on the core books, only to have them put out the fixes in 3.5, which i chose not to buy. As it stands now, nothing is "broke". Yes, some classes are not on the same power level as others, but once you do that, you end up with the next Edition that came out of D&D. It was a fine game, but I like classes to feel unique in their abilities, not doing the same thing everyone else is doing, but with different fluff.
As for changes for a new edition, things I have read from others games I like are:
Saving Throws: Flat bonus based on relevant stat. DCs are tiered by encounter level. So a Fighter with 16 Con has a +3 Fort Save. Low level encounters would be DC10, High level encounters would be DC20+. This way, that snake's hematoxic venom can still causes the 15th level fighter to feel the effects as much as the first level fighter. As it stands now, a 15th level fighter can sleep in a snakepit. This alternate makes all saves relevant
*Overly complicated rule I liked from Middle Earth Roleplaying*
I liked the combat in MERP, where getting hit in your armor hurts and does Hits damage, even though it did not penetrate. Then there was a separate system where you took criticals when it did get through, causing a sort of status effect depending on where on the body it hit and more damage. It made a lot me sense to me, as a fighter taking a claymore strike to the shoulder that does not go through still hurts I bet. Weaving that into D20 would be a task. Armor as DR does this a bit, now that I think about it. I may houserule in my next game to give each armor type a variable Dice roll DR, like having leather armor be D3-1 and Full Plate be D10-1.
Saying you could use your 3.0 material with 3.5 was much like saying you can use your 3.5 material with Pathfinder. It's possible, yeah, but many groups (at least in my neck of the woods) don't do it, because of the necessity to convert. I get that Pathfinder was touted as 3.75, and I'm not trying to say it isn't backward compatible. What I'm saying, is that for many people using Pathfinder was a nice switch of rules (and I do whole-heartedly believe it was a rules switch) because the base of the ruleset is familiar. You're adding in new things to rules that you already know. That doesn't change the fact that it is a new "edition." I don't play D&D 3.5 I play Pathfinder, and there is a clear distinction. Even if that distinction is only .25 away from its original source, it is still far enough away to have caused me to buy all new rulebooks. In my mind, that's a new edition.
Well to be honest, when 3.5 came out I used a lot of 3.0 stuff with the rules to begin with. When Pathfinder came out, I know a lot of people, me included, that used a lot of 3.5 material with them - I know some that still do.
However, a Pathfinder 1.5 such as I think Ciretose refers to would NOT be a new edition in so far as it would not supersede a great deal of existing material. Mainly a few classes need a bit of a second look, and maybe some minor rules need tweaking, but that's all. More of a 'rules update' than a new set of rules.
|
|
In all honesty, if a second games comes out, I would hope it would be radically different. Perhaps a D100 roleplaying system like the old Chaosium products. I would not want a total rehash of things I have to convert my old stuff to. I would rather it have a totally different feel and totally different setting, putting it apart from the flagship product. Perhaps not a good business model though, which is always something that is considered.
For Pathfinder itself, I would rather there e books of Alternate Rule Sets, like the Armor as DR and Words of Power, but on a larger scale.
hey ciretose, you forgot a review of the magus. :-P
I think a good way to boost the rogue is to give it an ability similar to the 3.5 binder's Pact Augmentation ability.
Beginning at 1st level, each day, the rogue selects one of the following abilities. At 5th level, and every 5 levels thereafter, the rogue selects an additional ability; if he selects the same ability, the bonuses stack. Each day, the rogue can select a different ability.
+1 to AC
+1 to Attack Rolls
+1 to CMD
+1 to Damage Rolls
+5 hit points
+2 to Initiative
+1 to Saving Throws
+1 to Skill Checks
+5 ft. to Speed
At 10th level, the rogue may select from the following list:
DR 1/-
Energy Resistance 5 (the rogue's choice of acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic)
Spell Resistance 5 + 5
+2 to Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma
+1 Enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls
+1d6 sneak attack
At 20th level, the rogue may select from the following list:
1 bonus combat feat
1 daily luck re-roll
DR 5/magic
etc. etc.
|
|
3) Longer casting times for many higher level spells (level 5+) than a standard action.
This is a good fix for a lot of things. They used it some already, but I wouldn't mind it being used even more often.
I still think the primary issues are some broken metamagics (specifically rods) and cheese reading. One can be fixed easily, one is a bit more philosophy than development.
hey ciretose, you forgot a review of the magus. :-P
Magus don't need no changes, he's awesome already.
|
|
hey ciretose, you forgot a review of the magus. :-PMagus don't need no changes, he's awesome already.
Sorry I did miss the Magus.
I like the Magus, but I think the mechanics could be cleaned up a bit. I've had players who like the concept but were overwhelmed by the mechanics, but I think that is the nature of the beast. It is a class for the advanced player who wants to be able to do all things.
I wouldn't make significant changes, but it isn't above tweekability.
|
3) Longer casting times for many higher level spells (level 5+) than a standard action.
This is a good fix for a lot of things. They used it some already, but I wouldn't mind it being used even more often.
I still think the primary issues are some broken metamagics (specifically rods) and cheese reading. One can be fixed easily, one is a bit more philosophy than development.
This isn't a good fix at all. Generally? what made Pathfinder so great was that they INCREASED the power of the other classes to match the greater power of wizards. They (with very few exceptions like Clerics, and Polymorph) didn't Decrease the power of any classes.
if there IS a power gap at higher levels between martial and caster classes? that's fixed easily enough. allow Fighters to Move and Full attack in the same round. and give similar boons to other martial classes.
Widespread Nerfbats to the face will do nothing more than piss off a whole segment of the population who play casters. Better to increase the power of other classes because everyone enjoys getting more power. It's the entire premise behind the leveling system in fact.
|
|
3) Longer casting times for many higher level spells (level 5+) than a standard action.
This is a good fix for a lot of things. They used it some already, but I wouldn't mind it being used even more often.
I still think the primary issues are some broken metamagics (specifically rods) and cheese reading. One can be fixed easily, one is a bit more philosophy than development.
This isn't a good fix at all. Generally? what made Pathfinder so great was that they INCREASED the power of the other classes to match the greater power of wizards. They (with very few exceptions like Clerics, and Polymorph) didn't Decrease the power of any classes.
if there IS a power gap at higher levels between martial and caster classes? that's fixed easily enough. allow Fighters to Move and Full attack in the same round. and give similar boons to other martial classes.
Widespread Nerfbats to the face will do nothing more than piss off a whole segment of the population who play casters. Better to increase the power of other classes because everyone enjoys getting more power. It's the entire premise behind the leveling system in fact.
They actually nerfed a lot of things if you read the spells throughly. Casting time was made a full round on a lot of the SoS spells.
This is something that has already happened. The fact you didn't notice means it was done well.
Simply turning the knob to 11 isn't always the solution. I worry more about creep than nerfing.