| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I beg for a Neverwinter style game using the PFruleset that updates as new books come out.
And isn't an MMO.
This +10000000000000
I don't want an MMO.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love Pathfinder. I do however think there a large number of people on these boards who wish it was more like another system...like gurps, or white wolf, or whatever. I constantly marvel at why they don't just play those games rather than come here and complain Pathfinder isn't them.
I
Vanacian spellcasting is great for prepared casters, but I hate it for spontaneous casting (and while we're at it, spontaneous casters get completely shafted for no reason).
The biggest problem is the caster-martial disparity at high levels. I begin to see issues by 4th level spells or so, but at 9th it's just so outrageous.
Maybe you’re thinking 3.5? In my PF games, spontaneous casters are WAY more popular than prepared casters.
The caster/warrior disparity has been around since OD&D in 1974. Let’s not blame that on PF, which has actually gone a way towards reducing it.
I
Vanacian spellcasting is great for prepared casters, but I hate it for spontaneous casting (and while we're at it, spontaneous casters get completely shafted for no reason).
The biggest problem is the caster-martial disparity at high levels. I begin to see issues by 4th level spells or so, but at 9th it's just so outrageous.Maybe you’re thinking 3.5? In my PF games, spontaneous casters are WAY more popular than prepared casters.
The caster/warrior disparity has been around since OD&D in 1974. Let’s not blame that on PF, which has actually gone a way towards reducing it.
Hmm. I may be wrong here - I have one player who is an Oracle, and another who likes the spontaneous casting, but only with the human racial trait for extra spells (he's a Bard, but because it's a jack-of-all-trades class - I imagine he would be regardless of if a Bard prepared or not). But generally people gravitate to the prepared casters above the spontaneous ones. In my experience, obviously. Let me ask this - do your spontaneous casters always play a race that can get an extra spell with the favored class bonus, or do they mix it up? That could be telling.
As for the martial-caster disparity, you're right, it's been here for ages, and PF did do loads to fix it, but obviously not enough. And to be fair, Mages seem strong in SR4 as well. I don't have a ton of experience playing, though.
I
Vanacian spellcasting is great for prepared casters, but I hate it for spontaneous casting (and while we're at it, spontaneous casters get completely shafted for no reason).
The biggest problem is the caster-martial disparity at high levels. I begin to see issues by 4th level spells or so, but at 9th it's just so outrageous.Maybe you’re thinking 3.5? In my PF games, spontaneous casters are WAY more popular than prepared casters.
The caster/warrior disparity has been around since OD&D in 1974. Let’s not blame that on PF, which has actually gone a way towards reducing it.
Hmm. I may be wrong here - I have one player who is an Oracle, and another who likes the spontaneous casting, but only with the human racial trait for extra spells (he's a Bard, but because it's a jack-of-all-trades class - I imagine he would be regardless of if a Bard prepared or not). But generally people gravitate to the prepared casters above the spontaneous ones. In my experience, obviously. Let me ask this - do your spontaneous casters always play a race that can get an extra spell with the favored class bonus, or do they mix it up? That could be telling.
As for the martial-caster disparity, you're right, it's been here for ages, and PF did do loads to fix it, but obviously not enough. And to be fair, Mages seem strong in SR4 as well. I don't have a ton of experience playing, though.
Yes every spont caster that can get 20 bonus spells gets 20 bonus spells. I've seen GMs allow the human favored class bonus to other races so they can see more races.
I
Vanacian spellcasting is great for prepared casters, but I hate it for spontaneous casting (and while we're at it, spontaneous casters get completely shafted for no reason).
The biggest problem is the caster-martial disparity at high levels. I begin to see issues by 4th level spells or so, but at 9th it's just so outrageous.Maybe you’re thinking 3.5? In my PF games, spontaneous casters are WAY more popular than prepared casters.
The caster/warrior disparity has been around since OD&D in 1974. Let’s not blame that on PF, which has actually gone a way towards reducing it.
Hmm. I may be wrong here - I have one player who is an Oracle, and another who likes the spontaneous casting, but only with the human racial trait for extra spells (he's a Bard, but because it's a jack-of-all-trades class - I imagine he would be regardless of if a Bard prepared or not). But generally people gravitate to the prepared casters above the spontaneous ones. In my experience, obviously. Let me ask this - do your spontaneous casters always play a race that can get an extra spell with the favored class bonus, or do they mix it up? That could be telling.
As for the martial-caster disparity, you're right, it's been here for ages, and PF did do loads to fix it, but obviously not enough. And to be fair, Mages seem strong in SR4 as well. I don't have a ton of experience playing, though.
No doubt, the extra spells is a great deal. But most of our PC s are human anyway, except one whole party of dwarves. Out of 8 casters in the non dwarf party, one is a cleric, rest are spontaneous .
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
And I beg for a Neverwinter style game using the PFruleset that updates as new books come out.
And isn't an MMO.
This +10000000000000
I don't want an MMO.
There absolutely, positively cannot be a game like this, ever.
Unfortunately, the rules for the OGL that Pathfinder was born from largely preclude the creation of a game using those core elements in it, which is why the Pathfinder MMO in development by Goblinworks doesn't actually use the Pathfinder system.
I was heartbroken when I learned this, personally.
One last thing. The D20. The D20 is a tyrant, and must be overthrown. Playing games with D6's at its core (GURPS and SR), have made me love the less random feel of it. When STR 7 Wizards can break down doors 20 STR Barbarians fail at, something is wrong. And I've seen something similar happen in a game, though it wasn't that bad.
In SR the D6 is a bigger tyrant then the D20, because when you roll a 6, you can ab an other D6 ...
If you don´t like the randomfeeling, change the D20 to 2D10 (for example Arcane Codex RPG) or take 2D20/2 to get a Gaussian distribution ;-)
Yes every spont caster that can get 20 bonus spells gets 20 bonus spells. I've seen GMs allow the human favored class bonus to other races so they can see more races.
First thing I did when that came out. Not that I think it's a bad bonus, it was sorely needed.
Apart from a few sad individuals, everyone posting on thesse forums will play Pathfinder. If they didn't like it, they wouldn't play it. So in essence, everyone who posts on these forums is happy enough with PF to play it.
That doesn't mean that they don't think it could be improved. that's what the posts are about, improving the game experience. You only do that with something you love.
You do know there always could be people who have never played Pathfinder who made an account here, right?
IMHO, Pathfinder is not a new game, but a set of houserules for DnD 3.5.
I like :
- The little changes for skills
- more power to everyone (more versatility is better).
- simpler to create a character with abilities from several classes (without multiclassing, using archetypes).
- The PRD : all of Pathfinder rules free on the Internet (even if it is normal, as it's not really a new game, and it's using DnD 3.5 OGL).
I dislike :
- CMB/CMD : with the exception of the barbarian, none of the maneuvers can be done at high level anymore.
- more power to everyone (using a character is way more complex than in 3.5, particularly when you are new to the game, even if it doesn't bother me)
- Lack of good multiclassing (most PF characters are single-classed, while most 3.5 are multiclassedà.
- 20 prestige class in all the official ruleset of Pathfinder (not including APs and Golarion books). That's waaaaaay too little.
- You can't use 3.5 material with it anymore (too much work to convert things).
- some nerfs to spells that are not welcomed (Mind blank comes to my mind, but there are many many more)
- MOST of the spell of APG, UC and UM are horrible, and part of them are really great. There is almost none that are just good.
- Lack of response from Paizo, while their leitmotiv consist of listening to their customers to improve the game (years of debate to only have 2 modification for the monk).
- The shame of the "post-it" version of the corerule book, that my DM bought (and at that price, it's really a shame).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am content. I am happy with the game. The rules do not overwhelm, and it brings me enjoyment every time I play. What more needs be said?
I'm happy with the game. I've got my minor house rules like everyone else, but I have no real desire to switch to another system or really invest in one. If I have the time and someone else is running, maybe I'll try one, but I don't imagine it will stick.
I do like doign weird conversions of the Pathfinder ruleset (Pokemon, Supernatural), sometimes, which usually requires some big overhauls, but it's fun. Basically I like the dice used and how everything is defined.
Overall I am quite happy with pathfinder. It has seen a resurgence in my group in terms of gaming. We are playing more now then pretty much any time since high school. I think a big part of that is the high quality adventures paizo puts out, which 2 of the 3 games currently going use.
Though there are issues and things I dont like in the ruleset, 3rd party material and house rules have given me more then enough ways around them. In my experience no system is perfect, but pathfinder at the moment is closest to what I want. Thankfully I dont participate in organized play and instead play with a group of my friends, so when we do encounter a problem, it is more or less resolved.
You do know there always could be people who have never played Pathfinder who made an account here, right?
Yeah, and in fact a few of the louder complainers say they don’t play PF, they play a different system. Why they post here, I’ll never know.
- Lack of good multiclassing (most PF characters are single-classed, while most 3.5 are multiclassedà.
- 20 prestige class in all the official ruleset of Pathfinder (not including APs and Golarion books). That's waaaaaay too little.
- Lack of response from Paizo, while their leitmotiv consist of listening to their customers to improve the game (years of debate to only have 2 modification for the monk).
I consider this a feature, not a bug. There’s no reason not to stay in one class now. You don’t NEED to multiclass or PrC to have a decent PC anymore.
Lack of response? Bullpuckies. Having played and posted quite a few other games, there is no major game company in the world that is anywhere near as responsive as Paizo is. The Devs posts often, FAQ are common, and several of the senior staff have a “Ask…” threads of their very own, where they will happily answer your queries. There’s been a Fix or FAQ for Flurry, Ki, the Amulet of Mighty Fists, and several others. Just because PF isn’t willing to give you everything you want in a class doesn’t mean they aren’t responsive.
Try getting the folks over at that bigger FRP to make any changes at all. Heck on one game forum, a post like this would get you banned.
You do know there always could be people who have never played Pathfinder who made an account here, right?
Apart from a few sad individuals
I consider this a feature, not a bug. There’s no reason not to stay in one class now. You don’t NEED to multiclass or PrC to have a decent PC anymore.
But finally, you give up all the freedom of the character creation. You stay with one class, that's all.
The fact that it is a feature does not mean I have to like it. Moreover when we're talking about a set of houserules from 3.5 (where Multiclassing is a feature too).Lack of response? Bullpuckies. Having played and posted quite a few other games, there is no major game company in the world that is anywhere near as responsive as Paizo is. The Devs posts often, FAQ are common, and several of the senior staff have a “Ask…” threads of their very own, where they will happily answer your queries. There’s been a Fix or FAQ for Flurry, Ki, the Amulet of Mighty Fists, and several others. Just because PF isn’t willing to give you everything you want in a class doesn’t mean they aren’t responsive.
Yeah, they are great to answer questions, but not to have balls and making the game works as they intended. I could take several examples, as the Stealth problem, or the 4 classes that have problems (and 3 since the very beginning of the first release of the game). For a company that have for leitmotiv "Pathfinder have been beta tested for more than 10 years by X thousands of people, and have been improved by those !", I believe it's a lot of b@*!+##+ting.
The monk's players (to take the same example as yours) have waited for 10 years to have their demands taken seriously. 10 years to have 2 modifications that have pretty much no impact on the game, above all.
Try getting the folks over at that bigger FRP to make any changes at all. Heck on one game forum, a post like this would get you banned.
I don't care if I get banned for telling the truth. If the developpers thought less about their next product (Ultimate Campaign, and the next, and the one after that) and more about the rules of Pathfinder that already exist, we would have a way better game.
I consider this a feature, not a bug. There’s no reason not to stay in one class now. You don’t NEED to multiclass or PrC to have a decent PC anymore.But finally, you give up all the freedom of the character creation. You stay with one class, that's all.
Yeah, they are great to answer questions, but not to have balls and making the game works as they intended. I could take several examples, as the Stealth problem, or the 4 classes that have problems (and 3 since the very beginning of the first release of the game). For a company that have for leitmotiv "Pathfinder have been beta tested for more than 10 years by X thousands of people, and have been improved by those !", I believe it's a lot of b!$@*+@+ting.The monk's players (to take the same example as yours) have waited for 10 years to have their demands taken seriously. 10 years to have 2 modifications that have pretty much no impact on the game, above all.
You can still multiclass if you like. And, what with the archetypes there are many options.
They have plenty of cojones, but they listen to their customers. It would require a new ED to fix Stealth. Their customer don’t want a 2nd Ed yet, as it clear here.
Pathfinder has only been out since 2009. Your “ten years’- what is that? Dog years? Yes, there was development & playetesting before that, but who knows how many problems they fixed? Not to mention the issues with the rogue have only recently surfaced.
If the developpers thought less about their next product (Ultimate Campaign, and the next, and the one after that) and more about the rules of Pathfinder that already exist, we would have a way better game.But probably not have a company to support it.
I didn't write "Stop selling products, and stay within Pathfinder core", but more like "Think less about your next product and more of what exists".
The main problems we can see on the forum could be repaired in 30 minutes if the developpers looked at it. But instead, it takes 10 years (and 5 editions of the CRB, and a FAQ, and a PRD being the 6th edition) to have some scarce problems be solved. There is something wrong.
Because look at the last 400 topics on the Pathfinder forum : you will see exactly the same questions being asked ("Monks underpowered", "Fighter underpowered", "Rogue useless", "Summoner OP"). And that's not normal to have developpers that answer : "There is no problem : classes are totally balanced !".
Or for the case of Stealth : "Yeah, we have some solutions, we even made a blog post for it. But we won't do it in the core rules, because it's too hard !", when some posters (me included) could rewrite it in 30 minutes to make it work as intended (as in : you're hidden => you can make a sneak attack).
I could go on forever, just looking at topics titles.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't write "Stop selling products, and stay within Pathfinder core", but more like "Think less about your next product and more of what exists".
And they have repeatedly said that taking time to redo old product in lieu of working on new product is not financially viable for them as a company.
|
Yes every spont caster that can get 20 bonus spells gets 20 bonus spells. I've seen GMs allow the human favored class bonus to other races so they can see more races.First thing I did when that came out. Not that I think it's a bad bonus, it was sorely needed.
I like extra hp until I can get 1st level spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I generally agree that Pathfinder is great and so are the employees, I do agree that they have a tendency to flat out ignore or even condescend against ideas they don't hold themselves and ignore those complaints completely.
"Caster/Martial disparity is a myth furthered by people with agendas". Pff.
No matter what you do (unless you turn to what 4th ed did) there will always be some classes on the bottom. No matter how many threads there are, the fact remains those classes are still among the most widely played & enjoyed. If they bumped the Monk up to where the monk-fans wanted it, next group of threads would be “Wizard underpowered, Druid useless) etc.
Nor have the Devs said “Their is no problem : classes are totally balanced !". You’re just making things up. (nor would they misspell “there”)
Stealth? They tried twice. Each time there were pages of posts that showed the simple fix could NOT work. Period. A few posters have tried- but their attempts were not even as good as the Stealth blog. You make THINK it’s that simple, but clearly you didn’t read Stealth Blog II plus the many, many pages of posts that came after, not to mention the dozens of thread which have tried to do the same. There is no simple fix.
The Dev can “fix’ it- by coming up with a new ED. The consumers don’t want a new ED. The Blog is there as a houserule.
While I generally agree that Pathfinder is great and so are the employees, I do agree that they have a tendency to flat out ignore or even condescend against ideas they don't hold themselves and ignore those complaints completely.
"Caster/Martial disparity is a myth furthered by people with agendas". Pff.
You are a better diplomat than me.
Fixing stealth is simple.
Apply logic in each case, ignore rules that aren't working.
Fixed.
Yeah, you got the solution : when the rules are dumb, ignore the rules ! That don't fix the problem at the start : there is a problem to fix.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
this went from kumbaya to comeatmebro
|
|
Yeah, you got the solution : when the rules are dumb, ignore the rules ! That don't fix the problem at the start : there is a problem to fix.Fixing stealth is simple.
Apply logic in each case, ignore rules that aren't working.
Fixed.
My heart is broken.
I learned basic logic long before RPGs. It's not a simple matter to cover every situation...and there are some wonky rules that end up pretty silly...'no facing' as if the guy watching the fighter directly in front of him has eyes in the back of his head...right. Still, I understand why that rule was made. One thing a GOOD GM learns to do is adjust, because NO rule system is flawless.
Yeah, you got the solution : when the rules are dumb, ignore the rules ! That don't fix the problem at the start : there is a problem to fix.Fixing stealth is simple.
Apply logic in each case, ignore rules that aren't working.
Fixed.
My heart is broken.
I learned basic logic long before RPGs. It's not a simple matter to cover every situation...and there are some wonky rules that end up pretty silly...'no facing' as if the guy watching the fighter directly in front of him has eyes in the back of his head...right. Still, I understand why that rule was made. One thing a GOOD GM learns to do is adjust, because NO rule system is flawless.
I agree with you : no rule system is flawless.
A good GM can (and should) fix things that have problems.But if you and I can fix the problem in 2 minutes at home (or PFS GM in 2 minutes in their games), and the developpers say "Fixing it would take too much rewriting of the game to do it in Pathfinder", then either we do the thing wrong (DrDeth seems to agree with that), or the developpers just doesn't want to find a solution (I believe it's that one).
I have proven that the rules for Stealth can be rewritten with 2 added sentences, and when I did it, a poster said it already worked that way, and I answered that it wasn't the case, and that's why there was a problem with Stealth rules in the first place.
EDIT : added for stealth
Yeah, I'm happy with the system. It isn't perfect, but the issues that crop up aren't anything a competent GM can't handle.
I do like that Paizo is constantly working on new stuff and subsystems. I use what I like and don't use what doesn't interest me.
I guess I might have a different approach towards rules content if I played PFS, but I don't think it's even in my area.
|
|
Yeah, you got the solution : when the rules are dumb, ignore the rules ! That don't fix the problem at the start : there is a problem to fix.Fixing stealth is simple.
Apply logic in each case, ignore rules that aren't working.
Fixed.
My heart is broken.
I learned basic logic long before RPGs. It's not a simple matter to cover every situation...and there are some wonky rules that end up pretty silly...'no facing' as if the guy watching the fighter directly in front of him has eyes in the back of his head...right. Still, I understand why that rule was made. One thing a GOOD GM learns to do is adjust, because NO rule system is flawless.
I agree with you : no rule system is flawless.
A good GM can (and should) fix things that have problems.But if you and I can fix the problem in 2 minutes at home (or PFS GM in 2 minutes in their games), and the developpers say "Fixing it would take too much rewriting of the game to do it in Pathfinder", then either we do the thing wrong (DrDeth seems to agree with that), or the developpers just doesn't want to find a solution (I believe it's that one).
I have proven that the rules can be rewritten with 2 sentences, and when I did it, a poster said it already worked that way, and I answered that it wasn't the case, and that's why there was a problem with Stealth rules in the first place.
Sure, you can rewrite the rules in two sentences...and then we can always just apply logic when your rules don't cover the case...*shrug*.
Not saying that your version would be bad...but in a tactical game trying to emulate reality, there will be issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Post full of soapbox ranting...
If you're trying to persuade someone to your viewpoint, you might want to avoid phrases like "don't have the balls" & "if I get banned for telling the truth". Your thread is full of your opinions, none of which I can see containing an objective truth.
No game is perfect but the way you're making your case is bordering on trolling. Also, I have to say:
1. If you have the option to multi-class and it's viable (which it is) and you have the option to single-class and it's viable (which it is and Pathfinder made it more so...) you haven't (I'm paraphrasing this next part since your sentence seems off to me) "given up all freedom of character creation".
2. Calling a professionally developed and published set of rules a "set of houserules" is insulting to the people who work on those rules. It also grossly dismisses the effort that goes into developing the Pathfinder products. IF they are just houserules, why are you so bent out of shape over not liking the items you're ranting about?
3. How do you get 10 years out of a game that wasn't published until August 2009? Are you blaming them for the development choices made by WotC in the 3e & 3.5e?
4. If the Paizo staff doesn't think about upcoming products there won't be a Paizo for very long. That's a wonderful business plan you've got there, pal. Since many of the Paizo family are full-time staffers, I hope for their financial well being that they ignore your advice on this point.
Additionally, I have never seen a RPG company that did as good a job as Paizo does at considering what rules currently exist. Just because they feel Stealth can be handled via common sense rather than a re-write or disagrees with whatever "broken rule" you're citing, doesn't make them ambivalent, incompetent, or uncaring.
Coincidentally, it's rantish posts & ground staked out like the one you submitted that prompted this thread in the first place.
In other completely ancedotal news from my gaming table:
1. There is no evidence in any of my campaigns that the rogue is sub-optimal. It's one of the the top 2 most selected classes amongst my 3 groups of players and is very effective in-game.
2. Martials are more popular than spellcasters.
3. Stealth works fine.
4. My players run somewhere around 60/40% single-/multi-class.
5. Paizo keeps producing a TON of gaming content that I and my players want.
Post full of soapbox ranting...If you're trying to persuade someone to your viewpoint, you might want to avoid phrases like "don't have the balls" & "if I get banned for telling the truth". Your thread is full of your opinions, none of which I can see containing an objective truth.
No game is perfect but the way you're making your case is bordering on trolling.
Well, I'll remember to keep my... "opinion" for me next time.
2. Calling a professionally developed and published set of rules a "set of houserules" is insulting to the people who work on those rules. It also grossly dismisses the effort that goes into developing the Pathfinder products. IF they are just houserules, why are you so bent out of shape over not liking the items you're ranting about?
It is weird, but indeed true : Pathfinder is a set of houserules for 3.5. The fact that they make profit with it, and managed to include it to Paizo's products (which were scenarios to begin with) do not change the fact that it is an houserule set. It's not insulting or whatever, only the truth.
It is less true for other books, like UC, UM and APG, but it is ENTIRELY true for CRB.
3. How do you get 10 years out of a game that wasn't published until August 2009? Are you blaming them for the development choices made by WotC in the 3e & 3.5e?
Ahem : HERE
"The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game builds on more than 10 years of system development and the largest open playtest in the history of tabletop gaming to create an unparalleled fantasy roleplaying experience."
Didn't say it : Paizo did.
4. If the Paizo staff doesn't think about upcoming products there won't be a Paizo for very long. That's a wonderful business plan you've got there, pal. Since many of the Paizo family are full-time staffers, I hope for their financial well being that they ignore your advice on this point.
Again : not forget about new stuff, but take care of what already exist. Pathfinder is pretty good in several domains, but is lacking greatly in others.
You have two ways of handling problems :
- WoTC official way : they don't care about the problems, and do errata and FAQ when they see fit.
- Paizo official way : they have developpers that are on the forums, reading opinions and facts from posters, and trying to solve problems when there are.
The thing is, Paizo is acting like WoTC, despite the official way.
Additionally, I have never seen a RPG company that did as good a job as Paizo does at considering what rules currently exist. Just because they feel Stealth can be handled via common sense rather than a re-write or disagrees with whatever "broken rule" you're citing, doesn't make them ambivalent, incompetent, or uncaring.
Oh yes it does.
Coincidentally, it's rantish posts & ground staked out like the one you submitted that prompted this thread in the first place.
Sorry for that, it was not what I wanted.
In other completely ancedotal news from my gaming table:
1. There is no evidence in any of my campaigns that the rogue is sub-optimal. It's one of the the top 2 most selected classes amongst my 3 groups of players and is very effective in-game.2. Martials are more popular than spellcasters.
3. Stealth works fine.
4. My players run somewhere around 60/40% single-/multi-class.
5. Paizo keeps producing a TON of gaming content that I and my players want.
Good for you. I can houserule too. That doesn't fix problems in the rules in the first place.
I am thoroughly enjoying Pathfinder but I do feel lure of somewhat simpler systems as well - and that's why I'm still curious about D&D Next and would rate 2e as my 2nd favorite D&D variety.
I will admit also that there are some elements of PF that I would like to see changed - mainly because 3.5 screwed them up. For example, golem magic immunities are so much weaker now thanks to the change in 3.5 that I believe was ill considered.
|
I too am happy with Pathfinder. I try to keep my home games to just the core rules. I Prefer the simplicity of the core races/classes and rely on roll-playing to make a unique characters. I also don't like to play characters past level 11. Very few DM's can master a good campaign past level 11 (IMHO anyway).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My investment in Hero Lab ensures I will be a Pathfinder player for many years. I shudder to think of creating a character without it.
I have proven that the rules for Stealth can be rewritten with 2 added sentences, and when I did it, a poster said it already worked that way, and I answered that it wasn't the case, and that's why there was a problem with Stealth rules in the first place.
Tell you what. Go post your new stealth rules with two extra sentences over on the Rules questions forum and see how far you get. Hint the question isn’t really “you're hidden => you can make a sneak attack” at all. It’s how to define hidden, when you can hide, how perception works vs stealth and in what situations who get to roll and when, how special senses work, etc. etc. etc.
Look they tried to do “you're hidden => you can make a sneak attack” here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcml
It took a whole page. Stephen Radney-MacFarland, who knows more about the rules than you or I will ever do, made a yeoman’s effort. Then what follows is 426 comments pointing out one loophole or another, or asking questions (or answering them- Stephen has the patience of a saint) , or pointing out what wasn’t covered, etc. Cheapy, Evil Lincoln, Quandary, Diego Rossi and many other board regulars and experts made many perceptive posts. The fact that you think you* can fix Stealth with “you're hidden => you can make a sneak attack” mean that you have no idea of what the underlying issues are at all, and what the problems are. It’s NOT just about making a sneak attack.
* and just you. Not Cheapy, Evil Lincoln, Quandary, Diego Rossi , nor any of the developers, not even those of other games. Just you. Hmm.
Go post your new stealth rules with two extra sentences over on the Rules questions forum and see how far you get.
In the stealth skill :
My modification to the stealth skill is in bolded text wrote (I quoted, for more clarity) :Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Every creature that lose the opposed perception check lose their DEX bonus against the first attack you make against them this turn. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to make a stealth check while running or charging. [deleted Attacking]
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't make a Stealth check. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to make a Stealth check. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to make a Stealth check. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
That was done in 10 minutes. I didn't even have to do anything to other parts of the game. And I'm not an expert in english, as I'm french (so, I didn't use the best grammar or anything else to formulate my modification). And it works as intended (you use stealth with success => your target lose their DEX bonus, and by such, can be sneak attacked, by the first attack, exactly like invisibility [a +2 bonus going with invisibility]).
EDIT : I suppose I should include the modification in the Perception skill too. That would effectively add 2 sentences to the rules of the game.
Oh ! And that works for sniping too (as it didn't work in Core rules).
But we can discuss this in a topic for Stealth if you want. Already made my point.
Go post your new stealth rules with two extra sentences over on the Rules questions forum and see how far you get.In the stealth skill :
My modification to the stealth skill is in bolded text wrote (I quoted, for more clarity) :Check: Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you. Every creature that lose the opposed perception check lose their DEX bonus against the first attack you make against them this turn. You can move up to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than half but less than your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It's impossible to make a stealth check while running or charging. [deleted Attacking]
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't make a Stealth check. Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to make a Stealth check. If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to make a Stealth check. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
That was done in 10 minutes. I didn't even have to do anything to other parts of the game. And I'm not an expert in english, as I'm french (so, I didn't use the best grammar or anything else to formulate my modification). And it works as intended (you use stealth with success => your target lose their DEX bonus, and by such, can be sneak attacked, by the first attack, exactly like invisibility [a +2 bonus going with invisibility]).
EDIT : I suppose I should include the modification in the Perception skill too. That would effectively add 2 sentences to the rules of the game.
When do they get that perception check? How many times? Define “might notice you”. When do you make that stealth check? How about Scent? How about Blindsense? Blindsight?What action does it take to initiate stealth? What action does it take to maintain stealth? How about if you use a full round action? What defines “attack?” What happens if the attack fails? How about indirect harm? If you are in the middle of a combat round, can you hide? How about if you make noise, like spellcasting? How about a spell that doesn’t come directly from a Spellcaster, like Call Lightning? How about with wand? How does this work with Hide In Plain sight? How many Stealth checks can you make a round? Can you Hide with a feint? If so, what are the mechanics? Can you bluff, stealth, and then sneak attack all in the same round even without any real cover or concealment around?
That’s just page one of the nine pages of the Blog and attendant questions. The fact that you are unaware of this means that you have no idea of what you’re talking about.
Like I said- post your idea in the Rule section, and watch the posters gleefully tear it to tiny shreds. I didn’t have time to do more than post the FIRST page of objections. Why do you think you can do what a whole team of Devs and the best posters here can't do? If it was that simple, they would have done it.
I like Stealth and Perception just the way they are. I can add or subtract bonuses for different things like vision, hearing, touch, scent, etc as I see fit and based on the situation. It's not a problem.
Our group loves the game. No problems at all.