... the perception distance penalties are ludicrous....
Actually, I find them to be workable... The "missing" rule in my opinion is a cap at -40 for distance, that is "effectively invisible" penalty-wise. Most game situations don't have you spotting things at 400 ft, but if the players have such a vantage point, the modifiers should chance. (You can even make it a cap of -20 for a moving target, since motion matters enormously in distance spotting... and this mirrors the rules for invisibility which is kind of cool).
So in my house rules, at 400 ft, check penalty for armor no longer counts against stealth and I change a bunch of the modifiers to reflect long-range spotting instead of indoor/urban/forest type ranges.
Design Manager
|
***It's cute how you think you can read my mind***
Money talks. Paizo is making more money than any other tabletop RPG currently out (this does not include electronic product sales like video games attached to a franchise) . More = majority of dollars. Ergo, the majority is happy enough with the current system to continue to spend lots of money. Regionally, and this is quantifiable, PFS is the fastest growing organized play group in the Pacific Northwest. Fastest growing once more, is equivalent to majority. Economically, there is no reason to dump a system that is clearly well loved enough to be seeing the success Pathfinder is seeing.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
***It's cute how you think you can read my mind***Money talks. Paizo is making more money than any other tabletop RPG currently out (this does not include electronic product sales like video games attached to a franchise) . More = majority of dollars. Ergo, the majority is happy enough with the current system to continue to spend lots of money. Regionally, and this is quantifiable, PFS is the fastest growing organized play group in the Pacific Northwest. Fastest growing once more, is equivalent to majority. Economically, there is no reason to dump a system that is clearly well loved enough to be seeing the success Pathfinder is seeing.
Not according to multiple people at Paizo. Also, what exactly are you comparing it too? Is there another Paizo that did release PF 2.0/2E, and you see the differences in their sales and an actual perspective of the leanings of the fanbase or even monetary "majority"?
Secondly, it's inevitable that PF will need to rerelease at some point. They are a company, and needing to make money is kind of important. At some point, the existing material just needs to start back from scratch. Too much gets bolted on, there isn't enough room to expand or grow, and new rules and ideas begin to really blow the old or original ones out of the water. New products become less profitable in general. Everyone wants the Core rule book, but maybe only one person in a groups wants Ultimate Campaign or Bestiary 32. Psionic mind magic is a thing that is pretty middle of the road, some people love it, some people hate it, but once it's out, it changes everything as half the group whines that their GM wont let their super precious psionic character in as the other half outright perma-bans it.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
***It's cute how you think you can read my mind***Money talks. Paizo is making more money than any other tabletop RPG currently out (this does not include electronic product sales like video games attached to a franchise) . More = majority of dollars. Ergo, the majority is happy enough with the current system to continue to spend lots of money. Regionally, and this is quantifiable, PFS is the fastest growing organized play group in the Pacific Northwest. Fastest growing once more, is equivalent to majority. Economically, there is no reason to dump a system that is clearly well loved enough to be seeing the success Pathfinder is seeing.Not according to multiple people at Paizo. Also, what exactly are you comparing it too? Is there another Paizo that did release PF 2.0/2E, and you see the differences in their sales and an actual perspective of the leanings of the fanbase or even monetary "majority"?
Secondly, it's inevitable that PF will need to rerelease at some point. They are a company, and needing to make money is kind of important. At some point, the existing material just needs to start back from scratch. Too much gets bolted on, there isn't enough room to expand or grow, and new rules and ideas begin to really blow the old or original ones out of the water. New products become less profitable in general. Everyone wants the Core rule book, but maybe only one person in a groups wants Ultimate Campaign or Bestiary 32. Psionic mind magic is a thing that is pretty middle of the road, some people love it, some people hate it, but once it's out, it changes everything as half the group whines that their GM wont let their super precious psionic character in as the other half outright perma-bans it.
Paizo's business is built around APs and campaign setting material, not around rulebooks. They don't suffer from the "must reset the product line every 5 years" syndrome of WotC.
|
Design Manager
|
That's not really how things work. If you keep selling the same thing the market place will move on without you. *******It's cute how you think you can read my mind***Money talks. Paizo is making more money than any other tabletop RPG currently out (this does not include electronic product sales like video games attached to a franchise) . More = majority of dollars. Ergo, the majority is happy enough with the current system to continue to spend lots of money. Regionally, and this is quantifiable, PFS is the fastest growing organized play group in the Pacific Northwest. Fastest growing once more, is equivalent to majority. Economically, there is no reason to dump a system that is clearly well loved enough to be seeing the success Pathfinder is seeing.
Except they're not selling the same thing. They're continuing to release new product and supporting material for a vibrant and growing gaming system which only recently supplanted its largest competitor.
|
Design Manager
|
Not according to multiple people at Paizo. *******It's cute how you think you can read my mind***Money talks. Paizo is making more money than any other tabletop RPG currently out (this does not include electronic product sales like video games attached to a franchise) . More = majority of dollars. Ergo, the majority is happy enough with the current system to continue to spend lots of money. Regionally, and this is quantifiable, PFS is the fastest growing organized play group in the Pacific Northwest. Fastest growing once more, is equivalent to majority. Economically, there is no reason to dump a system that is clearly well loved enough to be seeing the success Pathfinder is seeing.
Let me rephrase that to "They are selling more units of product than any other tabletop RPG". That may be more accurate since it doesn't rely upon ooperating efficiency for accuracy.
I liked it better when it was on topic.
As did I. What I want in Pathfinder 2.0 is as follows:
(1) Use the Arcana Evolved spell system (including the crafting rules) , but incorporate the existing Pathfinder classes into it.( Magisters would be a wizard archetype, greenbonds a druid archetype, the Arcana Evolved witch class would be folded into the sorcerer (so we could keep the Pathfinder version),mageblades would be a magus archetype, etc).
(2) Include ways of improving a base classes specific abilities into the core rules.(In other words, multiclassing needs to suck less).
(3)If archetypes are going to replace prestige classes, could we have more of them, and could they be better balanced with the standard base class? ( This goes especially for the wizard archetypes).
(4)Martial characters need a power boost. ( I love wizard characters too, but I don't think a Ranma Saotome clone should be an epic level character).
As did I. What I want in Pathfinder 2.0 is as follows:
(1) Use the Arcana Evolved spell system (including the crafting rules) , but incorporate the existing Pathfinder classes into it.( Magisters would be a wizard archetype, greenbonds a druid archetype, the Arcana Evolved witch class would be folded into the sorcerer (so we could keep the Pathfinder version),mageblades would be a magus archetype, etc).
(2) Include ways of improving a base classes specific abilities into the core rules.(In other words, multiclassing needs to suck less).
(3)If archetypes are going to replace prestige classes, could we have more of them, and could they be better balanced with the standard base class? ( This goes especially for the wizard archetypes).
(4)Martial characters need a power boost. ( I love wizard characters too, but I don't think a Ranma Saotome clone should be an epic level character).
One way to improve multi-classed characters is to create rules for multi-class boons in place of favored class bonuses. For example, a multi-classed PC could select having fractional (or partial) BAB, so a cleric 1/rogue 1/wizard 1 would have a BAB of +2 instead of +0. Alternatively, you can have class levels stack for determining Poor saving throws, or add half of non-caster levels to caster levels, etc. etc. Stuff like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We love Pathfinder, at least I do, and Paizo managed to get a lot of things right. Eventually however the rules will need to be updated and things will have to evolve or risk becoming stagnant.
So what are some changes that you would like to see in the future that go beyond what simple errata can cover?
Things I'd like to see!
- A complete focus on skills, perhaps a further condensing of rarely used skills. Combining Fly with Acrobatics, combining Climb and Swim and call it Athletics, Combining Knowledge History and Nobility (probably still wouldn't take it.), putting appraise in the toilet. Most importantly detailing the skills and making sure they work fluidly for all 20 levels.
- Make Feint based on CMB vs CMD, have a feat line for it like trip does.
- Create a crafting system that is fun and makes sense, not just an after thought
- Clearly defining and seperating feats into categories that make sense, and giving every character bonus fluff feats or non combat feats. This would really help flesh out characters and promote RP.
- Bring back the darkness. Every creature in the world of Galorian has either low light vision or darkvision save for Humans, Halflings, and maybe a few other things that have some other sense that trumps darkvision. This is why stealth is useless now, concealment no longer exists really. Low light vision should be rare, darkvision should be stupidly rare and saved for things that would have it based on ecology. Also, light should cost resources, not just endlessly cast on stones by a cleric and slinged down a hallway.
- Class Balance, with some good editions to prestige classes or doing away with them completely in favor of base classes or archtypes.
-Facing! Rules that make it matter, and the benefits and drawbacks of it!
I haven't read this entire thread, just the OP. I'm not sure that Pathfinder NEEDS a 2.0, but there are nonetheless some things I'd love to see.
1. Balancing melee with ranged as a general philosophy. Ranged attacks are so good, there's almost no reason to try to get into melee. Melee is hard, staying in melee can be hard, it should be rewarded.
2. Better usage of skills, like the OP said. I'd like to see almost every skill have a combat use. Since, at its core, Pathfinder is a combat based RPG. Make skills directly affect your damage in some cases, or in others your attack roll, or let your Handle Animal check affect some aspect of your companion's combat ability. There are lots of things to do with this. Make Skill Focus something we WANT to take!!
3. As the OP stated, class balance. We're all pretty much in agreement that Rogue and Monk are quite underpowered, while Summoner and full casters are probably over powered. Make playing a monk or a rogue not feel like a bad choice!!
4. More intuitive prestige classes and multi classing. I know a lot of the pathfinder crowd has a visceral reaction to prestige classes (and after the ridiculous 3.5 bloat on them I kind of understand), but they shouldn't be intentionally underpowered. We don't need MORE, just BETTER. Also, make the crazy jack-of-all trades characters fun and viable for the people who love their cleric / bard / druid / fighter. Maybe make class features advancable / buyable as feats. The Animal Ally chain from Faiths and Philosophies is a great example of this kind of thing.
I'm sure I'll think of more later. Overall though, I'm very happy with the Pathfinder system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pie.
Not so fast! That's for Pathfinder 3.14
Well, there are a considerable amount of good ideas in this thread, and at the same time most people (and i believe it includes Paizo team) don't want any radical changes to the system. Perhaps a compendium of optional rules and guidelines to "fix" (and/or adapt) the Core rules to your current campaign is the best approach (or even two "compendiums", one for players, other for GMs - i thought about it because i play in a campaign that sort of fits in the low-magic model, where magic items are fairly scarce).
|
In all seriousness, a new version of Pathfinder would be very, very hard to pull off.
4th Edition D&D has shown the dangers of removing too many of the sacred cows of the game, and how changing both the flavour and the mechanics can remove some of the identity of the game.
And the identity 'n' nature of the game is a pretty weird and intangible thing.
With 5e becoming a retro reality and 4e already a complete ruleset and easily available online, Paizo would have to take a very different route from both editions.
I think they'd be best of going with Pathfinder Revised rather than Pathfinder 2.
Keep the classes and races, keep the design of classes and powers, keep the resolution mechanics and a goodly chunk of the action economy. However, they should pull out ALL the numbers. Fix the math and make all everything consistent. Revise the numbers in the powers and abilities, tweak the DCs, and the like, but keep all the general abilities themselves.
Would a DC of 10 + double spell level + ability modifier be too hard? Or just about right?
|
|
Things I would like to see in PF2.0, in no particular order:
1: Racial progression options. Let me advance my racial abilities, not just my wizard spells. You can't necessarily tell that my guy in normal clothes casts arcane spells at a glance, especially if I don't flip through a spellbook all day, but you can damn sure tell from the ears and slight build he's an elf, and I would like ways to explore a character's racial heritage more as a type of progression. Paragon levels in 3.5 touched on this, but it still didn't feel quite right. Investigate further, please.
2: Scaling feats. If we're keeping feats, we need to find ways to eliminate feat taxes, ASAP. There is absolutely NOTHING as frustrating, tragic, and senseless as taking a feat you DO NOT WANT, for flavor or crunch reasons, but that you MUST have for the feat that PERFECTLY rounds out your character and tells your story. Also, feats that provide nothing but bigger numbers? Gotta go. Seriously, either redesign/streamline the feat system or toss it.
3: Less base classes. There is a reason the rogue, and to a lesser extent, the monk, are left out in the cold. there are ELEVEN core classes, EIGHT additional base classes, and three variant classes that are different enough to be called classes of their own; in the case of the samurai and ninja, they actually OUTSHINE their original classes mechanically. Streamline/blend the class list and find ways for each class to branch out more freely, WITHOUT pigeonholing themselves into a single function, outside of which they absolutely suck. Make all these named/themed variants of a class nothing more than that: variants, builds, easily obtainable through certain initial choices.
4: less punishing specialization in general. I understand that in a party of four or more, everyone has a niche to fill, but they are all still people, and no one I have ever met, heard of, or read about, is as one-dimensionally skilled as many characters end up. I'm not talking about the jacks-of-all-trades; they exist too and they are their own niche, in a way. I'm talking the insectlike overspecialization that comes from, say, min-maxing STR, cramming in weapon focus and weapon spec(greatsword) and the greater varieties, and handing the dice to someone else when the DM says "make a _____ check." Character roles are polarized; you're either specced in something and suck at everything else, or you suck at everything. This also relates to no. 3 above. Not realistic, not as fair as you might think in practice, and not fun. Solution needed. And don't come back with the balance-mechanics-tactical-party role-overpowered, left brained retort; we've all heard it. You want a game where every character fulfills one role and functions as a perfect unit to destroy every tactical challenge they encounter? We have games for that--may I suggest Final Fantasy Tactics or Panzer General (both great titles I genuinely enjoy in their own place.) You want to BE one of those genetically specialized soldier ants whose only purpose in life is to bite the enemies of the hive? Bad news...you were born as the wrong species.
I want to roll up a C H A R A C T E R and go on A D V E N T U R E S.
Here's a thought:
Abandon the concept of classes altogether. Instead, at each new level have a point buy of abilities, all organized into a tree. Pathfinder has already started down this road with archetypes in the APG--it just needs to reach its logical end.
Ive often toyed with the idea. Starting out as a blank slate but having a certain number of points to buy abilities. Similar but different to both feats and skill points.Like say a character starts out with 10 points, and to buy a spellcasting level (becoming a wizard) you have to spend 6 of them. each feat depending on its usefullness would cost 2,3, or 4 points, and you would gain more points each level to customize your character.
<puts on RPG historican's hat>
AD&D 2E tried something like that, with the "Players Option: Skills and Powers" book. It's worth a look for ideas and inspiration if you can find a copy floating around. dndclassics.com has the PDF, and there are some cheap used copies on Amazon. If I remember correctly it starts with existing races and classes as a base and then introduces a points-buy system to customize them.The main problem is that a points-buy system introduces an virtually untestable balancing factor. You can never playtest all the abilities in every possible combination to make sure that there aren't some that provide an OP effect once combined, so it'll probably always be a "With GM approval of your character sheet" thing.
If there ever is a Pathfinder 2.0 I would much rather see a set of rules for updating the existing material to 2.0 rather than a whole new game. I've spent maybe $300 - $400 on Pathfinder material and I know a lot of people have spent way more than that. I will be pretty pissed if they expect me to just chuck all that stuff out the window.
On the other hand, a "variant" of PF that functions as a version 2 and doesn't require me to update all my books is something that I would definitely buy. Even if I didn't plan to use it.
Finally, if PF abandons the OGL by releasing an all-new game I will be abandoning PF. The OGL is one of the things that makes this game great.
I've spent maybe $300 - $400 on Pathfinder material and I know a lot of people have spent way more than that. I will be pretty pissed if they expect me to just chuck all that stuff out the window.
That's the reason a lot of us came to Pathfinder in the first place, to have a supported game we can keep using our 3.5E books with rather than replacing them all in order to play 4E.
A set of rules for updating would past where I draw the line. I'd want a new edition to use 99% of the same statblocks and allow existing classes, spells, monsters, items, etc, to work without modification. I can tolerate something like CR/XP changes at most.
Thing is, I see no reason to change the existing rules, only to present them better to deal with rules bloat, and tweak a few things here and there for clarity/efficiency. Replacing with a new system because "the current one is too bloated" just continues the vicious circle, when what is really needed is a new approach to rules bloat that compresses and condenses it down rather than just starting from scratch all over again (with a system that after a few years will *also* suffer from rules bloat, and around and around we go...).
Parker Brothers and Monopoly might disagree with you. The game has been out virtually unchanged for the better part of a century.***It's cute how you think you can read my mind***Money talks. Paizo is making more money than any other tabletop RPG currently out (this does not include electronic product sales like video games attached to a franchise) . More = majority of dollars. Ergo, the majority is happy enough with the current system to continue to spend lots of money. Regionally, and this is quantifiable, PFS is the fastest growing organized play group in the Pacific Northwest. Fastest growing once more, is equivalent to majority. Economically, there is no reason to dump a system that is clearly well loved enough to be seeing the success Pathfinder is seeing.That's not really how things work. If you keep selling the same thing the market place will move on without you. Just look at what happened to IE. Once the browser, then along came Opera and Mozilla with tabbed browsing and IE's market share collapsed catastrophically never to recover.
While I don't agree that we need any significant overhaul in the rule system, I don't think you can compare Parker Brothers boardgames to the modern roleplaying market, which largely is set up to keep players buying product (adventures, rule books, bestiaries, etc).
It's not unreasonable to think that at some point in the future, the idea well might start running dry either on the rules system or the setting.
I don't want a PF 2.0. An "Unearthed Arcana" style alternate rules system would be sufficient.
I'd like to see all combat and weapon proficiencies converted to skills with attacks being opposed rolls.
Armor should be treated as damage reduction.
CMB and CMD should be combined with the standard attack rolls. There's no need for two melee combat types.
A spell point system. License the one from Super Genius Games.
I definitively agree that any PF2.0 system that gets released should have more of an "alternate rules" system akin to the ones presented in Ultimate Combat, Spell Points, different class progressions and a more consolidated skill system are really the only things I would look forward to in an updated game.
|
|
And, just to nitpick, Monopoly has changed somewhat. Not very big changes (it's not like Risk), but there are distinctions between editions.
Parker Brothers and Paizo just happen to understand what a new edition means better than WotC. New edition =/= new book/game/whatever, it means revisions.
Well, lets be honest. WotC has only had 2 new Editions (of D&D) and also 2 (relatively large) Revisions. 3E and then 4E, and 1 Revision for each. 3E did amazing, and mechanically broke away from the previous editions' mold, but mostly retained the flavor and fluff, or at least mostly allowed the previous to work well within the new mechanics. It was generally well received, and by a lot of accounts saved the hobby and the game at the time. 4E instead broke away completely from both, and because of the style of changes to the mechanics, really made a lot of previous material and fluff extremely difficult or impossible to use with it's current mechanics. How it was received and how well it did are still constantly debated. With that in mind, it seems that the proof indicates the opposite, (within the context of the game(s) and also by comparing two unrelated things that are not too similar).
Ive often toyed with the idea. Starting out as a blank slate but having a certain number of points to buy abilities. Similar but different to both feats and skill points.Like say a character starts out with 10 points, and to buy a spellcasting level (becoming a wizard) you have to spend 6 of them. each feat depending on its usefullness would cost 2,3, or 4 points, and you would gain more points each level to customize your character.
<puts on RPG historican's hat>
AD&D 2E tried something like that, with the "Players Option: Skills and Powers" book. It's worth a look for ideas and inspiration if you can find a copy floating around. dndclassics.com has the PDF, and there are some cheap used copies on Amazon. If I remember correctly it starts with existing races and classes as a base and then introduces a points-buy system to customize them.The main problem is that a points-buy system introduces an virtually untestable balancing factor. You can never playtest all the abilities in every possible combination to make sure that there aren't some that provide an OP effect once combined, so it'll probably always be a "With GM approval of your character sheet" thing.
Thanks Matt! I downloaded the AD&D supplement you mentioned. It's interesting but I was envisioning something with a lot more versatility. This old AD&D system still railroads you into the basic classes: wizards, warriors, priests or rogues. I was thinking of a new system that would make archetypes, feats, classes and especially this new Advanced Class Guide obsolete. People could pick and choose new powers at each level, making raging magicians, sneak-attacking prophets, and the like.
I might work out the mechanics and make a new thread on this....
|
|
Its completely pathetic how 1st level PC's and NPC's have less hit dice than a sheep. The LARGEST of sheep are roughly the same mass as an average adult human. Its insane that the average sheep gets 314% the HP as the average commoner farmer. (i averaged 3.5 HP for the farmer). Add in the fact that a sheeps bite is 1d6, the instant a sheep gets angry at the farmer, the farmer has a 50/50 chance of getting his arm ripped off in a round and dying.
FYI, well sheep can actually kill a human pretty easy. More than one person has been trampled to death by sheep. They're heavy and fast and we're surprisingly squishy.
|
|
No, it would seem the evidence indicates that WotC doesn't understand what the word "edition" means. If you only ever look at WotC products, then yea, a "new edition" is essentially a new game. But for virtually every other RPG on the market, a "new edition" is just a revision. Same goes for books and other medium. WotC misused the word "edition" twice. That doesn't mean the common word meaning changes, it means WotC needs to consult a dictionary. Or just look at how 99% of other companies use the word.<snip>
With that in mind, it seems that the proof indicates the opposite, (within the context of the game(s) and also by comparing two unrelated things that are not too similar).
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Star Wars RPG both did see enormous changes across editions, and that's just going with the most popular RPGs. I'm sure I can find several others once I wake up and drink my coffee.
The term "edition" holds a different meaning with the context of RPG market than it does in, say "ordinary" book market.
Well, as a designer of a tool for Pathfinder RPG, I would hope that version 2.0 would not 'break' the system... (as D&D 4+ did)
It needs to be totally compatible with the current system, as not to loose existing libraries of books and modules. That, in my humble opinion, would be the most important aspect of any updates... (read don't make the mistake WotC did!)
|
|
Well, as a designer of a tool for Pathfinder RPG, I would hope that version 2.0 would not 'break' the system... (as D&D 4+ did)
It needs to be totally compatible with the current system, as not to loose existing libraries of books and modules. That, in my humble opinion, would be the most important aspect of any updates... (read don't make the mistake WotC did!)
The problem with making compatibility a priority is that inherent problems will stay with the system.
The problem with making compatibility a priority is that inherent problems will stay with the system.Well, as a designer of a tool for Pathfinder RPG, I would hope that version 2.0 would not 'break' the system... (as D&D 4+ did)
It needs to be totally compatible with the current system, as not to loose existing libraries of books and modules. That, in my humble opinion, would be the most important aspect of any updates... (read don't make the mistake WotC did!)
So it's down to who they decide to drive away then I guess... either those of us who don't want any major changes, or those who feel the system is too broken to stay with ;)
I really hope if it does come down to it, that Paizo put a poll up to get an idea of the player split over that - and I wish WotC had done the same before making the 4e decision.
|
|
Cougj, cough, WoD,. . .
Well, since 1989 WoD is still "roll attribute + skill, count successes, if you have 3 you're OK". Things around change, but the skeleton of the system remains the same.
Star Wars, on the other hand? Even when we're talking just WotC-made editions, d20 and SAGA are worlds apart.
I would like to see the percentage (d100) mechanic done away with. For example "20% concealment) could be changed to "+4 circumstance bonus to armor class", and so on.
Some editions have been basically new games, while others have been more like slight to moderate revisions to existing rules, but still keeping the ruleset intact.
I don't have as much experience as other people, but my understanding is that the changes from 1st -> 2nd and 3.0 -> 3.5 -> Pathfinder were all pretty modest, when compared to 2nd -> 3.0 or 3.5 -> 4th
I expect we would more likely see the former than the latter.
I would like to see the percentage (d100) mechanic done away with. For example "20% concealment) could be changed to "+4 circumstance bonus to armor class", and so on.
This would make things harder. Concealment is much easier to handle as an extra die roll, since it can change from round to round, and even combatant to combatant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see the percentage (d100) mechanic done away with. For example "20% concealment) could be changed to "+4 circumstance bonus to armor class", and so on.This would make things harder. Concealment is much easier to handle as an extra die roll, since it can change from round to round, and even combatant to combatant.
I would like concealment to be changed to a 1-4 miss chance out of d20, 1-10 miss chance for full concealment. Or make a Percpetion check, but with a higher DC, like 10 for concealment and 20 for full concealment.
Basically, make all d100 rolls d20 rolls. Unless there is a real reason for using d%, like having a list with 12% for this, 3% for that, and 62% for that other thing.
I would like to see the percentage (d100) mechanic done away with. For example "20% concealment) could be changed to "+4 circumstance bonus to armor class", and so on.This would make things harder. Concealment is much easier to handle as an extra die roll, since it can change from round to round, and even combatant to combatant.
I don't see it as being any more difficult than remembering a percentage chance, really.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been said a couple of times already, but:
I would like to see the whole Core Rulebook reorganized and typographically redesigned, according to the layout and design principles used in the Basic Box and most of Paizo's hardbacks published since then. The CR as it stands is a dense, poorly organized, and not particularly attractive book.
I would like to see no substantive rules changes at all.
This has been said a couple of times already, but:
I would like to see the whole Core Rulebook reorganized and typographically redesigned, according to the layout and design principles used in the Basic Box and most of Paizo's hardbacks published since then. The CR as it stands is a dense, poorly organized, and not particularly attractive book.
I would like to see no substantive rules changes at all.
This man makes a really, really good point. A "revised" Core Rulebook would be a wonderful tool.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad to see more people advocating for that. It's what I'd like to see.