What Do You Hope to See in PF 2e?


Homebrew and House Rules

501 to 550 of 763 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Pan wrote:
memorax wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
I'd like a proper roleplaying game back like we had in the Gygax days, not this anime math nonsense!
This is the worst idea. There are easily 8 printing retroclones at any given time. Pathfinder should not be a retroclone.
Agreed. While Im enjoying lookin through my 2E reprints and like much of what Im reading. PF should not go back to that imo. If I want older style of gmaing I can use 2E or any of the retroclones.
Guys I hate to tell you this but.......LawLz

Pathfinder is just a clone and not a retroclone (if that is what you are implying). And if you are implying that regressing farther back is a good idea, then you are a chump.

The market is saturated with games like that. Hell, D&D Next is even moving in that direction. I want that crunch, man.

Sovereign Court

Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Pan wrote:
Hmm kind of creates a death spiral dont you think? The more damage you take the worse you get and die especially if that damage is Con. I can see some upside to this but also some downside. Restoring stat damage can be a PITA for some groups. The change would also have to reflect ability to recover and give the party more tools for fixing it. Not a bad idea entirely but it leans towards being really problematic.

I'll deal with a little extra complication to make 249 damage to a level 20 character with 250 health more tactically impactful than a failed save vs color spray. It also makes healing magic more useful in combat for doing something beyond simply extending a character, as compared to other spells that would extend the character by making them stronger.

I don't think it's a change that could exist in a vacuum, though. Damage numbers would probably need to be scaled back a bit.

I had this idea for using the bloodied idea from 4E. SoS/D spells would have lite effects and then the wallop effect. Based on your condition the spell would effect you differently. Problem is then folks would be screaming for the healer to keep them above the bloddied line. Personally I hate the fact so many folks think they have to chain a healbot to every party and feel mechanics with these ideas in mind will only bolster such sentiments. I think your condition track idea would push things too heavily in a direction I would like to move away from.

Sovereign Court

Excaliburproxy wrote:
Pan wrote:
memorax wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
I'd like a proper roleplaying game back like we had in the Gygax days, not this anime math nonsense!
This is the worst idea. There are easily 8 printing retroclones at any given time. Pathfinder should not be a retroclone.
Agreed. While Im enjoying lookin through my 2E reprints and like much of what Im reading. PF should not go back to that imo. If I want older style of gmaing I can use 2E or any of the retroclones.
Guys I hate to tell you this but.......LawLz

Pathfinder is just a clone and not a retroclone (if that is what you are implying). And if you are implying that regressing farther back is a good idea, then you are a chump.

The market is saturated with games like that. Hell, D&D Next is even moving in that direction. I want that crunch, man.

Oh man....I am laughing because you got Gorb'd....in a way I guess I just got Gorb'd too. :)


Pan wrote:

Oh man....I am laughing because you got Gorb'd....in a way I guess I just got Gorb'd too. :)

This word means nothing to me, Pan.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Pan wrote:

Oh man....I am laughing because you got Gorb'd....in a way I guess I just got Gorb'd too. :)

This word means nothing to me, Pan.

Successful Troll thanks fellow poster for playing.


Pan wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:

I'll deal with a little extra complication to make 249 damage to a level 20 character with 250 health more tactically impactful than a failed save vs color spray. It also makes healing magic more useful in combat for doing something beyond simply extending a character, as compared to other spells that would extend the character by making them stronger.

I don't think it's a change that could exist in a vacuum, though. Damage numbers would probably need to be scaled back a bit.

I had this idea for using the bloodied idea from 4E. SoS/D spells would have lite effects and then the wallop effect. Based on your condition the spell would effect you differently. Problem is then folks would be screaming for the healer to keep them above the bloddied line. Personally I hate the fact so many folks think they have to chain a healbot to every party and feel mechanics with these ideas in mind will only bolster such sentiments. I think your condition track idea would push things too heavily in a direction I would like to move away from.

Yeah, that people think the cleric (wielder of a deity's power) should be a healbot is frustrating. The fact is though, at the current state of the game, status effects like dazed, stunned, sleep, nauseated, panicked, and a few others are simply far more effective ways to eliminate an enemy from combat than damage.

Just trying to give characters who rely solely on doing damage in combat a way to more meaningfully contribute. Whether it came from doing so in condition track/bloodied condition style of it, or some other way wouldn't bother me too much.

The end is more important to me than the means in this situation.

Sovereign Court

Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Pan wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:

I'll deal with a little extra complication to make 249 damage to a level 20 character with 250 health more tactically impactful than a failed save vs color spray. It also makes healing magic more useful in combat for doing something beyond simply extending a character, as compared to other spells that would extend the character by making them stronger.

I don't think it's a change that could exist in a vacuum, though. Damage numbers would probably need to be scaled back a bit.

I had this idea for using the bloodied idea from 4E. SoS/D spells would have lite effects and then the wallop effect. Based on your condition the spell would effect you differently. Problem is then folks would be screaming for the healer to keep them above the bloddied line. Personally I hate the fact so many folks think they have to chain a healbot to every party and feel mechanics with these ideas in mind will only bolster such sentiments. I think your condition track idea would push things too heavily in a direction I would like to move away from.

Yeah, that people think the cleric (wielder of a deity's power) should be a healbot is frustrating. The fact is though, at the current state of the game, status effects like dazed, stunned, sleep, nauseated, panicked, and a few others are simply far more effective ways to eliminate an enemy from combat than damage.

Just trying to give characters who rely solely on doing damage in combat a way to more meaningfully contribute. Whether it came from doing so in condition track/bloodied condition style of it, or some other way wouldn't bother me too much.

The end is more important to me than the means in this situation.

Hmm what about finding ways for martials to inflict conditions through attacks earlier and easier than they do now?


Pan wrote:
Actually I think this is some of the best criticism. Marthkus is explaining without being derogatory or using hyperbole why he may not like an element of 4E. Since those elements have been brought up as ideas for PF2 seems like fair game to me. Maybe we should back up from the E-war alarm until its neccesary?

Fair enough. I simply find that once people start framing opinion ("4E breaks verisimilitude") as fact, things usually go down hill pretty fast.


Pan wrote:
Hmm what about finding ways for martials to inflict conditions through attacks earlier and easier than they do now?

"Dead" isn't a condition? ;-)

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
The main change between the time Pathfinder was originally developed and now is that compatibility with D&D 3.5 is no longer a priority, as D&D 3.5 material is mostly out of print and there are more than enough true Pathfinder products to replace them.

While it might be fine at this point for Hypothetical PF2e to invalidate 3.5e, I don't think it would be ok for Hypothetical PF2e to invalidate the current edition of Pathfinder. In fact, I think that would be a really bad move on paizo's part, given the history of how PFRPG came to be.

-Skeld

Sovereign Court

bugleyman wrote:
Pan wrote:
Hmm what about finding ways for martials to inflict conditions through attacks earlier and easier than they do now?
"Dead" isn't a condition? ;-)

It certainly is. Though some folks want more than "I swing and damage it" options for their martial characters.


Skeld wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
The main change between the time Pathfinder was originally developed and now is that compatibility with D&D 3.5 is no longer a priority, as D&D 3.5 material is mostly out of print and there are more than enough true Pathfinder products to replace them.

While it might be fine at this point for Hypothetical PF2e to invalidate 3.5e, I don't think it would be ok for Hypothetical PF2e to invalidate the current edition of Pathfinder. In fact, I think that would be a really bad move on paizo's part, given the history of how PFRPG came to be.

-Skeld

You may be right in some ways, but I am definitely going to leave pathfinder eventually as better games from other publishers come out. That is just a thing that is true.

I also like playing new games and I would be really interested in seeing a new game that chose a different evolutionary path from what D&D actually took: i.e. moving more towards balance while still remaining varied and complex (or even becoming more complex if that complexity also buys fun).

I think that it is becoming clear that some core mechanics of the game are going to need to change for pathfinder to meaningfully improve.

Sovereign Court

Excaliburproxy wrote:
I think that it is becoming clear that some core mechanics of the game are going to need to change for pathfinder to meaningfully improve.

Can you expand on this?

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
Pan wrote:
Hmm what about finding ways for martials to inflict conditions through attacks earlier and easier than they do now?
"Dead" isn't a condition? ;-)

Using pure RAW, I dunno. It lacks any sort of modifiers in association with it.

Shadow Lodge

Dead is just permanent unconsciousness.


Pan wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I think that it is becoming clear that some core mechanics of the game are going to need to change for pathfinder to meaningfully improve.
Can you expand on this?

I can:

Martial characters need full round actions to do anything that is even close to meaningful. Fixing this would mean that you would have to change the essential action economy of the game.

More generally: mages become gods while martials become killing machines but only under very exacting circumstances and often requiring extremely specific builds to maximize effectiveness.

The effectiveness of martials are locked behind feats while the effectiveness of mages are all built into the class (the feats are icing on the cake).

There are a lot of systems that people consider unwieldy (CMD and CMB, but I am not sure I have a more streamlined solution than this).

On my own personal preferences: I would like to see spellcasting classes to be more different from each-other in a lot of ways. As it stands, they are all "do some wacky effect as a standard action" classes in combat. The difference is they just each have different huge lists of wacky effects; these wacky effects aren't even that specialized between classes (all have control and blasting damage and various situational powers). For most of them, summon monster build is the best build as far as general usefulness goes.

Some classes are far too weak and make a bad baseline which dooms comparable new classes to be balanced against the too weak older classes.

Rogue being the main class that gets trapfinding out the box is dumb. This is a task that every party needs. I know people don't like everyone getting trapfinding but there should be about as many viable trap finders as there are viable healers in the game.

Also: there eventually has be latitude for entirely new ideas. Eventually, improvement will require killing something that is currently a sacred cow in the rules as written.

Monster stat blocks are sort of a pain in the ass to use and read through and could maybe use a general redesign.

More stuff, but I am busy.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No bandaids for martial characters, or giving them resource management abilities that are spells by another name, or just giving them a bunch of overwhelming static bonuses.

Just redo the core magic system. That's where the problem of 3.x lies in the first place. As long as magic works the way it does, PF will always be lopsided. I'm tired of the "I have a spell for that" situation that makes careful skill allocation redundant. Magic will still be just better. But it doesn't need to be this good.

Edit: I'm not suggesting I don't like the martial/vancian divide. It's one of the things I love about all pre-4e editions of the game and it's always made the system unique, though your mileage may vary on whether or not vancian casting is a pain. I really enjoy its versatility. I just don't think spells need to be so powerful.


The Red Mage wrote:

No bandaids for martial characters, or giving them resource management abilities that are spells by another name, or just giving them a bunch of overwhelming static bonuses.

Just redo the core magic system. That's where the problem of 3.x lies in the first place. As long as magic works the way it does, PF will always be lopsided. I'm tired of the "I have a spell for that" situation that makes careful skill allocation redundant. Magic will still be just better. But it doesn't need to be this good.

Edit: I'm not suggesting I don't like the martial/vancian divide. It's one of the things I love about all pre-4e editions of the game and it's always made the system unique, though your mileage may vary on whether or not vancian casting is a pain. I really enjoy its versatility. I just don't think spells need to be so powerful.

Don't know if I like this! The wackiness that you can get up to with casters is one of the most interesting features of the game. I would just want to include improvements to action economy for martial characters.

For casting, I would mostly want to peel back anything that takes an enemy out of the fight on a saved check (for more than a round, anyways). That way wizards can still have their creativity and general shenanigans, but won't also outclass the martial characters in combat.

I would also remove all spells that emulated the effects of skills where possible. Spells like that should just offer bonuses to skill checks.

Sovereign Court

excaliburproxy wrote:

Martial characters need full round actions to do anything that is even close to meaningful. Fixing this would mean that you would have to change the essential action economy of the game.

Not sure I follow this. Could you provide an example?

excaliburproxy wrote:
More generally: mages become gods while martials become killing machines but only under very exacting circumstances and often requiring extremely specific builds to maximize effectiveness.

Thats not really a problem for me at this point.

excaliburproxy wrote:
The effectiveness of martials are locked behind feats while the effectiveness of mages are all built into the class (the feats are icing on the cake).

Yeah I can see this. Defientely room for improvement. Would love to hear some of your ideas.

excaliburproxy wrote:
There are a lot of systems that people consider unwieldy (CMD and CMB, but I am not sure I have a more streamlined solution than this).

Bounded accuracy would clear these issues right up.

excaliburproxy wrote:
Also: there eventually has be latitude for entirely new ideas. Eventually, improvement will require killing something that is currently a sacred cow in the rules as written.

Depends on the cow. I am partial to many of them and they make the game for me.


Pan wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:

Yeah, that people think the cleric (wielder of a deity's power) should be a healbot is frustrating. The fact is though, at the current state of the game, status effects like dazed, stunned, sleep, nauseated, panicked, and a few others are simply far more effective ways to eliminate an enemy from combat than damage.

Just trying to give characters who rely solely on doing damage in combat a way to more meaningfully contribute. Whether it came from doing so in condition track/bloodied condition style of it, or some other way wouldn't bother me too much.

The end is more important to me than the means in this situation.

Hmm what about finding ways for martials to inflict conditions through attacks earlier and easier than they do now?

See, I'm not just talking about martial characters, though they are dispraporionately affected by the problem. I also don't want to engage in a martial vs caster discussion because I don't have the energy for one.

Instead I'll ask another question: How do we make the blaster sorcerer or evoker wizard a less suboptimal choice than they are currently?


Pan wrote:
excaliburproxy wrote:

Martial characters need full round actions to do anything that is even close to meaningful. Fixing this would mean that you would have to change the essential action economy of the game.

Not sure I follow this. Could you provide an example?

excaliburproxy wrote:
More generally: mages become gods while martials become killing machines but only under very exacting circumstances and often requiring extremely specific builds to maximize effectiveness.

Thats not really a problem for me at this point.

excaliburproxy wrote:
The effectiveness of martials are locked behind feats while the effectiveness of mages are all built into the class (the feats are icing on the cake).
Yeah I can see this. Defientely room for improvement. Would love to hear some of your ideas.

Part 1:

I am a fighter and the enemy is 20 feet away. I can walk over there and attack him once. I will probably do a pittance for damage more or less and my turn is over without anything interesting happening. This is going to be the case for about half of the rounds of a fight. So melee characters feel like chumps half of the time. All good martial builds are designed around avoiding this problem one way or another (i.e. defaulting to range or getting pounce somehow or doing all your damage with one big hit).

Parts 2 and 3:
This should be a problem for you. It limits your martial character building decisions to only a very small number of viable options. I will call this the "League of Legends" design problem. To fix this: I think many feats should just be effects built into base attack bonus somehow (as multiple attacks are). Like: everyone with 4+ BAB should have point blank shot and everyone who has 6+ BAB should have precise shot. These are things that are necessary for fighting in a certain way, and I think it is reasonable that a well-rounded warrior could learn how to do these things in addition to fighting more accurately. You could still take the old feats to get access to that stuff early but you should be allowed to replace those "earlybird" feats with new combat feats once you get those effects for free. I also feel like every martial character should get a free weapon focus now and again. As it stands, everyone but idiots are building around only knowing how to use one weapon well.


Oh yeah, also, I want to see the "Natural 1 = Instafail lolololol" rule go the way of the dodo.


Pan wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
It is interesting that more than a couple of suggestions of what to do in PF2 are things that 4e actually did. Paizo may want to take a look at 4e and see what stuff it did well and perhaps learn from that.
...But don't tell the fans! PF 2e might fail just because the haters carry the old "It's not really a rpg" nonsense over from 4e. ;)
You been waiting since the OP to bust this out I bet!

That's right, this is all part of my master plan to manipulating Paizo into publishing Pathfinder: the Fourthing!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Pan wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
It is interesting that more than a couple of suggestions of what to do in PF2 are things that 4e actually did. Paizo may want to take a look at 4e and see what stuff it did well and perhaps learn from that.
...But don't tell the fans! PF 2e might fail just because the haters carry the old "It's not really a rpg" nonsense over from 4e. ;)
You been waiting since the OP to bust this out I bet!
That's right, this is all part of my master plan to manipulating Paizo into publishing Pathfinder: the Fourthing!

I think Fourthfinder has a better ring to it. :)


Marthkus wrote:
The GM is aware of it and their sense of (overused word) verisimilitude is as important as the PCs.

You're right, verisimilitude is important. So here are my ideas for getting rid of the PF stuff that kills verisimilitude:

AC: Characters get better at stabbing things, they get better at dodging fireballs, but they never get better at dodging swords? What am I playing, Diablo? Must be changed! (Mentioned earlier, but worth repeating.)

Wizards: Wizards are described as masters of magic, even more so than in earlier iterations of D&D, but they're not. If a spell is level-appropriate, a wizard should be able to learn and cast it!

Iterative Attacks: Skilled combatants are better off standing still? Ludicrous! Full-attacking, or its equivalent in PF2, needs to be a standard action!

Swallow Whole: If a PC cuts his way out of a big beastie, the beastie should die. Not use localized regeneration to heal the hole in its throat and go right on fighting. So gamey!

BAB: A wizard, particularly one of the bookworm NPC sort, can go his entire career never having lifted a dagger. And yet he's a better warrior than most actual warriors! Nonsense!

Default Attack Stat: Aiming with muscle makes no sense. Dexterity should be the default attack stat, if not the only attack stat, with Strength limiting the weapons you can wield.

Monster Realism: Critters do not get better at fighting, skills, dodging fireballs, or resisting mental influence just because they're bigger. All animals and animal-intelligence monsters should have +0 BAB (or maybe +5 if a predator), a handful of skill points, and +0 base saves regardless of size!

Dex 11-: Characters with low-to-average Dex are just as hard to hit flat-footed? That's ridiculous! Ability bonuses need to be changed to a realistic paradigm: a score of 1-2 is a +1, a 3-4 is a +2, and so on. That way when anyone is flat-footed, they always become easier to hit! Unless of course they're already paralyzed or something, in which case they're already basically an object.

Size Categories: Size categories are unrealistic, and not even consistent within their own logic. Each category is supposed to represent a doubling of each dimension, but that's not how minis are sized. Also, Small creatures should not be Medium-lite just because some players want to play Frodo -- Small and Medium having the same space and reach is absurd, and must be changed! Also, size should affect Perception for the same reason it affects AC and attack rolls. Oh and while we're on the topic, someone who actually understands math should redo the attack/AC size mods.

Monster Building: Monsters and PCs should follow the same rules. None of this 3+ HD per CR insanity -- talk about power creep! -- everything gets 1 HD per CR, with monster class abilities thrown in for higher CR monsters!

Class Abilities: Why must a PC take rogue levels to get Evasion, or barbarian levels to get Rage? Anyone can learn to dodge fireballs, and get destructively angry. I say turn everything into feats! Then we can all build the characters we want, instead of playing a tabletop mmorpg!

Yes, these are actual issues that ruin my verisimilitude when playing PF. As much, if not more than 4e's oddities. You might have difficulty taking 4e seriously, but I assure you, there are plenty of us with the same problem with 3.x. And nobody gets to claim a monopoly on verisimilitude, because if there are any GURPers reading this thread, they have stomach aches from all the laughter, and temporary blindness from all the eye-rolling.

And now I think we should follow Pan's advice, and quit with the not-so-subtle edition-sniping.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
The GM is aware of it and their sense of (overused word) verisimilitude is as important as the PCs.

You're right, verisimilitude is important. So here are my ideas for getting rid of the PF stuff that kills verisimilitude:

AC: Characters get better at stabbing things, they get better at dodging fireballs, but they never get better at dodging swords? What am I playing, Diablo? Must be changed! (Mentioned earlier, but worth repeating.)

Wizards: Wizards are described as masters of magic, even more so than in earlier iterations of D&D, but they're not. If a spell is level-appropriate, a wizard should be able to learn and cast it!

Swallow Whole: If a PC cuts his way out of a big beastie, the beastie should die. Not use localized regeneration to heal the hole in its throat and go right on fighting. So gamey!

BAB: A wizard, particularly one of the bookworm NPC sort, can go his entire career never having lifted a dagger. And yet he's a better warrior than most actual warriors! Nonsense!

Default Attack Stat: Aiming with muscle makes no sense. Dexterity should be the default attack stat, if not the only attack stat, with Strength limiting the weapons you can wield.

Monster Realism: Critters do not get better at fighting, skills, dodging fireballs, or resisting mental influence just because they're bigger. All animals and animal-intelligence monsters should have +0 BAB (or maybe +5 if a predator), a handful of skill points, and +0 base saves regardless of size!

Dex 11-: Characters with low-to-average Dex are just as hard to hit flat-footed? That's ridiculous! Ability bonuses need to be changed to a realistic paradigm: a score of 1-2 is a +1, a 3-4 is a +2, and so on. That way when anyone is flat-footed, they always become easier to hit! Unless of course they're already paralyzed or something, in which case they're already basically an object.

Size Categories: Size categories are...

Sounds like you want dex to be a god stat, man. Accuracy is everything, especially given that there are so many ways to add damage to an attack.

I think hitting with your muscles makes more sense than you think as you bully past your opponents defenses and dent their armor.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
You might have difficulty taking 4e seriously, but I assure you, there are plenty of us with the same problem with 3.x.

This.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
And now I think we should follow Pan's advice, and quit with the not-so-subtle edition-sniping.

Hey, that was my advice. ;-)


The Red Mage wrote:

No bandaids for martial characters, or giving them resource management abilities that are spells by another name, or just giving them a bunch of overwhelming static bonuses.

Just redo the core magic system. That's where the problem of 3.x lies in the first place. As long as magic works the way it does, PF will always be lopsided. I'm tired of the "I have a spell for that" situation that makes careful skill allocation redundant. Magic will still be just better. But it doesn't need to be this good.

Edit: I'm not suggesting I don't like the martial/vancian divide. It's one of the things I love about all pre-4e editions of the game and it's always made the system unique, though your mileage may vary on whether or not vancian casting is a pain. I really enjoy its versatility. I just don't think spells need to be so powerful.

Yet again, taking the Wizard out or ruining him is not going to bring people along to the new edition. Every single person who enjoys writing "Wizard" "Sorcerer" "Cleric" or "Druid" on their sheet is out straight from the gate.

Enjoy playing that game where only die hard martial fans play-- of course it already exists in a half dozen forms now, so not sure why we need a new edition to ruin the game and throw half the classes into the garbage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because "Changing it so there's not a spell for literally every conceivable scenario" is "Ruining the Wizard". :rolleyes:


Because many people love having things taken away from them and being told they should be happy and like it because "its better".

How about we give fighters nothing new, and put them on d4 hit dice?

Actually, that's my suggestion-- martials are too powerful-- all classes with full BaB get d4 hit dice and are only allowed to use Knives that do d3 damage and nothing else-- trust me its better.

You fighter players interested?

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:

No bandaids for martial characters, or giving them resource management abilities that are spells by another name, or just giving them a bunch of overwhelming static bonuses.

Just redo the core magic system. That's where the problem of 3.x lies in the first place. As long as magic works the way it does, PF will always be lopsided. I'm tired of the "I have a spell for that" situation that makes careful skill allocation redundant. Magic will still be just better. But it doesn't need to be this good.

Edit: I'm not suggesting I don't like the martial/vancian divide. It's one of the things I love about all pre-4e editions of the game and it's always made the system unique, though your mileage may vary on whether or not vancian casting is a pain. I really enjoy its versatility. I just don't think spells need to be so powerful.

Yet again, taking the Wizard out or ruining him is not going to bring people along to the new edition. Every single person who enjoys writing "Wizard" "Sorcerer" "Cleric" or "Druid" on their sheet is out straight from the gate.

Enjoy playing that game where only die hard martial fans play-- of course it already exists in a half dozen forms now, so not sure why we need a new edition to ruin the game and throw half the classes into the garbage.

Talk about crying the end is near.

Lessening the overwhelming impressiveness of spells would in no way throw casters into the garbage. You realize PF is an extremely high-magic system, right? Even with several game-breaking spells receiving nerfs, magic would still be better than mundane options in every way, if only because they bend reality to the will of the caster in a way martials could never do.


The Red Mage wrote:


Talk about crying the end is near.

Lessening the overwhelming impressiveness of spells would in no way throw casters into the garbage. You realize PF is an extremely high-magic system, right? Even with several game-breaking spells receiving nerfs, magic would still be better than mundane options in every way, if only because they bend reality to the will of the caster in a way martials could never do.

You realize I want to play an extremely high-magic game, right?

That's why I found one in the form of D&D 3.X and then Pathfinder and decided to play it.

I'm not going to decide to play a game that takes that away.

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:

Because many people love having things taken away from them and being told they should be happy and like it because "its better".

How about we give fighters nothing new, and put them on d4 hit dice?

Actually, that's my suggestion-- martials are too powerful-- all classes with full BaB get d4 hit dice and are only allowed to use Knives that do d3 damage and nothing else-- trust me its better.

You fighter players interested?

Evidently you've never played a martial, or any system other than 3.x.

This is false equivalence of the highest degree. Casters are far superior to martials. Martials don't need power creep, casters need a less broken magic system.

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:


Talk about crying the end is near.

Lessening the overwhelming impressiveness of spells would in no way throw casters into the garbage. You realize PF is an extremely high-magic system, right? Even with several game-breaking spells receiving nerfs, magic would still be better than mundane options in every way, if only because they bend reality to the will of the caster in a way martials could never do.

You realize I want to play an extremely high-magic game, right?

That's why I found one in the form of D&D 3.X and then Pathfinder and decided to play it.

I'm not going to decide to play a game that takes that away.

Then play PF as it is. A large contingent of PF players enjoy the system's versimilatude/rules based on real-life physics (except magic, for obvious reasons.), but don't enjoy high-magic being the only viable option.

This is a thread for what we would like to see improved for a new edition, not a rehash that carries over the same problems of previous editions.


Is that a no?

You wouldn't want to play a game where all your good stuff was taken away, your kool aid defiled, and you favorite class reduced to a shadow of its former self?

So why do you expect me to?

Why would you think me or anyone else who enjoys the game now would want to double down on buying a ton of new books with nerfed classes?

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:

Is that a no?

You wouldn't want to play a game where all your good stuff was taken away, your kool aid defiled, and you favorite class reduced to a shadow of its former self?

So why do you expect me to?

Why would you think me or anyone else who enjoys the game now would want to double down on buying a ton of new books with nerfed classes?

Not nerfed classes, a reworked magic system.

Why do you think several aspects of the magic system (polymorphing, CoDzilla, save-or-dies, many others) were nerfed for PF? The game is better for it. 3.5 would better suit your needs.

Edit: In other words, I'd rather have a more balanced, less exponential, and less gamebreaking magic system rather than buffed mechanics for martials that further exacerbates the mechanical breakdown of the game at higher levels.


The Red Mage wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

Is that a no?

You wouldn't want to play a game where all your good stuff was taken away, your kool aid defiled, and you favorite class reduced to a shadow of its former self?

So why do you expect me to?

Why would you think me or anyone else who enjoys the game now would want to double down on buying a ton of new books with nerfed classes?

Not nerfed classes, a reworked magic system.

Why do you think several aspects of the magic system (polymorphing, CoDzilla, save-or-dies, many others) were nerfed for PF? The game is better for it. 3.5 would better suit your needs.

Suffocation and Mass Suffocation the two most powerful save or die spells EVER published were brand new, Pathfinder only additions.

But oh yeah, totally nerfed save or dies.

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:


Suffocation and Mass Suffocation the two most powerful save or die spells EVER published were brand new, Pathfinder only additions.

But oh yeah, totally nerfed save or dies.

Cool. Does that make the game better for you?


The Red Mage wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


Suffocation and Mass Suffocation the two most powerful save or die spells EVER published were brand new, Pathfinder only additions.

But oh yeah, totally nerfed save or dies.

Cool. Does that make the game better for you?

Would it make the game better for you for me to not be able to play a wizard?

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


Suffocation and Mass Suffocation the two most powerful save or die spells EVER published were brand new, Pathfinder only additions.

But oh yeah, totally nerfed save or dies.

Cool. Does that make the game better for you?
Would it make the game better for you for me to not be able to play a wizard?

If you can't play a wizard just because he's taken down a notch, then yes. Because then more people who appreciate diversity would be having more fun, and PF1 would still exist for those who don't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


Suffocation and Mass Suffocation the two most powerful save or die spells EVER published were brand new, Pathfinder only additions.

But oh yeah, totally nerfed save or dies.

Cool. Does that make the game better for you?
Would it make the game better for you for me to not be able to play a wizard?

After reading your posts, I came to the conclusion that it'd probably make the game better for literally everyone. Yes, including yourself.


LoneKnave wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
The Red Mage wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


Suffocation and Mass Suffocation the two most powerful save or die spells EVER published were brand new, Pathfinder only additions.

But oh yeah, totally nerfed save or dies.

Cool. Does that make the game better for you?
Would it make the game better for you for me to not be able to play a wizard?
After reading your posts, I came to the conclusion that it'd probably make the game better for literally everyone. Yes, including yourself.

Just because you hate wizards why do you insist on trying to force them to be taken away from everyone else?

Why is the way me and my group have fun wrong?

How is it that the two players at my table who play almost exclusively martials and often actual fighters have never had a problem with "OP Wizards" that would require some new edition where Wizards can't be player?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:


Just because you hate wizards why do you insist on trying to force them to be taken away from everyone else?

Why is the way me and my group have fun wrong?

How is it that the two players at my table who play almost exclusively martials and often actual fighters have never had a problem with "OP Wizards" that would require some new edition where Wizards can't be player?

Balance out the most overpowered class a little to stabilize the game at higher levels = hating wizards.

One group's fun = better than game design.

Two outlier players who enjoy playing gimped classes = everyone enjoys it.

Troll detected?


Why is my saying that I don't want to play an edition of the game that starts with the concept of "lets gut your favorite class" trolling?

Honestly?

Tell me>?

Can one person give me one actual reason why I should WANT tyo have my favorite class gutted, should WANT to have a game that I enjoy a great deal thrown away to make a new edition which I will not like because again it starts with the concept of "lets severely nerf favorite class X"

Can you just move along to things you want to see added for a new edition instead of more reasons why you need to take everything away from a particular class?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"I like my broken toys! Waah! Please don't take them away!"

-Nathanael Love


I enjoy the game the way it is now.

I don't want a new edition.

Why do you have to insult me for liking Pathfinder?


The Red Mage wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


Just because you hate wizards why do you insist on trying to force them to be taken away from everyone else?

Why is the way me and my group have fun wrong?

How is it that the two players at my table who play almost exclusively martials and often actual fighters have never had a problem with "OP Wizards" that would require some new edition where Wizards can't be player?

Balance out the most overpowered class a little to stabilize the game at higher levels = hating wizards.

One group's fun = better than game design.

Two outlier players who enjoy playing gimped classes = everyone enjoys it.

Troll detected?

I dont think he's a troll. In any game, people who play a certain class will vehemently deny that their class needs a nerf.

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:

I enjoy the game the way it is now.

I don't want a new edition.

Why do you have to insult me for liking Pathfinder?

You're overreacting and crying foul when no one has said they want to gut wizards, so my troll detector is going off. I've played wizards. I like wizards. Wizards have been friends of mine. Wizards will always be top dog in a 3.x-styled system. But a little humility on their part would go a long way for everyone else's fun.


And now I'm whining. . . you can't just accept my opinion that I LIKE THE GAME THE WAY IT IS AND DON'T WANT WIZARDS NERFED TO THE GROUND and move on?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

I enjoy the game the way it is now.

I don't want a new edition.

Then you're in the wrong thread. Maybe you should read the thread title. Or opening post. Or hell, ANY OF THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD SO YOU'D KNOW WHAT IT'S ABOUT.

Nathanael Love wrote:
Why do you have to insult me for liking Pathfinder?

I insult you for preferring your own personal fun over improving the design of the game, and using hyperbole and things nobody has suggested as your reasoning for NOT making an improvement to the game.

If the only reason you like Pathfinder is because you can play a Wizard and be the best, you are a child.

Denying any sort of change because it MIGHT, just MIGHT bring casters down to a more reasonable level of power, and martials up so they're roughly equal is selfish and detrimental to the future of the game.

501 to 550 of 763 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / What Do You Hope to See in PF 2e? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.