It has been around 2 years since I last ran a PFRPG game and around 2 weeks since I last played PF as a player. Last time I house ruled the game a lot and had a list of banned stuff.
To some extent I am somewhat traditional in my D&D and it was a main reason why I rejected 4th ed and went to Pathfinder instead and since then I have branched out into OSR gaming spurred on by the retrieval of my 2nd ed books in 2012 which had spent 12 years at my parents place in a box.
I am still a big fan of 3rd ed type games but I have kind of been burned out after 12 years DMing them from 3.0, 3.5 a Pathfinder and even Star Wars Saga I suppose. I do not have a favourite edition of D&D as such but if I had to pick 2 it would be a toss up between 2nd ed and Pathfinder if I had to pick one only it would be between those 2.
IN the change over from 2nd to 3rd ed though they kind of dropped the ball on a few things even though I liked the basic concepts of the d20 mechanics as some things in AD&D were kind of silly like level limits (make a better human FFS).Anyway some things I personally do not like in 3rd ed but do not regard as essential to the 3.x D&D/PF experience.
1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)
I suppose my ideal game D&D game would be a d20 type mechanics hybrid between AD&D 2nd/Pathfinder. Pathfinder for the mechanics (ascending ACs, feat, skills, BAB, fort/ref/will etc), AD&D for the math (smaller numbers)and options growth with less power creep.
Not that interested in "fixing" 3.x via 4E and probably D&DN now I know a bit more about that system.
1. Polymorph is nowhere near as strong as it was in 3.5 so I would not play a druid without this feat.
2. Buffing is not a problem for me as a GM, and as a player I like to have it. If I were to not have enough time to deal with it then I would just stop games at lower levels, since that is a lot easier than monitoring every way to stack abilities.
3. I like wands as a GM and player. Getting rid of them does nothing to help me at all. If the players buy them, it is just less money they have for other things. As a player the CLW's help me live longer. I have never purchased a wand of knock because someone in the party also has a high enough disable device that it is never needed.
4. As a GM I allow it. Never had a problem with it. As a player I would need more information. I would either not play or at least change how I play. This hurts martials more than casters so I would likely play a caster which in the end would make the game more difficult for the GM, not because I was trying to, but just because they are inherently more powerful.
5.See 2. The go hand in hand to a large extent
6. If attacks were taken away I am going to join team caster most likely.
7. Same as 6.
8. I don't know what you mean.
9. Not a problem in the game. 20 is not even a high DC. I can likely get a +10 by level 8 in my good save category as a PC. Monsters saves get tougher to bypass around level 10. I would not like this rule.
10. There is no limit, but you can still only go so high before exploiting loopholes. Unless a player was exploiting the rules this should be left alone also.
11. I think fighters should get 4. Actually I wish everyone had at least 4.
Basically the system is fine to me. Now depending on the and the group things can be difficult to manage between levels 13 to 15, but I think most GM's can at least handle a level 13 game.
As a player I would prefer to stay at low levels if this list were ever implemented. That is about the only way I would play a martial character.
Low=7 or lower.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC).
None of those are iconic.
Iconic is Alignments, Vancian casting (at least for some classes), levels, and such like.
6. If attacks were taken away I am going to join team caster most likely.
he means instead of losing 5 each attack, you get 4 at +16
1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)
1. This is pretty iconic for me and druids.
2. Buffs being good is good. The most effective casters tend to play support because of this and prevent martials in actual games from feeling like side-characters. All the those battle-field control spells have the odd problem of also getting in the way of the martials.3. Yeah...
4. I don't really like the way magic items are done. I don't feel like they should be REQUIRED or expected to handle CR foes. I also dislike how nearly all of someones AC boost comes from magic not ability.
5. Yep. Could really stand to make all this more compact.
6. You would have to deflate the current to-hit bloat to compensate and even out the damage. No smite bonus to-hit, no FE bonus to-hit, rage causing penalties to-hit, no weapon training.
7. HP and damage are a little inflated.
8. I haven't really found this to be true. +6 at max is not THAT huge of a difference.
9. Disagree. Would have to just rework the saves system to fix that
10. Agreed. I dislike increasing ability point with leveling. Makes multi-stat chars very difficult to make viable. The system seems to expect you to dump all the boost into one stat.
11. meh.
|
I suppose my ideal game D&D game would be a d20 type mechanics hybrid between AD&D 2nd/Pathfinder. Pathfinder for the mechanics (ascending ACs, feat, skills, BAB, fort/ref/will etc), AD&D for the math (smaller numbers)and options growth with less power creep
This is the modified game I am working on (on the back burner right now, working on writing a post apocalyptic game).
1. The natural spell feat.
Gone - doesn't exist in my re-write. Changing shape will have it's own inherent values, do not need an animal casting spells as this would be too powerful (see what follows).
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
Very limited buffs in my game, and these are usually low level spells - Bless, Prayer, Chant, etc. Spells are more focused on effect then giving numerical bonuses - ex: Haste makes you faster/extra attacks and doesn't provide stackable incidental bonuses (dodge and AC).
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
Gone - Wands are not spell holders replicators in my game. Their may be a wand of Healing, but it won't be a cheap wand loaded with CLW and usable by anyone, but more of an interesting magic item with its own rules not copy pasted out of the spell section of my rulebook. This will be a design consideration for all magic items. They will each have their own abilities and mechanics based on the existing rules, but not ported over abilities from the spell section.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
Gone - Limited Magic Item creation - scrolls and potions, maybe rings and low powered swords at very high cost. Possibly a resource based item creation system - money + rare power sources that cannot be purchased.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
Gone - or trying to make it gone: No big six, SAD v MAD, X-mass tree and a number of other things disappear forever. Stats and mods are re-written to fall more in line with AD&D. In that same vein, monster/enemy values (at level) do NOT REQUIRE INFLATED NUMBERS. The idea is that a 7th level Fighter with above average Str and a +1 sword will be able to handle 5th-9th level encounters with no great difficulty or feeling locked out of the number ranges needed to play. Same goes with his AC.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
Gone - Same here, going to keep the AD&D multi-attack scheme for specialized Martials from AD&D - 3/2 at 1st level at full BAB without needing to stand in one spot. Also, most creatures will not have a Con bonus to HP - so hp on average will be lower by 30-50% than PF/3rd ed. I will be able to use creatures from AD&D or PF easily, the latter by removing their Con bonus to HP. Xp will also be awarded on a base + creatures HP. So the more hp I give the creature (per hd) the more In have to reward the players once it's defeated.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
Gone - going back to weapons vs. S-M and Large with weapon speeds and damages. Weapons will have different strengths and weakness/tactical use. Two handed weapons will have a big die against large creatures and will also be slow as a hell - slowest weapon in fact. Flails and Maces will have a good min damage (ex 1d6+1) while doing less damage vs. Larger monsters. No crit rules or damage multipliers. Magic energies on melee weapons only will add +1,1d2 or 1d3 (the highest level of play) extra damage.
But as a whole all damage values as a whole will be lower. Flaming sword isn't going to be doing +1d6 fire, it may do +1 damage from the flames and its damage will count as both melee (Physical) and fire vs a target.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
Gone - The only ones who will have a crappy save category will be casters - Clerics (Poor Reflex), Wizards (poor Fort), etc. Martials will get a Default "Average" save category (between Good and Poor) for their current poor stats - but my page 291 in the Bestiary will also reflect CR APPROPRIATE DCs based on game expectations better than the wild ranges found in creatures in the current game. I'm going to decide the success rates I want at each CR with characters at level in a strong category having better than 50% success at CR, with adjustments to success going down for characters who are weaker in that category. That being said, Binary Saves are out. If you miss by one it may not be a total fail or a re-roll may be allowed, etc.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
Gone - sort of - I don't care about the specific numbers, but I care about Level - vs Threat and rate of success. That being said - DCs will NOT BE MANIPULATED BY THE GENERATING SOURCE (minimal exceptions). A few classic spells that work in combat/affect saves such as Prayer, etc - will make some number changes. No more raising stats temporarily and consequently raising save DCs -GONE, don't let the door hit you on the behind.
Most metamagic feats that have a numerical value (damage, range, etc) are also going to be gone. Focus will be on utility/flexibility - changing Fireball to Ice, etc. vs something that increases damage. Evo will come back as a viable form of casting with lowered hp.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
Gone - No ability score progression or improvement beyond what may happen in game. Also limited feats and character customization. Focus will be on play and adventuring with your character, not building or planning out your character. This is just a design goal change - most feats (around 80% to 90%) are getting bounced.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)
Gone, Gone, Gone - Skills will still be D20 based, but work in tiers. So a rogue who has a few ranks in Climb, will be better than a Wizard who gets +100 from spider climb - tiers will control results, not the pure number (mutable) system that exists.
Skills will also be protected - the very little dip a point + inflate with spells, that is OUT. The numeric value of the skill (modifiers) does not reflect proficiency.
Skills will also not be assigned purely on INT. Some muscle memory and training skills will use a new and different pool for skill points, not INT only.
That is the idea at least - I started this but gave it up in favor of working on a game that was actually fixable. My perfect game would be what I quoted from what you posted earlier - AD&D 2 mentality and philosophy with modern game improvements (increasing AC, Saves, DC system) - just smaller and tighter numbers. Sorry for posting my fix - your OP just hit nerve as to what also bothers me and what I wanted to do to change things.
he means instead of losing 5 each attack, you get 4 at +16
6. If attacks were taken away I am going to join team caster most likely.
I think that is a bit much. Martials already do enough damage, and I dont want a giant(insert other enemy melee type as needed) swinging at me all high bonuses since they would get the same advantage.
I think that is a bit much. Martials already do enough damage, and I dont want a giant(insert other enemy melee type as needed) swinging at me all high bonuses since they would get the same advantage.he means instead of losing 5 each attack, you get 4 at +16
6. If attacks were taken away I am going to join team caster most likely.
It is just the idea in concept. Assuming one rewrote the game damage would likely be scaled down and split over more attacks.
To an earlier poster, buff spells would still exist they just would not scale. Divine favor for example may be +2 to hit and damage and not stack with other spells granting a bonus to hit and damage.
The natural spell thing was put in because I am playing a Druid in 1st ed and I do not get a anuimal companion or the ability to cast while wildshaped (or change shape at all until level 7).
Spells are a bitdiffernet though, faerie fire for example grants +2 to hit and you get more spells at an earlier rate- level 3 spells at level 3 for example so you are a more powerful spell caster as such but weaker at buffing and no pet although you may be able to get one via spells.
I suppose my ideal game D&D game would be a d20 type mechanics hybrid between AD&D 2nd/Pathfinder. Pathfinder for the mechanics (ascending ACs, feat, skills, BAB, fort/ref/will etc), AD&D for the math (smaller numbers)and options growth with less power creepThis is the modified game I am working on (on the back burner right now, working on writing a post apocalyptic game).
** spoiler omitted **...
Sounds very similar to what I want. I have starting writing that RPG, I have 8 classes, 40 odd monsters, a combat chapter, rewrote feats, classes, races. Fighters get base saves of +5/+4/+4.
Very slow burner though and always tweaking it. Struggling with a skill system.
1. The natural spell feat.
Not essential, and actually would be better if druids didn't have it.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
This I see as useful and essential.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
Useful, but not essential. There are better ways to handle this.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
This is a massive problem, but can't be solved without remaking the entire game. But not essential.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
Not essential, and actually bad design.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
This is okay.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
This is kinda wonky, but it works. Generally, being smacked by a four foot sword is going to make your day.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
This is another element of bad design, and a puzzling one at that.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
Dunno if this is essential or not.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
Given PF doesn't actually have this, not essential.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)
This is another bad design decision. It also makes the least amount of sense; fighters are supposed to be martial experts. Just to replicated real-life martial experts and what they had to know during the medieval era, a fighter would need six skills (including knowledge skills that don't exist in Pathfinder).
1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)
1: This is basically just a feat tax for all druids. Make it part of the class or get rid of it.
2: No opinion3: Healsticks are a system problem in my opinion, I'd a different mechanic, either ala 4e Healing Surges or something else.
4: I have no problem with Magic Shops carrying whatever PCs need, but I don't like how Craft feats allow them to double WBL.
5: It's not that bad.
6: Could do that, though I think I'd prefer full attacks as a standard action.
7: It's fine.
8: Also fine.
10: Fine.
11: A problem.
A few m ore things. Full attacks would be a standard action and spell DCs would be lowered basically nerfing save or dies/suck. That is how they more or less worked in 2nd ed BTW. It buffs direct damage spells by comparison and non spell casters without having to drastically rewrite the classes.
IN 3.x type games you get to add the spell level and attribute modiifer to the spell DC but you need a high ability score to cast spells of higher level anyway so you are getting double utility out of high ability scores. I was thinking of something like spell DC is equal to 10+level of spell or 1-+ ability modifier but not both along with buffed saves for everyone. Buffed saves of +3 to all saves roughly or fighter saves at lelvel 1 being +5/+4/+4 something like that.
|
1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)
1.) In all other cases, if something is considered so good it's a must have option, they usually nerf it or get rid of it. Not so here.
2.) Not really sure what you mean here, or what else you might want instead? Single Buffs that do more? No Buffs?3.) Wands of CLW/Inf H is something I really really wish that would sort of just go away. Or be altered to be more like an infinite use item, but a character can only benefit from a single use from one per day.
4.) Sounds good.
5.) MORE PLEASE.
6.) I like the way the extra attacks from BaB works, myself.
7.) Great
8.) Not an issue. You can devote resources to changing that If you want to.
9.) Hope so.
10.) Does it really matter?
11.) Clerics and Fighters, really any non-Int based class like Wizard, needs to have 4+Int skills. Period.
1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)I suppose my ideal game D&D game would be a d20 type mechanics hybrid between AD&D 2nd/Pathfinder. Pathfinder for the mechanics (ascending ACs, feat, skills, BAB, fort/ref/will etc), AD&D for the math (smaller numbers)and options growth with less power creep.
Not that interested in "fixing" 3.x via 4E and probably D&DN now I know a bit...
1. Not essential at all, and probably a bad idea. I suspect the original intent was to let a druid use animal-buff spells. I'd rather have a feat that lets a druid count as an animal for the purpose of druid spells.
2. Ambivalent, really. Depends on too many other factors, but I would rather there be far fewer named bonuses in the game.
3. Hate it. HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT. I hate GP=HP, and 'who needs skills, we have magic'.
4. Hate it, don't use it. Don't want it as rough as 1/2e, with CON loss and stuff. It should be an adventure it itself, gathering rare ingredients, unusual gems, monster parts ... whatever.
5. Unavoidable in a class-level system, but the numbers could be toned down considerably.
6. The last two iterative attacks are typically a waste of time, and I don't like 'stand still and full attack' slugfests. I saw someone suggest that you get two attacks at -2 (as a standard) at +6, then reduce the penalty by 1 at +11 and +16.
7. Pretty important, with how far martials lag behind casters in, like, every way.
8. Definitely too much of a gap there, yes.
9. Doesn't bother me a bit so long as the saves are competitive.
10. Doesn't bother me at all. These are awesome mythic heroes. Superhuman stats all but come with the territory.
11. Yeah, that's dumb. Nobody should have that few skill points, except maybe an INT-based class.
I can't really picture the "D&D, PF" druid that can't cast spells as an animal.
What is it you're actually asking? If your goal is to completely rewrite the 3.x/Pathfinder system, then good luck, cuz there are a TON of rules and a TON of ways to "break the game" with perfectly RAW & RAI options.
If you want the simplicity of 2nd edition, then just flip how THAC0 & AC works so you don't have to subtract numbers from a d20, b/c THAC0 was a HUGE pain. You also go back to not having any save DCs are higher than 20, b/c each character/npc has their own saves that were set in stone; it's all just roll d20 and compare the result to your character sheet.
None of the things you listed in 1-11 are or ever were iconic. Iconic to D&D are things like:
1) PCs roll a d20 to hit attack monsters with a weapon, and the monsters have an AC you have to hit in order to deal damage.
2) Spellcasters get so many spells per day, and have to rest to replenish their spells for the next day (aka Vancian magic system).
3) Magic items exist, and many magic items can be found in the lairs of monsters, add story flavor for effect. Also overlook the stupidity of PCs who assume they will kill the monster who's already killed countless adventurers (who themselves were way better equipped than the PCs to kill the monster).
4) Alignments. Villains are evil, PCs are good (or at least neutral).
5) PCs are able to do things other than just deal damage, cast spells, get hurt, and adventure. These extra things they are good at were expressed as non-weapon proficiencies in 2nd edition, and skills in 3.x.
6) Taverns are the gateway to information. If none of the yocals in the tavern knows the answer to a question, at least one of those yocals knows of someone who can.
7) There are 4 basic character archetypes: thief (rogue), fighter, cleric, wizard.
8) Players can chose to be one of several goodly races; humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, half-elves.
9) Different weapons deal different amounts of damage, expressed in different kinds of dice (i.e. d4 for daggers, d8 for longswords).
10) Monsters exist in lots of forms, and can be randomly encountered just by traveling from one town to the next. Undead are super scary. Dragons are super super scary, may be reasoned or negotiated with, and definitely are not to be angered (more true in 2nd edition than in 3.x).
If what you really want is to turn the focus of the game away from mechanics and more towards the story, the setting, and/or the characters (both PC and NPC), then all the rules changes in the world won't help you. Changing the focus of a game away from combat & mechanics is a narrative task that you have to undertake as the GM. If your players are used to combat being the focus of the game, and you want to change that, then you need to put more emphasis on character backgrounds and character motivation. It's up the the GM as the storyteller to challenge players by asking them why their characters are doing what they do, and to make the other aspects of the game become as important to the players as swinging swords at monsters is.
1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)
I find these pretty much all being relatively minor things as far as the core rules are concerned, yet being the cause of a disproportional amount of problems. Change the lot tomorrow and you would have zero argument from me (at least, zero argument about them being gone, I may still argue against what they get replaced *with* ;) )
BECMI D&D/Rules Cyclopedia is easily the "iconic" edition of D&D in my opinion. The only two changes I would want to hold on to would be losing THAC0 and establishing the single core d20 rule.
I can't really picture the "D&D, PF" druid that can't cast spells as an animal.
Having banned the feat in the past, I can assure you, it's quite easy to visualize.
Important to the game as written and important to the game conceptually are two different things, so I'll split it into two lists
As Written:
1. Not necessary. Druids are already probably too good without that feat. Granted, without that feat, it'd probably be important to shift wild-shape from a X uses/Day to a X time per day mechanic, so they could go out of wild shape to cast spells, without wasting a use of wildshape.
2. Important, because of the math of the game. The game assumes certain scaling boons, and to cut down on their scaling or their number would cause more problems than it solves
3. Important, since it keeps clerics from becoming heal-bots, wasting all their resources on healing spells.
4. Not important, assuming the DM gives out treasure which is actually useful to the party (for example, not giving out Exotic weapons which no one has proficiency with, or the like) then having the exact perfect items isn't super necessary.
5. Unavoidable. Number/complexity bloat is really only avoidable if you just don't add new options to the game, which provides it's own problems from a financial end.
6/ Not necessary, but +16/+16/+16/+16 isn't really viable either, based on how little AC scales, compared to attack bonuses. There are numerous proposed solutions, if you want to look for them, but they're of varying levels of quality
7. Not necessary, but pretty important. It'd be nice for 1HF or TWF to be more viable, but IMO, that's probably better done by giving them different niches than just a DPR-contest.
8. Not necessary. I've seen other d20 games which add a Medium-save progression, which are something similar to 1+roundDown(2*Level/5). This is, IMO the best solution, since it allows classes for whom good saves aren't thematically appropriate to have some resistance.
9. Important-ish. The problem with these save DCs are more based on the issues with save disparity
10. Important, as the math generally assumes high stats at high levels
11. Not important; they could use at least 4/level
--------------------------------
Conceptually:
1. Important, casting spells in animal form just seems like a druid thing to do. Too bad it's fairly broken in practice.
2. Not important, conceptually all that's important is that the math of the system provides the feel required for the game, and scaling buffs don't do that, assuming the math isn't designed around it.
3. Not important, bordering on detrimental. Easy healing is important, but the wand of CLW isn't the way of going about it. As maligned as 4e is around here, I honestly liked their way of doing it (for those unaware, it basically consists of having a pool of surplus HP over your maximum, in the form of "healing surges" which can be spent in various situations to heal back HP), as it makes individual fights still carry the fear of dying without the 'go back to town and heal up' similar to wands of CLW, but instead of being a money sink and feeling like the cleric had a magical healing battery to spend, since healing surges were individual, it felt more personally dangerous to lose them. My only complaint was that they were maybe a little too easy to get back, if used straight out of the book.
4. Not important, and probably detrimental. Bilbo didn't go to the magic item shop to pick up the One Ring, or spend feats for crafting, to make Sting, he found them while adventuring.
5. Not important, though as mentioned above, largely unavoidable.
6. Not important, though martials should be sure to be able to compete with casters as they level up.
7. Important, Using a greatsword or other two handed weapon should feel powerful. Though, as mentioned above, 1HF and TWF should probably have equal utility in other niches.
8. Not important. Honestly, even a +3 or +4 difference in saves can feel pretty large in practice. No need to amplify this.
9. Depends on the range of saves in question. I'm of the feeling that all saves should carry a reasonable chance of success and failure to the expected targets based on level/CR
10. Ambivolent. Ability scores don't really feel all that important to me, since ability checks are rare and things based off them specifically are a lot more important at the lower end of the scale than the higher one (for example the difference between 2 skills per level and 4 is a lot more important than the difference between 8 and 10). Just as long as the math of the system is sound, it's not too important either way.
11. Not important, and probably detrimental. Fighters are a broad class which make up a lot of characters in fiction. The stereotypical Big Dumb Fighter is actually pretty rare, and while Fighters in fiction aren't always especially skilled, they frequently have multiple fields of skill, which is generally impossible to do effectively with only 2+Int skill points/level, and the restricted Class skill list
(Also on that note, I'd argue that conceptually the notion of a "Class Skill List" doesn't really feel very necessary, as, while it enforces certain tropes, it does more to limit interesting concepts than any potential good that it does by establishing a tone)
I can't really picture the "D&D, PF" druid that can't cast spells as an animal.Having banned the feat in the past, I can assure you, it's quite easy to visualize.
It's just not the "D&D, PF" druid to me then.
Just ban druids and have people play shamans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
In one of my home-brews, wands are not self-powered. They are instead "spell converters". The user provides the power with a spell-slot and the wand converts whatever spell you expended (provided it is of a sufficiently high level) into the one that is built into the wand. If you have something like a Pearl of Power, you can power the wand with that.
I can't really picture the "D&D, PF" druid that can't cast spells as an animal.Having banned the feat in the past, I can assure you, it's quite easy to visualize.It's just not the "D&D, PF" druid to me then.
Just ban druids and have people play shamans.
That's what I do now, yes.
So you think the 3.0 core-only druid isn't a D&D druid?I can't really picture the "D&D, PF" druid that can't cast spells as an animal.Having banned the feat in the past, I can assure you, it's quite easy to visualize.It's just not the "D&D, PF" druid to me then.
Just ban druids and have people play shamans.
Without natural spell, it just strikes me as an off-flavor cleric.
I have banned wands of CLW (and natural spell) and I do not think you need them anyway in things like Paizo adventure paths which tend to be on the easy side. I replaced them with magic stones that can cast CLW 1 a day, 2/day + CMW if you have 2 of them and 3/day+ 2 CMW+CSW if you have 3 of them.
PCs also found an item the other day that heals 2d6 hp in a 25' radius twice a day.
I have also been playing AD&D again and there is no wand of CLW or healing surges and we cope somehow:).
I have banned wands of CLW (and natural spell) and I do not think you need them anyway in things like Paizo adventure paths which tend to be on the easy side. I replaced them with magic stones that can cast CLW 1 a day, 2/day + CMW if you have 2 of them and 3/day+ 2 CMW+CSW if you have 3 of them.PCs also found an item the other day that heals 2d6 hp in a 25' radius twice a day.
I have also been playing AD&D again and there is no wand of CLW or healing surges and we cope somehow:).
Just a guess, but the homebrew magic items standing in for CLW wands probably has something to with it. I could be wrong mind you (but I'm not).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to mess around with the meaty centre of pathfinder's inner mechanics, why not just use a separate system entirely? The central D20 mechanic of pathfinder is not so fantastic that you cannot recreate the kind of game you want better in a different system that comes prebuilt for your purposes.
For example:
If you want a low-magic dungeon crawling game that lacks all of the qualities you have outlined in your initial post... why aren't you just playing DnD 2e? Second edition still works fantastically as a system for that kind of game, and it has a lot of support (admittedly not ongoing). There's also plenty of 2e clones that attempt to simplify the less pleasing aspects of the system if you want to go out on a limb a bit more.
If you want something still core d20 but without the christmas tree and disparity issues, why not play fantasycraft?
If you want a modular, more 'realistic' system that lets you build a fantasy world exactly according to your specifications, why not run GURPS?
If you want a high-powered superhero game where everyone blows holes in planets, why not try exalted?
I could go on...
And as a caveat: I quite enjoy pathfinder's central mechanic and feel. It's probably my favourite system, although GURPS comes close. However, I don't pretend to think it is the best pick for every campaign, nor do I pretend that I know how to fix every flaw and weakness in the system, if only the developers would listen to my sage advice....
1. The natural spell feat.
Non-essential for the game because it's far too good a benefit. What druid wouldn't take it? And whenever that's the case, it's probably a problem. Would be better as a metamagic feat or with some other cost imposed.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
Buffs, including stacking buffs, have always been in D&D (bard inspiration, bless, prayer, chant, strength, etc). PF could stand to prune them back though.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
Could stand a lot of control. Making more of the utility spells caster level dependent helps curb the abuse we saw in 3e, but I'd cut most down. Wands had the traditional role of allowing a caster to throw an offensive spell without letting his guard down in combat - and that should be their role again. Limit mostly to some form of blasting spell so the caster can be offensive without provoking AoO with the tradeoff of limited caster level and low save DCs.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
This has been an important element of 3e/PF's experience, but I try to assert more control. It's the single biggest change in D&D's rules that affect how it actually plays - and not always for the better.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
Unavoidable. And I think that's fine.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
Dropping attack bonus is important to the game's balance when taking all attacks at once. With 4 attacks all at high bonus, that's a HUGE spike in damage dealt out at once. The dropping BAB is the compromise that makes getting all of those attacks at once palatable.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
Is this a problem?!?
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
Weak saves are too weak. They should be improved.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
Depends on how far over 20 we're talking about. Going over 20 is fine, going far over 20 is too much. I'd offer a cap around 25.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
Cap the values. The game gets less out of balance if you cap stats.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)
Increasing to 4 would hurt absolutely nothing and would be good for the fighter. It is not an essential part of the PF experience, particularly since many fighter characters end up getting that many anyway via being human and using the preferred class bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can only really comment on a couple of these.
First, natural spell is necessary for the druid as written in 3.5 and PF. Without it, natural shape and spell casting will never work well together and you end up with the same problem that monks have, which is a lot of different abilities that completely fail to work with each other and, worse, often clash with each other. Now you could probably find some other way of implementing it, but if you intend to use the druid as written in 3.5 and PF, yes, you do need the ability to cast spells while in animal form. Otherwise, you may as well dump the class, and play a nature based cleric or oracle (which has it's own problems because the cleric spell list is not designed for that kind of character). In the end, it's not the best solution, but to get rid of it would basically require rewriting the entire druid class, as well as polymorph rules in general; something that could be done, but probably isn't worth the effort.
Second, I've never found unlimited ability score progression to actually be an issue in an actual game. Every resource spent on raising ability scores beyond the bumps you get by leveling is a resource not spent somewhere else, and most DMs in an actual game tend to be a lot stingier with giving players unlimited resources than the theory crafters tend to admit.
Third, fighters with 2 skill points are a problem, but to me the bigger problem is basing all skill points off of int. Simply increasing the number of skill points doesn't really solve much, it just adds more inflation to the game. I've toyed around with several ways to increase skill points while forcing a certain amount of specialization at the same time. My preferred idea so far is to give out a number of skill points to each ability's scores based on that ability, i.e. Dex drives the number of points you have to spend on Dex based skills, with a base that reflects the current tiered system so that skill based classes still have an advantage over the other classes in the skills arena. An alternate method I've played with is to somehow average the physical abilities to drive the points available for physical skills, and the same for mental skills. In both cases, there is an increase in skill points, but less chance of stepping on toes because characters will tend to have skills based on their abilities, not on what players think are the optimal skills that everyone automatically should take.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to mess around with the meaty centre of pathfinder's inner mechanics, why not just use a separate system entirely? The central D20 mechanic of pathfinder is not so fantastic that you cannot recreate the kind of game you want better in a different system that comes prebuilt for your purposes.
For example:
If you want a low-magic dungeon crawling game that lacks all of the qualities you have outlined in your initial post... why aren't you just playing DnD 2e? Second edition still works fantastically as a system for that kind of game, and it has a lot of support (admittedly not ongoing). There's also plenty of 2e clones that attempt to simplify the less pleasing aspects of the system if you want to go out on a limb a bit more.
If you want something still core d20 but without the christmas tree and disparity issues, why not play fantasycraft?
If you want a modular, more 'realistic' system that lets you build a fantasy world exactly according to your specifications, why not run GURPS?
If you want a high-powered superhero game where everyone blows holes in planets, why not try exalted?
I could go on...
And as a caveat: I quite enjoy pathfinder's central mechanic and feel. It's probably my favourite system, although GURPS comes close. However, I don't pretend to think it is the best pick for every campaign, nor do I pretend that I know how to fix every flaw and weakness in the system, if only the developers would listen to my sage advice....
I have been playing 2nd ed and the other versions of D&D. Currently running Castles and Crusades and playing in 1st edition and Pathfinder games.
I like all of them to some extent but it is interesting to see how things work ion AD&D or various clones and compare them to 3.x without using nostalgia. They all have their pro and cons. And sometimes it is the same thing.
3.x games
Pro: Character options, customization
Cons: Character options, customization
Generally I find d20 mechanics better, AD&D class balance is better IMHO.
The way the threat goes it seems it would be better in the suggestion/house-rule section as this seems what this is about.
Apart from that: As is PF Druids need natural spell. Others should be able to learn it, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. The natural spell feat.
Pretty darn important if you're inclined to play a character who's really into shapeshifting, which is a perfectly fine thing to do in PF.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
Generally speaking, if players are stacking up a bunch of spells, it's time to do an audit and make sure it's all legal. There are very reasonable restrictions in place, although they could stand to be spelled out a little more clearly.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
I've done without plenty often, but a generally headache free way to heal up out of combat is fine by me. The utility of a knock wand depends on a lot of things. I tend to play/run games without a lot of locked doors, and with people who recall you can just hack away until they're gone.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
I don't like it, but it's too deeply integrated into the game to remove.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
I don't like the way skills scale, and a few formulae start to pull too far to the extremes at higher levels, but D&D/Pathfinder is THE numbers-go-up RPG in my mind. For anything else, I'd say it's just a weird habit, but here, no, you've gotta work your way up from goblins to dragons and such.
6. +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
I like the whole "get the first hit or get more hits" approach to combat tactics if that's what you're asking with this one. I do have a problem with a few newer bits of content that subvert that system (quick runner's shirts are too cheap for the rocket tag curb stomps they unleash).
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
Pretty darn important. Getting str and a half damage with a one-handed weapon held in two hands however is pure munchkin cheese.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
If all saves were equal, there'd be a lot less strategy involved in playing a caster, although see point 5.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
As in, should all saving throws be capped at 20? Heck no. That'd lead to constant "don't roll a 1" situations by the mid-teens or so, level wise, and is a totally arbitrary restriction. Besides, pushing spell DCs is hard enough to min-max to be worth rewarding.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
Part of that tricky scaling math you can't really change without breaking everything, and if we're talking about PCs, it's essentially limited to your starting stats (20), plus a maximum of 6 from equipment, and bonuses every 4th level. Past that you're looking at wishes and tomes, which still have their limits, particularly cost-wise.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)
I house rule in +2 skill points per level regardless of class. It's enough for 2 point classes to have a little room for personal expression, while maintaining the extra perk for 4 point classes, and those who were already drowning in skills usually just laugh and grab a profession and perform with the spares.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.Hate. Hate. hate with a passion. Magic should be special. It should never be some cheap affordable convenience otherwise it stops being special, rare, mystical. The problem with having cheap healing on tap is that it encourages lower level characters to push the limits of what they can do in a day "because we can just heal up afterwards" instead of being more responsible and learning their limits.
The same goes for all that 3rd edition "magic for people who can;'t do magic" kind of item. You know, tindertwigs, tanglefoot bags, thunderstones, sunrods, smokesticks, everburning torches. All those things should never have been put on the equipment lists to begin with as players assume they can have them and I keep having to explain that I don't like having these things in my games.
Than D&D is not a good system for you, because even early on, when magic items were officially rare and special, actual adventures and campaigns usually had their share of non-special magic because magic is cool and shiny and something everyone who has ever played the system has tried to get a hold of. A better idea than trying to make all magic special is to accept that wands of CLW, tindertwigs, smokesticks, +1 weapons, etc do exist, are common, and really aren't all that special. Save the specialness for the higher end stuff that shapes entire sections of campaigns. The key is to find a middle ground where common magic is common, but rare magic retains that true specialness.
I usually follow the different charts for wondrous items for guidance in this area. The cheap magic, basically anything on the minor wondrous item chart or its cost equivalent and spells up to 3rd level, I don't waste time worrying about as a general rule, although I make exceptions as needed. The stuff from the second wondrous item chart, anything in that rough price range, and spells level 4-6, are common enough most people know about it, and those who can afford it can usually find a way to get it, but it's not automatic, and it's not something that can simply be found sitting on a shop shelf. Anything above that goes through me, the DM, at all times, and even in game knowledge of such items or spells tends to be limited or nonexistent to the all but a select few. I find this is the easiest way to not have to change a lot of game mechanics that rather rely on the presence of cheap magic while still keeping magic itself as something mysterious, dangerous, and near impossible to fully understand.
1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points.
1. I'm okay with Natural Spell. In fact, when I first saw it in a 3.x book, I thought of a fun DM use for it: intelligent animals with spell caster levels. Nobody thinks the squirrel is a threat, until it casts Fireball.
2. Spell scaling in general doesn't bother me, particularly buffs, as time and resources used to cast buffs directly contribute to helping other party members.3. I don't like the way wands are executed in the 3.x style system, they're basically tiny single spell staves. I don't mind their use for CLW though, I prefer the party have ready access to between fight healing. Knock doesn't bother me too much either, it's better than the Barbarian "casting knock", less cleanup.
4. I'm quite fond of this. In fact, I regularly provide access to an NPC crafter in case my players want to custom order.
5. I'll agree that there are more numbers, but not that there is more complexity than other editions. I remember in my AD&D days rolling to find out what tablet I would roll on next. It seemed much more complicated, especially if you tried to use all of the rules (I doubt anybody actually used them all). THAC0 wasn't as bad as people make it out to be though.
6. I like the iterative attack setup, but then again I also house rule a full attack to be a standard action.
7. This doesn't bother me, in fact it makes sense to me. Then again, I also allure Dex to damage in my game, so I'm weapon damage friendly.
Save DC and Stat growth are related, so I'll address them together. I hated stat caps by race in AD&D. Stats weren't even that important in that system, so it seemed very artificial to have a hard coded limit. It was okay for a character to cast spells and survive being enveloped in flames, but no way is a human getting a 21 in a stat. In the 3.x model, stat growth is assumed, so DC are going to get high as well. I still prefer it to the mostly unmodified percentage saves. It's much easier to boost these saves than % save vs. Magic Rod.
11. I'm with you on this one. Fighters aren't dullards, and really ought to have a second good Dave as well.
Than D&D is not a good system for you, because even early on, when magic items were officially rare and special, actual adventures and campaigns usually had their share of non-special magic because magic is cool and shiny and something everyone who has ever played the system has tried to get a hold of. A better idea than trying to make all magic special is to accept that wands of CLW, tindertwigs, smokesticks, +1 weapons, etc do exist, are common, and really aren't all that special.3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.Hate. Hate. hate with a passion. Magic should be special. It should never be some cheap affordable convenience otherwise it stops being special, rare, mystical. The problem with having cheap healing on tap is that it encourages lower level characters to push the limits of what they can do in a day "because we can just heal up afterwards" instead of being more responsible and learning their limits.
The same goes for all that 3rd edition "magic for people who can;'t do magic" kind of item. You know, tindertwigs, tanglefoot bags, thunderstones, sunrods, smokesticks, everburning torches. All those things should never have been put on the equipment lists to begin with as players assume they can have them and I keep having to explain that I don't like having these things in my games.
Yeah, D&D/Pathfinder has always been a high-magic and high fantasy game system. As several people have pointed out, the fundamental math of the game is built on the assumption that the party will gain access to increasingly powerful magical items as they progress in levels. If a simple non-magical 1 gp Tindertwig is too much...
Simply put, Pathfinder is really not the best game system for a grim-and-gritty Game of Thrones-style low fantasy campaign. Sure, you can try to fit into that box, but it won't fit all that well compared to other game systems that are actually designed for that.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)
So I've been playing since the days of BECMI and 1e - I do have opinions on your list.
1. Before 3e it never occurred to me that druids wouldn't be able to just cast in wild shape. Honestly I would just remove the feat and make it a class ability of druids. Then again, groups I play with tend to use wild shape for scouting and spying more than for combat.
2. Again, in 1e/2e everything stacked, although very little scaled. I don't have a particular problem with PF's way, although the math can get a little crazy, especially for newer players.
3. I dislike easy access to wands, and I think this is one of the factors that leads to casters overwhelming groups and obsoleting skills. If casters had to use their own personal spell slots to do that stuff it would balance things a lot more. That having been said, a wand of knock is pretty cruddy in PF compared to an actual PC with Disable Device.
4. I am not a fan of magic item shops and the Christmas tree effect. I use them because the system needs them, not because I think they're a good idea. 1e/2e's system of "two year quest for rare ingredients just to make a level 1 scroll" was too far the other direction, however.
5. See 2.
6. Eh, decreasing attack numbers is less bothersome than the need to use a full round action to get all those attacks. Higher levels becomes all about creating a stable position from which to full attack. Letting martials have more access to better options when moving would be a higher priority to me.
7. Big damage is what martials do. It's needed due to the hp bloat we've got now. Feel free and nerf away at Power Attack if you're also going to roll back demon lords to having 66 hp(1e Lolth).
8. 1e characters could have gaps in their best/worst saves of up to 5 at 1st level. A gap of 6 isn't unreasonable.
9. Scaling spell DCs is actually one of changes I like least from earlier editions - in 1e/2e, sure, casters got more narrative power and access to SoS type magic with levels - but opponents' saves just kept getting better, so your finger of death probably only worked 15% of the time. I wonder how d20 would work with more of a 1e/2e save paradigm - just set all save DCs at 18 and go.
10. It's not really unlimited - there is a pretty solid cap at +6 enhancement, +5 inherent in bonuses. Remember the bonuses for having a 20-25 in 1e/2e were comparable to the numbers a current score of 30-38 gives. Heck in 1e/2e wish could eventually get you much more than +5, didn't cost money, and didn't have to be cast all at once. One week of downtime and your wizard could go from a natural strength of 7 to a 14 as his base stat.
11. 2 skill point classes don't bother me at all. You don't have to max out skills to keep them useful.
I was going to post something constructive, then 4e got jabbed with a stick. I started playing Rpg's with second edition, now any nostalgic harkening back to "better times" leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Pathfinder isn't D&D, I wouldn't force it in that box.
1. Before 3e it never occurred to me that druids wouldn't be able to just cast in wild shape. Honestly I would just remove the feat and make it a class ability of druids. Then again, groups I play with tend to use wild shape for scouting and spying more than for combat.
I like the idea of a sparrow-shaped druid sitting on a tree casting call lightnings.
Wands of CLW are absolutely essential to avoid one simple question:
"So who is going to get stuck with the cleric this time?"
Cleric is a lot better than in AD&D and a Druid can heal as well.
Last time I ran Pathfinder I used the following house rules and the game still worked.
Low magic world.
1. Natural Spell is banned
2. You can't start the game as a primary caster. You can only take levels in Wizard/Cleric/Druid at level 3 (there were none left in the world)
3. AD&D magic item creation rules except you do not lose a point of con.
4. Wands of CLW do not exist.
Similar to the start of Dragonlance I suppose. THe game still worked they just had to be a bit more careful.
Some of my other ideas would need a rewrite. Better saves could be patched in by giving everyone +3 on all saves at level one and you can't stack them together by multiclassing.
A Game of Thrones type campaign could also be fin I suppose but has n ot really been an option since 2nd ed which could support a game like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to post something constructive, then 4e got jabbed with a stick. I started playing Rpg's with second edition, now any nostalgic harkening back to "better times" leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Pathfinder isn't D&D, I wouldn't force it in that box.
While I personally love 2e and 1e and OD&D...I'd also agree...PF isn't D&D.
It has become it's own creature...and as such should be seen as PF instead of D&D modified/OSR 3.5/D&D mod.
I suspect other than that sole idea, our opinions would probably go counter to each other...and as such have nothing else constructive to say either.
Wands of CLW are absolutely essential to avoid one simple question:
"So who is going to get stuck with the cleric this time?"
Cleric is a lot better than in AD&D and a Druid can heal as well.
Last time I ran Pathfinder I used the following house rules and the game still worked.
Low magic world.
1. Natural Spell is banned
2. You can't start the game as a primary caster. You can only take levels in Wizard/Cleric/Druid at level 3 (there were none left in the world)
3. AD&D magic item creation rules except you do not lose a point of con.
4. Wands of CLW do not exist.Similar to the start of Dragonlance I suppose. THe game still worked they just had to be a bit more careful.
Some of my other ideas would need a rewrite. Better saves could be patched in by giving everyone +3 on all saves at level one and you can't stack them together by multiclassing.
A Game of Thrones type campaign could also be fin I suppose but has n ot really been an option since 2nd ed which could support a game like that.
You also rewrote basically every assumption about the game in the process of doing all that, which is not bad, but not something that everyone can or wants to do. The problem with most of the points on the original list is that the only way to change them is to make major changes somewhere else in the system, at which point, it is often easier just to find a system that was designed with your goals in mind in the first place.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know I for one hate all this fantasy in my fantasy RPG. Magic! Who wants to pretend to be a Wizard in a fantasy RPG? Nobody that who.
(The above is sarcasm, but seriously if you feel this way have you considered, *not* playing a fantasy RPG?)
So I've been playing since the days of BECMI and 1e - I do have opinions on your list.
1. Before 3e it never occurred to me that druids wouldn't be able to just cast in wild shape. Honestly I would just remove the feat and make it a class ability of druids. Then again, groups I play with tend to use wild shape for scouting and spying more than for combat.
That basically highlights the biggest difficulty with this entire list. For all that concepts remained unchanged going into 3E, implementation saw a major revamp, one that continued on through 3.5 and PF. At this point, everything is interconnected to the point that even removing natural spell as a feat requires you to either find some other way to implement or change the druid class to keep it useable. Same with most of the number inflation and magic item issues. Trying to simply remove those elements at this point doesn't work; you have to find a way to adjust them to a form that you can live with, not remove them. Those wanting the original feel of the original game are best off playing the original game, making tweaks to it as desired, than trying to twist modern D&D into something it hasn't been for a long, long time. Even pre 3rd edition was already starting to see a lot of these trends creep in, so it's not just an issue of 3rd edition and beyond.
I will never, ever understand why some folks have such a hard time with wands of CLW. We enjoy video games and in said games there might be potions of healing popping out of corpses, first aid kits floating in mid-air or the like. Why should PF be any different.
Consider the 3rd level party:
The wizard likely has more than their allotment of spells/day thanks to consumables like scrolls, so they can last more than 3-5 fights. The melee types are really starting to shine in DPR, the ranged types are almost keeping pace. But all of these folks, without access to a steady stream of healing is still a single crit from being out of the fight, give or take.
If however the same party has a single wand of CLW they can probably last through 10 fights scattered through the day without having to rest. What's more fun; fighting 3-5 fights, exploring a couple areas and going "well, let's rest for the night" or pulling off 10 APL encounters and securing a small compound of rooms in a dungeon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have much to say really on this topic, but my limited two cents:
One, I agree with DrDeath's first post...to me these are minor elements and as such don't really "make" something DnD.
I will definitely agree that fighters need really should be 4 skill points, since they are sort of the jack of all trades combat class.
Also, I like wands of CLW, since they provide ready healing if characters need it, without players getting stuck to play a healing class. I personally would rather be cautious and give players access to those resources, then TPK the party if the dice gods are angry or end a plotline abruptly because players don't have enough hitpoints to get them where I want them to be.
I will never, ever understand why some folks have such a hard time with wands of CLW. We enjoy video games and in said games there might be potions of healing popping out of corpses, first aid kits floating in mid-air or the like. Why should PF be any different.
Consider the 3rd level party:
The wizard likely has more than their allotment of spells/day thanks to consumables like scrolls, so they can last more than 3-5 fights. The melee types are really starting to shine in DPR, the ranged types are almost keeping pace. But all of these folks, without access to a steady stream of healing is still a single crit from being out of the fight, give or take.
If however the same party has a single wand of CLW they can probably last through 10 fights scattered through the day without having to rest. What's more fun; fighting 3-5 fights, exploring a couple areas and going "well, let's rest for the night" or pulling off 10 APL encounters and securing a small compound of rooms in a dungeon?
Personally, I like being able to have longer days and not having a healbot who spends all of his resources on keeping the party going. But I want it to be more elegant than CLW wands. It shouldn't take any system mastery to be able to efficiently heal between combats.