What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, When / If it is make?


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

This threat isn't meant to start arguments, just imaginative discussions about what people would like to see in a new edition of Pathfinder, when/if another edition is ever made.

I'll go first, since I'm starting this thread.

I have introduced a lot of people to Pathfinder and they have all been confused by the idea that caster level and spell level are different. I would like to see 20 levels of spells to correspond with 20 caster levels.

I would also like to see spells that can be cast at any level, with effects that scale appropriately with the spell slot used to cast them. For example, Vanish, Blur, Invisibility, and Greater Invisibility are essentially the same and could just be the same spell cast from different spell level slots. Even though individual spells would take a lot more text, you would also effectively get many spells from each printed spell. I think this would also really help the problem that spell casters never ant to multiclass since they are delaying their asses to the spells they need to keep up with monsters. This way characters could multiclass and still have the spells they want, just in a weaker version.

I should like to see armor / natural armor add damage resistance rather than armor class. It never made much sense to me that a person in full plate mail would be hard to hit. I would think that he would be easy to hit, but hard to hurt. I think that DR should also apply against most energy attacks since wearing plate mail would certainly protect a real person from a blast of fire (also consider that cooking mitts protect you hands from fire damage). I also think that armor adding DR instead of AC would better facilitate guns and other high tech weapons. The concepts of AC kind of falls apart when you are talking about high tech objects with very thick armor, such a tanks or possibly robots. I know that this option was included in Ultimate Combat, but it is such a drastic change to a core mechanic, that it would require remaking pretty much every monster and was too burdensome for me to use.

It is a little thing, but I would like to see the aligned outsiders remade to fit some consistent pattern. Between demons, devils, angels, etc. there doesn't seem to be any clear pattern of what abilities and deference they each have. Some have multiple energy immunities, while other only have one, some have many energy resistances while other have few, some have powerful auras while others have no powerful abilities. I would like to see all subtypes of aligned outsider (demon, devil, angel, etc.) with more consistent abilities abilities. For example, they could each have one energy immunity, two energy resistances, one immunity to disease, poison or polymorph / petrifaction, resistance to one that they are not immune to, one universal form of communication, and one special ability (auras, see in darkness, etc.).

I would also like to see golem with hardness and treated like objects instead of having DR. That way they would take half damage from most energy spells, and their hardness would apply against energy spells, so spell casters would not feel forced to sit out fights with golems, but the golems would still be highly resistant to most magic.

In my experience, Power Attack is very strong and should be toned down somewhat.

Finally I would like to see Pathfinder rebuilt from the ground up without any rules being safe from reworking. It seems that Pathfinder is still carrying relics from 1st and 2nd edition D&D that may have been fine for their time, but may be outdated today.

I really like what Pathfinder Unchained did with simplifying skills and reworking diseases and poisons, I would like to see those rules carried over.

Shadow Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing.


Game has 10 levels that scale in power from current 3rd to 13th level.

archetypes that should have been prc's get corrected.

Less specific, more open ended spells a la shadowrun.

A specific rule that says, "This is the rule that says you can do a thing. An (su), (sp), or (ex) ability can only be performed by creature or characters that posses them but otherwise do anything. This rule specifically exists to end internet arguments started by grognard GMs or MMO-converts who say 'it doesn't say you can do you cant.' This is it, you can do it now. Show them this rule and tell them to shut up."

Have combat feats and character feats not be interchangeable and not be balanced off of each other.

Skill tricks.

A number of feats just get rolled into the combat chapter and magic chapters as base rules:
Power attack/pirhana strike/deadly aim
Vital strike and its chain
CRB metamagic
Many more...

Vital strike and spring attack works together (actually, spring attack just works like fly-by-attack)

Fix the economics of the system.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The thing I look forward to about PF2E is all the arguments about PF3E that'll start less than 2 minutes after it's announced.

-Skeld

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

#1. Make Armor Class a more viable investment for later levels.

#2. Please God drag CMB/D behind the woodshed and Old Yeller it. Go back to opposed melee attack vs. Str/Dex check.

#3. Give fighters the marking ability from Fourth Edition (marked opponent takes a -2 penalty to attack not-you, moving away from you, even to 5' shift, provokes an opportunity attack), the fighter second wind from Fifth Edition (swift action, recover 1d10 + your fighter level HP on the spot, once per encounter tho), and possibly the fighter's BAB from d20 Munchkin (it starts at +2 and goes up, baby, up!!)

#4. Change Knock's range from Medium Range to "Touch; any traps on the object go off, that's your fault for not rolling a rogue."

#5. Add the Alchemist and Magus to the core rulebook classes. Alchemists are cool. Magi are cool.

#6. Everyone gets the equivalent of Spring Attack and Shot on the Run.

#7. Make feats a bit more meaningful than "+2 to two quasi-related skills."

#8. Ninth level should be The Return of First Edition D&D Name Levels.

#9. Fix the damn Jade Regent caravan rules. Those could have been so awesome if done properlike. Realizes that the caravan rules could be adapted for a stripped-down Pathfinder starfaring game.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would rather see Paizo produce its Adventure Path's and setting for 5e D&D and continued support for its current PF game rather than see Pazio spend time on a 2e PF Core rule set.


I'm going to talk more in generalities here, but I would like to see Pathfinder tweak 5th Edition. Pathfinder/3.5 has too many levels of complication and confusion built in to character creation and the game mechanics. (As a seasoned rpg'er it doesn't bother me as I sort of like that level of customization, but it is not new play friendly, and it make's a GM's preparation job, especially in the higher levels of play, become very time intensive.

5th edition has put in many nice "refinements" to the system, especially with spells. While the Advantage/Disadvantage system keeps play moving along, its a little too simplified for my tastes. Pathfinder's/3.5' system of multiple types of stacking/non-stacking bonuses is probably the greatest example of over-complication in the system. I would rather like to see a streamlined system where there would only be 1 to 3 different types of bonuses available, with an overall max/cap.

Scarab Sages

Oh, it must be sunday.

Shadow Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Hopefully they can nerf some of the more massively overpowered martial options, and bolster some of the glaring weaknesses of the full spellcasting classes.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
Hopefully they can nerf some of the more massively overpowered martial options, and bolster some of the glaring weaknesses of the full spellcasting classes.

In 3e they made it quite easy to cast in melee, a complete change from 1e/2e. How about in the new edition rather than the Caster needing to make a concentration check the Melee class attackers needs to when attacking a Caster. This would represent the Melee class having to keep thoughts of "why do I bother?" out of their head long enough to make the attack?

Just an idea.

Perhaps we can also introduce truly ridiculous things like say Halfling Paladins, actually, no that would be too silly.

Liberty's Edge

I had a halfling paladin once ;_;

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorb wrote:
I had a halfling paladin once ;_;

Is it dead? Say yes and make my day ;)

Liberty's Edge

More like "changed mind about character, went with something else instead." So... yes?

Shadow Lodge

I vote we also advance the spell progression charts a bit to even out the spellcasters.

We can use each class's current spells known / spells per day at 20th level as a starting point for 1st level.

Of course, we'll need to create 10th - 19th level spells so that they can advanced to having something more powerful than they begin with.

Also, all martial classes should loose armor and weapon proficiencies. If they were mean to be vaguely useful, they should have been a spellcaster. They CAN take feats to regain them:

Light Armor Proficiency: You can use light armor, but with a -10 penalty to your AC.
Improved Light Armor Proficiency: You can use light armor with only a -5 penalty to your AC. Pre-Req: Light Armor Proficiency
Greater Light Armor Proficiency: You can use light armor with only a -2 penalty to your AC. Pre-Req: Improved Light Armor Proficiency
Pefect Light Armor Proficiency: You can use light armor with NO penalty to your AC. Pre-Req: Greater Light Armor Proficiency

Similary feats will exist for medium armor, heavy armor, shields, simple melee weapons, simple ranged weapons, martial melee weapons, martial ranged weapons, and each individual exotic weapon.

Spellcasters, via magic, automatically get Perfect [blank] Proficiency for all armors, shields, and weapons, should they deign to stoop to using such.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No alignments. OK, alignments with any mechanical aspects at all. No smite evil, no order's wrath, no alignment-based DR. Nothing. Sure all devils are LE and so on, but alignment does not help or hinder you one way or another.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

I vote we also advance the spell progression charts a bit to even out the spellcasters.

Of course, we'll need to create 10th - 19th level spells so that they can advanced to having something more powerful than they begin with.

If you don't want a tonne (or ton) of lawyers coming down on Paizo then 10th level spells are out. Dark Suns (2e) had 10th level spells and it wasn't part of the OGL I believe. So Casters can have levels 1-9 and then 11-19 spells only I'm afraid. To balance out this how about all Melee classes start with only one leg? They of course can get another by spending feats.

Other than that, I like the way you are going with this Kthulhu.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That it not be published at all.

Liberty's Edge

Stefan Hill wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

I vote we also advance the spell progression charts a bit to even out the spellcasters.

Of course, we'll need to create 10th - 19th level spells so that they can advanced to having something more powerful than they begin with.

If you don't want a tonne (or ton) of lawyers coming down on Paizo then 10th level spells are out. Dark Suns (2e) had 10th level spells and it wasn't part of the OGL I believe. So Casters can have levels 1-9 and then 11-19 spells only I'm afraid. To balance out this how about all Melee classes start with only one leg? They of course can get another by spending feats.

Other than that, I like the way you are going with this Kthulhu.

On the other hand, the 3e Epic Level Handbook does have a small selection of theoretical tenth-level spells, and those are open content.

Hmm. You might be onto something after all here.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

I'd like to see a few things polished up and some of the rules that nobody uses tossed by the wayside. (For example, do many people keep track of how many pages a wizard has in a spellbook? If not, do we need that rule?)

I'd like to see fewer situational modifiers. (For example, a dwarf gets +2 to Appraise when pricing nonmagical metals and gemstones - could that be changed to a +2 on Appraise? Or, going back to my previous point, do many people use Appraise or can we ditch it entirely?)

Other than polishing things here and there, the only major change I'd like to see is a reworking of monster math so certain magic items aren't always assumed. For example, cloaks of resistance could be removed from the game entirely if high-level saving throw DCs got knocked down a few points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Get rid of favored enemy for something less situational. If its a class' core ability, they should be able to use it when they feel like


I like the consolidated skills option and the background skills option from Unchained.
Also, a tweaked version of the action points system.
Minor feats..which are two for one and major feats which are full feats.
Called shots baked in, and lower debilitating damage thresholds.
Eliminating 7th-9th level spells and giving casters more metamagic feats and letting them use the higher level slots to prepare spells modified with meta-magic feats.
More PRCs that are worth playing.
Active spellcasting from unchained.
Eliminating the need for the "Big six"
Revised grappling.
Revised stealth.
Revised lighting and visibility rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me;

Use the Unchained revised action economy at it's base. I think doing it like that at it's core would solve a lot of problems.

Merge spellcraft and use magic device into knowledge arcana.

Merge a few base classes, split a few base classes.

Make archetypes a built in feature, or rather design base classes with selectable packages in mind.

Take the numerical bonuses from items out of the game's math.

Scaling AC according to BAB. Same for Initiative.

Heavier differences between weapons.

Better standardization among feats.

Unified spell lists. Same for nonmagical resource pools.

Overall I think I'd like to see more 'Unchained' type material than a new system because I'm kind of in deep with all these books and I'm not exactly tired of them and am not really unsatisfied with Pathfinder as it is, especially with third party and Unchained solving virtually any problem I had with the game. If I wasn't satisfied then I'd already have switched to 13th Age, 5th Edition, Dungeonworld, Swords and Sorcery, Burning Wheel or whatever. Plus y'know, The adventure paths are pretty sweet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I started a thread much like this one not so long ago. It devolved into a shouting match. The world burned and built itself again and you fools who have forgotten history have begun the cycle anew.

Having said that, here is what I like:

1. I would like to see the core mechanics shaved down and simplified in some ways a-la 5e (making ranged fighting and and dual wielding immediately possible w/o feat chains; folding more subsystems into the core "attribute check" mechanic; replacing iterative attacks with action point cost could also be folded into this design philosophy)
2. The game could benefit from protracted scaling numbers (also like 5e) to keep low level monsters a viable threat for much longer and make AC easier to keep relevant. It would also make math easier and make the game easier to balance.

Here is the controversial one, though:
3. The game should still have a lot more customization and mechanical depth than 5e does. In 5e, you are making like one or two choices a level for the vast majority of classes and that whole game bores me to death. I want there to be more in-combat resource management and choices (like the stamina and grit systems for instance; the AGE system also comes to mind sort of). Perhaps a fighter should still be like "I go up to the monster and hit it a bunch for a lot of damage", but that should not be the core game flow for all melee classes.
3.1 I am also in favor of having a simplified core system but class-specific or class-group-specific (such as divine casters or arcane casters) features and subsystems that are more complicated. Mark Seifter has rapidly become my favorite pathfinder dev exactly because he seems to favor this sort of design philosophy. Building and playing the kineticist or medium feels different from playing every other class and while that is more difficult to balance, that sort of variety keeps me interested in the mechanics of the game for much longer.

In my fantasy world, PF2 will screw up pretty bad and Mark Seifter and me and Batman will design the Pathfinder to Pathfinder's Dungeons and Dragons.

The market will further fragment but I will get a game that I enjoy more.


Personally I would like much of the same stuff we have in pathfinder 1.0, but a massive re-write of the rules. Taking care to word things so that everything RAW is actually RAI. No more +0 damage to precise strike for the daring champion cavalier, no more eldritch scion having a weirdly worded progression for his bloodline bonus spells.

If anything ever grants an ability from another class, it should spell out exactly how you replace calculations. Such as the previous daring champion example, it should say that you use your daring champion levels in place of swashbuckler levels for the purpose of using precise strike. I think that corner cases such as the magus gaining precise strike through arcane deed should either work because he can gain it or be specifically disallowed.

There shouldn't be any metaphor or similes in the rules, because that can cause confusion. Using the same example of precise strike, the wording is "To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler.", spell combat says "This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast." This creates a bit of confusion on if it even works together.

Abilities should be described exactly how they function with very strict rules. For example, if you wanted them to work together, precise strike could be worded similar, but spell combat would be worded "A light or one-handed melee weapon in one hand and the other hand free to use for casting the spell". If you didn't want them to work together, you would use wording for precise strike like "can only use this deed while attacking with a one-handed weapon while the other hand is unused."

In fact, perhaps abilities could have little descriptors and/or prerequisites for activation, as well as descriptions of what using this ability takes up in terms of effort. Again going back to the example of spell combat, you could word the requirements as:
- Light or one-handed melee weapon in one hand
- Free use of one hand
And the "effort cost" as:
- Attacking with weapon
- Use of the hand
With this, other effects could be restricted. For example, using a buckler normally has the rules that you still count with your hand as free so you gain the AC, but as soon as you use your hand you lose the AC bonus until the next round. This could be mechanically quantified this way in that any time you use an ability with the effort cost of "use of the hand", you lose the shield bonus the buckler provides.

These are just a few ideas, but it in general bothers me that there are so many corner cases rules questions with so many FAQ answers that don't cover all the corner cases yet, and it could be solved with a more refined system. I don't claim to have the best idea for a more refined system, but I think it could be improved with more careful wording.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly just want the core rulebook rewritten. Little to no actually changes necessary. We need an updated rulebook that doesn't use poorly written 12-year text modified by a poor chap who had to put an entire company on his shoulders.

If you want a whole new game that fixes the core problems with 3.5e, then follow Five Moons RPG designed by Sean K Reynolds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rather than continuing to come out with more and more classes, a core rewrite called Pathfinder 1.2 or something that's broken into a few volumes would be helpful, each with updated content for full understand-ability and reasonable power re-balance. Basically a re-organised re-release that's a chance to update, and give the once-over to everything released so far.
-Book I: Starting and Races
Starting themes/Ability scores/Sheets (character, race, ect)
Everything races, every race, race builder(make breath weapons not suck), ect.
-Book II: Classes
Every class, every relevant archetype and alternate class. Looking at you unchained ninja, vivisectionist, Titan mauler, ect.
prestige classes(a good sampling w/updates)
-Book III: Backgrounds, Skills and Feats
Skills (including background skills)
Background generator and traits
Feats, my god the feats
-Book IV:
How combat works, Every action that can be taken in combat, examples of play
General Rules
Alternate rules
-Book V:
Equipment: Update of ultimate equipment
-Book VI:
Spells

The GM guide and Bestiaries probably don't need re-releases, but hey, why not?

Basically it would be nice to have new Hard copies/pdfs that were less spread out that were rules updates. Not looking for 5e oversimplification.

Edit: Took too long typing that. Basically what Cyrad said, but more than core.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:

I honestly just want the core rulebook rewritten. Little to no actually changes necessary. We need an updated rulebook that doesn't use poorly written 12-year text modified by a poor chap who had to put an entire company on his shoulders.

If you want a whole new game that fixes the core problems with 3.5e, then follow Five Moons RPG designed by Sean K Reynolds.

I'm still waiting for Five Moons to come out to replace 5th edition as my go-to rules lite fantasy system.


Malwing wrote:
Cyrad wrote:

I honestly just want the core rulebook rewritten. Little to no actually changes necessary. We need an updated rulebook that doesn't use poorly written 12-year text modified by a poor chap who had to put an entire company on his shoulders.

If you want a whole new game that fixes the core problems with 3.5e, then follow Five Moons RPG designed by Sean K Reynolds.

I'm still waiting for Five Moons to come out to replace 5th edition as my go-to rules lite fantasy system.

I am pretty with this as well. I am going to be in the playtest for that when Reynolds finally gets it together (been waiting a pretty decent while at this point though).

That looks like it is really going to give you a ton of build choices (which is one of my earlier stated desires).

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ooh, clickbait! I'll nibble though.

1) Archetypes as a core, first release option and completely replace PrCs. I'd like to play my character concepts from first level please, not wait until the game's almost over. Save fluff like the "must willing kill someone" from the Assassin PrC for organizations.

2) A complete revamping of the spellcasting system and its assumptions. This one is pretty far-reaching, and starts with things like weeding out spells with over-broad narrative impact (gate, wish, miracle, etc.), continues with noting that "limited resources I can bottle/store in a wand/stash in a stave/etc. aren't really that limited so they shouldn't be exponentially better than unlimited resources" and continues on from there. Spheres of Power is a great place to look for ways to help here; I, personally, hate the current "grab bag" system the main spellcasters have, where you can get summon monster IX without grabbing the earlier versions of the spells, and similar silliness. I vastly prefer systems that show character growth that builds on itself in a logical progression.

3) Get rid of the idea that martial = mundane. Spellcasters are basically Naruto's version of ninjas by 5th level or so (seriously, Kakashi's favorite "spell" is obviously just shocking grasp), and Naruto and Gimli don't belong in the same universe. If wizards are cloning themselves, transforming into giant beasts, and summoning powerful allies willy-nilly, then high level martials should look like Guy and Rock Lee. If it helps, build tiers into the system where levels 1-7 are the gritty levels and ensure wizards have limited spells and minimal access to crafting, levels 8-15 are the "modern fantasy" where wizards have access to towers or laboratories and pit their wits and power against demons and devils and fighters can wrestle dragons into submission, and then levels 16+ look exactly like they already do, except for now the fighters are Cuchulain level in their might and can sever lesser opponents with the wind displaced by their swords.

4) Sift through all the garbled skill rules systems (stealth, mounted combat with both the ride and handle animal skills, bluff/intimidate/diplomacy, etc) and make them simpler and more internally consistent. It's silly that intimidate is a mind-affecting fear effect, yet diplomacy and bluff are not considered mind-affecting at all. Bring in Mark Seifter for this one, that guy knows how to look at a rule and say "Okay, if there's any ambiguity about what we're trying to say here, we need to understand that at least 50% of our customers will read it in the manner that isn't what we intended, so lets be clear".

5) Clean up CMB/CMD so instead of a system that's "usually good enough" we have a clean, cohesive system that doesn't have ludicrousness like hill giants reliably pick-pocketing pixies they can't otherwise lay a big fat finger on.

I think that ultimately, Pathfinder has two big issues that are actually fairly easy to address for a PF 2.0; the first is that many of the rules are overly complicated or unclear, often with bits of rules text that are either missing or extraneous due to changes in the system conversion betwen 3.5 and PF, and they just need to be tidied up. This is primarily in the skill system and the combat subsystems like CMB/CMD. The second is martial/caster disparity, and incorporating refined versions of the stamina and skill trick systems into the base game and getting rid of non-caster classes with fewer than 4+Int skill points would go a long way to alleviating that, particularly if combined with a thorough grooming of the various spell lists.

Codifying magic systems so there's less "grab bag magic" and more thematic and progressive magic would also make the game easier to run, predict, manage, and play. One of the very few changes from 3.5 to PF that I absolutely do not like was removing almost all the restrictions on specialty wizards so that they're basically just wizards with virtually no limitations and a set of class abilities that follow the theme (sure if they grab a "restricted" spell they're down a slot, but that just leaves them exactly where they were before specializing). I would have preferred if instead the various schools of magic were more strictly codified and supported, with Illusionists looking more like 3.5 Beguilers and Evokers looking more like 3.5 Warmages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A copyright date of 2115 long after I am no longer of this world.

That is all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) No more arcane spell failure. I've yet to find any spell with a somatic component more complicated than hand gestures.

2) Spells that level up on their own without having to learn multiple versions of it. We should never, ever need to learn monster summoning MMM or similar.

3) Add some of the APG classes to the core rulebook. Hybrid classes too, for that matter. We seem to always get the same base classes because they're 'traditional' without consideration as to whether there are others that fill the same sort of general role as well or maybe better.

4) Either make Clerics that are squishy divine casters or Wizards that have martial proficiencies like Clerics. I really don't understand the Cleric class because it seems more like the combination of some divine caster class we never get to see and the Fighter.

5) The Warpriest is a suitable substitute for the Paladin. In fact, I'd argue to get rid of the Paladin and have either the Warpriest or the Knight in its place. Knights as separate from Warpriests could come in varieties like Templar Knight, Eldritch Knight, and Wilds Knight.

6) Going with Pseudos to a degree. Races should not be included with monsters. I am also seriously sick of races that are supposed to have being homicidal as their hat. It seems to me that people want to play non-standard races, so give them the option to do so rather than saying "X is viciously evil all the time and never stops thinking about ways to kill or maim." A book of races, book of classes, and book of monsters should work out nicely as core rule books. Supplements for spells, additional creatures, etc could be added later (they always are).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighter "schools" - like Wizard schools - choose a style and gain Feats automatically that fit the theme of that school as you level up.

Martial Flexibility for all martial characters. (Or simply do away with the single Feat concept and open up tiers of Feats - i.e., you don't have to choose Improved X,Y, or Z but gain them all and can apply as the situation demands.)

Name Levels (as classic D&D). Crafting masterwork/magical items is not available until you have reached a Name Level. (You have to become a master before you can even contemplate crafting masterwork/magical items.)


I'd want it to be a revision of Pathfinder, done by people like Mark Seifer and Michael Sayre.

Question, what is name levels?


^Name Levels from D&D were the level at which you were considered to actually be a: Wizard; Warrior; etc. Each level had its own name, but - Wizard, for example, wasn't achieved until around 9th level? 12th? I don't recall atm. But the point was: you were working your way to a level of mastery, and only then could you begin to do extraordinary things, or have a keep/tower/castle, etc.


Kaladore wrote:

I like the consolidated skills option and the background skills option from Unchained.

Also, a tweaked version of the action points system.
Minor feats..which are two for one and major feats which are full feats.
Called shots baked in, and lower debilitating damage thresholds.
Eliminating 7th-9th level spells and giving casters more metamagic feats and letting them use the higher level slots to prepare spells modified with meta-magic feats.
More PRCs that are worth playing.
Active spellcasting from unchained.
Eliminating the need for the "Big six"
Revised grappling.
Revised stealth.
Revised lighting and visibility rules.

Agreed - this should be more of a marked or tracked enemy which the ranger gets bonuses against. Not unlike the investigator ability I suppose.


Otherwhere wrote:
^Name Levels from D&D were the level at which you were considered to actually be a: Wizard; Warrior; etc. Each level had its own name, but - Wizard, for example, wasn't achieved until around 9th level? 12th? I don't recall atm. But the point was: you were working your way to a level of mastery, and only then could you begin to do extraordinary things, or have a keep/tower/castle, etc.

So... no mechanical affect. It's just a name....

I don't understand why adding it would do anything but restrict options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

* Allow spell slots and bonus spell slots to increase indefinitely. Spell slots above 9th level can only hold metamagicked spells.

* Reduce some feat taxes and unmake other feats with things you ought to be able to know how to do for free (such as Combat Expertise).

* The Stamina system is great. Keep that.

* No more skill consolidation please.

* Replace bonus languages due to starting Intelligence with "background skill ranks": You can still spend these points on languages if you want to, but you should be able to spend the point(s) on Craft, Perform, Profession, or Knowledge instead, if it makes more sense for your character.

* The unchained classes are great. Keep those, but also backward support the older versions under different names, such as 'berserker' for original barbarian, 'thief' for original rogue, etc.)

* Make Action/Hero/whatever Points an integrated part of the core rules. These only come with PC class levels.

* Eliminate the concept of a separate set of "NPC Classes" completely, replacing them with PC-quality enhanced versions, or simply let existing PC classes cover their respective niches:

Aristocrat -> gain many additional abilities related to making friends and influencing people, like the 3.X Marshal or Dreamscarred's Warlord or Rogue Genius' War Master.

Expert -> transform this class into a hybrid rogue-bard-alchemist-wizard diviner specialist. They should retain their great skill set, plus learn some alchemist powers, some nice divination spells, and a few roguey/bardy jacks-of-all-trades abilities.

Warriors -> convert to Fighters, Cavaliers, Rangers, Brawlers, Slayers, etc.

Adepts -> convert to Clerics, Oracles, Witches, Druids, Shamans, etc.

Commoners -> becomes a new 'Worker' Constitution-based class designed around physical labor and endurance, in the spirit of the "Tough" basic class from d20 Modern. There is also an 'Athlete' class from Maximum Xcrawl that may provide more inspiration.

The vast majority of adult non-adventuring NPCs never rise above 3th level of whatever class they went into as a career. Peasants and skilled labor are mostly Workers; merchants and the working middle class are mostly Experts; the idle middle class and nobility are mostly mixed Expert/Aristocrat or pure Aristocrat, and are likely to have level dips in other classes. Professional soldiers run the gamut of the martial classes and a few may even move into Magus, Inquisitor, Cleric, or Warpriest.

* Fix the encumbrance system so you don't have to be an accountant to figure out what your character's load is. Instead of adding up pounds and ounces, assign every Strength rating (and size category) a number of "encumbrance slots" that's roughly equal to their max load. Every enc. slot might be worth 5 lb. Most weapons and quivers of ammunition might take up 1 or 2 slots. Armors might take up to 5 or 6. Very small items take up zero slots (i.e. don't count against you at all) unless you're trying to carry a large number at once (e.g. a sack of gold pieces). With this method, you could track encumbrance graphically, using item tokens of appropriate size, trying to fit them on a grid of squares equal to the number of enc. slots you are allowed to have. If you can fit all your items in the upper 1/3 segment of the grid, you are in light load. If you have the upper 2/3rds or less filled out, you are in medium load. If you have items in the lower 1/3rd, you are in heavy load. If you can't fit all your items on your grid, you are at max load and are in "lift off ground" or "push/drag" territory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would rather see 1.2 style update, rather than a complete rebuilding of the system. Alter the system too much and we'll get another 4th edition that none of the veterans can easily pick up.
1) Streamline and simplify the wording of existing rules.
2) I would like to see some kind of system put in to make cross-classing less crippling, such as adding partial caster levels for levels taken in other classes. The worst problems I regularly see are when I have players build monk/wizards or rogue/clerics thinking they are going to be cool only to find out that they ruined thier character.
3) On that topic, include some sample builds or advice in the classes descriptions for new players that are actually solid. I love Pathfinder for its flexibility and customization, but it's really not noob friendly and needs to address that. Including even a 1/2 page mini-guide would help out alot.
4) Alter extremely spesific bonuses to be more general. +2 on Will saves against spells cast by demons; BAD, players will often forget to factor it in. Even very experienced players of mine will regularly forget to check throught thier mountain of minor-bonuses at the moment of need, or not even know that the situation qualifies for the bonus until its too late.

Community Manager

Removed a post. "Popcorn" posts are not helpful to the discussion.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I don't understand the point of Name Levels.

Liberty's Edge

They were pretty much "Hey, you! Yeah, you! You actually managed to get through nine levels of Dungeons & Dragons without becoming body bag filler! You proved yourself to be among the biggest badasses that ever walked Oerth! You can now add the following to the front of your character's name:"

  • Lord/Lady (if you are a fighter)
  • Patriarch/Matriarch (if you are a cleric)
  • Magus/Maga (if you are a magic-user)
  • Master Thief (if you are a thief; title is gender-neutral)
  • Master/Mistress (if you are a mystic)
  • Dwarf-Lord/Dwarf-Lady (if you are a dwarf)
  • Lord Magus/Lady Maga (if you are an elf)
  • Sheriff (if you are a halfling; title is gender-neutral and may or may not actually grant you the authority of the law, ask your DM)

And then you went on to gain more levels.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Indagare wrote:
1) No more arcane spell failure. I've yet to find any spell with a somatic component more complicated than hand gestures.

I'm wondering how you know this, since the actual workings of the somatic component are almost never spelled out. That "S" might mean anything from having to point at the target to having to do the Funky Chicken while playing air piano Ride of the Valkyries with your right hand and masturbating vigorously with your left hand. Also, don't forget the "M" and "V"...you also have to be licking owlbear dung while reciting the Thai alphabet backwards in Swedish.


Snorb wrote:

They were pretty much "Hey, you! Yeah, you! You actually managed to get through nine levels of Dungeons & Dragons without becoming body bag filler! You proved yourself to be among the biggest badasses that ever walked Oerth! You can now add the following to the front of your character's name:"

  • Lord/Lady (if you are a fighter)
  • Patriarch/Matriarch (if you are a cleric)
  • Magus/Maga (if you are a magic-user)
  • Master Thief (if you are a thief; title is gender-neutral)
  • Master/Mistress (if you are a mystic)
  • Dwarf-Lord/Dwarf-Lady (if you are a dwarf)
  • Lord Magus/Lady Maga (if you are an elf)
  • Sheriff (if you are a halfling; title is gender-neutral and may or may not actually grant you the authority of the law, ask your DM)

And then you went on to gain more levels.

So, no different from normal, except if you want your character to have a title in the setting, some GM's might argue it's against RAW.... Yeah that sounds bad. I hope they don't return if there is a second or revised edition of Pathfinder.


Levels 21-30. More lenient charge rules. Combat Maneuvers that don't become useless later on without super specialization. More elemental spells that aren't fire. Better sling options. Bonuses for skill ranks aside from prereqs and numbers, like the unchained skill unlocks. An equivalent to cantrips for alchemists and investigators. Full spontaneous casters get their spells at the same levels as full casters. (Also getting their bonus spells on the level they can cast them.) Make Sorcerers like Oracles in general.

That's all I can think of.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Snorb wrote:

They were pretty much "Hey, you! Yeah, you! You actually managed to get through nine levels of Dungeons & Dragons without becoming body bag filler! You proved yourself to be among the biggest badasses that ever walked Oerth! You can now add the following to the front of your character's name:"

  • Lord/Lady (if you are a fighter)
  • Patriarch/Matriarch (if you are a cleric)
  • Magus/Maga (if you are a magic-user)
  • Master Thief (if you are a thief; title is gender-neutral)
  • Master/Mistress (if you are a mystic)
  • Dwarf-Lord/Dwarf-Lady (if you are a dwarf)
  • Lord Magus/Lady Maga (if you are an elf)
  • Sheriff (if you are a halfling; title is gender-neutral and may or may not actually grant you the authority of the law, ask your DM)

And then you went on to gain more levels.

While that's quite cool, it sounds like something that should be based on roleplay interactions. You should be a lord because you kicked a dragon's butt and used his hoard to buy a castle and loyal retainers, not because your power level went over 9000.

Liberty's Edge

Milo v3 wrote:


So, no different from normal, except if you want your character to have a title in the setting, some GM's might argue it's against RAW.... Yeah that sounds bad. I hope they don't return if there is a second or revised edition of Pathfinder.

Nothing's actually stopping you from writing "Esquire" at the end of your character name or "The Right Lord-Baron" in front of it either! (...Does this mean that if I call myself the Lord Baron Whoopass von Badass and I get nine fighter levels, my full name is Lord the Right Lord-Baron Whoopass von Badass? Warrants further investigation)


Snorb wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:


So, no different from normal, except if you want your character to have a title in the setting, some GM's might argue it's against RAW.... Yeah that sounds bad. I hope they don't return if there is a second or revised edition of Pathfinder.

Nothing's actually stopping you from writing "Esquire" at the end of your character name or "The Right Lord-Baron" in front of it either! (...Does this mean that if I call myself the Lord Baron Whoopass von Badass and I get nine fighter levels, my full name is Lord the Right Lord-Baron Whoopass von Badass? Warrants further investigation)

Except some GM's will see these titles as RAW. All the while, if someone wanted to add in this restrictive fluff they do it themselves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hm...

1. First things first. Let's clean up all this feat clutter. Power Attack and Deadly Aim are no longer feats, they are simply things that you can do with weapons. Finesse is a weapon quality, not a feat. Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, and Greater Vital Strike are made either into a fighting ability based on BAB or a singular feat that scales with BAB accordingly. Dodge and Mobility become a single feat, while Spring Attack and Shot On The Run both work like Flyby Attack. Reduce taxes and feat chains where possible, so things like Two-Weapon Fighting scale with BAB and you don't need to have Weapon Focus, Combat Expertise, and something else before you even LOOK at the good stuff. Compact CMB-related feats into more accessible packages. Feat based fighting styles should, I feel, be more like Archery where if you invest a lot of feats you're getting a number of useful paybacks (additional attack, additional damage dice, etc), and less like many of them are now where you have to pay unnecessarily convoluted feat taxes for basic competence with your concept. Design feats on the basis that they are a precious, extremely limited, and slowly gained resource that should not be filled up with chaff that tends to lead both to decision paralysis and poor build choices among newer players and unnecessary word count for players that know what they're looking for in a feat and ignore the chaff.

2. The spell list index needs some paring down. I'm not saying "break the wizard's legs", I'm saying we ought to reduce the app store effect of there being a spell for every eventuality a GM can come up with. Casters would still be versatile problem solvers without the capacity to know a spell for every occasion, at which point it risks becoming purely a matter of if they can beat the GM at the guessing game of what to bring vs what s/he brings. Additionally, making casters do more with less in the spell department means you might find more players looking for creative ways to use the spells they have rather than the wizard locking himself up for a few days to study the niche spell that neatly solves a problem he's expecting to face, or the cleric just asking for that same spell after a brief rest.

3. 2+INT skill ranks has outlived its usefulness except as a balancing factor on intelligence-based classes that are expected to pull down a large number of bonus skill ranks just by playing their character properly. Baseline is 4+INT skill ranks, with some classes like the Wizard, Magus, and Witch having 2+INT. If there is concern about INT dumping, incentivize it, I suppose, but most players I've met hate losing skill ranks as it is. There's always another skill you would take if you had the ranks, and I feel this paradigm would allow for more people that aren't bards to know about things like engineering, history, nobility, or how to dance and sing without wasting ranks they "need" to be putting in keeping perception and other such skills maxed. Background Skills should also be a default of the rules, not an Unchained system.

4. While we're on the subject of mental stats, Charisma needs to do something in PF 2.0. I don't much care what it is, but if you have a charisma score of 12 or higher, you should have SOMETHING going on that separates you from the square with 7 charisma for point buy reasons even if neither of you is using a charisma-based skill. Every other stat in the game is doing something on its own if you invest in it and gets BETTER if you find further uses for it. Charisma is pretty much only there for four skill checks and use as a casting stat, and since Intelligence keeps knocking it down and stealing those things from it, it needs something of its own rather than being the obvious first pick to dump in point-buy unless you're using it to cast spells.

5. Combat needs a bit of a rework. Some way to get rid of "stand still or suck syndrome" is the essential bit, so the guy with a sword isn't shuffling around to stay on his best offense while magic is a high-flying, wide-ranging free-for-all, but there's other things. Something like wound thresholds should probably be introduced so that enemies have a setting between "annoyed" and "dead" if you're doing HP damage to them, although tested heavily to avoid the death spiral effect. Less binary spell effects would be nice, too, I don't think anyone would particularly miss it if we removed "save or you're out of the fight, so there is no better strategy than for me to pump my DC as unreasonably high as it will go" from combat.

6. Be less afraid of nonmagical classes becoming fantastic at high levels. Magic goes from parlor tricks to legendary feats of magical power as you level, and so nonmagical stuff should go from gritty realism to epic heroism to better match it rather than create a feeling that a number of classes are playing two different games at the same table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorb wrote:

#1. Make Armor Class a more viable investment for later levels.

#2. Please God drag CMB/D behind the woodshed and Old Yeller it. Go back to opposed melee attack vs. Str/Dex check.

#3. Give fighters the marking ability from Fourth Edition (marked opponent takes a -2 penalty to attack not-you, moving away from you, even to 5' shift, provokes an opportunity attack), the fighter second wind from Fifth Edition (swift action, recover 1d10 + your fighter level HP on the spot, once per encounter tho), and possibly the fighter's BAB from d20 Munchkin (it starts at +2 and goes up, baby, up!!)

#4. Change Knock's range from Medium Range to "Touch; any traps on the object go off, that's your fault for not rolling a rogue."

#5. Add the Alchemist and Magus to the core rulebook classes. Alchemists are cool. Magi are cool.

#6. Everyone gets the equivalent of Spring Attack and Shot on the Run.

#7. Make feats a bit more meaningful than "+2 to two quasi-related skills."

#8. Ninth level should be The Return of First Edition D&D Name Levels.

#9. Fix the damn Jade Regent caravan rules. Those could have been so awesome if done properlike. Realizes that the caravan rules could be adapted for a stripped-down Pathfinder starfaring game.

#2 YES YES YES CMB/D is cumbersome and slows down the action unbearably.

1 to 50 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, When / If it is make? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.