wizzardman |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please this:
NPCs are built the same way as PCs (with "NPC classes" as necessary)
<---X1000 this. It not only helps the system feel internally consistent, it gives the GM way more options for what the monster can do within the system than "simplified monster creation" ever will. If that means eventually a "monster level" system or a points based system for determining how a monster's abilities compare to a PC's, so be it.
Provide a means for "tank" characters to direct combat attention towards themselves and away from other characters <--- "Aggro" concepts are tough to work out and get a lot of flak, but I've seen a few neat ideas from Paizo in the past, and it'll really help balance out the new Shield system. As it is, shields are often considered disadvantageous because killing a monster (via higher damage attacks) tends to be a more effective means of preventing them from attacking the more flimsy members of the party than being a high-AC target. If shields are now effectively going to remove a potential attack from a bearer, the bearer needs more means to make sure the enemy doesn't simply ignore them and stab his friend Gandalf the Mauve in the face.
Continue Roll20 support.
----------
Don't do this:
Reinvent the "magic" wheel to make magic items less generally available <-- We don't need to, want to, or have to model ourselves off of D&D 5e. Pathfinder "1E" is not generally perfect for low powered play, and that's fine, it doesn't really have to be. I enjoy Pathfinder as a method for high-fantasy play where magic can be mysterious but can also be a useful and ubiquitous component to everyday life.
Rewrite or "cataclysm" Golarion so it matches up to new mechanics you introduce. The last several times that's been tried in other settings, its stunk highly of retcon, wrecked "group canon" within player groups, and has led to or relied on a lot of situations that don't make a lot of sense.
David knott 242 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please do:
Creatively rebuild the core classes so that many options that are now covered by variant or hybrid classes can be included in the initial archetypes.
I know that the Paizo folks don't want to do a lot of conversion work after the core rulebook is done, and that is the only way I can imagine them avoiding that task and yet satisfying players that their old 1E character concepts can still work.
Sara Marie Customer Service Manager |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removed some posts.
Please Do: Respect other community members and focus on the subject of the thread.
Please Don't: Start derailing the thread by arguing about what other people choose for their do's and don't wishes.
If you find a subject you want to go in depth on or debate the the utility of, I would recommend starting a new thread or looking for a conversation that has already been started that you can join. Starting chains of posts dissecting other people's do's and don't clogs this kind of thread and reduces its readability and usefulness.
Igwilly |
Okay, there are somethings which I think most people haven't touched, but I would like to say:
1) Rethink feats. I dislike feats as they are in Pathfinder 1e, D&D 3.X and D&D 4e. Think about what they're supposed to do, and what they represent in the character's terms. I think that, whatever they're supposed to do, they are not doing it.
2) Keep the awesome monsters. I've seen many cool monsters throughout Pathfinder, from many mythological/folkloric sources as well as fiction. It has been awesome looking in all of that. In the new edition, I honestly hope that Paizo keeps making monsters the same way they made it from Bestiary 1 to, at least, Bestiary 5.
3) Throughout the books I've read, there were a number of nice mechanical sets which I think it would be good to see. Things like gladiatorial games, duels, detailed information to create constructs and bind outsiders, drugs, hazards, haunts... That is pretty cool. Oh, and firearms! I love Pathfinder's firearms (not the "advanced" ones).
These last items really inspires me on creating my stuff. I hope that this continues.
Brinebeast |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please do this:
Add a creature type for things from the Shadow Plane. Creatures from the Shadow Plane desperately need a creature type that reflects their unique characteristics, similar to how the Fey creature type reflects creatures from that Plane.
Shadow Plane creatures awkwardly get lumped with Undead because of the stronger influence of Negative Engery on that Plane. But Shadow Plane creatures should occupy the gap between undead and living creatures.
Also, can we come up with generic single word terms for Magical Beast and Monstrous Humanoid. All other creature types have single word descriptors and, in my opinion that makes those two feel clunky.
Tectorman |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please don’t:
If “spell manifestations” are supposed to be a part of the game from the word “go”, then don’t forget to actually put them in the book, as well as what they look like, do they generate light, does Invisibility conceal them, what about SLAs and supernatural abilities (if such things are going to be in P2E), etc. Ditto for making sure AP writers know that this is supposed to be a thing, such that they don’t write NPCs acting as though they aren’t.
Also, can we revisit the wisdom of FAQrrataing?
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Condense and significantly simplify all the fiddly rules that nobody really uses often enough to commit to memory but happens often enough to be a pain, like breaking/bursting objects and object hardness/HP, environmental/falling damage and strange interactions, the swim and fly rules, etc.
Pleas don't do this; that's some of the most fun incidental stuff in the game.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of pipedreams, here's a big one. Please follow Starfinder's shining example and make alignment a completely optional part of the game, such that players that simply don't buy into the notion that being lawful or chaotic or some other specific combination as being integral or even peripherally related to having a character who has abilities best represented by the Monk or Barbarian or Paladin classes don't have to fight an uphill battle to play their heroic characters alongside other Pathfinder players.
Please don't do this either. When I want to play classless, I play GURPS; restrictions on how character concepts fit together is part of the fun, as a challenge mechanistically and roleplaywise.
If I thought there was the tiniest chance of it getting any traction, I would be tempted to say "please restrict multi-classing HARD" on the same grounds.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh |
Please do: Create some interesting feat (or feat-like) options to make level 1 characters of the same class vary widely in interesting ways. This would at least be something that D&D5E doesn't have.
I should have known this thread would bring out the contrarian in me, because, really no. I am all for that level of variation being playable, but widely different characters should be different classes.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh |
OK, read through the thread, and it feels like I should come up with some positive suggestions also, so:
Please do:
Keep classes distinct, and give them clear identities. I am for the most part extremely happy with how PF1.0 does this, and really appreciate the number of classes available, but I would appreciate it if the warpriest/paladin/inquisitor region of that space could be clearer.
If the PF2.0 design process is intended to address C/MD, please do so mostly by giving martials access to awesome powers (wuxia-like between level 10 and 15, superhero-like between 15 and 20, or equivalent) rather than entirely by nerfing casters.
I kind of generally want more playable high levels, and ideally into epic, but if that were an easy thing to do it would have been done by now; still, I have faith in Paizo's designers having much more expertise than I do, so not being able to see what the solutions should look like doesn't mean I don't believe they exist.
Please keep giving us Bestiaries full of cool new monsters.
Please keep experimenting with APs.
PossibleCabbage |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please do: Allow characters to be truly polytheistic. No reason a person can't worship a God for every occasion. Why can't a cleric serve an entire pantheon?
Please Don't: Require Paladins (and eventually Oracles) to worship a deity. It's fine for these two classes to be invested in by a power that has not made itself clear to the character, which need not be a full deity. Ideally there's a distinction between "divine casters who get power in exchange for service to a deity"and "divine casters who just get their power thrust upon them".
Athaleon |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of C/MD, I think a good way to both rein casters in and make them more thematic would be to more strongly enforce their themes. Currently the best casters are those who take care to minimize redundancies. This results in Wizards and Sorcerers who, in spite of their School/Bloodline, are just piles of powerful but mutually unrelated spells. For example, there is currently no need for a Wizard to learn lesser teleportation spells (such as teleporting small objects, or short distances) before learning more powerful ones. Even Spheres of Power doesn't really do this, because that system still encourages and enables casters to poach a few of the best options from as many Spheres as possible.
Just as a rough example, a Wizard would have to specialize in one school, and his ability to learn and cast spells from any other school would be limited. Among other things, this would require a careful rebalancing of the schools and their capabilities. Likewise, Sorcerers might get the lion's share of spells from their Bloodline, and very few from 'outside' of it. This would require a careful rebalancing of Bloodlines and their associated spells and powers. Cleric spells would be much more Domain-dependent, and so forth.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh |
Speaking of C/MD, I think a good way to both rein casters in and make them more thematic would be to more strongly enforce their themes. Currently the best casters are those who take care to minimize redundancies, which results in Wizards and Sorcerers who, in spite of their School/Bloodline, are just piles of powerful but mutually unrelated spells. For example, there is currently no need for a Wizard to learn lesser teleportation spells (such as teleporting small objects, or short distances) before learning more powerful ones. Even Spheres of Power doesn't really do this, because that system still encourages casters to poach a few of the best options from as many Spheres as possible.
Just as a rough example, a Wizard would have to specialize in one school, and his ability to learn and cast spells from any other school would be limited. Among other things, this would require a careful rebalancing of the schools and their capabilities. Likewise, Sorcerers might get the lion's share of spells from their Bloodline, and very few from 'outside' of it. This would require a careful rebalancing of Bloodlines and their associated spells and powers. Cleric spells would be much more Domain-dependent, and so forth.
I've disagree with a fair amount of stuff you're said recently, but I would extremely enthusiastically support this proposal.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh |
Oh, and here's one relatively small "please do" that would make me ridiculously happy; pronunciation guides for the names of monsters from real-world mythic traditions in Bestiaries.
Few things drive me bananas so much as people in wider Western culture pronouncing Irish names as if the letter values were the same as in English, and I am sure I have mangled names from cultures I'm not familiar with in ways that are equally teeth-grinding to people from those cultures.
SteelGuts |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please DO:
- Better and more meaningful feats.
- Dexterity to dammage in Melee.
- Consolidated skill list.
- The Paladin/Antipaladin as a Warpriest, with a code tied to his divinity and not his alignment or class. In general no more alignment restrictions, but code of conduct for the divine classes.
- Better weapons options for all the classes than two handed and bow.
- Archtypes tied to class.
- Countzrspell as a reaction.
- A boss/Nemesis/Mythic archetype for the BBEG. Because it exists since the beginning of the game but we don’t write it and just add strange fp bonus like « extraordinary wealth and abilities ». Let’s be honest.
- Monster custom abilities. Like the bite from the T-Rex that seems cool.
- Assymetrical balance of the class. I prefer diversity over DD4e...
- More meaningful scrolls and wands. I am so tired of having to find the best spells to add void using DD and things like that. I want my magic scroll to be powerful.
- Streamlinded spells durations. Maybe a number of action scenes or combat round or actions I don’t know but a more consistent way to deal with buffs and debuffs.
- Good maneuvers. And they should be dangerous. I don’t see why it is harder to bull rush someone close to a riff. It is a nonsense rule to avoid falling. Don.t do that. Terrains and strategic choices should matter.
Please don’t:
- Make backgrounds like Starfinder. They are so weak and underwhelming and they increase things that people almost never use in a lot of hometable group.
- Feats bad, yes we all said it. But it is probably the biggest weakness of Pathfinder so far.
- Nerf casters. Just increase the options of martials.
- 4e
- Make a lot of useless options for weapons. I want a good crossbow.
- Not impactful magic items. Magic items should be strong and powerful and rare. We should not be a walking magic item shop with + everywhere.
Davia D |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please do:
Give a variety of mechanically distinct weapons that are worth using.
Please don't:
Make exotic weapons/weird weapons cost a feat (or other mechanical cost) *if they aren't better*. If they're just foreign, an orchish whatever or a different continent's thingy, then even if it's something used in a different way than a sword, it shouldn't cost anything.
People should be able to play with weird weapons without paying for essentially nothing or even a disadvantage.
Matthew Downie |
There are lots of ways a melee character's ability to lock down an enemy within their reach could be improved. For example:
Penalties to attack anyone other than the Fighter.
If you use a spell that allows a saving throw while in reach of the Fighter, the person making the save gets a +4 bonus.
Harder concentration checks.
No '5-foot step away' (or a Step Up that counters it).
A 'lock down' ability that stops/trips people who try to move away.
Etc.
Brinebeast |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please do this:
Continue to use the Race Builder rules or something similar. Also, balance the major starting player races so they all have the same point value. And for less common races with a similar theme make sure they are balanced to have the same race point values. Looking at you Suli, Undine,Ifrit, Slyph, and Oread.
Bruno Mares |
Please don't:
*Don't make universal archetypes and fixed class features to be modified by archetypes (this is really bad, since you limit so much the archetypes)
*Don't Use Resolve Points and the form to stabilize/die
*Don't Give just one Attack of Opportunity per round (KEEP Combat Reflexes)
*Don't Create a simplified critical hit system (keep weapons with higher critical threat)
*Don't make two-page-monsters for every one like in Alien Archive. Not all monsters need that amount of information
*Don't make item creation/repair so simple
*Don't Make racial/theme ability scores irrelevant in character creation
*PLEASE don't flat creatures sizes. Size and its modifiers are a really important part of the game
*DON'T MAKE CHANGE GRIPS AN ACTION.
Please do:
*Keep concentration, even if it'd be simplified
*Keep NPCs and Monsters development/creation more similar to PCs (If not, use Unchained rules, because it's waaaaay better than Starfinder too simplified rules)
*DO SPECIFY how much feats monsters have for level/HD. This is really nebulous in Starfinder and we don't like to "have fiat" for this...
Dragon78 |
Please Don't
-Turn former player races into non-player monsters.
-Use Starfinder rules
-Do two page monster bestiaries.
-Take away immunities, resistances, DR, SR, from classes.
Please Do
-Keep NPC and monster creation similar to PCs.
-Keep alignment, 6 stats(Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha), 3 save types(fort, ref, will), and skill points.
-Make poison a damage type as well as a status ailment.
-Let classes keep their "classic" immunities.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another one that I have been wanting for ages, if we are moving away from the 3.5 model:
Separate AC from to-hit. Make "hitting the opponent" one mechanic and "getting through their armour" a different one.
This would give a new dimension for real differences in the efficiency of weapons. It would allow bludgeoning weapons and piercing ones to interact differently with armour. And it would get rid of modelling "wearing heavy armour slows you down" and "heavy armour is harder to get through" as opposing effects in the same space of mechanics, which has never made much sense to me.
Matrix Dragon |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll keep my list short....
Please do:
Keep the Alignment system. I'm fine with some classes becoming less restrictive, but the idea of absolute alignments is important. I (and a lot of other people) use rpg gaming to roleplay a hero. A lot of people don't want worries about moral greys pulling them out of the fantasy world they're trying to have fun in.
Also: Please keep it so that monsters and npcs work the same way as players. It is important for immersion that players be able to feel like they're fighting enemies who follow the same rules that they do. I love how in the 3.5/Pathfinder system it feels like monsters often simply have stronger starting races than the players.
JoelF847 RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please Don't Keep conjuration spells ignoring SR. I'm fine with indirect spells ignoring SR, such as telekinesis on an object to throw it at a foe, or rock to mud on the terrain to impeded them, but just because a spell is conjuration shouldn't be the bar to ignore SR. Conjure acid to shoot at someone is no different from "conjuring" fire or lightning to shoot at someone. Glitterdust to blind, same thing. (I don't have a problem for glitterdust as anti-invisibility to ignore SR, so maybe that spell could be SR: partial, see text.
QuidEst |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please Don't Keep conjuration spells ignoring SR. I'm fine with indirect spells ignoring SR, such as telekinesis on an object to throw it at a foe, or rock to mud on the terrain to impeded them, but just because a spell is conjuration shouldn't be the bar to ignore SR. Conjure acid to shoot at someone is no different from "conjuring" fire or lightning to shoot at someone. Glitterdust to blind, same thing. (I don't have a problem for glitterdust as anti-invisibility to ignore SR, so maybe that spell could be SR: partial, see text.
Just chiming in with extra info- Acid Splash at least is Evocation now, so I’m guessing you’re getting your wish.
TiwazBlackhand |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've thought of one thing I'd really like in the new edition.
From day 1, decent rules for Improvised weapons.
Feats so that you can be proficient with at least a narrow set of items used as Improvised weapons and benefit from other weapon feats using them.
Concise rules for determining damage values for Improvised weapons.
Rules allowing some way to put a weapon enchantment on items that are not specifically built to be weapons.
Rules on improvised weapons such that, if you choose to build that way you aren't ALWAYS going to be WAY BEHIND a similar character using a short sword.
I Just Want To Be Able To Beat Monsters To Death With A Guitar Is That So Wrong?
FanaticRat |
Please This:
-Keep all different kinds of species/races/ancestries whatever. Having a lot of different PC options for species is one of the things I like about this system.
-Keep releasing a lot of premade content. I know you will because that makes bank, but having APs and Society scenarios and the like is very nice. Even if I don't use the whole adventure or anything, it's nice to steal a few things from it or reuse maps and such for different games.
-Cut down on really wonky rules for the sake of the nebulous concept of verisimilitude. I understand that the system is supposed to be simulationist, but having a ton of rules for things often ends up getting in the way or getting ignored.
-Keep enemy and PC gen rules separate. I don't got time anymore to stat up every enemy--in fact, I usually just say screw it and give enemies abilities and such as I see fit to make an interesting encounter, the rules be damned.
Please Don't
-Heavily bias ancestries in stats and whatnot. I like being able to play a lot of different species; I don't like being completely handicapped because I didn't pick the right one. This also applies to making species that are just flat out better: humans and old aasimar and tieflings were always great choices for a reason.
-Require feat taxes and chains for things. These were both annoying because not only did you have to all in on something to be reasonably good at it (looking at you combat maneuvers), if you got in deep and realized what you took wasn't that good you were screwed unless your GM was nice and let you restat your character. Things like these make it very easy to trap yourself into a subpar character. It would be more cool to have feats that just evolve as you level up or something.
-Include enemies with really wonky damage resist or immunity mechanics or other such oddities at level one. It's not fun to run into a dungeon as a newb and be unable to hurt something because you didn't know to bring multiple weapons or buy that oil of magic weapon, or being completely shut down by a flying or invisible enemy because you didn't know about the chalk in a bag trick.
-Include deeper darkness. Seriously, that spell can burn in hell. Actually, don't have complex light and dark rules to begin with, they're just cumbersome.
-Require the Big Six. I know this was partially addressed in Unchained, but it's not cool to be like "oh wow this magic item is really interesting! But I gotta keep my +4 cloak of resistance so I don't get bodied so...".
-Have a huge list of skills. The skill list is kinda bloated in my opinion and could be trimmed down.
-Be afraid to test something because it could be seen as "too much like 4e" or "not enough like pathfinder". This is your chance to break new ground, and if something don't work, you can throw it out and try something else during the playtest period.
Tarondor |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PLEASE DO THIS:
1. Fix the knowledge skill system. An average 3e/PF party knows everything. There is never a need to visit sages or wise men, and I miss that.
1A. Fix the knowledge system as regards monster lore. It shouldn’t be keyed to CR, because some high-CR monsters (dragons, for instance) are well-known and reasonably well understood, whereas some low-CR monsters might be quiet obscure. If you must have a “know about the monsters” roll, key it to frequency, not power.
1C. Fix Knowledge (local) so it applies to familiar locations only.
2. Ditch the system for identifying magic items. It’s a boring mini-game that just takes time. Only certain mysterious items should remain mysterious.
3. Fix BBEGs so that they can take on a party solo and not get taken out in half a round.
4. Keep the core 11 classes.
5. Require that paladins be lawful good. This is for me the only one on the list that would be a deal-breaker.
6. Keep the alignment system.
7. Replace the standard poison system with Unchained’s much more interesting system.
8. Include in the Core Rules a rule analogous to “Ineffective Weapons” currently found on page 174 of the PF1 Core Rulebook.
9. Fix the witch (and all debuffers). I love the concept but I hate the result. As a GM I often have one main villain and the effect of having a debuffer in the party is to make every bad guy a broken, unheroic joke and turn my epic fantasy into a series of uninteresting laughs.
10. Get rid of all effects that do not require either a saving throw or a to hit roll or some other chance the effect will fail.
11. Make both sword-and-shield and spear-wielding among the top-tier choices for a martial class. There is a reason these were the two primary styles for thousands of years of real history, but they are distinctly sub-par choices in PF1.
12. Keep the Vancian spellcasting system.
13. Make “flanked” a condition. If two guys are flanking an opponent and a third guy shows up, he should also regard the opponent as flanked.
14. Fix “Save or Die” and “Save or Suck” spells so that the only possible results are no longer “win” or “do nothing”. A range of possible results based on the saving throw would be very appropriate.
15. Permit everyone do take actions in combat which anyone realistically could take. Power Attack, for instance, is something everyone should be able to do.
PLEASE DON’T DO THIS:
A. Don’t stick to your plans for critical failures. They will always hurt the PCs more than the villains.
B. Related to #11, above. Please don’t make shield use require an action. Shields should be automatically a great choice, not a burden to use.
C. Don’t get rid of Traits! Along with archetypes, they’re my favorite part of Pathfinder.
D. Don’t dumb down Pathfinder. There are dozens of “rules-light” and “simplified” games out there that any of your customers could have chosen. Not wanting to play those games is the reason I’m a Pathfinder player.
E. Don’t tie the game too closely to Golarion. I like Golarion, but I want the option to play this game in my own setting.
F. Don’t build monsters on different rules than for PCs.
G. Don’t include “aggro mechanics.” They’re unrealistic and only simulate video games.
H. Don’t make archery so much better a choice than melee combat. Historically ranged attackers were deadly en masse but at a significant disadvantage up close.