3) Yes. I like every edition of D&D. I like pretty much every RPG, actually, because I choose to play them for what they are.
4) Since all of those things seem positive and don't contradict each other, all of them would be appreciated.
5) Do you mean easier to learn for people new to the game? I have no problem with that.
6) Since I'm an experienced gamer, accessibility is less of a priority for me.
7) Of course. I'll play pretty much anything.
8) I'd probably drop the level scaling. Bake more powerful options into feats gated behind master and legendary proficiency. Get rid of general feats and put more narratively focused options into its place. (Replace general feats with dedication feats, maybe?) Move some higher level class feats down to open up lower level options, and change them to scale with level.
As much as I wish the mainstream market had moved beyond the played out combination of simulationism and actor stance play, I have to agree with you that the market seems to prefer them.
I'm pretty sure that PF2 has already lost the new edition war, and now we'll just be measuring the length of the war and the number of casualties.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
If that was the case, the OP would be about the recognition of the presence of narrative mechanics and an argument that it's not the aesthetic they think the game should strive towards.
Instead, we got "it's not realistic!" pearl clutching and references to hoary old diatribes like the Alexandrian's.
Lucid Blue wrote:
If you're making the argument that Craft should have more specificity than it currently does, much like Lore, I would accept that as a reasonable complaint.
Lucid Blue wrote:
KFC would violate genre constraints, but other than that, sure, why not?
Granted, a Survival check on the Negative Material Plane should probably be Very Hard, like in the DC50 range, and I wouldn't allow it all unless you had Legendary Survival proficiency. But that's about challenge setting, not "dissociated" mechanics.
Exactly. A feat is a choice. The alternative to not having a feat is not having a choice. Would the game be better if it gave you less choices? (That's not a rhetorical question, either, too many choices can easily bog down character building.)
Lucid Blue wrote:
It's always immediately obvious who hasn't played Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark, or any other narrative RPG.
I think they view some skill as more valuable than others, and tying extra signature skills to the dedication feats let them do some gate keeping to keep more valuable combinations apart. It's pretty much impossible to get Arcana, Religion, Nature, and Occult to let yourself be a super ritualist, for example.
In all seriousness, how do you add options into a class and level based system without creating a menu of options to pick from? What would you do differently?
The only way I can see to add even more versatility into the system would have been to turn the class features, prestige class features, archetype features, and feats into an enormous pool of general feats, and let you select a feat each level. And I think that kind of system would have its own giant problems.
Sure, but the greater point I was making is that THAC0 is is no way fundamental to D&D.
Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
Every game is theoretically customizable, but there are multiple vectors of customization, and practicality makes some of them less useful. 4e was extremely hard to homebrew for, 3.5/PF1e easier but still fairly complex. 5e is more straightforward, and lightweight games like FATE easier yet.
Chess is obviously super easy to customize, but it renders the meta-discussion around the game entirely moot. That's one of the reason homebrew was never a major factor for 3.5/PF1e, as quite a bit of the popularity of the game was based on meta-discussion factors.
The organization within the book is actually pretty top-notch. Note how class feats are organized by level, but there's also an alphabetical index at the beginning of the section.
Both of which you provide you a benefit.
The fundamental issue here is, if feats for combat become general feats, what do you give to the fighter? Where else can his identity lie?
I think your lack of grasp of the strength of those systems shows why you're not able to see PF2e with any clarity. 4e and 5e both allow for a ton of customization, especially 4e. And 5e is so easy to homebrew the relative lack of customization is almost immaterial.
Compared to other rulebooks I've been looking at, like WFPR4e and Savage Worlds, it looks pretty darn similar.
THAC0 was 2e only. Elf/Dwarf as classes was only from Moldvay B/X onward to Rules Compendium, and isn't part of the lineage that current D&D/PF are derived from. Much less fundamental that the stats. They're as definitionally part of D&D as rolling a d20 to attack.
Honestly, if people don't understand that 3-18 for Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha is fundamental to the definition of D&D and its descendants, they shouldn't poke holes in other people's design.
See, thats where I disagree. I think that MY CHARACTER should be as good or not good at whatever *I* decide he/she is good at. Not what the designers tell me he/she is ALLOWED to be good at.
Then, quite simply, you shouldn't be playing a class-based game. Putting abilities into silos to reinforce flavor is the reason the class concept exists in the first place.
A 10th level cleric will have 15 spells per day to cast, plus 4-7 or so free heals, plus 4-7 casts of their powers, plus cantrips, plus whatever bonuses 5 free class feats have given you. They are hardly starving for options or power.
The idea that they're "taking away powers, and giving us feats to buy" is fundamentally flawed. They're creating a brand new baseline. There's no way they were going to make PF2 start at a PF1 baseline, and then add a whole host of new options on top of it. Turning class features into feat choices is still a power increase; "choice A or B or C" is always better than "choice A only", even if choice A is normally the best option, simply because B or C might have synergies with other options that aren't immediately obvious.
Pessimism is not a biological imperative; choose optimism, voice your concerns but have faith in the designers.
Stone Dog wrote:
Yeah, I agree. Personally, putting Necromancy spells into Material simply because of necromancer wizards bothers me a bit, I'd rather see the spells be grouped logically by spell list. Handle exceptions like necromancers with feats.
Ideally, classes flow outward from spells, rather than spells being categorized purely to support previous class concepts.
DM Alistair wrote:
Amen, sir! New is good! New is fun! Every edition of every RPG supports a certain playstyle, embrace that playstyle so that you can have fun whatever you play.
OK, I really like this build. Would it also work replacing Ftr2/Mnk1 with Examplar3, or would the lack of feats be too punishing?
So I'm working on a homebrew concept where magic items are much more prominent, because standard spell use has been removed. Characters might have some inherent supernatural or spell-like abilities, but no spell progression is allowed.
So I'm trying to put together a list of allowable archetypes that will broaden the number of classes allowable. I'm hoping someone can point out if I've missed any, or if there are some that grant spellcasting to normally non-casting classes.
The fact that so many in 3.5 (and apparently still in pf) would plan out their lower levels specifically, and make a character that in many ways is unenjoyable at lower levels, to get to a specific prestige class is, in my opinion, the perfect example of what makes the archetype model so superior. You get the flavor of your character from level 1, without having to wade through weird mechanics in the hope your campaign lasts long enough to get to where you were trying to go.
The best way to get around this would simply be to give Prestige Classes a level requirement, and nothing else but the most cursory requirements.
Specifically, ones that also combine with Nature Fang? Nature Fang gets rid of Wild Shape, which I've never liked, but I'd also like to get rid of all the extra summoning, which I find annoying.
Assuming there is no archetype that gets rid of spontaneous summoning, what would be a balanced trade for the ability? I was thinking of spontaneously casting from a domain.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Oh right, just realized a biggie. Bards get Blindness at level 4 (2nd level spell). Permanent blindness. The cure comes at level 7 (3rd level spell). So similar to what DrDeth said, look for things where the cure is either unavailable or a higher level than the afflict. Especially since monsters are probably based on the sorc/wizard versions, and therefore would get blindness as early as CR 3.
Yea, that's a good catch. Never been a big fan of the perma-blindness. I'll have to think how I want to approach that. I think I'll just lower cure blindness to 2nd level. Seems to fit better there anyway.
Any instances of level 7+ spells would be eliminated, outside of some prestige classes. The most powerful casters only have 6th level spells. (Obviously, this game won't be set in Golarion, it's a homebrew.)
The classes are removed from the game world in the sense that I won't give non-monstrous NPCs abilities that the players wouldn't eventually have access to. I don't tend to design NPCs using PC rules, so the class "existing" in the world isn't really relevant to my needs.
It isn't a problem. It's an experiment. We've been playing Pathfinder for 5 years, 6 by the time my turn DMing pops up. I like to keep it fresh.
The last time I ran a game, 4 of the 6 players were 6th level casters, and I noticed that the game ran really well from the mid levels even into the upper levels. The only classes that caused a problem were the paladin (as a high level melee buzzsaw) and the witch, once high level spells came into play. All of the other characters contributed well but not overpoweringly so. Good damage, good survivability, good out of combat contributions.
So I want to try a game that has most of the options that are normally available, but with what I saw was a real sweet spot in terms of capability.
So I have a pet theory that goes like this:
The 6th level caster classes are the absolute sweet spot in terms of Pathfinder design.
All of these classes have a strong but not overpowered spellcasting chassis, along with numerous class features with a diverse suite of options included.
The inclusion of 7 new 6th level caster classes between ACG and Occult Adventures has lead me to the point of thinking a game with only those classes now has more the enough options to be viable for my next spin at DMing.
My question is, are there any major class features that are missing between these classes and all of their available archetype options? I want my players to have a pretty full range of thematic options, just with a limited mechanical chassis. Obviously, Full BAB and 7+ level spells, but I consider that a feature, not a bug.
Just as an example, wild shape is an option, by taking Feral Hunter. Rage powers are available via the skald. Witch hexes are available via Hexcrafter magus. Sneak attack is available via the vivisectionist alchemist. And so on.
Yea, I have to agree. I do like the Mesmerist, Occultist, and Spiritualist, but mosly because they add to the pool of 6-level casters, which I feel is the real sweet spot for Pathfinder development.
Skaldi the Tallest wrote:
Yea, we had this discussion on ENWorld a few months ago. Basically the question for elemental themed casters is this:
Are you an expert at generating your element, or are you a master of your element?
If a pyromancer (or pyrokineticist) encounters a fire elemental, should he run, because he knows his spells are useless, or should he laugh, because fire elementals fall under his domain?
I've seen arguments for both sides, and it really depends on how you view the character thematically, and where you're drawing your inspiration from.
If in your view, the pyromancer is a flavor of specialist wizard who chooses to focus on fire spells for greater efficacy, then running her into fire-resistant creatures to challenge her is par for the course. The game of the wizard is preparation and adaptation. The specialist's choice is to enhance capability generally at the cost of ineffectiveness in certain situations.
On the other hand, if for you a fire caster is someone with an inborn predisposition to fire magic, than it makes much more sense for fire creatures to fall under your purview. Fire elementals should fear you rending their fiery essence asunder.
Ultimately, the choice is dependent on what thematic Mark (and Paizo) want to support for the class. Is the kineticist someone who chooses to learn an element, or is it something they're born to?
Honestly, while I like the overall skeleton of the class, my biggest beef is tying the implements into the overused wizard schools. Why not design the powers around the major types of implements, rather than using the implements as a proxy for the schools? Let the occultist master an implement type to gain their spells, and also have class abilities to strengthen the powers of magic items that they find, thus giving them a greater incentive to seek out new treasures?
Weapons - learn spells that increase personal combat power, and the ability to grant extra abilities to focused weapons.
Clothing (including armor) - learn spells that increase personal defense and personal transformation, and grant extra abilities to your armor, and other body slot items.
Magical tools (wands, staves, rods) - learn spells that grant magical attacks, and grant extra abilities to magical implements.
Objet d'art (valuable slotless items, gems and other valuables) - learn spells that influence emotion, grant extra abilities to slotless items.
Momento mori (relics of the dead, many items may fit into other categories) - learn spells of knowledge and necromancy, some minor enhancement abilities.
Trinkets (useful but consumable items, various tools) - spells of utility and transformation, can be enhanced to grant to various utility functions.
While I do like the medium (an inherited love from the 3.5 binder, its obvious ancestor), I think having 54 spirits is a case of symmetry for symmetry's sake. Here's what I would do to simplify the class.
1) Drop the alignment restrictions for binding multiple spirits. Make as many spirits as you can make cool abilities for, and then stop. Grid filling then becomes unnecessary.
2) Streamline the abilities a bit more. The seance bonus and the ability to give them to the party is cool, keep those. The spirit bonus mostly seems like a separate entity to have something to trade out for archetypes, I guess. Otherwise, I would roll them up into the lesser powers, and have the higher bonuses in the higher tier powers.
3) The dual/triune/quartenary aspect thing is overly complex. I'd rather see "At 5th level, you can channel two spirits. You get their powers." Done. At 11th, you can channel 3. At 17th, you can channel 4. (Or not. I think 4 might be overkill, but I'd have to see.)
4) There's no need for spirit abilities that reference other abilities. I'm think of some of the Wisdom spirit abilities that have the Spirit act as a Strength spirit in some situations, thus causing the player to have to reference a whole new menu of options, and have some bonuses either appear or disappear. That's just painful.
5) Giving every spirit a spell list seems to add extra work, again for the sake of symmetry. I'd rather see the medium have their own small spell list, and a small list of spells known.