In y'all's experience, what parts of Pathfinder RPG are game fixes as opposed to added options?
Fer instance, I can see pretty much all of the new spell descriptions as fixes meant to tone down or de-confuse some rampant spell uses. Meanwhile, extra abilities for core races is just added player options.
Does anything else stand out to you as "this is a fix that needed to happen"?
Does anything else stand out to you as "this is a fix that needed to happen"?
CMB. At first I was pretty "meh" about it, but it really does speed things up at the table.
Also, even though the skill system was never what I would call "broken", it's much improved in terms of gameplay now.And I think several of the "extra abilities" are actually fixes as well. Bards getting spells at first level seems more like a fix and an added ability.
Clerical channeling instead of traditional turning is a fix and an added ability.
|
Does anything else stand out to you as "this is a fix that needed to happen"?
Multiclassing, and I read somewhere that Jason is working on the issue.
I'd like the PFRPG to "optionize" hit points (a PF take on the vitality/wounds mechanic), armor as DR, and a less streamlined system for cover (more 3.0 than 3.5).
I'd like the PFRPG to "optionize" hit points (a PF take on the vitality/wounds mechanic), armor as DR, and a less streamlined system for cover (more 3.0 than 3.5).
I've never seen them in play, but I love the armor as DR concept. That's really what armor is to me. I wouldn't consider it a "fix", but I'd like to see it all the same.
The CMB does look like a good fix, though. Combat maneuvers were always a page-flipping exercise so I was glad to see them aligned like they were. I didn't always follow the logic of some of them giving opportunity attacks, but that can be houseruled easily enough.
I saw some changes to the encounter building and XP awarding rules, but didn't do the math or study it too closely. Did that fix something with the original XP system or is it just because that system isn't Open License?
|
I've never seen them in play, but I love the armor as DR concept. That's really what armor is to me. I wouldn't consider it a "fix", but I'd like to see it all the same.
We use a modified version of the Armor Conversion rule from UA.
The Armor Bonus modifier converts that much hitpoint damage into non-lethal damage. This value includes any 'Enhancement Bonus' to Armor Class. Natural Armor and Shield do NOT convert, only the Armor Bonus.
RAW still applies that if Non-Lethal damage equals or exceeds current Hit Points you go to staggered or unconscious.
We have also defined that if your Non-Lethal damage exceeds your Max Hit Points then it becomes Hit Point damage. So you can actually kill someone with Non-Lethal damage it just takes longer.
Overall this makes those who wear armor more survivable as Cure spells are up to twice as effective, as they remove equal amounts of Hit point and Non-Lethal damage. Armor wearers also tend to fall unconscious at the same time due to damage, its just that they aren't dieing (yet).
To balance this somewhat we also use a modified class defense bonus from the UA.
If you have NO Armor Bonus to your AC then you get whichever Defense Bonus is the largest from each class based on the level of that class, not from total character level. It does not matter what gives you that Armor Bonus you still lose the Defense Bonus.
These rules apply to everything that can wear armor or has classes.
|
|
I've never seen them in play, but I love the armor as DR concept. That's really what armor is to me. I wouldn't consider it a "fix", but I'd like to see it all the same.
I use a hybrid system, coupling the armor bonus to AC/DR value from UA and the parry/dogdge class bonus from the Conan RPG - which are easily enginereed from the class defense bonus from UA or Green Ronin's Advanced Gamemaster's Manual.
Shields add to the parry bonus, and heavier armor severely limits the possibility to dodge. These bonuses are considered "passive" defense, in the same manner as standard AC.
I houseruled a bit the dodge feat, introduced the parry feat (and relative tree), and so I got the dodge and parry "active defense", which are opposed rolls to the enemy attack and use an immediate action.
Combat reflexes and AoO have been houseruled too to fit into the immediate action mechanic.
I also use the vitality/wounds system from UA, with slight alterations (wounds points actually improve even if very slowly).
Classes that usually go unarmored or with light armor rely ond their dodge defense, avoiding hits and damage altogether but suffering grave wounds when hit.
Classes that usually go with some kind of armor or are more martially inclined, and thusly more able with the parry defense, have a slight to moderate malus against touch attacks, but are usually able to shrug off the more devastating effects of a hit.
It works quite well, and without being to much of a hassle, goes a long way both towards the older editions feel (monsters are dangerous and not only a big bag of HP), and a more realistic and gritty style where a lucky critical can impair or cripple even the most able combatant.
Obviously, I understand that this is not everyone style of play and that this may be in direct opposition with the retrocompatibility concept, but I'd really like to see how the PF design team (Jason and Monte, that is) would handle such options.