Director of Games
|
Hello everyone,
I have one last assignment for all of you fanatical playtesters out there. In this thread, I would like to hear the ONE thing that you would change in the rules if you had the power to do so. Since I want to keep this thread nice and orderly.. here are the rules.
1. You can only post to this thread ONCE. If you post a second time, I will delete your post. This includes sock puppets.
2. Only ONE idea in a post. If you want to change channel energy, that is your one idea. Do not add domains to the pot as well. This means that if you want to talk about a class, you should probably limit it to one aspect about the class.
3. Don't bother commenting on someone else's post. I want to hear your idea.
4. Reread rule #1
5. I would like for all of the playtesters to post to this thread once with their idea. This is both an informal poll and a simple census of the current number of active playtesters.
6. EDIT: Please do not start any new threads to talk about specific ideas in this thread. Lets let folks post without having to worry about other comments and feedback. Just ideas... that is all I want.
Thanks for participating in this thread.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'd give Fighters a better will save.
Spellcraft Check to cast defensively!
It is plainly unfair to Wisdom and Charisma Casters that it is tied to an Int Skill.
I don’t care if it will be a separate skill again or a caster Level check but it should be something neutral.
Aside from that we have a great time playing Beta !
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'd change the entire casting defensively mechanic so that there's no check involved at all. Instead impose a penalty of some sort to cast defensively - it doesn't even matter what penalty, as long as it's tacticaly relevant (lower caster level, lower DC, takes a full round action including 5' step for the casting time, -4 to AC for 1 round, etc.) This would then make the combat casting feat useful by allowing you to cast defensively without incurring the penalty.
I like the new Combat Maneuvers system with one exception. I like the opposed rolls that were in 3.5. Some of my most memorable moments gaming were when characters (mine and others) impossibly escaped a grapple, like when the modifiers where +5 vs. +20. It rarely happened but when it did it was memorable.
My suggestion is to keep the CMB rules as is but make it an opposed roll with the defender gaining a +5 bonus (to simulate the 15+ DC).
Alignments - get rid of 'em. Or at least make them less of a restriction. Make it beneficial for a character to choose an alignment or play up neutral as the default alignment for PC's. Get rid of Detect Evil or Know Alignment.
Change maneuvers (e.g. grapple, trip) to be more like the 3.5 versions (maybe allowing the defender to "take 10" on his opposed check).
Full attack = Standard action.
Make all combat feats scale with BAB.
Provide reasonable guidelines for what PC ability-based NPCs can be asked to do, whether they are called or summoned creatures, animal companions, charmed minions, or dominated foes.
SoD spells that actually can kill regardless of hp, but SoS spells that you might recover from during a fight w/o help from the cleric.
I'd change multiclassing so that you get a partial benefit from off-classes.
This partial benefit would probably be something like "effective class level = actual class level + (all other class levels)/2". I'm not sure whether it would involve getting new abilities (like druid 3/ranger2 getting wildshape because she's effectively a druid 4) or just improve existing ones (caster level going up and so on).
I'd would probably go for a compromise: Most existing abilities would increase in power even with off levels, but few if any new powers would be gained - but there'd be a feat that would make at least some class abilities based on effective level rather than actual level.
Or maybe everyone designates one primary class (the one he chooses at 1st level) who gets benefits based on effective level.
Something like that, anyway.
Make some sort of fighter ability/feat chain to allow non-squishy characters to protect their squishy friends.
More spells need a casting time of "1 full round action".
Change the rules on scribing spells on a spellbook. Maybe make a spell written on a spellbook and a scroll exactly the same thing (same costs, to be specific).
Spell Points instead of spells per day.
The system could be a copy of the spell points in Unearthed Arcana or more like psionic points, or whatever.
But vancian magic has to go.
One Thing?
"Maneuver AC" (or whatever you'd like to call it):
The Maneuver changes seem like the biggest core mechanic change in players' eyes, and thus, an important factor to how players/customers judge Pathfinder RPG. Maneuver AC re-uses the conventions of Melee Combat, while rewarding creative use of situational tactics (modifiers). The results from more number-minded forum posters seem to corroborate that it overall (at all levels/vs. all opponents) better matches 3.5's %-chance-of-success than Beta's "CMB with no modifiers".
That it makes Maneuvers slightly easier vs. low level/low stat opponents is a good thing in my opinion, because besides giving low level PCs more dynamic non-lethal options, it actually makes Maneuvers viable to experiment with at low-levels, which is the best way for players to learn how they work in the first place. It also seems to require less word count than the current version in Beta (which forks off a pseudo-attack roll vs. DC system to which it's unclear what attack/AC modifiers apply), and that seems a good thing on many levels.
As much as I hate to take anything from 4e, the idea of tying Saves to either of two ability scores really makes for flexibility in character design. (FORT can be STR or CON, REF can be INT or DEX, and WILL can be CHA or WIS).
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE I beg you...put a Gygaxian reference in the beginning of the book mentioning that these "rules" are all suggestions to the GM and that the GM should adjudicate as they see fit...much like the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.
Fin
|
|
I'd add a mechanic make it possible to increase the saving DC of spells and poisons to extend their range of usefulness.
Too often I find that after a certain level the PC's can always make saving throws even against 9th level spells.
A feat or other ability to boost the DC by 2 or 4 points would be good.
CMB. I love the idea. The execution is wonky. For one thing it punishes the dex based. Where once weapon finesse was good enough all by itself, now you need two feats to be able to pull off that concept. And we ended up houseruling it back to opposed rolls so as to keep from discouraging people to even try to use it. I know some people like maneuvers to be difficult, but that's a big change from 3.5 and one I don't like. And maybe this is just me, but the size modifiers being different from 3.5 grapple made it very difficult to adjust combat on the fly.
Call me Crazy:
Caster level = HD, including the half caster classes.
It doesn't make full casters any more powerful.
It helps out multi-class, templated, and monster casters.
It also helps out the Paladin and Ranger little bit of spellcasting.
Tough question, because I have a lot of pet issues. My first choice is also the least controversial, though, so...
Use Touch AC instead of 15 for CMB, as outlined in the Maneuver AC threads (this means using the old size mod). It's unified, intuitive, cleaner, it will save some space in the final maneuver rules, it's closer to 3.5 and it closes the only real gap in the CMB method (maneuvers suddenly work well vs high dex targets). It does all this while being virtually the same complexity as CMB (one more line on the character sheet, possibly fewer lines in the rulebook).
The only reason NOT to do this is that it represents a change to the CMB rules, which were a playtesting version anyway. For medium creatures with Touch AC 15, this produces the same modifier as current CMB. In the majority of cases, this method produces results slightly more in line with 3.5's results, but leaves plenty of opportunity for GMs to produce challenging maneuver encounters.
CMB was a good solution. CMB with a Maneuver AC is the best solution.
|
I'd like to see a rule that brings action use of mellee users on par with spell casters.
Since the cast mechanic is pretty robust and allows for fairly good tactical encounters, my preferred rule would be to allow melle types the ability to use more of their attacks after a move action.
I'm sure you've got a mechanic in mind for this already.
Cheers
I'm torn between Wildshape and CMB.
But I figure I can houserule an easy CMB fix by adjusting the DC.
On the other hand, fixing Wildshape will take pages of houserules, so I pick it as my #1 thing to change.
As it stands, druids who want to wildshape for combat are seriously MAD, needing good STR/DEX/CON/WIS, and fair INT/CHA - no dump stat.
And then when they shapechange and wade into combat, their puny Wildshape enhancment leaves them weak and ineffective and eventually, they are little more than a drain on the party's healing resources due to low AC, low HP, low BAB, and weak attacks compared to any other melee party member fighting in the same battles.
Wildshape definitely needs to be fixed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make evocation spells (direct damage spells in general) relevant again.
I do believe that they were a balanced option in AD&D. 3.X has seen an explosion in HP for both PCs and monsters, and an increase in ways to avoid direct damage (DD) dealt by spells. To the point that it was labelled “the sucker way” for wiz and sorc. While DD have staggered, means to increase melee/range based damage have also exploded.
Pathfinder has, so far, increased this problem by it’s (also needed) solution for the frailty of low level PCs (HP bump in hit dice and flat bonuses).
Time to whack the sacred fireballs and magic missiles. Please boost their damage output (+CL untyped unsave-able damage to all those spells, capped in regards with spell level?)
note : To those who’d scream “POWER CREEP”, I can only point to the fact that, at this point, it’s really the only solution that I can see. Better to fix one type of spell than to rethink the whole HP progression and damage output of standard/full attacks. Why not make it a class feature for spellcasters and keep the golden cows intact?
My biggest beef is what Pathfinder did to Cleric domains. I like the difference at its surface, but the execution was poor. A lot of times, it feels like after the first few levels the special abilities just aren't worth the action when you could spend it doing something else (though given that some of them are at-will that's understandable). The same is probably true of the Wizard schools and Sorcerer bloodlines. In my play experience as a DM, I rarely saw my Cleric player use his abilities, never saw my Sorcerer use his, and have yet to see a Wizard in action.
I'd like to see the general areas of 'special Domain-like powers' revisited and tweaked, basically.
|
Necromancy specialist power
Useless to not-animators necromancer - major gripe
Terribly complicate to manage in a game (80 HD worth of Undead? 40 human zombies in a fight?) - minor gripe
Ties a PC/NPC to the necrophile-antisocial stereotype - HUGE gripe.
The funny thing: this has been a great concern for me since Alpha 1. :-D
Hm, only one thing - difficult... but since i only have one go (and I think the "big" ones will be mentioned by others anyway - hopefully =), I go for the good old "Why the hell are ranged weapons not allowed to be keen anymore???". I've searched the forum, but couldn't find a single reference to this - maybe nobody realized this change up to now (or I was simply to stupid to find it, could be possible as well ;-).
I really can't see a single reason why a high precision weapon like a bow (or crossbow, or even thrown darts, most of these weapons are used in sport competitions, and boy, can these guys be precise with them) firing piercing projectiles (or, in case of the darts, actually are a piercing weapon) shouldn't be allowed to get the Keen special ability.
If I have a very fine but strong keen steel edge at the top of a dart, it makes perfectly sense that it has a greater threat range as a dart with, let's say, a masterwork but thicker iron edge, because it goes in more easily (which means: deeper, doing more damage).
Or, to use the example with the bow, why a very well crafted bow which bestows something like e.g. a "Teflon-like-coating" on the arrows fired from it (which would enable the arrow to better pass through most types of armor and could be called "Keen" for sure) shouldn't improve the chance of a critical hit on the target compared to an arrow fired with another very well crafted bow but without a similar ability.
Just my 2 cents.
My request is to change the spell casting of both Paladins and Rangers to level - 3 instead of level/2. This would give a boost to their power and still be backward compatible.
Thanks,
Doug
I know what you were going for, but as it stands the Universal school is grossly overpowered compaired to other Wizards. (And I am currently playing one.)
It needs nerfed. Specialists mages still sacrifice something for their extra power (though that has been diminished) - but the Universalist sacrifices nothing and get the same magnitude of powers.
Hello Jason - Thanks for allowing us all these opportunities to help shape the coming rules system. I am extremely optimistic that I will continue to get years and years of enjoyment out of this hobby and I am extremely pleased that Paizo has taken up the 3.5 mantle and made such a monumental effort at improving the rules we all love. While I am sure that not everyone will be 100% happy with the final result I am confident that virtually everyone will be 100% happier with the final result than what they have now. So, in closing, thanks for all your work.
The one thing I request out of Pathfinder final rules is that upper-mid to high level play is made easier to DM. Any steps that can be taken that smooth out the wrinkles present in high level play are deeply appreciated. This request is pretty vague since it covers so many areas such as fixing certain spells to fixing higher level class abilities etc. The end result though is that I hope it is easier for me to DM high level play. I am happy to pay for a system which reduces the amount of hours I have to spend meticulously building high level NPC's and planning high-level sessions.
That's it! lol
Ok, so like I said, thanks again for all your work Jason and I am really getting pumped for the final rules!
Change the base attribute for combat expertise from Int to Dex.
I'm cool with the changes to power attack and combat expertise overall, and absolutely love power attack, but having a decent Int score to power combat expertise on top of having decent physical stats stretches me too thin. And it's a pre-req for the improved maneuver feats! That I would love to take but can't!
Well, thats one idea and all it's upcoming consequences:
Make interrupting spells at least possible.
That can be done in two ways:
- Give melee fighters the opportunity to exchange the highest attack (the best per hand in case of more weapon fighting types) into a move action. That should only be available for BAB using PCs and NPCs/Monsters. Haste and such effects would give an extra attack at the second highest attack bonus.
- Raise the time for spellcasting the two highest spell levels for full casters according to this list:
Swift --> Move Action
Move Action (if any) --> Standard Action
Standard Action --> Full *Round* Action
Full Round Action+ --> stay as is or an extra Swift Action to let the energy go off
The roll (however it looks like) to avoid losing the spell should be based on the highest damage per attacking hand taken during the interrupt(so two for TWF types), because of balance. Being forced to make up to, well, many rolls is a bit over the top.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
In my playtests, there's a lot of minor changes that are taking some time to get used to, but for the most part I like them and/or don't mind them too much. Of the major changes I like most everything and find them to work fairly well across the board.
The one I'd like to see altered is CMB. I think a consistent and simplified mechanic for maneuvers is a great concept and one I fully support, but I think it's been simplified too much at this point. The attack vs. DC doesn't take into account all the small conditional details that made 3.5 maneuvers so complicated, though, and the result is that a lot of the verisimilitude of the mechanics go away. Small creatures should get a bonus to avoid a maneuver being successful simply because they're so hard to get a hold of in the first place, for example. The combination of touch attack & maneuver check seems to be at the root of this particular issue.
I suggest a touch attack followed by the maneuver as outlined in the existing CMB rules. This eliminates the opposed rolls but maintains some of the realism inherent in the 3.5 system.
Further, I think the 15+CMB DC still doesn't quite work and should be reevaluated.
Thanks for all the great work, Jason. Thanks for all the wonderful feedback, fellow playtesters. Thanks for the opportunity to play a role in the future of D&D, Paizo!
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I wouldn't change anything really. I would include a guide on the buying and selling of magic items by level and by City size. A benchmark for standard play would allow DMs to deviate their games according to their own styles (Iron Heroes vs Eberron).
What's commonly available, what skills to use to track down a buyer or seller and how long it would take, note which items shouldn't ever be available outside a treasure hoard, etc.
--Items in Vrock now!
I know this is going to come as a surprise to everyone, but if I had to change one thing in the game, it would be to change Save Or Suck spells so that they have solid Recovery Save mechanics. It is my firm belief that this single change would do a great deal to bring spellcasters into better balance with non-spellcasters and would allow GMs more leeway to plan interesting, challenging, and fun combat situations without having to worry about how "swingy" saving throws (on both sides) will throw off the balance of power over the course of the encounter.
And now back to Street Fighter for me.