If You Could Change One Thing


Open Comments

51 to 100 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Adjust the saving throws for multiclass characters. Prestige classes in Pathfinder already avoid this problem, but multiclassing with base classes still gives you multiple +2's in one save and multiple +0's in another.

All you'd need to do would be to say that:

1) You only get the initial +2 for good saves once.
2) Good saves are equal to 1/2 class level, fractions included.
3) Poor saves are equal to 1/3 class level, fractions included.
4) Add the saves from all classes and round down to the nearest integer.

That way, a multiclass rogue/wizard won't have Fort saves so pitiful that they might as well stab themselves at the first sight of poison, and multiclass monk/wizards won't have Will saves so powerful that they charm themselves for kicks.

Dark Archive

As I have only one choise, I won't spend it on recommending going back to the old 3,5 skill system ;)

Instead, I wan't you to deal with Channel Energy and the selective channeling Feat. There is no way that anyone would make a cleric, be it as a PC or foe, without the selective channeling feat. It is so absolutely necessary that the choise becomes nonexistant, so there's no real reason to make the choise available. Same reason bards can sing anywhere, and don't need an extra feat to do so in combat.

Either nerf selective channeling (only usable every 1d4 rounds?), or give it to the cleric as a class ability, free of charge.


-Make easier to accomplish combat maneuvers. DC=10+CMB. Even a combatant without the relative feat should be able to try a maneuver. By now, he's simply hopeless...and so? attack, attack and still attack. BOOORING! Casters doesn't REALLY need the ability to cast into a grapple....and spellcraft to cast defensively...sigh... Ok, but at least the DC should be 10+spell level+CMB of threatening opponents.

Thanks! :)

Sovereign Court

I would change the 2 + int skill point classes to 4 + int.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If I could change one thing, I would increase the number of spells a sorcerer knows at each level by one. Essentially, this would give the sorcerer a bit more flexibility, alleviating the tough spell choices sorcerers make between survivability and usefulness.


The Monk. The whole dang class.

(Assuming that these specific parts of the Monk class still fall within the "one thing" stipulated by the OP, I go on to say...)

The accuracy (full BAB or something like it). We don't want more iterative attacks, we just want to be able to hit.

The alphabet soup of class abilities that only add up to "survive long enough to run away" (at least spells would let you pick and choose your alphabet soup).

The alignment restriction (when the Chaos Monk can do nearly everything the regular Lawful Monk can do and the things he can't don't suggest "Lawful" in and of themselves (Single exception: Ki Strike: Lawful), then the alignment restriction needs to disappear).

The approach to the class (specifically, the Monk first and foremost should be your go-to class to play a monk, a brawler, a martial artist, a mystic ascetic, and so on; i.e., right now he's a Shaolin Monk first and other character concepts either fall in line or the player bends over backwards finding another class to do what he thought the Monk class would've done and that simply should'nt be).

My ideal Monk would look like Tim Martin's combination Monk, Psion, Warlock homebrew on ENWorld (with lots of tweaking, of course).

But yeah, the Monk is my number one pet peeve with Pathfinder.

*EDIT*Just now saw #2 in the OP. Oh, well, I'll leave this post as is; Jason should still be able to tell that my #1 thing I'd change with the Monk is basically everything.


Target DC number for combat maneuvers, make it 10+CMB.

What? Thought I was going to suggest anything regarding magic? We can only make one suggestion, so I better invest it on something I actually use from the game. =P

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

A lot of ideas I had thought about have already been posted. I won't repeat them cuz that might construed as making more than one suggestion, I'll throw out one more:

Fix armor and shields.

Perhaps make light armor a bit less good (especially the hated chain shirt AKA "best armor evarrrrrrr").

Make shields, heavy armor, and especially the poor, pathetic medium armor better.

Increase armor bonus, add DR, add a miss chance, soften the punishing skill penalties a bit (especially to RIDE - give some love to the plate-armored mounted knights!), touch AC bonus for shields, get rid of the speed penalty for armor and base it solely on encumbrance, crit reduction - the list goes on and on.

Shoot, add helmets as a new type of armor. It doesn't break backwards compatibility at all - those guys in the published modules just didn't wear em, and if the DM wants to add them after the fact it's a super-simple addition.

ANY of these ideas would be great and much needed to help the heavily armored characters to really HAVE a defensive strength that matters in the game. We want light-armored skirmishers in the game, we really do, but we want the super-brick-of-steel to be BETTER at defense than the prancing skirmish-monkey!

P.S. While you're fixing armor, *KILL THE ANIMATED SHIELD!!!*


I would move Cure [Serious|Moderate|Critical] Wounds for a Druid spell list to be the same level as clerics and bards spell list. Clerics have channel positive energy making them the best healers. Bards can 'cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time' making them more versatile casters.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Roll identifying magic into Knowledges, reinstate Concentration for, well, concentrating, and maybe put some of Autohypnosis's features into Concentration. Basically, bring back Concentration (the skill that doesn't favor any particular caster and maintains stronger backwards compatibility) over Spellcraft.


Get rid of full-attack action, or otherwise enhance the mobility of fighter-type characters on the battlefield without forcing them to loose most of their offensive potential.

'findel


I really don't know what i would change. So far i like what i have gotten to play with. maybe have the bravery ability of the fighter instead of just against fear that it work for all will saves. so that its just not one thing that it is useful for. i had it where my dm tossed other affects at me that was not fear based for will saves and it would have been really nice to have that extra + that bravery would have gave to my save.

thanks for all of your hard work. I have had alot of fun playing the pathfinder adventures. :D

Liberty's Edge

Well, in order to pick up something nobody has mentioned yet... hmm... well, this was sort of touched on, I suppose.

Please make necromancy "neutral"! Neither negative nor positive energy are aligned, and neither should be the actual process of manipulating energy. The undead sorcerer bloodline and the necromancer wizard are both being forced into an evil role, and that severely hampens player choices.

As a slight tangent, all the cure spells should return to being necromancy spells, too. :)


It's so hard to choose one thing. So much is good, and then there are things like the...

The rogue isn't a warrior. The rogue has a number of other abilities that make them great, interesting, and fun to play. But, they are not a fighter, warrior, or any such thing.

Sneak Attack, not by itself, but on top of everything else, is too much. Please make it more circumstantial, require more buildup to be put into it, more planning on the part of the rogue to execute. Some rogue-like stealth and creativity. Stealth, stalk, sneak attack, instead of it being of the flavor of 'just x bonus damage per round that equals a warrior's, even though the rogue used to be a d6 class.' Or, 'a too-tempting dip for that bonus damage, especially now that the rogue has d8 hit dice.'

Someone's already mentioned interrupting spells, no need to echo it!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd like to see some of the spells - those Save or you're Dead kind - have a longer casting time. Battles will have more drama if disrupting a spell caster is a viable option. Also, I want my players to have to choose. Right now, my spell casters just fire off everything in their arsenal as quick as possible. At higher levels, my fighters sit there, thinking what's the point. If the spell casters are taking a risk when they go forward with their big guns, they'll strategize more.


If I could change something it would be the reduced caster level of the ranger and paladin. They already get fewer spells later then the full casters. Gimping their caster level just means they can't really take advantage of the new Magic creation feats and limits what little buffing/healing abilities they have. Even class level-3 would be better then half.

I've been playing testing a universalist wizard and been having a great time. Can't wait to see the final product.

Dark Archive

Seldriss wrote:

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.

Actually, I wish almost *ALL* of the classes (maybe ranger and rogue excluded?) would work on Adrenaline/Spell/Rage/Faith/Qi points, with each class having "powers" to spend them on (e.g. combat tricks/stances/maneuvers fighters can spend Adrenaline Points on). However, this is not a realistic expectation in terms of backwards compatibility.

EDIT: My actual "one thing to change" would be a better saving throw progression for all the classes (but especially the fighter need some love in this regard).


If I could make any one change, it would be to tie monster CR to HD. Unlink the creature's type from it's BAB/Saves/HD, and link CR to HD. If a creature needs to be tougher, improve the stats/abilities, not the number of HD.

The difference in HD between a level 17 player and a CR 17 creature is the source of so many of the problems in the game and is a huge part of why no one can agree on caster balance. Save DC's have to be too high vs. players or they'd be worthless vs. creatures with 1.5x to 2x their CR in HD.


Ooh me next, pick me, oo ooh! Aww, just one pick? No fair... hmm. Okay paladins need a Righteousness pool like rage or ki, and Domains suck pretty bad in their current incarnation... Hmmm.

Well, if I have to pick just one, I guess I'll stick with cleric domains, because there are usually more Clerics around than paladins so they need the help more. Domains used to be a pretty good idea in 3.5, not all created equal perhaps but were generally accepted to be roughly good to have. Now I have players making clerics and saying, "Meh, there's only 3 or 4 domains worth having anyway, which deities give me access to those?" The fact that that would even be a consideration means that something has definitely gone down the tubes in Cleric-town. Clerics should be able to pick a deity based on what portfolios are important to their personal development, whether it be searching for knowledge, or exploring magic, or traveling to new lands, or waging war, or specializing in one or more of the elements, or the sun or the moon or the stars or the butterflies or the fingerpuppets... whatever. Whatever is important to that character, which should guide him in what deity to follow. Choosing a deity because "this one offers the really cool or at least moderately adequate domains and the others only have really lame powers" is not to be encouraged. Please, PLEASE don't make me design all new domains to houserule. It's too much work and I just don't have the time...


OH GODDESS Just one? I will skip the obvious and try form something that might actually get done.

#1. Well I would have to say, change is Feats. There are a few over kill changes, making a lot of the changed feats not worth taking. Power attack, cleave, improved combat maneuver feats, and combat expertise come to mind.

Power Attack, and at the very least Combat Expertise, need to run off of base attack. If not change combat expertise to dex. If you change it to base attack, give some sort of bonus for having a high strength or dex/int with the feats. Also this stat basis hurts backwards compatibility.

Cleave, I don't care what other people say, yeah you theoretically get to use it more often, but you lose ALL of its versatility and computability with everything else it once had. Example, you can no charge and cleave any more! Changing it to swift action just seems like a cop out as sooo many things now run off of swift actions now. It needs to be automatic! If it needs to be better, try a slight improvement off of the original like allowing a 5ft step between cleaves, or even combine the new and old cleave into one feat that gives you one to start an the other later after a curtain base attack.

Improved Combat Maneuver feats need to be one feat, and a 1st level feat. If a flip-in wolf can trip with a int of 2 why can't a character with probably 8+ trip as well? Combat Maneuvers now run off of strength so obviously this feat needs to have a strength requirement, however a special note for a dex requirement for those who took the dex based combat maneuver feat.


What an awesome endeavor! Many thanks for listening to us. I hope other great companies follow your lead.

Great work was done on the skill system, but it needs more work still as certain groupings have favored some skills or classes too much. You have great instincts, follow them some more (athletics and acrobatics, nobility vs history).

DW

Liberty's Edge

Only one, eh?

Hmm...

How 'bout making evocation magic decent again? I don't care how you do it (upping the damage, adding secondary effects, dropping monster HP, whatever), but I'm just getting so damned tired of SoD and SoS mages it's not funny! I want to see some boomers again!

Dark Archive

List the playtesters. All of them. In the final rule book. On page 2, or the last page, but list them. It could be 4 point font, but please list them.

This playtest has been a wonderful and daring move on Paizo's part. And while it may have provided some excellent rule feedback, it also solidified the gaming community that is the nucleus of the social group that plays Pathfinder. I have not seen so much positive energy devoted to RPG gaming on the internet ever. This in itself is an amazing achievement by Paizo and everyone who has participated.

So, if I could change one thing, it would be to acknowledge the hundreds of hours that have been put in to philosophising, bending, breaking, critiquing, and advocating this incarnation of the rules that we will all use for years to come.

Thanks, Jason, for bringing our game back to us.


My one idea: Change Cleave and Great Cleave back to what they were in D&D v3.5 or remove the full round requirement; one reason is that once you start getting multiple attacks the cleave feats loose their luster and become useless unless your fighting lots and lots of low AC badguys; provided the number of badguys exceeds your current number of attacks. These feats were staples of many fighters diets (including mine) previously with the "drop" rule.


Make calculating CR easier for monsters, particularly those with class levels. The associated/nonassociated class levels stuff seems to be full of the "throw the dart at the board and see what you get" methodology.


Get rid of the speed penalties for medium & heavy armor, i.e. make the base movement for all types of armor 30 ft/20 ft. If a character is strong enough to wear the armor to begin with and still remain unencumbered, then they should be able to move at full speed as dictated by the carrying loads table 8-5. Only high strength characters can wear heavy armor according to the carrying capacity and still remain in the light load category (realistically a Str of 16+ w/ plate armor is necessary). The armor check penalty and max dexterity limit could also stand to be nerfed a bit as well; or alternatively have each +1 bonus to the armor lessen the max dexterity and armor check penalty equally, for example a suit of +2 splint mail would have a max dexterity bonus of +2 and an armor check penalty of -5 (instead of 0 and -7 respectively.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

(After a very long absence from posting, but not from reading...)

I'll go out the way I began- Keep the cleric domains as they are in 3.5.


Do away with 2+Int skill points. Even with the consolidation, it's still too paltry.


One change... hm. It is hard to pick. Here we go:

Make a general rule that metamagic abilities can't increase the level of a spell past what the caster can cast. This should apply to the Universalist power, metamagic rods, and if it's a general rule it can also be applied to non-OGL content like Divine Metamagic.

When a caster can empower/quicken/maximize/twin/whatever their highest-level spell, this boosts them past their normal power level in a bad way.

(Our playtest game has wrapped up, so I'm more of an ex-playtester than an active playtester.)


Channel Energy just gives the party way to much healing in general


Make Psionics Core!

The #1 hurdle of getting psionics to many gaming tables is that it is not considered part of the core rules. Just including two classes (IMHO: Psion & Soul Knife) could change a lot of minds, just seeing it side by side with spellcasting would help others see that it is not "broken" and just including it from the begining would prevent all the "house rules" and "alternate systems" from confusing everything even more.


My wish would be a minimum of four skill points per level for fighters, clerics, etc. I'd even accept a feat (if I had to) that provides a permanent increase of skill points per level.


My "Just One Thing," change (that has a chance of getting done) is to go back to Rage Points.

I was so disappointed when I heard they were going away.

Liberty's Edge

James I know you are tired of my cries... but since I am not the only one...

more skills to the classes... to all the classes

I would be happy with +2 skill points to the 2 skill point classes... but since that would "make the others unbalanced" giving +2 to skill poitns to all classes would be good

why? for me and my group its more about what you know that what you are... having some skills give variety of things to do during game, either in battle or out of it... check Iron Heroes as what good can be donde with skills in combat... skills should be more useful, there are many useless skills...

we have seen that a character is more than his race and class... while this determines much of him, his skills actually DEFINE the character, as what he likes, what he does...

is abusrd tht the classes that are supposed to be about learning actually know less than the classes that are about empirical skills :S

just because a class can use magic doesn't meant he should be skill-useless... they are not born knowing magic (mostly), and not everything can be solved by spells which are already be limited... and NO I don't want to play a "Dedicated Bard" or something different than fighter just ebcause he is useless outside combat


If I could change one thing:

I would make spell-casting overall, more of a challenge in the midst of combat.

Too many spells are cast as standard actions (no matter how powerful they are) and when threatened, they can "cast defensively" to virtually eliminate any threat from nearby foes. Casters can wield such power while flat on their back, in the clutches of a foe, or while performing gymnastics.

I'd restore the concept that casting powerful magic takes time, is dangerous to perform when threatened, and requires concentration.

Scarab Sages

A better system for computing effective level. Something like the 2nd edition paradigm where a 5th level single class character and a 4th/4th multiclass character were roughly equivalent. 5th level does not equal 3rd/2nd, especially when spellcasters are involved.

Liberty's Edge

I'd change multiclassing to be more similar to 3.5's gestalt classing, with slower advancement. (The upshot would be a little like 1E multiclassing.) I worked up a pretty decent little system for it. It's clunky, but it works, and I think professional designers could clean it up.

What we've seen of Pathfinder doesn't fix 3.5's multiclassing, which I personally think is 3.5's biggest problem.

-- Jeff

Liberty's Edge

Make full-attacks available on a charge or after a move. There is so much potential thrown aside for all classes during combat because of this.


Hard choice; however, I say the whole Counterspell system.

Either:

1) get rid of it
Easy to apply, but a sad choice (IMHO)

2) implement a new mechanic
Counterspell as Immediate action, Counterspell as Attack of Opportunity, Counterspell with already integrated the benefits of Improved Counterspell, any of the above but without using Dispel Magic, any of the above but allowed to counter even Spell-like (at the moment we cannot), any of the above but allowed to coutner even Psionics (at the moment we cannot except with Dispel Magic)...
This is a hard choice (IMHO)

3) use the excellent idea proposed by Owen Anderson of a list of spells named 'Counterspell I', 'Counterspell II' and so on (School Abjuration; Casting time Immediate Action; can counter spells of level up to the 'xxx' portion of he name - 'Counterspell I' spells of 0 or 1st-level, 'Counterspell V' spells up to 5th-level, and so on)
This is the most elegant I've seen at the moment

Thanks for the excellent work , Jason !!!


Lowest number of skill points per level for a class = 4. Scale other classes as you wish.

Dark Archive

I'd work into the CMB system the Dodge, Parry and Block active defensive maneuvers - as move actions, ugradables to swift and/or immediate actions through specific improvements - with associated feat chains.

Sovereign Court

My one thing? Ditch metamagic. Or at least simplify it in some way, like the diminished/heightened spellcasting in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.

I doubt if that would be popular, but as a GM/designer, I hate having to think about adjusting all these spells and stat blocks to add or increase various spell effects. And as a player, I can't even be bothered.

I just don't like it, and AFAIK, there wasn't any metamagic in earlier editions, and that's fine with me!


Add a feat chain that makes sword & board fighters viable. Thus far, you can build a very effective 2wf character, or a very effective 2h character (because of the whole 'Overhand chop' feat chain). Sword and board needs some love, too. As it is, you are limited to taking suboptimal choices (increasing your AC slightly, or increasing your damage slightly ... but neither will be as good as the feats that are available for the other fighter archetypes). Something like WotC's tactical feats might be the way to go here.


My opinion would be to tweak some classes a little more. Fighter needs some more love for example, wither through feat chains or through abilities that enable movement.


Saving throws should be really careful reviewed,
Fortitude spells have no place on any spellcaster spell list right now (doesn't matter your prestige or feats selection)
Reflex could use some DC increasing feats to compete against touch spells
Multiclassing class use to make a mess in you save bonus, people shouldn't save on a 3, and shouldn't need 20 to save as well


I'd like to see the ability to use full attacks (or more attacks) with movement.

Otherwise, I'm pretty happy. Thanks for the opportunity to chime in.

The Exchange

More ways (and ways more likely to work) to disrupt / counter spellcasting and a way for non-casters to intercept those planning to inflict this on their party casters / BBEG.

The reasoning behind this is that it allows some spells to be reverted to actually killing rather than just causing damage, perhaps by increasing their casting time to balance. It also aids balancing of casters so that SoD / SoS / Evocation / etc are all equally effective paths for a caster to choose.


Include a few Savage Progressions and rules for building them.


Maybe not the most popular position but...

Limit rogues to one sneak attack per round. As mentioned earlier, rogues have a million non-combat abilities; there is simply no reason that they have to be a melee nuke as well. Making the sneak attack damage more universally applicable helped ensure they would always be useful in combat, but the dual-wielding high level rogue should not alternate between moderate threat and ultimate death-dealing machine because of a one square difference on the battlefield. Sneak attack is a great feature, but it shouldn't be the overwhelming one it is now.


hmmmm.

Monk weapons, get rid of the silly exotic weapons. Give us a list similar to what we had in 1e. Staves, daggers, clubs, polearms, spears, crossbows.
Maybe just make it ALL simple, plus polearms?

Please get rid of the lame weapons introduced in oriental adventures long ago. and let monks using weapons at higher levels still be relevant.

51 to 100 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Open Comments / If You Could Change One Thing All Messageboards