One thing, one thing... imo the biggest priority is making high level play run almost as smoothly as low level both for the players and the DM. But that's a little vague, so since I have to limit it to one specific wish:
Less buffs. Condense the types, impose a buff limit, grant players better stats so you can get rid of the Big Six and Bull Strength etc. -whichever way you do it, just please lessen the number crunch at high level.
Thanks for listening!
Fighters need feats (or talents like rogues) that do the following:
2) Give them battle field control to some extent and better tools to be effective, such as:
- stopping foes from going past them
- protecting an adjacent ally with a shield
- 5' extension of reach
- perform trip, disarm, or bull rush as part of an attack
- more effective standard attack (for when the fighter moves)Some of these abilities shouldn't kick in until higher levels, but considering what power levels are being reached when characters are 15th level and higher, I don't think these abilities are out of line.
This. Either fix the mechanics of the fighter so that he actually is a blocking back that protects the casters in actual play or change the fluff explicitly state that the fighter's job is to be a striker and that protecting the back ranks is somebody else's job.
The monk needs some help (I suspect that your version is already very different from our version), specifically with their accuracy. My suggestion for that would be along the lines of the Zen Archery feat.
Martial Artist: When fighting unarmed (and possibly when using monk weapons) the monk can use his Wisdom modifier instead of his Strength for hit and damage bonuses.
.
It reduces their stat issue (though they'll still need dex, con and wis) and is even a bit of a nod to the 1st edtion monk (whose strength had no bearing on their melee capabilities).
An alternate idea would be to give them a hit bonus every four lvls, this would help address their accuracy issue without the collateral effects of a BaB change.
Implementing both of those fixes would probably not be a bad idea actually.
|
Make Trapfinding a Feat so that a party does not need the Rogue if they dont want to...
reasoning: every other class has an alternate that is not quite as good as the original.
Wizards/Sorcerors vs Bard
Fighter/Barbarian vs Monk/Ranger/Paladin
Cleric vs Druid
Rogue vs...Bard? ranger?
so Make Trapfinding a Feat, and Rogues are the only one who get it as part of their class, also they are the only class that gets Disable Device as a class skill....
so theyd be the best at it...natch.
The one thing I would change is unified class mechanics. Many class mechanics are unified (base attack bonus, saves, spell progression charts) to help make the game easier to play and run. Please do the same with other class mechanics. Selectively unifying class mechanics should assist with game balance and not lead to a vanilla 4th edition like game.
Specific examples (that might be considered more than one thing) are included in the spoiler below.
- Barbarians, Monks, Rogues and Warriors should each have a pool of class specific abilities (Rage Powers for Barbarians, Disciplines for Monks, Tricks for Rogues and Tactics for Warriors) they select from when they advance. These unique abilities would hopefully eliminate the need for some class specific feats and allow for a more customized Monk. This would also make it easier for the Paizo staff to add setting specific Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Warrior abilities (the same way they add setting specific domains, spells, and prestige classes).
- Druids, Paladins, and Wizards should each have to chose between only two special "bonds" (school or animal companion for Druids, mount or weapon for Paladins, and school or object for Wizards) The Wizard choice eliminates the need for the Universal school (its arguably over-powered benefits could be rolled into the more vulnerable object).
- Druid and Ranger animal companions, Paladin mounts, and Wizard familiars should advance using similar mechanics.
- Monks and Paladins should each have a “power pool” (Ki pool for Monks and Holy pool for Paladins) to draw from that start at the same level and progress similarly.
- Monks and Rangers should each have to make a fighting style choice (Unarmed or Weapon style for Monks and Ranged or Two-Weapon style for Rangers) at 2nd level. All Monks in existing source materials would be Unarmed style (or could be converted to Weapon style for a bit more work).
Cheers
Thanks to all the designers, DMs, and players - so many of these ideas are just wonderful and worth playtesting!
AS for my 1 thing, it will have to be Channeling Energy. Let me say that I love the concept of a different approach to Turn Undead (because stopping play flow to open to PHB page 159 gets old).
This is long so I'll apologize now.
There are 2 MAIN PARTS of channeling that do not work for me.
1) NO MASS HEALING/INFLICTING with this! This ability should have no affect on LIVING creatures. The why has to do with game balance for healing. Clerics do not get Mass Cure Light until they have 9 caster levels - but with channeling you effectively give them 3-7 free 5th level spell slots (based upon Charisma 10-18). By the time they CAN actually cast Mass Cure Light (MCL), why bother as their positive channeling does 4d6 compared to d8+9. (I realize MCL is a tad better because it has range and you can selectively choose allies to heal, but still) .. and at 19th level MCL does d8+19, while channeling positive energy does 10d6?
In your designer notes it says:
"We are also hoping that this eliminates the need for low-level parties
to rest after only a handful of encounters." I think part of why my players enjoy low levels is that they must strategize and pace themselves, knowing that healing is limited and they can nary afford much in the way of potions or scrolls. Having a mega healer greatly decreases the demand for this low level curative option.
2) This is NOT BALANCED ON GOOD VS. EVIL perspective. The old Turn undead was balanced. Positive channel now damages an unlimited amount of HD within 30 feet, and causes many undead survivors to flee, and heals all living creatures. While ... Negative channeling cannot be done within range of any living allies (as you'll hurt your own team) and affects a very limited HD for control - the remaining uncontrolled undead now feeling WAY better since you've restored lost HPs so they still keep attacking - with no roll for fleeing?
The best way I could think of to show imbalance was to give an old school vs. new school example:
I'll compare 2 3rd level Clerics (1 is good and 1 is evil), both with +2 charisma bonus, as they encounter 12 - 1HD Human skeletons (6HP, Will Save +2)
Turn undead (old school)(affects 2d6+Caster Level+Charisma Bonus)
(Old school had a 1 in 20 chance of no affect vs. 1HD creatures for this example)
Good Cleric can destroy 5-15 HD
Evil Cleric can rebuke 5-15 HD, taking control of 3
With this old system, both clerics SHOULD be able to destroy/rebuke/control all 12 with 2 uses of Turn Undead
New Channeling System:
Positive - does 2d6 damage so a bit over 2/3 chance to destroy them all, but odds are that a bit less than half will make the DC 14 Will.
A second channeling SHOULD take care of survivors. Not to mention having just done 2 Mass Heals on your party.
Negative - Should easily control 3 undead, but the 9 uncontrolled are now restored of HPs (if the were damaged), and continue to attack, and any of your LIVING allies are damaged.
A second casting does NOTHING as you have reached your control limit. (except perhaps restore MORE damage to the uncontrolled undead). - Ouch where is my evil cleric love?!
So to finally wrap I suggest keeping Positive as you have written it, in that it can hurt undead and cause them to flee, BUT NO LIVING/MASS HEALING affects.
Might I suggest as balance that Negative bursts still allows controlling up to 1 HD /lvl, but channeling a negative field overloads undead senses, so undead that fail a Will save treat ALL living creatures as if hidden by Sanctuary for the same number of rounds that undead would flee from a positive channel. (So they amble about vs. flee as if you were not there.)
That's all - Thanks again to ALL for the great input!
|
4 pages and I am the first to mention this? ....
Fix. The. Bard.
As it stands the class is nothing better than a glorified NPC. The prestige classes put out by PF (Pathfinder Chronicler and the switch of Dragon Disciple to sorcerer/spellcasting focus to be specific) seem to hint that this is the preferred status. NO. There are too many things just plain wrong with the Bard that I almost prefer you removing it from the core classes rather than offering this 'specially abled' class as a legitimate option.
If you seriously wish to give this class a chance at being more than a tone-deaf backup singer, please read posts made by my betters (Abraham Spalding and Mattastrophic) as they have proven much more elegant than I with regards to this issue.
Rage points for Barbarians. Needs to be omitted in favor of a simpler system so Barbarians may return as an easily playable class, including as NPCs.
Not a guidleline or something to the effect of "just don't use those powers". That is like saying "don't use the Lich's spell list". It cheapens the class when used as villains.
New players needed little coaching when playing Barbarians in the past. They wrote down their characters' values and in parenthesis wrote in the values for rage mode. Now that doesnt cut it and new players are advised to pick a "simpler" class.
I would allow swift actions to be taken in place of standard actions. While move actions would be broken, this allows the use of spells cast as swift actions in rounds after immediate actions (for example, if a wizard with feather fall and swift fly is knocked off a cliff, they can use feather fall and then swift fly+move the next turn to get back up. It makes sense and is in now way broken.
Make the paladin more satisfying as a core class by adding a class ability other than smite to complement the paladin's offensive and defensive powers (in that order). I suggest something that makes the paladin shine when things are going badly for her allies, making her someone who excels at saving the day, valued by the other players as a sort of insurance policy against the occasional swinginess-induced fiasco.
Get rid of iterative attacks and instead leave multiple attacks either as a class feature of certain classes or as a feat or feat chain. F.ex you could have a fighter ability that gave him the chance to make a second attack as a swift action, as a move action and even one that allowed the attack as an immediate action.
Multiclass feats (Complete Scoundrel) please.
I want to stack levels of two classes to determine...
Rage power & Wild shape!
Favored enemy & rogue talent!
Blood line & ki!
and so on.
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!
What he said! Let's put some boom-boom in the room.
And thanks for caring enough to ask.
(I did post a thread elsewhere, but...) Evocation spells need a nonstatic formula. Create a magical item that adds 1-3 damage per die (different levels of item) for a specific energy type and somehow add ability score into the mix.
Blatantly increasing the damage on evocation could potentially be too much for some parties, however, a nonstatic formula will let casters in high item/high ability score casters increase to keep up with the other characters, while the low ability/low item casters won't be smashing their parties.
Please revert power attack to what it was in 3.5e.
Add the proposed rule that characters with a minimum +11 base attack bonus may make two attacks on a standard action. It gives high-level fighters a little more manoeuvrability and has been very popular with my group.
Make the opponent's BAB count somehow when figuring the DC for casting defensively. The DCs are far too low for high-level casters.
Make the opponent's BAB count somehow when figuring the DC for casting defensively. The DCs are far too low for high-level casters.
Agreed, casting defensively is too easy.
There are lots of great suggestions here but by biggest issue stems from 3.0/3.5/PF ability bonus items (a portion of the larger big six issue)
In my mind ability bonus items are the root of most of the evils in 3.5, NPC/PC balance is shot de to differing wealth levels, and ability bonus item are the heart of item reliance difficulties.
My suggestion:
I completed a two year long 3.5 campaign last evening using +1 ability bonus per level (rather than 1 per 4 level) from 2nd onward (capped at 1/2 hit die) with what amounted to a ban on ability bonus items. I would thoroughly.
My full open game content rules on subject are available here: Ability Bonuses from my private wiki
Keep up the good work guys!
I would allow someone who has ranks in Escape Artist to substitute the bonus for their CMB bonus in cases of grapple attempts. As it currently stands in the rules, you can only use Escape Artist to get out of a pin or grapple, not defend against the initial grapple attempt. From a realistic perspective, the initial avoidance and a latter attempt to escape are largely the same.
-Steve
I would have a character's race matter more at higher levels, either racial feats or maybe more racial features that are gained at higher levels.
Necromancer Specialist Power.....
I'm sure this has been posted already but the Control over so much Undead makes me nervous as a GM.....
And also as a player......
I only get to pick one. And while there is many things I could say, the one issue I have had that was not fixed in 3.5 is 2+Int classes.
They are kinda random and arbitrary, While I like the new skill system it cripples any class with less then 4 skills.
I am not asking to bump all skill up, just the ones who have less then 4.
One thing, yeah Ive noticed this always starts out like this in the past few posts, but still, maybe a wish-list of 3 ? lol. I only have 2, one is more of a want than need.
The thing I would want to see, is that the Assassin prestige, sees both a ranged variant of abilities, a magic based, and a melee based. Simply put, following the guidelines like the class abilities of Modern D20 or the way it nicely follows in Starwars Saga D20.
My need, is to see that all classes get some sort of full attack with full movement, not just a variation, not just a bunch of feats to rape what few abilities some classes already have. But a solid either flat way of it, or progression of it.
* and a word of note, if its going to be the Fighter that gets this as just an ability, dont make it where its just a single level dip to get this ability.
I actually have to disagree With the Target for CMB being too high. I seem to make all my trip attacks pretty much and I have a CMB of 8 +2 for imporved trip at 5th level.
How easy do people want an unopposed check to be?
I actually like that PF seems t be getting closer to TNs like deadlands for things you want to do. It makes everything much more uniform.
|
My "change one thing only" comment applies to the Vital Strike chain of feats. I'd like to see these feats become a substitute vehicle for full attack as a standard action. The following changes would apply:
1) Change the requirements for Vital Strike to BAB +6 (instead of +11). Add text stating that if you have 2 attacks as part of a full round action, and your forgo the second attack to augment the fist, the single attack becomes a standard action.
2) Change the requirements for Improved Vital Strike to BAB +11 (instead of +16). Add text stating that if you have 3 attacks as part of a full round action, and your forgo the second and third attacks to augment the fist, the single attack becomes a standard action.
3) Add a new feat, Greater Vital Strike, that requires BAB +16, Vital Strike, and Improved Vital Strike. The benefits text should state that if you have 4 attacks as part of a full round action, and your forgo the second, third, and forth attacks to augment the fist, the single attack becomes a standard action.
4) Clarifying text should be added regarding Vital Strike feats and two-weapon fighting. Vital Strike should not allow a character to drop all off-hand attacks to augment weapon damage for all on-hand attacks. Instead, if a character chooses to use Vital Strike while two-weapon fighting, the feat should require that the lowest attack with each weapon be dropped in favor of augmenting each weapon's damage separately.
This will allow any character that so wishes to take the necessary feats to get something approaching a full attack as a standard action. Since Fighters have the most bonus feats, this chain would be most appealing to them, especially for a Fighter that chooses a build based on mobility as opposed to static toe-to-toe combat. It would be a 3 feat investment, but an investment that is spread out pretty evenly over the expected career of the character.
Lastly, I'd like to express my appreciation to Paizo for allowing us to participate in this experiment. Although there may have been some bumps, it has been an interesting and fun ride. I look forward to seeing what Jason and the team puts together.
-Skeld
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
My "one thing?"
I'd like to see the damage caps removed for arcane casters. Divine casters get more than enough love as it is, so in order to make the arcane classes really noteworthy, I want to see their potential unbound.
At 20th level, a fireball can deal 20d6 under this system. Magic missile would unleash a swarm of 10 missiles (for 10d4+10 damage). I don't really think this is out of line for a 20th level caster, a master of the arcane. Also, it makes the lower level spell slots viable against higher-level challenges instead of being reserved solely for a few defensive spells and the occassional buff.
With this change, some of the higher level spells would need to be beefed up a bit (or knocked down to a lower level). Meteor swarm especially, as it deals only 4 more dice of damage than a 20th level fireball under this system (with a higher save DC, but that's not the point). Perhaps meteor swarm could be altered to be an 8th level spell that produces 1 meteor plus one per 4 caster levels (4 meteors at 15th level, 5 at 16th, then 6 at 20th).
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
My only suggestion, and it likely goes without saying, is to make sure to take a keen eye to the terms used and for consistency. 3.5 had some stumbling blocks from them, and I'd hate to see PFRPG suffer the same fate. In other words, I would trade "new stuff" for a solid editorial review of condition keywords, bonus stacks, etc. I'm sure you guys will do a great job of this, but you asked what I would want. :)
/2 cents
|
So Many great suggestions!
Very cool that the playtest made it to France!!! Tres Bon!
I Would change a few things, monks, 12+CMB and 2+ skill ranks.
The most important change I think I would change would be the 2+int skill points classes, in my home game, I increased them all to 4+int.
Starting Skill Alternate 1: at first level you start with
2+int classes=6 starting skills
4+int classes=8 starting skills
6+int classes=10 starting skills
8+int classes=12 starting skills
*No int bonus for 1st level.
That would be how you advance beyond first...this would allow a nice array of starting skills similar to the array of skills you could gain with the x4 mod.
Starting Skill Alternate 2: all class skills can be used untrained with only a +1 trained modifier. This would allow first level characters to have the equivalent of a broad array of skills, without giving the characters....TOOOOO much.
|
|
My pick would be Metamagic!!
Metamagic Feat selection + casting at higher spell levels = paying twice for the benefit!
Except in very specific circumstances a spell of the same level is nearly always better than a metamagic'd spell. I would like to see metamagic in greater use.
My preference would be for something similar to Spontaneous Metamagic system in Unearthed Arcana. Sudden Metamagic feats seemed to be complimentary to this as well.
I would like it if a multiclassed characters received abilities that make them comparable to other characters at that level without taking a multiclassing prestige class.
My one thing is to have the minimum skills be 4+int.
Yes, I know that consolidation has helped some, but the biggest winner in the consolidation is the rogue, who already has the most skills per level.