Pathfinder RPG 2.0 - What do you want?


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 100 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

It's not you that's in the TZ, frogger. I understand what you meant by this thread even if I'm with the "do not want" crowd. The people babbling about how you're a pathfinder hater or whatever just havn't read the original post or your followups very closely.


I think people are just a little burned out on theoretical alterations to D&D/D&D like games for the time being.


And here I thought it'd be fun. Hope they don't like football. The first thing they do after the college draft is predict who next years blue chips are going to be. :)

Sovereign Court

Trailblazer rules, like only 2 iterative attacks, and incorporating magic BAB, would be good. Spells can be re-worded and re-written after all these years, to exclude situations where DM has to debate for an hr with PCs over what can/cannot be done with spells.

Just those 2 changes are significant enough that it can warrant an entire new edition.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I like your post, Frogboy and I think it is an interesting topic. Don't let some of the overreactions get to you. The goal of Pathfinder to remain compatible with the 3.5 material made it necessary to adopt the majority of the ruleset "as is" warts and all. Some changes that might have produced an even better result couldn't be made without a significant rewrite of the system which wasn't the intent of the designers. I don't see the harm in asking what would be possible given the chance to change anything.

Pathfinder is a great system and an improvement on 3.5. However it is not a bad thing to be diligent in considering things that might make the system even better. It's when you think there is no room for improvement when your problems really begin. "When you are green you are growing, when you are ripe you are rotting" and all that jazz.


Frogboy wrote:


What do you want? What are you pushing for?

What do I want? I want it to be a loooong way off, thats what I want. Seriously 3rd edition has to have been the most refinded and amended system in the history of gaming. You have 3X offical, Conan, Arcana Evolved, True 20, a host of smaller sub-systems and setting overhauls with new classes (so much so that Pathfinder had to imporove the core to keep up). Lets give it a rest with updating and imporoving. At lest offically yeah I'll admit I'm house ruling alot of stuff.

Its not that their isn't room for improvement, Pathfinder isn't perfect, no game is, but don't see the need for any massive changes. If anything I think Pathfinder 2.0 or 1.5 or whatever, will look more like Beta. But if you want a radical shift how about this.

More skills! For the love of mercy I'm really getting sick of the push for fewer and fewer skills in gaming in general. I have disable device now I can pick locks and take apart a clock work as well as make a wagon fall apart. I know I'm in the miniorty and I can house rule more skills in (which I do) but it just annoys me to no end.

In any case like I said I thing the next editon, in 2020 I hope, will look more like beta, perhaps a little more radical on the non-magical power side, a few more combat and skilled classes that are not just Fighter and Rogue. Maybe something like a Based Magical Save insted of the fort/will/reflex but in general more akin to beta.

TTFN DRE,

PS oh yeah excpet for one thing, by the time 2.o comes out (in 2020) they'll only be three skills in the game, They'll be called This, That, and That Other Thing, and most will argue that That Other Thing can be folded into That as a skill.


Frogboy wrote:

Hypothetical situation here. Paizo decides to start working on Pathfinder 2.0, a totally new PnP RPG. It's not based on 3.x, 3.P or 4E. It's going to be completely brand spankin' new.

What radical departure(s) are you looking for from Pathfinder v1? You want less attacks at high levels or fewer spells per day so that high level play moves faster? You want SoS spells completely removed from the game? You want Barbarians removed and have the Fighter class able to cover that niche with selectable class abilities? You want that worthless Bard class out of core or maybe add in the Warlock type class? Maybe you only want three generic classes that you can build any concept imaginable? Is magic risky yet insanely powerful or can any schmuck with a $2 prayer book heal the party? Death to the Vacian spell system? No more HP?

What do you want? What are you pushing for?

I want rules to be written in such a way that you have to almost be an idiot to misinterpret them. In the instance that a rule is badly written I would like to see it rewritten within 2 months.

Fluff and mechanics should clearly be separated. I like the way the spell compendium does it. It give you fluff and mechanics, but it is easy to tell which is which. They could also use different color ink for each one. For some things, empower spell comes to mind, if they want to use an example then use something makes it impossible to come to the same answer no matter how you interpret the rules. Using a magic missile for a 5th level caster would have made that easy.


Frogboy wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing a combat system that took into account not just attacking a monster but where exactly you attacked it. Damaging a creatures legs would have different effects (reduced movement) than attacking its body (full damage) or arms (lowered attack) or head (daze/confusion). I know that these effects can be achieved with various feats (hamstring) and such but I'd like to see it built into the core mechanic. I'd like monsters listed with descriptions of what actually happens if you damage or disable different parts of it. I think that it would bring an interesting dynamic to combat.

This would be great, however you would need a much less complicated system, Pathfinder is quicker then 3.5, mostly, but chcking for what kind of damage would add a level of complextiy that would slow the game up. On the other hand one could argue a somewhat more vague system based on called shots.

I call a head shot -5 to hit, crit kills, otherwise blind, dazed or lost nose (GM's choice).

TTFN DRE


Upon thinking about it one thing I would like to see incorparated in the game, don't know how radical it'd be but some sort of system for being hurt.

Right now I've house ruled a system where you get a -1,2,4,8 ect. to skill checks when your hit points go down by 1/2,1/4/ ect.

Also when you hit 0 hit points, assuming you recover and life, one Ability goes down by one for good. Yeah some spells can fix such things and I use the conan system when at certain levels all ablities go up by one to compensate but I find that this gives a level of gritty realism to the game. The reason for all this is because I found that when the group starts clicking and works as a team the idea of 0 hit points no longer causes fears or worry. Their is no price for going down except having to wait until your back up again.

Now don't get me wrong my house rule works fine and I like it, but by no means is it a full system for getting hurt and having lasting scars for doing it. But I think such a sub-system would be a welcomed addition.

TTFN DRe


I'd like it to not use hit points.

I'd prefer it was classless.

I'd like the designers to not worry about interclass balance and make magic using characters special and rare.

I'd like hardly any demihumans.

Sovereign Court

smurf


many many years away...MANY

I really do not want to buy an updated rule book every year, heck every five years is too often.


I'll bite. Talking clean slate, anything goes. Purely hypothetical.

Get rid of levels. All abilities, skills, stats are point purchased.

Primary casting system is skill based, but Vancian is an optional alternative.

Dragons no longer color coded for your convenience.

A lot of sacred hamburger on the menu.

I'd probably build the mechanics around the OGL material as much as I could so as not to reinvent the wheel.

I would run open playtesting and core rules would be released under the OGL.

Not likely to happen, but if I were tapped to build a new game that's the direction I would be looking at.

-----

Realistically, Pathfinder 2.0 would be about a decade from now and be a refinement of the current system and looking at what couldn't be changed (including sacred cows) in 1.0 that are holding the game back. Too drastic a change could alienate your core market (4E makes an adequate example of this).


The problem I have isn't with the premise of the thread itself, it's that generally the things being suggested already exist in other game systems. For instance, if you want classless and more skill/feat based why not play True20 and/or Mutants and Masterminds (with their Warriors and Warlocks fantasy version), then look for ways to improve those games? Want to break from the d20 mechanics entirely and go classes, skill/feat based? Try Savage Worlds. Since there are already systems going down the roads being suggested, I'm confused why we'd want to change Pathfinder to be like those systems. Adding sub-systems to the basic game, like hit locations and such, is fine but truly if you want to change the whole game in this future version, I highly recommend surveying the existing RPGs on the market.


Just curious how many people out there would like all of the melee characters converted to a similar system that Tome of Battle follows? Would you want a more magical, aname style fighting system or do you prefer the larger mechanic gap between Fighters and Wizards?


Well, if one were to keep it basically the same but with a few changes, I'd remove the Monk class and replace it with a feat tree to increase unarmed combat damage, similar to the one in Star Wars D20 Revised that goes up to 3d4 damage. Frankly, I don't see how the concept fits into a western setting, nor do I see why any one class should get the monopoly on effective unarmed combat. Perhaps it could be put back in as a prestige class if a far eastern setting were introduced, but the concept of a monk wielding Asian peasants' tools just doesn't fit into the current setting.

I'd also make it so that all class skills get a +3 bonus, not just the ones you've put a rank in; a class skill should represent something you've already been trained in, not something you just happen to have more potential in. I'd keep the current favoured class mechanic, though I'd return to the class options provided in the beta (ranger or wizard for elf; fighter or cleric for dwarf and so on).

Finally, as mentioned previously, I'd reduce the amount of HP gained per level and instead make AC scale with level in the same way that BAB does. To make up for the reduced HP, I'd make it so that armour reduces damage instead of making you harder to hit.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Can we start a new thread where only people who are interested in a new version post? I mean whats the point of responding to a thread asking what you want in PF 2.0 when the answer is "to not have a 2.0"?

It's tiring hearing how happy everyone is with everything. Yes, I know you are happy. Awesome. Great. I'm really happy you are so happy.

No, I do not want 4E.
No, I do not want a new edition every 2 years.

I don't care if a new edition is compatible with previous editions.

Hell, what if Paizo did something like...

Continue the Pathfinder line of products indefinitely, continuing to use the same basic rules base (3.5 with tweaks) FOREVER, but ALSO...

Created a new system, completely from scratch, that appealed to those who want to see what the Paizo folks are capable of if not tied to the previous generations of rules. This new system would run alongside Pathfinder and see parallel development.

I know some people might think, from a marketing standpoint, that it is not wise to cannibalize ones own sales for another of your own product, but car companies do it all of the time. They have one line of cars for one audience and another for another. Some people prefer a car with a long pedigree of history (Cadillac) whereas others just want a new car every two years and don't care the make or model.

Instead of reusing the same engine that has been around for 10 years, and adding on a few new body panels and a few new paint color options, I'd like to see Paizo design an all-new car. They can keep making the car with the old reliable engine and transmission that basically never breaks down (until you reach the 120,000 mile (aka 12th level) mark) and people will continue to buy that car forever. But also, market the new, small, sleek, designed from the ground-up car, with advanced mechanics and state of the art hardware/sofware. Don't just keep swapping out radios and upholstery options.


This is entirely hypothetical, and probably wouldn't happen for at least another five to ten years anyway. It's not so much a request for a new version as a list of ways in which we'd go about improving it - if it were up to us. Which it isn't, so 90% of the stuff on this list would probably be rejected out of hand, assuming this thread still exists when they start considering creating a new version of the system.


Frogboy wrote:
Just curious how many people out there would like all of the melee characters converted to a similar system that Tome of Battle follows? Would you want a more magical, aname style fighting system or do you prefer the larger mechanic gap between Fighters and Wizards?

I'd prefer something more like Iron Heros then Tome of Battle. At lest in theory, I'll admit I haven't gone though Iron Heros enough to say its fantastic, but I got very little out of Tome of Battle. In fact it'd be collecting dust if it wasn't for one of my players who uses it alot.

I think the aname style has been done to death. But that's just me.

Also on the main subject one thing I really loved about WoW RPG was tech, and fantasy tech like that, (which by the way works fine in pathfinder both class and system I needed almost no conversion whatsoever)an option that's just never been core or in the system at all save for clockwork monsters. Go figure Frogboy I have to admit I was wrong, the more I think about it the more fun this topic is. I think initial reaction to it was the fact that almost everyone was tired of testing. And just the thought of a revised edition made everyone collectivly grown.

TTFN DRe

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

We need rules for the all important Pirate class! (Which would gain extra powers on September 19th!)

We need rules for the Smurf player race!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Freesword wrote:
Get rid of levels. All abilities, skills, stats are point purchased.

Hear Hear! I'm with you on this one 100%

Freesword wrote:
Primary casting system is skill based, but Vancian is an optional alternative.

Agreed. Skill-based and get rid of spell-levels. You have ranks in spellcasting skill and the more ranks you have determine how powerful of a spell you can cast.

Freesword wrote:
Dragons no longer color coded for your convenience.

A flavor/preference issue and not so much a mechanical item but sure.

Freesword wrote:
I would run open playtesting and core rules would be released under the OGL.

If I were in charge I'd do an open playtesting and open editing phase. And, the playtesting phase would be MUCH more controlled, ie, there would be specific tasks and areas tested, driven by a playtest plan, not just "everyone go play and tell us what works and what doesn't". That's way too unfocused and likely to miss many things. Also, the open-editing phase would hopefully drastically reduce the whole reprinting issue. Right now everyone is going through and finding errata and errors, posting them on 100 random blogs, threads, and sites, and then *hoping* they get fixed in a second, third, or fourth printing. I'd engage a small percentage of the market in a heavy editing/errata search phase (but make sure they are NDA'd etc).

Freesword wrote:
Not likely to happen, but if I were tapped to build a new game that's the direction I would be looking at.

Same here.

Freesword wrote:
Realistically, Pathfinder 2.0 would be about a decade from now and be a refinement of the current system and looking at what couldn't be changed (including sacred cows) in 1.0 that are holding the game back. Too drastic a change could alienate your core market (4E makes an adequate example of this).

Which is why I propose a second system that runs alongside Pathfinder. By the way, I started working on just such a thing and if anyone is interested in getting involved just email me (jreyst@gmail.com).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
I'd like the designers to not worry about interclass balance and make magic using characters special and rare.

This sounds like Ars Magicka (sp?).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Andre Caceres wrote:

Upon thinking about it one thing I would like to see incorparated in the game, don't know how radical it'd be but some sort of system for being hurt.

Right now I've house ruled a system where you get a -1,2,4,8 ect. to skill checks when your hit points go down by 1/2,1/4/ ect.

Ahh, often referred to as "the spiral of death". As I understand it this system is often superficially appealing but when players find their characters progressively less effective they quickly flee fights or decide they just don't like the system. I think its more realistic sure, but it just sucks as a player and its a lot of extra book-keeping.

Andre Caceres wrote:
Also when you hit 0 hit points, assuming you recover and life, one Ability goes down by one for good.

Wow would that suck. Characters go unconscious all the time. They'd quickly find themselves so hosed it would be time to make a new PC.

Andre Caceres wrote:
Their is no price for going down except having to wait until your back up again.

Well that's sort of the heroic mindset. Get knocked down, get back up and do it again. Rinse and repeat. However, sure, if you prefer a grittier game that's what Rule 0 is all about.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Steve Geddes wrote:

I'd like it to not use hit points.

I'd prefer it was classless.

I'd like the designers to not worry about interclass balance and make magic using characters special and rare.

I'd like hardly any demihumans.

None of which makes sense if your characters want to play demi-human characters with spellcasting in specific archetypes, and want to make it easy to keep track of injuries.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Brodiggan Gale wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Brodiggan Gale wrote:
I'll admit, the perks sound nice, the "usable infinitely" bit is rarely going to be a major bonus though, in my opinion. I'll keep my argument brief, since we're sort of threadjacking...
Don't underestimate the power of "taking 20" on a dispel magic check to get rid of a trap; of see inivisibility 24/7; of perminant flight; of a 250ft ranged touch attack that almost always hits and has no save for half (especially from 150ft in the sky).
Hmmm... damn good points.. I may have been underestimating warlocks after all. Usable infinitely for in combat effects.. meh.. usable infinitely for out of combat effects.. now that gets interesting.

Yes, the warlock is great if you have an infinite amount of time to play around in. He really looks great in the 6-10 level range.

However, his fly speed is poor, his dimension door ability range is limited, his ranged touch attack at 6 does less dmg then a level 2 Scorching Ray, there is a feat which lets you make a spell last all day, and it just gets worse as the warlock goes up in levels.

The warlock can cast and cast and cast...and then some wizard comes along and blows him away in one round, or does some big AoE, or just a whole lot of stuff the warlock can only look on and whimper at.

Make great soldiers in an army and during a siege. But adventurers are skilled in Bringing It, not Slogging It. Warlocks have their niche, but as a powerful class? not hardly.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

What would I like for a new edition?

Clear superiority of melee in melee combat. Able to get stronger then the other classes. Able to have more hit points then the other classes (and not have Con be the determiner).

Multiple attacks to be a function of class and level, and NOT BAB. That change crippled the advantage of melees by taking away their primary benefit. IT's like giving away spellcasting to every class. Mages have poor BAB, get a second attack, I have poor spellcasting, get arcane spells at 1/2 level. Yeah, THAT important for the role.

And it would steer people back into sticking with a class if the only way to attack multiple times was to stay in the class! This PrC and wild multi-classing would be a much more difficult decision.

===Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Aelryinth wrote:

What would I like for a new edition?

Clear superiority of melee in melee combat. Able to get stronger then the other classes. Able to have more hit points then the other classes (and not have Con be the determiner).

Multiple attacks to be a function of class and level, and NOT BAB. That change crippled the advantage of melees by taking away their primary benefit. IT's like giving away spellcasting to every class. Mages have poor BAB, get a second attack, I have poor spellcasting, get arcane spells at 1/2 level. Yeah, THAT important for the role.

Giving "Move and Full-Attack" to Melee specialist would also be a good thing. (And would also help with melee vs. magic balance, since concentration checks would be more frequent.)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:
Giving "Move and Full-Attack" to Melee specialist would also be a good thing. (And would also help with melee vs. magic balance, since concentration checks would be more frequent.)

Kill 2 birds with 1 stone:

Drop multiple attacks altogether and just give fighting-types extra damage at various level / BAB milestones.

Gets rid of excessive die rolling and lets them always get the same net effect (move and deal full damage).


Make all things magic mean more per choice and be less component-y. Right now the hundreds of spells and magic items blur into each other, but the magic class features like bloodlines stand out and actually mean something.


I'd like to take a lot of the wonkiness out of the rules - there shouldn't be special custom exception rulesets hidden in every skill and spell and whatnot. Streamline.

I'd like level 12+ play to get more feasible and less horrid. I like the sound of capping iterative attacks and a magic BAB, I may have to check out Trailblazer.

I'd like it to not be totally classless, but I would like many fewer "fixed" benefits of "you get power X at level 3." That's the #1 thing that makes class dipping etc. happen. Have feat trees and class specific feat trees, ta da done. Yes, that's similar to True20.

I actually kinda like the pure core mechanic change in 4e, where the attack rolls are all d20 + 1/2 your level + stat modifier + whatever special modifiers you get from class, race, power, etc. vs defense, and the defenses are 10 + 1/2 level + stat bonus, Fortitude uses the best of STR or CON modifiers; Reflex, DEX or INT; and Will, WIS or CHA. After that with the power system they ladle on the suck, but I do think this is more elegant than the current BAB/saves mechanic.

Retain hit points or invent something new and better than the other options. Every time my group tries something with a DC or spiral mechanic like Mutants & Masterminds or Savage Worlds, we end up unhappy.

Back compatibility should be high in terms of setting/characters/worlds - a gnome illusionist should fill the same kind of niche from version to version - but not worry about stat block compatibility. I like Pathfinder v1 carrying on 3.5 but 3.5 is surely not the best RPG that D&D could be.

A more coherent spell system, including significant releveling of spells. We all know there's first level spells that are too good (charm person, sleep, magic missile). Don't nerf them, just move them up. There's spells that are ridiculously high level for what they do, like minor creation. Step back and think from a kinda Ars Magica standpoint, and say "OK, what would a level 1 creation spell look like? Level 2? Etc." Like with mental influence, command is a good level 1 spell, but charm is pretty much better than it and suggestion both (despite progressive nerfing of charm).


A total new fantasy game, not based on 3.5 called Path II. Okay, here goes. Do away with classes and possibly formal races and go with a total point buy system. Allow players to choose take flaws that would get them more points. If you want to really shake up the game, do away with all dice except one type (This is insanity. Can't give up part of the dice.) Or even go diceless... (The ghost of Amber rises up and SMITES THE POSTER AND FEW READERS FOR FUN) Make it harder to die but even more difficult to come back from death. Use a base spell point system, with the Vancian magic available as a flaw or lower cost option.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'll post it again for anyone interested in actually hashing out some of these ideas see this site.

Dark Archive

Frogboy wrote:

So, you're going to play 3.x based DND for the rest of your life?

Otherwise, you missed the point of this thread.

I made the hypothethical assumption that everyone, including you, are ready for a new addition of Pathfinder. Jason states that he's doing a fresh redesign not based on any edition of any fantasy RPG and throws out a general "what do you want" and "be as vague or specific as you want".

I guess you, yourself, are not getting why people react the way they do, either. I think that many people do not want to even accept the hypothetical assumption that it could happen. They want to mark their disagreement with it, and push for it to *not* happen.

This, in itself, ought to tell you something about the fans' interest in the hypothesis itself: they don't want it to happen.
At all.

It's very interesting, when you think about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jreyst wrote:
I started working on just such a thing and if anyone is interested in getting involved...

I'm currently up to my elbows in 3.x conversions/rebuilds and house rules right now and probably will be for several months.

What I can offer right now is that most of the design concepts we agree on have already been done in other products. The following are all d20 based/compatible.

Remove classes/levels has been done with Buy The Numbers.

Monte Cook's D20 World of Darkness and Green Ronin's True Sorcery for True 20 offer good skill based casting systems.

Most of the heavy lifting has already been done, and you can just fit the pieces together. Even if you want to change what dice are being rolled for various things (weapons/hp/checks) it's probably already been done somewhere.


Alberich wrote:


This, in itself, ought to tell you something about the fans' interest in the hypothesis itself: they don't want it to happen.
At all.

It's very interesting, when you think about it.

I secound it. I want to hunker done in current pathfinder and bury myself down in APs. I really do not want to buy another edition of pathfinder.... Maybe never. There is allot of other games that do what people our suggesting. Try those maybe they whey will make you happy. For now we will be happy with our wonky, class based system called Pathfinder.


Freesword wrote:
jreyst wrote:
I started working on just such a thing and if anyone is interested in getting involved...

I'm currently up to my elbows in 3.x conversions/rebuilds and house rules right now and probably will be for several months.

What I can offer right now is that most of the design concepts we agree on have already been done in other products. The following are all d20 based/compatible.

Remove classes/levels has been done with Buy The Numbers.

Monte Cook's D20 World of Darkness and Green Ronin's True Sorcery for True 20 offer good skill based casting systems.

Most of the heavy lifting has already been done, and you can just fit the pieces together. Even if you want to change what dice are being rolled for various things (weapons/hp/checks) it's probably already been done somewhere.

Seconded on True Sorcery. I used it, plus Elements of Magic - Mythic Earth to create a fully skill-based magic system that dropped right into a standard d20 game. No players seemed to like it, however (they like the canned spells of D&D Vancian magic--heck, they don't even like the Savage Worlds spells that are somewhat defined but let the player describe the flavor).

jreyst wrote:
I'll post it again for anyone interested in actually hashing out some of these ideas see this site.

Interesting site (although the name reminds me of the K'NEX kids building toys). I actually did this to d20 about 4-5 years ago. Rebuilt all the class abilities as feats, rebuilt the combat and magic systems (thus the True Sorcery use) to work using skills, had a point system for ability points vs. feats vs. skills, etc. Ended up with about 500 pages of notes and, unfortunately, a game that nobody wanted to playtest with me...I'll see if I can find my notes if you're interested.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'd love to see the notes. Can you email to jreyst@gmail.com?


jreyst wrote:
I'd love to see the notes. Can you email to jreyst@gmail.com?

Sure thing. If I can find it, of course (that's been about 4 computers ago...)!

Sovereign Court

erian_7 wrote:
The problem I have isn't with the premise of the thread itself, it's that generally the things being suggested already exist in other game systems. For instance, if you want classless and more skill/feat based why not play True20 and/or Mutants and Masterminds (with their Warriors and Warlocks fantasy version), then look for ways to improve those games? Want to break from the d20 mechanics entirely and go classes, skill/feat based? Try Savage Worlds. Since there are already systems going down the roads being suggested, I'm confused why we'd want to change Pathfinder to be like those systems. Adding sub-systems to the basic game, like hit locations and such, is fine but truly if you want to change the whole game in this future version, I highly recommend surveying the existing RPGs on the market.

Why not play GURPS, classless, skills, and advantages/disadvantages all points bought. Cross genre to the nth degree. They even have fantasy books to emulate 3e.

Sovereign Court

rvdroz wrote:
A total new fantasy game, not based on 3.5 called Path II. Okay, here goes. Do away with classes and possibly formal races and go with a total point buy system. Allow players to choose take flaws that would get them more points. If you want to really shake up the game, do away with all dice except one type (This is insanity. Can't give up part of the dice.) Or even go diceless... (The ghost of Amber rises up and SMITES THE POSTER AND FEW READERS FOR FUN) Make it harder to die but even more difficult to come back from death. Use a base spell point system, with the Vancian magic available as a flaw or lower cost option.

Ok, GURPS again. Check out Thaumatology for lots of different magic systems to fit your campaign all within the standard rules.


If we ever had a "point buy"-ish or even full-fledged point buy version of D&D for any reason, there had better dang well be level-based caps on every single stat in the game.

Sovereign Court

smurf

This thread just goes to show, gamers are never f$%$ing happy.

Dark Archive

Steve Geddes wrote:

I'd like it to not use hit points.

I'd prefer it was classless.

I'd like the designers to not worry about interclass balance and make magic using characters special and rare.

I'd like hardly any demihumans.

So,.....what would you like?

If magic using characters are rare, which play shall play one if 3 want to at the same time?

Classless....please explain...

What about those players that like to play a demihuman??

This sounds more like chess to me.


Loopy wrote:
If we ever had a "point buy"-ish or even full-fledged point buy version of D&D for any reason, there had better dang well be level-based caps on every single stat in the game.

Not if we get rid of levels, then nothing increases automatically. Having to spend your points on HD, BAB, Saves, Skills, Spells per day, Feats, and Class features is a self limiting system. You can pump one thing but at the cost of all the other options. Granted I wouldn't be against offering packages equivalent to a level for the sake of convenience.

And to save Miranda the trouble of posting the same thing yet again:

Miranda wrote:
Ok, GURPS again.

I like the concept of combining GURPS with d20 mechanics and have since well before Pathfinder existed. It doesn't mean I like Pathfinder any less. I also like cherry lime soda which is all but nonexistent these days, but that doesn't mean I don't like cola.


Devlin 'Dusk' Valerian wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I'd like it to not use hit points.

I'd prefer it was classless.

I'd like the designers to not worry about interclass balance and make magic using characters special and rare.

I'd like hardly any demihumans.

So,.....what would you like?

A classless system with rare demihumans, tracking health via a system other than hit points in which magic using characters were special and rare.

Quote:
If magic using characters are rare, which play shall play one if 3 want to at the same time?

I dont think this is a rules question at all. Personally, I wouldnt care if all the PCs chose to play one - they are (inherently) special and rare. I was talking about the underlying assumptions - the way I would like it a tenth level magic user would be more powerful than a tenth level warrior.

Quote:
Classless....please explain...

I dont really know how to. A system without classes? GURPS is one example if you've ever played that.

Quote:
What about those players that like to play a demihuman??

They'd play a demihuman, I guess.

Quote:
This sounds more like chess to me.

Then I've done a very poor job of describing it - such is life.


Aelryinth wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I'd like it to not use hit points.

I'd prefer it was classless.

I'd like the designers to not worry about interclass balance and make magic using characters special and rare.

I'd like hardly any demihumans.

None of which makes sense if your characters want to play demi-human characters with spellcasting in specific archetypes, and want to make it easy to keep track of injuries.

==Aelryinth

It makes sense - they could still do exactly that. Granted, such a system probably wouldnt suit many people (and certainly isnt anything I expect to ever happen).

For the record, since many posting in this thread seem to have missed the OP's point. I also fervently hope Paizo dont do a second edition any time soon. My preference would be never, in fact, and that they stick to writing what are my favorite adventures/campaign setting books I've ever read. One can still play along with Frogboy's hypothetical despite hoping none of your wishlist are ever implemented.


Since this thread appears to be fairly hopeless, I'll just throw out one final wish.

I imagine that in about five or six years from now, everyone under the age of 60 (and a good majority of people over) will have a smart phone with awesome battery life. I'd like a nice, immersive, highly complex system to be put in place and managed by our electronic devices. No more picking up handfuls of dice; no more trying to over-simplfy the system so that the numbers are easy to do in your head; and no more slow down of play to consult the rules.

I know everyone will think that this is blasphemous but I really think that computers will really allow the PnP RPG to create the greatest system yet as it won't have to adhere to people actually remembering how they function behind the scenes. We can just get down to some good old fashioned role-playin'.

P.S. Thank you to those who actually did contribute meaningful ideas to this thread.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
erian_7 wrote:
I'm currently up to my elbows in 3.x conversions/rebuilds and house rules right now and probably will be for several months.

Np. I'd love to get your input whenever you get a break.

erian_7 wrote:
What I can offer right now is that most of the design concepts we agree on have already been done in other products. The following are all d20 based/compatible.

Well, in my particular case, I'm being a bit more grandiose than these other systems. Where they are trying to shoehorn d20 into some other system, or are trying to tack new sub-systems on top of d20, I'm abandoning d20 altogether and starting from scratch. While my system uses some familiar words and phrases, the vague end-point I have in mind will be quite different from these other systems.

erian_7 wrote:
Interesting site (although the name reminds me of the K'NEX kids building toys). I actually did this to d20 about 4-5 years ago. Rebuilt all the class abilities as feats, rebuilt the combat and magic systems (thus the True Sorcery use) to work using skills, had a point system for ability points vs. feats vs. skills, etc. Ended up with...

I am not 100% attached to the name at the moment. I was just looking to come up with something to refer to it as and one of the ideas I had was that the core system would be a sort of building block or puzzle piece that other sub-systems would attach to. The core system would be generic and reusable in any genre.

Yes. I know... there are other systems that do this PERFECT. And that no.other.system.could.possibly.ever.be.created.to.match their perfection. I get that. If you find those other systems to be the pinnacle of game design then I highly doubt you'll get much out of Kinnex.

If you like to tinker with rules though, and would get some level of satisfaction from working collaboratively with others on a new completely open, community built game system, that will be built, tested, edited, maintained, and grown, by the community, for free, then join in and get to tinkering around with me.

You can email me at jreyst@gmail.com if you'd like to get your hands a little dirty messing with a random pile of rules that need straightening out.

51 to 100 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Pathfinder RPG 2.0 - What do you want? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.