Lilith's Thrall, you have a few points, but you're getting way too specific if we're talking about a new game. I'm referring to the basics of Arcane versus Divine. I'm trying to work from a broad, vague point, and you're going crazy specific, just to prove a point. Those spells you mentioned were probably added later, because let's face it; a pure, nothing but "defensive" spell list would get boring. I'm talking about the broad, big picture, not nit picking individual examples. In basic terms, Arcane spells deal with affecting another offensively, and Divine spells deal with defensive, support based magic. IN THE BROADEST TERMS. You obviously don't get what I'm trying to say, and I am utterly failing at trying to explain it to you. If you want to nit pick so it makes you feel bigger, have at it. Have you played the game system I am referring too, Star Wars Saga Edition? It uses only a few base classes(Soldier, Scout, Jedi, Scoundrel, Noble), representing the most common archetypes, then allows the player to make very specific builds through feats chains and talent trees. That's what I'm getting at. Magic on a basic, fundamental level, not "Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer" edition specific.
Meanwhile I did some looking around and found something close to what I was talking about. Not a total conversion, but more as a supplement of Saga Edition: DnD
http://www.d20radio.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3
Arcane and Divine are absolutely mechanics based. They separate the 2 fundamental spell types; offensive and defensive.No, they don't. In what way is "flame strike" defensive? In what way is "shield" offensive? In what way is "cause serious wounds" defensive? In what way is "mirror image" offensive? What's an Abjurationist? What are the Destruction/Death/Fire spheres?
So, if "Arcane" and "Divine" are "absolutely mechanics based", then how -exactly- are they "absolutely mechanics based"?
I've already showed the rather obvious point that the difference between INT and CHA casters is absolutely mechanics based -and- significant (in that those very real mechanics differences support very different character concepts).
So, why do you feel the need to show "ME" what you think are the differences between INT and CHA based casters, aside from the fact they draw from the SAME EXACT SPELL LIST. Why are you even quoting me?
All I did was propose that I'd like to see a more stripped down rpg, similar to Saga Edition, and you jumped all over me. FFS I'm done.
What I want from it is to not be released any sooner than 10 years from now.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main desire is have horizontal power increases come from equipment and vertical power increases come from class.
What do I mean? All +X to die rolls come from class progression, all Y abilities come from magic items.
So Gauntlets of Ogre power no longer give a bonus to Str. You get a bonus to Str from your Mighty Hero class feature. The gauntlets now let you throw boulders.
That magic sword no longer gives you a +1 to hit, you get a +1 to hit for being a higher level Fighting Man. Your magic sword now lets you know your allies are in danger and has limited scrying.
If the game is balanced on you having certain bonuses at a certain level, it should give you those bonuses at that level. Magic items should give you a different option at the same bonus, not improve the single option.
|
|
I fully agree with this.
Thanks. The more I think about it, the more I agree with your opinion that the cleric should be removed. I could totally get behind the mechanical division of Int-preparation casters and Cha-spontaneous casters.
Moreover, I could see the four class model as fulfilling all classes as well. The Fighter could have class feature options for modeling the Barbarian, Ranger, Monk, and Paladin. The Rogue could have options for modeling the Bard and Monk. The Mage and Sorcerer could handle Cleric and Druid equally well and allow choice of prepared casting and spontaneous casting.
Another option would be using the Prestige Ranger/Paladin/Bard classes from Unearthed Arcana, covering the hybrid warrior/caster that people want. Part of me wants the Ranger and Paladin to continue using Wis for spellcasting, but it has no mechanical reason. Possibly let the Mage choose Wis or Int for a casting stat at character creation, but I question how often people would chose Int over Wis with how much better Wis is over Int. Maybe it's best to divorce Wis from casting to lessen its power. Thus Int and Cha are spellcasting attributes and spellcasters don't get massive boosts to saves from their casting stats.
Interesting ponderings.
Another interesting change, remove the Con bonus to all HD, making HP rely solely on the HD, but stretch the 'staggered' condition from 0 to negative Con. This removes the HP bloat, powering up evocation spells, but lets a mortally wounded character continue to participate in battle rather than just rolling to stabilize. Healing in combat would become more important as well.
This is very rough, and I'm sure there are jagged edges I haven't seen. Maybe I need a new thread for that.
|
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?
This is a great question, and one I'm happy to answer. What are your concerns:
Your old books won't work? Covered.
Your existing characters can't transfer? Covered.
Here we go. It may not be obvious to people who haven't really read the back end of the Bestiary. They broke down every type of monster down to their fundamental components (BAB, ability scores, saves, abilities, types, etc.) and standardized them, and then rebuilt the monsters we love and hold dear, and they start making a lot more sense, and sometimes come up to nearly identical stats.
Pathfinder 2.0 should be the same way. Think of it like this: existing Pathfinder 1.0 characters COULD be built in the 2.0 system, but it is only one possibility.
Pathfinder 2.0 should be balanced mathematically. Everything should cost points. EVERYTHING
You want another feat? Buy it.
You want to learn how to cast arcane spells? That's going to really cost you to start, but picking up a second spell isn't so hard, but then it starts getting more difficult again as you try to achieve the pinnacle of perfection.
It could easily be nested in trees and have requirements to get to another grouping of abilities, and NOTHING should be linear. Getting a +1 BAB should be pretty easy, +2 is a little harder, etc. to where getting to +20 should take a significant effort.
Then, if there is errata, it isn't major, it just changes the COST for certain abilities/feats/powers/spells.
If anyone plays DDO (recently), you'll see how they've rebuilt the game into an easy mode and a custom mode. You can pick a "build" or a "kit" and level up, just like how in Pathfinder you become a fighter and level up as a fighter. Or, instead, you can customize every step of the way.
Here's a summary of what I want to see in a Pathfinder 2.0 that significantly deviates from Pathfinder:
1) Fix Armor Class, it is a dumb concept.
Heavy armor, without significant magic and/or training, shouldn't make you harder to hit. It makes you much easier to hit. However, most attacks will have a much harder time wounding you, and even if they do, it won't hurt as much.
Learn from the designs of alternate systems such as MMOs, Iron Heroes, and Grim-N-Gritty to learn more about how armor, even some magic spells, should focus more in the direction of damage resistance than purely armor class. Even ancient systems like Warhammer 40K in the 1990s had a rating to help even naked troops soak up some punishment, and they only used single d6s!
2) Fix Hit Points. It is a dumb concept.
Characters with 90 hit points and 89 points of damage fight just as well as characters with 20 hit points that are unwounded. The abstraction made sense in the 80s, but so did the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon. Now they are both silly.
Learn from Star Wars Saga Edition and improve it with a life bar. Look at Iron Heroes and Grim-N-Gritty to brainstorm new ways of showing how your bestial barbarian is shrugging off pain, while the sickly elven wizard is crying over a hangnail.
3) Fix the Vancian spell system, it never makes sense.
Wizards and Clerics must be irate over sorcerers and favored souls. They don't forget! How come the 30 intelligence 20th level wizard keeps forgetting magic missile when an 8 intelligence, 15 charisma sorcerer never forgets. Game balance, game schmalance. Fix it!
How come every 5th level wizard who learns fireball does the same freaking damage with only a slight deviation in DC due to ability score? With point buy it is almost guaranteed to have about the same effect in campaign A vs. campaign B.
4) Fix Spell Level versus Character Level. It is confusing in its inconsistency.
You have to be a 9th level wizard or a 10th level sorcerer to get 5th level spells? What level bard do I need to be to get to 5th level spells? Why is one single spell a different level spell for a cleric versus a paladin versus a bard. What DC do I set for my rogue using Use Magic Device? The Bard version?
That's dumb. Change the mechanic altogether. Hopefully build out spells much like a feat tree is built today, and get progressively more expensive.
5) Quit making all X level Y the same, but just with slightly different feats/spells.
Why does level X equate to a fixed number of skills/feats/abilities, etc. Why do all 5th level barbarians have improved uncanny dodge? It is silly! Make abilities/spells purchased, and you don't have to wonder about how fair or unfair it is that my fighter has a fixed number of feats but the wizard gets more powerful every time we run across a spellbook!
6) Don't accumulate XP, spend it.
Why do we keep earning experience points? I have 1.3 million XP, how about you? Only 1.2? You should SPEND experience points to buy a level/feat/ability, etc. Not the other way around. Keeping 150,000XP is like having 150,000gp in your pocket. It doesn't help you unless you are saving up for something fierce.
7) Fix money. It harkens back to an ancient version of D&D and economy based on it never makes sense in a medieval magical fantasy world
So, let me get this straight: I am 14th level now and I have 123,000 gold pieces, and when I get to the mega city, they actually have such an economy that I might be able to find a +2 adamantine ghost touch dwarven axe for sale? Are they out of +1s? Who is buying all these magic items at half price and why can't I? Who actually keeps +1 icy burst kukri?
Where is all this money getting stored? Vaults? Flimsy cloth bags with extradimensional spaces? Why aren't high level liches, vampires, and rogues making off with all of it to build their magic item empires?
Too many items, too many transactions, too little sense. Seriously, sell anything at half price makes no sense. They would have to be high enough level casters to even prove that the items weren't cursed or harmful or misrepresented such that they would care less about buy up the spare +1 leather armors, and even less about trying to resell them at retail value for profit.
Again, DDO is a great example of what a live economy actually produces. +1 Adamantine Full Plate? Pretty cheap. +1 Adamantine Chainmail? Worthless. +5 Full Plate, fairly cheap. +3 or less anything? Worthless. Chainmail? Worthless, even mithral. Now, mithral breastplate..now we're talking. +5 Mithral Full Plate? Priceless.
How much demand is there for +1 leather armors anyway? Anyone who is worried about raising their armor bonus from 2 to 3 and avoiding the minor armor check penalty associated with studded leather...oh wait, that's no one.
Advanced Topics
Physicality
Pathfinder and other D&D-like game systems are still a system of stand in front of another character and roll against a static number to damage, but it doesn't matter until they are dead systems.
How come a 20th level trained fighter at his home without his armor, probably has the same armor class as a farmer boy (young 1st level adult with age adjustment to dexterity) and can be easily hit by a house cat about 2 times a round? (Look up the stats for a cat. Seriously.)
As much as 4th edition made me grimace, at least they made progress in what combats could look like, with marks, etc. that at least made it adjustable.
In fact, it is still very difficult to make a fighter based off of anything but strength and make it work as well. He'll never truly match the power fighter. It is mathematically impossible.
Likewise, there is no mechanic for savvy versus youth/strength other than level. That must mean that every 35 year old soldier must be higher level than the 20 year old swordsman-in-training, right? Why do casters get better with age?
Gear
Gear makes might, not character power, depending on the circumstances.
Fear the 20th level naked sorcerer with a contingency spell and nothing to lose, who can do hit-and-teleports until he conquers the galaxy. The naked 20th level barbarian is basically reduced to a sweaty wrestler.
A 10th level party is captured and thrown in jail. This is going to be fun for a couple of characters, a miserable experience for the rest. Why do monks and sorcerers get all the fun? Even the rogue smiles, but only if he gets to hide.
Magic Item Knowledge
To be the best non-caster you can be, you have to truly study every magic item possible and build for it with friends crafting items or buying it on your own.
How come the characters with the least knowledge of magic have to know the most to be effective? What is this deflection bonus again? OHHH, this is an ENHANCEMENT bonus to natural armor! If it were realistic, the casters would end up with all the good loot, and all the non-casters would be in +1 gear castoffs or pretty things. Who would be the wiser?
Come on. Ridiculous concept.
Reward role playing or at least playing your role
Not sure how this is done, maybe there is an MVP for every game session and they get an extra point. Something needs to be done to incentivize character development and fun. At least in 2nd edition AD&D fighters got extra XP for killing, wizards got extra spells for casting spells, etc. It wasn't fair or even, but it was something.
Anyway, this is a start. I started breaking down Pathfinder and doing this on my own and it is laborious hard work. I'm up to 65 pages of material but it is about 5 percent 'done' and probably will never see the light of day.
But, I can daydream.
Here's a summary of what I want to see in a Pathfinder 2.0 that significantly deviates from Pathfinder: <laundry list>
I have to commend the fact that you seem to have clearly delineated what you want from a FRPG. My question is twofold: is there no extant game system that accomplishes these goals, and why would a game incorporating these drastic changes need to be labeled "Pathfinder"? It seems to me that a great number of the gripes people have with D&D 4e is that a significant number of long-standing D&D tropes were discarded in favor of "balanced mechanics". How would a "4th editionization" of Pathfinder avoid this splitting of the fanbase?
I recently read Monte Cook's article in Kobold Quarterly 12 (IIRC) about game balance and agreed with much of what he wrote concerning the origin of true game balance. A mathematically balanced game would, by its nature, be stagnant. Nothing new could be introduced to the game without the risk of introducing imbalance back into the system. Part of the draw of Pathfinder for me was the reduction or reboot, so to speak, of the 3e rules sources. Switching to a new or significantly changed rules system would necessitate yet another extensive play-test/revision/release/errata cycle.
Zo
If ya want point based d20 play Mutants and masterminds. I for one do not see them moving away from classes, nor do I want them to.
Much of the points above I find are funny, but some are not.
Key ones, some mentioned, some not.
1) Casters get lots of spells and versatility as they level. melees get...feats. Casters can buy spells, or get new spells with supplements. melees...get the same.
Let Melees purchase feats with time and xp and gold. Just like casters do magic and magic items. This is the rule for EL6 campaigns,and would work just fine.
2) Let there be one attack speed...full attack. All the time.
3) Let attacks be a function of class and level, not BAB. The best fighters get the most attacks, by class. Spells that up BAB help you hit more...that's all.
4) Fix hit points by limiting con bonus for non-fighting levels (AD&D style). No hit point bonus greater then half your hit dice is a good starting point.
5) Limit upside physical buffs for non-Melees. Otherwise, why have Melees?
6) Fix saves, esp for non-casters. Casters overcome magic with buffs. Non-casters overcome magic by denying magic. non-casters should be terrible opponents to casters as they level, not doormats.
7) Mroe anti-magical defenses. No, no government wants people teleporting around freely, or villains vs heroes into their lairs. Anti-magic would be FAR more popular then magic.
8) either restrict certain stat bonuses to certain classes, and/or certain items too. Nobody but a melee should be able to use a Girdle of Giant Str to full effect. If that discriminates against the Priest...tough!
9) Stat ceilings are perfectly believable. Even magical humans can only go so far. Pushing past those is what Epic play is all about...or templates.
Clear lines of what represents Mortal skill, Heroic skill, and Superhuman skill, and not just levels. This just to silence the idiots who think a 20th level fighter doesn't deserve to be every bit as nasty as a M-U/20.
10) if you have to be reliant on gear, then you should get more out of that gear then someone who isn't reliant on it. I.e. non-casters should really benefit more from magical gear then casters do.
11) Allow multi-classing as a 'side skill', rather then a full devotion. I allow it very similar to an EL6 or EL10 rules, whre you just purchase the effects. A F/10 C/6 is a 10th level Fighter with 6 levels of cleric spells, a better will save, and 12 more skill points. That's pretty much it. I let levels go to 1/2 primary class+1, and no higher. Multi-classing is 'secondary', and picking up some extra lower-level abilities is totally believable.
12) The above rule also gets rid of dipping.
13) Make that first level IMPORTANT.
14) Give armor and weapon profs real teeth.
15) Make the base armor important, especially heavy armor.
---just some musings!
==Aelryinth
|
|
I gotta stick to my guns and say that the Cleric should be a feat or feat chain. That way, the Paladin is a fighter with the feat chain. A cleric of Loki, on the other hand, might be a Rogue with the feat chain. A Druid would likely be a Sorcerer with the feat chain. There might be several different feat chains to further differentiate different religions.
Another thing I'd like to see is to get rid of good saves vs. bad saves. It seems redundant that, for example, the Rogue has a good Ref save -and- a high Dex. Why not just have a base save for the character level and stat bonuses? A Rogue would still have a high Ref save, but solely by virtue of having a high Dex. This eliminates the huge swings between good saves and bad saves which happens at the higher levels. It also further helps allow, for example, a fighter who focuses on agility (a duelist?)
Another thing I'd like to see (though a different version of the game probably isn't necessary to achieve it) is a rewrite of the simple weapon vs martial weapon vs. exotic weapon concept.
Theses categories should take region into mind. A blowgun may be an exotic weapon in Europe, but a pretty simple weapon in the Amazon. So, a Sorcerer who comes from the Amazon should have access to a blowgun from 1st level, but a Sorcerer who comes from Europe won't.
No no, I totally agree about the Cleric bit. I meant to say that if you want to play a 'Cleric' you should take healing spells as you progress in Mage or Sorcerer and roleplay your piety. If you just want to be a priest, roleplay as such no matter what class.
I think I could get behind making saves a flat level bonus, especially divorcing Wis from spellcasting and making it a standalone stat like Con and Str. I like the idea of your stats playing a bigger role.
On the subject of weapons, I'll be even more daring. You should have stats for Simple Melee and Simple Ranged weapon, Martial Melee and Martial Ranged Weapon, and Exotic Melee and Exotic Ranged Weapon. Then you can have whatever weapon you like, but you only use the stats of the proficiency you're using. Then it makes sense to spend a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
Yes, that is rather abstract and maybe doesn't do different weapons justice, but I would rather a character could use whatever crazy weapon he liked, but his level of proficiency with the weapon determined how deadly it was. As it is, what weapon you use is mostly fluff in the higher levels anyway.
Point based systems exist. Hero Games is one.
And, while I love Hero Games, I do not think point based systems target the market niche that DnD dominates - namely, the entry drug for players new to RPGs.
As a "gateway drug" do you feel that the particular game system is too sophisticated for new RPGers or do you think that the lack of built-in fantasy tropes is off-putting? I don't want to threadjack but it's obvious to me that Thorgrym knows what he (I presume) wants and is sophisticated a player enough to delineate how to go about doing it. What stumps me is--and I fully understand this thread is for wishlists, so I'm not saying it's invalid or anything--why a game that would differ so drastically from what we've got now needs to have the Pathfinder brand slapped on it.
To me it speaks to the larger issue, of which I've been quite vocal on this site: certain types of players need or claim to need drastic changes to a ruleset that was created with a clear purpose and philosophy behind it. Rules changes that discard 30 years of trope and admittedly nostalgic, perhaps vestigial rules. When WOTC did just that, many lifelong fans excreted ceramic parallelepipeds.
Again, it's not my intention to post on this thread saying "stop, don't change MY game!" as I and others have in the past. Nor is it my intention to dismiss the concerns of those who take issue with the mathematical imbalances they perceive.
Personally, I'd like to see an incremental improvement that closes loopholes, provides clarification and/or examples of rules in use. Throwing a bone to those who complain about multiclassing wouldn't make me angry either. Clarification and expansion of the CMB/CMD system. Above all else, an early PDF release so that the ever-loyal fanbase can chew on the text a bit, in order to eliminate more of the annoying typos, errors, miscalculations, and other editorial mistakes that (while inevitable) are unfortunate and ultimately take more time and effort to fix after the fact than if they were caught before the print run. Hell, by the time a second edition ever comes around maybe it'll be "printed" on some of that electronic paper "they" keep talking about.
Zo
I'd like to get rid of the cleric class, too.You raise as one reason for this (which seems to be the most fundamental) that magic healing promotes the three encounter day. Can you expand on this?
what do you mean?
How is magical healing a bad thing? (and could you not just get rid of it?)
In almost every game I've played in (I can't recall any exceptions, but let's just say there have been), the adventuring day stops when the spell casters are out of combat spells.
Because the cleric casting healing spells causes them to be out of combat spells faster, healing spells are a factor in the three encounter day.You can't "just get rid of it" because a lot of the balancing of encounters depends on the cleric being able to cast healing spells. If you were to remove the healing spells from the game, the difficulty of different monsters would shift and you'd have to rewrite a substantial amount of the beastiary. It's also remove one of the core features of the cleric class.
If healing is removed and the beastiary is rewritten, then we might as well make the other changes (removing buffs, etc.) at the same time. This renders the cleric class obsolete.
So it isnt magical healing per se that is a bad thing it is magical healing running out? If you had effectively limitless between encounter magical healing (say with wands of cure light wounds and the like) then this isnt a problem. For the games I play in running out of magical healing is rarely an issue- we do run out of other spells which are less generic than healing and this stops the adventuring day.
Edit: dont get me wrong I see other problems with the cleric class just hadnt understood this one- and dont really see it as the problem.
So, why do you feel the need to show "ME" what you think are the differences between INT and CHA based casters, aside from the fact they draw from the SAME EXACT SPELL LIST. Why are you even quoting me?All I did was propose that I'd like to see a more stripped down rpg, similar to Saga Edition, and you jumped all over me. FFS I'm done.
You replied to my post where I was talking about how the base classes could be Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, and Sorcerer and you argued that the Wizard and Sorcerer are too similar because they have the same spell list.
I pointed out that there is a huge difference in the two classes regardless of the fact that they choose from the same spell list.
Now, you're acting all "OMG, he hurt my feelings by disagreeing with me!" in response.
Look, we're talking about 2 different kinds of games. I'm standing here holding an apple and you're shaking an orange at me telling me it's an apple too, because they're both fruit. .
I was talking about the original, core, basic 4 person party concept; The Fighter-type, The Thief/Rogue, The Mage, and The Healer. That's it. I was talking about doing something going back to those 4 basic concepts and building the the little different aspects form there.
So are you saying that your "Sorcerer" could handle being the archetypal "Priest/Healer" or even a "Druid"? That's great. You didn't say that in your previous posts when you were too busy stroking your ego coming up with reasons why INT and CHA are different(like we couldn't tell they were different already). Had you simply said "Healing magic could just be a string of feats/talents" or something along that line, then I would've understood you better. You didn't say that. You tried to say a Priest/Cleric/Generic healer doesn't belong in the core 4 but a Sorcerer AND Wizard both do? And then instead of simply explaining how a Sorc would replace those roles, you just yammer on about story descriptions and plot points.
Have you played the game system I was using for a reference, even? If not than you have no business throwing your ideas at me. I didn't ask for your input. Your concept of spell casting is obviously different from mine, and had you simply made you own post idea for a system, instead of trying to cram it into mine, then we wouldn't have this problem.
No, the biggest variance is whether the spell casting is based on CHA or INT.
The reason this is the biggest variance is how skills interact with spells.
If you want to trick a demon into rendering a service (ala. planar binding), it helps to have a high CHA. If you want to persuade some "spirit of the forest" (aka Meilieki) or "lord of the great mountain" (aka Clangeddin) or "master of sorrows" (aka Gruumsh) to favor you, it helps to have a high CHA. If you want to deceive "the seven kings of the seven kingdoms" or cause "the thousand years war" to come to an end by having the prince and princess on either side to fall in love, you need a high CHA. If you need to know some arcane theory regarding the correlation between the planet Mercury residing in the house of Ares, elemental ice, and the foreskin of a bogwart then you need a high INT...
I pointed out that there is a huge difference in the two classes regardless of the fact that they choose from the same spell list.
No, No you didn't. You didn't even mention the classes to even compare. You just blabbed on and on about the difference in solving problems based on INT and CHA. You didn't even mention book-learned spellcasting versus magic from within, bloodlines, anything. I'm talking about basic mechanics and you're giving me elemental ice and bogwart foreskin. We're obviously speaking different languages.
|
I am honestly not bothered about a Pathfinder 2.0, but if I was I would like the following:
Classes as more of building blocks
Have just a few really focused classes and then allow lots of multiclassing, e.g.
Divine Caster
Arcane Caster
Fighter
Sneaky Type
Then if you want a Ranger you choose Sneaky Type plus a few Fighter levels and if you want the magic use a bit of Divine Caster.
If you want a cleric go Divine Caster / Fighter, but if you want a more "Cloistered CLeric" just stick with Divine Caster.
Also - get rid of saves and use ability scores directly (perhaps with bonuses for class abilities), e.g. rather than a Fortitude save, make it a CON roll.
Get rid of Spell Resistance, roll such resistances into the ability "saves"
Provide an alternative to Vancian magic like the sorcerer for the Arcane Caster. Basically you can choose your flavour of Arcane Caster.
Make the save DC for all spells scale as the character gets higher level (e.g. SPell DC = 10 + Caster Level + Ability Mod). A 20th Level Arcane Caster's 1st level spell shoudl be harder to resist than that of a 1st level Arcance Caster.
Collapse the skill list even more (as per 4e).
Make other classes able to heal - First Aid using the Heal skill shoudl be able to heal at least a few hit points, allow Arcane casters to heal. Basically don't allow the default adventure to need a cleric.
Make healing spells scale depending upon who they are healing, e.g. Cure Light restores 10% of a character's Hit Points round up, Cure Moderate 25%, Cure Serious 50% etc.
Have level 1 have more hit points, perhaps just add Con Score to a character's hit points (sort of like Star Wars d20 RCR).
Make armour absorb damage rather than make you harder to hit, either that or allow the power of an attack be added to the attack roll so its balanced (chainmail protects the same whether being attacked by someone wielding a blunt dagger or a flaming sword of acid).
Just some thoughts off the top of my head.
|
|
Here's a summary of what I want to see in a Pathfinder 2.0 that significantly deviates from Pathfinder: <laundry list>I have to commend the fact that you seem to have clearly delineated what you want from a FRPG. My question is twofold: is there no extant game system that accomplishes these goals, and why would a game incorporating these drastic changes need to be labeled "Pathfinder"? It seems to me that a great number of the gripes people have with D&D 4e is that a significant number of long-standing D&D tropes were discarded in favor of "balanced mechanics". How would a "4th editionization" of Pathfinder avoid this splitting of the fanbase?
I recently read Monte Cook's article in Kobold Quarterly 12 (IIRC) about game balance and agreed with much of what he wrote concerning the origin of true game balance. A mathematically balanced game would, by its nature, be stagnant. Nothing new could be introduced to the game without the risk of introducing imbalance back into the system. Part of the draw of Pathfinder for me was the reduction or reboot, so to speak, of the 3e rules sources. Switching to a new or significantly changed rules system would necessitate yet another extensive play-test/revision/release/errata cycle.
Zo
Nice comment Zo:
It wouldn't have to be Pathfinder. I've loved D&D since I could write in cursive, and up until 4th edition did I eventually part ways. Don't get me wrong:
I think 4th edition has some fantastic ideas we should all learn from
Unfortunately for me and the people I ever game with, in extended playtesting the power curve is so flat, and the combats so long and uninteresting that it promotes the "15-minute work day" as one of my friends puts it, and "you can't go back."
That means, that once you've had steak (you maximized fireballed for 10d6 damage DC21 save), you don't want hamburger (Hey at 21st level I can blast you for 5d6 damage, but I know you have 200 hp).
Regardless of whether you are a power gamer or not, I doubt the average player can get excited over doing d4 damage as a warrior, even if everyone has 3 hit points. (Trying to cite an extreme example).
Not trying to cause a flame war or incite anything. For ME (and I was the last hold out amongst my gamer friends), and for my gaming friends, 4e was so balanced and flat, and lack of interesting magic items that it sucked the fun right out of the gaming experience. It made us so jaded that we quit fantasy roleplaying for about a year, which was probably a well-needed break to reboot our expectations.
Pathfinder just showed us promise. You can take a system that we enjoyed but feared its excessive broken mechanics and take a good shot at fixing broken things.
PF still has things wrong, and broken, but they aren't as glaring in most cases...and don't get me wrong, I fundamentally believe a reboot of the system could be a great thing. Rebalance EVERYTHING.
Why is the Maze spell the spell level it is? Because that's what it used to be. Are all 5th level spells equivalent in power or effect or impact to the game? Absolutely not. Should Heal be a 6th level spell? I fundamentally disagree, but some of the higher game is based on the old adage of having a dedicated healbot to a lesser or greater extent.
In 2nd edition (and it had FLAWS), we ran many campaigns WITHOUT a healer, and it wasn't the easiest, but it wasn't glaringly obvious. This wart has been in the game for a long time. I don't remember anyone crying that a cleric wasn't in the party in Dungeons and Dragons (original game), even when characters were in the teens and 20s levels.
If we want to muse about having the basic classes, then let's have something like this:
4 basic classes
2 focused on less poweful but unlimited use activities
Combatant - good combat ability, access to cobmbat-oriented abilities.
Skilled one - high skills, access to skills, skill-boosting talents and broadening available skill uses.
2 focused on more poweful, but limited activities
Supernatural - access to various weird powers, like healing waves, self-transformation, regeneration, rage, ...
Magician - a typical spellcasting bookworm.
allow access to feats/abilities/talents/powers/whatever based on character levels and previous character creation and advancement choices.
This to never happen thats what I want
It's just a little early to start talking 2nd edition.
However, here are some things I'd like changed:
1) Fix Profession/Craft: if "something is made" is supposed to be the definition of if a particular skill is a craft or a profession, then why are brewing and cooking professions. Worse yet, Profession is trained only right now, which means that if no one in the party takes Profession (cooking), then you will all be eating raw meat when the Ranger bags a deer. Also, Why are Driver and Stablemaster professions? Can't you do the same thing with Handle Animal? Why is Soldier a profession? Is a level 1 commoner with a rank in Profession (soldier) somehow better than a level 1 fighter (or warrior) with no such rank? Sorry, started to rant...
2) Make races more important. How about racial abilities that are aquired at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels?
3) Make armor more realistic. If you are wearing plate mail, you are MORE likely to get hit than someone that is wearing nothing. This is the reason Atilla the Hun disdained heavy armor. However, the hit you take while wearing armor won't hurt as much because the armor will absorb some of the impact. Give each armor a DR, and an AC PENALTY. for Example: Full Plate- DR5/piercing, -5 AC.
4) Make Hit Points more realistic. I saw a D20 book for George Martin's "A Game of Thrones" series. In that variant, your AC got better when you leveled, but your hit points only increased a small ammount.
5) Have everyone start with level 0, or an adolescent level. This works on so many levels (no pun intended). NPC classes would be more realistic. People are not born "experts", and the system does not allow you to drop the commoner class to aquire the expert class. Level 1 could be where certain "cultural" racial abilities (such as +1 to attack goblinoids) are aquired. Dwarves are not born hating/fighting goblins. This also works with #2 above. It would also provide an extra HD, to go along with #4 above. Finally, I think this could mesh well with monsterous races that take class levels. Just add (instead of replace) the HD and attack capabilities. PC races could have different racial HD as race features (Dwarves and Half-orcs D12, Humans and half-elves D10, etc.)
What I want:
I want for it to be delayed for a *long long long* time.
-S
Those are very nice descriptions, but Wiz/Sorc spells are the same spells from the same spell list. Again, redundancy. I honestly have no idea what on earth you're talking about there. Those sound more like plot hooks and actions, not any kind of actual spells. I'm referring to "Magic Missile", "Fireball", etc.
+1
Forgot to mention that. It's a pet peeve of mine that they have the exact same spell lists. I wrote a few spells for house-rules that are Sorc only and Wiz only, specifically to adress this. I was trying to steer sorcerers to close range, touch, and "buff" spells; and wizards as the long range artillery and dramatic effects.
However, for some reason, this is much less of an irritation to me than the Profession/Craft thing I mentioned above, and it has a much bigger effect on the game. Go figure.
|
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?
Use True20 by Green Ronin Publishing.
Lots of good ideas here many of which, I'm happy to say, are the same or similar to what I was implementing in my game. You guys are inspiring me to work on it some more. :)
Use True20 by Green Ronin Publishing.
Seems like a lot of you are hoping for another itteration or a revamped d20 as opposed to a whole new system. I know d20 is one of the best systems invented thus far and that people are afraid that a new system might dissapoint the way 4E did for many but that doesn't mean that would happen next time around. I'm willing to bet that if Paizo came up with a new system that it'd be even better than 3.x ever was. Just my opinion.
Time to run. I got 20 more spheres of magic to chip away at.
I'm willing to bet that if Paizo came up with a new system that it'd be even better than 3.x ever was.
* crickets chirping *
Wasn't expecting to be alone on this one. :(
A spellcaster that can be a good and intimidating blaster!
Profession (soldier) is about the job of being a soldier, NOT of being a melee combatant. You'd be great at drills, drawing up battle plans, spit and polish, know the rank designations backwards and forwards, be able to identify military insignia, units, know military history, perhaps have a handle on logistics, small-unit tactics, large-unit tactics, signalling, military engineering...
Someone with a rank in soldier is probably a non-commissioned officer. If you want to get an idea what Profession (soldier) is about, go look at the coursework of your local ROTC chapter, and the huge volume of work that gets churned out by military officers.
Brewer and cook could go in either Profession or Craft, I agree with you. You're taking other things and making them into something new. I think the difference is the 'purification' part. Brewers and Cooks effectively combine things, they don't really make things from scratch. In other words, a crafter carves up the potatoes into perfect chunks, the great cook uses them in the stew...he can judge the ingredients, but he doesn't neccessarily have to physically change them.
Limited healing is realistic and puts caps on what a party can accomplish. HP's are the 'spell pool' of melees. Getting low on hit points is very much the same as running low on spells. If you allow unlimited HP recovery, you might as well play an MMO where they allow unlimited, rapid spell recovery.
Some people like unlimited healing/recovery. it allows for a go-go-go campaign style, and caters to the melee types. Some people like the realism of limited resource management and having to watch their reserves.
the armor argument on getting hit/DR is a hand-waver. Just drop it. Mathematically, it all winds up to the same thing. With armor, you get hit, but you don't get hurt. Functionally, that is exactly the same as not getting hit. The whole dex/dodge thing is in there as max dex limits. Melee people and arrows do not use touch attacks, which ignores armor because, as you say, we can't dodge in it. A sword thrust that would pierce chain mail will bounce off a breastplate impotently...that's a miss, not damage soak. Damage soak is the swinging sword crunches into the mail, but it only goes in a half inch as opposed to your whole side, or the BP deforms under the hammer, but saves your ribs. That BP could also make the hammer bounce right off,which is a miss, not soak.
I actually did damage comparison on the D&D system vs the Warhammer system, and in the end it works out the exact same way...there's only so much DOT you're going to do. One side uses miss chance and soak, the other side just uses miss chance. Guess which one is a LOT faster? Right. taking half dmg from an attack over time is the exact same thing as getting missed half the time instead. Flavor is different, end result is the same.
==Aelryinth
A spellcaster that can be a good and intimidating blaster!
At low levels. Build a blaster mage and they can do a credible job...but not until later levels.
==Aelryinth
A spellcaster that can be a good and intimidating blaster!
This can be done in the current game, but only with specific spells (generally Scorching Ray or Magic Missile), and tends to mature at 7th + level because of the feats needed to make it work.
==Aelryinth
Pathfinder... it needs more cow bell.
I don't think it's so much that you're alone as it is that everybody is asking "why?" and "who cares?"
Well, that was kind of a joke. I just found it funny that the thread necroed when I said that. :)
It's one thing to have some idle chatter on what people would like to see, but it'd make no sense for them to revamp the game this soon.
I've said several times that there's no reason for Paizo to do any such thing until several years down the road, if at all. At this point, it is only idle chatter.
So, why would it even matter whether Paizo could come up with a new system even better than 3.x?
I'm probably looking at this statement out of context because it doesn't even make sense by itself. We've been playing 3.x for so long and it has some obvious flaws that just can't be fixed. I'd kill for a new system that has all of the flavor of our classic DND and is better than 3.x. Why would anyone not want a better system especially from a company that could expand the game with addition books (unlike most RPGs that never make it past core).
i would want all abilities to be point buy, so anyone could have any combination of abilities, no more class features just a very large list of abilities ( this includes spells and all other abilities your used to from all the classes) and a set amount of points that everyone buys there abilities with.
I'm with you on that.How long has Pathfinder been out?The Core Rules book was released in August 2009. So approximately 9 months. Personally, I'm hoping that the system makes at least a decade before Pathfinder 2.0 comes along.
10 years? Really? Has 3.x even been around that long?
Just because the problems with 4e were obvious since before it even had it's official release doesn't mean that every game is so poorly written. Some games, such as Pathfinder, need to be driven around the block a couple of times to really figure out what part of the engine is making that odd knocking noise.
Let's not kid ourselves. Pathfinder isn't a brand new game. It's a revamp of 3.5. It probably won't stay fresh as long. I can't see them being able to put out new content for another 10 years.
A spellcaster that can be a good and intimidating blaster!This can be done in the current game, but only with specific spells (generally Scorching Ray or Magic Missile), and tends to mature at 7th + level because of the feats needed to make it work.
==Aelryinth
I guess I meant to say an effective blaster. Magic Missile is hardly a good spell choice anymore given the amount of hit points of critters these days. Now in second edition it was a great spell.
