I'd move away from the concept of the dwarf as a playable race and more towards the concept of the dwarf as a party punching bag.
I actually think the player races are really tired. There's no good way to improve it, but that's what I would change if I had magical superpowers.
PS: I really hate elves. I like dwarves. So there. But let's be honest, they're all kind of lame.
I'd move away from the concept of the dwarf as a playable race and more towards the concept of the dwarf as a party punching bag.
If you're doing that, then I'm renaming halflings as 'self-propelled footballs'.
To the OP: I'd add tangible game mechanics to the various descriptors. A [Fire] spell would always have a chance to ignite combustibles, for example, or [Sonic] spells would have the chance to cause deafness, etc.
I'd also make sure that there's an element of magic to all classes. Not necessarily spells, but an understanding that heroes (and villains) are beings that are a cut beyond the norm, no matter what they are class-wise.
re: Magic, I actually feel the opposite, and am going in that direction for my campaign setting, drumming up various alternative classes and what not to do cool stuff, but without the flavor of magic. I really like the idea of magic being rare, special, awe-inspiring. If every local tavern has to keep a boat load of gear on hand to put down a drunken sorcerer slinging spells in a drunken brawl, that kind of loses magic's specialness to me. Also, I'm not that keen on *players* having access to regular magic. Villains yea, because they're supposed to be super-evil and vicious. A magical villain in a world without common magic is that much more powerful; the party has to think harder and work harder to take him/her down.
|
I actually think the player races are really tired. There's no good way to improve it, but that's what I would change if I had magical superpowers.
PS: I really hate elves. I like dwarves. So there. But let's be honest, they're all kind of lame.
Do you hate the default races or do you hate the stereotypes associated with them?
To make a contrast, in Dark Sun, halflings are a bunch of cannibalistic, feral savages.
If you hate the races, you still hate Dark Sun halflings. If you hate the stereotypes, there's nothing stereotypical about Dark Sun halflings.
I think what they mean is that they are tired of having the same basic races, and would prefer something new for the "core races".
|
|
Probably the thing I would change foremos would be
1.) the alignment system (making it more specific and defined) and
2.) the alingment system as it relates to undead, clerics, necromancy, and raising undead (especially mindless undead).
I don't think that raising zombies or whatever should be evil, (though the ways they are used are likely to be). I think that the good priest and white necromancer concept using undead is cool without the rules disallowing it for no justifiable reason.
Personally, almost across the board, I think that Evil (or whatever alignment) should only be restricted in the intent and actual usage. I don't think a good Cleric should be able to raize a zombie horde as a personal army or meat shields, but I do think that they should be able to do so in some rare circumstances, (unless their deitiy specifically hates undead).
I can think of a few reasons that a Good Cleric might want to cast Protection From Good (an Evil spell), that would be a good act. The rules do not allow for it though. For example, the evil rogue that they have spent long hours trying to redeem is called to a celestial realm for a morl test. Might be nice to have some protections up incase an angel tries to smite first (thinking that an evil creature is invading maybe), but nope rules say no.
Hrmm interesting question. I'll make a list!
1) I'd like more balance between the classes. I think 4e is a great game but I think they went a little too far in this direction and exiled too much of the original flavor. Maybe somewhere in between the two?
2) I'd like magic to be less of an "I win" card. I think that variants such as E6 have acknowledged the tendency of mid-to-high level magic to basically leave other players as passive spectators. This isn't just the SoD/SoS spells, but also includes the transit spells, the niche protection destroyers, and especially a large number of the divination spells.
3) I would like Blast to be a decent alternative for casters though. It used to make you feel powerful to finally get access to fireball and lightning bolt back in the day. Now it's virtually a non-starter.
4) More focus on skills. More skill points for every class. Skill use can make for interesting roleplaying, there is no reason why the fighter should be forced to sit back and do nothing in between fights because rolling an untrained skill is not viable.
5) I'd personally love a good Armor as DR and WP/VP system but they require a good deal of rewrites.
6) I'd prefer more parity between fighting styles. Want to be a spear and buckler fighter or a great axe beserker or a rapier and main gauche duelist? All valid concepts, there needs to be differences in mechanics and in some circumstances one should be better than another but 1 style should not rule all.
7) A solution to the 15 minute adventuring day. 4e's At-will, encounter, daily system is a decent solution but it also seems excessively gamist.
8) Adoption of an exalted style stunting ruleset. Mechanics that encourage descriptive narrative combats are good.
9) Less Zero-to-Hero. I know class systems encourage this but 1-20 in a year is personally a little annoying.
10) Easy options for going with a low magic item game if you want without throwing the math off too much.
I've always liked the idea behind Dark Sun halflings.
The problem is, when you take a race out of context like that, it really ought to change the stats. Look at Eberron for example. Does Orc hatred make any sense for Dwarves in that setting? Not really.
I think that the Tolkien mandate on races is really limiting. I would like to see it expanded — but NOT in the way that 4e did, necessarily.
I guess I am open to Paizo-style, stylish, smart, literate additions. Dragon-people need not apply.
Just my opinion though. I know that some people involved in Pathfinder agree with me, at least as far as the tiredness of the races, but had their reasons for sticking with it. And I completely understand. After all, this is supposed to be the same game we've been playing all these years.
I dont think I would change much except magic to make it more fantastic and rare so it could be seen with awe and amazement in some societies and fear and loathing in others. Magic just seems to much of the norm a lot of the time since we have entire academies of wizards and sorcerer circles out there.
I would definitely add new races that had new twists on life and the world around them. I remade a few of the dark sun races for new flavor in my Golarion just because we've seen all the core races before and none of them (except gnome) really seemed that different to me. So in my game, Aarackocra (now called Karkaa), Half-giants, and Thri-kreen (now called Voor) are PC races that all have a natural talents for psychics as well as vastly different societies.
Ive also been toying with the idea of making giants have innate psychic talent just to make them even further seperated from humanoids and monsterous humanoids and to help explain why half giants are naturally talented with psychics. However I havnt taken that step yet just because I need to rethink the giant races and how their societies might change with such innate power
1.) although I have grown to like some classes, I'd love to see how the game'd work if the class system were scrapped and the "classes" were more like templates, rather than actual classes that PC's are placed into, thus allowing for a great amount of variety within any given party
@Vuron: YES!!!! it would be 1M kinds of awesome if there was some dort of "exalted-style" stunting rules
2.) meh....the rest of the stuff on my list has already been said
I would make higher level magic significantly harder and more complicated to cast and lower level magic significantly easier to cast.
I would also give everyone more skill points, and establish a finite and comprehensive list of Professions and Crafts, like has been done with Knowledge and Perform.
1.) although I have grown to like some classes, I'd love to see how the game'd work if the class system were scrapped and the "classes" were more like templates, rather than actual classes that PC's are placed into, thus allowing for a great amount of variety within any given party
That's actually not too far fetched. Take a look at Unearthed Arcana generic classes; Expert, Spellcaster, and Warrior. Basically they're a thinned out Rogue, Sorcerer, and Fighter respectively, but they operate as fairly generic classes that allow you to cherry pick features from other classes. They have requirements, so that a hardcore spellcaster doesn't get all sorts of badass fighter-type features, but by carefully building your skill set you can go spellcaster with a dash of fighter or rogue.
Really, all someone would have to do with that is take those three, update them to PF rules, and expand their "bonus feat" selection to include the new class features, spec them out with reasonable requirements, and you're done~
A reintroduction of different XP progression among the classes to balance things out.
Please note, I decidedly do not want to see a new 'slugfest' of XP tables, where you have to keep more than a dozen charts.
I am more on the verge of using the three Progression charts (Slow, Medium, Fast) as a basis.
I even mentioned this idea during the early Beta Playtest - basically, this is how I would make it...
Classes with a Full Spell Progression (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, *Oracle, *Witch) use the Slow Chart Progression.
Classes with a gimped Spell Progression (Bard, Paladin, Ranger, *Summoner, *Inquisitor, *Alchemist) use the Average Chart Progression.
Classes with no Spell Progression (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, *Cavalier) use the Fast Chart Progression.
Same for Prestige Classes.
For Multiclass Characters (and Prestige Classes as well), the only thing to remember is this: you actually look how much Xp you need to gain an additional level in the class you want to improve basing on its XP Progression Table (actually, this would be true even for 'straight-class' characters)
With an example I hope is more clear:
Level-up____Slow____Medium___Fast (note: XP to be gained each level)
1 to 2_____3000_____2000_____1300
2 to 3_____4500_____3000_____2000
3 to 4_____6500_____4000_____2700
4 to 5_____9000_____6000_____4000
5 to 6_____12000____8000_____5000
6 to 7_____18000____12000____8000
And so on - basically, using the current tables and making a subtraction from the xp needed to be of the next level and the xp needed to be of the current level.
In this way, a 5th level character which wants to level-up as a Fighter knows that he needs 5000 xp; if he wants to add a Wizard level, instead, it costs him 12.000 xp.
Basically, with the same XP (for example, 210.000), a straight Fighter would be 13th level, while a Wizard would be 10th level (almost 11th).
I know, it requires a bit of calculation (instead of simply looking at a straight chart), but hey, we know that these ideas would never be realized.
...or not ? ;D
A reintroduction of different XP progression among the classes to balance things out.
Wraith, I rather like this notion, but had you considered that for the first half of the campaign the fighter is going to be WAY TOO AWESOME comparatively?
A reintroduction of different XP progression among the classes to balance things out.Wraith, I rather like this notion, but had you considered that for the first half of the campaign the fighter is going to be WAY TOO AWESOME comparatively?
I've also toyed around with the problem of different XP rates.
I think 3 seperate rates is too much for one. Within the rules it's basically the haves (full casters) and the have nots (non-casters and partial casters). Most people wouldn't say that a pathfinder paladin is dramatically better than a fighter for instance.
Further wizards (and other casters) are definitely built on the zero to hero archetype. They suck early on but about 10th they take the lead and by 14-15 are the coolest kids in class. Cleric pretty much rocks from 1-20 but he's a special case ;)
I think what you could do is that wizards advance at the same XP rate until level x (wherever wizards start being super cool- probably level 5-6) at which point they pay a 25%-50% surtax on XP until level 13 (7th level spells) and pay a 50%-100% surtax on levels 13+.
That way the wizards power is still growing quadratically but he's going to be lagging further and further behind the noncasters.
You really don't want the casters to be too far behind the rest of the party otherwise CR appropriate foes are way too powerful.
I believe the OP was talking about world flavor, otherwise, I would toss in classless as well.
I have more than enough generic fantasy worlds. For me, I would need something really unique to grab my attention. I am one of those crazy people that likes Faerun and Eberron. Unfortunately, I can not say what I would want to see. Just show me something different.
Oh, it just occurred to me…Clerics. Unless you are a priest of the war god, you don't fight. The Cleric concept has bugged me since 1e. Roll healing duties into some other caster.
I believe the OP was talking about world flavor, otherwise, I would toss in classless as well.
I have more than enough generic fantasy worlds. For me, I would need something really unique to grab my attention. I am one of those crazy people that likes Faerun and Eberron. Unfortunately, I can not say what I would want to see. Just show me something different.
I like Eberron but not Faerun. FR always seemed to me just like Greyhawk with the names changed. Eberron has a different flavor.
But I would like to see a completely different magic system other than spells per day. I don't have a suggestion to replace it with. I kind of like the idea of at-will/encounter/daily powers for spellcasting. Just not for melee fighting.
But I would like to see a completely different magic system other than spells per day.
It's Hero, but you might find some of the systems Killer Shrike did interesting.
But I would like to see a completely different magic system other than spells per day.It's Hero, but you might find some of the systems Killer Shrike did interesting.
Ah. I speak Hero. Took me a minute to realize what I was looking at, but: neat. Thanks.
Spells per day is actually on my list of things I absolutely don't want to change, ever. I want it better explained. It is surely the whipping boy of all game design circles, and I think that is undeserved. It's really a PR problem. :( The rulebooks just never take the time to correct people's expectations of skill-driven magic.
By extension, the list posted by Lilith's Thrall actually reads like a list of things I used to hate but have changed my mind (specifically alignment, tactical combat, class-based advancement, and zero-to-hero, but others too). I guess it's because they are quirky mechanics, not bad mechanics. If I wanted to escape them entirely I would go play a different game (and I actually do, often).
That's my case in defense of tradition, but I understand the point of this thread, so I'll wander off now, I guess.
Oh, it just occurred to me…Clerics. Unless you are a priest of the war god, you don't fight. The Cleric concept has bugged me since 1e. Roll healing duties into some other caster.
Well the concept was originally based on the Knights Templar from the crusader era, which is funny, cause (I don't know the accuracy here what so ever) I'd heard that the word "cleric" is actually a term used in the Muslim faith. But with that in mind the cleric is a fine concept, IF you're in a monotheistic faith where the defending and crusading warrior priests were part of the same faith as the monastic beer brewing priests, you just don't use the monks as adventurers.
I agree that it doesn't work in the D&D sense though, since in a polytheistic setting, really only the priests of a war deity should be warriors, thus the reason for things like the Cloistered Cleric in UA.
That's my case in defense of tradition, but I understand the point of this thread, so I'll wander off now, I guess.I would hope at this point enough people have seen the edition wars enough times to know all the points for defending tradition and thus the tradition defenders could sit back in the assurance that no one wants to mess with their tradition and that any attempts to do something different will in no way actually come to threaten them.
I guess I just like to hear myself talk. Er. Type? Yeah, that.
That's what I thought, but the term doesn't come from a Muslim background. It's Latin - the same root as "clergy".I'm not clear on why its "funny" that Muslims have clerics.He's saying it's funny that D&D gets "cleric" through supposedly Christian lens when somehow he's found that it comes from a Muslim background.
And as I said, I had no idea as to the accuracy of the information I had been given. I honestly don't even remember where I had gotten it from.
1) Barbarians- I hate how they have a very little niche now. Fighters can do about anything Barbarians can, but better. Upping most rage powers a bit would be nice, on top of making some free actions and/or lasting the round, not just one attack.
2) Humans- Lets face it, they got the short end of the s+@%ty stick this time. They lost and ability, due to it being a standard now, and got nothing in return, while almost every single other race got something.
3) Mithral Weapons- their pricing needs to be set like adamantine. In some cases buying a mithral weapon is more expensive than an adamantine one.
4) Enhancement Ignoring DR- This is just not good IMHO, as it takes too much away from buying special properties, and makes everyone have an +5 adamantine weapon.
|
Outsiders. I'd change a lot of traits on outsiders, primarily stating that some things are absolutely not true across the board for all of them.
As a matter of fact, I'd really want to change a lot of creatures that were tagged as outsiders with the coming of 3.0 to something else. I just don't think aasimar, tieflings, etc. should be labelled as such, as well as a lot of other planar creatures, like the lillendi for example(well, rolled into the azatas, it works for them, but in my homebrew I still use the Planescape fluff, which really doesn't mesh with an outsider creature type what with the Silent Hour and etc.).
A reintroduction of different XP progression among the classes to balance things out.Wraith, I rather like this notion, but had you considered that for the first half of the campaign the fighter is going to be WAY TOO AWESOME comparatively?
In my campaigns, Fighters are powerful even at high levels - I've never felt the 'Fighters at high levels are powerless', personally, quite the opposite. I suppose it depends on playstyle and all of that.
In most of the adventures I play, either as a GM or as a Player, casters have not the luxury of time, and neither are always prepared for every kind of challenge. Plus, high mobility is often available even for martial characters (Winged Boots, Potions of Fly, Rings of Freedom of Movement and so on).For example, in the homebrew campaign set on Eberron in which I currently play a Mystic Theurge (and yes, it was mechanically a pain at low levels, although I like my character's personality and I often was a resource to the party even with low-level spells - I remember a nasty trap which involved an 'Indiana Jones-style' trap with an artifact which lifted from its pedestal triggered a Force Field AND summoned a Hezrou Demon inside it... save the fact I lifted the artifact with a Mage Hand - poor Hezrou...). Our GM (Herr_Malthus) set the pace of the adventure in such a way that we didn't simply had the time OR the place to go 'Magic-shopping', so my spellbook never had the luxury of being filled with lot of spells; plus, we usually never dump characteristics (exception: my Mystic Theurge, Grigoriy Lazlow, being middle-aged, has an abysmal core of Strength 7, but this was intentional) and always buy items to boost our saves AND items to allow for reaching hostile creatures, so (for example) our Fighter 12th has the following saves: Fort +14, Ref +9, Will +11/+14 vs. Fear, and has a Fly skill check at +8 (Full Plate penalties included) - hard to hamper him even with 'Save or Suck' spells or with flying monsters...
The only time we went 'monster-hunting' (we more or less knew the immunities of the creatures we were facing, and we found their lair - only things were, we didn't knew HOW MUCH of them they were, nor how big was the dungeon inside) and I buffed myself 'Baldur's Gate style', a lot of my spells (those with a duration of 1 minute/level) went off before actually fighting most of the more poweful creatures.
However, being not all campaigns set at the same pace/ with the same resource limitations/ [insert variables here], and since a balancing factor of the past editions was effectively this - some characters were extremely weak at low levels and extremely powerful at high levels, while other characters were always reliable for all their career, and to compensate with the first type of characters, they levelled up faster at the high levels - , a reintroduction of the old system (albeit streamlined) I believe could help in some ways. However I admit that the 'three different XP charts' is more of an hypotetical rule at the moment (my groups probably would never need this 'old-style' rule).
Please note, however, that even if it would be applied 'as-is' (since I've never actually playtested it), the difference among a 'straight Martial' and a 'straight Caster' with the table I showed above would be of 2 levels at worst (the 210.000 xp example was the most radical, but the Wizard would have gained another level at 235.000 xp, so basically at 235.000 the situation would have been 'Fighter 13th, Wizard 11th').
Not much of a harass, IMHO.
Another bit of flavor I'd like to see reworked or done more in-depth on is the division between "arcane" and "divine" magic.
Perhaps it isn't all tht different since the Witch's list encompasses both
Just a general discussion. I'm not looking for specifics like "I'd change the monk's bonus movement to half". I'm looking more for concept/tone stuff like "I'd get rid of the heavy emphasis on religion meaning 'worship of gods' and represent a bit more non-deistic religions (ie. animism, pantheism, ancestor-worship, etc.)" or "I'd make magic more special and rare" or "I'd toss the pseudo-European fluff" etc.
Hmm, if I could change one thing: I'd like to see the overall power level of PCs brought down a notch. Except for really high level spells. In those cases, they should be rarely cast as they come with consequences. The trend to improve the game always seems to scale upwards overall, rather than downwards.
Oh, and I would simplifiy the game, yet keep all its options The Combat maneuver system concept is a great example of this… the rage power/rogue talent mechanic could be available to all non-caster/partial caster classes for instance.
And one other thing, cut down on the math. There is way too much (too many bonuses, penalties at high levels).