| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Less Christmas tree effect with magic items, fewer/more difficult access to world shaping powers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Less Christmas tree effect with magic items, fewer/more difficult access to world shaping powers.
This and a redo of magic item costs. Right now, everyone recommends lots of UMD, making the differences between a potion, scroll, and wand small, thus exacerbating the cost differences between a potion, scroll, and wand. If UMD is made hard enough to develop to high levels (preferably to the point that we start saying "Use Magic Device" again instead of "UMD"), then the cost structure can remain. Otherwise, a potion should not cost 3.33 wand charges.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Powers and Features scaling. A lot of them do, but even more don't.
Related, goodbye to feat chains.
Change casting time and cost, or add drawbacks, for powerful spells.
Less archetypes (max 3-5 per class) and more "swappable" powers. If possible divided in out and in combat.
More use of skills. No "there is a spell for that".
Redone crafting. From the ground.
General fine tuning of things pointed out as problematic and flat-out ignored, or just fixed pointlessly.
And please. Human spontanous casters favorite class bonuses. 1/2 each level is more than enough and still very good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want a new version at all. I want post 20 levels defined. I want a book of alternate rules (like Unearthed Arcana or Book of Experimental Might). I want a lot more from my current game before I jump into a revision.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
• Clean up stray terminology issues (like occasionally calling your "turn" by the word "action"), getting a better sense of standardized templating/language (the whole "attack action" thing), and so forth. Even if nothing was functionally changed, simply making the CRB clear, consistent, and precise would be enough to make me happy.
• Combine Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers into a single feat.
• Have ranged combat maneuvers (rare as they are) use DEX instead of STR for your CMB by default.
• Tweak the Dodge feat to also apply to Reflex, and/or scale (slowly) with level.
• Tweak the Combat Expertise feat to somehow represent, you know, combat expertise in some other way than a more precise Fighting Defensively; maybe a bonus to tactical things like resisting feints or noticing DR, or a reduction of nonproficiency penalties, or something.
• Make sure something interesting happens at every level. For instance, everyone has exciting odd-numbered levels because they get a feat (and in the case of some casters, a new level of spells). But then at the even levels, some classes get neat stuff while others have duds. At even levels, fighters get bonus feats, rogues get talents, witches get hexes, etc. But clerics? Their progression is mostly in the form of channel dice and spell levels, both of which go up on odd levels, while next to nothing happens on even levels. I'd gladly reduce channel dice to d4's if it meant getting my first die at level 1 and then increasing at even levels, so at least I felt like something was actually changing at each level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want new editions to return to integers.
A new edition does not have to mean a new game.
I would be overwhelmingly happy with a "cleanup and compilation" of the material that we've seen so far in the first edition. Maybe a slightly more flexible system for archetypes that wasn't all-or-nothing.
But we still have a few more big fish to fry — for me, the krufty treasure system is chief among them.
They should finish tuning everything up, then compile it, and call it "Revised" or "2nd Edition".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want a new version at all.Then why are you posting in this thread?
Because this is a discussion board and 'nothing' is a valid response to your question.
I do find it interesting that most people's individual lists are so short that they could easily be house-ruled already. I certainly have a list of house-rules I use in my game. But I know they don't fit for everyone, so I'm not suggesting they be added to the base game. I would love to see a big book of 'variant rules' which could contain many of the above suggestions and more.
Clean up, consolidation, and simplification. The CRB badly needs to be reorganized and reworded. Both clarity and brevity could be greatly improved with no substantive rules changes.
I would also like to see some freestanding rules elements cleaned up (individual spells, for example) with an eye toward balance. I believe this could be done in a way that would not damage backward compatibility.
I would love to see a big book of 'variant rules' which could contain many of the above suggestions and more.
FYI Ultimate Combat has a pretty substantial set of variant rules.
Clean up stray terminology issues (like occasionally calling your "turn" by the word "action"), getting a better sense of standardized templating/language (the whole "attack action" thing), and so forth. Even if nothing was functionally changed, simply making the CRB clear, consistent, and precise would be enough to make me happy.
That alone would warrant a purchase.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Clean up stray terminology issues (like occasionally calling your "turn" by the word "action"), getting a better sense of standardized templating/language (the whole "attack action" thing), and so forth. Even if nothing was functionally changed, simply making the CRB clear, consistent, and precise would be enough to make me happy.That alone would warrant a purchase.
Likewise. If the CRB had the clarity, standardization, and precision of Magic: the Gathering's modern rules, I would probably keep the book under my pillow when I slept.
That may or may not be hyperbole.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read several posts on this thread that could be summarized as:
The rules are good, we want no major changes
The rules could use some clarification. Terminology is often not precise (and sometimes there are terms that are used more than once, and mean different things. Teleport is both a spell and a conjuration subschool for example)
I agree with these sentiments.
Because this is a discussion board and 'nothing' is a valid response to your question.Thread jacking is poor etiquette.
Did I change the topic of the thread? Did I start talking about my favorite My Little Ponies?
I thought you wanted a real discussion about the future of Pathfinder. If all you want are Yes men to agree with you, why post something to a discussion board? There are blogs for that.
I specifically don't want any of the above suggestions added to the game. If Paizo were to create a "Revised Edition" anytime soon, I would mostly want organizational and clarifying changes. But no substantial mechanical alterations. Maybe sometime in the future I will want a complete overhaul of the game. But not anytime soon.
I've only recently downloaded my Ultimate Combat PDF. It's been a busy week so I haven't had a chance to really look at the variant options it provides. I'm still digesting the vehicles section so I can finally stat up my group's airship.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) I would like half of the melee classes DPR not to be determined based on whether or not they move.
Moving absolutely kills the amount of damage the melee classes can do. Fighters and rogues may look ok on paper, but at higher levels when they're supposed to be getting 2 attacks... i don't see them doing so. People are always running around, moving from a dead target to a live one, repositioning, etc.
2) Some guidelines on how item creation is supposed to interact with WBL.
3)Take another stab at grappling. I understood the 3.x rules, i think i'm still lost in pathfinder. Most of the information on grappling is in the conditions rather than the grappling rules.
4) Reprice the "fun" miscellaneous magic items, or take them out of WBL calculations accordingly, so that players have a reason to keep them
I want it to be a long way off! because i'm having fun with the game i have.
• Combine Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers into a single feat.
That cannot be emphasized enough. That those two are separate is a travesty.
How about no more feats in a chain having a pre-req of a feat that comes before the previous feat in the chain. Like a 3 feat chain needing feat 1 to qualify even if you have feat 2.
Well, christmas tree reductions, working craft and other such things would be good for alternative rules book, which doesn't have to deal with backwards compatibility. It wouldn't even have to be any revision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some things have been posted by several posters, but only in a vague way. What would you look at -specifically- to determine that craft rules were fixed or that consolidation was done? Right now, your requests for these things is awfully vague and ambiguous.
I'm looking for -specific- things that need fixing in the current rules. For example, I said that the fact that ancestral heritage is represented by race, class, and/or feats bothers me. That's a specific example of the problem of lack of consolidation. Another poster mentioned the open question of whether crafting impacts the cost of a character's total assets with regards to WBL. That's a specific example of a problem with craft rules.
Specific things like that are what I'm looking for.
I don't know how to say this more specifically, but much of the wording is the CRB is unnecessarily verbose, scattered, and imprecise. For example, I once tried to get a clear picture of threatening, and I eventually got sent all over the place (flatfootedness, surprise, threatening, attacks of opportunity, etc.), before I was able to get a comprehensive picture. The CRB feels like a 384 or 448 page book stretched over 576 pages.
Also, the CRB is clearly the PHB and DMG stuck together, with little effort made to integrate them into a coherent whole. For example:
* All the equipment, magical and non-magical, should be together.
* All the rules for fighting with two weapons should be in one place.
* Much of the information on spell casting is repeated for both divine and arcane spells. Why?
I mostly just want clarifications and rewording... especially for those things that the rules are all over the book.
I want to add 1000xp to my character whenever I want, up to 3 times per game session. Not everyone, mind you, just me. As in, a line in the rulebook saying, "Derek Vande Brake may add 1000xp to his character whenever he wants, up to 3 times per game session." (If you want this ability, you'll have to legally change your name.)
I want combat mechanics and spellcasting take the form of skills, and use skill points. I don't want this in 1.5, though, I want it in PF2.0, which should be years away. At least five years.
Clean up, consolidation, and simplification. The CRB badly needs to be reorganized and reworded. Both clarity and brevity could be greatly improved with no substantive rules changes.
I would also like to see some freestanding rules elements cleaned up (individual spells, for example) with an eye toward balance. I believe this could be done in a way that would not damage backward compatibility.
THIS! (not sure they could pull off the brevity, but I am with you on everything else).
How about no more feats in a chain having a pre-req of a feat that comes before the previous feat in the chain. Like a 3 feat chain needing feat 1 to qualify even if you have feat 2.
I like feat chains. Creates paths that you have to choose...hey...Pathfinder...I get it now!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I like feat chains. Creates paths that you have to choose...hey...Pathfinder...I get it now!
How about no more feats in a chain having a pre-req of a feat that comes before the previous feat in the chain. Like a 3 feat chain needing feat 1 to qualify even if you have feat 2.
He wasn't saying no more feat chains. Read again more closely.
And I agree, I think.
I like feat chains. Creates paths that you have to choose...hey...Pathfinder...I get it now!
How about no more feats in a chain having a pre-req of a feat that comes before the previous feat in the chain. Like a 3 feat chain needing feat 1 to qualify even if you have feat 2.
He wasn't saying no more feat chains. Read again more closely.
And I agree, I think.
I missed that on my first read through, too.
Also, I can see a revision as opposed to a whole new edition.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want new editions to return to integers.
A new edition does not have to mean a new game.
I would be overwhelmingly happy with a "cleanup and compilation" of the material that we've seen so far in the first edition. Maybe a slightly more flexible system for archetypes that wasn't all-or-nothing.
But we still have a few more big fish to fry — for me, the krufty treasure system is chief among them.
They should finish tuning everything up, then compile it, and call it "Revised" or "2nd Edition".
I think a revised edition that was 100% compatible but took much of what was learned in creating the beginners book and brought it into the core would be great. The tricky bit is all the page number references in various other sources.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- a return to 3.0 weapon sizing
- full BAB monks
- remove feat chains and make feats scale. Or make the options within a feat something that never becomes obsolete.
- consolidate metamagic feats (example: Spell Shaping = Widen, Enlarge, and sculpting and Damaging Spell = Empower and Maximize)
- implement '1 metagamic effect per spell' limitation
- return to 3.5 power attack
- remove prestige classes.
- Turn classic prestige classes into archetypes or full classes.
- Do not force any fighter type to choose between being effective at range or effective in melee. He should be effective at both right out of the box. He can than supplement and specialize his preference with feats. But it shouldn't be an either-or thing.
* Split the CRB back into a PHB and DMG. Maybe I won't have to rebind the book next time.
* Get rid of Weapon Finesse already. This is the lamest feat ever made (except for the 3.0 version that was only good for one specific weapon). This should be part of core.
* Manyshot should still be usable the old way. It synergized with Shot in the Run nicely before. I like the new way as well so I wouldn't take that option away.
* Give the Assassin back his spells.
* Combine Climb and Swim into a single skill (Athletics).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see the flat-footed/denied-dex differentiations to stop being so schizophrenic.
1. Clarification.
That being standardized wordings and ensuring like abilities work similarly.
Examples: Uniform descriptions for Bleed, Unform description of "Arrow Deflection", when a free action can be taken, how pathfinder interprets 10ft Reach diagonals, Attack Actions etc.
2. Simplification.
Some feats need condensing: Example - roll the Vital Strike feat chain into a scaling feat.
3. Overhauling
Overhaul of the crafing system, descriptions of where to procure "raw materials"
For me, there are two things
1.) I want Charisma to be consistently and clearly defined. Currently, Charisma represents genetics (Sorcerer bloodlines), access to otherworldly power (turn undead), undefined ability (UMD), NOT social skill (the Witch's base skill, despite having her power come from her being a consort, is Int, not Cha), etc.
2.) I want race to be better defined. Right now, if you're human with an elven ancestor, then you are 1/2 Elf (a Race), but if you're human with a dragon ancestor, then you are a Sorcerer (a Class), or have your race reflected with a feat (Eldritch heritage). I want one game mechanic to reflect race, not an open-ended set of game mechanics (race, class, feat, what's next?)
what would you like to see in a 1.5 version?
Get rid of attacks of opportunity and ranged touch attacks!
I don't see the problem with magical items. If you don't want the players to have any item they want at any time, just don't give them to them. What is at stock in stores is only decided by the GM.
If they have too much money, give them less of it.
The new item creation rules are a different thing though, as in PF an Item Creation feat allows you to duplicate any amount of wealth if you take the time.
And Prestige Classes don't need to be removed from the game. You only have to not add them to your campaign. Same goes for all other classes.
What's been discussed here isn't really a new edition, though. It's just cleaning up the mess that's in the existing edition.I want new editions to return to integers.
A new edition does not have to mean a new game.
I would be overwhelmingly happy with a "cleanup and compilation" of the material that we've seen so far in the first edition. Maybe a slightly more flexible system for archetypes that wasn't all-or-nothing.
But we still have a few more big fish to fry — for me, the krufty treasure system is chief among them.
They should finish tuning everything up, then compile it, and call it "Revised" or "2nd Edition".
But it IS a new edition - and software minor/major revision numbers shouldn't apply to RPG books. It was moronic bandwagon hype when they released 3.5 as revision number.
There's absolutely no reason that 3.5 couldn't have been sold as "4th Edition" and maintain the compatibility that it has with 3E.
Conversely, if Paizo were to perform a "clean-up" that you envision as "1.5", they could call it "Pathfinder 2nd Edition" and get back to how things used to be.
Shadowrun, for example, sure seems to be pretty compatible between 1E/2E/3E. Can't speak to 4E, but I'm able to easily take stuff between the first three editions.
I've got a set of 1992 World Book Encyclopedias on my shelf. They're newer than the 1991 edition, and older than the 1993 edition.
They didn't change the content of the articles with each edition, they just updated them. I'm sure if I had a set of 2011/2012 World Books, a large majority of the articles would be pretty much the same.
I think people would have far less of an issue with new editions if the powers that be would stop treating a new edition as a reason to make major changes, and instead, just let things evolve.
I've got four different editions of Pathfinder on my shelf, Paizo just refers to them as "printings".
What's been discussed here isn't really a new edition, though. It's just cleaning up the mess that's in the existing edition.I want new editions to return to integers.
A new edition does not have to mean a new game.
I would be overwhelmingly happy with a "cleanup and compilation" of the material that we've seen so far in the first edition. Maybe a slightly more flexible system for archetypes that wasn't all-or-nothing.
But we still have a few more big fish to fry — for me, the krufty treasure system is chief among them.
They should finish tuning everything up, then compile it, and call it "Revised" or "2nd Edition".
But it IS a new edition - and software minor/major revision numbers shouldn't apply to RPG books. It was moronic bandwagon hype when they released 3.5 as revision number.
There's absolutely no reason that 3.5 couldn't have been sold as "4th Edition" and maintain the compatibility that it has with 3E.
Conversely, if Paizo were to perform a "clean-up" that you envision as "1.5", they could call it "Pathfinder 2nd Edition" and get back to how things used to be.
Shadowrun, for example, sure seems to be pretty compatible between 1E/2E/3E. Can't speak to 4E, but I'm able to easily take stuff between the first three editions.
I've got a set of 1992 World Book Encyclopedias on my shelf. They're newer than the 1991 edition, and older than the 1993 edition.
They didn't change the content of the articles with each edition, they just updated them. I'm sure if I had a set of 2011/2012 World Books, a large majority of the articles would be pretty much the same.
I think people would have far less of an issue with new editions if the powers that be would stop treating a new edition as a reason to make major changes, and instead, just let things evolve.
I've got four different editions of Pathfinder on my shelf, Paizo just refers to them as "printings".
LT is mainly interested in policing the thread and bullying posters to agree with him or not post at all. Fine. He can have an echo chamber if he wants.
