I have played a ton of mtg, so the main things that bother me from Pathfinder is the lack of structure in the rules and game balance issues.
About six to eight years in, Magic did a huge overhaul with its 6th edition. They cut out a bunch of the useless rules and more importantly a bunch of the rules that caused a ton of complication and confusion for newer players. They made all the rules use the same logic and timing so that you could for the most part apply the core concept of the rules of the game to almost any given situation and the proper thing would happen.
I think PFRPG is in major need of this. Even the designers aren't able to apply the rules in a logical manner. Check out how many mistakes there are in the Bestiarys that come out. I don't think these are just typos and I also don't think they are purely the designers fault. You would need considerable math skill and a near flawless attention to detail to apply all the adjustments and corner cases that go into monsters. I honestly applaud that it hasn't been entirely scrapped yet. The basic mechanical logic behind the game is one of the things that makes PF/3.5 so awesome as a system. I just think the mechanical logic has gotten a bit too convoluted.
A lot of the people who know all the rules and the loopholes don't care about this as much. In fact they want the complexity because it makes them feel like they are better at the game. And they are. Many of the best magic players in the world hated the 6th edition rules change too. They were beating tons of opponents who didn't realize were there was an odd and often illogical rule or didn't understand how the timing worked.
Specifically, the first few fire I would like to see put out is a larger integration of CMB and regular combat. They feel like two different combat systems right now and they shouldn't. CMB feels very tacked on in the CRB. They often forget to even mention it when they clearly should.
The other area that consistently bothers me is game balance. The core problem of game balance is the attributes.
To start out, Strength is way too good. You can't effectively melee without making it your primary stat. It makes melee very one dimensional. It makes classes that should be centered around dexterity or other attributes end up just better if you just max out strength instead (I'm looking at you monk and rogue). I realize that this is how the world has been since the gods first gave us fire. I still think it sucks. I should be able to make an effective fighter that isn't muscle from head to toe. That concept is laughable in the current system. You can also argue that something has to be the best and I agree with you, I just think it can all be a little bit closer.
Strength also doesn't makes sense in regards to weapon damage to me. Namely that all weapons benefit the same from high strength. Slashing weapons make sense, but there is only so hard that you can stab somebody with a rapier or dagger.
The other problem is single attribute classes like Wizard and Sorcerer. I have a problem with any part of character creation where the ideal strategy is to max out one ability score as much as possible. It just way too easy. The game should be more intricate than that. It goes deeper than that with the magic using classes because in my experience it actually breaks the game, since with a 20 int and spell focus, the average enemy needs to roll upwards of a 15 to save. One idea I have is to make spell dcs based off the attribute used to save against them. So the dexterous mage is better with reflex spells and the wise mage is better with will spells.
The spells aren't balanced very well either. I don't understand how Glitterdust is a 2nd level spell when it single-handedly defeats every enemy that fails its save. Why are they getting an effective mass save or die this early.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my fantasy world where I'm a trillionare and can socially engineer the RPG world to my whim, I'd envision a landscape where everyone would have a tablet computer and there were no more books. The PDFs and SRD would be a "living document" that would receive regular updates much the way software gets patched, and thus would continue the 3.61, 3.69... and so on updates. When a new update occurs everyone is alerted to the update and then they can grab it at their leisure via a download.
There would be a rules governing body that would oversee the updates, with various sub-committees that would focus on various problematic areas of the rules, or a committee focused just on cleaning up terminology, etc.
A software modeling program would be written up where any combination of combats could be modeled, and run millions of times so that clean and precise data could emerge that would show the statistical trends of various combinations and reveal what is truly overpowered and what is not. From that data adjustments could be experimented with until the sweet spot is found within a range of play variance.
Every few years the governing body would survey the player base to get their feedback on what works, what doesn't and where the system ought to evolve. This rules council would then take the player input and sift through it and then create an agenda of rule changes that the council would then vote on. This would be conducted somewhat like the US Supreme Court, where for each vote assenting and dissenting opinions would be written up explaining the rationale on the changes. That way a body of rationale would be available to the public. Perhaps an evolution might emerge, but it just has not gained enough sway yet within the larger gaming community, but over more cycles a dissenting opinion eventually alters into an assenting rule change.
God, no. I have no desire to have some faceless internet based mobocracy changing the rules constantly. In something as complax as a paper and pencil RPG just downloading the changes wouldn't do squat to help you implement a constant stream of changes. You could "freeze" your game at some point (and listen to your players whine about not having the latest "fix" / update) or just go old school paper. I like having a professional development team, closed and open playtests and talented amateurs popping up with ideas. That works for me. I don't use or agree with every decision they make but the "slow pace" of paper and pencil gaming allows me to adapt as I wish.
I have played a ton of mtg, so the main things that bother me from Pathfinder is the lack of structure in the rules and game balance issues.
*snip*
While I understand what you're complaining about comparing MtG to PF is like comparing a tinkertoy to a Ferrari in terms of complexity. Then there's the issue of backward compatibility with 3.5 which locked in some of what you are complaining about.
Well, what I didn't really convey is that the council didn't have to accept anything in the cycle. It would just be a way to crowdsource new ideas that help perfect the game. If nothing worthy comes up then it doesn't get put up for consideration.The other thing in my dream world is that this would be a foundation would a huge endownment, so profit has no consideration in the rules. It would just be this institution that persists over time regardless of the marketplace, even to the point that the hobby itself dies and there is just this paid council that continues on long after anyone bothers to play anymore.
I still prefer it the way it is although an MMO run by your method would probably stay interesting. You're write up reminds me of software development and as such sounds more in tune with a CRPG.
|
I still prefer it the way it is although an MMO run by your method would probably stay interesting. You're write up reminds me of software development and as such sounds more in tune with a CRPG.
Well, what I didn't really convey is that the council didn't have to accept anything in the cycle. It would just be a way to crowdsource new ideas that help perfect the game. If nothing worthy comes up then it doesn't get put up for consideration.The other thing in my dream world is that this would be a foundation would a huge endownment, so profit has no consideration in the rules. It would just be this institution that persists over time regardless of the marketplace, even to the point that the hobby itself dies and there is just this paid council that continues on long after anyone bothers to play anymore.
It wouldn't stay interesting, it would stay absolutely frelling horrible. It would quickly devolve into a torturous system that would make people long for the simplicity of a game of FATAL.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I understand what you're complaining about comparing MtG to PF is like comparing a tinkertoy to a Ferrari in terms of complexity. Then there's the issue of backward compatibility with 3.5 which locked in some of what you are complaining about.
Hahahaha. Read the Magic the Gathering comprehensive rules sometime. :D
I would like to see a shift away from the the versatility of casters vs. non-casters. Instead of spells negating the need for skills, I'd like to see them enhance skills, but still require that skill.
Climbing for example. A 2nd level spell (Spider Climb) quickly makes Climbing less useful. Instead of spider climb granting a climb speed and allowing you to cling to walls and ceilings, what if it gave a +10 bonus to Climb checks, and allows you to make Climb checks on surfaces you normally couldn't?
Instead of knock opening a lock automatically, it required a Disable Device check, and simply gave a substantial bonus to it? Not enough that a 1st level wizard with 0 ranks could open locks easily, but so that the rogue with rank, class skill bonus and a +3 or 4 Dexterity can.
Also, bring martial and caster into parity with each other in regards to action economy. When a caster can slam the lid on an encounter with a single standard action, and a fighter can't even properly dish out his damage with a standard action... there's a problem. Make concentration checks happen, increase casting times for spells to make them go over 1 round, perhaps on a sliding scale that makes lower level spells quicker to get off, but higher level ones take longer.
The wizard can cast his wish spells, his baleful polymorph etc, but let my fighter have a chance to stop him. And let my rogue have a chance to undo a lock before the wizard points his finger at it and unlocks it automatically.
How about getting rid of those spells altogether? No knock, no spider climb, etc. I would keep Invisibility because I don't think that Invisbility steals Stealth's thunder (there are too many ways that negate Invisibility that don't apply to Stealth).
On the other hand, I'd make the basic anti-magic spells accessible with skills. For example, Knowledge (Magic) can create the effects of Detect Magic and Dispel Magic - so, a non-spellcaster who hunts spellcasters can nerf their spellcasting. Likewise, Knowledge (Religion) can create a Prot-Evil effect.
I like some of those spells, since Spider Climb allows you to do things Climb doesn't... it just shouldn't also make Climb superfluous.
That's an interesting idea... though I'm not sure I can get my head around how that actually works. I would be more interested in buffing yourself via knowledge. Make a knowledge arcana (for example)check as an immediate action to gain a slight bonus to your saves. Call it DC = 10 + spell level + caster casting modifier. If you make it, you identify the spell itself and gain a +(insert balanced scaling number here) bonus to your save against that spell. Make DC-5, you identify the school and you get a +(insert lower balanced scaling number here) bonus against that school. Other knowledges should work that way, giving slight buffs to attack and defense.
Speaking of skills... cleaning those up again would be nice. Throw jump in with climb and swim, call it athletics, based on strength. Clear up what the other skills can do, fix craft and give profession some synergy with other skills. Make stealth better.
Definition of WHINE
intransitive verb
1
a : when someone else is talking
That's an interesting idea... though I'm not sure I can get my head around how that actually works.If he makes Knowledge (Arcane) roll to get the Dispel Magic effect, then he can attempt to counterspell.
I think we'd need to redo character sheets too... keep things from bogging down with extra rolls. I'm all for more dynamism in combat, but not at the expense of swiftness.
I know at my tables, a buff goes out and we waste several extra minutes per combat figuring bonuses. Maybe I can make a sheet that helps with that...
|
I'm not looking for a Pathfinder 2e yet, but a bit of a revision would be nice.
I want to see it be mostly a cleanup of what they have, with minor tweaks. Ideally, all our old pathfinder stuff should be compatible, and we just need to replace the core book.
Specific Changes I'd like:
0: Most importantly: Compatibility with existing Pathfinder Material.
1. Combat should support mobility. One thing I hated in 3.0, 3.5, and PFRPG (I have all three on my shelf) is the whole "I stand and Full attack". Add in alternate options that don't waste my feats, that are available to anyone with BAB high enough. So I can move and attack, and my damage still scales appropriately by level.
2. Comb through the feats, combine/boost the crappy feats. make _ALL_ your feats scale with your level appropriately, instead of forcing the player to waste more feats to get them to scale properly. Likely one of the bigger overhauls. Try to make all the options competitive. They intentionally threw in crappy options in 3.0, and they're still around. monte cook acknowledged it was a bad idea, and I'd like to see pathfinder do away with them. Make the bad options be worth taking.
3. Give a class saves bonus (+2) and then use fractional saves and bab for everything, instead of the system now with lots of rounding and stacking when you multiclass. this way you add the class save bonus once (if applicable) add up your fractional saves, and then round down at the end. Explain how to derive the number and progression from any existing classes (its really a simple pattern, but with a +2 to good saves..).
4. An option that drops the "big 6" from your games entirely, so you dont need the numbers support, so we can use interesting magic items, instead of just whichever one has the biggest bonus. This thread is the best I've seen, but I'd like to have flaming enhancements and such stay on the weapon, but you wouldn't need the +1 anymore to enchant it, just a masterwork weapon, and you'd be limited in the number of named bonuses you can use by the number you have as your built in enhancement bonus.
5. Removal of any mention of appearance in Charisma. Just say straight up its force of personality and innate ability to deal with others and socialize.
5b. Removal of CHA as a dump stat. My method may not be the most effective way, but it serves as an example (and illustrates the above): Will saves come from CHA. Subtract 2 from number of class skills (minimum 2). New skills = class number + intmod + wismod (dwarves have a flat +4 on sill saves to compensate for the -4 they would have just gotten). Come up with something to increase the need of CHA across the boardd, not just for spontaneous casters.
6. Don't go back to 3.0 weapon damage (I dont like saying categories of weapon are banned for different sizes) - but fix the table. The pattern for small/medium creatures is that max damage increases by +2 each time the weapon goes up a category. The pattern disappears at the top, and we get things like tacking on extra dice or raising the die types on multiple dice. It makes creatures of other sizes practically unplayable, even barring any other considerations like reach, and that just doesnt sit well with me. I know players who want to play a minotaur or an ogre or what have you, or something smaller than small, and I'd like to have those things as options, cause theyre cool.
7. For the base classes?
I agree with the notion of re-aligning the spine. Run the numbers, and adjust damage to scale more appropriately by level across the classes where it should happen. Make TWF closer to the same power range (taking into account magic item and feat cost) as THF, make the things that look like effective combat options actually be effective combat options. If you are making blastey mages, make the damage scale appropriately. a single target damage spell that takes a full round action to cast should be in the same general area as a bow fighter without the focus feats, of appropriate level, full attacking with the bow.
8. Do something similar with the weapons. If a weapons is only usable once/round, it should be priced as a disposable, and enhancement bonuses should be cheaper as well. Because realistically, I need to have 10 of them per combat at level 6, when I get my second attack. (unless "load my ranged weapons and then hand them to me when I need them" is a valid trick for animals, in which case say so, and I'll have a team of highly trained monkeys follow me around; and in that case I only need 2-4 of the weapon).
What would you like to see in a 1.5 version?The number '2'.
I almost tried to + this twice, then I realized that doesn't work.
While I understand what you're complaining about comparing MtG to PF is like comparing a tinkertoy to a Ferrari in terms of complexity. Then there's the issue of backward compatibility with 3.5 which locked in some of what you are complaining about.Hahahaha. Read the Magic the Gathering comprehensive rules sometime. :D
I have. Those comprehensive rules have been getting worse with the subsequent editions since around 8th edition or so. Recently they ditched mana burn and capped maximum life. This made me sad, and at the same time makes me glad I dont play in tournaments. It also means I need to make sure in advance the other guy understands that if I'm playing its with no life caps and mana burn stays.
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?
Charisma in Pathfinder (and other d20 rules) has nothing to do with whether or not you have a Sorcerer Bloodline, or access to otherworldly power, or undefined ability. There is no minimum Charisma required to be a Cleric, or attempt a UMD check, or even to be a Sorcerer.
Charisma represents your presence and personal magnetism as a reflection (or symptom, if you will) of your innate sense of self, and your inherent ability to impose your will (supernaturally) over 'otherworldly powers'.
The question is, why do we need a 1.5 when we've got D&D 4.0? That is plenty of change if you ask me. The current verion of Pathfinder is actually equivalent to 3.75.
This is one of my pet peeves. Calling Pathfinder "3.75" is both inaccurate and presumptuous. Innaccurate because Pathfinder is not D%D, that IP is owned by WOTC. Presumptuous because Paizo is not the only post 3.5 game system built from the SRD. Mutants and Mastermind, TrueD20, and others all are equally valid as evolutionary children of the original SRD.
I wasn't happy when Paizo was using terms like "3.5 lives" either, but they've stopped doing that.
It may be technically inaccurate, but Paizo is a direct spinoff of the periodicals department of WotC, when they came into being to run Dragon and Dungeon magazines. They soon built up their own excellent product line in the AP series (damn good thing too; when you partner with WotC, always have an escape route). When WotC said "yeah...these are ours" and yanked Dragon/Dungeon, Paizo had to fend for themselves, and they have done so admirably. When WotC said "yeah...3.5 is over", Paizo had to make a choice; switch to icky, or continue to support 3.5. Which they did, of course.
Pathfinder is not just a "reconstruction" of 3.5. It is an almost verbatim copy of the SRD, plus tweaks. Probably over 90% of the rules text in the Core Rulebook is this way.
Finally, Mutants and Masterminds, True20, etc. don't have the exact same lineup of 11 Core classes from D&D 3.x in their rules. Pathfinder does.
It is 3.75 in the ways that matter.
Oh, and.....3.5 LIVES!!!