| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
9. Bloodied.
10. Some way for solitary, powerful enemies to have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
|
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
9. Bloodied.
I like 1-2, 3 is too much of a change for me i thinks, 4-7 would be nice, 8 is one of the things I dislike with 4e, and 9 is slipping out of my head been to long since I opened my 4e books.
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
9. Bloodied.
10. "Solo" monsters that have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
I too think the solo and minion types of enemies are a really good feature of 4th edition. I'm less enamored of the bloodied concept though - I'm afraid in our games it leads to a certain level of metagaming and calculation of 'approximate hit points'. I like the idea of combatants going through differing stages through a combat as they get more or less wounded, but find the implementation in 4th edition to be a little too much like "keeping score" for me.
I like 1-2, 3 is too much of a change for me i thinks, 4-7 would be nice, 8 is one of the things I dislike with 4e, and 9 is slipping out of my head been to long since I opened my 4e books.1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
9. Bloodied.
Yeah, I figured some of the later items might rub some folks the wrong way. I wasn't a fan of "mook" rules until I saw how Savage Worlds does it (pretty much everyone defaults to "mook"), but I get not loving it.
Bloodied just meant half hit points. I liked it because it was used to trigger or unlock certain abilities, which was just kinda neat.
I too think the solo and minion types of enemies are a really good feature of 4th edition. I'm less enamored of the bloodied concept though - I'm afraid in our games it leads to a certain level of metagaming and calculation of 'approximate hit points'. I like the idea of combatants going through differing stages through a combat as they get more or less wounded, but find the implementation in 4th edition to be a little too much like "keeping score" for me.
I can see that. And I could totally live with it. I really, really want #1, however. To me, it's the key to fixing the "full-attack" conundrum. Of course, I probably should have listed that separately. :)
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Is #1 more than making the action a little more obvious in the text (e.g., just like abilities now note in parens if they are supernatural/extraordinary/etc, they would also note if they were a free/swift/move/standard action), or is there more to it than that? It seems like PFRPG already has the same set of actions as 4e, it's just a little more difficult to locate in the text.
I like the 4e way of handling the 5' move, which I think requires a move action but does not provoke an AoO. I also like that charging is easier in 4e (you can charge through enemies and over difficult terrain).
The fixed hp and stat points I like in theory, but, for whatever reason, it doesn't feel like D&D to me if I'm not rolling those...
Is #1 more than making the action a little more obvious in the text (e.g., just like abilities now note in parens if they are supernatural/extraordinary/etc, they would also note if they were a free/swift/move/standard action), or is there more to it than that? It seems like PFRPG already has the same set of actions as 4e, it's just a little more difficult to locate in the text.
I like the 4e way of handling the 5' move, which I think requires a move action but does not provoke an AoO. I also like that charging is easier in 4e (you can charge through enemies and over difficult terrain).
The fixed hp and stat points I like in theory, but, for whatever reason, it doesn't feel like D&D to me if I'm not rolling those...
It's close. So while presentation is a big part of it, the ability to "downgrade" actions is absent, or at least not as consistent, in PF. Having it codified and consistent allows for the elimination of fiddly bits like "you may take a 5' step...but only if you haven't otherwise moved this round."
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
Also, power layout. Not necessarily identical, but the 4e layout (especially that of the CB) is just so much easier to quickly parse and get an overview of what something does compared to the often very convoluted and unclear 3.5/PF rule text.
I play with people without a lot of experience in TTRPGs or 4e, and looking at a power and being able to tell them all they need to know within 5 seconds is amazing.
Compare this to 3.5 spell descriptions, the infamous grapple rules or even most (ex) and (su) abilites. PF makes this even worse, in that most classes now have their own special power points with associated powers, all hidden in paragraphs over paragraphs of ruletext.
And lets not forget the simple monster creation and leveling, and all 'mechanical' DM prep. For me, this is the thing I think 4e does best, and is the biggest step forward compared to 3.5.
Anyway - we'll see in a year or two. With the APG (PHB2), Ultimates (->Complete X) and Advanced Race Guide next year (->Races of ... ), the PF ruleset will be in a similar situation as 3.5 was in 2007.
|
Is #1 more than making the action a little more obvious in the text (e.g., just like abilities now note in parens if they are supernatural/extraordinary/etc, they would also note if they were a free/swift/move/standard action), or is there more to it than that? It seems like PFRPG already has the same set of actions as 4e, it's just a little more difficult to locate in the text.
Unless otherwise noted, a special attack or ability requires a standard action, with an aura of constant effect being an apparent exception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF makes this even worse, in that most classes now have their own special power points with associated powers, all hidden in paragraphs over paragraphs or ruletext.
Now, now, let's stay well out of edition war territory. Can we focus on what you like about 4E, rather than what you don't like about PF?
I personally want an unholy amalgamation of the two, with a dash of Savage Worlds. I can dream, right? :)
PF makes this even worse, in that most classes now have their own special power points with associated powers, all hidden in paragraphs over paragraphs or ruletext.Now, now, let's stay well out of edition war territory. Can we focus on what you like about 4E, rather than what you don't like about PF?
I personally want an unholy amalgamation of the two, with a dash of Savage Worlds. I can dream, right? :)
Sure, edition warring isn't my intention. Don't want any misunderstanding on that. What I meant with that was that one of the great advantages of 3.5 and 4e over older editions is that they unified many mechanics into a small set of basic mechanics. This is something I would also wish for PF 2E.
But back to the other point - the layout is important. It makes the game more accessible and quicker, prevents having to look up rules, or at least making them quicker.
But the layout is important. It makes the game more accessible and quicker, prevents having to look up rules, or at least making them quicker.
100% agree. As I've stated elsewhere, I think the CRB could be significantly improved by a rewrite and a new layout, even if all the actual rules were untouched.
I can see that. And I could totally live with it. I really, really want #1, however. To me, it's the key to fixing the "full-attack" conundrum. Of course, I probably should have listed that separately. :)
I dont know how unbalancing it is (these things dont bother us), but my PF houserule is just to allow the use of iterative attacks as a standard action. I also use the 'shift' action rather than the 5' step.
It makes melee classes better, but I'm not particularly concerned that they are going to be outshining the spellcaster types.
I dont know how unbalancing it is (these things dont bother us), but my PF houserule is just to allow the use of iterative attacks as a standard action. I also use the 'shift' action rather than the 5' step.
Yeah, improved wording is another one. Shift instead of 5' step, as you mentioned, or 'Combat advantage' instead of "has a dexterity bonus to AC (if any)".
9. Bloodied.
The only two things I really like from 4e are bloodied and triggered abilities, both of which I have incorporated into my campaign, usually in conjunction with one another.
I've even created an ability called Bloodlust, which is possessed by everyone in the campaign, but mostly benefits PC. For every creature you make bloodied you have a 20% chance of triggering a Bloodlust state, which grants +2 to attack and -2 to AC. For every creature slain, the chance increases by 20%. Once in a Bloodlust state, every addition creature bloodied or slain increases the bonuses and penalties by 2.
I wouldn't mind seeing Attack of Opportunity become less of a mouthful. "Free Strike" maybe.
I also wouldn't mind some disambiguation around the "attack action" as inspired by the Great Vital Strike Conundrum. I would use the word "strike" to represent actual attack sand leave "Attack" as the action. Therefore, a sixth level fighter would "attack" with two "strikes".
Maybe replace "full attack" with "all-out attack". Just using natural language is by far the best way to make these rules clauses easy to read.
It might be too late for this kind of change, since having two historical different names for the same thing can undermine clarity, too.
(I just realized I know little or nothing about 4e, I was just riffing on improvements to PF terminology. Apologies for the off-topic post).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is funny, because when I found pathfinder I was like "It's everything 4th Edition should've been!"
In 4th Edition all the races got +2 to two ability scores with no penalties, except humans. In Pathfinder all races get a +2 to two abilities and -2 to one, except humans,and half-humans. I prefer the pathfinder race rules.
In 4th edition all the classes have these ridiculous powers, the amount of paper work required is absurd, and every character you build feels like it could've been built by a noob who just watched Lord of the Rings for the first time. In pathfinder, the class abilities are significantly better than in 3.5 but there are enough options and versatility that the choices you make actually help to define the character.
All this being said, I appreciate what 4th edition is trying to do (and Dark Sun is the bee's knees) but, it's not the mechanics of 4th edition that make it good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 4th edition all the classes have these ridiculous powers, the amount of paper work required is absurd
Adding actual facts to your statements might make them look less like edition warring.
and every character you build feels like it could've been built by a noob who just watched Lord of the Rings for the first time.
In my experience, newbie players have a hard time building a character in PF. So you think that's a good thing?
I don't agree, at all. Accessibility is a plus.
it's not the mechanics of 4th edition that make it good.
That's a very inflammatory statement. I disagree. The mechanics are part of what makes 4E good. And the mechanics were part of what made 3.5 good. But anyway, this thread is about the strengths of 4e, and how they might benefit PF.
I have another addition: no skill ranks. This prevents situations where one character has +18 on a skill while another has -2...the whole range of the d20. Or if you have skill ranks, they should be capped, at most at half of the RNG range, but probably below that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize for my inflammatory remarks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have another addition: no skill ranks. This prevents situations where one character has +18 on a skill while another has -2...the whole range of the d20. Or if you have skill ranks, they should be capped, at most at half of the RNG range, but probably below that.
I'm not a big fan of this. Why should being a great Wizard be good at riding horses, climbing walls, and weaving baskets? Skill ranks allow you to emphasize or de-emphasize skills to the extent you want. Now that PF has gotten rid of the 1/2 rank garbage, I see no reason to scrap the system.
In response to the original points, I like 1, 4-7, and 9. I like 2 as an option, but don't see it as a major improvement going one way or the other on it. 3 seems like it would make spellcasting excessively granular (Okay, which of the 2 level 17 bard spells do you want?).
I really, really dislike 8 and 10, however. One of the biggest things I prefer in 3.X over 4e is that everyone plays by the same rules. A mook is just a creature that is weak in comparison to your level, not an inherently different entity. The same goes for bosses. The distinctions 4e made between these, as well as between PC and NPC, are not things I would like to see replicated.
|
|
I like the minion rules and the addition of roles being included in the monster descriptions makes building diverse encounter types easier (minor change for a quality of life improvement). The minions allows me to add in followers and trivial npc's to combats while still making them somewhat effective at actually threatening the players. A legion of zombies is worthless against a 7-10th level fighter or rogue or well armored wizard...but 10 4th ed minions could actually DO something.
I also like the flat hp amounts per level and may start having my players use the PFS rules for hp. I would prefer hitpoints not to be such a wide swing from one person to the next. I have seen the minimum hitpoint wizard(rolled one on all hp die until 3-4th level with a 10-12 con) and the max hit point barbarian. You can even end up in situations where your tank is less effective at tanking than your rogue.
It feels like there was another point I wanted to make, but my mind has wandered.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
Maybe, but no big deal...
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
Nah, better to leave it random, if a player is getting really bad roles a dm can help out. Adds flavor to the game
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
Hell no, dnd has been using that system for a long time no, there is no need to move to the dumbed down 4th edition version cause people can't count
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
I don't see to much of a problem. there are tables that list things. I assume you mean a better list, if so why not?
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
no thanks
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
nope, rolling MUCH better
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
This is probably impossible. I am sure they tried this already but failed.
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
EWWWWWWWWWW, hell no.
9. Bloodied.
explain this rule?
10. Some way for solitary, powerful enemies to have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
Just create a monster with a SU ability that grants an extra action per round. Pathfinder is more than capable of doing this and alot more with its monsters. Make some stuff your self and use that
Lets keep 4th edition as far away from pathfinder as we can shall we? We don't wanna go down that road like wizards did. *shudder*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmmm...apparently some of you are under the impression that this is (yet another) thread that would be a good place to bash 4E and/or WotC. Check at the door, please.
I'm specifically interested in things people liked about 4E and think would be a good addition to Pathfinder. Posting about how terrible 4E, etc., etc. is off topic. Please go make your own thread (or use one of the many, many others that are devoted to this purpose).
I apologize for my inflammatory remarks.
Appreciated...thanks.
Sounds like a lot of major changes to the point that it would not be Pathfinder anymore. Why not just keep playing 4 Ed?
Yes, just like D&D 3.0 was not AD&D 2nd Edition anymore...inspiring millions of people to take up RPGs or come back to the hobby. The clever changes and unification of mechanics caused a revolution in D&D, and 3.5 was a minor step along the same evolutionary path. That's what I wanted from 4E.....didn't get it. So, that's what I want from PF 2e...someday....
SO!
I agree with all the points of the OP with the possible exception of 8 and 10. I'm not afraid of minion and boss rules per se (I would execute them differently), but I tend to agree with Mort in principle (i.e. everyone/thing should play by the same rules).
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
9. Bloodied.
10. Some way for solitary, powerful enemies to have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
1. Been too long since I've played 4e, so I'm not sure what this means.
2&6. Pointless. There is little difference between random with the option for non-random and non-random with the option for random.
3. Messy and you lose some of the connection with the previous editions of D&D. Much harder to just pull out an AD&D module and run it.
4. It would be nice to have a short list that is easy to memorize.
5. Probably not in core, but yes.
7. Always a challenge with rules.
8. Horrible concept that required way too much suspension of disbelief. I would hate to see mooks wasting space in a bestiary. Four paragraphs in the DMG of Bestiary on how to create your own mooks would be more than sufficient.
9. Nice concept with lots of potential.
10. Yes, if it can be done is such a way that when the same creature is encountered in a group 4 levels later, it still acts as the same creature.
I apologize for my inflammatory remarks.
*blink blink*
Whoah.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Is #1 more than making the action a little more obvious in the text (e.g., just like abilities now note in parens if they are supernatural/extraordinary/etc, they would also note if they were a free/swift/move/standard action), or is there more to it than that? It seems like PFRPG already has the same set of actions as 4e, it's just a little more difficult to locate in the text.Unless otherwise noted, a special attack or ability requires a standard action, with an aura of constant effect being an apparent exception.
Right, but that doesn't really help because you still need to read the ability to see if it uses a different type of action. I wouldn't want to see the full stat block like 4e uses for every power, but identifying the type of action required would be very useful (just like having su/ex/sa is very helpful).
|
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
9. Bloodied.
10. Some way for solitary, powerful enemies to have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
Bugleman, Well a couple of years ago, I found a fork in the road. I had a choice. I found 4E not to to be my cup of tea, so I took the Pathfidner fork. Now I am sure there are plenty of people who enjoy both systems. And some that prefer 4E over Pathfinder.
While I am sure some of these ideas will be easy enough to incorporate into a home game, some of these things I would prefer not to find in my Pathfinder game. I would prefer Pathfinder to remain distinct from 4.0 D&D.
1) I find the Free, Swift, a Standard action, and a Move action to be fairly clear, but then that may be simply due to familiarity.
2. Fixed hit point progression: While I think fixed hit point progression works great in organized play. I think to have it as the base line, takes away some of the fun of leveling your character. There is something exciting about rolling dice
3. Well 4E decided to try something different. They implemented a different system from the vancian spell casting system, and paired spells with levels.
I happen to prefer, for all of its faults, the Vancian spell casting system….and well, for quite a long time a wizard got 2nd level spells at 3rd level, 3rd level spells at fith level, so on and so forth. It has been that way for a long time, and I am comfortable with it. It also provides bench marks….yeah 5th level= fire ball etc.
4) I will have to admit it isn’t something I think about very much.
5) While I think a “warlord” or a “marshal” was probably closed content, I am sure with very little effort you could convert a “Marshal” to Pathfinder rules.
6) Again I prefer a variety. Now I can see the advantage of having a point buy system in an “organized “ play environment, where you want to make sure everyone has an even start. However in a home game, I much prefer rolling the dice. I find its much more exciting. Also one of the real weakness of a point buy system, is that it favores a class which is dependant on one ability score over a class that might need multiple ability scores to function. So in short, while I would like a point buy system to be available,, I certainly wouldn’t not want it to be the default. I like rolling my dice. I would prefer the dice rolling methods to remain the default.
7) on this I think we can agree…it would be nice if everything was spelled out specifically, but then again it is fun to interpet things.
8) Well I will admit the Mook things are one thing I have taken back into pathfinder. I simpy give the monsters 1 hit point. Then I call them a mook….or if they have several hit dice, I simply assume they have all rolled 1s.
9) while I admit it can be a little ridiculous to have a minotaur fight just as ferociously at 2 hit points as he does at 20 hit points, noting when the Minotaure drops below 10 hit points, is just one more thing for me to keep track of.
10) well I guess we are talking about the “action” economy. I will admit I would prefer some of my monsters to last longer, I am not sure how to give them more actions. I do if I want a monster to last, give it more it points, to make sure it survives more then a round or 2
just my two cents
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
9. Bloodied.
10. Some way for solitary, powerful enemies to have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
I don't think 4e did that much of an improvement on making actions simpler, though I do like the idea of trading down actions to an extent.
As for 2 and 6, I'm with those that say leave it as is. You have the options for both in PF and most organized play (and many GM's) use these anyway.
3 is only that way in 4e because everyone gets their powers at the same level, personally I'm not a huge fan of that. I like the idea of different classes progressing somewhat differently and with different focuses, and with the use of tables getting your 2nd level spells at 3rd level is not hard to understand.
For number 4, we can have someone write up that list.
5 I totally agree with. I love the idea behind the 4e warlord (even if I don't love 4e). I even like that they made it either INT or CHA based, rather than just one.
Number 7, obviously I can't complain about, but I feel PF did a nice improvement over 3.5 in this respect. Example: CMB and CMD. Makes things really nice to have all maneuvers combined in two scores.
Number 8 doesn't really fit with the way monsters are set up in PF. However, it is very easy to houserule.
For 9, I thought bloodied was somewhat interesting as a concept, but I don't think it was a huge innovation.
And for 10, I'm with Mort. The distinction between NPC and PC should be only who is controlling them, not what they are inherently capable of.
|
|
I don't know where a lot of this is coming from honestly. There are clearly defined action types, you can take a move action as a standard action, you don't have to roll for hit points (We haven't since like 3.0 in our group?) and can use any term when your at roughly half HP (I favor good old "hurt" over "bloodied") and there are plenty of options for "mooks" and "minions" by just putting in weaker less well equipped people into the combat.
What do we have that provokes? Ranged attacks, moving out of threatened squares, activating some magic items, using a few skills and casting spells. We've got Paladins and Cavaliers to be knight/leaser type classes.
I don't really see anything on this list that really improves on anything personally. Sorry.
Some nice suggestions.
I like the rules for Minions and would like to see what a Paizo dev would do to implement this into PF - but, as has been said, I find it easy to houserule it.
Bloodied is a nice concept. A PC/NPC is bloodied as soon as it has lost more than half of its hitpoints. Certain spells and abilities work better or only against bloodied targets. Can make the game more deadly but also a bit more tactical with minimal bookkeeping needed.
The Warlord for me could be done as a Cavalier archetype, the teamwork feats already make him some sort of Warlord.
Everything else I don't see as a problem.
And I am adamantly against "dumbing" down the rulestext of spells and abilities to contain only the needed game mechanics and, in turn, stripping the RPG of most of it RP in the process. If you want this, you should consider 4e...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I did like about 4E flavor-wise was how the Marshal could heal party members:
"GET UP YOU WEAKLING! I'LL GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO FALL DOWN OVER!"
awesome. Never been a big fan of "faith healing" though.
One thing I did like about 4E flavor-wise was how the Marshal could heal party members:
"GET UP YOU WEAKLING! I'LL GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO FALL DOWN OVER!"
awesome. Never been a big fan of "faith healing" though.
I kinda liked the idea of this. I just think that incorporating the whole Second Wind concept into the existing hit point system, with all the baggage that entails, was something of a mistake.
I realize that hit points is an abstraction that can really mean just about anything, but honestly I don't think the two systems mesh really well. I wouldn't mind seeing a sort of Second Wind system implemented, but I think you would need to redefine a health-tracking system that takes this into account from the start. As it was implemented in 4E, it kinda felt hacked on.
IMHO. Maybe I'm old fashioned. :)
As for things I wouldn't hate seeing a PF take on, I'm thinking something like ritual magic. Some of the greater imbalances in magic occurred when 3E removed a lot of the inconveniences of spellcasting, without changing the spells themselves. I like that magic is big and powerful. I like the idea that some magic is grand enough to require big elaborate rituals to pull off.
Clarified and somewhat rebuilt action system would be nice. Note that current swift action does not equate minro action - there is no limit of single minor action per turn, you can downgrade standard and move action to minor and take three minor actions. Also I like that 4th edition immediate action being defined as either interrupt or reaction.
Getting rid of 5 feet step and replacing them with a move action taken to "shift" 1 would be nice. As adding "shift" as separate movement mode from walk that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Fixed hit point progression and point buy creation: er, wait, there are people who don't give fixed hp and roll for stats in Pathfinder?! ;)
Spell levels should be just renamed into spell tiers, their daily number cut down and instead being more scalable with caster level.
Warlord, hell, warlord would be nice. Currently I am tweaking my own version of warlord for PF but it is mostly fighter/bard hybrid (high BAB, d10, some bardic performances reflavored into warlord's commands).
Concise yet precise wording would be nice. As long as it does not strip every ability, special attack, spell and monster to bland stats with no flavor.
Bloodied condition as a trigger for abilities and vulnerabilities would be nice.
Enhancing big bads actions can be partially done by giving them more swift, move and free action abilities so they can do more in their turn. And more reaction-type abilities.
EDIT: I remembered what I wanted to be changed: unifing DR and resistances, somewhat but not completly like 4th edition or at leats changing them so DR protects against everything except specific attack type and resistance protects against specific attack type.
I would not want the bloodied condition or minion rules from 4E carried over to future editions of D&D or Pathfinder. I understand the concepts, but they don't offer much in the sense of flavor, that doesn't having an equally distracting effect in regards to the game world. Why would a character know when a creature or NPC is at half life. It would be easier to consider a creature bloodied when first damaged, but limit how this may be an advantage to certain races, classes and/or feats. And templates for weak creatures would make more sense, versus granting the creatures 1 hp as a minion. This starts to test my limits when you present giants, and other large creatures as minions.
I think something like healing surges could be done, but with a completely different flavor. We've been doing it in a houserule thread. At any rate, it addresses a problem from PF: hit points are acknowledged to be partly abstract in combat, but treated as entirely literal wounds for healing.
I don't like how they presented healing surges at all, but the mechanic of getting your abstract HP back more easily is great. They just need to offset it with a little concrete damage that you can't shrug off, so that we feel like their are sharp objects in the game after all.
Here's the houserule that does this. You can see the similarity to 4e's healing surges and also to Vitality Points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
and makes combat take 5 times as long as everyone suddenly has multiple actions in a single round. no thanks.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
No, I've no interest in cookie cutter characters. A Cleric that rolls well will be played differently then one that rolls poor for HP. I see no reason to remove anything that promotes differences from character to character. Homogenization is something 4e embraced. Frankly I find it anathema.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
I don't see the need to change this. It offers no benefit, it's just different then what's been done.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
I don't find the current list to be cumbersome. If someone is trying to hit you with a pointy object don't stand there and try to ignore them.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
I could see this as an archetype for Fighter or Paladin
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
No
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
seriously? Pathfinder is too technical for you? I will say this, I find it frustrating having to look up status effects in the back of the book instead of having them in the spell or monster description. That could definitely use some improvement in pathfinder. But that's a format/layour issue rather then a technical rules set issue.
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
100 time No
9. Bloodied.
meh, It just bogs things down as written in 4th. To me some sort of penalty, as an optional rule, when your hp drop to a certain % would be more appealing. But not necessary. The idea that you get a special free attack when reduced by a % doesn't sit well. It comes across as rule enforced dramatization instead of role played.
10. Some way for solitary, powerful enemies to have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
I've no formed opinion on this.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
2. Some of the GMs I play with just max hit points at every level, so its basicly the same.
8. I used a psudominion rule a few weeks ago in my game to speed up the combat. I told the players later and they were quite upset that they spend spell slots and expensive ammo to deal with 1 hp creatures. I don't think I will be useing something like that again.
I think something like healing surges could be done, but with a completely different flavor. We've been doing it in a houserule thread. At any rate, it addresses a problem from PF: hit points are acknowledged to be partly abstract in combat, but treated as entirely literal wounds for healing.
I don't like how they presented healing surges at all, but the mechanic of getting your abstract HP back more easily is great. They just need to offset it with a little concrete damage that you can't shrug off, so that we feel like their are sharp objects in the game after all.
Here's the houserule that does this. You can see the similarity to 4e's healing surges and also to Vitality Points.
Something like the wounds/vigor system, perhaps, letting you use healing surge to regain vigor, but not wounds?
There are things I would like to see and some I wouldn't.
I would like to see formatting changes. The 3.X ruleset needs some improvement in that regard. They realized this with the Beginners Box though so I'm guessing a future edition will be much better. 4e has a nice layout that makes it easy for people to build their character.
Second Wind/Healing Surges - I like that people can recover themselves, and I like that you can only heal so much in a day, even with magic. I would love to see similar mechanics, and get rid of the "I heal with our wand between every battle" syndrome. Makes for a more deadly game.
Bloodied: I like the concept. I like that abilities can trigger off of it. I do not like that it is immediately obvious that something is bloodied. I think it should require heal checks to determine. I would like to see those heal checks as free/swift actions though, instead of standard.
Things I would not like to see:
A simplified skill system: oh gods this is a primary reason for me not playing 4e. Leave me my skill ranks.
Mooks/Bosses: I like everyone to play by the same rules. I would not mind seeing a flatter character progression, so that mooks never really stop being a threat. IMO, the way BAB and Armor scale with level is the root cause that needs to be addressed, not patched with mook rules. And I hate humanoid bosses that can do things the players can't without a credible reason.
Square templates: leave me my cones and circles :)
So a few more based on the input thus far:
* Increased melee damage rather than iterative attacks -- I really want the "full-attack" conundrum to be solved
* Rituals -- I forgot these. I really liked the idea of putting combat and non-combat powers in different "silos," but the actual implementation I found wanting. Still, I think the idea has merit.
I also wanted to thank everyone for keeping this thread (mostly) on topic. :)
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
We can already do this to some extent. Standard actions can be swapped out for a move action. Full action for a standard + move. The only thing really missing is the ability to jump down one level to the swift equivalent action, and I'm not sure that's necessary.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
Other people have pointed out that there's virtually no difference between one being the default and the other being the option as far as the rules go. I'd still land with default being random and I think for stats, random provides better balance between MAD and SAD classes.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
So, to preserve compatibility, you'd re-rank all the spells as 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th level spells? What about players who ask "Why do spell levels skip around?" Frankly, I don't really see this as a necessary simplification.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
I can get behind this, in principle. But what it ultimately comes down to is "doing something that drops your guard to a guy standing next to you trying to beat on you with a sword". Maybe we just need to open it wider to DM fiat?
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
That's pretty much the goal of all technical writing, and I bet it's pretty much Paizo's goal for the rules text. If they're not succeeding, that's one thing, but I doubt they aren't trying to achieve it now.
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
I have mixed opinions of 4e's minion rules, though I've seen them used well in other games (Feng Shui and Mutants and Masterminds, for example). I think a template works pretty well. A reduction in Con and limiting hit points to 1 hp/die works pretty well.
9. Bloodied.
I'm not sure I'd want special powers to kick in when creatures are bloodied like in some cases with 4e. But I think some kind of feedback that gets passed on to the players would be good, perhaps with a mechanism for a character to disguise their status through a Con-based roll to not show their weakness.
10. Some way for solitary, powerful enemies to have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
I can see where you're coming from and have seen it before. I remember when Different Worlds magazine wrote up stats for the X-men and Magneto in an issue. They gave Magneto a speed of 9 to reflect his ability to keep the rest of the X-men busy despite being the lone villain in many of his fights with them.
I think this is one of the reasons dragons, for example, have SO MANY physical attacks. But this is an area where you really have to be careful. For fighting-oriented BBEG, they already get iterative attacks. But, coming all at once, they can be really nasty. Perhaps if we went back to 1e/2e days and make characters with multiple attacks alternate again rather than resolve everything at once, this might feel more like you've got certain types of BBEGs with multiple actions.Ultimately, I think the best remedy may be to not rely on solitary, powerful enemies and make better use of powerful enemies with allies (even using minion rules).
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I like about 4E that hasn't been mentioned is the consolidation of Reflex and Touch AC into a single mechanic.
Think about it: when something's coming your way and doesn't care about your armor, your Touch AC represents your ability to get out of the way. But so does your Reflex. They represent the same "real-world" concept, but are used in different situations - i.e., if the threat is being aimed at you, you use Touch; but if it's some sort of general hazard, you use Reflex.
This gets even weirder when you go to modify these stats:
• Having "lightning reflexes" doesn't make it any easier to duck a ray being fired at you.
• Having an exceptional aptitude for dodging (ala the Dodge feat) doesn't make it any easier to dodge an explosion.
• Wearing heavy armor can limit your ability to get out of the way (touch), but also doesn't limit your ability to get out of the way (reflex).
4E rolled it all into one, and it's one of my favorite parts of 4E.