| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give us price guidelines for some more esoteric bonus types and weird effects, with a GMs ONLY stipulation writ large.
I can't help but think this would be wonderful on the current rules.
A usable artificer base class.Nah. A usable artificier-like archetype for the Alchemist. (Enough with the new baseclasses already.)
-1
Put me in the "enough with the new archetypes already" category. Besides, Paizo has decided to front-load the system with all the base classes they expect to have, a decision I agree with whole-heartedly.
Besides, why should it be restricted to alchemist? Why wouldn't a wizard make a better artificer? And how about a bard, oracle, witch or even a rogue with a few wizard levels? Seems to me like a prestige class would be more appropriate than an archetype.
I could use some more pretige classes but this isn't really the place for them unlike Ultimate magic and Ultimate combat would have been.
I want more class options. I happen to LIKE being able to go out and get a couple new books full of them a year. I loved that about 3.5. There are some cool equipment-based class options that could be explored here.
Masterwork qualities besides +1 to hit/+2 to a skill/-1 armor check penalty.
More Materials.
Yurts.
Think thats gonna happen Gila however if we are gonna do it lets make them accurate I don't need 3 different stats for a scorpion whip and each one is differnet than the others unless on is stated to be the right one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
id also like some more stuff for gunslingers like speed loaders for revolvers and more types of rounds like snakeshot for pistols or minie ball rounds for muskets that increase range. and maybe rules for lever action or revolver rifles.
My one suggestion is to add the deadly quality to the rapier. I believe the term coup de grace referred orginally to a two handed move to dispatch a critically wounded opponent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fixing the crafting rules.
Also fixing the trapmaking rules.
Optional rules creating custom weapons. Something that gives standard guidelines, like "a simple weapon should not be better than X, a martial weapon can have up to Y special properties, and exotic weapon is balanced if Z".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Q8, fixing craft rules (all). This shouldn't be linked to price, making an armor is not like making a poison.
Rules to don't use magic items.
More effective mundane items (alchemical, etc) with power and DC scaling with alchemy bonus (this would be nice for all craft skills).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More powerful alchemical items that stay useful for all levels.
I really, really want the Belt of Many Pockets (without that silly little familiar haven) back!
weapon crystals from the MiC
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
weapon crystals from the MiC
Please, please, never do this, or make them far, far, far more expensive than the Magic Item Compendium did. Weapon crystals were ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think that there'll be an artificer class.
No, please stop that. Don't do that, don't talk like that. We want the artificer.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have one very simple request: NO reprinting equipment from a previoulsy published Paizo source (Armory/APG anyone?)
I want them to reprint.
I want this to be the ONE book I can hand my players when they want to go shopping in a huge city, instead of them flipping through a dozen books!
I do not think that there'll be an artificer class.No, please stop that. Don't do that, don't talk like that. We want the artificer.
Trust me, I want them to too. They're one of my favorites. It's just that from everything I've seen, there won't be one and I'm trying to manage expectations a bit.
Regarding what Perram said:
I believe the intent IS to reprint everything. There was a scandal when it was announced since they said they were going to reprint everything they've done up to now. People thought that meant it would just be reprints, but that's not the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about an invisibility CLOAK instead of a ring? Sure the One Ring did that, but a cloak seems like a more logical slot affinity.
I am also in the camp of "magic items that are reasonably affordable before level 10." Magic items are a lot of fun, and being able to throw in items other than the stock +1 weapons/armor, potions, etc. in low level loot is highly desirable. Please include more low-cost magic items.
Yes I agree Foghammer a cloak of invisibility would be cool, with a lesser version(invisibility) and a greater version(Greater Invisibility).
Or rather, the lack thereof. I don't expect an artificer in it.
So, essentially, they are taking a book that COULD have a lot of awesome stuff, and then filling it with nothing interesting what so ever? This better not become a trend, Paizo.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It turns out that Ultimate Equipment is going to be about equipment.
Which I can't wait for.
Just trying make it so people don't have the wrong expectations for what Ultimate Equipment will be, which is a problem that people had with previous books.
really a shame I was waiting for the Artificer since I knew of Pathfinder, I think a book with only items and many of them reprinted is waste
Maybe they learned their lesson from Ultimate Combat: Spellcaster Edition.
That's because it was Ultimate COMBAT, not Ultimate MARTIALS.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that ultimate combat is very good for martial, but gives also some for casters. This is not bad. What is bad i that ultimate magic gives nothing for martials. In a book of magic stuff martial should get some anti magic options, because that is the natural evolution of a non caster when magic is widespread.
Perhaps, but combat is an areas where martials should outshine spellcasters. Instead, we got a book where the martials got a bunch of cool things...and the spellcasters got to do them more effectively at half the level.
The disparity isn't THAT bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimate Magic was for the classes that used magic.
Ultimate Combat was for the classes that participated in combat. That was always the intent. UC was never meant to be Ultimate-Non-Magic as people seem to think. It quite clearly states it was for combat-oriented characters. Martial characters made out like bandits in UC. Only one non-martial class got archetypes in that book, and that was entirely due to fans being very vocal for a gun mage, and the consequences thereof. The vast majority of spells, which seem to be the main source of displeasure, are either for martial classes or help the non-martial classes out in combat by allowing them to spend their limited resources to do stuff. (Or because it's a design decision that wizards get just about all non-explicitly divine spells.) But that was precisely the premise of the book.
And like how UM was about magic, and UC was about combat, based on the most current information, Ultimate Equipment will be about equipment, both non-magical and magical.
It unfortunately won't be about adding new archetypes, classes, spells, etc. I have a un-founded hunch it might contain some feats that are Equipment Tricks, but those seem to always have been in the Golarion products, not the core rules.
It'll be about equipment. Magic items out the wazzoo. More backpacks than you can fit in a bag of holding. Items that'll make you go "I WANT THAT!" Maybe even a new crafting system, much like how UM had the section that changed Construct construction.
I'm sad that it won't have an artificer type in it, since it's one of my favorite types of characters. I'm still keeping track of all the artificers I can find, even. But that isn't the point of this book. Paizo has repeatedly said over the past year or so that they are done with base classes for a while. They wanted to get all the player classes out ASAP so they could support all of them in their products. They've also said that there wouldn't be any classes in this product.
As I said above, it's true that this is just based off of the current information known. Who knows, maybe they'll add archetypes to the list of things. But with realistically 3.5-4 months before it goes to the printers, I don't know how much they can add at this point. Writing could even be done, and they're just editing.
Also, weapons that advance with you would be awesome.
Exotic weapons worth a feat.
Weapons that don't look like weapons, like a yo-yo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimate Magic was for the classes that used magic.
Ultimate Combat was for the classes that participated in combat. That was always the intent. UC was never meant to be Ultimate-Non-Magic as people seem to think. It quite clearly states it was for combat-oriented characters. Martial characters made out like bandits in UC. Only one non-martial class got archetypes in that book, and that was entirely due to fans being very vocal for a gun mage, and the consequences thereof. The vast majority of spells, which seem to be the main source of displeasure, are either for martial classes or help the non-martial classes out in combat by allowing them to spend their limited resources to do stuff. (Or because it's a design decision that wizards get just about all non-explicitly divine spells.) But that was precisely the premise of the book.
And like how UM was about magic, and UC was about combat, based on the most current information, Ultimate Equipment will be about equipment, both non-magical and magical.
It unfortunately won't be about adding new archetypes, classes, spells, etc. I have a un-founded hunch it might contain some feats that are Equipment Tricks, but those seem to always have been in the Golarion products, not the core rules.
It'll be about equipment. Magic items out the wazzoo. More backpacks than you can fit in a bag of holding. Items that'll make you go "I WANT THAT!" Maybe even a new crafting system, much like how UM had the section that changed Construct construction.
I'm glad at least a few people understand that Ultimate Combat was not simply non-magic users. That's a good thing. I'd love to have a Magic Item Compendium type book. I wouldn't mind an artificer class but I know no one in my group would play one besides me.
Also, a hurrah for well done legacy weapons.
A better crafting system.
One major problem with the current RAW crafting system is that it is faster to create items that are more difficult to make. That is, if two items have the same price, and one has a higher DC to make, it is faster to make the one with the higher DC.
A common house rule is to just say you can set the DC to any DC higher than the base DC to speed up crafting, but house rules are house rules and don't fundamentally fix the system.
The rules already allow...
You may voluntarily add +10 to the indicated DC to craft an item. This allows you to create the item more quickly (since you'll be multiplying this higher DC by your Craft check result to determine progress). You must decide whether to increase the DC before you make each weekly or daily check.But more generally, the crafting rules really do need a complete overhaul.
I've explained my suggestion for logarithmic crafting times before. It's a quick-and-easy fix; I'm sure there are even better mechanics available.
The +10 DC rule doesn't generally fix the "harder to craft items are faster to craft" problem. Because you can add the +10 DC to the easy item and the difficult item.
Consider two equal cost items, one with a DC 15 and one with a DC 16. Except for the single situation when you have exactly a +15 to your craft roll, the +10 rule does not fix this issue.
The system makes it faster to craft more difficult items. RAW doesn't let you just add +1 or +2 to balance the DCs, although that is a common houserule.
But yes, I think we do agree, crafting, especially of mundane items is fundamentally broken as it stands.
|
UC was never meant to be Ultimate-Non-Magic as people seem to think. It quite clearly states it was for combat-oriented characters.
Perhaps, but let's face the facts. There is a perception that the system is tilted in favor of spellcasters already. Some people disagree on how much this is tilted, but very few people deny that it exists completely. So Paizo adds it's latest two supplements. The first gives spellcasters more options, and doesn't give martial characters anything whatsoever. The second gives the martial characters more options...but it also gives the spellcasters just as much, if not more.
People have called 3.X the "Spellcaster Edition" before, but as of late Paizo seems to be embracing that label.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A yo-yo as a weapon.
Facing more facts, 10 of the 14 classes that got archetypes in UM were martial classes. The magus is a martial class. Being a martial class and being a spellcaster are not mutually exclusive. Being a full-caster and being a martial are not mutually exclusive, as the druid, cleric, and oracle aptly show. There are a grand total of 4 non-martial classes if you include summoners as non-martials. (Summoners are in a bit of gray area, with how people play them.) All the other classes have the ability to theoretically fight well.
A book just on Witches, Wizards, and Sorcerers would be boring. Just like a book on just the non-magical classes would be boring. There are a total of 4 non-magic using classes in the game: fighter, cavalier, gunslinger, and samurai. And the samurai / cavalier are basically the same. All the other ones either have spells or can make use of magical class abilities. A book on just those 4 classes would also be be boring, and definitely not fitting of the name "Ultimate Combat"
UM was a huge boon to martial spellcasters. And since the vast majority of spellcasters are martials, that just makes sense.
Martials are not non-magic users. Non-magic users are non-magic users. Martials are anyone whose class abilities give them the means to theoretically fight well with weapons. The game even explicitly says that clerics, a full caster, are martials (in the Dwarf section of the APG).
But I'm done with the discussion on UM and UC. Erroneous perceptions of what a product will be will almost always bring about disappointment.
If people are constantly asking for an artificer class, they'll post a review saying "This book sucks! 0 stars." when it comes out because it didn't meet their expectations when the product was never meant to be about a new class. And those types of reviews really annoy me.
Bleh. Coffee time.
Also, yo-yos are OP.
There are a total of 4 non-magic using classes in the game: fighter, cavalier, gunslinger, and samurai. And the samurai / cavalier are basically the same. All the other ones either have spells or can make use of magical class abilities.
As a minor point, I think it's silly not to list, say, rogue or barbarian as "non-magic using classes" just because they have supernatural options on their talent/power lists. If tomorrow there was a supernatural combat feat or an archetype with a supernatural class ability, would that suddenly take fighter off that list?
So I think "non-spellcasting classes" is a better divide. In which case we have fighter, cavalier, gunslinger, monk, rogue, and barbarian at least. A much more respectable list.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
UC was never meant to be Ultimate-Non-Magic as people seem to think. It quite clearly states it was for combat-oriented characters.Perhaps, but let's face the facts. There is a perception that the system is tilted in favor of spellcasters already. Some people disagree on how much this is tilted, but very few people deny that it exists completely. So Paizo adds it's latest two supplements. The first gives spellcasters more options, and doesn't give martial characters anything whatsoever. The second gives the martial characters more options...but it also gives the spellcasters just as much, if not more.
People have called 3.X the "Spellcaster Edition" before, but as of late Paizo seems to be embracing that label.
You DO realize that Ultimate Magic had a lot of martial archetypes, right? As for Ultimate Combat, every single archetype, even the Wizard one, was related to martial combat in some way. Ultimate Combat gave martials plenty, and so did Ultimate Magic. You seem to have this idea that combat and spellcasting are two very different things. They aren't, and that's why the books overlap.
I will be glad if the book is nothing but items. That's what I expect. If half of the book is full of crap like equipment feats (which are not exciting at all IMO, at least the ones I've seen), or archetypes based on items (really, give me an example of something appropriate here), I'll flip. The only thing that isn't items that I WOULD want to see is an alternate crafting system, and maybe as someone suggested, an item durability system. I would give those things a fair shake.
I want magic items that can spice up low level games, like weapon enhancements that add low, flat energy damage, or rings/bracers/cloaks/etc that add bonuses to single saves or ability checks. Someone mentioned that there aren't many bracer or glove slot items.
Prefabricated traps would be awesome; they come already made, they just require time to set up and conceal.
More alchemical items that are not created with magic, but produce quasi-magical effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want more equipment, but I don't want a whole bunch of unique magic items. I want a bunch of new and interesting types of mundane items and magic item abilities that could be used to make magic items.
I also do in fact want more character options. I can't get why Paizo is so against us players getting new things.
They're not against us getting new things, they wanted to get the player options out first and then be able to focus more on story and other things, like a book dedicated to magic items. I wouldn't mind a bunch of pages of unique magic items, but I also want a lot more abilities I can put on stuff, more wondrous items, etc.
That's it right there. They got the player options done with. I don't like that. I liked having a new splat available once or twice a year in 3.5, but Paizo is dead set against such rules bloat. I think that kind of sucks.
Wasn't it 1 or 2 splats a month for 3.5?
And they never said player options were done with. Just base classes. I think they've said in the past that they want to do 3 hard covers a year.
Which btw, leaves one more unannounced hardcover for this year, if I recall correctly.