|
Just throwing it out there. This thread could serve as ideas for Paizo to shore up things people think could have been done better in future books, or Pathfinder 2.0, as well as a source of inspiration for houserules.
You can include possible changes if you have any ideas or to explain what you mean. But the main purpose isnt to share houserules you use, instead to point out the things you wish were different in PF, so for complex things just summarize what you mean.
I'll start with a couple things:
1. The Rogue and Monk are both too weak as character classes.
- Monk needs too many attributes, and really, should have full BAB, even if they leave the d8. With the lack of armor, a d10 isn't going to hurt anything though.
- Rogue: Many talents are very weak. The class could seriously use a few more class features that don't take up talent slots (or more talent slots), and sneak attack could use a boost. Perhaps full BAB when Sneak Attacking, and allow sneak attacking flanked targets even if youre not doing the flanking.
2. Multiclassed Casters should be more viable, without having to rely on a whole bunch of PrCs to patch things up. Make spells/day a unified progression like with BAB/attack progressions, with bonus spell slots for classes that have a higher number of slots of each level.
3. Give saves the same treatment as skills: Class-Saves and Cross-Class Saves, so that good saves only get the +2 once, not for multiple classes.
4. Smaller Archetypes, to make it more viable for building a character with 2-3 archetypes on a class.
5. Encourage more combat mobility and diversity. Make it easier to have non specialized characters moving around and tripping and such while still being effective.
Feats that are the equal of class abiilties so Fighters don't get the shaft.
==Aelryinth
2. Multiclassed Casters should be more viable, without having to rely on a whole bunch of PrCs to patch things up. Make spells/day a unified progression like with BAB/attack progressions, with bonus spell slots for classes that have a higher number of slots of each level.
Depends what you mean by 'more viable'. A caster that single dips into one class is still very viable (Cleric with 1 level of Fighter). 2-3 levels and yeah, you're starting to lag quite a bit, and 4+ levels of non-caster-ness you're starting to hurt. However, I think that's an intentional part of game design - specialize or you will suffer. The better solution is the hybrid classes like Bard, Magus, and to a lesser extent Paladin and Ranger.
I know there was just a thread on 'more base classes' and class bloat, but there are areas not covered, like Rogue/Cleric hybrids.
Its piss-poor design to have classes that are social classes and other classes that are combat classes.
Agreed. Part of this could be rectified with more skill points for the have-nots. I always thought 2 points/level was miserly for the non-int based characters (cleric, fighter, etc). If skills were THAT potent everyone would think the Rogue is superman (which he ain't).
Agreed. Part of this could be rectified with more skill points for the have-nots. I always thought 2 points/level was miserly for the non-int based characters (cleric, fighter, etc). If skills were THAT potent everyone would think the Rogue is superman (which he ain't).Its piss-poor design to have classes that are social classes and other classes that are combat classes.
Maybe skills could be better handled by assigning 'automatics' that EVERY character would naturally want to raise for their class (Athletics for fighters and rogues, Spellcraft/ArcKnowledge for Mages/Sorcs, Handle Animal and Survival for Barbs and so on) and then bring discretionary skill points to a similar level (say, 3 or 4+INT). You could vary the number of 'automatics' each class gets to keep the more skill-reliant classes still well ahead in skill development, but having more discretionary points makes fighters who want to do diplomacy every bit as viable as a rogue who does it -- within the realm of 'class skill' and ability modifier of course. Some people, and by extension come professions, simply have more pull than others -- and there's nothing wrong with that.
I would have had more HP at first level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe skills could be better handled by assigning 'automatics' that EVERY character would naturally want to raise for their class
Star Wars Saga Edition did this, only with every skill. You got 1/2 your level as a bonus to every skill check. Skills you were 'trained' in got a +5 bonus on top, and you got a number of trained skills according to your character class (choose from list for class). Saga had a lot of good things I wish had made it to Pathfinder, like the concept of Reflex/Fortitude/Will Defense, rather than saving throws. Want to hit someone? Roll vs their Reflex Defense. Explosions attacked your Reflex Defense. Diseases attack your Fortitude Defense.
Maybe skills could be better handled by assigning 'automatics' that EVERY character would naturally want to raise for their classStar Wars Saga Edition did this, only with every skill. You got 1/2 your level as a bonus to every skill check. Skills you were 'trained' in got a +5 bonus on top, and you got a number of trained skills according to your character class (choose from list for class). Saga had a lot of good things I wish had made it to Pathfinder, like the concept of Reflex/Fortitude/Will Defense, rather than saving throws. Want to hit someone? Roll vs their Reflex Defense. Explosions attacked your Reflex Defense. Diseases attack your Fortitude Defense.
From what I understand, that's what 4E did too. But I prefer saving throws for one simple reason -- in my experience, the player seems to greatly prefer rolling the dice that determines if something bad happens to them other than raw hit point damage. It gives an illusion of 'more control' (even though random is still random, the illusion is important).
As for the skills, I like the 'class skills' getting a raise (even if it were an annoying 'half') every level. +5 seems a bit much...you don't want to make it where a person can neglect a skill for 10 levels and STILL be better than the guy devoting his best to master it, but that's open for debate of course. Discretionary skills shouldn't get that though -- that's another 4E thing, and then to account for skill inflation they make the DC dependent on your level. That leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. =(
This. While I don't agree that bards are second class in combat unless they're one of the non-courage-inspiring archetypes many classes are certainly second class in skill/social situations.You know when your party is in the middle of combat and some character pulls off this really amazing move that makes everybody playing at the table happy/excited?
How often is a Bard character the one who does that? Not very. And that's what I mean when I say that Bards are second class.
That is a flaw of the bard's ability to do a little bit of everything. They had to make sure it did not stand out in anyone else's area. I do think that giving it one or two "wow!!!!" abilities would not have hurt anything.
Change the stupid initiative rule that says if you have not yet acted you are flat footed.
I agree that your flat footed in a surprise situation.
but according to the rules if your opponent is 50 feet away and your both having a heated discussion with weapons drawn that opponent can charge 50 feet and hit you in the face with his great axe while you stand there flat footed with a stupid look on your face.
most DMs just house rule it but it just seems like something that should be looked at in official rules.
Change the stupid initiative rule that says if you have not yet acted you are flat footed.
I agree that your flat footed in a surprise situation.
but according to the rules if your opponent is 50 feet away and your both having a heated discussion with weapons drawn that opponent can charge 50 feet and hit you in the face with his great axe while you stand there flat footed with a stupid look on your face.
most DMs just house rule it but it just seems like something that should be looked at in official rules.
Actually most GM's don't house rule it, but I will admit other than sneak attack I don't know the purpose of it.
I am pretty generous with knowledge information. What I see you arguing for is something more codified. A bard being able to suddenly hurt a monster due to a knowledge check does not work for me. Just because you know how to do something does not mean you are able to do it yourself.
I think we can agree that the bard needs a standout ability. We just disagree on what that ability should be.
Gut most of the feats and rework them as combat/ social combat options. In fact rework the "social skills/ charisma" process to be either more A)
conflict resolution oriented without task based rolls for each step; or B) as the whole game IS task based then make the social systems more task based rolling for each point and counter point and make it fit more with the combat & casting mechanics. Ohh and make social skill effects stick to Characters (PC'S not PLAYERS sorry there).
Bifurcate the system between PC's and non's IE virtually all rolls should be made players, not new UA had a system for this.
Establish some sort of coherent modifiers to monster stats etc to play both low mid high fantasy and low mid high personal magic.
Its piss-poor design to have classes that are social classes and other classes that are combat classes.
Players want to feel that they can contribute at any time. To make the players playing fighters feel that its now time to make a taco bell run because the party is doing social stuff now is bad.
Likewise, the players playing bards shouldn't have to feel second class because the party is doing combat.
The fighter needs to have something to contribute in social situations and the bard needs a chance to become alpha in combat.
I have to disagree. The Fighter has something to contribute to social encounters. This is a player issue, not a rules issue. Contributing to social encounters is something that should be dictated by creativity, not dice and stats.
One of my best roleplayers sticks to grumbly dwarven tanks with low CHA. He may not glide through social encounters with ease, but it's always enjoyable to watch him do them.
I recently played a very social drow sorcerer/rogue who fumbled a crucial disguise check (bonus of +21 w/disguise self spell, rolled a 2, failed to fool either of the drow siblings into thinking that she was really her brother). This ended up almost wiping the party. In retrospect, though, I could have roleplayed my way through it confidently; instead I let the dice dictate my failure and basically gave up.
Likewise for combat. I've seen a waste of space tank who stood "protecting the caster" while a couple of rogues took on a zombie ogre for him. I've seen a 1st level bard take on the controller role and make a silent image of a dracolich to scare bandits away. I see a Monk who regularly acts like a tank and jumps in the BBEG's face so that the party can get escape.
If you want a melee-oriented bard, then build one. Check out the Melee Bard section of Treantmonk's Guide.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter needs to have something to contribute in social situations
[kills the man on the couch] I'm sorry, did I break your concentration? I didn't mean to do that. Please, continue, you were saying something about best intentions. What's the matter? Oh, you were finished! Well, allow me to retort.
What I'd like done differently: multiclassing. It's a problem. This is why I feel like they could pile on as many base classes and archetypes as they feel like, so that you'll have the flavor of what you want and don't have to dip to get it.
My feeling is that some of the prestige classes, like the arcane trickster, have such a rough road to get to that it isn't worth it unless you roll them up at a high level.
So what could they do to fix multiclassing? Chuck it, would be my first suggestion. Build new classes that have the prestige elements already mixed in from the beginning, and make them balanced.
The fighter needs to have something to contribute in social situations[kills the man on the couch] I'm sorry, did I break your concentration? I didn't mean to do that. Please, continue, you were saying something about best intentions. What's the matter? Oh, you were finished! Well, allow me to retort.
Excellent. And more concise than I.
Mr. Fishy should be on the cover of the next book. And the Title should be
"Mr. Fishy, at least you don't have to play with him."
It would only have one page with a picture of Mr. Fishy eating a Munchkin. It would cost $20.
2. Multiclassed Casters should be more viable
Weeeelll.... In 3.x, multiclassing was pretty much mandatory if you wanted a kick-ass character. Noone with anything more than a superficial knowledge of the rules considered playing, say, a straight Fighter for 20 levels (but everyone wanted four levels of fighter in their build).
However, new and/or casual players shouldn't need to agonize for days and weeks over which feats to take when and how many levels of Someclass they need to qualify for the Awesome prestigeclass. However in 3.x, if you didn't, your character wouldn't stand a chance of shining in the company of a "well-built" character. (Not that I didn't indulge in character-building myself; I find it a rather addictive metagame, and I've probably spent more time building 3.x/PF characters than playing them. Oh well).
So I loved that the Pathfinder core rules made the base classes much more interesting to play through an entire career, and made multiclassing less powerful. For any but the most hardcore players, the possibilities in Core alone are almost overwhelming. I know it took me a good bit of reading and thinking to digest how things had changed and what the new stuff meant and how it could be used; still not finished that process, and I'm still on core only... For someone new to RPGs the learning curve must be very steep.
So no, I absolutely do not want multiclassing to be "more viable". And I speculate that it was a conscious decision from the Paizo folks to make it less viable. (I don't want it to become less viable than it is now, either. I think a good balance was found).
The consequense of making multiclassing less powerful, however, seems to be a proliferation of new base classes. And the addition of "archetypes" to tweak the base classes.
Which is not a bad thing in itself; but I do think it should be kept out of the core rules, because if this is to have a beneficial effect on your campaign/playing experience, you have to be very deeply invested, intellectually and emotionally, in the game and the system. Many people, particularly people posting frequently on this forum, are.
But I'm willing to bet that many, even most, Pathfinder players aren't.
So keep Core accessible (relatively anyway) and keep the optional stuff optional.
In fact, if anything, I think it would be a good idea to help new/casual players along by not only reintroducing but expanding on the "Starting Packages" that accompanied the 3.x class descriptions, so that a (few) viable build(s), with feats and equipment, is presented. Not as detailed as the pregens, but a starting package ala 3.x, and some hints on strategy - which feats to take, what spells to learn, etc., if you want to use this or that tactic. Nothing extensive, just something to get new players up the steepest part of the learning curve.
|
|
What I'd like done differently: multiclassing. It's a problem. This is why I feel like they could pile on as many base classes and archetypes as they feel like, so that you'll have the flavor of what you want and don't have to dip to get it.
My feeling is that some of the prestige classes, like the arcane trickster, have such a rough road to get to that it isn't worth it unless you roll them up at a high level.
So what could they do to fix multiclassing? Chuck it, would be my first suggestion. Build new classes that have the prestige elements already mixed in from the beginning, and make them balanced.
I think it generally works okay for Melee Characters, particularly when you throw archetypes into the mix.
...Liking Multiclass rules as they stand
I wasnt fond of them in 3.5 either. When you stack melee characters together, their combat ability stacks. When you stack caster levels together, you get a bunch of useless low level abilities.
I dont want lots of irritating patch fixes, PRCs and new Base classes to make this viable, but if I 50/50 sorcerer and bard, I want to have not a 3/4 caster, nor a full caster, but a 7/8ths caster.I'm saying caster levels should stack for determining the highest spell levels you can cast (in any caster class).
Wizard10/Cleric10? If you can manage 19wis/19int by level 20, have fun casting 9th level spells from both classes. You still have the same number of spells/day as a regular cleric, but you can put wizard spells in them. and thats no PrC.
That's what I meant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters should be balanced with more skill points.
Staffs charge material component x50 even though you have less than 50 charges.
I'd like a lower default magic setting (or more precisely, for magic items to be more easily excisable).
I vote we get rid of Elves, everything else works just fine for me.
Its piss-poor design to have classes that are social classes and other classes that are combat classes.
The fighter needs to have something to contribute in social situations and the bard needs a chance to become alpha in combat.
Surely, you can put ranks into Diplomacy or Perform like anyone else?
Problem solved.
As for Bard's? They can take the same feats as anyone else too...
The issue isn't with the design, the issue is player perspective and playing style (or lack of).
Sorry no, I need my half ranks in Climb and Swim. I also need to put ranks in Perception so I don't get taken by surprise constantly. Ok those are my 2... now for my Int mod... oh, it's 0 or 1. Ohh, Survival... I could really use that for tracking enemies or finding food should we need it. Ok there's my +1 from INT if I have that... let's see +1 HP or +1 SP.. HP every time. So where's the room to take Diplomacy?
3.x has been going for almost 12 years now if I'm not mistaken. When Paizo is ready to make a new edition, I think it's time to put this bad boy to rest. She's going to have more than 15 years on her tires and I just can't see sinking in more money trying to keep her running. I'm already kind of ready to move on.
Nothing against Paizo; they've done a wonderful job with their original goal. But 4 revisions to one rule set just seems like it'd be taking it a bit too far. I own three [nearly] complete sets of 3.x books. Doubt I'll buy a fourth.
Actually I think that a flat +2 skill point / level bonus to all classes could be a nice fix (arcanists could get broader knowledge and so on), but I'd definitely keep skill points, because it actually maintains the feeling that you learn something rather than getting universally better at everything. I don't want my INT 8 barbarian to have skill high enough to lecture low level mages in arcana, not even on level 20 if I don't willingly invest in the area.
Also I'd say that fighters while severely impaired in social situations are totally useless. They can still attempt to aid the rolls and try to make circumstances favourable. I think that we could actually use more extensive aid another mechanics that would replace some stat boosting.
I also aggree that feats could be mowed down a bit, making them more useable instead. More powerfull talents/rage powers/whatever would also be welcome.
|
|
3.x has been going for almost 12 years now if I'm not mistaken. When Paizo is ready to make a new edition, I think it's time to put this bad boy to rest. She's going to have more than 15 years on her tires and I just can't see sinking in more money trying to keep her running. I'm already kind of ready to move on.
Nothing against Paizo; they've done a wonderful job with their original goal. But 4 revisions to one rule set just seems like it'd be taking it a bit too far. I own three [nearly] complete sets of 3.x books. Doubt I'll buy a fourth.
I would hope Pathfinder 2.0 would be very different than Pathfinder 1.0. I agree with you there. However, I very much like the "Edition" model of rolemaster, where they maintain most compatibility across editions. I think they should have more differences between them than rolemaster does, but while I might like classes to be done fresh and redesigned, and the basic system could be improved on a great deal in many areas, I'd very much appreciate it if they maintained enough compatibility that you can use the same modules/monsters with little to no changes, and Ideally be able to import the occasional feat or weapon that isnt in the new ruleset.
It should be a substantial redesign, tailored to the same average power level (so you can use the APs and potentially bestiaries).
However, some of these complaints could be addressed by either adding a variant rule or adding new options in new books.
Example: I know they say "Core is King" when they design new options, and make sure new feats/class features are as good or crappier than the alternates in the core book.
For Rogue, do it differently. Make new Rogue Talents. Don't compare them with the other rogue talents (which largely suck) but instead compare them to the (Good) combat feats, and help maake the rogue a little less crappy. They pay far too much for their spike DPR.
|
Get rid of the stupid TWF restriction that requires you to not move in order to use both weapons.
If you invest so many feats in fighting with two weapons (plus sacrificing Str to keep Dex high) you damn well better be able to use them all the time.
Sure, you cannot make use of ITWF or GTWF if you move, but attacking with each weapon when also moving is hardly beyond the realms of possibility.
--------------
On another note, Bards rock. We have a player that calls himself the one man army because he has so much fun. Inspires the team, facinates a mob, whip trips another mob, stops a performance to grant a player an extra chance at a saving throw. The Bard is awesome. Especially considering 3.5 Bard sucked
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its piss-poor design to have classes that are social classes and other classes that are combat classes.
Players want to feel that they can contribute at any time. To make the players playing fighters feel that its now time to make a taco bell run because the party is doing social stuff now is bad.
Likewise, the players playing bards shouldn't have to feel second class because the party is doing combat.
The fighter needs to have something to contribute in social situations and the bard needs a chance to become alpha in combat.
This is so wrong on so many levels. It is exactly the type of mentality that does not need to be applied to the game. This is a group play game. It's not about me me me.