|
Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.
Which of course could lead to the discussion of what changes could/should be made to classes, short of a full revision.
My suggestions (feel free to add your own)
(general)
1. Eliminate metamagic rods. All of them.
2. Fix or eliminate persistent spell.
3. Continue cleaning up the spell list, removing SoD spells and clarifying limitations of ambiguous spells.
As to classes.
Alchemist: Fix bombs. They are cheesy at this point. I love the concept of the alchemist, but the mad bomber that bombs at midnight should me more an alchemist archetype than a central defining feature. The concept of the class is great, and bombs could be "a" feature. But they shouldn't me "the" feature. I would love to see the primary focus on having better infusions, with bombs being an archetype you exchange. I think the current alchemist is kind of silly, but the concept has lots of potential, love the concept, just needs refining and it could really be a great class.
Barbarian I think is actually pretty good right now.
Bard is also pretty good right now.
Cavalier is actually better than people give it credit for. It plays much better than it reads. I don't think it will ever be a "big" class, but I think it fits a specific niche fine.
Cleric is fine.
Druid is fine.
Fighter is fine.
Gunslinger and guns themselves need a major overhaul. I want Roland Deschain and/or the three musketeers. I got a full BaB class with to many moving parts to actually play. It is such a simple concept, so why is the execution of it made so complicated? If you make guns difficult and dangerous to anyone but gunslingers, and increase the gunslingers ability to use guns as well and how effective they are in the hands of gunslingers as they level, both problems are solved.
Inquisitor is actually a damn well made class. I didn't like it on first read, but the Devs did a hell of a job with it when you actually play it.
Magus is equally well done.
Monk I would add some physical enhancement bonuses at specific levels (maybe am extra +1 to a physical ability every 4 levels when you get the normal one). This would fix the MAD complaints and completely fit the flavor. I would also make the quiggong archetype part of the class rather than a variant. Choose your abilities each level rather than following the chart. Gives more flexibility in builds and also fits the concept. If you haven't noticed, concept is the key for me.
Oracle is great conceptually and in execution.
Paladin was the most improved class from 3.5. No changes needed.
Ranger is fine.
Rogue needs an overhaul, as they don't currently really fill the role they were made for anymore. The concept of a rogue isn't being done justice at this point. You really need to follow one specific path to be effective as a rogue, and that is completely contrary to the classes concept. First suggestion is give them weapon finesse for free fairly early on. They need good fort saves, and perhaps later some kind of bonus to attack and/or damage dex or perhaps even from Charisma. Why Charisma? Because a) the charming rogue is the trope not currently appearing, since it needs to be a dump stat and b) it fits the concept that through force of will and personal magnetism the rogue is able to prevail.
For me the concept of the rogue is the guy who is quick if not strong, charming if not particularly wise or bright, who finds ways to get things done. That isn't how the rogue is currently playing, and it is a shame since that is a great concept.
Sorcerer is much better now that the bloodline powers are involved, it really comes into it's own as a concept separate from the wizard. Not much I would change here other than spell stuff addressed above.
Summoner...where to start...look, if you are going to make the pet as good as other classes by itself, you can't also make the summoner himself be an effective caster in addition. Take away the spells not related to summoning, and make the concept what it is. Someone who focuses all of their energy into summoning creatures. Will that take away his ability to buff the creature. Yes. That isn't a bad thing. Let him heal his buddy, let him maybe cast a host of conjuration spells, but it is ridiculous that the summoner is currently a 3/4 BaB 3/4 caster on top of being able to summon a creature as powerful as most PC's. While we are at it, the synthesist is a great concept for a class...make it that instead of just tacking it on to the summoner.
Witch is ok, but the familiar eating the spell is just silly. Let them learn spells from scrolls like wizards do, hell let them have spell books and potion books. It isn't outside of trope. Just have them be unable to cast spells effectively without their familiar. Will this make familiars good targets? Yes. So are arcane bonded items. Use that model.
Wizard...I am not one who follows the "God Wizard" belief as much as believing in the Schrödinger Wizard of the messageboard, but it is clear the limitation of the class come first from it's fragility and second from it's limited number of spells available over the course of the day. There has been some creep on the later. I would consider making changes to scroll use, perhaps having it expend an equal level spell slot without a UMD check.
Those are my thoughts, feel free to add your own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Use a fighter with guns! I do find it odd that the gunslinger has too many "moving parts", but then you go on to praise the magus and the Inquisitor, the two most complicated martial classes. :-$
Anyways, my main hope is that ability score checks, and any other check where the die matters more for levels 1 to 18, are replaced with 3d6.
|
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
Buff [INSERT YOUR FAVOURITE CLASS HERE*], because it's weak, Pathfinder almost crippled it, devs please, look at it!
Nerf [INSERT MY LEAST FAVOURITE CLASS HERE**], it's far too powerful, imbalanced and overbearing, my GM/friend/sister is making 100 damage per round, this is bad.
And remove [PICK TWO FROM: GUNSLINGER,NINJA,SAMURAI] from the game, they don't fit in my cherished vision of prisitne, Western Medieval fantasy.
* - bonus points if it's Cleric or Druid
** - bonus points if it's Fighter or Rogue
|
Personally, I think the Cleric needs a complete overhaul, so that a cleric of two completely different faiths are two completely different characters, fundimentally. Add more/differnt options for Channeling, drop (or do not tie to alignment) sontanious casting, allow either spontanious Domains spells or the natural ability to add them to the Clerics spell list. Class features. . . Mabe even swinging back to the Beta version of Domains. Lastly, give them something unique that no other class gets, right now they have nothing at all. Note I am not saying buff it, just change it.
Also, I think the Paladin is too good. It needs to drop back some, in my opinion. Not much, but a little bit for certain.
Also, for all classes really, either increase the amount of needed ability scores for them all (to be more dependant like the Cleric or Monk) or reduce them across the board (like the Wizard or Rogue).
Make Min Skill Points 4+Int, (and maybe drop Rogues back to 6+Int?).
Incorporate one or two Archtypes into the core material.
Wait what? Rogues only need one ability score? Which is that? Strength?
Because it sure isn't Dexterity.
First thing is to fix a lot of old misconceptions and vague points. The changes will be hard enough without that to deal with.
Dazing spell needs to be done fixed. It is too cheap. Persistent spell is also too cheap.
Redo the Eidolon so it has less rules exceptions.
Rogues need some love.
I still don't like the witch's walking spellbook.
That is all I have for now since anything else would be playstyle oriented as opposed to something that is better overall.
For the most part clearing rules up is what I would like.
PS:Abandon antagonize, and that spell that gives out paladin powers.
|
|
Wait what? Rogues only need one ability score? Which is that? Strength?
Because it sure isn't Dexterity.
If you are refering to me, I didn't say they needed one, I said they are less dependant on having many (3 or 4) fairly high scores than say the Cleric or Monk. I'm also saying across the board either increase or decrease all classes number of "needed" ability scores, <to do what they are intended to do>.
Sorcerers need Wisdom casting. Seriously. It makes more sense than Charisma casting.
It would be great for Bards if Versatile Performance got enchanced. Being able to retrain skill ranks is the biggest issue, with the weird "what counts, what doesn't" issues needing a bit more explanation.
Clerics could do with a few Druid-style bonuses. Seriously, at least a +2 to Knowledge(Religion). 2 more skill points and some random side abilities other than channeling would really help the class break out of its weird "powerful, but boring" rut.
Monks, just drop the Lawful requirement. Alignment requirements do little but prevent interesting concepts. And gosh darn it, I want my CG Master of the Empty Hand / Cook to be able to run around bashing people with pans!
Rogue needs a revamp of talents. Make them like Magus talents, with a variety of level ranges rather than a cutoff at level 10. Increasing their general power level would also really help. Anything that helps make a Dexterity and/or Charisma based rogue more powerful would be a plus, as the current Strength Rogue motif is awful.
Any non-Int based class with 2 skill ranks should be bumped to at least 3, if not 4. All the new classes follow this, it seems like the old ones only get 2 because of tradition. And, while we are on skills, drop Appraise and Fly. Appraise is a nice idea, but rarely used and exists only to interfere with wealth by level (and could be replaced by a Craft or Profession check for interesting, unique situations). Fly is just sky Acrobatics. Oh, and Climb and Swim = Athletics.
Okay, I'm getting demanding at this point. But come on... the Clerics and bards need some love, and all Bards want is their skill points back. Is that too much to ask?
Sorcerers need Wisdom casting. Seriously. It makes more sense than Charisma casting.In my opinion, a Wis based sorcerer is a psion. I have no idea why you think wis makes more senyse than cha.
If my powers are innate, and I was born with them, why do I need to be socially skilled to use them? That makes no sense. Why would a socially awkward sorcerer be unable to use their powers?
|
|
Buff skills and, in particular, AID ANOTHER so that all the players will more want to run con games or stealth runs. No one should feel like they've gotnothing to contribute because the party is currently doing social or stealth stuff.
I don't think the skills themselves need "buffing" (with a few exceptions), but rather that the classes with less skill pints can have more. This would put it more in the players hands to pick if they wanted to be "left out" in crtain types of encounters (which some people might want), but at the same time allow them to be more well rounded as well.
Combine the Sorcerer and Summoner
Why Sorcerer? I think Oracles (thematicaly anyway) might sound better? Just curous.
Change the archetypes to base them on attributes. A wis based fighter would be a kensai. A cha based fighter would be a bravo.
They kind of already do this, right? Could you explan a bt more what you mean specifically?
Witch should be a cha based wizard or an int based sorcerer.
Why? Persnal preference?
Reduce the Christmas tree effect.
I catually kind of like the "christmas tree" thing, because it means that players have to decide how to allocate, do they want to save up for this or spend for that now? To me, it's like leveling up, part of character advancement.
Or do you mean tat you want base abilities and class features to have more impact? That I kind of agree with, but that's different.
Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.
Which of course could lead to the discussion of what changes could/should be made to classes, short of a full revision.
Does anybody have a link to the source of that information? Thanks!
Anyway, although I can imagine some changes to core classes, I don't think I am ready for buying a Pathfinder revision yet. If Paizo is merely considering releasing the info through FAQs or on a website... well, it would depend on the direction of the changes.
For example:
1) Changes to restrict spellcasting are fine by me, so long as interesting spells stay in the game, even if many think them unbalanced. Perhaps spell lists could be revised to ensure that one needs to specialize to gain interesting spells from that specialization and be forced to forgo such spells from other specializations.
2) Hopefully, the changes will not add additional arbitrary concepts, such as 'per encounter' timing and such.
If my powers are innate, and I was born with them, why do I need to be socially skilled to use them? That makes no sense. Why would a socially awkward sorcerer be unable to use their powers?Sorcerers need Wisdom casting. Seriously. It makes more sense than Charisma casting.In my opinion, a Wis based sorcerer is a psion. I have no idea why you think wis makes more senyse than cha.It's a complication in how the ability scores are defined. Charisma is your force of will, your inner strength so to speak.
Why it's not used for Will saves... the world will never know.
I always thought Wisdom was force of will.
Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.
Which of course could lead to the discussion of what changes could/should be made to classes, short of a full revision.
Does anybody have a link to the source of that information? Thanks!
Anyway, although I can imagine some changes to core classes, I don't think I am ready for buying a Pathfinder revision yet. If Paizo is merely considering releasing the info through FAQs or on a website... well, it would depend on the direction of the changes.
For example:
1) Changes to restrict spellcasting are fine by me, so long as interesting spells stay in the game, even if many think them unbalanced. Perhaps spell lists could be revised to ensure that one needs to specialize to gain interesting spells from that specialization and be forced to forgo such spells from other specializations.
2) Hopefully, the changes will not add additional arbitrary concepts, such as 'per encounter' timing and such.
I'm pretty sure they would actively go against the "per encounter"-style shenanigans. They might stick with the per-day stuff, but even that I wouldn't be 100% sure about.
I wonder if you understand what charisma represents. It doesn't represent social skill (the actual skills represent that). Keep in mind that charisma powers UMD.If my powers are innate, and I was born with them, why do I need to be socially skilled to use them? That makes no sense. Why would a socially awkward sorcerer be unable to use their powers?Sorcerers need Wisdom casting. Seriously. It makes more sense than Charisma casting.In my opinion, a Wis based sorcerer is a psion. I have no idea why you think wis makes more senyse than cha.
If that's true, than why is Wisdom the will save stat? Either somebody is being inconsistent, or Wisdom was intended to be mental fortitude. If it isn't, and Charisma is, some changes need to be made.
|
|
I always thought Wisdom was force of will.
It's a complication in how the ability scores are defined. Charisma is your force of will, your inner strength so to speak.Why it's not used for Will saves... the world will never know.
It is, that's the point they are trying to make. If a Sorcerer (or Oracle) is using their "force of will" to cast their magic, they should be Wisdom based, not Cha. Wis governs Will saves for that reason, not Cha.
I always thought Wisdom was force of will.If my powers are innate, and I was born with them, why do I need to be socially skilled to use them? That makes no sense. Why would a socially awkward sorcerer be unable to use their powers?Sorcerers need Wisdom casting. Seriously. It makes more sense than Charisma casting.In my opinion, a Wis based sorcerer is a psion. I have no idea why you think wis makes more senyse than cha.It's a complication in how the ability scores are defined. Charisma is your force of will, your inner strength so to speak.
Why it's not used for Will saves... the world will never know.
It is. Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. Though you can drop any one or two of those, since it would imply that Liches are attractive.
|
|
Buff [INSERT YOUR FAVOURITE CLASS HERE*], because it's weak, Pathfinder almost crippled it, devs please, look at it!
Nerf [INSERT MY LEAST FAVOURITE CLASS HERE**], it's far too powerful, imbalanced and overbearing, my GM/friend/sister is making 100 damage per round, this is bad.
And remove [PICK TWO FROM: GUNSLINGER,NINJA,SAMURAI] from the game, they don't fit in my cherished vision of prisitne, Western Medieval fantasy.
* - bonus points if it's Cleric or Druid
** - bonus points if it's Fighter or Rogue
The messageboard had been getting dull.
Besides, if you don't put your cards on the table, you aren't playing.
Wisdom is Wisdom. Aka Insight and Sage-nessI always thought Wisdom was force of will.If my powers are innate, and I was born with them, why do I need to be socially skilled to use them? That makes no sense. Why would a socially awkward sorcerer be unable to use their powers?Sorcerers need Wisdom casting. Seriously. It makes more sense than Charisma casting.In my opinion, a Wis based sorcerer is a psion. I have no idea why you think wis makes more senyse than cha.It's a complication in how the ability scores are defined. Charisma is your force of will, your inner strength so to speak.
Why it's not used for Will saves... the world will never know.
Than why is it the Will save attribute?
Pathfinder next edition needs to clear this up. Either Charisma is force of will, and will saves need to be Charisma based, or Wisdom is force of will, and Sorcerers need to be Wisdom based.
On that subject, Paladins should be Charisma casters. It would fit them perfectly.
|
|
Buff [INSERT YOUR FAVOURITE CLASS HERE*], because it's weak, Pathfinder almost crippled it, devs please, look at it!
Nerf [INSERT MY LEAST FAVOURITE CLASS HERE**], it's far too powerful, imbalanced and overbearing, my GM/friend/sister is making 100 damage per round, this is bad.
And remove [PICK TWO FROM: GUNSLINGER,NINJA,SAMURAI] from the game, they don't fit in my cherished vision of prisitne, Western Medieval fantasy.
* - bonus points if it's Cleric or Druid
** - bonus points if it's Fighter or RogueThe messageboard had been getting dull.
Besides, if you don't put your cards on the table, you aren't playing.
You don't mind me dropping a few matches into to gas tank? Like you've said, it's been getting dull lately... <3
On that subject, Paladins should be Charisma casters. It would fit them perfectly.
They are.
Beginning at 4th level, a paladin gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells which are drawn from the paladin spell list presented in Spell Lists. A paladin must choose and prepare her spells in advance.
To prepare or cast a spell, a paladin must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a paladin's spell is 10 + the spell level + the paladin's Charisma modifier.
Like other spellcasters, a paladin can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: Paladin. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Charisma score (see Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells). When Table: Paladin indicates that the paladin gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level, she gains only the bonus spells she would be entitled to based on her Charisma score for that spell level.
It is. Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. Though you can drop any one or two of those, since it would imply that Liches are attractive.I always thought Wisdom was force of will.If my powers are innate, and I was born with them, why do I need to be socially skilled to use them? That makes no sense. Why would a socially awkward sorcerer be unable to use their powers?Sorcerers need Wisdom casting. Seriously. It makes more sense than Charisma casting.In my opinion, a Wis based sorcerer is a psion. I have no idea why you think wis makes more senyse than cha.It's a complication in how the ability scores are defined. Charisma is your force of will, your inner strength so to speak.
Why it's not used for Will saves... the world will never know.
In that case, Sorcerers should definitely be casting with Wisdom. I see no good reason why personal magnetism, social aptitude, leadership ability, or attractiveness should be prerequisites for using the innate magical powers one was born with.
On that subject, Paladins should be Charisma casters. It would fit them perfectly.They are.
Beginning at 4th level, a paladin gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells which are drawn from the paladin spell list presented in Spell Lists. A paladin must choose and prepare her spells in advance.
To prepare or cast a spell, a paladin must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a paladin's spell is 10 + the spell level + the paladin's Charisma modifier.
Like other spellcasters, a paladin can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: Paladin. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Charisma score (see Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells). When Table: Paladin indicates that the paladin gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level, she gains only the bonus spells she would be entitled to based on her Charisma score for that spell level.
Yea, I just realized that after posting. For some reason I was thinking they casted with Wisdom like Clerics. I have no idea why.
Hey Vinland, 2000 called, it wants the "which stat should Sorcerers cast under" discussion back.
I didn't start D&D until 2006.
Than why is it the Will save attribute?
Pathfinder next edition needs to clear this up. Either Charisma is force of will, and will saves need to be Charisma based, or Wisdom is force of will, and Sorcerers need to be Wisdom based.
On that subject, Paladins should be Charisma casters. It would fit them perfectly.
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. The problem is Kyrt-rider doesn't seem to know what the stats represent. I think he simply forgot.
I can actually see why they would want Sorcerer's to be based on charisma, if they are based on wisdom, they will never fail a will save. Kind of like the paladin doesn't fail saves most of the time, but the paladin is supposed to make saves.
Paladins have been cha-based for the entirety of Pathfinder, I'm not entirely sure where you got that they weren't.
Yeah, but the Sorcerer flamewars didn't wait, boo on them. ;-)Hey Vinland, 2000 called, it wants the "which stat should Sorcerers cast under" discussion back.I didn't start D&D until 2006.
Still, I think it needs to be clarified whether Wisdom or Charisma is force of will, and then either Will saves or Sorcerers need to switch stats.
For some reason I was thinking they casted with Wisdom like Clerics. I have no idea why.PF changed it. They used to be Wis based. Personally, I liked this better, but thats personal opinion.
No, the 3.5 Paladin was a ball of snots, one of the worst classes, because, for some reason, they needed basically every stat. Strength to hit, Dex to not get hit, go first, and cover up his lousy reflex-save, Con so they wouldn't die, Int because they didn't get any skills, wisdom so they could cast spells, and charisma so they could use their class features.
Now I remember why the Sorcerer runs on Cha: charisma is the stat through which people make others do things, in the sorcerer's case, they are making the laws of physics sit down and shut up.