|
* Decouple mechanics from flavor. (Allowing a nature-themed caster without being a druid, for example.)
** Corollary to the above: Remove alignment restrictions unless a class absolutely positively cannot work without it.
EDIT: I do not mean to say we should remove *suggested* flavor, merely make it core that you can reflavor as long as the actual rule doesn't change.
I'm going to take a mindsaw to this hypothetical limb and say a .5 will never happen. Paizo will eventually issue a new edition. How far into the future, and how much change are questions, but questions too soon to ask, IMO. But they'd never stick a half to us.
Remove alignment.
Remove experience.
* Decouple mechanics from flavor. (Allowing a nature-themed caster without being a druid, for example.)
** Corollary to the above: Remove alignment restrictions unless a class absolutely positively cannot work without it.EDIT: I do not mean to say we should remove *suggested* flavor, merely make it core that you can reflavor as long as the actual rule doesn't change.
Why can't you do that now?
I'd want to make NPCs and monsters a different, yet integrated, system simply to reduce the complexity of monster creation.
Remove alignment.
Remove experience.
Is it a majority of players that dislikes the alignment system, or merely a very vocal minority?
Is it a majority of players that dislikes the alignment system, or merely a very vocal minority?Remove alignment.
Remove experience.
I do not have the answer to this question. From my experience with removing alignment I've noticed that such a houserule either positively affects the gaming environment or doesn't change a thing, but as never dulled an otherwise excellent game session. However, I cannot say whether or not such opinions and experiences are typical.
1. I would remove meta-game rules that keep you from doing things that you can do in the real world but cant do in the game because of power issues.
when in doubt if you can do it in the real world then yes you can do it in the game.
2. I will need to think really hard about the second thing i would change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
my list is simple:
some max on HP and AC. I haven't thought this through too much so I'm not sure where other changes would have to be made. Maybe hp progression would change and attack bonuses would have to be leveled off.that's my "2",
booger=boy
Why would you want a max on HP or AC out of curiosity, i personally would hate having a max on HP.
* Decouple mechanics from flavor. (Allowing a nature-themed caster without being a druid, for example.)
** Corollary to the above: Remove alignment restrictions unless a class absolutely positively cannot work without it.EDIT: I do not mean to say we should remove *suggested* flavor, merely make it core that you can reflavor as long as the actual rule doesn't change.
Why can't you do that now?
I'd want to make NPCs and monsters a different, yet integrated, system simply to reduce the complexity of monster creation.
Doesn't 4E actually do that?
|
Make the Paladin/Inquisitor a worse Cleric than the Ceric, and make sure that all classes have fairly equal options, paths, ways to break the "mold", and things designed for just them, but one or two other classes can achieve if built right.
Drop the Rogue, and make 4+Int minimum for skill points, with the possible exception of the Druid (like the Barb for the HD/BaB corilation).
4th (if asked) rebalance spell levels, what classes get what spells, and have an actual mechanical difference for Arcane and Divine, or drop them too.
5th (if asked) replace the Witch, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Summoner, etc Cavalier. . . with options for related core classes to achieve those themes and mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
#1 Skills: Up all skills to 4+ minimum, either that or decouple skills and classes. Give everyone 6+Int skill points, but have a list of skills each class is required to take [edit, required to take 1 or 2 skills not all six]. Make leadership into a Cha based skill not a feat. Make the Cohort accessible with a Cohort Feat.
#2 Dump dump stats. Make all saves based upon the average of two stats instead of a single stat, this means if you have a dump stat one of your saves will suffer. Perhaps WILL=WIS/CON REFLEX=DEX/INT FORT=STR/CHA. Also decrease the 7 in stat to -3 points instead of -4.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. I'd love to see a lot of the "specialized" classes be statted out as advanced (not prestige) classes that you can take at level 3.
For instance, a bard could be a sorcerer 1/rogue 1; a pally could be a cleric 1/fighter 1; a ranger could be a druid 1/fighter 1.
2. Feat masteries and skill challenges from Iron Heroes.
Edit: Strike 2. I'd love to see that, but I'd rather see the magic system from Arcana Evolved.
Doesn't 4E actually do that?* Decouple mechanics from flavor. (Allowing a nature-themed caster without being a druid, for example.)
** Corollary to the above: Remove alignment restrictions unless a class absolutely positively cannot work without it.EDIT: I do not mean to say we should remove *suggested* flavor, merely make it core that you can reflavor as long as the actual rule doesn't change.
Why can't you do that now?
I'd want to make NPCs and monsters a different, yet integrated, system simply to reduce the complexity of monster creation.
And Shadowrun, and World of Darkness, and New World of Darkness, and Cyberpunk 2020, and Aberrant, and Ars Magica, and Earthdawn...
What does it matter if 4E does it, too?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My two (unpopular) changes:
1) Remove multiple attacks from the game. When you would normally get extra attacks (be it from Rapid Shot, TWF, Flurry of Blows, or even just high BAB), instead increase damage with your attack by some significant number. Create some sort of free provision for mowing through hordes of lower level enemies--maybe provide free Greater Cleaving Finish up to the number of damage bonuses you have from "extra attacks."
2) Remove PC access to spells and most access to magic items. Re-balance monsters accordingly.
2) Remove PC access to spells and most access to magic items. Re-balance monsters accordingly.
I can understand wanting to pull magic items, but spells? Why would you want to take away spells?
2) Remove PC access to spells and most access to magic items. Re-balance monsters accordingly.I can understand wanting to pull magic items, but spells? Why would you want to take away spells?
Removing them is easier than making them fair...
Besides, I like the Sword and Sorcery feel of these sorts of games. I've run D&D that way for a very long time.
Ah, I knew that there was a reason I held off on my #2 change.
I really want magic-item dependency to go away.
|
|
Ah, I knew that there was a reason I held off on my #2 change.
I really want magic-item dependency to go away.
Concurrence. I really prefer when magic items feel special at least a tiny bit, rather than being something necessary just to keep up.
It wouldn't be so bad if the items that are considered necessary weren't all just boosts to existing attributes (+to ability scores, +to attack, +to damage, +to saves, +to AC). I mean, how boring is that?
These items could be exactly as powerful, but if they were something other than flat bonuses to existing statistics I would probably be a much happier person.
The cover, and the version number.
YES! lol.
|
|
Doesn't 4E actually do that?* Decouple mechanics from flavor. (Allowing a nature-themed caster without being a druid, for example.)
** Corollary to the above: Remove alignment restrictions unless a class absolutely positively cannot work without it.EDIT: I do not mean to say we should remove *suggested* flavor, merely make it core that you can reflavor as long as the actual rule doesn't change.
Why can't you do that now?
I'd want to make NPCs and monsters a different, yet integrated, system simply to reduce the complexity of monster creation.
And Shadowrun, and World of Darkness, and New World of Darkness, and Cyberpunk 2020, and Aberrant, and Ars Magica, and Earthdawn...
What does it matter if 4E does it, too?
And OD&D, AD&D 1e, Holmes D&D, Moldvay/Cook Basic, BECMI, AD&D 2e...
The cover, and the version number.YES! lol.See, I actually find his statement to be distasteful as it implies that the system is without flaw. Starting with this base disallows critical thinking about what could be changed for the better (in many cases with almost no impact to the game).
It's possible he'd change more than those two things.
Make zero magic items the default assumption with an easy system for increasing magical power/prevalence/dependency.
Make combat quicker.
|
|
It's possible he'd change more than those two things.The cover, and the version number.YES! lol.See, I actually find his statement to be distasteful as it implies that the system is without flaw. Starting with this base disallows critical thinking about what could be changed for the better (in many cases with almost no impact to the game).
Ah, true. Around forums I generally assume obsession instead of snark for some reason.
With TOZ I find it fruitful to assume flippancy. That may be unfair though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you want a max on HP or AC out of curiosity, i personally would hate having a max on HP.my list is simple:
some max on HP and AC. I haven't thought this through too much so I'm not sure where other changes would have to be made. Maybe hp progression would change and attack bonuses would have to be leveled off.that's my "2",
booger=boyI'd do this to make the game simpler and in some case quicker. Instead of a 700 hp dragon make it a 200 hp'er. Or a 150hper a 70 hper. Littler numbers should make things go by faster.
booger=boy
Thanks for adding that sig every time. I'd have no idea who made the post if you didn't do that.
Remove Attacks of Opportunity and replace it with a system that automatically stops actions in progress with no need to have a player/GM make a decision and/or make a roll.
Change "per day" to a slow recharge rate.
I kind of like this recharge idea. I can see some point system per hour being put in place. It might even mean that you don't get a full refresh of yer spells ever 24 hours. Have some super duper spell, need a week to build up the power to cast it. Maybe even have the recharge rate differ per level so that the low level spells are easy to recharge as you go up in levels.
booger=boy
Iron Heroes uses tokens. Most classes use actions of some sort to gather tokens and then spend them on class abilities. Some classes automatically gain tokens for certain things -- the berserker for getting hit, for example.
It's an awesome system. Add that to my list of things I'd like to see in Pathfinder: TNG.
|
|
1) Create a Paladin for any alignment other than Neutral. I feel a Paladin should be a champion of a virtue and not just LG. The exact focus of the Paladin should be up to the player and not the rules. I would really love to see some Paladin codes for the various non-Neutral deities and have the player choose one of these or create their own code(at DM discretion of course).
2) Add an **option** for static hp progression per level instead of rolling for hp. I envision this being similar to pointbuy vs roll for stats. Both options are outlined and the system is designed to work with the static numbers by default.
3) Remove spell immunity.
4) Give Wizard and Sorcerer the same number of spells per day. (same for Cleric and Oracle)
These are mine and I see a few other ideas in this thread which I would support as well.
EDIT: Got a little overzealous and forgot about the *only 2* stipulation. If I only have two options I choose the first two.
Just redesign PCs to have the bonuses from the big 6 automatically instead of wasting all the time shopping.
|
|
Just redesign PCs to have the bonuses from the big 6 automatically instead of wasting all the time shopping.
I'm working on a homebrew setting with some friends in which we ditch the simple static-bonus items (basically the big 6). This is essentially how we're thinking about doing it, with the exception of the enhancement bonus to weapon/armor (those we're shifting to mundane crafting, because that makes crafting not worthless).
Is it a majority of players that dislikes the alignment system, or merely a very vocal minority?Does it matter? It's not going anywhere.
Well that's the thing, I am a huge fan of the alignment system and have calmly ignored all the players who have joined my game and tried to get me to stop using it. I was just wondering if I was in the minority here.
My two (unpopular) changes:
1) Remove multiple attacks from the game. When you would normally get extra attacks (be it from Rapid Shot, TWF, Flurry of Blows, or even just high BAB), instead increase damage with your attack by some significant number. Create some sort of free provision for mowing through hordes of lower level enemies--maybe provide free Greater Cleaving Finish up to the number of damage bonuses you have from "extra attacks."
2) Remove PC access to spells and most access to magic items. Re-balance monsters accordingly.
way in the ol days I think fighters and their ilk were the only ones that had multiple attacks. And it wasn't ever that many... the highest I can remember was 3 attacks every 2 rounds or sometin.
booger=boy
Fighters progressed to 3/2 then to 2/1. It was only fighters; not Paladins, nor Rangers.
However Rangers could TWF.
And Paladins could get access to Holy Avengers...
It was an entirely different game really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well that's the thing, I am a huge fan of the alignment system and have calmly ignored all the players who have joined my game and tried to get me to stop using it. I was just wondering if I was in the minority here.Is it a majority of players that dislikes the alignment system, or merely a very vocal minority?Does it matter? It's not going anywhere.Alignment has its uses. I think it'd add more if it effected the game more in some way. I'd think something how Pendragon does with its traits. Give your Alignment a score, the larger it is the more likely that it will override the players control of the character and force the PC to act a certain way. On one hand that's evil, on the other it makes it do more for the game. If someone is the paragon of goodie goodie and he had a really high score in his alignment, with the hypothetical alignment system in place I'd force him to act a certain way in various situations. At lower scores, the player should have more freedom to act with less alignment zeal.
booger=boy
I liked the numeric alignment system from S&S Studios, where a typical alignment would range a 2-3 on the scale, while celestials would have 9s. So a Devil would have a L9E6+, a demon C9E6+, a Paladin would need to be LG, but perhaps he's more lawful than good...L5G3
Benefits from high numbers were greater effects from alignment based spells. There was no true neutral, just shades of grey, perhaps L1E1, C1G1, etc. It made a good system for helping define a character. My wife played a C6G1 character that liked to smash things....a LOT.
Alignment has its uses. I think it'd add more if it effected the game more in some way.
booger=boy
Well Booger, I can call you Booger can't Ii, alignment does effect the game in a concrete way, when you can point at something like a demon and say, see that thing over there? It's pure chaos and evil. Or Paladins have the ability to SMITE EVIL, or Inquisitors can basically sniff out where people are on the alignment scale. It's up to the individual GM to decide how much alignment effects their players.