|
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.Alignment has its uses. I think it'd add more if it effected the game more in some way.
booger=boy
Yeah, I find alignment perfectly okay in this respect. For my home games I just clarify what it takes to be L or G or what-have-you to make it harder to get into arguments about. But I do like that stuff like "Holy Smite" and "Axiomatic" and such exist. They're cool and add to the game.
The only thing I don't like about alignment is when you get classes with "obviously you can only be this class if you're X alignment" when the class itself offers somewhere between no and trite reasoning for such a restriction (the main reasoning for some being legacy). Except Paladins. If you make one of those non-good, you have to do a re-write (as you should). Though I wouldn't have minded them being a prestige class instead.
At least they removed *some* of these sorts of alignment restrictions (like bard, for example).
For me, I'd change how PRCs work. Cause as is, unless they really do something big (and I mean big) few people with choose only a few of them.
For one, I'd have lesser requirements getting into one (less useless feats basically) and give them abilities dependent on the class(s) you where previously. Often most PrCs would have a story event you would need to do though to get in, just less metagaming about the small stuff. If you are none of the classes it gives as a base, you only get its normal abilities unless the DM says "ninja's are like rogues.. so you could get the rogues abilities for the class too" For example Rogue Assassins would get a little more sneak attack than fighter assassins who get more bravery.
PrCs would NEVER require a specific class to take unless it required 2 classes. An example of a bad PrC would be Master Chymest, because it requires alchemist and alchemist only. However an okay one would be Battleherald, cause while it requires Bard, it also needs Cavalier and blends them together. Even better though would be Assassin, as any class can get into it as it doesn't need sneak attack anymore.
They will have the abilities to remove them from the setting. Instead of getting something like "Intrinsic knowledge of Shackles" you might be able to pick up something like Seafarer. This is for campaigns that don't take place in the main setting or won't have you in the Shackles a good enough amount to be useful.
Besides PrCs the next thing I'd change is well.. I'd have an entire chapter.. nah BOOK! about unusual warfare. Like a fighter who trains tirelessly to use a grappling hook as a weapon. Actions that don't require feats. Hell many feats will be obtainable through actions. In fact you would be able to have more choices on what weapon prof you start off with. I guess what you could say is if i made a really big change, it would be the use of Character Points to develop characters.
I'd add a great big section on how to run and play the game to core book. Doesn't matter if it increases page count too much and something else has to go, because it's just that important.
The books are crammed with rules, but tell you very little about how to use them or what you're really meant to do with them. If I were new to role playing I'd be very confused even if I could somehow understand the crunch exceptionally well.
I would also use this new section to change the distribution of authority in the game. Right now I think a legacy of games designed by GMs has led to a very bad social dynamic in mainstream RPGs. I don't think there should ever be one player who can tell all the others what they can and cannot do, make up and enforce new rules, or override the will of all other players at the table. Indie RPGs tend to get this right and they most certainly prove you can make a game work using the old model.
There are so many other things, great and small, that I would like to change, so for my second choice I'd say swapping some of the bulk of monsters, character options, items etc for more optional rules, so you can run that low magic/no hp/low level/epic/whatever game out of the first few books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 things eh?
- Get rid of this sacred cow.....Enhancement bonuses to items. Thats right, no more +1, +2, +3 crap at the beginning or end of magical properties. It creates magic item dependency. Also, I think it put unneeded strain on the Math of the game. You can get by just as fine if your sword if Flaming instead of +2 Flaming or +5 Flaming Throwin Returning. Along these lins is thes synergy of weapons. In 4E, you have heavy blades and that's the category used for focusing and specializing via feats. So a Fighter that loves longswords and takes Weapon Focus (heavy blades) doesn't get screwed when he comes across a finely crafted Flaming Throwing Returning greatsword.
- The removal of spellcasters resorting to mundane weapons. Why why why why is this still prevailent in modern RPGs? No one playing a wizard or sorcerer is EVER happy pulling out that crossbow (something I'm sure they suck with) because they've fun out of spells or don't want to waste spells. So why not make those cantrips a BIT more enticing. Seriously though, d3?! d3. What the hell am I going to do with that?? How about make Cantrips deal X damage, period. No damge rolls. So that nice Acid Splash will deal 3 + 1 acid damage every 3 levels (after 1st). So at 4th level, that Acid Splash is dealing a whooping 4 damage per casting.
Couple of other things...
| 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
I have three, if you please.
(0) Make a Pathfinder .5 version by releasing the equivalent of an Unearthed Arcana book. Don't tweak the 'core' rules, but offer optional alternate rules that GMs may want to invoke as house rules (which many GMs have anyway).
(1) The standard rules are built around the same old well-worn PC races: humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, and the two half-human races. There's plenty of support for these, from feats to ethnic weapons. It would be nice to see about half a dozen other monsters promoted to the same level. It would be better to shy away from the archetypical evil races, where PCs of these races are almost pidgeonholed into but a small range of backgrounds like "the tribal outcast" or "adopted at birth." There should be plenty enough non-evil zero-HD monsters that could be elevated in this way, and they should all also be well-known fantasy staples. The rules options book described above would need to go into enough detail to enable these other races to "catch up" to the ones already established.
(2) A simplified encumbrance system. There is an entire table for figuring out how many pounds of stuff a character of such-and-such Strength can carry before taking penalties, up to a maximum load. Many GMs just ignore encumbrance except for when PCs attempt to carry an obviously problematic amount of baggage like a chest of coins or the carcass of a dragon. Why have rules that you will end up ignoring most of the time? Eliminate the need to tackle it like an accounting problem when a character may or may not be carrying too much.
1. Create rules for scalable magic and magic items levels (availability) built directly into the game system instead of having to work with it. Like integrating more mundane character abilities for lower magic/magic items worlds and less for worlds in which magic and/or magic items are more prevalent.
2. Re-evaluate the action economy. Id like to see if it was possible to make an option to take many less powerful actions in a turn as opposed to one big one. This would go a long way to helping with the problem of single enemy encounters that many dms face.
I only want little changes.
Things should be re-worded and re-organized to make the game easy to learn and play without changing the rules. Some systems that are ponderous and unfun but do not affect the game session directly (mainly looking at treasure gen here) should be reworked.
Despite my call for small changes only, I must insist that fractional edition numbers are silly.
Call of Cthulu is often held as the standard for what a new edition (but not a new game) should be.
Removal of alignments (I don't) and XP (I do) and +1 weapons (I don't) are great house rules, and they will remain so in the next edition as well. Those three changes (and others suggested upthread) would create a lot of garbage in existing statblocks.
Change casting to be based off 2 stats. Intelligence to determine the highest spell level the character can cast and bonus spells per day. Charisma or Wisdom to determine the save DC and other spell properties.
Make spell resistance more effective and common for player characters.
|
Is it a majority of players that dislikes the alignment system, or merely a very vocal minority?Remove alignment.
Remove experience.
Really don't know SwnyNerdgasm. The alignment system is something I find both wonderfully simple and thought provoking, and was (myself) scandalised they'd mucked about with it in 4th ed.
Now, the "assisting" others & [shudders] "taking 10/20/whatever" with skill checks I absolutely despise, despite understanding the logic.
Interesting. What would you do instead of taking 20 on a repeatable check? The only two possibilities I can think of are making the player roll again and again until they pass, even though everybody knows how it'll eventually end up, or letting anybody at all succeed any check as long as they have a long time to try. Both of those options seem downright crazy.
As for taking 10, wouldn't it bother you that nobody got casually competent at simple tasks until they extremely skilled?
|
I dislike alignment; mostly from a PC perspective. I hate doing something then having someone tell me "that's not something a (fill in your alignment) would do". It's too integrated mechanically to do away with though.
This is one thing I think 4.0 did right; have "GOOD" and "EVIL" for extremes (angels, devils, etc); with most not having an alignment. But again, too many alignment based mechanics.
And is it not a bit annoying that any intrigue adventures can often be foiled by alignment detection, pending you shinaniganning said power as to make it useless?
I like alignment. Mainly because it allows things like spells and items that affect only creatures of a certain alignment. It also allows you to create items or spell effects that only work with creatures of a certain alignment.
It's a mechanical set of rules for "being good" or "being evil".
What I would like?
1) A small set of core rules with a larger subset of optional rules that you can plug in as needed.
2) Difficulty settings to let people play on easy, standard, or hard mode. This kind of exists now but lay it out in a way where monsters and encounters are created using a standard template, and then easy and hard can be modified per the RAW and not by a DM's interpretation of what is easy or hard to give a baseline (DMs can still adjust how they need afterward)
1) Nerf the syntysist
- he's to silly broken. Lose spellcasting or cut it in ½.
2) more magic items. I'm missing a MIC with alot of interesting small items instead of "just" saving up to another +1 to saves, AC or To hit...
(1) Class analysis. Not for balance, but for playability. Every class should be enjoyable to play, and able to contribute without being trapped in the sidekick role. Rogue, Monk, I'm looking at you.
(2) Someone said this earlier, but a nice big set of optional rulesets for PF. Things like a level-free XP-purchase progression system... or different health/damage/healing mechanics... that kind of stuff.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Get rid of the overlap between Touch AC and Reflex saves. They're both DEX-based, see-whether-it-hits-you-or-not mechanics, so they really should be a single mechanic. As it stands, you have two different stats that are theoretically representing the same thing but function in opposite ways (one scales with level while the other is opposed by something that scales with level; one is static while the other is rolled; one is potentially limited by armor while the other is not; one is affected by the Dodge feat while the other is affected by Lightning Reflexes; and so forth). Make them the same stat!
1b. The above would of course require reworking "make a (potentially ranged) touch attack" and "requires a Reflex save" effects. One depends on the potency of the effect and the mental aptitude of the attacker, while the other relies on the attacker's precision (DEX) and general combat aptitude.
2. Find some way besides iterative attacks/AoO's and magic items to balance the caster/martial disparity. At level 1 you're hosed if you don't have a tank/DPR monkey, but at level 10+ you're hosed if you don't have casters. Make their power start at the same place and grow at the same rate!
Touch Attacks and Touch AC are my biggest beef with 3.x (and PF). You wanna talk martial/caster divide? I think this is part fo where it sits. What's the biggest nerf to a caster? his attack roll, but to balance this they added an easier ac for him to hit. Take that away and suddenly Casters who use touch spells stop hitting all the time. They lose effectiveness big time, when their spells can't land. The Touch ac makes some sense but just hurts the fighter and melee guys making them attack the monsters 30+ac while the mage hits the 11 touch. It gets rediculous at high levels when the mage never misses but the fighters can barely hit. I say either use the suggestion up thread and make them all reflex saves or just plain do away with touch like the old days... One AC to rule them all!
My other thought would be remove extra attacks for added dice, like star wars saga in a way... being able to swing as a standard action or charge and do the same amount of damage as our new full attack makes melee better.
|
|
Touch Attacks and Touch AC are my biggest beef with 3.x (and PF). You wanna talk martial/caster divide? I think this is part fo where it sits. What's the biggest nerf to a caster? his attack roll, but to balance this they added an easier ac for him to hit. Take that away and suddenly Casters who use touch spells stop hitting all the time. They lose effectiveness big time, when their spells can't land. The Touch ac makes some sense but just hurts the fighter and melee guys making them attack the monsters 30+ac while the mage hits the 11 touch. It gets rediculous at high levels when the mage never misses but the fighters can barely hit. I say either use the suggestion up thread and make them all reflex saves or just plain do away with touch like the old days... One AC to rule them all!
My other thought would be remove extra attacks for added dice, like star wars saga in a way... being able to swing as a standard action or charge and do the same amount of damage as our new full attack makes melee better.
But this is balanced by more than their attack roll. It's also balanced by the fact that being in melee is dangerous for casters (for two reasons, one being concentration and the other being lacking HP/AC), while ranged touch attacks must deal with cover and the firing-into-melee penalty.
Making the caster hit full AC means that they must hit the same AC but at 10-15 less attack roll (remember that they do not get enhancement bonuses to touch spell attacks). This would already be unfair compared to martial (since touch spells generally deal ~= damage to a full-round), but when you tack on concentration checks, lower HP/AC and/or cover/firing-into-melee penalties, it gets cruel. Those spells would just never be used (and, in games I play, they are already ill used except when playing magus).
|
|
2) more magic items. I'm missing a MIC with alot of interesting small items instead of "just" saving up to another +1 to saves, AC or To hit...
I strongly second this point. I remember digging through my MIC every time we hit a town and looking for something really cool. Now I find myself just looking to see what I have left over after purchasing my "+1" for my headband, belt, ring, amulet, and cloak. If I am a fighter type it gets worse because I need the "+1" to my armor, shield, and weapon(s).
EDIT: Also, in a related note, I believe there are too many varieties of bonus types. Reduce the list to one or two bonus types. I would suggest magic (from spells and such including divine spells), divine (from deities directly not divine spells), racial, and untyped. Divine type bonuses would be extremely rare (epic level stuff, artifacts, and similar). Racial would be gained only from your race or a racial feat which improves an existing bonus. This leaves magic type bonuses to be the majority of bonuses with untyped being those rare "stacks with everything" bonuses.
I am just tired of the mmo-style items where every new item is a slight numerical increase from the last item.
EDIT2: Last edit I promise.
The perfect example for too many bonus types is armor bonuses.
1 - Armor
2 - Enhancement to Armor
3 - Natural Armor
4 - Enhancement to Natural Armor
5 - Shield
6 - Enhancement to Shield
7 - Dodge
8 - Insight
9 - Deflection
10 - Sacred
11 - Profane
12 - Dexterity
This is just too many options for the same thing. If you really want to get crazy you can get even more. Some classes allow adding various other statistics and bonuses to AC. I can understand shield vs armor, but natural armor could just be armor. Too many types of bonuses leads to stacking bonuses to ridiculousness. Most players in my games (and I am guilty of this as well) have 7-10 bonus types for armor. Having a character adding 12+ different things for their AC is not unreasonable for a defender type. The game becomes "how many different things can I add together?" /rant_end
1. Get rid of the overlap between Touch AC and Reflex saves. They're both DEX-based, see-whether-it-hits-you-or-not mechanics, so they really should be a single mechanic. As it stands, you have two different stats that are theoretically representing the same thing but function in opposite ways (one scales with level while the other is opposed by something that scales with level; one is static while the other is rolled; one is potentially limited by armor while the other is not; one is affected by the Dodge feat while the other is affected by Lightning Reflexes; and so forth). Make them the same stat!
1b. The above would of course require reworking "make a (potentially ranged) touch attack" and "requires a Reflex save" effects. One depends on the potency of the effect and the mental aptitude of the attacker, while the other relies on the attacker's precision (DEX) and general combat aptitude.
2. Find some way besides iterative attacks/AoO's and magic items to balance the caster/martial disparity. At level 1 you're hosed if you don't have a tank/DPR monkey, but at level 10+ you're hosed if you don't have casters. Make their power start at the same place and grow at the same rate!
As far as 1 goes, with Gunslingers class, you really can't do that. In the real world, if someone fires a gun, unless they are firing from a VERY long distance (I use a Gunslinger in PFS and I'm firing usually from within 30 feet) it doesn't matter what their reflexes are, they aren't going to dodge a bullet. Also, if someone comes up and pokes you in the chest, while casting a spell that goes through your armor, again, you aren't going to be able to jump out of the way. That's why there's that overlap, because it doesn't always work in that way. But that's my two cents on that.
Now, as far as what I would change in Pathfinder Second Edition (if they ever make one, more geared towards Society Play) -
1. Add a couple more races playable races. I'm not saying go overboard with them, but it would be nice to be able to play as Goblins or Full Orcs or Catfolk.
2. Maximized Damage Spells. While it's nice in that you really don't have to do math, they can sometimes get out of hand. Again, going back to PFS and a scenario I just ran, I had someone kill half of the enemies in an encounter because he hit them with a fireball that dealt maximized damage.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
(Stuff about Touch AC versus Reflex saves)As far as 1 goes, with Gunslingers class, you really can't do that. In the real world, if someone fires a gun, unless they are firing from a VERY long distance (I use a Gunslinger in PFS and I'm firing usually from within 30 feet) it doesn't matter what their reflexes are, they aren't going to dodge a bullet. Also, if someone comes up and pokes you in the chest, while casting a spell that goes through your armor, again, you aren't going to be able to jump out of the way.
And yet:
Dodge (Combat)
Your training and reflexes allow you to react swiftly to avoid an opponents' attacks.Prerequisite: Dex 13.
Benefit: You gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC. A condition that makes you lose your Dex bonus to AC also makes you lose the benefits of this feat.
Not to mention that the stat that you add to your Touch AC in the first place is DEX, something which you lose if you're caught flat-footed or otherwise unable to move out of the way of things.
So yes, my ability to move out of the way of things does affect avoiding a bullet or a touch spell (otherwise DEX wouldn't be involved at all - if it was just your aim versus luck, I'd be denied my DEX bonus or give you a flat target AC to hit or something); it just does so via a different mechanic than my ability to move out of the way of certain other things.
To throw it into greater relief:
If you cast lightning bolt, you stick your arm out and launch lightning at my face. I try to get out of the way.
If you use the granted power of the Air domain, you stick your arm out and launch lightning at my face. I try to get out of the way.
In the former case, the result is completely unaffected by your ability to aim (either by physical ability or combat prowess). In fact, the only variable on your end is how smart you are. On my end, my class, experience level, and natural quickness determine whether or not I avoid the worst of it.
In the latter case, your ability to hit is completely unrelated to your mental aptitude, and is instead affected by your ability to aim (DEX and BAB). On my end, I'm still making use of my natural quickness (DEX), but this time my class and experience (save bonus) have nothing to do with it.
In both cases, you're shooting lightning at me and I'm trying to get out of the way. And yet somehow, the two different arcs of lightning use two different mechanics to determine my success at evading them.
big +1 for alignment, I understand the need, but "if you become evil enough you become a demon subtype" would work, and paladins could bash demons.
second ... that's a tough one as there are a lot of little things, I would probably remove ability scores. They are too general, micromanagement seems better, and lift capacity could be raised by skill without raising melee attack.
|
|
If you cast lightning bolt, you stick your arm out and launch lightning at my face. I try to get out of the way.
If you use the granted power of the Air domain, you stick your arm out and launch lightning at my face. I try to get out of the way.
In the former case, the result is completely unaffected by your ability to aim (either by physical ability or combat prowess). In fact, the only variable on your end is how smart you are. On my end, my class, experience level, and natural...
My thought process on this has always been that the lightning bolt covers the *whole* square (or at least fairly well), while the air domain power is a single small line through that square. The difference between rolling a 5ft diameter cannonball down that line and shooting an arrow. They are both physical, and both hit the same squares, but one is huge and obviously going to hurt unless you are just plain not in the way.
And remember, unless you have evasion the best you can do to "get out of the way" against the full-square lightning bolt is to take half, which means you didn't really so much get out of the way or dodge it as angle yourself to take the hit better. If you have Evasion, well that's a different matter and one to take up with the Evasion ability, not the spell or the save type.
TL;DR - You dodge the air domain power because it's a small line, like an arrow. You prepare to take the hit with the lightning bolt because it's large and covers the whole square, like a 5ft diameter iron ball rolling through the battlefield at high speed. Dodging and rolling with a hit are different, even if they both depend on dexterity.
@John W Johnson et. al.: You don't need to dodge the bullet, you use your dexterity to spoil their aim. You didn't move out of the bullet's path, you moved away from where they were putting the bullet as they were pulling the trigger. The longer the range, the easier this is to do thanks to how specific their aim has to be relative to how little you have to dodge (prior to all sorts of advanced scopes and things). Primary reason sniping unaware targets is easier- they don't dodge and hide.
Changes:
1. Rework attributes, specifically what they're supposed to stand for. Double this for the mental attributes. A single attribute should either represent something dastardly specific (as Strength does right now), or it should cover everything related to it (as the old Tri-Stat did with Body, Mind and Spirit each). There should never, ever be an attribute that tries to encompass several independent concepts that don't have relation to one another (as Charisma and Wisdom do in practice).
2. Cross-reference the daylights out of everything. The actual rules citations are in places that "sort of" make sense, but are passingly referred to in a snarkload of places without a page number for more detailed explanation. It would probably kill 1 out of ever 3 rules arguments if you saw where the rest of the rule was, instead of only having "enough to make it work for now."
3. Remove the "every spell in one school only" paradigm. There are spells that belong in different schools, there are spells that meet the qualifications to be in two or more schools given their effects, and there are spells that can be duplicated using multiple school effects (Fireball opens a gate to the plane of fire, etc.). Just tag spells with a descriptor for the schools that apply. If a spell can be from multiple schools, list that in the description and have a character ability pick the one they use by default.
1) spell point system, my fav is the HypertextD20 system
2) a well thought out revision of the whole 'to hit' concept, fro touch attacks to active defenses.
|
1. Rework attributes, specifically what they're supposed to stand for. Double this for the mental attributes. A single attribute should either represent something dastardly specific (as Strength does right now), or it should cover everything related to it (as the old Tri-Stat did with Body, Mind and Spirit each). There should never, ever be an attribute that tries to encompass several independent concepts that don't have relation to one another (as Charisma and Wisdom do in practice).
I agree with this partially. I do think that Cha is too strong, or rather to diverse and too important for to many things. Way too many class and racial abilities work off of Cha, too many skills, and it should completely drop all aspects of physical appearance, I think.
On the other hand, I think Wis is too weak, or rather not important enough. Especially in combat. It really comes down to Will Saves and Perception. Add Init to Wis, and maybe offer an option for all Stats to be applied to Attack and Damage, instead of just Dex and Str. Dex is already way too strong, so I honestly don't want anything else that is based off of Dex unless it just absolutely makes no sense otherwise.
|
|
1) No .5 - that's a stupid deliniation that serves no purpose other than to look amazingly silly, just use the word "revised" or call it a new edition. After all, everything other than D&D that has every just changed a little here and there called it a whole new edition - see Call of Cthulu, Shadowrun 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, or any of White Wolf's games (Mage, Werewolf, Vampire) from their 1st to 2nd to Revised editions.
While I agree, I want to point out that "Revised" is not the next number after two. And my copy of Call of Cthulhu lists it as 5.61. :P
|
|
Make most spells the equivalent of full attacks (i.e. you can 5' step before, after, or during them). Allow a 'quick cast' at the expense of some game resource to allow the spell to be done as a standard action.
I actually hope they do not do this, at least for divine casters. That would essentually turn all Cleric spells needed right then or another character dies/goes down into 2 round actions, further aggrivating the healbot, especially if they are not a walking bandaid Cleric.
|
|
I'd take it back to spellcasters taking any damage, even a single point, lose the spell.
I'd also pretty ruthlessly slash the spell list to a fraction of it's current size. Especially spells that essentially duplicate what another class can do. Although I'll keep a few of those around in extraordinarily nerfed forms...ie your spellcaster might be able to use a spell to unlock the door, but he won't be anywhere near as reliable at doing so as a good rogue.
|
|
1) spell point system, my fav is the HypertextD20 system
I have one I've used with my group that they seem to like. Casters become a good bit stronger early (but only due to more casts, not because a single cast is stronger), but become weaker than the standard later (around 9th or 10th level).
One downside to it is that all casters are effectively spontaneous and it has a built-in "one spell list" rule (and all casters stack their caster levels together into one caster level). I happen to like it this way, as does my group, but not all would agree.
1. Get rid of the overlap between Touch AC and Reflex saves. They're both DEX-based, see-whether-it-hits-you-or-not mechanics, so they really should be a single mechanic. As it stands, you have two different stats that are theoretically representing the same thing but function in opposite ways (one scales with level while the other is opposed by something that scales with level; one is static while the other is rolled; one is potentially limited by armor while the other is not; one is affected by the Dodge feat while the other is affected by Lightning Reflexes; and so forth). Make them the same stat!
1b. The above would of course require reworking "make a (potentially ranged) touch attack" and "requires a Reflex save" effects. One depends on the potency of the effect and the mental aptitude of the attacker, while the other relies on the attacker's precision (DEX) and general combat aptitude.
2. Find some way besides iterative attacks/AoO's and magic items to balance the caster/martial disparity. At level 1 you're hosed if you don't have a tank/DPR monkey, but at level 10+ you're hosed if you don't have casters. Make their power start at the same place and grow at the same rate!
1 - Impossible.
Monks - Gain touch ac based on wisdom
Deflection, Insight, competence, luck, dodge. All of these increase touch ac. most increase flatfooted AC too.
If you where do that, causing a massive conflux, you might as well make fort into hp and will into mental defense.
2 - see 4e.
2 - see 4e.
2. Find some way besides iterative attacks/AoO's and magic items to balance the caster/martial disparity. At level 1 you're hosed if you don't have a tank/DPR monkey, but at level 10+ you're hosed if you don't have casters. Make their power start at the same place and grow at the same rate!
Shadowrun managed it better, imho.
#1 On weapon crits, only allow the weapon damage + weapon enchantment to be multiplied. Don't multiply str bonuses or other damage additives.
#2 Decouple the commonality of 'buying' magical items. Montey haul sucks and magic item marts suck even more.
1 - Removal of deities as a staple of every possible campaign along with clerics. The idea of priests casting spells (unless they're mages) is ridiculous.
2 - Ditch per-diem spells and abilities. It's an outdated approach and needs to be replaced ASAP.
1 - Removal of deities as a staple of every possible campaign along with clerics. The idea of priests casting spells (unless they're mages) is ridiculous.
I know, right? Whoever heard of priests banishing evil spirits, preforming rites of transubstantiation, or healing the sick and lame with a touch and divine intervention?
There's absolutely no basis for that kind of thing in the real world! Absurdity!
1 - Removal of deities as a staple of every possible campaign along with clerics. The idea of priests casting spells (unless they're mages) is ridiculous.
2 - Ditch per-diem spells and abilities. It's an outdated approach and needs to be replaced ASAP.
1.wwwwwhhhhhhaaaaaaa.......?
2.Replace with what may we ask?
A lot of people want to change the core mechanics. There are already a lot of good games out there that let you get into the minutae of combat.
I won't mention any core mechanics changes, because then it isn't a .5 change.
First, the binding on the books suck. I have some FIRST EDITION books that are in better shape after 30 years than the Paizo books after less than a year. The pages are fragile too. I know Paizo is paperless oriented, so I'll have to move to all electronic very soon. I REALLY do like the feel of paper and books though.
Second, I like crafting and notice it is much easier to make magic items in this system, but the potions are way different and too much trouble for most people.
One thing that Paizo MUST do that TSR ignored is staying in touch with thier most lucrative player base. The people who have $$ to spend and who promote the game to thier friends.
Fix Mundane crafting to a system where length of time has no correlation to the cost of the item.
This is for three reasons
One is that it prevents the infinate staff/club joke that comes from it. IE they are free so any check makes one.
And two prevents the other extreme of having 50ft of silk rope take 10 times longer than a dagger to make.
Three it would make it so some things don't take years of ones life to make but only days to enchant to full power. Even at +10 total it takes less than a third of a year to enchant full plate but around a year to make it.
I know Paizo is paperless oriented, so I'll have to move to all electronic very soon. I REALLY do like the feel of paper and books though.
What do you mean by "Paizo is paperless oriented"?
|
|
Despite my call for small changes only, I must insist that fractional edition numbers are silly.
While I generally agree with you, I think we break here.
The issues is that Paizo isn't a rule company, it is a module/AP/setting company. The rules serve the core business of writing adventures for people to purchase, not the other way around.
So if you make it a new version, regardless of it's backwards compatibility, you are functionally calling for the instant perceived obsolescence of the core lines.
The approach taken with the Beginner box is much more reasonable. It isn't the same rules, but it functions well enough to be compatible with the core rules.
An alternate rule set I could go with. And alternate version, yet. But whe you start saying 2nd edition, you are also indirectly saying the old edition is defunct.
Honestly, the changes I want are too big for a half edition.
- Full attack on a standard, iteratives at full BAB, extra attacks for Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization, only one extra attack for TWF. (Improved and Greater reduce attack penalties and give shield bonus, Greater allows you to use full STR bonus.)
- Make feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise built-in parts of the combat system. Take a bunch of other low-level feats and combine them-- Great Fortitude + Toughness, Lightning Reflexes + Dodge, Quick Draw + Improved Initiative, and so on.
- Scaling cantrips and invocations/hexes for all spellcasters. Spell point system a la psionics with metamagic built in.
- Multiclassing as Gestalt with slower XP.
- More detailed race rules. Race as class. Racial paragon classes.
- Simplified skill system based on class and feats.