2 things you'd change in Pathfinder .5


Homebrew and House Rules

101 to 150 of 286 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I like Viktyr's #2.

Cept, I'd combine Great Fortitude with Endurance, as often, endurance isn't ever really used possibly still put in toughness as well..

Weapon Finesse - I'd completely remove this, as I'd also remove power throw. And instead it becomes a quality of the weapon. Thrown weapons that are too light don't get power throw, and melee weapons that are two heavy don't get weapon finesse.


Chuck Wright wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
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!

I look at clerics (and any other class dependent on deities) the same way many people collectively look at gunslingers/ninjas/etc. Not in my back yard...or on my table. I never said that spell-granting deities have no real-world basis, but that the idea is absurd to me.


Talonhawke wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
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.
1.wwwwwhhhhhhaaaaaaa.......?

Yep.

Talonhawke wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
2 - Ditch per-diem spells and abilities. It's an outdated approach and needs to be replaced ASAP.
2.Replace with what may we ask?

I'd replace the per-diem system with a 'recharge in X-rounds' approach or a point system that replenished over time.

* A common defense for per-deim systems is that spellcasters are overpowered. This is an easy fix: alter the spells available and what their capabilities.

Shadow Lodge

Clerics aren't priests. They can be, and often are, but are not required to be.

I can use Experts to represent nonmagical priests.


1) Remove alignment restrictions. Alignment is somewhat useful, sometimes, and I understand wanting a general feel for how a character will react that's shorthand for its personality. But not all paladins are lawful or good and not all assassins are evil, for two (wildly random) examples.

2) Fix rogues. Please please please fix rogues. There's thousands of suggestions on the forums, most of them very bad, but there's enough interesting and good stuff to give some ideas of where to take them. As is, there's just no real reason to ever play one or bring one on an adventure.


TOZ wrote:

Clerics aren't priests. They can be, and often are, but are not required to be.

I can use Experts to represent nonmagical priests.

Most of my NPC priests end up being low-level bards (experts with carefully chosen skill sets when magic isn't called for).


I have a long list in no way limited to just 2.

1: Kill spell lists, have just two one for full caster and one for half casters.
2: Role most spell casting classes into one class with "arcana or hexes" at every other level allowing stuff normally given to casting classes. Like talents.
3: Make classes more versatile. Rolling many classes into others and make a robust "Talent " system.
4: Kill multiple attacks from Bab progression. Attack would be a single standard action, in which you could take two per round. Other attacks would be handled like rapid shot and the like.
5: Re-balance the freaking spells.
6: Rework skills, make them more robust and fewer, also allow some knowledge skills for free built into each class.
7: No class would have less then 4 skills per level.

I have a much larger list but those are the ones off the top of my head.


Remove Combat Maneuvers (optional rules in seperate book)

Move Spells to seperate book.


Spells must be in the main book as you have classes that need them. what you do not need is 150+ spells in the book however.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Core Rulebook would become Swords & Wizardry: Complete, with the Monster Book (plus art for every monster) inclusive. It would then be supplemented by a bestiary that is Bestiary 1-3 combined.

Shadow Lodge

Necromancer wrote:

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 look at clerics (and any other class dependent on deities) the same way many people collectively look at gunslingers/ninjas/etc. Not in my back yard...or on my table. I never said that spell-granting deities have no real-world basis, but that the idea is absurd to me.

I honestly see no reason or logic to this. I can understand you have some person issue, and I can certainly see dropping the deity aspect from the class completely to make divine casters powered by their devotion, spirituality, and faith/knowledge of mysteries around ideals/concepts/beliefs/or spiritual energies, but dropping the class completely? What about Druids and Paladins, not to mention Oracles and Inquisitors (which are kind of better Clerics than the Cleric anyway)?

Even in the original D&D, Cleric was added because it was obvious that there was a big gap that needed filled, and that predated the idea of a person deity, especially one that actually did things in the world rather than just a abstract belief.

Shadow Lodge

Necromancer wrote:
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.

Because that's less realistic than arcane "mages" casting spells?

Or because deities as a concept is less realistic than arcane magic?


Necromancer wrote:

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'm sorry, I don't mean to harp on something that everyone else has jumped on, but this is just silly. There's no more reason to ban clerics than any other class. You've got a problem with something that's been a core concept of medieval fantasy games and books since they became a genre. It's like saying "NO MORE DRAGONS! DRAGONS ARE DUMB!" And deities aren't in "every possible campaign -- you're free to houserule (as you clearly do). But expecting them to be just eliminated from the game is just stupid. What about elves? Longswords, you like longswords? Fire spells?


Stupid longswords I mean come on really do we have to keep them?

Shadow Lodge

I think we should remove all classes except commoner. And all monsters except the Tarrasque. And we should change it from "Unique" to "Common".

Make an interesting campaign.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
MyTThor wrote:
Necromancer wrote:

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'm sorry, I don't mean to harp on something that everyone else has jumped on, but this is just silly. There's no more reason to ban clerics than any other class. You've got a problem with something that's been a core concept of medieval fantasy games and books since they became a genre. It's like saying "NO MORE DRAGONS! DRAGONS ARE DUMB!" And deities aren't in "every possible campaign -- you're free to houserule (as you clearly do). But expecting them to be just eliminated from the game is just stupid. What about elves? Longswords, you like longswords? Fire spells?

I presumed he was a GURPS player. There's nothing obvious (to my intuitions, anyhow) about priests casting spells. I would think a more obvious view would be that mages cast spells and priests might beseech their patron for favors - they're not guaranteed a reliable response though.


The 2 things I'd change:

1) No more tall elves.

2) Elves slightly shorter than or same size as Humans.

That's it. Otherwise I'm quite happy with Pathfinder.

Shadow Lodge

Steve Geddes wrote:
There's nothing obvious (to my intuitions, anyhow) about priests casting spells. I would think a more obvious view would be that mages cast spells and priests might beseech their patron for favors - they're not guaranteed a reliable response though.

There is if you think of the Cleric a little more like a earlier FF White Mage or a sort of spiritualist/mystic unlocking their hidden potentual by understandthing themelves, the mysteries of the planes and the beyond, and "the divine".

I agree that the concept of a Cleric (Divine caster?) praying or requesting an effect might be cool, but (especially without leaving it in the DM's hands), how, mechanically do you have that work. The only way I can see it is to say that all Clerics lose that prepaired casting, and simply have a number of potentual slots per day, but complete accss to all Cleric spells. Each time they cast a spell (that is request an effect to happen) they roll something, get modifiers for it being close to or against their belief structure, modifiers for other relavent things, and it either works or doesn't, (but absolutely 0% in the DM's hands).

But while that sounds cool, it also sounds like a nightmare in actual play, while prepaired spells per day is smoother and easier all around.


Things to change:

1. A clean-up of the core books and some general rules, similar to the Beginner Box. Make things easier to find, use tables and charts over text to present data visually and concisely. Etc.
2. Move barbarians back to points as they were in beta.

Liberty's Edge

1) 1 and only 1 Stealth vs Perception check for a whole continuous stealthy approach.

2) Zero rules based on the specific size of a creature : everything should be based on comparative sizes of the creatures/objects involved. Also every and all magic items (including weapons and armor) should resize automatically when worn/used.

3) Animal Companions and Animals from the Bestiary should be the same.

4) Do away with the body slots for magic items.


Beckett wrote:
Necromancer wrote:

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 look at clerics (and any other class dependent on deities) the same way many people collectively look at gunslingers/ninjas/etc. Not in my back yard...or on my table. I never said that spell-granting deities have no real-world basis, but that the idea is absurd to me.

I honestly see no reason or logic to this. I can understand you have some person issue, and I can certainly see dropping the deity aspect from the class completely to make divine casters powered by their devotion, spirituality, and faith/knowledge of mysteries around ideals/concepts/beliefs/or spiritual energies, but dropping the class completely? What about Druids and Paladins, not to mention Oracles and Inquisitors (which are kind of better Clerics than the Cleric anyway)?

Even in the original D&D, Cleric was added because it was obvious that there was a big gap that needed filled, and that predated the idea of a person deity, especially one that actually did things in the world rather than just a abstract belief.

I've no problem with druids whatsoever; they draw power from nature despite that had-to-have-a-patron nonsense in Forgotten Realms. An oracle's ability to cast spells really shouldn't be explained. They're mysteries after all. I never thought paladins or inquisitors should be casting spells and I fully support any respective archetypes that replace casting with something more thematic.

I'm not saying the cleric can't fill a role in any campaign, but I'd prefer something else in its place for the core handbook.


Kthulhu wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
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.

Because that's less realistic than arcane "mages" casting spells?

Or because deities as a concept is less realistic than arcane magic?

The latter. And it's not so much the 'realistic' issue as the dead weight deities bring to a campaign. The Eberron setting addressed some of my concerns, but annoyed me on so many other fronts that it doesn't matter anymore. It's not existent deities, but religion that makes a world interesting.

Shadow Lodge

Greek gods weren't interesting?


- A shield should be usable while holding a spear, PRC not withstanding.
- Rolling for HP, especially for warrior classes. Rolling is OK, make it less random please.


1. Remove Fighters, they're OP.
2. Have Rogues do one sneak attack per round MAX.


MyTThor wrote:
Necromancer wrote:

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'm sorry, I don't mean to harp on something that everyone else has jumped on, but this is just silly. There's no more reason to ban clerics than any other class. You've got a problem with something that's been a core concept of medieval fantasy games and books since they became a genre. It's like saying "NO MORE DRAGONS! DRAGONS ARE DUMB!" And deities aren't in "every possible campaign -- you're free to houserule (as you clearly do). But expecting them to be just eliminated from the game is just stupid. What about elves? Longswords, you like longswords? Fire spells?

I'm not banning anything. I don't consider removing a class from the core book to be a ban. Just because the problem is old doesn't mean it's not a problem. My stance is that deities and their servants (including classes) should be in a campaign setting guidebook rather than the core player's handbook.

Also, don't get me started on elves.


TOZ wrote:
Greek gods weren't interesting?

The creatures and Titans were interesting, but the deities were annoying at best. At least the ancient Egyptians gave their deities animal heads to mix things up.


Nerdrage Ooze wrote:

1. Remove Fighters, they're OP.

2. Have Rogues do one sneak attack per round MAX.

This was a joke, right? I was amused at first, but then got to wondering: "what if this gu y is actually serious about this?" You're not, right? You don't actually want the weakest class in the game (Rogue) to be even weaker, right?

They barely compete, damage-wise, with 6 Sneak Attacks a turn (from Greater Two Weapon Fighting), who is going to play a Rogue with just 1 Sneak Attack? I think they need to put, in parentheses, after every time something adds xd6 to damage, what that actually averages.

For example, a level 20 Rogue has 10d6 Sneak Attack. Do you know that's only 35 damage average? You should probably put that next to Fireball, too, so people realize how weak those damage spells are.

Do you just hate mundane characters? Are you of the "magic should be better" school?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Beckett wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
There's nothing obvious (to my intuitions, anyhow) about priests casting spells. I would think a more obvious view would be that mages cast spells and priests might beseech their patron for favors - they're not guaranteed a reliable response though.

There is if you think of the Cleric a little more like a earlier FF White Mage or a sort of spiritualist/mystic unlocking their hidden potentual by understandthing themelves, the mysteries of the planes and the beyond, and "the divine".

I agree that the concept of a Cleric (Divine caster?) praying or requesting an effect might be cool, but (especially without leaving it in the DM's hands), how, mechanically do you have that work. The only way I can see it is to say that all Clerics lose that prepaired casting, and simply have a number of potentual slots per day, but complete accss to all Cleric spells. Each time they cast a spell (that is request an effect to happen) they roll something, get modifiers for it being close to or against their belief structure, modifiers for other relavent things, and it either works or doesn't, (but absolutely 0% in the DM's hands).

But while that sounds cool, it also sounds like a nightmare in actual play, while prepaired spells per day is smoother and easier all around.

Sure, I'm not actually "advocating change" I just thought the idea wasn't as ludicrous as some of the replies suggested.

I consider cleric to be a priest of an organized religion. I can certainly see a divinely inspired spell caster as a useful archetype - it just doesn't fit the concept of cleric, in my view. (not necessarily so, anyhow).

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm... really confused... why do so many people want such deep changes to the core rules for the game? I see a lot of changes being asked for that would make for an extremely different game all together. And I'm just wondering why folks keep playing a game that is so different from what they actually want to play?

No snark, honestly wondering.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mplindustries wrote:
Nerdrage Ooze wrote:

1. Remove Fighters, they're OP.

2. Have Rogues do one sneak attack per round MAX.

This was a joke, right? I was amused at first, but then got to wondering: "what if this gu y is actually serious about this?" You're not, right? You don't actually want the weakest class in the game (Rogue) to be even weaker, right?

They barely compete, damage-wise, with 6 Sneak Attacks a turn (from Greater Two Weapon Fighting), who is going to play a Rogue with just 1 Sneak Attack? I think they need to put, in parentheses, after every time something adds xd6 to damage, what that actually averages.

For example, a level 20 Rogue has 10d6 Sneak Attack. Do you know that's only 35 damage average? You should probably put that next to Fireball, too, so people realize how weak those damage spells are.

Do you just hate mundane characters? Are you of the "magic should be better" school?

Just As Planned.


Kieviel wrote:
No snark, honestly wondering.

To be honest for myself I'm not playing it. Not because I don't want to try, I don't necessarily have a problem with the game as-written, but because I know I have certain playing styles and tastes that Pathfinder isn't intended for by default. I either have to wait until I come up with an idea that fits Pathfinder, or I can ask for a few changes to bring it in line with what I'd like to use it for. I don't expect those changes to be made if many other people don't want them, but since the point of this thread was asking for my ideas I posted them.


Kieviel wrote:


No snark, honestly wondering.

I'll play and do play as written. However, I do not like complexity for the sake of complexity. There are many area's of the game that could be smoothed out and made to run faster with less amount of complexity.

You can not get ride of vancan casting and have the game feel the same. Cool but what you can do is rework the spells to make them balanced with what other classes can do, place a limit on the number known and how many you can have or something. This goes along way to fixing the caster/non caster issue.

At the same time you do not need 10 or 15 casting classes. You need one full caster class at best. You could make all the current full casters with one class if it had a robust talent system. same goes with many of the redundant non-casters as well. Fighter, caviler, ranger and barbarian are all really one class.

When you do a new edition you need to look at what can be changed to make it run better and what needs to stay mostly the same so you still have the same feel of the game.

Liberty's Edge

Kieviel wrote:

I'm... really confused... why do so many people want such deep changes to the core rules for the game? I see a lot of changes being asked for that would make for an extremely different game all together. And I'm just wondering why folks keep playing a game that is so different from what they actually want to play?

No snark, honestly wondering.

For me it's that I'd mostly like to see a system that's more flexible on the flavor end of things. Remove a few unnecessary chains that exist for the sake of fitting with the default flavor those mechanics represent, and list a few other suggested flavors and a short description on how to ensure that they won't be in-game problems.

This would be simple stuff like "It cannot appear to have a different effect than it does" (you can't make Barkskin look like sparkles or something, it has to look like it gave you armor of some form). Another rule would be "It cannot require a change in the mechanic." (with some possible exceptions, I suppose).

I'd also prefer to see casting change, but I have a good house-rule system for it that I'm fine with using and can see why people might not want to use it. But it's nice playing a version of PF where there is only one "stack" of casting ability, meaning you can multi-class about as well as a martial character (but with different focus).


thenobledrake wrote:

My two changes:

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.

2) Full "core rulebook" support - the introductory book/product around which all other releases center (the Core rule-book or the Begginer's Box equivalent set) would contain all the needed information to start playing the game: all mandatory elements of the current core rulebook, game mastery guide, and enough of a bestiary to at least "fake it till you make it," much like the majority of non-D&D based RPGs have always done things.

And yes, I am talking about a giant 600 hundred page core book...

Those are genuinely the only two things I am adamant about when it comes to new editions of a game.

I dunno about that. SR4 is a VERY different animal than any of its earlier incarnations, and the differences between SR2 and SR3 were significant.

My two? No more take 10/20, and removal of touch AC. The former bothers me because I find it encourages the very worst in people who enjoy builds and results in accusations of metagaming/roll-playing instead of role playing, and the latter bothers me because, as mentioned earlier, it causes problems with spellcasters in odd places on the battlefield outshining melee oriented characters. This is not to say that I am opposed to spellcasters ending up in combat and even wielding weapons, just that it results in very unstable glass cannon character concepts or even rocket-tag combats sometimes.


Kieviel wrote:

I'm... really confused... why do so many people want such deep changes to the core rules for the game? I see a lot of changes being asked for that would make for an extremely different game all together. And I'm just wondering why folks keep playing a game that is so different from what they actually want to play?

No snark, honestly wondering.

A few reasons:

1) The game they really want doesn't exist, but changing an existing game could create it.

2) The game they really want is not popular and almost nobody plays it--if Pathfinder, the second most popular RPG on the market, became like their favorite RPG, they could easily find players.

3) Believe it or not, but a shocking number of roleplayers have no idea that non-d20 roleplaying games exist, so they may not know their ideal game exists.


mplindustries wrote:

A few reasons:

1)....
2)....
3)....

4) They may be tired of constantly trying new systems and would settle for one they already know with a few changes.

Liberty's Edge

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

A few reasons:

1)....
2)....
3)....
4) They may be tired of constantly trying new systems and would settle for one they already know with a few changes.

+1 to this.

I've tried at least a half a dozen systems and none can quite compare to the balance of guidance*, content, balance and flexibility** that PF currently has.

*Guidance == How quickly you can go from a common concept to playing, with minimal help from outside the rule-book.
**Flexibility == How likely you are to be able to make somewhat odd concepts without needing to work outside the rules.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Kieviel wrote:

I'm... really confused... why do so many people want such deep changes to the core rules for the game? I see a lot of changes being asked for that would make for an extremely different game all together. And I'm just wondering why folks keep playing a game that is so different from what they actually want to play?

No snark, honestly wondering.

No doubt it's partly personality. I've always tinkered with rulesystems. When I first learnt to play there was no internet and no RPG shops in my city. A friend taught me Gamma World which he picked up from an interstate visit and I ran home and invented my own game. (I only had two monopoly d6s, so there were 6 mutations, 6 potential enounters and all the weapons did d6+x damage).

It's rare that I pick up a rulesystem without bending it slightly towards whatever kind of game I am in the mood to run. It's not a criticism or any kind of smear - it's just how I play RPGs. I doubt that's uncommon (amongst longterm DMs, anyhow).


Kieviel wrote:
I'm... really confused... why do so many people want such deep changes to the core rules for the game? I see a lot of changes being asked for that would make for an extremely different game all together. And I'm just wondering why folks keep playing a game that is so different from what they actually want to play?

I grew up on AD&D 2e Player's Option. I like AD&D 2e Player's Option, but I also really like a lot of the things Paizo have done with Pathfinder. If I take the few things I don't like about Pathfinder, and I make them work more like AD&D, you end up with a game I like better than either.

The other stuff, like the spell points and the at-wills? Those are either things where Paizo took a good half-step in the right direction from 3.X, and I'd really like to see what it would look like if they had taken a whole step, or optional rules from Player's Option and Unearthed Arcana that I wish had become core rules.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Cool! Thanks!This is helping me better understand.

I do have a follow-up question...

Why request, in some cases large, changes to the game instead of, say, creating a user generated collection of mods and home options to modify/ replace aspects of the game you find missing or lacking using Pathfinder as a basic framework?


Kieviel wrote:
Why request, in some cases large, changes to the game instead of, say, creating a user generated collection of mods and home options to modify/ replace aspects of the game you find missing or lacking using Pathfinder as a basic framework?

I'm not very good at that.

Someone else would be doing the work for me.

I was asked.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Kieviel wrote:
Why request, in some cases large, changes to the game instead of, say, creating a user generated collection of mods and home options to modify/ replace aspects of the game you find missing or lacking using Pathfinder as a basic framework?

I'm not very good at that.

Someone else would be doing the work for me.

I was asked.

Fair enough :-)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Kieviel wrote:

Cool! Thanks!This is helping me better understand.

I do have a follow-up question...

Why request, in some cases large, changes to the game instead of, say, creating a user generated collection of mods and home options to modify/ replace aspects of the game you find missing or lacking using Pathfinder as a basic framework?

Everyone will be different, I guess. But in my case it's because my group dont have the time that we used to. We want everything written down somewhere in a nice, easily explained and consistent way without having to cross-reference with some word-document outlining what's been changed, omitted or added. We have very little time to devote to gaming outside of the few hours a week we play. It would also be reassuring to have the houserules and options vetted by professional game designers, since I dont have as much faith in the community's ability to balance options and forsee conflicts as the community seems to have.

Our group is also slightly unusual, since we'd prefer to play PF but are not currently (due to the time required to prep a session). In our absolute, perfect world PF would be radically simplified and sped up. I dont really make any requests for that, but it's nonetheless where I'm coming from, so it probably influences the tone of my posts.


Kieviel wrote:
Why request, in some cases large, changes to the game instead of, say, creating a user generated collection of mods and home options to modify/ replace aspects of the game you find missing or lacking using Pathfinder as a basic framework?

I suspects that some of the suggested changes are more 'wishful thinking' than 'requests'.

However, some posters actually do want a foundation-changing alteration. I for one would like to see iterative attacks disappear and see extra attacks dealt with feats or class features only - which you might consider a substantial change (edit: actually what I want is to see less dice thrown in a single round and rounds taking less time to be resolved; my suggestion to achieve this being less attacks per round). Nevertheless, most posters actually like the game and would preserve the vast majority of its core principles, even if the suggested change(s) would actually affect 90% of the rules as written.

You're also hearing a sample of the crowd that isn't quite satisfied with the game. There are plenty of players that are perfectly satisfied by the game as written, but they may not hang around the houserules forums. Even if they do, it would be considered bad etiquette to say "the game is perfect the way it is, you guys just shut-up" in a tread asking for "what you would like to have changed".

'findel

Silver Crusade

For rules only? At the moment?

Make gearless monks possible to play reasonably up to par in a standard campaign without requiring them to minmax like crazy. Would require changing core assumptions regarding the Christmas Tree Effect, the addition of new mechanics, or simply just a rewrite or revisit for the Vow of Poverty concept.

Get Celestial Totems in the game.

Shadow Lodge

Kieviel wrote:


Why request, in some cases large, changes to the game instead of, say, creating a user generated collection of mods and home options to modify/ replace aspects of the game you find missing or lacking using Pathfinder as a basic framework?

Yo.


Kieviel wrote:
Why request, in some cases large, changes to the game instead of, say, creating a user generated collection of mods and home options to modify/ replace aspects of the game you find missing or lacking using Pathfinder as a basic framework?

Largely because I wasn't aware d20pfsrd.com had a Custom Creations section until your post inspired me to look it up. Now, of course, I will apply to have my own lab opened up so that I can save time and effort by only posting my ideas once-- and then linking to them when I bring them to the forums.

Of course there is also the issue that for as much as I enjoy Pathfinder, I should really be working on the projects I can get paid for.


my two greatest problems with Pathfinder.

the stupid as hell flat footed till you act in a round rule which means that a person can run 50 or 60 feet and punch you in the face while you stand FLAT FOOTED and unprepared for the attack just mecause you lost the initiative rule.

and second give some classes special class feats that i think they deserve... such as melee classes like barbarian and fighter should get step-up as a class ability simply because its silly that a person trained in combat would not naturally be able to naturally follow an opponents 5 foot step in combat.


I'd eliminate five-foot-steps entirely. Everything about them is stupid, and they're only necessary because WOTC decided to cripple Fighters in 3.0.

101 to 150 of 286 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / 2 things you'd change in Pathfinder .5 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.