|
It probably doesn't matter, since all of the decision-makers at Paizo are big fans of the traditional alignment system.
I don't mind the alignment system so much as I do the problems that have existed with it since 3.0. Inconsistancies, the problems with creature types, some stretches of reason and logic. I would like those to be addressed, as well as things like the trouble that Carrion Crown presented (indirectly tied to alignment) and Paizo's pushing the grey area a lot.
|
I would agree on the limited spells know as being standard. To me that is one of the other issues, unlimited known spells. I am glad it is working out for your group, but not what I would do myself is all man.
I have toyed with making casting a skill and have a casting check to cast spells. You would still have the 1-9 range. I am also not a fan o one stat casting. I think all casters should have to at lest have 2 if not 3 stats like most other pc's.Anyhow just random thoughts.
Fair enough.
It probably doesn't matter, since all of the decision-makers at Paizo are big fans of the traditional alignment system.I don't mind the alignment system so much as I do the problems that have existed with it since 3.0. Inconsistancies, the problems with creature types, some stretches of reason and logic. I would like those to be addressed, as well as things like the trouble that Carrion Crown presented (indirectly tied to alignment) and Paizo's pushing the grey area a lot.
100% agree. Simplifying alignment to prevent huge arguments (and provide examples) would go a long way. That and removing seemingly arbitrary alignment restrictions (i.e. ones that had no mechanics that suggested that alignment) are the only modifications I've made to it.
|
|
Nah I would just kill the cleric, druid, wizard and all the other Full casters and make em one class.I've tried this idea before, and it really is not appealing at all (in my opinion). I would actually desire more seperation between Divine and Arcane, but when there is only one class, all sense of balance between spells pretty much goes out the window, and there would have to be a fairly large chunck of a core book devoted to just making various styles of caster, probably about the size of the Feats chapter. It really isn't a good idea, and in my experience a pretty big let down. It also leads to some pretty bad min/maxing, that I have seen.I would disagree.I do not think you have balance between the casting classes now. Take the classes they have now, you could build most of them on the witch frame if you did not have spell lists. The thing is it would not take up any more space then they already do. In place of 3 class write ups you would have one and could trim the fat, you should shave even more page count down once you timed the spells and rebalanced them. There is simply zero need for more then one spell list. None. Doing it the way I suggested would cut down the footprint of the casting classes from the core boo by a large amount. Yes the class takes up more room, but less then all three classes. Same goes with spells.
And you get min/maxing everywhere. The issue with spells is that they are not balanced, they are all over the place "We need to make this weaker then x as its a stronger class" or "we need this spell stronger as its a wizard spell and they should be better then the same level of druid at doing this". This causes the issue. Kill the spell list, kill the silly x class spells need to be better then Y class spells and just balance spells based upon level. Not who casts them.
I see where you are coming from, but I am saying less balancing the classes and more the issues with spell level balance (against other spells). I think a single spellcaster class only worsens the existing problems, but adds nothing to the game really. It would be the same issues as throughing Paladin, Cavalier, Monk, Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger into one class, and just picking and choosing. Some abilities are just better than others, and it would really only complicate things.
1. Get rid of that rediculase link between base attack and hitdie.
2. Create arcane and divine caster levels, allowing for multi-classing between these matching casting type classes to stack caster levels.
3 would be= Give clerics poor base attack but give them full armor and tower shield proficiency.
Agree with 1 and 3.
Clerics + poor BAB = full caster + some good spells
Clerics + 3/4 BAB = 7 spell level levels + current spells.
Both classes 4 skills per level.
So if a very devout high level paladin wants to start being a cleric they would continue to gain caster levels for both classes, they just wouldn't get more spells at lower levels for the cleric, but they would at least be somewhat useful.
If a sorcerer wanted to take up actually studying magic rather than unleashing raw talent their spells wouldn't be completely hosed. I don't think this would be game breaking, and make multi-classing between caster classes work well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah I would just kill the cleric, druid, wizard and all the other Full casters and make em one class. I myself like the BaB/HD link but think full casters should only be Low BAB.
While that might work for some games, I think it would just about kill this one. Too many people like the different classes, including myself.
@ Beckett and Hexen. I do not agree, but to each his own.
Yeah you can put " Eliminating Alignment " up next to " Kill vanacian casting" as far fetched wishful dreams.
At lest ask for something that has some small chance of getting changed.
Alignment
Imho the current alignment system poses no problem whatsoever. Monsters that have their alignment keyworded are affected by alignment spells and noone else is. The rest can be ignored effortlessy.
Wishful think #1: Melee
Get rid of iteratives and give the melee chars more special abilities to use in melee aka sophisticated melee ability trees.
Wishful thinking #2: Magic
Make Magic Items more interesting and remove spell lists in favor of spell trees, forcing the casters to specialize a bit and putting some flavor on them. Also power down high level spells and allow all sos spells a save every round. Make extremely powerful spells (Wish, Magic Jar, Domination...) Rituals that do not follow the normal rules for casting spells but separate rules.
Wishful thinking #3: Skills
Make skills more usable in as well as out of combat. Remove perception as a skill and make it something like Initiative (maybe even combine the two).
But all in all I am quite happy with Pathfinder.
1/ eliminate spells that emulate other class/race abilities (detect traps, knock, etc) and increase the level of troublesome spells like invisibility, fly, etc.
2/ nix the good-evil axis of alignment and let roleplaying determine the personality of a PC
3/ design each class with a package of abilities that players choose from
|
|
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.
I'm so sorry for whatever a spellcaster did to you that made you hate them this much.
Clerics + poor BAB = full caster + some good spells
Clerics + 3/4 BAB = 7 spell level levels + current spells.
I've been given this some thought and regret it. Can't delete it so I say: No Zark, that's a bad idea.
I agree with Becket: "I would actually desire more seperation between Divine and Arcane"and please give the cleric some more sexy spells. Most of the scale poorly and spell levels 7 - 8 are horrible. I really like the Idea of giving each domain some SU or Sp that are unique. Stuff that you can't get on a scroll, potion or wand.
And Fix the heal skill. Hard to use at lower levels, even with a good wisdom score, and useless at higher levels if you are a Divine caster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would actually say crack down on alignment, and give specific and distinct alignment values to all, but in particularly the nuetral alignments which are defined not by what they are, but rather by what they are not, shich leaves way to much room for interpretation.
Hit neutral alignment with a drawback.
Hey, I'm a neutral cleric that can do anything I want and Protection from Chaos, Law, Good or Evil doesn't become me.
I'm going to go out on a limb and state the reason I like things the way they are instead of things I'd like to see changed.
I like classes that inherently can do things others can't. Talk of bringing "balance" to the classes will really destroy individuality. Please keep the MMO concept of "same ability different name" away from table-top.
Complexity, while complex, is nice because it allows things to interact in a way that they can't in a "smoothed" out system. It seems like backers of this argument want D&D 3.95/"might as well be 4.0". Even grapple is nice because it's like combat within combat.
Now, things I would change, or rather modify, is to republish all the books after all the core books are out but bearing in mind all the other books or making a true "core" rule book that harmonizes all the disparate parts that should include all core rules from characters to NPCs to races to treasure to monster rules etc. Things have surely changed since the CRB was originally published and somethings should simply be rewritten rather than errata'd or FAQ'd, because honestly the books I see on my local game stores shelves are still 2nd printing when Paizo has 5th printings going out and it makes things hard to explain or defend when your only argument is something doesn't work the way it is written. I don't mind 1,000 page tomes. They do not intimidate me and I'd be willing to shell out a good 70 to 80 dollars for a complete rule source and other books can truly just be add-ons describing different planes, classes, places, gear, factions, monsters etc. This would make things easier to references, such as all the various modifiers to size (such as bonuses to skills and abilities) and would honestly make the game easier to understand and not as intimidating since each section would fully describe a particular rule rather than need to cross reference several books to completely understand certain concepts.
1) Re-design the rules without worrying if they're backwards compatible. I understand why Paizo did that, but now that they have the user-base, I think that they could come up with a better ruleset when they're not tied down by that constraint.
2) Re-design wealth-by-level and challenge rating so that they are not (or at least have the option to not) be so dependent on magic items. I like magic items to have fun effects, not give me certain numbers on my character sheet that allow me to tackle my CR. I also agree that fewer magic items makes them more special.
|
|
I'm so sorry for whatever a spellcaster did to you that made you hate them this much.
The game at higher levels was balanced with the assumption that if a spellcaster took damage, the spell was lost. Third edition basically ramped up the power level of spellcasters in every conceivable way, and removed that restriction. Is it any wonder that casters were even more unbalanced in 3.X than they had been in prior editions?
Pathfinder did at least give a boost to the non-casster classes, but the net effect was almost zero, since they also game the caster classes similar boosts.
As for spells that stomp all over the roles of other classes...it's pretty damned horrendous. In some cases, a 1st level wizard can automatically do rogue-ish things that a 20th level rogue has to roll for.
I do not think you have balance between the casting classes now. Take the classes they have now, you could build most of them on the witch frame if you did not have spell lists. The thing is it would not take up any more space then they already do. In place of 3 class write ups you would have one and could trim the fat, you should shave even more page count down once you timed the spells and rebalanced them. There is simply zero need for more then one spell list. None. Doing it the way I suggested would cut down the footprint of the casting classes from the core boo by a large amount. Yes the class takes up more room, but less then all three classes. Same goes with spells.
And you get min/maxing everywhere. The issue with spells is that they are not balanced, they are all over the place "We need to make this weaker then x as its a stronger class" or "we need this spell stronger as its a wizard spell and they should be better then the same level of druid at doing this". This causes the issue. Kill the spell list, kill the silly x class spells need to be better then Y class spells and just balance spells based upon level. Not who casts them.
You're entitled to your own opinion, just something to be ready to explain before you suggest it to others as a viable solution.
If you have only one casting class and one spell list, and "trim the fat," how is one to play their nature-loving druid caster while the person next to them plays their academic loremaster wizard? Trimming down the spells and "rebalancing" them eliminates a great deal of what gives a Druid nature-themed options and what makes a Wizard (possibly) a bookish academic. If you are simply dressing up fireball as a burst of razor-sharp leaves or Magic Missile as, I don't even know, it still doesn't feel like a Druid. A condensed list of monsters for Summon Monster can make this worse. And having to go and rethink how you are going to have to dress up every blasted spell on the single spell list to fit your new characters' personal theme is going to kill all but the most determined of players' enthusiasm- they'll just end up thinking in terms of the bland description of the single class. It's much more accessible if the lion's share of the work is done for you, and a GM doesn't always have the luxury of players so enthusiastic about character creation that they will tackle re-flavoring a whole class without playing a bit and getting into it first.
Unless you make sure that the single spell list is robust enough to fit all existing concepts (with plenty of options so they aren't one-trick ponies that get boring faster than a 3.0 fighter), your suggestion sounds like it is killing concepts to save space or preserve a "balance" that already isn't consistent from group-to-group. If you do give a robust "talent" system to re-create the old concepts, I'm decently certain that it will end up being as big or larger than the old multiple-class, multiple spell-list system, especially if you try to make it so that people can't "break" the talent system to cause balance issues.
I wholeheartedly agree, though, that min-maxing will always happen regardless of what you do.
You're entitled to your own opinion, just something to be ready to explain before you suggest it to others as a viable solution.
If you have only one casting class and one spell list, and "trim the fat," how is one to play their nature-loving druid caster while the person next to them plays their academic loremaster wizard? Trimming down the spells and "rebalancing" them eliminates a great deal of what gives a Druid nature-themed options and what makes a Wizard (possibly) a bookish academic. If you are simply dressing up fireball as a burst of razor-sharp leaves or Magic Missile as, I don't even know, it still doesn't feel like a Druid. A condensed list of monsters for Summon Monster can make this worse. And having to go and rethink how you are going to have to dress up every blasted spell on the single spell list to fit your new characters' personal theme is going to kill all but the most determined of players' enthusiasm- they'll just end up thinking in terms of the bland description of the single class. It's much more accessible if the lion's share of the work is done for you, and a GM doesn't always have the luxury of players so enthusiastic about character creation that they will tackle re-flavoring a whole class without playing a bit and getting into it first.
Ok this is addressed a few diffent ways. Talents/hexes/arcans or what ever ya want to call them will always give a different feel. Ones you select to be a "Nature" based caster will not be the same as ones you select for an academic loremaster. Again this places theme firmly in the hands of the players. You want something, pick the talents you feel best suits your idea.
Spells can be handled in any number of ways. First yes you could allow most genric spells to be themed as needed. "Blasts, Force missle" and the like, so if ya want ice balls, cool, want it to be shards of thorns, cool. However that is not the only way to approach the issue. You can leave spells in that fits some themes better, wall of thorns or what have you and simply choose the spells you want. If you do not want to take fireball with your nature caster, then don't take another spell. Alot of this is not an issue if spells are balanced with each other.
If you have 2 players and they both make casters. One picked {bonus feat) arcana and took scribe scrolls and the spells: Read magic, detect magic, light, mage hand, arcane bolt and burning hands. The other took The arcana "Nature bond" and took the spells : Purify, conjure water, light, summon allies 1, Expeditious retreat and lets say burning hands.
How is that not an iconic wizard and "druid"? Expeditious retreat replaces longstride and burning hands replaces produce flame but the flavor is the same. Will you be able to remake a pathfinder druid or cleric? Not totally as they would not be D* med BAb and you would not be over loaded with things. YOu could totally take " Wild shape " as a Arcana and the like and choose spells that fit your theme. You could also make concepts that you could not in pathfinder, a white mage or a necromancer that can do its job and not be a cleric for instance.
You can indeed make one list robust enough for all concepts. With one single list, every spell published is usable by the class. Not some, not 1 of 20 but all 20. Which does force the publisher to make sure the new spell fits in the level and is not just a rehash of another spell... but now more nature themed so the druid can use it. We have so many spells that are so much alike, but slightly different spread across so many spell lists its pointless.
Part of the issue with one "streamlined" magic-using class is that you will end up using up all of the space you saved expanding on the options that the old classes allowed. Making the "arcana" for every druid ability (or every worthwhile druid ability) and then having a section describing how you could flavor spells to make them druid-y... why not just have a druid? Also, how are they going to get their animal companions and the skill selection to reflect a life in the wilderness, or is that in talent/arcana selections as well?
Also, how many of the "buff" spells, cure spells, and spells that arise out of a life in nature will there be? As a druid, I don't want "burning hands," even if it is analogous to "produce flame." I would vastly prefer to have Entangle, Summon Nature's Ally (which would probably be condensed with Summon Monster just fine, but how many monsters come from each for the condensed list?) or Speak With Animals. They're going to have been much more useful where I came from.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, to keep a concept in thematic abilities, I don't think cutting out the original class description is going to save space if you take it back up with enough talents so you can re-create the good bits of the old class.
Also, Expeditious Retreat makes sense when you mention Longstrider, but to be honest, probably only 1 out of 5 players I've met would see that link using only the title on a spell list. Like a lot of things, it makes sense after the fact, but a player looking to validate their concept idea won't see the link during the design phase.
I agree with you to a certain extent, a ton of concepts can be made from a single versatile class. But there is an overwhelming tide of people who aren't happy with a swashbuckling musketeer made from a rogue. They don't want a samurai made from a Fighter. A ninja using only mundane stealth and throwing knives doesn't feel right. Some of them can be appeased by handing them a "new class" made from existing mechanics with new titles, but they won't do it themselves- mentally, they can't make that leap. The sugar pills won't cure their headache if they know what's inside.
Ok alot of ground to cover here, but I will try.
Part of the issue with one "streamlined" magic-using class is that you will end up using up all of the space you saved expanding on the options that the old classes allowed. Making the "arcana" for every druid ability (or every worthwhile druid ability) and then having a section describing how you could flavor spells to make them druid-y... why not just have a druid?
Ok first off, the classes are not balanced, no one is every gonna say the druid is balanced. Ok no one is honestly gonna say that. Second you do not need to include every option. Some are redundant, some need to go and some can be used for later books. You simply will not keep everything, you trim the fat. You keep or bring in new things that work and rework or disgruad things that do not.
Also, how are they going to get their animal companions and the skill selection to reflect a life in the wilderness, or is that in talent/arcana selections as well?
Skills I would change a good deal, which effects all class. I would give some "knowledge" skills as a given for each class. Or have them added to the list of class skill. Also givin each PC the ability to select two skills to add to his class skills would solve any gaps I could think of.
As for the animal companion, I do not know if I would keep it as written, but If I did , then yes it would be an arcana option you must select.
Also, how many of the "buff" spells, cure spells, and spells that arise out of a life in nature will there be? As a druid, I don't want "burning hands," even if it is analogous to "produce flame." I would vastly prefer to have Entangle, Summon Nature's Ally (which would probably be condensed with Summon Monster just fine, but how many monsters come from each for the condensed list?) or Speak With Animals. They're going to have been much more useful where I came from.
Again this is not cut and dry but I would kill many buffs, anything that boosts an ability would prob go. Your objection is based upon random spells I pulled, no reason you could not select those you listed.
I'll pull together a list a bit later. Rebalancing the spells would mean moving some spells up or down or reworking. I would also limit each level to say 10 or 12 spells in the core book. Which will still be far less then what we have.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, to keep a concept in thematic abilities, I don't think cutting out the original class description is going to save space if you take it back up with enough talents so you can re-create the good bits of the old class.
I disagree, and its not just about saving space. Its about eliminating something you do not need and takes away more then it adds.
Also, Expeditious Retreat makes sense when you mention Longstrider, but to be honest, probably only 1 out of 5 players I've met would see that link using only the title on a spell list. Like a lot of things, it makes sense after the fact, but a player looking to validate their concept idea won't see the link during the design phase.
How is that an issue? They do more or less the same thing, but are two spells as they are on different lists. Longstrides sounds more druidy I guess. One is a min a level gives ya a +10 speed. One is an hour a level gives ya a+30 speed. Split the diffidence +20 move for 30 min a level and be done. Again this is a spell issues that has nothing to do with playing a "druid" but balancing the spells.
I agree with you to a certain extent, a ton of concepts can be made from a single versatile class. But there is an overwhelming tide of people who aren't happy with a swashbuckling musketeer made from a rogue. They don't want a samurai made from a Fighter. A ninja using only mundane stealth and throwing knives doesn't feel right. Some of them can be appeased by handing them a "new class" made from existing mechanics with new titles, but...
Again this is a player issue. You can make a samurai very well with the core rules...but it needs to be both cooler and more powerful as its a Samurai! No one can help a fanboi demanding his fave thing be better then every other thing as its his favorite. A Ninja is a rogue, nothing more . Put him in jammies and pick the correct weapons. Nothing more need done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) standardize the amount of skill points to 4+int across the board for all class types. allways thought it rather foolish that clerics and wizards inparticular, probably the most studious of classes, get the lowest points.
2) dump firearms! a waste in a high fantasy game
From earlier in the thread:
Fighters in 1 and 2E advanced attacks after 6 levels:
1-6 1 attack
7-12 3 attacks/2rds
13+ 2 at/rd.
Weapon specialization added +1/2 attack, so the max was 5/2.
Paladins used the same table as fighters, but could not specialize. Yes, they got multiple attacks.
Rangers also got multiple attacks, but every 7 levels.
So, 1 attack 1-7th
3/2 at 8-14
2 at at 15+.
this was mitigated by their awesome bonuses against giant class humanoids in 1E, and some spell support.
===Aelryinth
Also, Expeditious Retreat makes sense when you mention Longstrider, but to be honest, probably only 1 out of 5 players I've met would see that link using only the title on a spell list. Like a lot of things, it makes sense after the fact, but a player looking to validate their concept idea won't see the link during the design phase.
How is that an issue? They do more or less the same thing, but are two spells as they are on different lists. Longstrides sounds more druidy I guess. One is a min a level gives ya a +10 speed. One is an hour a level gives ya a+30 speed. Split the diffidence +20 move for 30 min a level and be done. Again this is a spell issues that has nothing to do with playing a "druid" but balancing the spells.
I agree with you to a certain extent, a ton of concepts can be made from a single versatile class. But there is an overwhelming tide of people who aren't happy with a swashbuckling musketeer made from a rogue. They don't want a samurai made from a Fighter. A ninja using only mundane stealth and throwing knives doesn't feel right. Some of them can be appeased by handing them a "new class" made from existing mechanics with new titles, but...
Again this is a player issue. You can make a samurai very well with the core rules...but it needs to be both cooler and more powerful as its a Samurai! No one can help a fanboi demanding his fave thing be better then every other thing as its his favorite. A Ninja is a rogue, nothing more . Put him in jammies and pick the correct weapons. Nothing more need done.
Clearly I'm not expressing myself well...
None of my point had anything to do with balance, mechanical merits, any of that.My issue is that "flattening" our immense diversity of material into a small selection, and putting the burden of work on the players to "re-create" what they had before is the problem. Before, you had a Druid (don't care if it's balanced or not). People looked at it and knew what to expect. People who played it knew it felt different from a Wizard. If they had a concept that was nature-y, they could take it and it would likely fit. It could be changed, it could be subverted, made into even more specific varieties. You had a lot of "imagination work" done for you already.
Instead of having to spend a lot of work going from "Magic User" to "Druid" you could spend that effort going from "Druid" to "City Druid," "Stonehenge Druid," "Crazy Squirrel Hermit" and all sorts of other things to put into your setting. I don't doubt for a minute that you could make all of these with a robust talent system. Maybe they'll all be balanced, too. My main point, the one I'm trying to illustrate, is that these ideas will take a lot longer to arrive at if you start with only one "Magic User" class instead of "Wizard, Witch, Druid, Cleric, Inquisitor, Bard." The overwhelming majority of players can't see "Crazy Squirrel Hermit" when they see "Magic User," but they can if they see "Druid." And it makes for a fun as hell game to have those kinds of things in.
The "fanbois want to be best" issue is something completely separate, and I can stomp on that or render it pointless in my games as I want. Encouraging creative leaps easily, though, is something that's harder to do without making their character for them.
Maybe I am still not getting you. But to me that reads as " we don't need to change it because some people are to lazy to read the class or make a concept" In reality it is asking a player to put no more effort into reading the class and making a pc based upon a concept then most classes have now. All it does is remove redundant classes and trims redundant spell down to a manageable number. While rebalanced the spells and the classes.
If some one can not be bothered to read the class or come up with a concept and think about thing. Then a class like a caster is not the class for them. No class might work for them really as most make you do these things.
Maybe I am still not getting you. But to me that reads as " we don't need to change it because some people are to lazy to read the class or make a concept" In reality it is asking a player to put no more effort into reading the class and making a pc based upon a concept then most classes have now. All it does is remove redundant classes and trims redundant spell down to a manageable number. While rebalanced the spells and the classes.
If some one can not be bothered to read the class or come up with a concept and think about thing. Then a class like a caster is not the class for them. No class might work for them really as most make you do these things.
First, it's not that "We don't need to change it." I am all for changing it. I follow homebrew materials because I love changing things.
In writing my response, I realized that we may not actually disagree- is it the sheer number of options that are the problem, or is it that the current incarnations of those options are broken and need to be re-engineered, starting from one base?
(Where I'm coming from is that I move frequently, and introduce people into the hobby often just to be able to play. Many people, when confronted with the question "What character do you want to play?" don't have any sort of answer right away. If I only have "Magic User" to offer them, I may get a pale imitation of Gandalf. If I offer six somewhat specific varieties of magic using classes, I get something much more unique and flavorful when they're done.)
See many options are to good. Many are just rehashes of class X's power because it is a new class but does mostly the same thing.
Here is where I am coming from. A full caster should not be a d8, Med BAB. Most of these full spells med Bab lasses are not balanced , we all know this. They are a problem no one wants to fix. The options are not has huge as you think. Even less once you cut out ones you do not need. There is simply no point in so many full caster classes. If a druid is all about wild shape and having an animal buddy then he should not be a full caster. Maybe not a caster at all.
A New edition should strive to fix problems and make the game run smoother. Separate spell lists are a problem. Unbalanced caster classes are a problem. Classes not being robust enough to fill more then one type of concept is a problem.
Last time Paizo was in a rush and tied to making it as much like 3.5 as they could. Next time I think they should ya know fix the issues with the system.
See many options are to good. Many are just rehashes of class X's power because it is a new class but does mostly the same thing.
Here is where I am coming from. A full caster should not be a d8, Med BAB. Most of these full spells med Bab lasses are not balanced , we all know this. They are a problem no one wants to fix. The options are not has huge as you think. Even less once you cut out ones you do not need. There is simply no point in so many full caster classes. If a druid is all about wild shape and having an animal buddy then he should not be a full caster. Maybe not a caster at all.
A New edition should strive to fix problems and make the game run smoother. Separate spell lists are a problem. Unbalanced caster classes are a problem. Classes not being robust enough to fill more then one type of concept is a problem.
Last time Paizo was in a rush and tied to making it as much like 3.5 as they could. Next time I think they should ya know fix the issues with the system.
I'm pretty sure we're having two different discussions, and are just talking past each other now...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm on the pro "keep alignment" team.
I'm also pro many classes getting low skill points. Pathfinder's skill point system, IMO, is already overly friendly. Not everyone should get to do everything. Some classes should suck at some stuff.
The only problem I have with classes having low skill points is that in some cases (I think Cleric followed by Fighter is the worst), is that it really cuts into what the base class should be able to do, but there are too many essentually must have skills, and they are designed to need to dump Int in order to do their basic job otherwise. The only real affect this has is making those classes less fun and less able to be personalized without really hampering them doing their basic job.
Don't get me wrong, I really do like the things Paizo has done with skills. It is fantastic, and one of the greatest improvements they made over 3E.
See There is a diffidence In balancing the classes and cloning them. You do not have to make them all work the same to balance them all.
Did not know they made a d20 version of that. Hows it work?
|
|
Did not know they made a d20 version of that. Hows it work?
A review can be found at:
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11866.phtml
For combat the best version of d20 I have encountered. Low hit point and armor reduces damage for example.
I can type some more details if you like later today - my book is at home.
Cheers,
S.
Expeditious Retreat is +30 move for short duration, Longstrider is +10 move for long duration. Definitely a world of difference between them!
==Bob D.
I pointed that out above. Honestly though they do the same thing (enhance movement). Saying one fits a theme and the other does not is kinda silly.
You had the numbers swapped...+30 long duration, +10 short duration ;) There's a significant difference.
==Aelryinth
No I did not. Longstider is +10 and long, ER is +30 and short.My point is they do the same thing, enhance movement. And saying one is not a good fit for the theme is just silly.
My 2 changes would be:
1. Set healing amounts. Healing should inherently be substabtially beneficial. Variable healing can be quite annoying, especially if the party only has one healer. All healing should be a set amount, and the only variable should be a bonus for caster level.
2. Actions need should be equated to a point system. Scrap all referrences to action type (full, partial, standard) and replace them with "action round points". Each round you would receive a set amount of points (i.e. 20). If you wish to move all your movement, its 10 point. To attack as a single attack would be 10 points. A full attack would cost 18, which would allow a small cost for a 5' step. For new players, the actions combinations as they stand now are very confusing to figure out. I believe a point system would make it much easier to manage.
|
|
2. Actions need should be equated to a point system. Scrap all referrences to action type (full, partial, standard) and replace them with "action round points". Each round you would receive a set amount of points (i.e. 20). If you wish to move all your movement, its 10 point. To attack as a single attack would be 10 points. A full attack would cost 18, which would allow a small cost for a 5' step. For new players, the actions combinations as they stand now are very confusing to figure out. I believe a point system would make it much easier to manage.
WW's Scion line uses a system like this (the tick point track) and it is so easy to break, it's not even funny. Essentually your initiative goes on a circle, and the action you take determines when you can go again. There are no rounds, but rather the number of "ticks" until you can go again. It's really great in concept, but sucks if players even half-heartedly want to be combat monsters and ruin the game.
My suggestion was only to convert the current system to a point-base system. Accordingly, you could never "carry over" unspent points.
|
|
Then there is archery, it's too good now...So I don't find a problem with how powerful archery is but I'd like to see some defensive feats, spells and magic items to balance it out.
What you are describing is the beginnings of an arms race scenario. It begins by adding a feat which lets me grab arrows, then the other guy adds a feat which makes his arrows ungrabbable (not a word), then I add the feat that lets me kick away ungrabbable arrows, so on and so forth. If you think something isn't balanced then balance it directly. Adding rules upon rules will eventually make the game unplayable.
Two more changes I would like to see:
1) I would like for all arrows to always be piercing damage (no blunt or slashing arrows) and the cost to make arrows from special materials be increased considerably. A melee character needs to make a huge monetary investment and take a feat to let him change his damage type and/or weapon type to anything he wants on each iterative attack, but the ranger can do this and gets the full benefit of all enhancements on his bow.
2) I would also like to see the fighter feats become available to every character, but allow fighters to use the feats with any weapon in a certain weapon group (they must have weapon training for that weapon group). The prereqs would need to be altered from requires fighter x to requires BAB x. This lets players work up their devotion to a single weapon without requiring fighter levels and promotes the idea of a fighter which devotes himself to groups of weapons. The fighter as-is becomes decent with his group and great with the single weapon he dumps feats on. The paladin as-is at 20th level is just as capable with the longsword he has been using his entire career as he is with a random weapon he picks up in the next room(+/- 1 attack bonus from weapon focus). It is a bit discouraging on both ends here.
1) Removal of stat boosting items and a corresponding automatic increase in the stat growth of characters. Technically, that's easier than assuming stats won't grow since I expect encounters with monsters are balanced around certain expectations of minimum stats, damage, hit bonuses, and saves. It just bugs me to have to set aside one or two body slots and ### gp for stat boosters when there are neat items out there in the same slots that see little or no use because they're just not as good.
2) Rework the cure line of spells, if for no other reason than that the names bother me. 'Cure Light Wounds' will bring a commoner from near death to full health, but won't scratch the surface of even a mid level fighter's health. I would prefer to see the cure line work off the natural healing rules. Cure Light, for example, could heal as if you'd rested for one or two days + the caster's Wisdom mod. Cure Moderate...say 3 days healing, plus 2*Wis Mod, and so on.