I would be okay with that. Wizard is the balancing point against which I determine whether or not something is broken anyway.
|
I would be okay with that. Wizard is the balancing point against which I determine whether or not something is broken anyway.
Which wizard? Schrodinger's Wizard that always can leave to learn new spells in the middle of a dungeon and never loses the spellbook?
Or the glass cannon that may or may not have the right spell memorized at the right time, unless it spends all it's resources on disposables?
I would love for the Inquisitor to be the baseline everything is judged on.
Wizard is an odd one - can be awesome, can be nerfed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The book wizard. The balance of capability and flexibility with weakness. Or vice versa.
It's still, even removing the Schrodinger's Wizard from the equation, one of the better classes. And I'm okay with high powered play. I liked Book of Nine Swords. I liked Tome of Magic. I liked the endless-ammo but limited-capability classes like Warlock and Dragonfire Adept. Etc. etc. etc.
When someone tosses out "That's broken", I see if it can outdo a wizard trying to pull off the same schtick. Because, occasionally with a little multiclassing, a wizard prepared for a specific task can almost always pull it off. If the proposed "broken" thing can't outdo the wizard prepped for the job, it's probably not that broken, IMO.
I thing the best thing would be to remove from the CORE those aspect of the CORE that are always ignored or changed.
Appraise -- change this to an optional rule
Profession --- change this to an optional rule perhaps trade it for "Traits"
Alignment -- Tends to get in the way more then it helps.
Simplify aspects that are too complicated to use in games.
Vision and Light --- Simplify this
The Surprise Round -- give some solid DCs to hit with perceptions checks so that the GM can use this fun feature without coming up with arbitrary DC's
Don't over Simplify. AoO are find just the way they are.
make CORE those things that are always added
Alignment -- Tends to get in the way more then it helps.
Pretty much 50/50 throughout the community on agree/disagree. So more than likely not going anywhere.
Pretty much 50/50 throughout the community on agree/disagree. So more than likely not going anywhere.
Your probably right.
I think they could keep them. There a little important for spells and such. I think they should be made less important.
I don't bother my players about their Alignment unless they have a specific alignment specific class.
I've never had a single alignment-related problem in my games, so that's my take on it.
Presuming at some point there will be a major revision (but hopefully not a new edition...) which classes would best be served by another pass of "Pathfinderization"*
*(Pathfinderization being defined as doing a lessons learned on the existing class and tweaking where needed, as they did from 3.5 to Pathfinder.)
My opinion, feel free to add your own. They are like certain orafices, everyone has them and they are all full of...stuff...
...
3. My love for the concept of the gunslinger is only slightly outweighed by my dislike of the pathfinder gunslinger. Why does the gunslinger need martial proficiency? What the hell is this grit mechanic that overcomplicates a concept that is a person who shoots people with guns. And why are all guns touch attack for everyone? I've got an Eldrich Knight Gunslinger in the party torching everything, because who cares about those 1/2 caster levels when you are against touch AC. Hell, why make it a full BaB class if it hits against touch AC? The whole thing needs to go back to the drawing board and start over.
God, Heaven, the Devil and Hell forbid something else than a spellcaster hit against touch AC. And Gunslingers can only do that at a limited range anyway.
Now, if you allow a PC to build a Gatling Gun because the player knows how to, that is something else.
A way to Nerf the Wizard would be to enforce Specializations a bit more, would help solving a single Wizard having 95% of the options in a party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with a majority of points, but here are the things I'd "tweak" and leave alone:
Core:
6. Monk - ciretose said it correctly - when the monk flurries, it somehow needs to get a better BAB.
They already get full BaB when flurrying.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The monk is not broken. It's a skirmisher class, like the rogue. Thus its BAB is 3/4ths like the rogue. What they do need is a magic item that isn't an amulet of mighty fists that allows you to enchant your fists like magic weapons, for a comparable cost to a regular magic weapon. Make it only work on Unarmed attacks rather than Natural attacks if need be. that's literally the only thing Monks need.
|
|
God, Heaven, the Devil and Hell forbid something else than a spellcaster hit against touch AC. And Gunslingers can only do that at a limited range anyway.
Now, if you allow a PC to build a Gatling Gun because the player knows how to, that is something else.
The Gunslinger hits against touch attack with a X4 crit. Throw in basically no miss Deadly Aim and things like named bullet...
And again, why do they need martial weapon proficiency? Or to be full BaB if they are attacking against touch with firearms.
If you change the rule to only gunslingers attack against touch, and that the range increment increases as you go up in gunslinger levels, I'd be fine with it and that would be an effective class.
|
|
A way to Nerf the Wizard would be to enforce Specializations a bit more, would help solving a single Wizard having 95% of the options in a party.
So would making them write down the spells they have memorized on cards they hand the GM after they use them...
And before anyone says scrolls, you still have to make them (including paying for the materials), retrieve them and cast them.
The Wizard is fine. Schrodinger's Wizard is broken.
A way to Nerf the Wizard would be to enforce Specializations a bit more, would help solving a single Wizard having 95% of the options in a party.
So would making them write down the spells they have memorized on cards they hand the GM after they use them...
And before anyone says scrolls, you still have to make them (including paying for the materials), retrieve them and cast them.
The Wizard is fine. Schrodinger's Wizard is broken.
I meant as: they have to "truely" specialize so they don't have access to that whole 500 spells spell-list (I know it isn't 500, yet).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter would like to take his iconic high level abilities back from the barbarian.
He would like to be able to Sunder Spells, Resist Magic, hit people who hit him, learn how to tumble, get DR as he levels instead of at level 19, be able to improve his will save automatically with class features, and have 4 skill points a level, thanks.
The Rogue's demand that skills not be eclipsed/replaced by magic means you would have to redefine what skills ARE. Skill Ranks should open up new capabilities, representing training and learning. Bonuses gained by other means should just represent speed and surety.
Spells that duplicate/eliminate gp production should be revised or fixed. Example, Fabricate should replace one day's skill check, allowing it to be done instantly, not instantly make a completed item requiring a hundred day's labor out of raw materials. It also should not allow you to make a potent masterwork item with one Rank in the appropriate skill and a +10 Competency item, i.e. you need 7 Ranks in profession (smith) before you can work mithral, 10 before you can work adamantine.
An item is required to be masterwork and have a crafting level = the spellcasting level needed to power it. Thus, if you want a +5 sword, you need a sword made by a smith with 15 Ranks in the skill, or it won't hold the enchantment. This makes legendary craftsman NECCESSARY to make legendary items, and magic won't sub for Ranks.
==Aelryinth
I meant as: they have to "truely" specialize so they don't have access to that whole 500 spells spell-list (I know it isn't 500, yet).A way to Nerf the Wizard would be to enforce Specializations a bit more, would help solving a single Wizard having 95% of the options in a party.
So would making them write down the spells they have memorized on cards they hand the GM after they use them...
And before anyone says scrolls, you still have to make them (including paying for the materials), retrieve them and cast them.
The Wizard is fine. Schrodinger's Wizard is broken.
I enforce spell pages and book limits, along with weight limits in my games. Each book has 100 pages. Each spell takes up one page per spell level (1 page for 0 level spells, too). Each book is 3 lbs.
So for 500 spells, that's a minimum of 5 books they have to carry around (assuming all 0 and 1st level spells), and 15 lbs (which can be a lot for a strength dumped wizard; STR 8 is a 26 pound limit for light load). And those books can get bulky. Want all the 5th level spells? That's 47 spells out of the CRB, 235 pages, and two and a third spell books. There's 42 4th level spells in the CRB; that's 168 pages. Looks like you could fill up the rest of that one book with 5th level spells and and an additional book.
I know; extra dimensional space can take care of weight limits, but still, it can get really bulky carrying around that many spellbooks.
I enforce spell pages and book limits, along with weight limits in my games. Each book has 100 pages. Each spell takes up one page per spell level (1 page for 0 level spells, too). Each book is 3 lbs.
So for 500 spells, that's a minimum of 5 books they have to carry around (assuming all 0 and 1st level spells), and 15 lbs (which can be a lot for a strength dumped wizard; STR 8 is a 26 pound limit for light load). And those books can get bulky. Want all the 5th level spells? That's 47 spells out of the CRB, 235 pages, and two and a third spell books. There's 42 4th level spells in the CRB; that's 168 pages. Looks like you could fill up the rest of that one book with 5th level spells and and an additional book.
I know; extra dimensional space can take care of weight limits, but still, it can get really bulky carrying around that many spellbooks.
Good for you, but not everyone enforce/keep track of stuff like that (and prepared spells)
Good for you, but not everyone enforce/keep track of stuff like that (and prepared spells)I enforce spell pages and book limits, along with weight limits in my games. Each book has 100 pages. Each spell takes up one page per spell level (1 page for 0 level spells, too). Each book is 3 lbs.
So for 500 spells, that's a minimum of 5 books they have to carry around (assuming all 0 and 1st level spells), and 15 lbs (which can be a lot for a strength dumped wizard; STR 8 is a 26 pound limit for light load). And those books can get bulky. Want all the 5th level spells? That's 47 spells out of the CRB, 235 pages, and two and a third spell books. There's 42 4th level spells in the CRB; that's 168 pages. Looks like you could fill up the rest of that one book with 5th level spells and and an additional book.
I know; extra dimensional space can take care of weight limits, but still, it can get really bulky carrying around that many spellbooks.
If the complaint is that the wizard has too many spells available to use at any given time, why wouldn't the GM enforce those rules (which are a part of RAW)? To have that complaint and not enforce the rules which specifically address that complaint seems odd.
They already get full BaB when flurrying.6. Monk - ciretose said it correctly - when the monk flurries, it somehow needs to get a better BAB.
I think he meant better attack bonus, not base attack bonus. Monk's have real problems hitting (and getting through DR) compared to other combat classes, mainly due to MAD and lack of enhancement.
Change how ability scores are used/generated. The raw ability scores are primarily only used to determine what your bonus is. You pretty much never actually use your real ability score (Constitution for negative HP and suffocation and Strength for encumbrance being the exceptions).
It would require altering the ability bumps every 4 levels and ability damage/drain, but they could still work similar to how they work now.
The scores as they relate to older versions of D&D are vestigial and no longer serve much purpose. Nostalgia is not a good reason to keep things around.
|
|
I meant as: they have to "truely" specialize so they don't have access to that whole 500 spells spell-list (I know it isn't 500, yet).A way to Nerf the Wizard would be to enforce Specializations a bit more, would help solving a single Wizard having 95% of the options in a party.
So would making them write down the spells they have memorized on cards they hand the GM after they use them...
And before anyone says scrolls, you still have to make them (including paying for the materials), retrieve them and cast them.
The Wizard is fine. Schrodinger's Wizard is broken.
Or you have to calculate the WBL of actually acquiring all of those spells, putting them in spell books, and then either having them memorized at the perfect moment or the cost of making each of the 500 scrolls, plus a move action (at least) to recover them in combat and then more gold to replace them....
Having access isn't the same is having when you need it, as many times as you need it.
And so not everyone has a wizard power problem. If you enforce the limitations of the class along with the benefits...Good for you, but not everyone enforce/keep track of stuff like that (and prepared spells)
I genuinely think that is a major part of the problem many people have with the wizard class. There are rules in place, which when enforced, can keep wizards in-line.
Do I think those rules are good? Not necessarily, but until a more elegant means can be created/brainstormed, they do their job well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly for the most part, I think the classes are fine (mechanically) and most need little to no change.
What does need a revision (and by revision, I mean a polishing, NOT an overhaul) are the core rules/mechanics. Re-organize the material so that things that should be in the same section ARE in the same section, codify all of the FAQs and new rules that have been introduced in supplements since the core rulebook was released, and stop copying and pasting 3.5 language into the Pathfinder rules. That is the #1 thing I'd like to see. It has caused countless problems... I know it saves time and it's easy to do, but a very large portion of the Pathfinder core is taken directly from the 3.5 core, word for word. STOP IT! It may seem harmless at first glance, but I can't tell you how much disjunction and confusion it has caused in the rules. I'm looking at you, Stealth and Soft Cover... but there's a ton of other stuff.
Or you have to calculate the WBL of actually acquiring all of those spells, putting them in spell books, and then either having them memorized at the perfect moment or the cost of making each of the 500 scrolls, plus a move action (at least) to recover them in combat and then more gold to replace them....Having access isn't the same is having when you need it, as many times as you need it.
Hence a suggestion I made somewhere to blur the line between Sorcerer and Wizard, and do something like the fans of Final Fantasy series, and later Square Enix, did; split the Black Mage into: Black Mage, Green Mage, Time Mage, etc Mage... Kinda like the School thing, but more enforced.
The fighter would like to take his iconic high level abilities back from the barbarian.
He would like to be able to Sunder Spells, Resist Magic, hit people who hit him, learn how to tumble, get DR as he levels instead of at level 19, be able to improve his will save automatically with class features, and have 4 skill points a level, thanks.
The Rogue's demand that skills not be eclipsed/replaced by magic means you would have to redefine what skills ARE. Skill Ranks should open up new capabilities, representing training and learning. Bonuses gained by other means should just represent speed and surety.
Spells that duplicate/eliminate gp production should be revised or fixed. Example, Fabricate should replace one day's skill check, allowing it to be done instantly, not instantly make a completed item requiring a hundred day's labor out of raw materials. It also should not allow you to make a potent masterwork item with one Rank in the appropriate skill and a +10 Competency item, i.e. you need 7 Ranks in profession (smith) before you can work mithral, 10 before you can work adamantine.
An item is required to be masterwork and have a crafting level = the spellcasting level needed to power it. Thus, if you want a +5 sword, you need a sword made by a smith with 15 Ranks in the skill, or it won't hold the enchantment. This makes legendary craftsman NECCESSARY to make legendary items, and magic won't sub for Ranks.
==Aelryinth
I like all of what you say here, but the bolded especially. I think I may make that a house rule.
But in such an instance, do you think that Fabricate could be made a lower-level spell as a result? I think it could, but that's me. Suddenly I'm imagining a blacksmith with a wizard level (or three) so he CAN cast Fabricate, making his life a bit easier and increasing income. "Yeah, going to magic college was worth every copper. I can get three days worth of work done in one!" EDIT: Would probably lower the amount of material worked with, too. 10 cubic feet of steel ingots could be made into quite a few swords; so maybe 1 or 2 cubic feet per casting?
Screw it, I'm going to try making this work.
And limit Wizards stepping on almost everyone else toes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Rogue's demand that skills not be eclipsed/replaced by magic means you would have to redefine what skills ARE. Skill Ranks should open up new capabilities, representing training and learning. Bonuses gained by other means should just represent speed and surety.
I like this idea. A skill rank being more than just the '+1', but opening up access to extra tricks.
Alternity did this; the skill mechanics were different from D&D3E, being more like Proficiencies from 2nd Edition D&D. Roll under [Stat+skill rank], with degrees of success for rolling under half or one-quarter. (good & awesome success? Can't remember the specific terminology)
But essentially, the ranks were more important than the base stat mods. Two PCs could have the same target number, but the one whose score came from proportionally more skill would be able to perform tricks the other couldn't, or ignore certain negative situational modifiers. Been a while since I played, but I recall the combat spec PC being able to shoot on the run, and accurately burst fire, better than her husband's 'spy' PC who had a similar single-shot accuracy, but from higher base agility.
As the tech, I'm sure I had the ability to 'take 10' on many jury-rigging or piloting rolls, when under pressure.
The fighter would like to take his iconic high level abilities back from the barbarian.
He would like to be able to Sunder Spells, Resist Magic, hit people who hit him, learn how to tumble, get DR as he levels instead of at level 19, be able to improve his will save automatically with class features, and have 4 skill points a level, thanks.
The Rogue's demand that skills not be eclipsed/replaced by magic means you would have to redefine what skills ARE. Skill Ranks should open up new capabilities, representing training and learning. Bonuses gained by other means should just represent speed and surety.
Spells that duplicate/eliminate gp production should be revised or fixed. Example, Fabricate should replace one day's skill check, allowing it to be done instantly, not instantly make a completed item requiring a hundred day's labor out of raw materials. It also should not allow you to make a potent masterwork item with one Rank in the appropriate skill and a +10 Competency item, i.e. you need 7 Ranks in profession (smith) before you can work mithral, 10 before you can work adamantine.
An item is required to be masterwork and have a crafting level = the spellcasting level needed to power it. Thus, if you want a +5 sword, you need a sword made by a smith with 15 Ranks in the skill, or it won't hold the enchantment. This makes legendary craftsman NECCESSARY to make legendary items, and magic won't sub for Ranks.
==Aelryinth
All of these yes.
Fighters need more fighter feats. Having fighter levels, or having a class that treats half your levels as fighter levels needs to give more options. To my knowledge, the only fighter-only feats regularly taken are greater weapon focus and the weapon specialization tree.
Classes need to be designed with archetypes in mind. I love the balance approach to Pathfinder- purposeful unbalance, where each class has something they do well, but also contains a weakness that can be exploited by another class. It's why I've never worried about wizards being overpowered (although I would like to see fewer game-changing spells at low levels like charm person and create pit) because everyone can plan their characters in a way that they undercut the weaknesses of the wizard. It's a system of design that works much better than, say, 4th ed's making sure everyone has the same numer of skills/abilities/powers.
However, the problem falls apart with so many archetypes. I love all the archetypes and the many options we have in Pathfinder, but the classes weren't designed with archetypes in mind. The real reason the Rogue is underpowered is the vivesectionist alchemist. When you can give sneak attack to a class that already does poison better than a rogue, has virtually the same number of skill points (since Intelligence is much more primary for an alchemist than a rogue,) gains a discovery for every talent a rogue would get, and has spell-casting on top of that, you've given players the ability to virtually point-by-point make a rogue who trades a few sneak attack and skill options for free magic, better poison, and all the alchemist's crazy options like free healing and 4 arms. We should definitely make sure we aren't moving towards 4th ed, but making sure every class has enough unique things to offer so they don't become superfluous when employing archetypes would be wonderful.
As was mentioned above, a further development of skills that opens up abilities when you reach certain ranks (as opposed to when you meet a DC) would be wonderful. I like the idea that pursuing skills is just as valid a character choice as pursuing magic and combat. Pathfinder's already made sure a wizard isn't a better fighter than a fighter, but they need to also make sure a wizard isn't a better rogue than a rogue.
Just using a Fabricate spell, a 9th level wizard spec with a 20 Int, can get 3 days of work done in minutes...and then still do a full day's worth of work, since if you use skill limits, he has to have the skill ranks to do the job, anyways.
If you use the idea that being Masterwork doesn't add to an object's time, but is the result of a good roll, and that 'special materials' don't add to forging time (i.e. making a sword takes the same amount of time regardless of what it is made of or quality level), then he's working several times as fast as any craftsman.
Now, is that worth the market value of a 5th level spell? nope, under current rules. But then, the work of craftsman is not worth much if you can make something from raw materials with one spell, and masterwork with the next, and then +1/2 to hardness and double the hitpoints with two more...
==+Aelryinth
I meant as: they have to "truely" specialize so they don't have access to that whole 500 spells spell-list (I know it isn't 500, yet).A way to Nerf the Wizard would be to enforce Specializations a bit more, would help solving a single Wizard having 95% of the options in a party.
So would making them write down the spells they have memorized on cards they hand the GM after they use them...
And before anyone says scrolls, you still have to make them (including paying for the materials), retrieve them and cast them.
The Wizard is fine. Schrodinger's Wizard is broken.
I enforce spell pages and book limits, along with weight limits in my games. Each book has 100 pages. Each spell takes up one page per spell level (1 page for 0 level spells, too). Each book is 3 lbs.
So for 500 spells, that's a minimum of 5 books they have to carry around (assuming all 0 and 1st level spells), and 15 lbs (which can be a lot for a strength dumped wizard; STR 8 is a 26 pound limit for light load). And those books can get bulky. Want all the 5th level spells? That's 47 spells out of the CRB, 235 pages, and two and a third spell books. There's 42 4th level spells in the CRB; that's 168 pages. Looks like you could fill up the rest of that one book with 5th level spells and and an additional book.
I know; extra dimensional space can take care of weight limits, but still, it can get really bulky carrying around that many spellbooks.
Because of extradimensional items, storage/weight is not a problem past level 1 or 2. Heward's Haversack.
By level 4, no mage should have a classic spellbook, they should have a blessed book...which has 1000 pages, not 100, and furthermore scribes spells for almost nothing, and weighs less.
So, weight and volume are not issues once you have a few levels.
I read a fascinating discourse on the cost of scribing ALL spells in the main PFSRD a while ago. Blessed Books change so much in raw cost of this kind of stuff.
==Aelryinth
They mentioned in one of the 5th edition things the importance of making skills 'better' then magic in some ways. The example given was a Rogue using diplomacy vs a wizard with charm person. The wizard could attain a nice short term benefit, but the rogue could talk his way into the king's vault, with the king's permission, and keep that permission for the long term.
I don't mind a bard being the master of social skills (specifically bluff and diplomacy), but the Rogue should beat everyone at basically most everything else.
The fighter should master skills via feats, and if a Fighter chooses to focus on a class skill with feats, should be better then anyone, even a rogue. To that end, a fighter should have a second tier of feats devoted specifically to skills. The Rogue should get increasing competency bonuses to more and more skills as they level...the fighter gets feats usable for skill focus, skill affinity, skill training, skill knowledge, etc.
The trick is to go through the system and revise it. It would, for instance, eliminate a lot of class abilities as stands. Hide in Plain Sight, for instance, should just be a high Rank use of the Stealth skill. Perhaps it opens at 10 Ranks. For a -10 penalty, you can HiPS. As a class ability, you don't suffer the penalty. If you are Generally Awesome, like the Rogue, the penalty isn't much imposition. If you are in your Favored Terrain, the Ranger won't have a problem. If you're a Wizard, well, you're prob better off casting Invisibility then bothering to try a HiPS move. And if you're a Shadowdancer, then there's no penalty at all.
But I absolutely love the idea of Crafter Ranks required for Caster level. You want a +5 sword, find someone with 15 Ranks who can make it, or reforge the one you own. Then, Craft Ranks become highly valuable, just like caster levels. Anyone can churn out a 2 Rank masterwork item, but a legendary blade capable of holding the greatest enchantments? Rare as the caster who can enspell it.
==Aelryinth
But I absolutely love the idea of Crafter Ranks required for Caster level. You want a +5 sword, find someone with 15 Ranks who can make it, or reforge the one you own. Then, Craft Ranks become highly valuable, just like caster levels. Anyone can churn out a 2 Rank masterwork item, but a legendary blade capable of holding the greatest enchantments? Rare as the caster who can enspell it.
You can't restrict crafting like that without first doing away with gear dependency. If NPCs who can do the jobs aren't available in every city big enough to sell magic items the PC wizard needs to carry the load. That's craft weapons, armor, bows, jewelry, and tailoring for the big six, plus cobbling for the foot slot.
Getting rid of gear dependency is itself a laudable goal, but I don't think a .5 version can tackle it. It breaks too much backwards compatibility.
Incidentally, that would actually make the Master Craftsman feat a much more powerful thing to take, rather than just a complementary, expensive magic item creation feat tree for fighters and rogues.
Shameless Plug: That's also the entire concept behind the Artisan class, which just went up for sale about a week ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that could help the Rogue is if the Minor/Major Magic talent isn't restricted to the Sorcerer/Wizard list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Core:
- Barbarian - Add Stealth to the class skills list. The berserker this class is strongly based upon is an ambusher. I can't ambush if I can't hide well.
- Bard - Versatile performance is too good. Drop skills/level down to 4+Int to adjust.
- Cleric - Make Faith/Domains play a bigger part of the class.
- Druid - Don't play many PF druids, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Spells tend to be boring though.
- Fighter - Suffers from being overly-generic and therefore boring to play at times, but there's nothing mechanically wrong with them.
- Monk - So many things, with so many threads already covering them.
- Paladin - Fine as is, though it can suffer from differing opinions on alignment restrictions, but that's a player problem, not a balance problem.
- Ranger - Spells are incredibly slow and very boring. Spice up the spells or get rid of them as the core option. Otherwise, a great class.
- Rogue - The change to class skill mechanics ruined their skill superiority. Going back to class/non-class would be too much of an overhaul and adding more skills is a shallow "fix" that wouldn't really fix anything. Don't know what the answer is for that. Also, Talents are downright bad. Buff them so they're not embarrassing anymore.
- Sorcerer - Class is great. Spells need work (see below).
- Wizard - Have a Wizard gain 3 spells per level instead of 2 (make that theoretical improved diversity over sorcerers into actual improved diversity over sorcerers). Also, make not-specializing a viable option (the Universalist options are never worth giving up a spell slot/day). Otherwise, spells need work (see below).
Base:
- Alchemist - Class can feel a bit weird at times, but it's actually a rather strong class that doesn't need anything.
- Cavalier - Everything the Fighter should have been. A good class with strong options (if you can't make use of your mount, that's your GM's fault, not the class's fault).
- Gunslinger - Never played one, and I've never played a campaign that involved firearm rules. So I'll stay silent here, since I'm ignorant of the class.
- Inquisitor - A Ranger with a better spell list. Class is fine as-is.
- Magus - Another class that's fine as-is.
- Oracle - The spontanious answer to the Cleric. Probably a little better than the Cleric, honestly.
- Summoner - An unnecessary class, IMO. Something like this should have been a Prestige Class, not a full 20-level class.
- Witch - Like the Summoner, I honestly think this would have made for a better prestige than a full class.
Alternate:
All three are an unnecessary waste of page space that's basically only there to say, "Look how you can change the above classes into whatever fits your game." I'm not surprised at all that they never expanded this list beyond the three in UC.
1 - All classes get a minimum of 4+Int skill points per level. There is no excuse for 2/level, ever, including back in 3.X.
2 - Reduce unnecessary feat tax/bloat. One feat every other level is fine for core-only. It's nowhere near enough when you add in APG, UM, and UC.
3 - Overhaul the spells. Too many stupid things going on in the spell lists that just don't make sense. Necromancy is power over life and death, but all the Cure spells are Conjuration? Control Undead has a much better argument as an Enchantment spell than a Necromancy spell. The Transmutation list is almost double the size of the 2nd biggest spell list (433 Transmutation vs 242 Conjuration). Conjuration is too powerful compared to other schools. The Enchantment school is rendered almost entirely useless far too often, depending on template and/or Monster type. Etc. Etc. Etc. This is probably the biggest area where "backwards compability" was a stupid idea, because 3.X made stupid decisions here and Pathfinder never bothered to fix them.
|
|
I don't really understand what the design goal of this is. We already have 3e: the Third Party Houserule Edition. I don't need nor want another .5 edition of 3e, especially one that breaks compatibility; either deal with the problems in the trunk or just leave the damn branches alone.
The whole point is to not break compatibility but to adjust in the same way Pathfinder Adjusted from 3.5 or 3.5 adjusted from 3.0.
Next stage in the progression, probably less dramatic than the other transitions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder wasn't especially compatible with 3.5e to begin with, to be honest.
I don't really understand what the design goal of this is. We already have 3e: the Third Party Houserule Edition. I don't need nor want another .5 edition of 3e, especially one that breaks compatibility; either deal with the problems in the trunk or just leave the damn branches alone.The whole point is to not break compatibility but to adjust in the same way Pathfinder Adjusted from 3.5 or 3.5 adjusted from 3.0.
Next stage in the progression, probably less dramatic than the other transitions.
I would agree, it's been a progression that has incrementally improved each step of the way. Pathfinder is good, better than 3.5, but still needs a few tweaks.
Pathfinder wasn't especially compatible with 3.5e to begin with, to be honest.
+1
Give this wo/man a cookie.
|
I have a list of changes but the top things are to make 4+Int the min for skill points (except for Wiz and Int based classes in the same way that Barbs d12 is an exception).
Make ALL classes have built in either or choices that affect them thriughout levels like Ranger or Monks fighting styles.
Keep a relatively equal amount of Archtype/PC options, Class Only Feats, and things like that to ALL classes.
Either make all or none of the classes MAD.
Either remove Perception as a skill (level + Wis check) or make it a class skill for everyone.