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.
Untrue. It means that Crafting and Profession skills suddenly have value.
The fighter will take ranks in Blacksmith, and they become valuable.The Rogue will take ranks in jeweller, and they become valuable.
The Druid will take ranks in leatherworker, and they become valuable.
Why? Because NPC's with 12 ranks in leatherworking who can actually make armor out of Dragonhide aren't going to be common.
Note, however: The availability of such NPC's is no less then the ability to buy level 9 scrolls and the like, when it comes down to it. While the wealthy would clamor for the time of a great craftsman, he isn't going to want to just churn out more masterwork material for some sot who'll never make great things from it. Working in exotic materials, making stuff that great heroes can turn into works of legend...they'll be driven the same way as any craftsman. Someone wanting a DC35 sword that can be turned into a +5 weapon is different then a 15th level character riding up and needing such an item.
So, yeah, you can commoditize skill availability the same way you do magic items, you just have to reprice items by Rank and DC, and determine availability.
-------
As a side note, you actually don't need to give all classes 4 skill points if you give them something to replace the points with.
For instance, the Bard has that Versatile Performer shtick, so he effectively can have more skill points then a Rogue.
Giving a Fighter extra feats that can be spent on Skill enhancements is akin to giving out more skill points, but keeps the Fighter as a Feat master instead of a Skill master.
==Aelryinth
Pathfinder wasn't especially compatible with 3.5e to begin with, to be honest.+1
Give this wo/man a cookie.
...this would be the fourth time someone mistook me for a woman online already XD
The slash means either/or.
I think the notion of playing safe counts after I've made it clear I am a he.
I think the only one of those I agree with is #6 heh.
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.
Untrue. It means that Crafting and Profession skills suddenly have value.
The fighter will take ranks in Blacksmith, and they become valuable.
The Rogue will take ranks in jeweller, and they become valuable.
The Druid will take ranks in leatherworker, and they become valuable.So, yeah, you can commoditize skill availability the same way you do magic items, you just have to reprice items by Rank and DC, and determine availability.
Giving a Fighter extra feats that can be spent on Skill enhancements is akin to giving out more...
I think what people are arguing with skill points, skill rank requirements, and crafting, is that we'd like to see the focus in Pathfinder 1.5 move away from magic and more towards skill.
Whether it was because skills were new to 3rd edition or because they didn't exist in earlier editions, the tradition of Pathfinder is that you don't ACTUALLY need skills to play, because almost everything they do can be done better and more efficiently with magic. I'll bet it was a 3rd edition design goal so players new to skills wouldn't have problems, but RAW, invisibility trumps Stealth, Levitate trumps Climb, Fabricate trumps Craft, Cleric magic trumps the Heal skill, and Charm Person trumps Diplomacy. In a party of mostly-magic users, it can be argued the only skills you need are Perception, Knowledge, and some sort of trap finding and disarming (if you're playing that kind of game and don't want to just summon a monster to trigger the trap.)
A lot of us have houserules for this (Diplomacy and Bluff trump Charm Person in the long run, Invisibile people make a lot of noise as they move, etc.) but it seems like what a lot of people are arguing for is for skill to be superior (or at least equal) to magic, in an almost Skyrim-like way. Skills give us Perks and abilities that magic either can't duplicate, or must be very powerful to duplicate.
I read one person's houserule for a low-magic campaign where craft could be used to add properties like keen or bleed to weapons. Perhaps in Pathfinder 1.5, the qualities of a weapon will be divided between craft and magic- the wizard can make the sword flaming, but only a craftsman can make it +5. Invisibility can improve your Stealth skill, but only a master of Stealth can attack someone in melee without giving away his location. Perhaps even charm and illusion spells only supplement, rather than replace, a fast-talker's ability to make someone believe what isn't true. Perhaps we need a return of Non-Weapon proficiencies that just can't be done with magic, or the old Complete Scoundrel's skill tricks as unlockable abilities when you reach certain ranks.
I think we're ready to move beyond skills as this strange, extra option in the game, and more towards skills being as important and irreplaceable as a fighter's tanking and a wizard's area-effect spells.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I loved skill tricks from the Complete Scoundrel!
There's no reason we can't do it in PF. It would also help rogues spend some of their skill points, and help (re)balance that class. It would be the way to get high skill ranks to 'unlock' abilities that cannot be duplicated with mere bonuses!
Oh, and one other thing which few might have thought of: Clarify and fix the rules for constructs.
Pathfinder suddenly made constructs a viable option for spellcasting PCs to pursue, and I've seen more and more people lately pursuing them. However, the rules are unclear, limiting, and designed with GMs instead of Players in mind (thus, they require a lot of discussion with the GM about every point and a lot of houserules before a player can really use them.)
In my current campaign, I got the great idea of building power armor for my Cavalier cohort (Escaflowne style- a knight that pilots a giant construct instead of rides a horse,) but I had to rewrite the construct rules, the wearable-as-armor construct property rules (which are very convoluted and limiting,) and design a whole new archetype for my Cavalier to make him a good construct pilot, all to accomplish something that I thought was actually pretty standard in Steampunk, Sword and Sorcery, and Sword and Planet adventures.
|
|
I would like to see:
1. Reworked encounter math that does not make magic items mandatory
(Too much time spent after every encounter playing identify/appraise/sell go shopping mini-game. Takes the "magic" out of magic and takes up time we could be adventuring)
2. Perception broken back into listen and spot
3. The elimination of Grit, Ki, and other daily refresh pools. Replace with level-based mechanics that can work all day every day without being OP. (The last thing the game needs is MORE things to encourage a 15 minute adventuring day!)
4. More of a pipe dream, really, but if someone could actually make an Armor as DR and Defense Score system that worked, it would be sweet. The d20 revised Star Wars game had a pretty good version of this, where classes had boosts to Defense in their level progression.
I like the idea of skill tricks, but not that it is basically a Rogue (and Bard/Monk) extra that most other classes couldn't really use.
I loved that in 3rd edition suddenly everyone could take some rogue skills. I just didn't like that in Pathfinder the Rogue suddenly didn't have anything else to offer. Perhaps he just gets extra skill tricks, or even more skill points per level or something.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see
3. The elimination of Grit, Ki, and other daily refresh pools. Replace with level-based mechanics that can work all day every day without being OP. (The last thing the game needs is MORE things to encourage a 15 minute adventuring day!)
The only thing encouraging a 15 minute adventuring day can be your DM, not a pool of points that may (and will) empty.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of skill tricks, but not that it is basically a Rogue (and Bard/Monk) extra that most other classes couldn't really use.I loved that in 3rd edition suddenly everyone could take some rogue skills. I just didn't like that in Pathfinder the Rogue suddenly didn't have anything else to offer. Perhaps he just gets extra skill tricks, or even more skill points per level or something.
I've long held that the issue with the Rogue is that people want it to be a Fighter, (but better), a Monk, (but better) AND also to be a Rogue. This in turn contributes a lot to the idea that Fighters are so underpowered and tend to blame it much more on casters than where the real issue is.
As for the Rogue only skills. I honestly see that as a good thing. Otherwise it creates a circular logic. (We need Rogues to open locks and defeat traps, becasue we need to put in traps and locks for the Rogue to be able to do something, because we . . . ). Of all the Core Classes, I honestly wish Rogue would just go away and become options for other people, but that's just my opinion.
Agreed.
Additionally, resource management is one of the limiting factors of casters and those with depletable resources. The so-called 15 minute adventuring day only helps to make casters be more powerful than they actually are and adds to the disparity between them and classes which do not have to manage resources, such as fighters. Poor resource management on the part of the players, in my opinion, should not be corrected or rewarded for/by by the GM and doing so only encourages them to further mismanage their resources by "unloading" on every fight they enter. Likewise, GMs are responsible for designing encounters so that they only require a certain amount of the party's resources to overcome.
Benefits of a wizard? Phenomenal cosmic powers - limited by resources.
Benefits of a fighter? You can go all day.
It is a trade off.
Many of the faults folks find with classes are faults that are due to poor encounter design or poor management of resources.
The Rogue has always been my favorite class, since my early days in 2nd edition. I love that the Rogue's abilities aren't exclusive anymore, but I also hate to see the class become superfluous.
I love Pathfinder's direction, in general, with the Rogue: the rogue is a true jack of all trades, and he can use his rogue talents to gain all sorts of abilities usually exclusive to other classes, such as low-level magic and favored terrains. He can become better at certain skills than anyone else, by taking things like honeyed words and via his trapfinding. I just wish that either A. Skills were more important than they are, or B. The rogue got to choose more rogue talents than he does, because as things sit now he's still rendered useless by wizards and rangers (and as I previously mentioned, alternate archetypes of various other classes.)
And I agree about the circular logic. Traps only seem to be used when someone already has trapfinding.
Agreed.
Additionally, resource management is one of the limiting factors of casters and those with depletable resources. The so-called 15 minute adventuring day only helps to make casters be more powerful than they actually are and adds to the disparity between them and classes which do not have to manage resources, such as fighters. Poor resource management on the part of the players, in my opinion, should not be corrected or rewarded for/by by the GM and doing so only encourages them to further mismanage their resources by "unloading" on every fight they enter. Likewise, GMs are responsible for designing encounters so that they only require a certain amount of the party's resources to overcome.
Benefits of a wizard? Phenomenal cosmic powers - limited by resources.
Benefits of a fighter? You can go all day.
It is a trade off.
Many of the faults folks find with classes are faults that are due to poor encounter design or poor management of resources.
Then it seems what Pathfinder 1.5 really needs is a Gamemaster's Guide that serves as a course for GMs, teaching them to make good games, encounters, and campaigns, and avoid the pitfalls that people like to complain are the fault of the game rather than the master.
The Rogue has always been my favorite class, since my early days in 2nd edition. I love that the Rogue's abilities aren't exclusive anymore, but I also hate to see the class become superfluous ... I just wish that either A. Skills were more important than they are, or B. The rogue got to choose more rogue talents than he does, because as things sit now he's still rendered useless by wizards and rangers (and as I previously mentioned, alternate archetypes of various other classes.)
And I agree about the circular logic. Traps only seem to be used when someone already has trapfinding.
Doesn't help that the talents a rogue does get are fairly unimpressive. Add to that, when you look at the ninja (I'm tired of hearing about the ninja too, but that doesn't make it any less valid) you see how cool the rogue could have been.
At release of the Core, most people we're just happy the rogue got something. Now that the "shiny" has worn off, reality sets in.
|
|
I think one of the issues with the so called 15 min work day is that the party (not even a player or two) basically force it. We are not going to go on if we are out of healing and/or buffs regardless of if the princess dies at noon sharp or not. DMs dont have too much choice besides railroading. What are tbey going to do, throw in even more encounters?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Princess dies.
Bad guys get their plot on.
Players now have to deal with a nastier villain AND a very unhappy king/queen for failing to rescue her.
Course some players couldn't care less, in which case I can't help you much.
We are not going to go on if we are out of healing and/or buffs regardless of if the princess dies at noon sharp or not. DMs dont have too much choice besides railroading.
Then the princess dies at noon & the party doesn't receive the reward the'yd been working toward. Additionally, the king or whoever hired them won't be happy, thus bounties could be placed on the PCs head and/or local law enforcement, at the king's behest, are now looking for them.
As a GM, you can turn anything the players do into excitement, and use the consequences of their actions to further encourage resource management, clever play, and provide new avenues for them to explore.
I get your point, don't get me wrong, but there are ways to subtly encourage intelligent and thoughtful play and/or roleplay.
I'd just start singing songs about the "Cowards of Calaveros" or wherever the party is from. They get to be famous as cop-outs and hero wanna-bes who will never make it. Everyone snickering at them everywhere they go, overcharging them, established powers mocking them and taking advantage of them, the common people scorning them...
When all the doors start closing because the characters have the reputations their actions earned, we'd see if it became personal enough to realize that the 15 minute adventuring day just doesn't work in the new world.
Sometimes you get low on ammo. You go on, anyways.
==Aelryinth
The Rogue has always been my favorite class, since my early days in 2nd edition. I love that the Rogue's abilities aren't exclusive anymore, but I also hate to see the class become superfluous.
I love Pathfinder's direction, in general, with the Rogue: the rogue is a true jack of all trades, and he can use his rogue talents to gain all sorts of abilities usually exclusive to other classes, such as low-level magic and favored terrains. He can become better at certain skills than anyone else, by taking things like honeyed words and via his trapfinding. I just wish that either A. Skills were more important than they are, or B. The rogue got to choose more rogue talents than he does, because as things sit now he's still rendered useless by wizards and rangers (and as I previously mentioned, alternate archetypes of various other classes.)
Yes, I think it was right that the system made the scouting role more universal, and more classes could do it. The problem was, those classes could do other stuff too, stuff the rogue couldn't do. The rogue should have received some stuff that they couldn't do by way of compensation, but they didn't.
However, the rogue can still do the scouting job, and do it well. What they need are better talents, and a talent at 1st level.
|
Pathfinder wasn't especially compatible with 3.5e to begin with, to be honest.
Relative to 4e?
It was as compatible or more compatible than the transition from 3.0 to 3.5.
I can use the 3.5 APs with Pathfinder with very little adjustment as a GM, most of it on the fly (CMD issues being the exception)
That is backward compatability.
|
|
I think the only one of those I agree with is #6 heh.
I agree Half Orc should be +2 Str and would add they should be -2 Cha. I'd be fine with the other +2 going to Con, but I'm fine with it going to Wis if we want to keep the bonus each to mental and physical.
I would also be ok with 2, 3, 6 (If it was physical stats only, I actually proposed an extra +1 to physical stats every 4 levels as it fits flavor of physical perfection).
But I'm ok with none of them changing either. I give those all a thumbs sideways to slightly up.
I think the only one of those I agree with is #6 heh.I agree Half Orc should be +2 Str and would add they should be -2 Cha.
The lack of a Cha penalty was one of my main selling points on PF half-orcs. Int as well, but less so.
|
|
The lack of a Cha penalty was one of my main selling points on PF half-orcs. Int as well, but less so.I think the only one of those I agree with is #6 heh.I agree Half Orc should be +2 Str and would add they should be -2 Cha.
I'd be ok with cutting Int except the fluff says Half-Orcs are the "smart" orcs. The mechanics should match the fluff.
That may be relative "smart" of course, but still. I think it is kind of a cop out to give them the choice of +2 the same as Humans and Half-Elves as it doesn't match the fluff or history.
*shrug*
|
|
One oddity I don't like is an unintended consequence of the stat bonuses by race.
When I want to make a charismatic character and try to imagine the best race, I usually think of 'elf'! Galadriel, animé, deep and mysterious magical creatures that look like humans wished they looked, etc.
So, what races can give me +2 Cha? Elf? No.
Half-Orc? Yes!
In fact, every race in the CRB can get +2 Cha except elves! And dwarves who get a Cha penalty.
Something's wrong there.
Maybe we should go back to the 3.5 racial mods, with the exception that each character can add +2 to any stat, possibly not including a stat they already get a +2 in.
I would be okay with that, personally. Fixed +2 -2, flexible extra +2. Humans and half-elves of course with just the flexible bonus.
Pathfinder wasn't especially compatible with 3.5e to begin with, to be honest.Relative to 4e?
It was as compatible or more compatible than the transition from 3.0 to 3.5.
I can use the 3.5 APs with Pathfinder with very little adjustment as a GM, most of it on the fly (CMD issues being the exception)
That is backward compatability.
I have to agree, I found it VERY backward compatible.
The lack of a Cha penalty was one of my main selling points on PF half-orcs. Int as well, but less so.I think the only one of those I agree with is #6 heh.I agree Half Orc should be +2 Str and would add they should be -2 Cha.I'd be ok with cutting Int except the fluff says Half-Orcs are the "smart" orcs. The mechanics should match the fluff.
That may be relative "smart" of course, but still. I think it is kind of a cop out to give them the choice of +2 the same as Humans and Half-Elves as it doesn't match the fluff or history.
I agree. Orcs get a -4 to intelligence, so a half-orc at -2 is relatively smart. I like the +2/-2 and floating +2 idea, though.
Power Attack isn't neccessarily a wild swing...it's a commitment to a powerful blow that you can't correct, and can be seen coming a mile away, hence the penalty to hit. It's a wind up and a swiiiiiing for the bleachers, vs just a hit.
I'm of the opinion that half-orcs should match their fluff. +2 Str and Con, -2 to a mental stat of their choice. In many cases, this will be Cha, by choice...but it still makes genius half-orcs possible, and they will be the best natural fighters.
==Aelryinth
The floating +2 is a major bonus though. If it were limited to either physical or mental (opposite of the other bonus) maybe.
I agree. Orcs get a -4 to intelligence, so a half-orc at -2 is relatively smart. I like the +2/-2 and floating +2 idea, though.
I was speaking in general cases for all non-humans, not specific ones.
|
Well ideas for what I'd like in a new edition of the game, eh? A true break away that keeps the spirit of Dungeons and Dragons alive.
More crunch to the rules certainly would be interesting to see. Lately a trend in newer games seems to be trying this, "get the rules out of the way of the game" approach that seems to forget that the rules are the "game" part of the game and the player's are the ones that give it life beyond that point. Pathfinder did a good job combining and cleaning up things from the other game, but was done keeping everything you used to be able to do and then adding more. Some work could still be done on it. Crafting could be fleshed out a lot more likely if the pace of the game was changed as I'll suggest later.
Another trend to get away from is the idea of cinematic games. Strategy, luck, numbers and the like should play a larger role in things then how awesome your character is. Hirelings, henchmen and the like should be assumptions rather then DM annoyances. Toning down how high attack bonuses, saves and AC can get would help a lot in that. Sure a high level fighter in plate armour should be better at fighting, but the plate armour should keep a 1st level warrior about as safe or you marginalize . Epic play should focus more towards the older war game style of play rather then trying to recreate scenes from films/anime/etc. Player Characters can be exceptional without being demigods after all. Plus it keeps the town guard a bit more scary.
I definitely enjoy the idea of the archetypes and the way the game works in a kind of modular sense. Level X of Fighter grants bonus of Y. Perhaps it might be interesting though to go back to the multi-class/duel class method of doing things. A clear definition of either Character Class defining a character or not would be useful in the end. Am I a wizard/thief/barbarian because I take levels of a class or am I one because I call myself one? Just some kind of clarification of that idea would be extremely handy. Plus if we go the class defining what a character is, we could bring back titles. You could be a footpad or an apprentice mageling or things like that.
I'd definitely remove any eastern flavour style class (Ninja, monk, samurai, etc) into a separate Oriental Adventures book just like they did in 2nd edition AD&D. Setting books are a lot of fun but it helps keep some of the silliness out of the main game. A core rulebook or two and then let the setting books bring their own flavour like the eastern stuff, firearms or what have you.
A few classes could be worked around and combined or at least categorized together. Cavaliers could have Paladin as an archetype, Wizards could have Sorcerers, Clerics (Priests) could have Druids, etc. Larger archetypes would work fine for that.
Experience could use a little more reworking. A useful tool for balancing out the power of the classes would be to have each category level up at different rates. Really it just helps to tone down the spell casters a bit but it could be a very enjoyable difference. Experience from treasure recovered and brought back would be something interesting to see come back too and would help with the variable EXP leveling. Logistics can lead to interesting and fun situations that too often get hand-waved lately.
That's about all I can come up with for the moment.
8. All players are forced to sign a waiver understanding that the classes are not equally balanced at every level in every fashion, nor should they be. L1 barbarians and L10 wizards are generally better than their counterparts.
I quite like the spirit of this one, which is why I dont really see much point in the others. The classes are all different and all pretty customisable, as is. The various suggestions people have for tweaking different facets of the rules seem to me to be predicated on the idea of a 'correct' amount of power.
I'm a fan of the kind of revision championed most eloquently by Evil Lincoln (and implemented pretty effectively, although incompletely, in the Beginner Box).
8. All players are forced to sign a waiver understanding that the classes are not equally balanced at every level in every fashion, nor should they be. L1 barbarians and L10 wizards are generally better than their counterparts.I quite like the spirit of this one, which is why I dont really see much point in the others. The classes are all different and all pretty customisable, as is. The various suggestions people have for tweaking different facets of the rules seem to me to be predicated on the idea of a 'correct' amount of power.
I'm a fan of the kind of revision championed most eloquently by Evil Lincoln (and implemented pretty effectively, although incompletely, in the Beginner Box).
I agree, but there is such a thing as a class that needs a tweak. A perfectly "Imperfect" game gives each class its own strength, and should elicit debate on forums about what is/isn't the best, or how to beat one class by exploiting its weaknesses with another. What that game should not do is elicit universal condemnation of certain classes and options.
That's why I think the classes are mostly good, but they do need a few tweaks. A few more out-of-combat options (I.E. skills) for fighters, a power boost to the Rogue (who's strengths are all outdone by other classes) and the like are keeping in the spirit of the game without making too big a change, but also fixing things that are universally considered underpowered.
The best discussion I've ever seen on perfect Imbalance, which is what Pathfinder is supposed to be.
Changes I'd like to see:
1) Armor as DR as standard (without all the ways it can be overcome in UC)
2 Roll the Spellcraft skill into the Knowledge skills for their respective casting type. Aka, Soc/Wiz/Witch = Arcane, Cleric/Oracle = Religion, Druid = Nature, ect.
3) A detailed entry on how to use Diplomacy to haggle prices.
4) Roll Ride into Handle Animal.
5) Clearer wording on what bonuses can be applied to each CMB and CMD.
6) Slings reloading as a free action.
7) Strength increasing throwing weapon range increments.
8) Bucklers that can bash.
9) Combat Maneuvers that only provoke AoOs on failed attempts.
10) Spontaneous casters having the same spell progression as prepared casters.
11) Unique favored class bonuses not tied to race.
12) Make Deadly Aim do more damage for crossbows like two-handed weapons with power attack.
13) Make a number of feats useful (Martial Weapon Prof., Fleet, Prone Sniper, Monkey Lunge ect)
Changes that I’d like to see that I doubt I will:
1) Multi alignment paladins!
2) Spell points instead of silly spells per day.
3) A brand new Gunslinger class, recreated from scratch. (With guns that don’t target touch AC!)
4) Slim down the Move/Standard actions into half actions. Take 2 Half Actions or one Full Round Action. Naturally, most spells would need to become Full Round Actions.
5) Combine AoOs and Immediate Actions into Reactions, but unattach said Reactions from Swift Actions.
6) Some way of making HP loss matter before reaching 0 HP.
7) More fear checks throughout gameplay.
There are more, but that’s all I can think of at the moment.
The best discussion I've ever seen on perfect Imbalance, which is what Pathfinder is supposed to be.
Perfect Imbalance assumes that players can and do frequently change what they're playing to adapt to the playing field. A Pathfinder campaign usually does not have that option, nor should it.
Perfect Imbalance does not apply here. Applying the design principles of perfect imbalance to a static format (i.e. where you create your character and cannot reliably swap to a new one at every opportunity) results in something more like Monte Cook's 'ivory tower game design', one of the most monumental failings of 3.x.
|
|
I was speaking in general cases for all non-humans, not specific ones.The floating +2 is a major bonus though. If it were limited to either physical or mental (opposite of the other bonus) maybe.
I agree. Orcs get a -4 to intelligence, so a half-orc at -2 is relatively smart. I like the +2/-2 and floating +2 idea, though.
But what I am saying is that gives a major boost to non-human classes and mutes one of the boosts of Half-elves and humans (being able to pick where your points go)