facing
Facing is a odd one i would like to see it and i have seen some pretty thought out ways to do it. but the impact can be pretty far reaching.
Facing is great but it can be a little complicated in itself I dunno if I'd consider it streamlining, probably more the opposite. It sounds good though.
You can sort of simulate minion rules in Pathfinder by giving them 1 hit point per hit die and add evasion.
I'm really behind ability as bonus, it would really help streamline things.
More significantly, I'd like to have a system that got rid of Full Attacks. Primarily because lots of attacks means the turns take longer. I'd rather see a lot of bonus damage and the like (Tome of Battle did really well here). That's a bigger change, of course.
Star Wars Saga edition did this. You had your base attack bonus for a single attack and added 1/2 your character level to damage. Certain feats could increase your attacks per round, but had a flat penalty across all attacks so that all attack rolls we're the same.
Additionally, in lieu of increasing your number of attacks, there were feats which instead represented multiple attacks by increasing the damage dice of an attack.
I'd remove the reliance on the battle mat, iterative attacks, the concept of bonus types and magic items which add numbers.
I'd get rid of feats with prerequisites and rather have feats which improved as you levelled. (And reduce the number PCs got).
WOW. The amount of opinions here are as wide as the moon.
I like about a quarter, hate about a quarter and am meh with about a half of them.
I like the idea of improving feats; I think removing requirements is interesting.
Reducing the number of feats is a bad idea, in my opinion. They're very useful in making PCs' crunch different from each other.
its all so one of the selling points to pfrpg
Alignment. Specifically, I would remove class requirements regarding alignment.
I am okay with alignment being a general representation of a character's beliefs, but the alignment should reflect the character, not shackle her.
I would make the exception be Paladin. From what I gather a Paladin is so LG that he gains superpowers. At the very least Paladin abilities should wildly vary based on his alignment, kind of like bloodlines for each of the nine alignments. Now that I typed that up I'd love to see Paladins become different alignment lantern corps.
I would make the exception be Paladin. From what I gather a Paladin is so LG that he gains superpowers. At the very least Paladin abilities should wildly vary based on his alignment, kind of like bloodlines for each of the nine alignments. Now that I typed that up I'd love to see Paladins become different alignment lantern corps.Alignment. Specifically, I would remove class requirements regarding alignment.
I am okay with alignment being a general representation of a character's beliefs, but the alignment should reflect the character, not shackle her.
need 2 more cores
I won't as I'd find new players and give those players who want to "streamline" a game of "Chutes and Ladders" as well as a Primer on basic mathI knew somebody would say that.
The essence of good design is to reach your goal by the route that's most pleasant for the players. We all like the goal (a game that plays like pathfinder) but you've failed to separate it from the route (the kind of work involved in making the game happen) so you're saying anybody who tries to find a more efficient and enjoyable way to get there should aim for an inferior goal instead. You've fallen into the trap of elitism.
It's possible to get the same depth, realism, stories, tactical decisions, drama, setting and game mechanics style with different approaches to specific sub-systems. No game can ever do what people want it to perfectly, which means all games can be improved without changing their purpose.
For example, pathfinder handles inability to see people very differently depending on why you can't see them. Almost nobody can remember the rules all at once. The only reason it's still like that is fixing it is hard. You'd have to be an idiot to claim things wouldn't be better if those separate-but-interacting stealth, illumination and invisibility systems hadn't been built to a unified standard.
To truly be against the principle of streamlining itself is either to be blindly anti-change or pro-wasted-effort. That way lies F.A.T.A.L.
Now, that doesn't mean it's wrong to oppose any specific attempt to streamline, but it does mean that if you oppose them universally you're either inconsistent or you're also opposed to progress, creativity and altering the game to suit personal taste.
BOOM! +10!
Brilliantly said.
need 2 more coresI would make the exception be Paladin. From what I gather a Paladin is so LG that he gains superpowers. At the very least Paladin abilities should wildly vary based on his alignment, kind of like bloodlines for each of the nine alignments. Now that I typed that up I'd love to see Paladins become different alignment lantern corps.Alignment. Specifically, I would remove class requirements regarding alignment.
I am okay with alignment being a general representation of a character's beliefs, but the alignment should reflect the character, not shackle her.
not really. There are 7 lantern Corps, not including the White Lanterns (Paladins) and the Black Lanterns (Antipaladins) so the numbers synch up with nine alignments.
need 2 more coresI would make the exception be Paladin. From what I gather a Paladin is so LG that he gains superpowers. At the very least Paladin abilities should wildly vary based on his alignment, kind of like bloodlines for each of the nine alignments. Now that I typed that up I'd love to see Paladins become different alignment lantern corps.Alignment. Specifically, I would remove class requirements regarding alignment.
I am okay with alignment being a general representation of a character's beliefs, but the alignment should reflect the character, not shackle her.
not really. There are 7 lantern Corps, not including the White Lanterns (Paladins) and the Black Lanterns (Antipaladins) so the numbers synch up with nine alignments.
black=el
Red=enOrange=ec
blue=gc
yellow=nc
dont know the rest that well but it would be cool
Or at least make temporary increases in Constitution provide temporary hit points. It would make bookkeeping a lot easier, and prevent rage-to-death syndrome.And as soon as you've been hit and used up your temporary hps, you rage-cycle and get them back?
How exactly would that work? Like next fight you rage cycle and get them back or worried they'd do it same fight?
Could do simpler bonus types based on what gives the bonus; circumstance (GM's prerogative), class, equipment, feat, race, spell, and trait.
black=el
Red=en
Orange=ec
blue=gc
yellow=ncdont know the rest that well but it would be cool
I think yellow should just be neutral rather than chaotic neutral, seeing as the founder, Sinestro, used fear to instill law and order on his home planet. not to mention Batman qualified for the sinestro core.
More significantly, I'd like to have a system that got rid of Full Attacks. Primarily because lots of attacks means the turns take longer. I'd rather see a lot of bonus damage and the like (Tome of Battle did really well here). That's a bigger change, of course.
Star Wars Saga edition did this. You had your base attack bonus for a single attack and added 1/2 your character level to damage. Certain feats could increase your attacks per round, but had a flat penalty across all attacks so that all attack rolls we're the same.
Additionally, in lieu of increasing your number of attacks, there were feats which instead represented multiple attacks by increasing the damage dice of an attack.
I have two reasons for my objection.
1: A flat bonus to an attack to represent multiple attacks means that the impact of damage reduction changes massively. Generally it has been the case that damage reduction is a counter to many weak attacks and that the counter to damage reduction is to deliver stronger attacks. This will no longer be the case.
2: I don't like the flavour. There's a strong difference, to me, between making separate weak attacks vs making one strong attack (which represents a bunch of small attacks). Note also that this makes many small attacks mechanically identical to a single powerful attack.
Most of the builds I've seen played that do that are very suboptimal, but another issue I think might need to be addressed (separately) is a negative impact for an ability to work. If something is too cool without a draw back it probably should be made less of a bonus.
Which goes back to another idea; fewer bonuses you have to remember (dwarfs vs. some races), more bonuses that are small and constant (i.e. inquisitor).
If I were to go a bit beyond streamlining and more into tweaking I'd probably either change some of the Sorcerer's bloodline abilities and feats or give it more of an ability to gish. Sorcerer is more of a spontaneous Wizard, with half BAB and a d6 hit die, but many bloodlines come with ridiculous things like claws and feats like cleave. I'd like to see bloodlines actually help a sorcerer be a caster or make the sorcerer more melee capable without multiclassing, even if the spellcasting has to be nerfed a bit.
In that I do favor making Sorcerer's more melee capable. From 3.5 to Pathfinder they went from simply casters with natural talent to people with magical blood; I think they deserve to have their bloodlines bolster them physically more often if they get their magic from things like dragon's blood.
I would make the exception be Paladin. From what I gather a Paladin is so LG that he gains superpowers. At the very least Paladin abilities should wildly vary based on his alignment, kind of like bloodlines for each of the nine alignments. Now that I typed that up I'd love to see Paladins become different alignment lantern corps.Alignment. Specifically, I would remove class requirements regarding alignment.
I am okay with alignment being a general representation of a character's beliefs, but the alignment should reflect the character, not shackle her.
Paladins could easily be reflavored to be the armed branch of a particular god. That would give them more flexibility in alignment(on par with Cleric).
I would also like to see alignment violations handled through role play rather than automatically losing class features. Instead, if the Paladin or Cleric starts acting against his chosen deity's interest, the consequences would be up to the GM and based on roleplay.
A GM strip massive portions of a characters power away based on something as vague as alignment isn't fun. It creates bad feeling between the players.
Anything in the rules that can seriously harm a character should be clearly defined.
I'm more in favor of Paladins not being as alignment flexible as a cleric because the thematic differences begin to blur. It's already possible to build a battle-cleric just being a martial divine warrior makes it harder to justify his existence. But I do believe the theory that the Paladin had alignment restrictions because it's alignment was as much of a source of power as the deity it represents or almost fully in the cases where it has no deity, so I really like the idea of paladins having sets of canned abilities based on their alignment. It differenciates them from clerics as not simply divine warriors but Paragons of multiple deities virtues and thus imbued with divine favor of the gods of certain alignment.
Plus I really like the lantern corps.
...I'm more in favor of Paladins not being as alignment flexible as a cleric because the thematic differences begin to blur. It's already possible to build a battle-cleric just being a martial divine warrior makes it harder to justify his existence. But I do believe the theory that the Paladin had alignment restrictions because it's alignment was as much of a source of power as the deity it represents or almost fully in the cases where it has no deity, so I really like the idea of paladins having sets of canned abilities based on their alignment. It differenciates them from clerics as not simply divine warriors but Paragons ofI would make the exception be Paladin. From what I gather a Paladin is so LG that he gains superpowers. At the very least Paladin abilities should wildly vary based on his alignment, kind of like bloodlines for each of the nine alignments. Now that I typed that up I'd love to see Paladins become different alignment lantern corps.Alignment. Specifically, I would remove class requirements regarding alignment.
I am okay with alignment being a general representation of a character's beliefs, but the alignment should reflect the character, not shackle her.
Paladins could easily be reflavored to be the armed branch of a particular god. That would give them more flexibility in alignment(on par with Cleric).
I would also like to see alignment violations handled through role play rather than automatically losing class features. Instead, if the Paladin or Cleric starts acting against his chosen deity's interest, the consequences would be up to the GM and based on roleplay.
A GM strip massive portions of a characters power away based on something as vague as alignment isn't fun. It creates bad feeling between the players.
Anything in the rules that can seriously harm a character should be clearly defined.
I do not mean for the requirements to be vague, that's definitely a problem. Preferably it would work much like a Cavalier's Orders per alignment with specific simple creeds that they uphold.
I do think the main conflict that comes with Paladins has more to do with the Lawful Good alignment than the requirement for it. PCs, especially new PCs routinely follow Murder-Hobo logic when it comes to how they deal with things regardless of their alignment and so tend to see Lawful Good as a straight jacket then a definition of their character. Most of the time when I see alignment-based conflicts it's not even a Paladin that's involved, just someone who insists on not doing something completely illegal or murderous. Although I've never seen a Monk's or Druid's alignment requirements cause any conflicts. (I don't agree with those requirements because it makes no sense for them to have them.)I think new players have more problems with how they perceive alignment than how they deal with alignment requirements.
The fact that there is a requirement just paints a target on the Paladin making it the poster-boy for the type of conflict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Replace alignment with allegiances, like d20 Modern did. You c ould have your allegiance be to Good and Law, or it could be to King Smith and Erastil. Or your wife and your town. Or to yourself and revenge. Or Good and your party. A lot more flexible, but still encompassing the original moral and ethical axes.
For instance, imagine that the paladin and his chaotic wizard friend are debating law and chaos. If the Paladin convinces the wizard, everything is fine. If the wizard convinces the Paladin, the Paladin players needs to reroll because his character lost most of his powers.
I think I'm somewhat useless in this argument because I've never seen things like what people describe happen with Paladins, like the constant attempts by the DM to make the Paladin fall or have a evil guy wear armor made of babies. In my own games that I GM I feature Paladin NPCs that are potential antagonists and have a few resources that describe alignment so there's no confusion, including my own list on what range I think each alignment works in.
The really hardcore alignment stories are like banana peal stories. I hear stories about slipping on a banana peal but as many banana peals that I've seen on the ground and how possible I know it is, I've never seen anyone slip on one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The really hardcore alignment stories are like banana peal stories. I hear stories about slipping on a banana peal but as many banana peals that I've seen on the ground and how possible I know it is, I've never seen anyone slip on one.
Seconding this. Some of the most entertaining PCs I've played with have been paladins. I will always remember Lucied and his battle cry of "EAT MY JUSTICE!". Not to mention his noble steed Guftas, best known for his talent at midair barrel rolls. Paladins are fantastic.
Well we are getting side tracked. :)
I'd like to see rules we already have formalised, like damage.
For example for all intents and purposes you have Base, Conditional, Critical, and Extra.
Base = Weapon + static modifiers (weapon spec, str, enhancement)
Conditional = Variable (ranger's favored enemy, sneak attack)
Critical = Only on a confirmed critical (double base, burst weapons)
Extra = Extra dice (sneak attack)
So for an example we'll use a str 10 fighter 4/rogue 1 with a +1 (activated) Icey Burst longsword. Don't worry about he affords it.
Base = 1d8 + 1
Extra = 1d6
Conditional = 0/1d6 if sneak attack
Crit = 2d8 + 2 + 1d10
For normal attacks damage is Base + Extra.
(1d8 + 1 + 1d6)
For sneak attacks damage is Base + Conditional + Extra.
(1d8 + 1 + 1d6 + 1d6)
For confirmed criticals damage is Crit + Extra
(2d8 + 2 + 1d10 + 1d6)
For confirmed criticals on sneak attacks is Conditional + Critical + Extra
(1d6 + 2d8 + 2 + 1d10)
This isn't really a new rule (it already functions like this) it just describes it.
The really hardcore alignment stories are like banana peal stories. I hear stories about slipping on a banana peal but as many banana peals that I've seen on the ground and how possible I know it is, I've never seen anyone slip on one.Seconding this. Some of the most entertaining PCs I've played with have been paladins. I will always remember Lucied and his battle cry of "EAT MY JUSTICE!". Not to mention his noble steed Guftas, best known for his talent at midair barrel rolls. Paladins are fantastic.
I vowed one of these days to play an unarmed Adam West Paladin.
Well we are getting side tracked. :)
I'd like to see rules we already have formalised, like damage.
For example for all intents and purposes you have Base, Conditional, Critical, and Extra.
Sounds like my compression of all bonus types into four categories: Inherent (base attack bonus, ability modifiers, etc.), Competence (feats, most constantly active class features), Enhancement (Spells, magic items, some class features), and Circumstance (circumstantial... stuff). It definitely helps simplify things.
(The full rules are slightly more complicated, but that's the gist of it.)
Well we are getting side tracked. :)
I'd like to see rules we already have formalised, like damage.
For example for all intents and purposes you have Base, Conditional, Critical, and Extra.
Sounds like my compression of all bonus types into four categories: Inherent (base attack bonus, ability modifiers, etc.), Competence (feats, most constantly active class features), Enhancement (Spells, magic items, some class features), and Circumstance (circumstantial... stuff). It definitely helps simplify things.
(The full rules are slightly more complicated, but that's the gist of it.)
This makes me bring up keywording in general. regardless of what types they're called I think type bonuses need to be named, defined in one spot in the core rule book, and not added to barring variant rules.
Also I think that whenever something adds a bonus the bonus' type should ALWAYS be bolded or [bracketed] without fail. The fact that different bonuses didn't stack did not occur to me for months after getting the game because the subject of bonuses is only referenced not discussed.
Then while we're at it the bonuses should be streamlined so that you're not tracking several types of bonuses where some are situational and easy to forget.
Crafting. It's a total mess. It shouldn't be so complicated.
Crafting. It's a total mess. It shouldn't be so complicated.
I don't think it's that complicated but too many things are unclear and the rules aren't all in the same place.
For instance, imagine that the paladin and his chaotic wizard friend are debating law and chaos. If the Paladin convinces the wizard, everything is fine. If the wizard convinces the Paladin, the Paladin players needs to reroll because his character lost most of his powers.
I think I'm somewhat useless in this argument because I've never seen things like what people describe happen with Paladins, like the constant attempts by the DM to make the Paladin fall or have a evil guy wear armor made of babies. In my own games that I GM I feature Paladin NPCs that are potential antagonists and have a few resources that describe alignment so there's no confusion, including my own list on what range I think each alignment works in.
The really hardcore alignment stories are like banana peal stories. I hear stories about slipping on a banana peal but as many banana peals that I've seen on the ground and how possible I know it is, I've never seen anyone slip on one.
I have slipped on a banana peel irl. Jus' sayin'.
They should reduce the penalties for rolling a 1 as you go higher up in level; Level 1 characters make mistakes about that often, but not when you're hovering around Level 15. Would if a Critical Fumble required 2 d20 rolls - the first is when you first roll a 1 and the second lets you confirm by rolling a number *below* a certain checkpoint - and the second reduced more the higher up in levels you go? Like, at level 1, there's the first roll which - if it hits a 1 - goes into another d20 roll where you must roll more than 20 - Class Level, with the exception of another natural 1, which means you still fumble?
I think this is needed; 1's happen too often and a level 15 character doesn't fumble as easily.
They should reduce the penalties for rolling a 1 as you go higher up in level; Level 1 characters make mistakes about that often, but not when you're hovering around Level 15. Would if a Critical Fumble required 2 d20 rolls - the first is when you first roll a 1 and the second lets you confirm by rolling a number *below* a certain checkpoint - and the second reduced more the higher up in levels you go? Like, at level 1, there's the first roll which - if it hits a 1 - goes into another d20 roll where you must roll more than 20 - Class Level, with the exception of another natural 1, which means you still fumble?
I think this is needed; 1's happen too often and a level 15 character doesn't fumble as easily.
I agree that 1s and 20s don't scale well, but that sounds unnecessarily complicated. Why not say that rolling a 1 is treated as "rolling a -10" and a 20 is treated as "rolling a 30"? Then you could just use the results as written. If you roll a 1 and get a negative result, you really screwed up. If you roll a 1 and your result is still positive (higher level character), you almost certainly didn't hit, but you didn't stab yourself in the kidney like a twit either.
This also neatly solves the weirdness of letting commoners hit Balors 5% of the time. 5% is a lot.
20s seem alright ( You still have to confirm ) but 1s need moderation, and I think the system I gave above can solve it. Of course, BAB would factor in the confirmation roll, but if you get another natural 1 .. . .you're screwed!
I like 5% chance of Fail or success.
1 in 20 chance, on a d20.
To each his own, but I'm not sure if a 20th level character would be fumbling that often. . . . .
*shrug*