Where Would You Streamline Pathfinder? And How?


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Just curious, as many of the "2.0" discussions have focused on a need for not reinvention, but streamlining. Smoothing out.

How would you approach this? Where would you approach it? This is more a thought exercise for fun rather than a serious proposal at this point.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Reduce the number of bonus types. It's just a hassle.

Spells don't need to be as wildly variable as they are. One of the reasons that spells can take a long time to cast and resolve, and are generally complicated, is that there aren't consistent standards for range and area. Range doesn't need to increase with level. Based on my playtesting, you'd be surprised how much easier spells are to use when you don't have to frequently calculate/memorize your exact range with all of your spells. Same thing with duration; it's much easier to track when it lasts for a consistent period of time rather than having each effect in a combat use a slightly different duration.

There is no reason to have ten or more different combat maneuvers, all of which do very slightly different things. They can be compressed into a smaller number of maneuvers.

The more situational/circumstantial effects you have to keep track of, the more complicated the game is and the less special each individual effect feels. I would strongly recommend trimming these down as much as possible.

The flanking, 5' step, and attack of opportunity rules in combat are very nitpicky about precise character positioning. They should be simplified/rewritten/removed to allow more fluid combat, reducing the necessity of mapping everything on battle maps.

I'm still looking for ways to simplify my system more, so I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this thread.


Reduce the Feat List
Create a Book Solely on Mechanics and Optional Mechanics
Simplify BAB and AC
Simplify HP and Damage while improving Armor Ratings


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed with Vaskye's notes on durations.

I think durations need to be tied in with exploration, searching and stealth. That's how I've house ruled it.

I don't need to know how many minutes spell x will last, or that spell Y lasts a minute longer because it was a minute later. I need to know if spell X will last until the next encounter — if we take our time searching this room or bolt through it to stretch the duration.

This also streamlines things like Perception V. Stealth and searching for traps.

Iterative attacks could be different. I like the Trailblazer version, where you get all your iteratives at the same bonus, so you only have to remember one number for your four attacks. That was a good trick.


Vadskye wrote:

The flanking, 5' step, and attack of opportunity rules in combat are very nitpicky about precise character positioning. They should be simplified/rewritten/removed to allow more fluid combat, reducing the necessity of mapping everything on battle maps.

I basically agree with everything you said, but not this last part. I think the Flanking, 5' step thing is really nice and make for great tactical combat, this is one of the thing my group truly enjoy.

But yeah, Combat manoeuver and bonus type could definitely be simplified, condition effect too like stunned, dazed, dazzled, sickened, nauseated, confused, blinded, fatigued, exhausted and so on, god that's a lot of them, way too many of them!

Also I would add: Spell Resistance and Concentration, are two of the things that people needs to check and recheck 9 times out of 10 in the books.
The worst being concentration, seriously it is a pain, I would house rule that you always succeed on concentration if you take a full round action or something like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Conditions.

Make them fewer and more comprehensive. For some reason, the existing conditions leave out spellcasters more often than not.

Likewise, Arcane Spell Failure should just be made into a concentration roll. Conditions like fatigue that affect attack rolls should also have concentration rolls, and the penalty should be the same.

A few obvious groups of affected stats should be used over and over and over. I hate having to remember whether something affects AC, or damage. Almost everything affects attack rolls, so that's easy to remember.

Yes, a total overhaul of conditions would make the game faster and more balanced, I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Reecy wrote:

Reduce the Feat List

Create a Book Solely on Mechanics and Optional Mechanics
Simplify BAB and AC
Simplify HP and Damage while improving Armor Ratings

I dunno, BAB, AC, HP and Damage are pretty straight forward honestly, maybe the concept of "Non Lethal Damage" is making it a pain sometimes though.

The Feat list is a weird ones, there are definitely WAY too many feats, especially since most people always end taking the same one.
But at the same time it can make for great variety and/or great flavor in character.

My issue with feats is more that some feats are way more useful than some others.
One thing I would do if I had the time, is separate feat into two categories, Major Feats and Minor Feats.
Major feats would follow the current rules for feat, no changes.
Minor feat would be acquired every even level (2 - 4 - 6 - 8 etc).

Power attack, Two Weapon Fighting, Cleave and stuff would be major feat for example, but thing like Careful Speaker, Demon Hunter, Deathless Master etc, would be Minor feats.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Likewise, Arcane Spell Failure should just be made into a concentration roll. Conditions like fatigue that affect attack rolls should also have concentration rolls, and the penalty should be the same.

Oh, now that might just be really, really clever. Imagine the following changes:


  • Instead of specifying "skill checks and ability checks", conditions penalize "checks". This includes skill checks, ability checks, and concentration checks. (Should it penalize caster level checks? Or caster level itself?)
  • Arcane spell failure does not exist.
  • You apply your armor check penalty to Concentration checks.
  • When wearing armor you are not proficient with, you apply double your armor check penalty to Concentration checks.
  • When wearing armor, a caster must make always make a Concentration check to cast a spell. Failure means the spell is lost.

The only thing this leaves out is the exact DC of the Concentration check. My first thought, without running any numbers, is 10 + double spell level.

What do you all think?


Scaling Concentration checks properly is a hard thing to do.

If such a system is introduced, you can bet that casters will stop at nothing to make sure they never lose a spell to concentration. Never.

One practical change is to not lose the spell on a failed concentration check — you just can't cast it that turn. Or that minute.

But they will still fight like hell to make sure that never happens.


I do like the idea of not losing the spell slot on a failed Concentration check. It would just waste the action. (Similarly, I also think that a failed defensive casting roll shouldn't lose the spell - instead, it should make the caster provoke.)

The only change to unarmored casters is that conditions penalize their Concentration checks. This was true back in 3.5, and it never caused too much of a problem. Casters aren't usually the ones taking the brunt of the debuff conditions anyway, in my experience. They will likely resort to intentionally casting lower level spells if necessary to make sure it actually goes off without a hitch - but that's not all bad, as long as lower level spells are still useful.

Armored casters definitely take a hit. It seems reasonable to me that any class feature which used to ignore arcane spell failure would allow the caster to ignore the armor check penalty to Concentration checks for that armor. But this means that it is possible for a straight fighter/wizard to gear up in full plate and cast a couple spells in combat. Yes, they would be low-level spells by necessity, or the chance of failure would be too high - but it would be feasible. And that's cool.


Well BAB and everything is straight forward

But in conjunction with feats it can turn rolling Damage and combat situations into nightmares

One example in some of the forums is take 8 feats and you can do like 2000 damage or something crazy this needs to be changed or updated to not allow some of this banana business to take place sure people can powergame and hit all the time. But lets Cap the number of possible Attacks to limit craziness... I am not including situational attacks either.


I'd add more definition to some non-combats like crafting and professions. While this are better the 3.5 they are really under defined and even somewhat illogical in application.
As far as reducing spells and feats, that I feel is more a job for a DM to decide for his world. Player like choice even if they keep making the same choices 9 time out of ten its those times when they don't make those same choices that real magic can happen. that being said I'd like to see combat feats that encourage player to choose differently; like a single weapon style feat that is as beneficial and interesting as two-weapon style.
I'd like to see spell combat made much more interesting the spell counter rule are almost unusable at low to mid even high levels probably one thing I'd like to see reworked.


Make the game more like a board game.

Get rid of all the bonuses and penalties. +/- to Attack rolls, Damage rolls, AC (get rid of AC altogether), Strength bonus to Hit/damage, Dex bonus to Hit/AC, Magic bonus to hit, BAB, CMB, C??, etc. Get rid of feats, what are required to get rid of penalty... Point blank shoot, throw anything, weapon feats, armor feats, etc.

1 = Attack per creature per round, regardless of the number of attack it has. Cats only get one attack per round, 8 arms daemon only gets one attack per round, an octopus only get one attack per round. ( The only exception i can think of, at the moment, would be a hydra... because each neck has reach, and each head would get one attack,... for every rule there is an exception, for every exception there should be a rule).

Flat to Hit Roll
1-4 = You miss
5-20 = Body Shot = You do damge.
10-20 = Aim Shot = 1 round effect, like to head = stun, Arm = Drop item held, Leg = movement slowed, Also target body part without armor, like hands, feat, upper or lower arm/leg, etc with DM consent.
15-20 = Called Shot = With DM consent. To hit eyes, ears, internal organs like lungs, kidneys, heart, brain, etc. So a hit to both eyes would cause blindness, a hit to both ears would cause deafness, a hit to both lungs or one hit to the throat would cause 1d6 round of target paralyzed or some such.

A 9 or less on an Aim Shot, or a 14 or less on a Called shot is consider a miss.

.....................

Anyway, to me D&D is not the rules..... D&D is the magic spell system. Lots of games have better ( and lighter) rule systems.

It is the magic spell list that has really keep me with D&D & Pathfinder, and why i never bought a single 4th ed D&D book (( I picked them up and read throw them at the book store,,,, and really did not like what i saw )).

................................

Short Rambling of a Mad man, otherwise this would be a 100 page book :(


Biggest simplification is maneuvers. There are four different combat maneuvers that move people. There's no reason for this. The worst redundancies are APG maneuvers so merging may require no change at all to NPC statblocks, which tend to be core only. The compatibility friendly fix is to fold reposition into trip, steal into disarm and just get rid of drag. Nobody takes improved drag and the functionality can be duplicated with reposition or grapple.

There are lots of feats that should scale instead of chaining, most notably vital strike, two weapon fighting, every single combat maneuver feat chain, and for fighters weapon focus. This involves some change to existing statblocks but no more than going from a feat every 3 levels in 3.5 to a feat every 2 levels in PF did.

The summoner should go into the dustbin of failed experiments along with the firearm rules. Possibly also the alchemist. Some people really hate the pseudo-casting mechanic, but it's nicely contained and not a balance nightmare the way the eidolon and rampant early spell access of the summoner are.

Crafting should probably either also go or be replaced with a sane and rational system. I think there are some OGL alternate crafting rules that could possibly be coopted.

Fix the monk and non-wizard 0E legacy classes to get rid of the notion that combat capability can or should be balanced with a lack of noncombat capability or vica versa.

Do something about the full attack vs mobility dilemma.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

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 math


I would cut way back on all the positioning and maneuvering rules in combat, along with the dozens of feats supporting it. Maybe even eliminate AoOs.


It's gotta be combat. It's the part of the game that takes 5 years to resolve.

Really agree with the above on maneuvers. If I could get Improved 3 maneuvers with each feat instead of just 1, I may well take those feats. Group them into Movement (Bull Rush, Re-position, Drag), Impairment (Trip, Dirty Trick, Disarm, Sunder), and Group X (Grapple, Steal, others I missed). It needs to be cleaned up, maybe 4 groups instead of 3, but the idea is there.

GURPS uses armor as DR and has a defense roll incorporated. It helps keep people involved when it's not their turn, and it also feels like they have a say in whether they get hit or not. PF would need a whole re-structuring for that to work, though. Maybe the people who do this for a living can get it to work without alienating too many people.

Artalost is dead-on about full-attacks. Do something about it, PLEASE! Mobility should not be a curse. Martial characters need more to do than Full-Attack every single round without fail. Steal everything from the Tome of Battle.

Spells are completely out of control. Trim the lists down for prepared casters (especially wizards), bring back forced opposition schools, and give other classes the ability to affect RP like a full caster can.

A Wizard can teleport at 10th level. A Cleric can bind an outsider to do their bidding. A Fighter can...Attack 3 times at level 11. If he doesn't move more than five feet. A rouge can...spread a rumor through a town well. If he rolls good on a skill he may not have. And the rumor is believable. And it's Thursday. A Bard with Glibness can easily have a person hung if he doesn't have too much clout. Even if he does, he can make him have to disappear for a while. Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, Alchemists, Summoners, Monks - none of them have anything close to those abilities.


If I made any changes to the rules, I'd probably ditch 90% of the feats and such and just use "on the fly" rules with my players. "So you want to cleave the guy next to the one you just hit? Ok. Roll to hit. Oh, and the guy next to him? Ok, roll -4 to hit, and so on." I learned to play the grand game on judgement calls and miss 'em, sometimes. Granted, this style of play is ripe for abuse, but that's where a GM and his players have to come to an understanding as to how much of what to allow and how to accomplish it.


One of the things that needs to be changed/simplified is Sneak Attacks. Back in 3.x sneak attack used to actually be powerful, but now it is weak compared to things like Smite and Favored Enemy. On top of that, Sneak Attack has a ton of unnecessarily complex conditions that need to be fulfilled in order to happen and defenses that completely negate the damage (uncanny dodge, fortification, and blind fight).

Sneak Attack needs to be simplified into something like Favored Enemy so players and GMs don't have to waste time with all the technicalities that determine whether or not the damage goes through.


I would have fluff/flavor text in italics and have a line mentioning that they are not rules so people don't get confused.

I would codify "precision damage" as an actual game term.

Fighters would have talents or maneuvers that allow them to do more than just fight, and allow them to do decent damage even when a full attack is not available.

Sorcerers would stop getting spells later than wizards. Metamagic feats are not good enough to make up for that loss spell level. At the very least have spontaneous casters not require a full round action to apply them to a spell.

Some of the feats should just be options that anybody can use such as power attack.

Certain checks should not be needed if you have a certain ability score. As an example if you have a strength of 24 you should not even need to roll to knock a wooden door down, assuming it is made for creatures of your size to pass through.

No more than 2 attacks even at level 20, unless you have something like TWF'ing. You just get more base damage similar to what 4th edition does.


I'd been thinking about this a lot. I have a long list involving dismantling and merging classes, because most of them are based on ideas, not really what they do, but here's a gist of the stuff I would streamline:

I would reduce and restructure Feats. Feats are some of the most complicated decisions that my players will make and it takes them forever unless they're looking at optimization guides. Also if one feat scales, they all should scale. Too many feats give a piddly bonus because it's a prerequisite for something actually useful. I believe that some feats should be bad to make others good but there are way too many noob traps in feats.

I like the idea of Saving Throws being static 'defense scores' in D&D 4.0. It's one of the changes that I felt made spellcasting more active and bonuses feel more relevant.

The existence of Archetypes makes a lot of things that vanilla classes do make less sense. Same goes for Alternate racial traits and general traits, so I think classes and races can be more generic with wild traits gained from archetypes, alternate racial traits and traits. I think this will make the classes make more sense and races not be loaded with useless things like the Dwarf's 'hatred ability. This would particularly affect classes that don't have many abilities to switch out for archetypes. I really think races and classes suffer a lot from tradition and stagnation.

I would Keyword so many things. The lack of functional keywording causes a lot of confusion about how things work and where the rules for them are. I'd also put all the keywords into [brackets]. I play(ed) a lot of Magic: the Gathering, another game with a ton of rules, and as more things got easy to look up keywords (with reminder text) the game got smoother to run. I think this would also allow for better design space to run spells and feats better and faster.

Speaking of Magic: the Gathering I think spells should work like Magic cards, in the sense that each spell should do one thing and not scale. This would make spells so much more easier to use, open design space for metamagic feats, and open up design space for caster abilities.


Some things I have been thinking about changing.

1)Races: Too many races give too small of bonuses in circumstances that are far too specific to be worth remembering (the best example of this I can think of is the Dwarf). These bonuses should be generalized as much as possible and preferably changed to "always on" bonuses that can simply be added to the character sheet once and not worried about afterwords. Also, their is far too much difference in effectiveness between the various races (especially once one gets beyond the core rulebook). Having an Ifrit be a third as strong as the Fetchling or Ghoran doesn't seem necessary to me.

2)Spells: These need to be streamlined greatly, especially in terms of range and effect. Also, the duration of spells should be spelled out in both in-combat terms (the rounds that the spell effect lasts) and out-of-combat terms (the minutes/hours/seconds the spell lasts). Furthermore, a general re-organization of spells should happen as well, or at the very least breaking up conjuration (moving all of the direct damage spells to evocation and moving the healing spells to necromancy would be a start). Finally, I would pull a lot of the combat oriented self buffs off the wizard (Such as gravity bow).

3)Combat Maneuvers: The investment toward combat maneuvers should be lessened (droping combat expertise as a prerequisite, dropping that preforming a maneuver invokes an attack of opportunity, combining the improved and greater versions of the feats). Also, CMD should probably drop either the strength or Dexterity bonus or made to be an either/or type of bonus instead of both so as to make it easier to land combat maneuvers overall.

4)Martials: Don't punish martials for moving and full attacking in a combat. Allow for class abilities that are specific to each class, and allow for them to have a limited ability to move and full attack (or have abilities that make it easier for martials to play switch-hitters).

5)Feats: Fewer feats that simply do more than the current feats do. Having a feat give you a +1 bonus to attack at level 10 seems ridiculous to me when compared to what a 3rd-5th level spell can do.


Some of the common threads I'm seeing here are:

- Combat maneuvers: Similar ones could be combined
- Terminology: Needs solidified and streamlined
- Full attacks: Are a hassle and add to caster/martial
- ASF/Concentration: Could potentially be combined
- Spells: Could be streamlined in small ways, such as more static durations
- Conditions: Too many (and fewer of them affect casters?)

I like these ideas. Few are direct overhauls--they're more "learning from experience" and saying "this thing is like this other, so how could we combine them?" Or, "this thing causes a lot of problems and confusion."

Please, keep sharing. These are just thought exercises at this point.

These ideas are pure awesome. :)


Attacks and armor class should be combined with CMB and CMD. No need for two separate methods of doing essentially the same thing.

Are you or some other Paizo spy actually asking these questions in advance of a 2.0 invasion? If so, then everything I said is a lie. A LIE, I tell you! A LIE!


A more extreme suggestion:

Get rid of save progressions and make DCs based on HD instead of HD/2.

All reflex saves can be replaced by the acrobatics skill. All will saves for illusions can be replaced with the perception skill. Fortitude saves can just use con+HD and will saves wis+HD or cha+HD.

Variable save progressions make the game too samey. All martials and all semimartials except the oracle have good fortitude. All casters have good will saves. All fey have good will saves and weak fortitude saves. Class and monster type have too much influence and stats not enough.


Atarlost wrote:

A more extreme suggestion:

Get rid of save progressions and make DCs based on HD instead of HD/2.

All reflex saves can be replaced by the acrobatics skill. All will saves for illusions can be replaced with the perception skill. Fortitude saves can just use con+HD and will saves wis+HD or cha+HD.

Variable save progressions make the game too samey. All martials and all semimartials except the oracle have good fortitude. All casters have good will saves. All fey have good will saves and weak fortitude saves. Class and monster type have too much influence and stats not enough.

I disagree with the save progression, mostly because it makes the numbers too high.

If saves worked like D&D 4.0 defenses then I could see fort=con+HD, ref=Dex+HD, will=wis+HD.

The save progression makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't a Barbarian have good reflex saves? isn't it a more mobile martial class? Why don't Sorcerers get good Fort saves? by definition they get superpowers because supernatural blood runs through their veins, I think they can stand to be a bit beefier.


DungeonmasterCal wrote:

Attacks and armor class should be combined with CMB and CMD. No need for two separate methods of doing essentially the same thing.

Are you or some other Paizo spy actually asking these questions in advance of a 2.0 invasion? If so, then everything I said is a lie. A LIE, I tell you! A LIE!

Although Pathfinder's existence is an huge example of D&D players saying that change is bad, I think the real reason why a Pathfinder 2.0 is a scary idea is because if they mess up regular Pathfinder would be abandoned. I think if Mythic Adventures can happen, then a line of Pathfinder Alt books can be printed without abandoning Pathfinder itself.


AC and saves should be relevant for the entire game progression, similar to 1E... Super powerful spells should not be pew pew pew.
Regular spells like magic missile etc should be as relevant at high levels as they are at low levels.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Miss Chance should be changed from % to d20 roll.

Replace Arcane Spell Failure with a Concentration DC. Armored Casters would be able to Take 10 for this.

Saving Throws would be passive, like AC. Spell DCs would be active, like Attack Rolls.

Add some Constitution-based skills, like old-school Concentration, Endurance (instead of the feat), and maybe Labor (digging holes, chopping wood, breaking rocks, etc.)

Everyone gets the Vital Strike feat chain. More mobility in combat, but still a (small to medium) advantage to the classic stand and swing tactic.

Make sneak attack +5 instead 1d6.

An easy way to use feats you don't have, like a number of Feat Points per day/session. Or free Hero Points.

I agree with the idea of combining Combat Maneuver types: movement (bull rush, drag, reposition), weapon (disarm, sunder, steal), body (trip, dirty trick, grapple), etc. etc.


Malwing wrote:
Atarlost wrote:

A more extreme suggestion:

Get rid of save progressions and make DCs based on HD instead of HD/2.

All reflex saves can be replaced by the acrobatics skill. All will saves for illusions can be replaced with the perception skill. Fortitude saves can just use con+HD and will saves wis+HD or cha+HD.

Variable save progressions make the game too samey. All martials and all semimartials except the oracle have good fortitude. All casters have good will saves. All fey have good will saves and weak fortitude saves. Class and monster type have too much influence and stats not enough.

I disagree with the save progression, mostly because it makes the numbers too high.

If saves worked like D&D 4.0 defenses then I could see fort=con+HD, ref=Dex+HD, will=wis+HD.

The save progression makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't a Barbarian have good reflex saves? isn't it a more mobile martial class? Why don't Sorcerers get good Fort saves? by definition they get superpowers because supernatural blood runs through their veins, I think they can stand to be a bit beefier.

The 4e way has no mathematical advantage, the difference is which side has 10 added. Currently it's saves. For strong saves you compare 10+HD/2+stat to HD/2+2+stat+1d20 and for weak saves HD/3+stat+1d20. My suggestion is to compare 10+HD+stat to HD+stat+1d20 so that it scales the same as skill checks.

There are illusions that should rightly be resisted by seeing flaws in the illusion rather than by force of will so they use the perception skill instead of raw HD+stat. There are spells that use reflex saves for moving over unsafe footing that is normally done with the acrobatics skill, most notable grease. In my system the save DC is scaled to skill checks so you can actually use the acrobatics skill. I can't think of any reflex saves for which acrobatics aren't appropriate.

And with saves scaled to skills or HD+stat rather than a special save bonus if a spell should be resisted with something odd it can be. Maybe Secret Page should be resisted by a linguistics check. If saves scaled with HD it could be using the standard saving throw mechanics.


Your bonus is the ability score; i.e. a 18 becomes a 4, a 16 becomes a 3.

Wealth and all treasure becomes a 'class' feature. When you level up for 3rd level you have x gold worth of items.

Ditch XP; have free form rules or X number of fights levels you.

Class skill bonuses increase as you level.

No 'roll' for hit dice, they are just a set number.

Tables for hit points for level; various con on one side, hit die on the top.

Less flavor tied to crunch; X feat does Y and includes 2 or 3 suggested flavors.

Name changes so you don't have multiple archetypes for different classes with the same title.

Game just assumes ever PC has an '18' or whatever the equivalent is.

Ditch flanking for multiple attackers bonus; with a mix of non reach and reach 9 people can attack the same guy and not get a bonus. Replace it multiple attackers all receive a bonus equal to the number of attackers.

Ditch Charisma, it wouldn't take long to divide it up.

Add a third basic type of magic, Nature, for Druids and Rangers.

Merge exiting skills. Bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy could all be 'socialize'. Acrobatics, Climb, and Swim could all be 'athletics'. Survival could be rolled into Knowledge nature. Sence motive could be rolled into Perception. Spellcraft could be rolled into Knowledge Arcana and Knowledge Religion and Knowledge Nature (with Arcana covering arcane spells and Religion cover divine and Knowledge nature covering Druidic/Ranger magic, which would also make it harder for a caster to just happen to know about every spell in existence which I think is a good thing).

Make initiative a skill; easier to find on character sheets and easier to explain that it is harder to get the jump on the coolest guys in the world.

Rename Knowlege local; it is hard to explain to new players why to know all about dwarfs they need to knowledge local, which isn't actually tied to any specific place.

Add some type of 'streetwise' to cover a character's ability to find illegal goods and services.

No middle attack progression for non casters; just bring rogue and monk up to full base attack and d10.

Rework multiple attacks. At base attack +6 you can take two -2, at +11 you can take two at -1, at +16 you can take two at -0.


Atarlost wrote:
The 4e way has no mathematical advantage, the difference is which side has 10 added.

Not strictly true. A d20 has a 10.5 average assuming a perfect distribution, more like 10.578 on most die. That comes out to just shy of 3% advantage towards the defender rolling over making it a static number.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Barbarian just gets a bonus to hit/damage, and some temp hit points instead of upping ability scores.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

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.


SmiloDan wrote:
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?


i thought i would have read some ways people have been streamline there game that Paizo could use in the possible "2.0" but some of you guys make me think you are playing the wrong game for your table ....maybe its because i have only really played 3.5 or other d20 ogl games some of guys are hitting some of the things that make this game different from all the others. its a complex game with a lot of rules but that allows for a lot of flexibility for both players and DMs. /rant

As far as what the OP asked some reweighting of a few there-n-there's may be a hard look and redo of crafting but really if you look around the fix have already be made by the players who love this game

hhope i did not instult any one it was not waht i meant to do
oh well my 2cp


i thought i would have read some ways people have been streamline there game that Paizo could use in the possible "2.0" but some of you guys make me think you are playing the wrong game for your table ....maybe its because i have only really played 3.5 or other d20 ogl games some of guys are hitting some of the things that make this game different from all the others. its a complex game with a lot of rules but that allows for a lot of flexibility for both players and DMs. /rant

As far as what the OP asked some reweighting of a few there-n-there's may be a hard look and redo of crafting but really if you look around the fix have already be made by the players who love this game

hope i did not insult any one it was not what i meant to do
oh well my 2cp


Kyras I totally see what your trying to say...

But this game does not have the flexibility that the older versions had. There are too many things that Alter the rules..

Heck they have things in the system that if a GM says no a player will argue and argue and argue the rules because a Gm feels the situation would not allow it. Yet all these feats and Maneuvers are supposed to be General Rules not set in stone Not a Computer game with hard lined rules.

Doing any of the above suggestions that are mentioned would Give GMs better control of the game again. And it would push players back into the CREATIVE play style that this game was designed for. Not all the MUNCHKIN-ISM that has been going on.

Give flexibility to classes kill this Arch type Garbage and just allow them a list of things that they choose at that level...

Look at Fighter for example
Take all the Arch types that affect Armor Training 1 just make a simple list of feature choices and let them choose one.

Then same thing later on

We can see better diverse Characters deeper stories and hopefully it would mean more to players too.


i will be civil and not say what that looks like on paper.

not every system will be like or playable in every DMs games so you cant blame that on the game it is just something that is.

arch type are just a way of putting the ideas down so as not to have a new player 25 pages of fighter and say make you PC so that is a matter of formatting not game rule hell 3.5 did the same thing with PRC, Paizo simply used different verbiage.

and we get more players frew better DMs not a better game because there is no better game you can not please everyone and a huge changes will only cause another edition war that will hurt both games

players proved they will like the same game with better editing with pathfinder and i am sure they will prove it once more with pathfinder 2.0 i only hope they prove it in a way that does not crush Paizo


Some of these seem to make the game more complex, but this is just us fooling around so I guess it does not matter that much.


wraithstrike wrote:
Some of these seem to make the game more complex, but this is just us fooling around so I guess it does not matter that much.

Aye. There are a lot of bad ideas here mixed in with the good, and that's okay - it's just brainstorming. The next step is to winnow the good from the bad, but that can happen elsewhere, I think.


Reecy wrote:
[...]Heck they have things in the system that if a GM says no a player will argue and argue and argue the rules because a Gm feels the situation would not allow it. Yet all these feats and Maneuvers are supposed to be General Rules not set in stone Not a Computer game with hard lined rules.[...]

I'm not seeing a problem with the rules so much as a an issue with the GM or player(s) in question. This is either an instance of problem players, which need to be dealt with in a mature and adult manner, or a new/inexperienced/pushover GM that is ill-equipped to handle issues at a table.

Reecy wrote:
Doing any of the above suggestions that are mentioned would Give GMs better control of the game again. And it would push players back into the CREATIVE play style that this game was designed for. Not all the MUNCHKIN-ISM that has been going on.

This isn't a "new thing" exclusive to Pathfinder. The level of control is, as it always has been, in the hands of the GM (see The Most Important Rule - a rule conveniently forgotten by player and GM alike). As long as there have been games of any sort, there have been people who try to stack the odds in their favor. The only difference between the "old days" and now is that these theory crafters have a massive social network in the form of forums and what not and can discuss and optimize with an entire community of like-minded people across the world.


Just a nudge to ask we keep things on ideas. I know there's a lot of discussion to be had, but I'd like to keep the focus on "how you'd do it" if we possibly could. Again, this is a thought exercise.

If I could be bold, I'd say that what these ideas are telling us (speaking very generally) is that there are ways we've all learned from the system and ways we could streamline without changing overmuch the game itself.

Some of the suggestions do push things, but there are also many ideas we see echo'd time and time again in these posts.

If I were to do a streamline, I'd try some of the more conservative ideas, first, then work my way into solidifying the terminology, keep testing, and just try to determine what worked, and work backwards from there.

I'd also interview DMs and see what sorts of questions they had most frequently. ':) And, newer players. This doesn't mean "dumbing things down" so much as giving us a fresh look at pre-conceptions and how pre-conceptions can help build a stronger game. That is, a newer player might say: well, I always thought c and b went together when you talked about it. I could see a newer player saying that about concentration and ASF, and going, "Well, they seem similar. Why don't they work together?"

Or, a DM might say: I always find that y slows down the game.

Crazy!


Ruggs wrote:
Or, a DM might say: I always find that y slows down the game.

This is a great place to start. (Stealing from one of my posts in a different thread.) There's a specific thing in D&D/PF that I hate: when the player tries to do something simple ("I grapple the monster"), and then everything has to grind to a halt while the DM has to explain "it's not actually that simple, here are the rules and implications of the choice that you didn't know you had to make".

The rules for defensive casting are a perfect example of this: a new player tries to cast a spell while threatened, and then everything grinds to a halt while I explain the rules and implications around the defensive casting choice they didn't know they had to make (ignoring that it's stupid not to just 5' step away, which is another level of complexity...). A good streamlining should minimize or eliminate those moments as much as possible.


kirthfinder = Pathfinder 2.0

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There should be a way to jump onto a creature larger than you and ride it like a surfboard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Eliminate 95% of everything published after the Core Rule Book.


Vadskye wrote:
Ruggs wrote:
Or, a DM might say: I always find that y slows down the game.

This is a great place to start. (Stealing from one of my posts in a different thread.) There's a specific thing in D&D/PF that I hate: when the player tries to do something simple ("I grapple the monster"), and then everything has to grind to a halt while the DM has to explain "it's not actually that simple, here are the rules and implications of the choice that you didn't know you had to make".

The rules for defensive casting are a perfect example of this: a new player tries to cast a spell while threatened, and then everything grinds to a halt while I explain the rules and implications around the defensive casting choice they didn't know they had to make (ignoring that it's stupid not to just 5' step away, which is another level of complexity...). A good streamlining should minimize or eliminate those moments as much as possible.

Paizo did make a great jump in this with CMB/CMD and ideas like that do make the game faster which could be more fun.

but i don't know how many new players you have tried to teach but every move, turn, action, attack, anything will slow to a stop i had a new play how was scared to move her token. now she is a great player.so, you cant base every thing off new players every thing is hard to understand if you have not done it before. if you eliminate all those moments you end up with tic-tact-toe


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BB36 wrote:
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 math

I 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.


i am on the same page so don't get me wrong, there is a lot of "streamlining" that could be done but it be done right we are looking at a change similar to 3.0 to 3.5 to pfrpg.
Not the changes we saw from 3.x to 4 to "new" which is ideas like "Eliminate 95% of everything published after the Core Rule Book." comes from.

i would like to see some changes to things like stealth and its ilk, crafting both magic and mundane, and a few class balances things. but these problems could only be found by playing the game and talking about it

1 to 50 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Where Would You Streamline Pathfinder? And How? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.