What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0?


Product Discussion

501 to 550 of 677 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Re-do the iconic characters to actually represent all fantastical races, human ethnicities and both sexes:

Alchemist: female gnome
Barbarian: white woman
Bard: American Indian woman/Latina
Cavalier: female half-elf
Cleric: Black man
Druid: male half-orc
Fighter: East Asian woman
Gunslinger: Polynesian/Maori woman
Inquisitor: female dwarf
Magus: Australian Aboriginal woman
Monk: male elf
Ninja: East Asian man
Oracle: American Indian man/Latino
Paladin: Middle Eastern man
Ranger: Middle Eastern woman
Rogue: Polynesian/Maori man
Sorcerer: male halfling
Summoner: Australian Aboriginal man
Witch: white man
Wizard: Black woman

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

I think I'd prefer a spell points system, but it's not something I'm desperately looking for in Pathfinder.

Overall, I think it's probably best for Pathfinder not to deviate too far from what's gotten them so much success in future versions of the game. There's a reason why the game is so popular, and the mechanics, clunky as they can be sometimes, are a part of that reason.


Gorbacz wrote:
thaX wrote:

Use cool downs, have casters use a pool to do stunts, treat Prepared spells as Known Spells (with the cool downs) and leave behind the need to prepare more than one copy of a given spell.

I know, it wouldn't be the same. Isn't that the point? The game needs to move forward. Make the monk viable, have the Fighter do more than swing swords, let the Rogue bluff his way through and so on. Remove alignment restrictions on base classes, have a unified magic system, have craft/profession be a part of backgrounds instead of a skill, Tone down feats, having some be chosen class abilities, others into traits and backgrounds and so on...

Hey, didn't 4E do most of that?

Yes. And those things are therefore terrible, horrible, no good, and very bad.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

thaX wrote:

In comparison to that other edition others have mentioned, I do not want "Dailies." That is the point. Something that is one shot and that is it, it is what the Wizard does. Some look at that as a good thing, I see it as frustration. (Uh, you didn't get past the SR, sorry)

Sure, in the current game, the Sorcerer spams, the Wizard chooses. Looking at it from a new player's perspective, the first level Wizard gets three spells, and a recall if you forgo a Familiar. Sucks if you use your only MM and roll min dmg (2). The PF improvement lets the wizard spam cantrips at will as well as all the other casters, a marked improvement over 3.5, but it is still just cantrips.

I know there is a lot of sentiment for the old man, for how the old game introduced the magic into the RPG as it created the genre, but time goes by, the Fire and Forget is so long in the tooth that the canines are dragging the ground.
** spoiler omitted **

Sigh.

I just see PF heading into a more modern gaming experience, not holding on to sacred cows that needed to be gone in previous incarnations.

Once again, you're implying the wizard is 'forgetting' something, when he's actually 'running out of power'. Which is completely different.

And now you seem to be advocating for unlimited power, whenever he doesn't have 'solve this problem now' power. You know, unlimited power, like the ability of melee to swing their weapons. Let's just give that to the wizard, too, and not give the melees anything in compensation.

Yeah. Not.

===Aelryinth


~Home rules concerning wizards~

I've always considered the way wizards to work to be like this:

Wizards use their minds to grasp environmental magic, shape it into nearly completed spells, and store them in their mind/aura/whatever.

Casting a spell is basically loading a bullet, and firing it. You constructed the bullet that morning, or whenever you prepared your spells.

A wizard may be limited in how much completed magic they can carry around all the time, which is limited by mental capacity, training, and how refreshed you are. So sleeping and becoming fully rested restores your ability to cast spells.

I also allow a wizard to cast a spell directly, without ever storing it. Thats not affected by their mental storage capacity. This is how they can make a wand of Fireballs in a day, which is 50 stored 3rd level spells when they can barely carry around a dozen spells total.

So if a wizard REALLY needed to, they could sit down, meditate for a minute or two, then cast a spell, which takes between 10 and 100 rounds to cast.

Didn't prepare knock today? well, if you are in a hurry you are sh*t out of luck. But if you have 5 minutes to spare and your spellbook is handy you could bang out a spell, ritual style.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reworked Armor:

I think armor should be piecemeal and give AC and DR (similar to some optional rules that already exist). A helmet would give 1 AC, and 1 DR. A suit of chainmail would give 3 AC, and 2 DR. gauntlets would give 1 AC, 1 DR. A breastplate would give 3 AC and 2 DR.

That would all add up to a suit of half plate equivalent, and give you +8 AC and +6 DR. crits would be a hit to a weak point and bypass DR in addition to the additional damage.

A shield would only give an AC bonus.

This would require re-stating a lot of armor weight wise to be more realistic. a breastplate (cuirass) IRL weighed in at ~15 pounds. pathfinder has it at 30 pounds for example thanks to legacy systems that 'Did Not Do The Research'...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

because I have a helmet I have one DR?

"I stab him in the gut. How's his helmet taking off a point of damage?"

Piecemeal and DR definitely don't work.

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

Michael Gentry wrote:
ciretose wrote:


So why not take the approach of making it that the act of casting the spell is really the act of completing the spell. In the case of divine, you prayed in the morning for the ability to do specific things later that day, and now those prayers are granted to you. Hence it not having spell failure. In the case of arcane, you are actually completing the spell, going through all of the motions and combinations which can be impaired by armor and such.

Er, this is already explicitly the approach taken by Pathfinder.

PRD wrote:
"Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in his mind as a nearly cast spell until he uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until he abandons it. Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character's mind."

You missed the point.

It isn't a function of "staying in his mind" or memorization.

It is a matter of "This morning I put all the ingredients together, did whatever pre-spell work I needed, so that today when I complete the spell, it will work."

If I don't "Prep" for lack of a better word, I can't cast it. I has nothing to do with memorization or his mind. The wizard did the long part of the spell earlier, and can only do so many "preps" per spell per day.

Remove the "memorization" part completely.

Liberty's Edge

Gherrick wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Hey, didn't 4E do most of that?
I play both PF and 4e. 4e including a ton of innovative ideas, and while its reception was highly mixed, and ultimately a major contributor to the creation of Pathfinder. IMO, it also fixed a lot of the balance issues between martials and casters.

I "fixed" my dog.

He wasn't happy about it.

That kind of "fixing" seemed equally popular in so far as keeping "The Most Popular Role Playing Game" at the to....oh...yeah.


Aelryinth wrote:

because I have a helmet I have one DR?

"I stab him in the gut. How's his helmet taking off a point of damage?"

Piecemeal and DR definitely don't work.

==Aelryinth

piecemeal armor works just fine. the DR mechanic could use a bit of work, but piecemeal armor works WAY better than the crap we have now.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

They should make Trapfinding a Rogue Talent, and grant rogues a Rogue Talent at 1st level, 2nd level, and every 2 levels thereafter.

I'd also like rogues to have a "Luck Pool" that works similarly to the 3.5 binder's Pact Augmentation ability. +1 at 1st level, plus an additional +1 at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.

Each plus can be used to grant a luck bonus to one or more of the following (multiple plusses in the same category stack):

AC and CMD
Attack and CMB Rolls
Damage Rolls
Initiative Rolls
Saving Throws
Skill Checks

A number of times per day equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1), the rogue can spend an immediate action to re-alocate the points in her Luck Pool.


wizards can cast spontaneously. it just takes a couple of minutes, that's why they prepare spells.

I think Sorceror is the bigger candidate for a man a system, not the wizard.


Malwing wrote:

wizards can cast spontaneously. it just takes a couple of minutes, that's why they prepare spells.

I think Sorceror is the bigger candidate for a man a system, not the wizard.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Malwing wrote:

wizards can cast spontaneously. it just takes a couple of minutes, that's why they prepare spells.

I think Sorceror is the bigger candidate for a man a system, not the wizard.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

logical extensions of the fluff and various subsystems, such as item creation feats, imply that while a wizard can only hold so much 99% completed spells in his brainymeats, they can prepare and immediately CAST the spells as much as they want. Thats only so long as they don't stick the spells into their brain.

creating a wand in a day requires you to basically cast a spell 50 times. They are pretty much just STORED spells after all.

It might take several minuted to cast the spell each time (rather than a couple seconds, like a preprepared spell) but thats the implication of the entire magic systems and fluff. Technically a wizard should be capable of casting any spell in their book if they have a few minutes prep time, though you may need to meditate for a bit or something to 'get in the zone'... Its just a side effect of the wizard magic system.
.
.
.
Of course its NEVER been touched on in any rules though, so its not allowed in games unless you petition the DM for it.


See, that's not a logical extension, that's a pretty heavy inference. And I don't think it's all that obvious, since you're the first one I've ever seen making that claim.

I don't think a wizard can just spend an hour casting a spell without any slots free. There is a mechanic close to that in the RAW, but they need the free slot.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:


PRD wrote:
"Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in his mind as a nearly cast spell until he uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until he abandons it. Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character's mind."

You missed the point.

It isn't a function of "staying in his mind" or memorization.

It is a matter of "This morning I put all the ingredients together, did whatever pre-spell work I needed, so that today when I complete the spell, it will work."

If I don't "Prep" for lack of a better word, I can't cast it. I has nothing to do with memorization or his mind. The wizard did the long part of the spell earlier, and can only do so many "preps" per spell per day.

Remove the "memorization" part completely.

Ah, I think I see. You're objecting to the phrase "in his mind".


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

See, that's not a logical extension, that's a pretty heavy inference. And I don't think it's all that obvious, since you're the first one I've ever seen making that claim.

I don't think a wizard can just spend an hour casting a spell without any slots free. There is a mechanic close to that in the RAW, but they need the free slot.

funny how a wizard with 4 hours free can cast a fireball spell 50 times into a magically prepared stick to create a wand. This when they could cast around maybe 10 fireballs a day with a spellpoint system...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
thaX wrote:

In comparison to that other edition others have mentioned, I do not want "Dailies." That is the point. Something that is one shot and that is it, it is what the Wizard does. Some look at that as a good thing, I see it as frustration. (Uh, you didn't get past the SR, sorry)

Sure, in the current game, the Sorcerer spams, the Wizard chooses. Looking at it from a new player's perspective, the first level Wizard gets three spells, and a recall if you forgo a Familiar. Sucks if you use your only MM and roll min dmg (2). The PF improvement lets the wizard spam cantrips at will as well as all the other casters, a marked improvement over 3.5, but it is still just cantrips.

I know there is a lot of sentiment for the old man, for how the old game introduced the magic into the RPG as it created the genre, but time goes by, the Fire and Forget is so long in the tooth that the canines are dragging the ground.
** spoiler omitted **

Sigh.

I just see PF heading into a more modern gaming experience, not holding on to sacred cows that needed to be gone in previous incarnations.

Once again, you're implying the wizard is 'forgetting' something, when he's actually 'running out of power'. Which is completely different.

And now you seem to be advocating for unlimited power, whenever he doesn't have 'solve this problem now' power. You know, unlimited power, like the ability of melee to swing their weapons. Let's just give that to the wizard, too, and not give the melees anything in compensation.

Yeah. Not.

===Aelryinth

He would have as many castings as he has "Known Spells," not unlimited. The main difference is choosing what to cast at the time of casting instead of in the dark of night when it doesn't matter.


JTibbs wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

See, that's not a logical extension, that's a pretty heavy inference. And I don't think it's all that obvious, since you're the first one I've ever seen making that claim.

I don't think a wizard can just spend an hour casting a spell without any slots free. There is a mechanic close to that in the RAW, but they need the free slot.

funny how a wizard with 4 hours free can cast a fireball spell 50 times into a magically prepared stick to create a wand. This when they could cast around maybe 10 fireballs a day with a spellpoint system...

That assumes that to make the spell-trigger item, the caster casts the spell 50 times. Who's to say that's how spell-trigger items work? They're clearly different in that regard from other items.

There's just nothing in the RAW to support your extrapolation.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quote:
The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand's creation.

If he were casting the spell 50 times, he'd need to have it prepared 50 times.


Of course he can cast the spell 50 times--after he finishes making the wand:)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Perhaps the next iteration of PF can change what one does with Wands, using it as a focus to take the place of lesser Spell Components, having certain wands give a bonus to specific types of spells or spells that use certain energy types. Having the charge type mechanic moved to lesser Staffs instead can free up some interesting ideas regarding Wands.


A lot less reliance on full attacks. In fact if it was entirely done away with, that'd be even better.

I don't mind more than one attack a round, but full attacks kinda are terrible for the gameplay.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
Perhaps the next iteration of PF can change what one does with Wands, using it as a focus to take the place of lesser Spell Components, having certain wands give a bonus to specific types of spells or spells that use certain energy types. Having the charge type mechanic moved to lesser Staffs instead can free up some interesting ideas regarding Wands.

But why? Why invalidate all of those statblocks in modules and APs?

Pathfinder is predicated on the idea that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the 3.5 game, which is why it's all still there.

I do think that the presentation needs some work, but it needs to be a revision of the presentation of the same rules, not a new game.

Don't get me wrong, thaX, your wand idea is cool. Really cool. And I would love to see it introduced somewhere as something other than a wand, or as a special feature of existing wands.

But PF isn't about scrapping the rules and re-publishing the books to update the rules every few years. The adventure content is the soul of the game, whether or not you use it. It's the financial backbone, but it also governs the course of the new rules that have been published. The APs are certainly a test drive for all the new subsystems, and the themes of the APs are how they decide which subsystems get created to begin with.

Any change that interferes with the APs as the soul of the game is... not really Pathfinder. And that day may come, when there is a "Pathfinder 2" which is so-called because it is no longer Pathfinder. But that day is probably a decade away at least.

There is a much more imminent need. With D&D refreshing its appeal in a new edition, Pathfinder needs a new presentation that is accessible and less intimidating. The Beginner Box was a start, but it's not complete. The game, as it stands, is shackled to copy-pasta from the previous edition. This was formerly a great strength, but the tide is turning. I think it is great that hitherto — hitherto, mark you — the design team has focused on innovation instead of polishing the core. But the time is fast approaching when the sheer clumsiness and girth of the CRB will hurt the game's growth. New players will see two games on the shelf, and the differences will be stark.

We need the same rules, but we need them in a vessel that actually works for gaining new players. Extend the methods of the beginner box to the entire core, and make it look beautiful and current. Borrow from the excellent board games of the last decade and focus on presenting the information needed to play this game, as it is. That will keep Pathfinder on top for a very long time.

EDIT: And if that rant wasn't enough for you, let me reiterate that Pathfinder could be doing more to breed new GMs. Player options are sexy and fun, but life is too hard for Pathfinder GMs, especially new ones. And unless something changes to make the game actually fun to GM above the shiny new game, then Pathfinder's in trouble.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To your point, I agree that a revision may be needed at some point, instead of a new printing. (We are on number six, afterall)

If we stick with the rules as they are, the Summoner would need a complete overhall, the Witch would need some tweaking in reference to what happens when a familiar is killed or passes from old age (They need to be able to keep their spells), and alternative caster stats need to be a core part of the Spontaneous casters instead of a rare Archtype/class feature giving them the option. (Keeping with the rules, it would be some sort of trade off.)

CMB/CMD needs to be clarified and revised. CMB used instead of BAB in all instances of combat manuvures, for example.

PrC's need to be updated to have the same upgrade in their progression as the core classes do, and have lower entrance requirements.

That is great, if that is all you want.

My point, though, is that 3.5 does have flaws. Having a separate mechanic for several classes instead of a focused system for various abilities, including Magic, is confusing to the new player. Just try to explain the 3.5 Warlock to a newbie. *Shiver* A part of the problem is that once the Wizard and Sorcerer were included as separate classes instead of actually using the Sorcerer mechanics system wide, then other later classes did the same thing, giving good and awful mechanics new space, adding to an already.... well, everyone has an opinion to the caster book that had one good class and two awful ones. I count the Shadowcaster as one of the awful, but others do not.

The version 2.0 I talk of is, as you have eluded, at least a decade down the line. It is then that the game should move forward, putting behind the days of Vancian casting and OGL. Not that PF would exclude the 3PP, but for the game to go on, ties have to be cut.

Choose your spells as you cast, like a sorcerer. You just can't do it with the current rules, unless you have a high Cha.

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
Just try to explain the 3.5 Warlock to a newbie. *Shiver*

"You get a laser beam and a small handful of basic spells. You can use them unlimited times."

Done. That's exactly how I introduced my brother to the class. They're now his favorite caster to play.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A separate post about AP's.

We have already had some AP's that needed to be either adjusted by the GM or redone (Regarding the Rise of the Rune Lords aniversery book) as they were being done before PF actually graced the store shelves. It is expected that new content will continue to be made after PF ver2 is done.

It is not unprecedented.

Shadow Lodge

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
thaX wrote:
Perhaps the next iteration of PF can change what one does with Wands, using it as a focus to take the place of lesser Spell Components, having certain wands give a bonus to specific types of spells or spells that use certain energy types. Having the charge type mechanic moved to lesser Staffs instead can free up some interesting ideas regarding Wands.
But why? Why invalidate all of those statblocks in modules and APs?

Call me crazy, but I don't see how changing how wands work completely invalidates stat blocks. I mean, for one thing, how many module and AP stat blocks even freaking have wands? Secondly, for those that do...ON NOES!!!! You might have to jigger them a tiny bit. Which is a far damn cry from declaring them completely invalid, in my view.

Shadow Lodge

A lot actually. Speaking for just PFS scenarios, a lot of times a wand of ______ with a handful of charges is placed there specifically so that a party that can't deal with problem x can finish the scenario. It would also really mess with the appropriate wealth and a ot of little things like that.

I do kind of like your idea. It was a minor thing that I liked about 4E, making wands, orbs, and holy symbols a sort of magic weapon. I'd rather, though, instead use what you described as a new sort of magic item. Not replace existing wands, but maybe just a new type.


Wands, as they are currently, are really just weak staffs. If for some reason you did go with ThaX's idea, you could really easily say "for any stat block printed before <date>, replace a 'wand of X' with a staff of the same spell, with the same number of charges at the same caster level" without invalidating anything.

Of course it would be just as easy to use ThaX's idea but call the new type of item Orbs or something else. Altering names is very easy.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Maybe one way to balance the caster/martial disparity would be to give martials 0-9 levels of combat techniques. All (or mostly) extraordinary in ability, with full BABs getting 9 levels, 3/4 BABs getting 6 levels, and 1/2 BABs getting 4 levels.

They wouldn't be Vancian, and they wouldn't be nearly as powerful as spells, but they also wouldn't be used up like spells.

They could kind of take the place of some basic, fundamental feats, like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, maybe Two-Weapon Fighting or Mounted Combat, definitely Vital Strike, maybe Critical Feats, Weapon Focus/Specialization, maybe unarmed combat, sneak attack talents, possibly even some class features like Spell Combat, smite attacks, favored enemy stuff, etc. etc.


Matthew Shelton wrote:
Sunderstone wrote:

Less tactical.

Nothing kills my drive to game better than having to stop the flow to map out every room and sett ing up counters.
This would get me to come back to the hobby immediately.

I wrote some rules for running an "abstract dungeon" once. To briefly summarize, you don't bother mapping out the entire dungeon, but represent it abstractly as a grid.

I didn't mean for exploration and possibilities of getting lost. I meant less tactical than stopping the game to draw every room, positioning the PCs and monsters of that room. Then at the next room I have to dry/wet erase a battle mat to start the process over again.

I really don't want to use miniatures/counters that much except for some major combats, bosses etc. Like I did for 1E/2E

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Tactical combat with maps, miniatures, and monster counters is my favorite part of RPGs.

That, and the teamwork aspects and bad puns/pop cultural references.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thaX wrote:
Perhaps the next iteration of PF can change what one does with Wands, using it as a focus to take the place of lesser Spell Components, having certain wands give a bonus to specific types of spells or spells that use certain energy types. Having the charge type mechanic moved to lesser Staffs instead can free up some interesting ideas regarding Wands.

The current rules lets you use rods for what you suggest. Metamagic rods do a lot of that. But it would be cool if there were also rods that increased save DCs, added additional carrier effects, do special effects, etc. etc.

Kind of reminds me of Dresden's blasting rod.

:-D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So if I am gathering correctly, we want to see some system that maintains backwards compatibility, and gets away from the spell slot system?

The best way I see this working is a spell point system that allows you to "buy" how many daily slots you have. Rather than saying a wizard has x lvl 1 slots, and y lvl 2 slots etc. per day, have it be, he has x mana points, to prepare a 1st circle spell (I want the word level to change when referring to magic because it confuses new players) costs 1 point, to prepare a 2nd circle it costs a different number of points. This way, you still have the prepared slot system for the sake of backwards compatibility, but you have control of how many slots you have of any particular spell circle allowing for more control and versatility over your character. Example, a 7th level wizard who specialized in a 3rd circle spell can choose not to purchase a 4th level circle at all, and rather could spend all his mana points purchasing spell slots of 3rd and lower, allowing him more spells that day effectively if he knew in advance that he was going into a dungeon crawl and needed more spells/ ammo for that specific day.

It kinda dips into the psionic system really. I like the idea of keeping the spellbook system allowing the wizard to have more options, and the sorcerer can have the same kind of mana system, but would be limited to his spells known list for the purpose of casting spells. Magi get the same number of points as a wizard, but must use them to fuel their class abilities as well as their spells, making their relationship between casting and fighting truly integrated.

Then, your metamagic feats no longer exist, and everything comes in the form of a metamagic rod. Metamagic rods cost mana points to use, so if a wizard wants to add effects to them, then he had better leave some mana points left unspent, which forces more preparation on his part, and gives the wizard a reason to actually need and spend money.

Scrolls I feel are not a very good mechanic, imo they should be used for the sole purpose of a wizard/other prepared caster needing it to 'learn' a spell or copy it into his book. It will exist as a tax per se on the spellcasters. Wands and scrolls essentially do the same thing right now, except a wand lasts longer.

Pearls of power have a number of mana points associated with them, and otherwise function as cognizance crystals. A prepared caster can use the number of points in the pearl to get back a spell that costs up to the number of points in said pearl, assuming there are enough points in the pearl, where a sorcerer can simply replenish his pool with it, they will be MAD expensive, and have extreme limits as to how many points they can hold.

The entire martial feat system needs to be redesigned imo. Weapon Focus should scale with BAB at the same rate Power Attack does, going up to +5 at lvl 16. It will include attack and damage. There is your fix for magic weapons not needing to be +1, +2, +3 etc. I also think it should be based on damage type, rather than a specific weapon, or even divide it by the weapon types as classified by the fighter weapon training. Fighters should get Weapon Focus for free at lvl 1 on a weapon type of their choice. Armor Focus will exist much the same way, fighters should get that too.

Feat Trees will be eliminated, and rather than being forced into wasting all of your feats, you will simply gain the benefits of the higher level feats when you reach a certain point. For example two weapon fighting will gain the benefits of two weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting when your BAB reaches the point that the feat's prerequisites are met, and you won't have to spend feats on it.

Weapon Finesse is a mechanic, not a feat. Any light weapon can be used with the wielder's DEX mod rather than STR mod for the purpose of calculating attack bonus. Any time that one could apply precision damage while using a light weapon, they can also apply DEX to damage, as a mechanic.

I can understand the desire from a player's stand point to not want to invest money into a weapon just to add to you to hit value when you could be spending it on weapon abilities, but I can't ever see a game where the player would feel they don't need to spend money on other kinds of numeric bonuses. Stat items in particular I feel were very well done in PF. Associate them with one slot, if you want more than one stat to improve it will cost more. Same thing with saving throws, just incorporating these things into character design won't matter if the players are just going to end up wanting to buff those stats more anyway, I feel that's how the christmas list happened in the first place anyway.

Maybe instead of having deflection and natural armor be bonuses that the characters can obtain, create one slot and call it magic armor. Natural armor will be a rare thing held by actual natural things like animals and monsters, and it will compensate for the fact that they can't wear armor, and if they do it won't stack with regular armor.

Screw the Pounce ability, and screw full attack actions. I should be able to move my character's speed and still get all my attacks granted from BAB regardless of what class I am. If I take a double move or charge (which will be less attractive now) then I only get the one attack.

How am I doing so far?


Yeah so where to begin.

Okay. Skills should be condensed and clarified since aesthetically they take up way to much room on the character sheet.

SKILLS SHOULD BE SIMILIAR TO CMD & AC. In that you have a base roll defined by different modifiers, just one line on the character sheet.

THEN you can jot down class/racial skills given. SEE, much cleaner.

You don't need to eliminate skills or their description section just don't make my printer work so hard. And besides you guys already force us to do that with class abilities and feats (write cramped descriptions) this will open up more area for writing other things down.

Also Stop trying to SNEAK things in when describing ANYTHING. Don't bold face headings, just use slightly larger print and save the bold print for your run on sentences, or the calculations needed, or for anything that should be bullet points but aren't because of budget constraints.

Either way, and joking aside, please STOP making FLAVOR FEATS. I want to take them but i cant. I don't want to suck ass in combat and I might die if I don't use them for their name sake(making an assumption here), a HEROIC FEAT. I assume Feat is not short for Features cause(and I'm laughing here) that sounds an awful lot like traits.

More to the point why not permanently add traits to the ever sacred character lvl and bonuses table. Strictly for racial growth and flavor outside of class. Just dial back to plus ones. With this simple addition one can make prerequisites (for anything) more meaningful and you can stop stuffing everything into the Feats suitcase.

Last but not least Monte proved to me through Iron Heroes that you can pretty much make any class you want if given enough options on just one class. I KNOW THIS IS RISKY!!! But IF you think about it it gives meaning to everything else. Eliminate Fighter and/or Wizard from the Core 20 lvl classes and make them Prestige classes.

THANK YOU GOODNIGHT!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

At odd levels, you get feats. At levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, you get an ability score boost. That leaves levels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18 free to grant non-class related abilities. I think they would be great for extra traits, flavor feats, scaling racial abilities, new ways to use Hero Points, etc. etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
So if I am gathering correctly, we want to see some system that maintains backwards compatibility, and gets away from the spell slot system?

No! The vast majority of PF players like or are Ok with “Spell slot” and would hate the massive edition changes that would come with such a major change. Mind you, pretty much all of us are open to a ‘warlock” type class as a option.

"We" do not want any major changes.

Liberty's Edge

Michael Gentry wrote:
ciretose wrote:


PRD wrote:
"Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in his mind as a nearly cast spell until he uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until he abandons it. Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character's mind."

You missed the point.

It isn't a function of "staying in his mind" or memorization.

It is a matter of "This morning I put all the ingredients together, did whatever pre-spell work I needed, so that today when I complete the spell, it will work."

If I don't "Prep" for lack of a better word, I can't cast it. I has nothing to do with memorization or his mind. The wizard did the long part of the spell earlier, and can only do so many "preps" per spell per day.

Remove the "memorization" part completely.

Ah, I think I see. You're objecting to the phrase "in his mind".

Well the phrase and the conception.

If a spell is "stored" in someones mind and then released, that is very different than saying "I've spent the morning putting together most of the components for (x number of) spells, I can complete the spell in (casting time for the spell) by doing (x).

In the memorization model, you are "forgetting" spells, and that is why you can't recast them.

In the prepared model, you didn't forget how to cast the spell, you just didn't do the prep ahead of time so you aren't prepared to cast it until you are able to do the prep.

The later seems a much simpler and clearer limit that better fits the fluff.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
So if I am gathering correctly, we want to see some system that maintains backwards compatibility, and gets away from the spell slot system?

No! The vast majority of PF players like or are Ok with “Spell slot” and would hate the massive edition changes that would come with such a major change. Mind you, pretty much all of us are open to a ‘warlock” type class as a option.

"We" do not want any major changes.

Put me in this camp, depending on how define major. Some people think errata and FAQ's are "major changes" after all...

Here is what I would like. I want to be able to run the material I have currently with the new version without to much work. Kind of like I can run 3.5 stuff now.

But I think within those limits there are opportunities to clean up a number of classes, and even try things like a warlock style class.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:


If a spell is "stored" in someones mind and then released, that is very different than saying "I've spent the morning putting together most of the components for (x number of) spells, I can complete the spell in (casting time for the spell) by doing (x).

In the memorization model, you are "forgetting" spells, and that is why you can't recast them.

In the prepared model, you didn't forget how to cast the spell, you just didn't do the prep ahead of time so you aren't prepared to cast it until you are able to do the prep.

The later seems a much simpler and clearer limit that better fits the fluff.

I get what you're saying. Although I predict the objections would simply change from "Why do I forget spells? That's stupid!" to "Why can I only prepare 5 castings of spell X per day? Why can't I take another hour and prepare 10? That's stupid!"

To be honest I think the complaints about "memorization" are way off the mark in any case. Third edition abandoned the term "memorization" in favor of "preparation", leaving it vague exactly what was going on in a wizard's head, but somewhere along the way a lot of people decided that it really still just meant "memorization." But there's no reason it has to. There is literally not a single reference to memorizing or forgetting spells anywhere in the corebook. That three-word phrase "in his mind" is the only place where the corebook even hints at the concept, but it isn't necessarily saying anything about memory. It suggests that part of a spell's preparation involves some sort of mental construct, but there's nothing to suggest that means anything so conventional as rote memorization.

EDIT: To elaborate a bit further: I'm not sure switching to a "preparing components" explanation would be all that helpful. I think what would be helpful is being more explicit that the rationale for wizard spell limits is whatever you want it to be. That could be rote memorization, or it could be your preparing components explanation, or it could be that part of the spell is an incredibly complex mental construct that must be prepared in a "walled-off" area of your brain that can only be accomplished via intense meditation each morning.

Bottom line is it's a balancing factor, and the fluff you use to rationalize it is irrelevant outside your own game. In my opinion, there's no more use in nailing down what "spell preparation" really means than there is in nailing down what exactly a "hit point" represents.


I'd rather not see a Pathfinder 2.0 come out now, simply because it would clash with the release of D&D Next and continue the edition wars. But maybe in a year or two, a new edition could be good.

I wouldn't want a lot of major changes but the system could benefit from a bit of tidying here and there.

Liberty's Edge

@Michael Gentry - I think the transition can be explained as "You only have learned to harness enough the magical energy for X number of spells", which you have to prepare.

I don't hear a lot of people yelling that Sorcerers should be able to cast more often.

The biggest reason I want it made clear it is preparing in advance rather than memorization is to give a clearer picture of what spell preparation is for each class.

If I were paizo, I would plan a new edition in the next year or so, with a core rulebook that wasn't trying to be as all encompassing as the original one.

Then take time to do a small book monthly on each class, expanding on the core concept and ideas, along with class specific crunch.

That is 2 years of publishing right there.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:
Then take time to do a small book monthly on each class, expanding on the core concept and ideas, along with class specific crunch.

:P

Bleah! I thought almost everyone agreed that the lack of monthly rulebook splat was a GOOD thing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

@ciretose -- see my edit.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Then take time to do a small book monthly on each class, expanding on the core concept and ideas, along with class specific crunch.

:P

Bleah! I thought almost everyone agreed that the lack of monthly rulebook splat was a GOOD thing.

Fair enough, but I think it could be done well in the same way the race guides I think were done well.

A 36 pager.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:


That is 2 years of publishing right there.

Yeah, see, somehow the idea of spending two years collecting piecemeal information about each class doesn't excite me.

Liberty's Edge

Michael Gentry wrote:
@ciretose -- see my edit.

I agree somewhat with the edit, but I do think nailing it down to match fluff better will help maintain the balancing factors.

Shadow Lodge

Isn't that also one of the big criticisms of 4E...that it was an "incomplete game" because some of the traditional classes and races weren't in the initial Player's Handbook?

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
Isn't that also one of the big criticisms of 4E...that it was an "incomplete game" because some of the traditional classes and races weren't in the initial Player's Handbook?

And they were closed content so it actually mattered.

To be clear, I am not saying that the basics aren't in the core. I'm saying that I think 36 pages of fleshing out can come in the supplements and the core can really actually be the core.

If Paizo's business is based on modules and AP's and not rules (it is) backward compatibility is central.

However putting out an update very similar in scope to what they did with 3.5 is something I would like to see.

And with more time and resources, they can take the time and resources to roll it out over time.

501 to 550 of 677 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.