What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0?


Product Discussion

551 to 600 of 677 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
ciretose wrote:
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.

The only problem I see with releasing something like this is there will still be piecemeal. Paizo is still going to release more spells for the wizard, new combat feats for the fighter, and new tricks for the rogue. There's really no overhead saved here.

There are 2 Pathfinder SRDs, the official one here and d20pfsrd.com Everything you could need for reference is there. You could even make your own pdfs by pulling the individual pages from the book's pdf and putting them together in 1 file (assuming you know how of course.)

Heck, what I tend to do is create a spreadsheet in google docs. Seven columns; character level, class level, class abilities, +1 attribute, class/race feats, character feats, misc. Depending on the character I'll sometimes rename the columns (like misc. could become the caster table or if the class/feat feat list is nonexistent, then I'll use it for something else.) I then plan out my character and fill out each slot. You know what the best part is? Each item I put in each cell I make a hyperlink back to d20pfsrd so I can not only quick reference it, but also find out where it's originally from, very handy! And you know what, after I've done all that, I still use a regular character sheet and a mechanical pencil at the gaming table.. because I'm weird like that, just makes leveling and picking things easier. :)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
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.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you expecting 3PP to fill the gaps in the system on the date of release or something?

Unless it's just part of this forum's usual mindless "OGL IS THE BESTEST EVER!!!!" leanings. I swear, sometimes I think people on this forum would buy dog crap if you stapled an OGL statement onto it.


Classes balanced out a little more. Magus as a regular core class in the CRB.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
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.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you expecting 3PP to fill the gaps in the system on the date of release or something?

Unless it's just part of this forum's usual mindless "OGL IS THE BESTEST EVER!!!!" leanings. I swear, sometimes I think people on this forum would buy dog crap if you stapled an OGL statement onto it.

My point is that the rule set is functionally free. The Core Rulebook is almost a loss leader for the company.

And since they are OGL, they give you what you "need" to play for free.

OGL rules are better for the customer, pretty much by definition. And if your revenue stream is context using the rule set...

I envision the 36 pager as where you put your archetypes, class specific feats/spells/items/etc...along with a good chunk of fluff.

The core book really would be just the core book. Currently it is what used to be 3 books.

Shadow Lodge

A incomplete system that's free is still incomplete.

ciretose wrote:
The core book really would be just the core book. Currently it is what used to be 3 books.

PHB, DMG, and ???


I just want to say I love what they did with Sorcerers in Pathfinder. However, I believe they need to take a hard look at the core bloodlines they offer and make them more comparable.

Arcane currently, empirically at least, is a great deal better than the others. My personal note on these is that the other bloodlines need a better selection when it comes to bonus feats (particularly of the meta magic and/or skill focus spellcraft/spell focus varieties.) Also, the bonus class skill I feel could be broadened to a choice between two.

Other than that, I think some skills should be condensed as previously mentioned (they're very close but I feel there is still some small bit of redundancy.)

Also, I feel monks need a little more love. Just a personal change I would suggest, the Tongue of the Sun and Moon ability that Monks get has always seemed to me to be out of place. I would develop another ability.

However, I just want to say I would be happy if they just focused on content instead of making a new system.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:

A incomplete system that's free is still incomplete.

There is no complete system.

And free is good.

Players handbook, DMG, and Advanced things that didn't need to be in the Core Book.

For example, all of Chapter 11, the artifacts section definitely belong in another book. I would also argue that magic item creation should almost be a completely separate book. 100 pages of magic items is a bit excessive for "core", and does the "core" book really need 150 pages of spells?

On release you should be able to play and run a basic game.

The core rulebook is now 572 pages.

I would rather have a basic players guide, a separate DMG, and then move the prestige classes and at least 50 pages of spells and 25 pages of magic items to an Advanced guide, along with Archetypes (which didn't exist when Core came out).

Then, in a whole other book, advanced classes, each fleshed out fully.

All of which will be open, given the OGL. Focus more on how the rules work in the core book to set up a more clear chassis. Because the money is in the modules and APs.

They did a good job with the beginner box, in setting up a clear entry level product. The Core book needed to be what it is when it came out, given the situation. Now it is a bit of a bloated mess.


Shuffling the spells around between books is a great idea!

The "core" spell list could include something for every class/school/alignment at every level... but some of the newer spells really actually should be in the core, and some of the core spells really should be in a separate book.

This makes so much sense to me it hurts.

Liberty's Edge

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Shuffling the spells around between books is a great idea!

The "core" spell list could include something for every class/school/alignment at every level... but some of the newer spells really actually should be in the core, and some of the core spells really should be in a separate book.

This makes so much sense to me it hurts.

Particularly the heavy adjudication spells. Give them room in a book designed for such things, with long entries with detailed explanation., rather than cramming them into core.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of a Book of Spells.

Maybe a Players Handbook (races, classes, archetypes, equipment, basic rules, prestige classes)
A DMG (rules, magic items)
A Spellbook (all spells, stats for commonly summoned monsters, including Augment Summoning versions)
Bestiaries (1-5???)

Liberty's Edge

The irony is that some people don't want to see major changes. Yet complain about so much about the Pathfinder rules in general. Why even complain when as a person your not interested in seeing anything change. I dislike fighters in 3.5 and PF has done nothing much to change my opinion. I did complain at first. Now I just take the other melee classes. It's like some of the fanabse want change yet don't want it at the same time. Makes me really glad I don't run a rpg company and just how much crap the Devs have to put up with.


David knott 242 wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
A skill system that abandons d20, and works like Chaosium's BRP.

D&D started out with a system like that for thieving skills and abandoned it for very good reason.

Not quite. When I made up the original Thief class, it had skills much like the original Magic User had spells. He got to choose one 'skill" at first level (usually "open simple locks") which he could do all day, with no chance of failure. He could then pick other first level ability like "find simple traps", etc. When he got to higher levels, he got to pick better abilities, like "Open complex locks" "open magic locks" and so forth. No rolls were called for. You either did, or did not. Of course, OD&D was pretty freewheeling and the DM was encouraged to makes things up on the fly. Gygax changed this to the % system.


DrDeth wrote:

I said "we" and I meant "we' as in "the vast majority of PF players". Read the thread.

Dabbler, Kolokotoni, Joey Virtue, Damon Griffin, gbonehead, Morain, Tarondor, MMCjawa,Winter-born, Smilodan, Ciretose and many, many others have said they don't want a new edition anytime soon or that they want minimal changes. Sure, many of them might just be "OK" with spell slots, might even prefer mana, but they don't want those changes to come to Pathfinder, at least for a loooong time.

The proof is the sheer number of people who choose to play Pathfinder when clear alternatives exist in a plethora of other games.

You (Memorax) will be a much happier person if you find a game that works like you want it to.

Since many of us enjoy the status quo, and other games exist that more closely suit your expectations, the onus is upon you to prove you are in the majority if you are agitating for a change. If a similar game with a mana system starts to displace Pathfinder in sales, you will have a stronger case.


memorax wrote:
The irony is that some people don't want to see major changes. Yet complain about so much about the Pathfinder rules in general. Why even complain when as a person your not interested in seeing anything change.

[citation needed]


memorax wrote:
The irony is that some people don't want to see major changes. Yet complain about so much about the Pathfinder rules in general. Why even complain when as a person your not interested in seeing anything change.

A few things to bear in mind:

- Complaining doesn't have to result in change, sometimes all that is being asked for is an extra option.

- The set of "people not wanting major change" doesn't directly correlate to "people complaining about the rules". There's a few people in the intersection between those two sets, agreed.

- It's also possible to be in the position I am. I agree the rules are not perfect. However, I don't want them to be, because the changes necessary to perfect them will result in a small positive (better rules) in return for a huge negative (invalidating a lot of my existing material.) I have less issue with tweaks to existing mechanics and adding new options as I do with scrapping and rewriting parts of the system so they no longer work with existing stat blocks.

So, it's not a clear cut of people wanting change vs people wanting the system to remain static. There's a number of varying viewpoints between the two, such as disagreement on which parts of the system would benefit change, and the degree to which that change needs to be or can be tolerated.

Oh, and a final viewpoint. Some people (myself included) have some changes we'd love to see in the game, but also recognize would likely be a risk to the game's overall success with others. For me to insist on those changes would be selfish, as well as detrimental in the longer term if Pathfinder failed because of them - I'd no longer have a supported game, and having that is another thing that's more important to me than having one with perfect (for me) mechanics.

Liberty's Edge

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:


You (Memorax) will be a much happier person if you find a game that works like you want it to.

All I'm saying is that while I would be very surprised that they changed anything it can be done with a book of optional rules like 3.5 did with Unearthed Arcana. There is nothing wrong with talking about wanting changes in the system. It is after all a discussion forum. Not a PF validation echo chamber last time I checked. I'm getting tired of a handful of posters who feel the need to get on people cases for wanting to discuss a perfectly valid topic. While at the same time acting as if they are the spokesperson for the entire fanbase.

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:


[citation needed]

Take a look at the forums and see how many threads are about praising the system. Not many more often than not we get more threads about people complaing about the system. If fans like the system so much why are they nit praising it more. Then again people will complain for the sake of it.

Liberty's Edge

Matt Thomason wrote:


A few things to bear in mind:

- Complaining doesn't have to result in change, sometimes all that is being asked for is an extra option.

- The set of "people not wanting major change" doesn't directly correlate to "people complaining about the rules". There's a few people in the intersection between those two sets, agreed.

- It's also possible to be in the position I am. I agree the rules are not perfect. However, I don't want them to be, because the changes necessary to perfect them will result in a small positive (better rules) in return for a huge negative (invalidating a lot of my existing material.) I have less issue with tweaks to existing mechanics and adding new options as I do with scrapping and rewriting parts of the system so they no longer work with existing stat blocks.

So, it's not a clear cut of people wanting change vs people wanting the system to remain static. There's a number of varying viewpoints between the two, such as disagreement on which parts of the system would benefit change, and the degree to which that change needs to be or can be tolerated.

Oh, and a final viewpoint. Some people (myself included) have some changes we'd love to see in the game, but also recognize would likely be a risk to the game's overall success with others. For me to insist on those changes would be selfish, as well as detrimental in the longer term if Pathfinder failed because of them - I'd no longer have a supported game, and having that is another thing that's more important to me than having one with perfect (for me) mechanics.

Agreed and seconded. I am like you in terms of rules changes. I know it will not happen. I'm in the minority. I'm just getting tired of getting told that we can't talk about major changes and that we should leave and go somewhere else. That's not only rude it makes for a toxic forum environment imo.

I guess I don;t understand the need for posters to complain about a set of rules that they like. It makes no sense for me to complain about high level play bogs down the game. Then when someone suggest maybe streamlining it then complaining it changes the game. Then again at least to me people who play D&D or at least a very vocal minority seem to really dislike the game they play. That's the impression these forums and other related forums give me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
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.

[Emphasis mine]

Quite apart from the ol' Vancian casting guff debate, what point are you making about 3PP's and the ties needing to be cut? This came out of left field and is a real head scratcher for me.

Liberty's Edge

What solution then do some here propose when the company stops meeting the minumum amount of profit needed to stay in operation. Simply close their doors and lay people off. I have nothing against tradition. I respect the tradition of D&D roots. The devs should not be held hostage by those traditions. Or the fanbase. Do I want Paizo to be profitable yes. I also know that imo they should never just assume that the system as is will always sell. People forget that Paizo is also a business.

All some of us are asking is that they offer non-traditional options. which can be used side by side and optional. And no saying go "play another rpg" is not only being rude imo it's a planet sized cop-out. If the devs never take risk we would all still be playing 2E and lamenting that non-humans races have level lmiitations. I'm also not saying do it for the sake of doing it. Only if it needs to be done.Eventually they may have to do it. Only so many temporary patches one can put on a ruleset before it can't be patched anymore.

As well enough with the Wotc paranoia. They are not brainwashing anyone. Nor sending costumed ninjas to anyone door. Or sending sublimaely messages through anyone dental fillings.

Sovereign Court

@ memorax - You need not worry about PAIZO. Its a quality company with quality decisions. THIS is what made them successful.

Erik is lavishly, lovingly, gingerly treating the world to the best incarnation of the game he loves, and we love too.

The rest... well... the rest is just fear. Fear is what drives poor decisions made by other companies (wotc) who trash the game in favor of money. I guess all I'm trying to say is that PAIZO is growing a diversified portfolio. Soon Pathfinder Online will be raking in the micro-purchase money.

As long as PAIZO continues publishing our game with love, they will be successful. There's also nothing wrong with publishing other games as well. None of which need to be Pathfinder or D&D, and they're already doing it. There's a munchkin game, a card game, soon an online game.

My suggestion is to quit assuming the same FEAR that drives other companies has to be the fear that drives PAIZO.


memorax wrote:


As well enough with the Wotc paranoia. They are not brainwashing anyone. Nor sending costumed ninjas to anyone door. Or sending sublimaely messages through anyone dental fillings.

The costumed ninja sent to my door knocked my fillings out, so all is good! :) (unless I was just brainwashed to believe that...)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Vancian spell casting. I like the mechanics of it, and its sub-systems, like metamagic and 3.5's reserve feats. I REALLY like the combo of the magus's prepared spells and the Spell Recall mechanic. I just wish they had used something like that for the primary prepared spellcasters: cleric, druid, witch, and wizard.

I also think some of the weaker feats should be replaced with traits. For example, a Weapon Trained trait. It grants proficiency in all Simple Weapons. If you already have proficiency in all Simple Weapons, it grants you a single Martial Weapon Proficiency. If you are already proficient in all Martial Weapons, it gives you proficiency in a single Exotic Weapon.

Also, there should just be a universal trait called Skilled. Select two skills; you gain a +1 in both skills, and one is a class skill for you. No need to read through 99 different supplements just to add Acrobatics or Perception to your class skills. :-P

I also think humans should get an extra trait, since they get an extra feat and extra skill rank per level.

I also think there should be a trait that lets you select two traits from the same category, like Magical Knack AND Magical Lineage.

I also think standard races should get 2 Hero Points per session (not character day), humans get 3 (because they extra everything!), and more powerful races get 1 Hero Point (like aasimar and noble drow and svirfneblin and the like).

I would also like some d% rolls to be converted d20 rolls, particularly Arcane Spell Failure for wearing armor (maybe a Concentration check?) and the miss chance for concealment (maybe a Wisdom check or Perception check?).

I would also like there to be some Constitution-based skills, like 3.5's Concentration, convert Endurance from a feat to a skill, and maybe a Labor skill for things like rowing a ship, digging a ditch or pit, harvesting crops, assisting skilled craftsfolk and professionals (pumping the bellows for a blacksmith, fetching water for a chef, etc.).

I personally don't think there need to be any more skill compression (like combining Climb and Swim into an Athletics skill. Maybe combine Knowledge arcane and Spellcraft), and I would like there to be a tight list of various Craft skills, kind of like d20 Modern's Craft chemistry, Craft mechanical, Craft structural, Craft electronics, etc. Maybe Craft alchemy, Craft metalwork (armor, tools, weapons, metal traps), Craft woodwork (bows, houses, wagons, wooden traps), Craft stonework (houses, secret doors, stone traps). Maybe a broad Craft skill like Craft metalwork, but with a specialization like weaponsmithing, jewelry, tinkering, etc.

Bump up all classes number of skill points by +2 (even witches and wizards!), except maybe NPC classes.

Maybe re-tool some Knowledge skills.

Re-tool Item Creation Feats so they require ranks in various Craft, Knowledge, Perform, or Profession skills.


Oh! Oh!

Make more combat applicable skills. Make the Kirin style or the Lore Master fighter's features that use knowledge built into the skill like Intimidate and Bluff are.

I bet you could somehow work in athletics too (a bunch of maneuvers could work off of athletics). Acrobatics, jump, swim, stealth, already work for movement, even pickpocket can work in battle for Steal maneuver. Disable device/Craft feats to work in something like the trapper archetype?


Reduce the fraction of characters' power that comes from magic items.
Limit the number of ongoing magical effects (buffs) active at once.
Rebalance Monks and Rogues.
Rework stealth/perceiving/surprise rules.


LoneKnave wrote:

Oh! Oh!

Make more combat applicable skills. Make the Kirin style or the Lore Master fighter's features that use knowledge built into the skill like Intimidate and Bluff are.

I bet you could somehow work in athletics too (a bunch of maneuvers could work off of athletics). Acrobatics, jump, swim, stealth, already work for movement, even pickpocket can work in battle for Steal maneuver. Disable device/Craft feats to work in something like the trapper archetype?

wow that would make a wizard EK something worth playing.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh yeah, bring back Use Rope!

We ran a 3.5 swashbuckling campaign, and we let you swing on ropes in the rigging and jump, and you added your Use Rope skill check to your Jump skill check for some really fun leaps.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I like how "reformatting" and "adding options" is being used as a justification for needing/creating a new edition.

OPTIONS have no place in a core product. Core products are the BASE rules of the game. Rule you can expect at any game table, in any product, first or third.

Let's roll d100s instead of d20s. That sounds like a great "option" for the core product. Everyone better print support for using d100s because it's core now.

If Paizo wanted to release an eratta'd version of the Core Rulebook clean up the rules with eratta I would support it. If they wanted to release another Core Rulebook that was clearly incompatible with previous product (like certain AD&D printings) then I'm against it.


I agree that reformating and clearing would be preferred. Please keep the alignment and vancian casting.

If there have to be changes then...

I'd prefer it to be done in 13th Age style with spells growing with spell level - not just the DC, but effect as well. Why do I need a fireball, delayed blast fireball and maximized, empowered widened fireball. It could grow, just like the spell slots could grow. Not just in number, but also in power. It's really the same type of problem like the with the iterative attacks. We could have 2 attacks at +15, rather than +15/+10/+5, just like we could have four 3rd level slots, rather than two 3rd level, three 2nd level and four 1st level. The amount of small things you have to track at higher levels grows to ugly proportions IMO.

Feat list and weapons list could also be curbed somewhat. There should't be really sub-par choices (just adding a little extra to feats that are weak) and the feats could scale rather than being part of feat chains.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
What solution then do some here propose when the company stops meeting the minumum amount of profit needed to stay in operation. Simply close their doors and lay people off. I have nothing against tradition. I respect the tradition of D&D roots. The devs should not be held hostage by those traditions. Or the fanbase. Do I want Paizo to be profitable yes. I also know that imo they should never just assume that the system as is will always sell. People forget that Paizo is also a business.

I don't think people are seriously arguing that Paizo should never change the system even in the presence of falling sales. Most are just worried that about Paizo potentially jumping the gun and alienating existing/potential customers. Just read these threads. People arguing for change are all over the map on what they hate or don't hate, or what the major problems of the system are. Any radical change to address one criticism is likely to tick off someone else. Pathfinder owes a bit of its current popularity after all from 4E refugees who weren't happy with the changes or the need to go ahead and rebuy all new books. DnD Next might force rule vamps sooner than I might want, if it is successful. But lets keep supporting the existing system while the game is doing well.

Paizo's stated business model also relies on adventure paths, not the rule system. Under that model, they should continue to do well until they run out of AP's or until most of the most interesting AP ideas are taken.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed some posts and the replies quoting them. Leave personal insults out of the conversation. Additionally, this is teetering back and forth on edition warring territory, let's keep this focused on the original topic please.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

20 Ideas for Pathfinder 2.0. Long post incoming :) NO EDITION WARRING! Edition comments are only as examples of ideas so others can read up on it.

GENERAL:

1) Speed up real amount of time spent in combat, especially at high levels. Reduce weird rule lookups and tons of iterative attacks and weirdness like tons of buffs to adjudicate.

2) Completely divorce yourself from OGL compatibility so you can clean up some of the broken and sometimes nonsensical rules.

3) Pay attention to the ideas that DND Next is making core, such as:
a) reduction in special and stackable +1/-1s that slow down the game
b) advantage/disadvantage concept of quick-throw dice to reduce rules
c) reduction in temporal buffs
d) reduction in proportion of character power being derived from magic items without removing Magic Item need or desire or functionality
e) reduction in diablo-esque magic item creation system that is so cheap and easy (and exploitable)
f) remove +1 creep from level in BAB, saves, and skill checks so that at 15th level one character has a +1 to diplomacy and another has a +32 and they are supposed to both contribute

4) Remove the direct correlation between character wealth and character power. Period.

5) Start characters out at roughly 3rd level in power by current standards. Star Wars Saga Edition got it right. Actually SWSE got a LOT right by 3.5 standards. Possibly allow for a custom tailored character build at "1st" level to allow for an Origin story.

6) No 0th level anything or useless NPC classes. Hate to beat a dead horse, but look at the Noble class from Star Wars Saga Edition. NPC, but still very powerful as a PC.

7) Simplify character building but with the options to make it complicated for customizing characters. The Pathfinder APG is a perfect example of how this works well. Make it more intuitive. 5th level full casters can only cast 3rd level spells? This is bad design from the 1970s. 5th level casters casting 5th level spells make a whole lot more sense for new players.

8) Experience points. Why aren't experience points spent to improve character traits? A character should spend experience points in combat as well to improve their performance, at the cost of long-term growth. I imagine experience points would be a way to cast some spells as well.

9) Reboot the Magic Item creation system. The magic item system is crucial to interesting character enhancement for some players, but why is a wizard better at making/forging a deadly sword than a fighter? Except for what gets zapped by spell power, the wizard should not be able to make basic +3 weapons and have that be the standard. A longsword of accuracy may be a tack-on, which increases to hit but not to damage. That is a fundamental problem with mechanics. A +3 sword essentially makes a 4th level fighter almost as good as a 7th level one except for potentially other gear, a couple feats, and hit points. Damage should be more based on strength and skill, making the light rapier fighter deadly against a low level opponent with a magic sword unless the sword zaps him to death.

10) No dump stats. DNDNext's idea of ability scores as saving throws is nice and intuitive.

RACES AND CLASSES

11) Barbarian should be a background or feature (I like feature being a new thing like talent, feat, etc.) to a character. Thus barbarian could even be a tribal sorceror if they wanted to. Why are all barbarians fighters? This idea could rewrite the barbarian into something that is more like a ‘noncivilized’ fighter. It could have archetypes that fall into brute, savage warrior, tribal warrior, totem warrior, etc. Think more native American than battlerager from the wilds.

12) Bard should be a background or feature, but probably belongs to more of a Leader class or general non-combatant. Maybe bard is a feature that makes it much easier to dabble, basically making a skald that at upper levels can sneak attack with fireballs and dance and cures minor wounds. Truly a jack-of-all trades, which is very different than a loremaster.

13) Racial benefits should either scale with character power or should be something that applies differently to base class type (fighter, rogue, etc.) What benefits a dwarf rogue versus a dwarf cleric? I would imagine that the rogue has some innate benefits to dealing with underground traps whereas the cleric may have some significant benefits to faith checks.

14) Let fighting characters purchase feats with time and xp and gold. Just like casters do with magic and crafting magic items.

15) Allow multi-classing as a side skill instead of a full benefit to avoid dipping issues and tons of balancing work when new classes, feats and abilities are created.

16) Make racial choice far more important. How about racial abilities at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, etc. instead of just at 1st level?

MECHANICS:

17) Armor should give a benefit to avoid being hit or maybe just avoid being wounded, something better than but akin to damage resistance. Maybe a damage absorption rating. It may be easy to hit someone standing it heavy armor, but hard to wound. However, a melee vs. melee combatant may have a hard time not being blocked by a weapon. Perhaps there is a similar skill to block from Star Wars that is a useful simplification.

18) Once you pass level 6 in D20, the full-attack is king. Virtually all of combat revolves around either gaining a full-attack or denying one to your enemy, forcing people to avoid other interesting combat maneuvers. This tendency only gets worse at higher levels, as the full-attack becomes a more and more powerful 'damage multiplier'. Saga fixes this quite simply, by eliminating the full-attack and changing several mechanics that revolve around the full-attack action.
You no longer gain additional attacks from attacking as a full-attack action. Instead, you gain a damage bonus equal to half your level on all attacks. This does not eliminate the full-attack action, just the multiple attacks normally gained by it; you may still use a full-attack action for other purposes, such as stunting.

DND Next's version of this seems to work out really well in playtesting--give the lethality while speeding up combat.

19) The Condition Track from Star Wars Saga Edition is, quite simply, genius. D20 suffers from a multitude of conditions. Some of them are quite unique and useful, but many are just difficult-to-remember penalties. Because of this, they aren't used nearly as often as they should be. (Without looking at your books, what's the penalty for being Dazzled? How long does it last? When's the last time you even used Dazzled?) The Condition Track unifies these nothing-but-penalty conditions into a single, simple ruleset with easy rules.

20) Get rid of good saves vs. bad saves. It seems redundant that, for example, the Rogue has a good Ref save -and- a high Dex. Why not just have a base save for the character level and stat bonuses? A Rogue would still have a high Ref save, but solely by virtue of having a high Dex. This eliminates the huge swings between good saves and bad saves which happens at the higher levels. It also further helps allow, for example, a fighter who focuses on agility (a duelist?)

551 to 600 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.