What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0?


Product Discussion

301 to 350 of 677 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
More flexibility in running the game and world design. The ability to say 'This game world has no magic in it', for example, and not have to restructure giant parts of the rules because the 'game expects' certain things to be true. Or to just do things like 'no arcane magic' or 'no divine magic' or whatever, and the system still works with, at worst, minor adjustments.
Aaand they lose me as a customer. I mean, there's Iron heroes. Fantasy Hero, many others- why again try to hammer the square peg that is D&D into the round hole which is a mundane game?

What, so just the possibility of giving people options is enough to turn you off? Would you rather they made a product advertised as

not realistic wrote:
This product only supports they exact playstyle and preferences that DrDeth uses in his/her games, anyone who isn't exactly like DrDeth with Exactly the same preferences can go screw themselves, or play a different system.

Maybe you should go back and read the most important rule in the Core Rule Book:

Quote:
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

And the thing about an adjustable system is that occasionally, something in the system will be something that you, personally, disagree with. But they can't take out everything that one person doesn't like, because then there would be nothing left. If you can't handle the idea of other people having the choice to play differently from you, maybe this is the wrong hobby for you, because newsflash: not everyone plays exactly the same as you do, and the rules are designed for a variety of play-styles.


DigitalMage wrote:
For me PF is not better than D&D; if I had the choice between a 3.5 and PF game in the same setting (and that wasn't PFS) I would always choose the 3.5 game, and further if I had a choice between a 4e and a PF game in the same setting I would always choose the 4e game (everything else being equal).

Here's the cool thing- nothing is stopping you from playing either. And, in fact there are message boards devoted to those games, too.

Mind you, I do have fun playing 3.5 and my 4th ed DM is great so that game is fun also. Mind you with the right DM and group of players, even Tunnels & Trolls can be fun.

But to me, PF is where it's at, so I play it in prefereance and I post here, on the Paizo message board, devoted to the Pathfinder game.

Shadow Lodge

DrDeth wrote:
Here's the cool thing- nothing is stopping you from playing either.

Lack of players is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, an adjustable system is less stable for the people who actually like the systems you're making into options.

It also makes the game harder to learn. And it makes it harder to move from one group to another playing the same game.

Actually, there's a whole lot about modular systems that's problematic. This is one of the things I await with curiosity about the upcoming D&D version.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Here's the cool thing- nothing is stopping you from playing either.
Lack of players is.

Which shows you how popular they are. One thing that annoys me is that currently PF is *THE* game, thus folks who don't like Pathfinder, and don't play Pathfinder want to change the game so it's NOT Pathfinder. Which of course would suck for all the rest of the majority that like Pathfinder (with a few tweaks & improvements, of course!)

Mind you, like I said- it's the players and the DM that make a game fun. The system either makes it easier or gets in the way (Chivalry & Sorcery is a perfect example).

I have nothing against those that prefer 3.5 or 4th or AD&D* or Iron Heroes or T&T or Runequest or C&S or even Bunnies & Burrows. But just because you can't get anyone else to play your fave system, doesn’t mean you should spend all your time on the Paizo boards saying bad things about Pathfinder.

* in fact for RPing, AD&D is better, even tho the system is clunky. And of course i still have a soft spot for OD&D.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Well, an adjustable system is less stable for the people who actually like the systems you're making into options.

It also makes the game harder to learn. And it makes it harder to move from one group to another playing the same game.

Actually, there's a whole lot about modular systems that's problematic. This is one of the things I await with curiosity about the upcoming D&D version.

Well then I guess Pathfinder and the whole d20 system is "problematic" by your standards, since it is highly adjustable already.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Well, an adjustable system is less stable for the people who actually like the systems you're making into options.

It also makes the game harder to learn. And it makes it harder to move from one group to another playing the same game.

Actually, there's a whole lot about modular systems that's problematic. This is one of the things I await with curiosity about the upcoming D&D version.

But, but how can The Great (but evil) Emancipator speak out about Options? I mean, wouldn’t an option to dump the Fantasy part and turn Pathfinder into a SF game be great? Or an option to get rid of the Roleplaying and make it a miniatures game? Or maybe a LARP option?

;-)


137ben wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Well, an adjustable system is less stable for the people who actually like the systems you're making into options.

It also makes the game harder to learn. And it makes it harder to move from one group to another playing the same game.

Actually, there's a whole lot about modular systems that's problematic. This is one of the things I await with curiosity about the upcoming D&D version.

Well then I guess Pathfinder and the whole d20 system is "problematic" by your standards, since it is highly adjustable already.

Well, no. That wasn't really my point, either.

I love modular RPGs! It's just that your statement: "What, so just the possibility of giving people options is enough to turn you off?" caused me to think of several reasonable grievances one might have with such a system.

But d20 is really a rules engine, and all the games that use it are really separate games running on the same engine. That's what solves the problem of knowing which game you're playing, integrating with new groups, and learning the new rules. If you switch to Conan from Pathfinder, you basically need to learn the new rules, and that's not a bad thing! It keeps people on the same page.

Now, I actually like the idea of a buffet style RPG, but it isn't 100% pro and 0% con.

The main reason I oppose it for Pathfinder RPG is that it is nigh impossible to publish modules for such a system. Parallel statblocks would cripple the ability to do something like an AP.

I know a lot of people play home-brews, but the money in Pathfinder comes from the adventure content (or so I'm told).

I'd much rather have a single set of perhaps flawed rules with a huge pile of ready-to-roll content then a one-size fits all modular RPG with no adventure content to speak of. The latter would look a lot like Burning Wheel (a game I advocate for on a daily basis), but I'd rather let Pathfinder be Pathfinder.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
137ben wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Well, an adjustable system is less stable for the people who actually like the systems you're making into options.

It also makes the game harder to learn. And it makes it harder to move from one group to another playing the same game.

Actually, there's a whole lot about modular systems that's problematic. This is one of the things I await with curiosity about the upcoming D&D version.

Well then I guess Pathfinder and the whole d20 system is "problematic" by your standards, since it is highly adjustable already.

Well, no. That wasn't really my point, either.

I love modular RPGs! It's just that your statement: "What, so just the possibility of giving people options is enough to turn you off?" caused me to think of several reasonable grievances one might have with such a system.

But d20 is really a rules engine, and all the games that use it are really separate games running on the same engine. That's what solves the problem of knowing which game you're playing, integrating with new groups, and learning the new rules. If you switch to Conan from Pathfinder, you basically need to learn the new rules, and that's not a bad thing! It keeps people on the same page.

Now, I actually like the idea of a buffet style RPG, but it isn't 100% pro and 0% con.

The main reason I oppose it for Pathfinder RPG is that it is nigh impossible to publish modules for such a system. Parallel statblocks would cripple the ability to do something like an AP.

I know a lot of people play home-brews, but the money in Pathfinder comes from the adventure content (or so I'm told).

I'd much rather have a single set of perhaps flawed rules with a huge pile of ready-to-roll content then a one-size fits all modular RPG with no adventure content to speak of. The latter would look a lot like Burning Wheel (a game I advocate for on a daily basis), but I'd rather let Pathfinder be Pathfinder.

Indeed, I understand--some kinds of options are hard to implement without having a significant impact on the rest of the system.

However, some are easy to harmlessly add. I'm in favor of adding as much modularity as possible without hurting the standard rules.

For example, I don't know exactly what Zhayne had in mind when he said

Quote:
More flexibility in running the game and world design. The ability to say 'This game world has no magic in it', for example, and not have to restructure giant parts of the rules because the 'game expects' certain things to be true. Or to just do things like 'no arcane magic' or 'no divine magic' or whatever, and the system still works with, at worst, minor adjustments.

I can say that it would be very hard to allow for a low-power, gritty non-magical world without substantially altering the game.

However, if, as DrDeth said, you only wanted

DrDeth wrote:
I mean, wouldn’t an option to dump the Fantasy part and turn Pathfinder into a SF game be great?

this can actually be accomplished with no rule changes whatsoever, like so:

--The word "Technology" is now optionally a synonym for "magic."
--"Magic Items" can be renamed "gadgets"
--Spellcasters are refluffed as people with gadgets implanted in their bodies, giving them magic/technological abilities, but are mechanically the same as in normal PF.

There, that is an option to make a sci-fiction version of PF with no rules changes whatsoever. Actually, I'd probably enjoy a sci-fi game like that, since I like the PF rules more than the rules of most systems written for SF. Again, I want to emphasize that this optional "change" I just wrote keeps all PF rules perfectly intact without any rules changes.

DrDeth:
You claim that an option to make a non-fantasy setting would cause you to stop buying PF products. How would you react if Paizo added those three sentences to the bottom of a page of one of their 20+ fantasy books? Again, tons of fantasy, and a whopping three sentences about sci-fi that you can ignore if you want? Would that cause you to stop buying Paizo books immediately? Seems a bit irrational to shun an entire company's product lines because of three sentences in one splat book.
For that matter, you yourself said you almost never play above level 15, so you are already ignoring 25% of the game content. How much harder would it be for you to ignore a measly three sentences explaining how to rename "magic" "technology"?
And before you say "if you want sci-fi go play another system", I would like to point out that the 'new' sci-fi system I just made is much, much more fleshed out than almost any other system every published, because it uses the exact same rules as PF, which is much, much more fleshed out than almost any other system every published. So a better question would be why anyone who wants a sci-fi game to be fully fleshed out doesn't play a re-fluffed PF!

As for you other sarcastic remarks:

Quote:
I mean, wouldn’t an option to dump the Fantasy part and turn Pathfinder into a SF game be great? Or an option to get rid of the Roleplaying and make it a miniatures game? Or maybe a LARP option?

Those already exist in the game.

Making PF SF? Easy, I just explained how.
Making it into a war game? Check out the Ultimate Campaign Mass Combat rules. LARP? You can award Hero Points for roleplaying, as described in the APG.

In fact, the fact that you were completely oblivious to these options indicates just how little they harm the rest of the game: if you don't want to use them, they are so easy to ignore that you forgot they even existed.

So now, I have a question for you:
You've said that people want to "change PF so it is no longer PF," and suggested that some of those huge "changes" included an optional conversion to sci-fi, an optional conversion to a miniature wargame, and an optional conversion to a LARP. You've further said that if Paizo added these big optional changes, you would stop buying their products.

Now, Paizo already supports all three of those! Has that destroyed your enjoyment of the game? Why are you still buying PF books since the game has been 'changed' by these optional rules in the APG and UC to be, in your words, 'no longer PF'?


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:


Now, I actually like the idea of a buffet style RPG, but it isn't 100% pro and 0% con.

The main reason I oppose it for Pathfinder RPG is that it is nigh impossible to publish modules for such a system. Parallel statblocks would cripple the ability to do something like an AP.

I know a lot of people play home-brews, but the money in Pathfinder comes from the adventure content (or so I'm told).

I'd much rather have a single set of perhaps flawed rules with a huge pile of ready-to-roll content then a one-size fits all modular RPG with no adventure content to speak of. The latter would look a lot like Burning Wheel (a game I advocate for on a daily basis), but I'd rather let Pathfinder be Pathfinder.

While I agree in principle (in that supporting all of those options in the modules would be too much of a mess), in practice it's still possible (and if anything the norm from 3.5) to publish those options but to not mention them them in adventure modules, only within the book they get defined in.

So, give people their non-Vancian magic option book, their Sci-fi option book, their miniatures battles book, but ensure the developers always remember that they were option books to help GMs modify their game to suit their group, and shouldn't be brought into standard adventure content.

I don't recall any AD&D 2E modules ever mentioning, for example, alternatives for using Players Option: Skills and Powers or Players Option: Combat and Tactics. The options were kept confined to the relevant books, usable as toolkits for players to implement if they wished. If we got a non-Vancian magic option, for example, I wouldn't expect NPCs to come along with alternative spell lists for that, I'd expect GMs to have to put the effort in to adapt published adventures to their chosen option (or to take the simpler alternative of keeping all NPCs using Vancian magic while allowing the players more freedom.)

Shadow Lodge

Matt Thomason wrote:
I don't recall any AD&D 2E modules ever mentioning, for example, alternatives for using Players Option: Skills and Powers or Players Option: Combat and Tactics.

The Gates of Firestorm Peak


Kthulhu wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
I don't recall any AD&D 2E modules ever mentioning, for example, alternatives for using Players Option: Skills and Powers or Players Option: Combat and Tactics.
The Gates of Firestorm Peak

I bow to your superior D&D-fu :)

My point still stands though, that you don't want references to multiple options books cluttering up adventure modules. You've already got references to multiple core and expansion books in there. That doesn't make options books a bad idea, just something that can be released and understood to be "non-core".


I don't want to see a Pathfinder 2.0, at least not for years. Now a streamlined set of rulebooks (ie This book contains information on all of the races, alternate racial traits, and lore. This book contains information on all classes, archetypes and prestige classes. This book has all of the feats, their trees and relevant information. etc. etc.)

I love the fluff, but buying books for that one feat in it that I want and don't care about the rest of the info in it sort of, well sucks...

And before anyone asks, I have a large collection of Pathfinder books, and a buddy of mine has nearly the entire set.


DigitalMage wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
jimibones83 wrote:
I keep seeing comments implying PF needs to be D&D. Paizo deserves more credit than that. Sure PF started from a seed that fell from the D&D tree, but its much better than D&D was even at its best
Even if you mean just 3.5, then you may find a lot of people disagree with that.
I guess I should say 3e and all subsequent editions. I never played before 3e but I've played weekly+ since it was published. Then 4e came out and I was dissatisfied enough to seek another game which led me to PF

I guess you should say in your opinion PF is much better than D&D was even at its best.

I on the other hand would be one of the people DM Beckett indicated would disagree with you. For me PF is not better than D&D; if I had the choice between a 3.5 and PF game in the same setting (and that wasn't PFS) I would always choose the 3.5 game, and further if I had a choice between a 4e and a PF game in the same setting I would always choose the 4e game (everything else being equal).

So yeah, it's always worth adding an "IMHO".

yes my opinion, quite obvious i thought. Its impossible to be a fact and i never claimed it was anyone elses opinion. Anyway there were some things I liked better about 3.5 such as epic levels and divine abilities but there is just so many reasons I like PF better, the scale tips to PF quite a bit. I really disliked 4e. Overall I thought it was a pile garbage with a couple ideas that coulda been thrown in the recycle bin


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
More flexibility in running the game and world design. The ability to say 'This game world has no magic in it', for example, and not have to restructure giant parts of the rules because the 'game expects' certain things to be true. Or to just do things like 'no arcane magic' or 'no divine magic' or whatever, and the system still works with, at worst, minor adjustments.
Aaand they lose me as a customer. I mean, there's Iron heroes. Fantasy Hero, many others- why again try to hammer the square peg that is D&D into the round hole which is a mundane game?

why do we have to hammer the star peg that is PF into the dry loose hole that is d&d?


@137ben I love yur technology idea. I'm totally gonna use that


I made this point a bit before; I think if a Pathfinder 2.0 ever did come out (disregarding whether or not I desire it or if it is likely go happen)I would like to see it stray a bit from D&D conventions with it's classes and make fewer classes that can be broadened with archetypes. Roles like Barbarian and Paladin are so narrow in what they are and could be that they lose a lot of design space. Pathfinder opened up a lot of classes to modification design by having option packaging within the classes themselves but I think the rigidness of 3.5 and the lean towards customizing through multiclassing and prestige classes really keeps archetypes from having a large amount of design space.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Devs to have the time clean the chassis and do a lessons learned rather than having painful deadlines brought on by the collapse of the companies business model.

Oh and pie.


DrDeth wrote:
TOZ wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Here's the cool thing- nothing is stopping you from playing either.
Lack of players is.

Which shows you how popular they are. One thing that annoys me is that currently PF is *THE* game, thus folks who don't like Pathfinder, and don't play Pathfinder want to change the game so it's NOT Pathfinder. Which of course would suck for all the rest of the majority that like Pathfinder (with a few tweaks & improvements, of course!)

Mind you, like I said- it's the players and the DM that make a game fun. The system either makes it easier or gets in the way (Chivalry & Sorcery is a perfect example).

I have nothing against those that prefer 3.5 or 4th or AD&D* or Iron Heroes or T&T or Runequest or C&S or even Bunnies & Burrows. But just because you can't get anyone else to play your fave system, doesn’t mean you should spend all your time on the Paizo boards saying bad things about Pathfinder.

* in fact for RPing, AD&D is better, even tho the system is clunky. And of course i still have a soft spot for OD&D.

Actually, it depends where you live, the age group and social nature of the players, and so on.

At my local club, Call of Cthulhu is the most popular by far, and a wide variety of Indie games get played.

(That said, there is a significant proportion of mature gamers, and a surprisingly large number of published scenario writers in the club)

In other areas I've lived, it was WoD or nothing.

As for pathfinder ; its certainly not perfect, but its a good and entirely servicable system . As was 3.0 and 3.5.
( 4.0 I feel is has some nice ideas but its classes are very striaghtjacketed; as someone who dislikes playing classic stereotypes, I'm not as big a fan of it, but I'm certainly willing to play it occassionally.)

As previously pointed out, once you have a servicable system, far more of the enjoyment comes down to the skill of the players and the GM and telling entertaining stories between them, of course....

For PF 2.0:
More than anything , I'd like to see the alignment system scrapped. I think its an anachronism that is only useful in a few types of games (Michael Moorcock universe for example) , but a big hinderance in far many more games.

Something like "moral statements" might be better to use.

For example "I will kill followers of an enemy faith. I will give money to the poor. I will obey a superiors orders. " etc.

when they clash...well, thats what we call a good roleplaying opportunity...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think it would be neat to have Skill-Based BAB, with a variety of Combat Skills based on the various Fighter Weapon Training weapon groups, plus ones for Firearms, and maybe even Magical Attacks, like scorching ray and shocking grasp.

Base AC might have to be boosted to 15 + Dex + Armor, etc., but that's OK.

You might even get to combine Rogue and Fighter.


Fifteen minutes after announcing pathfinder 2.0 a great wailing would be heard across the land, a town crier would step into the court yard of a forgotten village on the coast and announce D&D Next was magically ready for publication.


Nostradamus predicted PF2e. He said people would not like its new style and Paizo would go nearly bankrupt. Then in a moment of clarity they would make the decision to bring back the original edition and call it PF Classic and make millions


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This kool-aid is magically delicious!


The one thing I really liked in 4.0 was the introduction of At-will, Encounter, and Daily spells/attacks/abilities. Like almost everything else in the game, however, they still went wrong with it. In this case, they should have made that system be more of a support to a less suffocating system.
In short, although I too am in no hurry to see Pathfinder 2.0, I think the Encounter/Daily Spells/Attacks would be a nice addition, as long as it's built around, and supporting the standard Spells/Day system.


Cuup wrote:

The one thing I really liked in 4.0 was the introduction of At-will, Encounter, and Daily spells/attacks/abilities. Like almost everything else in the game, however, they still went wrong with it. In this case, they should have made that system be more of a support to a less suffocating system.

In short, although I too am in no hurry to see Pathfinder 2.0, I think the Encounter/Daily Spells/Attacks would be a nice addition, as long as it's built around, and supporting the standard Spells/Day system.

I'd agree, I kinda wanted to see the system they have supplemented by the 4e system. Use the current system and add a couple things that can be done at will/per encounter/per day. Honestly though I think they kinda achieved that by just making cantrips at will in PF


I absolutely hated "per encounter" because it when I did play 4.0 I did not get an adequate answer as to what would happen if I attempted such an ability out of combat.

Also; what I run away just long enough to recharge it? All it is is 'hit somebody harder than regular hitting why cant I just do it again? Do I have to sit down to recharge my per encounters? What if I cast an encounter spell and it causes an encounter, would I still be able to use it? What exactly is an encounter?

My brain just cannot link per encounter powers to reality.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That would be due to the fact that encounters are not a part of reality, they are part of the game.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Maybe make per encounter abilities per minute abilities? Most encounters only last a few a rounds, and if an encounter is lasting 10 or more rounds, the PCs could probably use the help of having their big guns reload! :-)

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
That would be due to the fact that encounters are not a part of reality, they are part of the game.

Unless you take LARPing to a whole new level, I'm pretty sure none of it is a part of reality.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yes, but he was talking about matching encounters to reality.

Shadow Lodge

Say hello to Black Leaf for me!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The thing to remember about encounter powers is, the character doesn't activate them. The player does. So the character can't try to activate them outside of encounters. He doesn't know there is something to activate.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yes, but he was talking about matching encounters to reality.

LIGHTNING BOLT!

Shadow Lodge

Where is that LARP video....

Edit: Ah, here it is.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yes, but he was talking about matching encounters to reality.

For some of us, getting a feel for why the rule is simulating an activity like that is important. "It's what the rules say" just isn't good enough :)

It seems a simple enough thing to explain with a house rule though. "Per encounter powers recharge an hour after the last time they were used.", or something like that, to represent the amount of time the user needs to rest them between uses (to recharge magical/physical/mental energy, or whatever.) Then again, it's so simple to solve that it really ought to be in the rulebook.

Shadow Lodge

TOZ wrote:

Where is that LARP video....

Edit: Ah, here it is.

How many third level spells does that guy have ?


Cuup wrote:

The one thing I really liked in 4.0 was the introduction of At-will, Encounter, and Daily spells/attacks/abilities. Like almost everything else in the game, however, they still went wrong with it. In this case, they should have made that system be more of a support to a less suffocating system.

In short, although I too am in no hurry to see Pathfinder 2.0, I think the Encounter/Daily Spells/Attacks would be a nice addition, as long as it's built around, and supporting the standard Spells/Day system.
jimibones83 wrote:
I'd agree, I kinda wanted to see the system they have supplemented by the 4e system. Use the current system and add a couple things that can be done at will/per encounter/per day. Honestly though I think they kinda achieved that by just making cantrips at will in PF

Submitted for your approval: A house rule for abstract durations that manages to address most of Malwing's complaints, avoids some of the major issues with the 4e method, and stays pretty true to the intention of spell durations in Pathfinder.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Well if being optional is enough to negate rules bloat no system ever gets bloated.

All of the 3.5 splats were optional.

Aren't all the rules optional for any RPG?


Usual Suspect wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Well if being optional is enough to negate rules bloat no system ever gets bloated.

All of the 3.5 splats were optional.

Aren't all the rules optional for any RPG?

Any RPG that tells you it's rules aren't optional or malleable is one I'd rather not play ;) The first thing I want to read in a rulebook is "This is *your* game, do whatever you want with it in order to enjoy it."


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:


Cuup wrote:

The one thing I really liked in 4.0 was the introduction of At-will, Encounter, and Daily spells/attacks/abilities. Like almost everything else in the game, however, they still went wrong with it. In this case, they should have made that system be more of a support to a less suffocating system.

In short, although I too am in no hurry to see Pathfinder 2.0, I think the Encounter/Daily Spells/Attacks would be a nice addition, as long as it's built around, and supporting the standard Spells/Day system.
jimibones83 wrote:
I'd agree, I kinda wanted to see the system they have supplemented by the 4e system. Use the current system and add a couple things that can be done at will/per encounter/per day. Honestly though I think they kinda achieved that by just making cantrips at will in PF
Submitted for your approval: A house rule for abstract durations that manages to address most of Malwing's complaints, avoids some of the major issues with the 4e method, and stays pretty true to the intention of spell durations in Pathfinder.

I'm sorry man I got lost reading that lol. Maybe my brains in sleep mode while im at work


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:


Cuup wrote:

The one thing I really liked in 4.0 was the introduction of At-will, Encounter, and Daily spells/attacks/abilities. Like almost everything else in the game, however, they still went wrong with it. In this case, they should have made that system be more of a support to a less suffocating system.

In short, although I too am in no hurry to see Pathfinder 2.0, I think the Encounter/Daily Spells/Attacks would be a nice addition, as long as it's built around, and supporting the standard Spells/Day system.
jimibones83 wrote:
I'd agree, I kinda wanted to see the system they have supplemented by the 4e system. Use the current system and add a couple things that can be done at will/per encounter/per day. Honestly though I think they kinda achieved that by just making cantrips at will in PF
Submitted for your approval: A house rule for abstract durations that manages to address most of Malwing's complaints, avoids some of the major issues with the 4e method, and stays pretty true to the intention of spell durations in Pathfinder.

This is acceptable.


Matt Thomason wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yes, but he was talking about matching encounters to reality.

For some of us, getting a feel for why the rule is simulating an activity like that is important. "It's what the rules say" just isn't good enough :)

It seems a simple enough thing to explain with a house rule though. "Per encounter powers recharge an hour after the last time they were used.", or something like that, to represent the amount of time the user needs to rest them between uses (to recharge magical/physical/mental energy, or whatever.) Then again, it's so simple to solve that it really ought to be in the rulebook.

The "per encounter" powers were partly inspired by ToB maneuvers--

the big difference was that ToB maneuvers could be "recharged" by focusing during combat. There, the explanation is that whenever combat ends, you are assumed to have time to regain your focus. 4e eliminated the recharge mechanic, "for game balance". Which happened to mean that it no longer made sense except as a meta-game construction.

But what made 4e less enjoyable for me compared to 3.5 with ToB, was that in 4e, every class worked pretty much the same way. In 3.5, there were ToB classes, but then there were also Vancian, invocations, binding/pact magic, shadow magic, incarnum, psionics, infusions, etc. And each subsystem had completely different mechanics.
4e basically felt like saying that everyone is required to play crusaders. Which are a good class, but not if everyone is using them all the time.

In a lot of ways, Paizo has also been rather disappointing in that regard. Very few of the classes they've put out have new subsystems--there have just been a lot of Vancian casters. The thing is, after all these years, I don't need to pay someone to make Vancian classes anymore, I can do it myself fairly easily. It basically boils down to:
step 1: decide on a concept
step 2: go through books of spells, and pick out spells that fit with the theme of the class. There are hundreds of books published for 3.0/3.5/PF/other similar d20 systems, and thousands of spells, so finding enough spells to fit the concept of the class is rarely an issue.
step 3 (optional): cut down the list to make it balanced. This depends a lot on your balance point, how powerful you want it to be, how precise you are about balancing classes, and whether you care about game balance at all.
step 4: add basic class features. This is actually the easiest step, since full casters have less extensive non-spell class features, and usually they are just mixed up variations of features of other classes.

And if I'm having trouble with it, or if a less experienced GM needs a new Vancian class, there are tens of thousands of freely available homebrew Vancian classes created over the last 13 years to fit any concept. Most of them could certainly be more polished, but polishing an existing class is still easier than creating something new from whole cloth. And the hard stuff is what professionals should do: leave the easy stuff to us amateurs:)

Now, the Vancian classes Paizo came up with have fairly decent non-spell class features. The magus's Arcane Pool is a nice mini-subsystem. But it isn't enough to really drive a lot of new classes, or as helpful in building classes and new features as, say, binding was. It's more polished than what most amateurs would make, but it isn't much help beyond that one class.

Back in 3.5, WotC did the hardest work of coming up with brand new subsystems. 3rd party publishers helped polish them. And what they didn't do, GMs did--there are hundreds upon hundreds of homebrew ToB disciplines on the web, and lots of homebrew written for psionics and binding, incarnum and others.

Now, 3rd party publishers are working much harder to expand existing subsystems. And they are doing it far better than most homebrewers could. But the subsystems they are expanding are primarily those designed at WotC: Radiance House updated and is expanding pact magic, Dreamscarred press is expanding ToB (and already updated psionics)...
Paizo currently has a lot of talented staff, but I really wish they'd put more time into doing stuff other people can't do: coming up with great subsystems.
So far the subsystems they've made that are most ripe for expansion and modification are:
summoner evolutions--this is somewhat small right now, but it is very good. It also makes sense, since the Eidolon is a reflection of the summoner's personality, it should be unique
words of power--I'm personally not a fan and don't see it used often. It's still better than Truenaming, though.
And...well, that's it for class-based subsystems, really. Not very much to play with, especially considering how many books of character options they've come out with that have no truly new systems at all.
Of course, it would be rather unfair not to give them credit for the stuff in Ultimate Campaign...it isn't really a class-oriented subsystem the way all the others are, but it is a lot of new ideas. Aside from Mythic Adventures, Ultimate Campaign is the only book from Paizo I can really see as being worth it--all the others either have nothing I couldn't already get or have only one or two things that help my game plus a ton of padding. And most of the "helpful" things in the other books are stuff either I, or other GMs who post their homebrew for free, can do or have already done. I'm also rather disappointed with what I've heard of "psychic magic" so far--it sounds like it is just a reflavored Vancian magic, probably with some new spells that are simialar to existing psionic powers or older spells, and probably with two or three base classes that follow the same easily-replicable format as the other full casters. I know Jason Bulhman is capable of more, and I wanna see him do more than just rehashing stuff Tweet, Williams, and Cook did 13 years ago.

Wow...that turned into quite a ramble, didn't it?
I guess the summary is that I don't want future editions to be "simplified" to the point where everything works the same. That IMO was the worst part of 4e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Vancian spellcasting isn't going away, please get over it, Vancian-haters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Vancian spellcasting isn't going away, please get over it, Vancian-haters.

My stance on that is that I love Vancian spellcasting, but I do sometimes wish there some of the other casters would cast spells differently.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Vancian casting has already gone away. Cling to it all you like tho.

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
And what they didn't do, GMs did--there are hundreds upon hundreds of homebrew ToB disciplines on the web, and lots of homebrew written for psionics and binding, incarnum and others.

I did a lot of participation in the homebrew vestiges work over on the WOTC site, but I have to admit this is the first I've heard of homebrew ToB or Incarnum stuff. Any chance you have a link? Now I'm curious.


magnuskn wrote:
Vancian spellcasting isn't going away, please get over it, Vancian-haters.

Who are you talking to? One person 5 days ago suggested modifying Vancian casting (which Paizo did in the 3.5->PF conversion, and as WotC did in 2e->3.0, and 3.0->3.5)...no one for quite awhile (in this thread) has suggested getting rid of Vancian casting.

Orthos wrote:
Quote:
And what they didn't do, GMs did--there are hundreds upon hundreds of homebrew ToB disciplines on the web, and lots of homebrew written for psionics and binding, incarnum and others.

I did a lot of participation in the homebrew vestiges work over on the WOTC site, but I have to admit this is the first I've heard of homebrew ToB or Incarnum stuff. Any chance you have a link? Now I'm curious.

They aren't all that well organized, but a lot are indexed in this thread (the class names that have the [martial adept] tag use ToB mechanics.) There's also a partial list of homebrew disciplines here (and in the following post) (the "tier" indication is because at one point the guy who indexed them was working on assessing how balanced each were compared to each other and existing disciplines, but I don't think he is still is...)

There's more, of course, as always with homebrew:)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
I absolutely hated "per encounter" because it when I did play 4.0 I did not get an adequate answer as to what would happen if I attempted such an ability out of combat.

What made you feel that you couldn't use an encounter power outside of combat? Was it the term "encounter"? Because you can have non-combat encounters too.

4e PHB p9 wrote:

Encounters come in two types.

✦ Combat encounters [...]
✦ Noncombat encounters
Malwing wrote:
Also; what I run away just long enough to recharge it? All it is is 'hit somebody harder than regular hitting why cant I just do it again?

In the narrative of the story your character could try to do it again, they just wouldn't succeed.

If you make a Critical hit in PF why can't you do that every turn? Because circumstances don't always conspire to make that opportunity happen. With criticals it is the roll of a dice that determines when a critical hit is confirmed, whilst it is possible to get a critical hit every attack, chances are you are lucky to get one or two per combat.

Encounter powers are similar to critical hits in that they allow you to "hit somebody harder than regular hitting", but rather than allow dice to decide when an encounter power is triggered the game puts that narrative control in the hands of the player. Its a pacing mechanic with the benefit that random chance won't have that deadly move happen against a mook with only 2 hit points left (effectively wasting the critical hit).

Malwing wrote:

Do I have to sit down to recharge my per encounters? What if I cast an encounter spell and it causes an encounter, would I still be able to use it? What exactly is an encounter?

My brain just cannot link per encounter powers to reality.

4e PHB p54 wrote:

An encounter power can be used once per encounter.

You need to take a short rest (page 263) before you can use one again.
4e PHB p263 wrote:

SHORT REST

✦ Duration: A short rest is about 5 minutes long.

So yes, you need to rest for 5 minutes before your Encounter power is available again, if your use of the Encounter power triggers a combat you don't get to use it again.

And if you use a power in or outside of combat (e.g. Invisibility to sneak past guards) then you can sustain it for a maximum of 5 minutes, or until you take a rest.

4e PHB p278 wrote:

Unless a description says otherwise, you can sustain a power with a sustained duration for as long as 5 minutes.

However, you can’t rest while sustaining a power, so you can’t regain the use of your encounter powers or second wind until you stop sustaining a power.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It stuns me every time that people are still saying per-encounter powers are unrealistic, or that they're a part of the game but not of the narrative. They make perfect sense.

An encounter power is just a thing that's a little too awkward to spam. Rest a little while? Relax enough that combat rounds no longer need tracking? Get your power back. Games from many other publishers have been using "scenes" as a unit of duration for decades and nobody minds, but start calling scenes encounters and even World of Darkness players suddenly turn on the idea.

Want to know what's really unrealistic? Daily powers. Why on earth can the monk stun people 6/day? Because gamism. Not only is that unrealistic, daily powers affect the narrative negatively: This is where we get the 15 minute adventuring day. This is why 4e characters only use their best stuff occasionally. This is why mages only cast their spell once even though they can memorise it again during the day.

Encounter powers are a legitimate way of modelling the chaos of combat and preventing endless chains of a character's best move.
can you get the angle to stab him in the kidneys any time you can reach him? Would the same trick fool your foes twice in a row? Do you have the energy to jump that high again right this second? Answering that question with a deck of cards or a pool of points is just as legitimate as rolling for it, but if those resources last all day the answers often make no sense.
"What do you mean I can't rage any more? The cleric cast remove fatigue!"
"How is it you were able to smite those cultists three times in a row, but now that we actually need it you've got nothing? How can you be sleepy? It's 2pm!"

Yes, encounter powers are abstractions, but only as much as hit points and attack rolls. They're easier to justify, they help the mechanics by reducing narcolepsy, unstoppable novas and resource tracking, and they can only support the narrative, because the narrative dictates when they work.

Encounter powers seem to score higher than dailies in terms of gamist, simulationist and narrativist design. That doesn't mean pathfinder should be re-written to use them, but it does mean I'm thoroughly sick of the nonsense I see whenever this topic comes up. New inventions happen. They will not be the same as the old stuff. Get over it.


I have always been confused by limits on stunning fist, rage, or bardic performance as much as I have been confused by encounter abilities.

As an abstraction Encounter Powers work for the game but once I became accustomed to it I didn't want to play it as an RPG. I kind of play 4e like Descent: Journey into Darkness with a story.

301 to 350 of 677 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.