What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0?


Product Discussion

351 to 400 of 677 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

As an interesting aside: How would you replace per-diem limitations but retain the same powers?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Pathfinder already uses a points system. You just get multiple pools of points with limited crossover. :P

The pools you talk of, sir, are not used for magic, or at least in the casting of spells. Most of them use abilities that, for some, are a limited form of some spells, but are mostly unique to the class. (The alternate class Ninja is the black sheep in this)

The Magus uses his pool to enchant his weapon, recall a spell (quicker than a Pearl) and other things.

The Monk adds another attack, runs faster into trouble (Something Krawford has trouble with) and other monkee stuff.

There is a difference between pools and Mana.

There are some that mention the other mirror classes that uses the superior "Spontaneous Casting" mechanic. I wish to have a combined magic system that can have more than CHA as a caster stat, thank you. I also believe a combined magic system will make use of less classes that will cover all the bases that the added roster does now.

I also agree that Ver 2 of PF is a long way away. To be sure, I envision one of three things happening in this regard.

one, The D&D name is sold to another company and a complete revamp will be what 4th edition should have been. Paizo will follow suit to modernize the game.

Two, Wizards is moderately successful (Which should be their goal now) with the next iteration and starts with the various re-releases of the settings. Ver 2 will be tried as a new setting to be sold side by side with the Pathfinder set, eventually having PF setting be redone later on.

Three D&D disappears for a bit. T$R had this happen for at least five years, the smattering of releases toward the end amounting to nothing much. Ver 2 would be a modernization of the rules, something that is needed as some point.

What won't happen is what happened with the 4venture fiasco and the "evergreen" Essentials debacle. Paizo, as a company and as fellow gamers, knows better.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
thaX wrote:
The pools you talk of, sir, are not used for magic, or at least in the casting of spells.

Wizards, clerics, etc get 9 pools of spell points as they level up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've no idea if this has been said. I know that not checking that makes me a bad person, but I'm OK with that.

My biggest gripe at the moment is the lack of planning for future classes. Spells, feats and abilities should be written with an anticipation of change.

The best example I can think of, at the moment, is Divine magic. In the CRB (and some poorly edited spells in later books) it all references Wisdom as the casting stat. I think that all spells should just say "casting stat." Put an entry in each class that might cast and list its casting stat. Socrcerer: Charisma. Wizard: Int. Cleric: Charisma.

Then, later, you can create new classes and list their stats and there's a ton of compatibility.

Oracle: Charisma. Witch: Int. Musclemancer: Strength.

This would also make the language for some archetypes way easier.

Sage Bloodline: Your casting stat changes to Int.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, does a Musclemancer exist somewhere?

I want to see that. It sounds like something out of Adventure Time.


I'm pretty sure I've seen a constitution-based caster somewhere, but I cannot remember whether it was in a 3.5 book, a 3rd party book, or a homebrew forums.

But yes, I'd love to see a musclemancer.


137ben wrote:

I'm pretty sure I've seen a constitution-based caster somewhere, but I cannot remember whether it was in a 3.5 book, a 3rd party book, or a homebrew forums.

But yes, I'd love to see a musclemancer.

Scarred Wtich Doctor is an archetype in the ARG that would also benefit from this change in language.

Also, there are a ton of other decent ideas in here and I hope the devs take some notes. Even if not on this particular item, on several others.

Hopefully combat maneuver build become a bit more viable.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Wait, does a Musclemancer exist somewhere?

I want to see that. It sounds like something out of Adventure Time.

I'm kinda getting this image in my head of someone pounding the ground with their fists until magical energies start to form around them. Am I on the right track?


Matt Thomason wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Wait, does a Musclemancer exist somewhere?

I want to see that. It sounds like something out of Adventure Time.

I'm kinda getting this image in my head of someone pounding the ground with their fists until magical energies start to form around them. Am I on the right track?

I didn't have an image in my head when I made the post... but I do now and she's awesome.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
As an interesting aside: How would you replace per-diem limitations but retain the same powers?

Maybe a re-charge mechanic requiring some kind of roll to successfully activate? Like, a DC 21 Spellcraft check to re-gain a 1st level spell; it takes 1 minute of concentration to do this. Or a DC 20 Fortitude save to regain a rage power. Something like that.

Shadow Lodge

Matt Thomason wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Wait, does a Musclemancer exist somewhere?

I want to see that. It sounds like something out of Adventure Time.

I'm kinda getting this image in my head of someone pounding the ground with their fists until magical energies start to form around them. Am I on the right track?

Close. I CAST FIST!


Truly, there is nothing left to invent in this world.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Truly, there is nothing left to invent in this world.

Yeah? Well, just wait until I finish filing the corners off this square block - then you'll all be amazed!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A publication date of "Never".


Regarding musclemancer, do you mean the muscle-mage?

I believe that was a cancer mage build from a certain very very bad [in execution and design, not just its subject] book in 3.5

As you were immune to the negative effects of diseases, a certain berserking disease that caused your strength to grow higher every day - the idea being it will kill you in a few days as your other stats are crashing - combined with a feat or ability that let you choose an alternative caster attribute. Notably... Strength.

Shadow Lodge

Jamie Charlan wrote:

Regarding musclemancer, do you mean the muscle-mage?

I believe that was a cancer mage build from a certain very very bad [in execution and design, not just its subject] book in 3.5

As you were immune to the negative effects of diseases, a certain berserking disease that caused your strength to grow higher every day - the idea being it will kill you in a few days as your other stats are crashing - combined with a feat or ability that let you choose an alternative caster attribute. Notably... Strength.

The details of this exact combination are in the link I posted, actually. =)


There's no need for a Pathfinder 2.0. Just release a few books of optional rules now and then for "new ways to do the same old things." Mythic Adventures is one example; the Words of Power system from Ultimate Magic is another.

It's like building a house. If your core ruleset is solid, you shouldn't need to tear the whole thing down to the bedrock and repour all the concrete foundation just because a few rooms have gotten stale and ratty enough to need some remodeling. The remodeling effort is needed occasionally because of the gradual shifting of gamer preferences. Like anything else, the subculture goes through cycles of complexity, streamlining, going 'old school', and revolutionary methodologies. It's happened before, it will happen again. But how can the niche in the industry which Pathfinder occupies change so much from its original condition that an entirely new d20 type of game system needs to be developed, yet still with the "Pathfinder" name and product identity mashed into it like some kind of princely seal?

My point is mainly this, why try to reinvent the wheel when what you've got already works pretty good?


Lawful is changed to "orderly" "methodical" "organized" "codified" "disciplined" or some such to get rid of that stupid idea it is in anyway related to the laws of the state.


deuxhero wrote:
Lawful is changed to "orderly" "methodical" "organized" "codified" "disciplined" or some such to get rid of that stupid idea it is in anyway related to the laws of the state.

I agree with you in regards to class restrictions based on alignment (i.e.: paladins and monks). To me, Lawful is more of a descriptor for someone who respects the rules of the land (obeys the law), even if they differ from their origin, unless those rules clash with the other portion of their alignment (e.g.: a lawful good person might not condone slavery personally in a society that allows it, but wouldn't try to combat slavery except through "lawful" means, such as changing the actual laws).

Shadow Lodge

Matthew Shelton wrote:
It's like building a house. If your core ruleset is solid, you shouldn't need to tear the whole thing down to the bedrock and repour all the concrete foundation

Opinion varies as to the solidity of that foundation.


Riggler wrote:

A new edition, no. A revised edition, maybe.

Fixing some minor things that should have been fixed the first time around. Druids for example are ridiculous from a GM perspective. I've got players not playing druids feeling like they are pointless, because the druid player is essentially playing a character with an animal companion that is equal to two of the other PCs. That's a problem that Pathfinder should have fixed from 3.5, but didn't. Just one example.

Would you approve of some rules tinkering that let *every* class have an animal companion as anoption? (IE as part of an archetype perhaps, rather than a feat, spell, or other effect).

I could see a barbarian getting a pet who could rage with her, or a rogue's pet that could participate in a stealthy activity. The classes that already get companions, mounts, and familiars ought to have their pets buffed up plenty more than everyone else's. A monk's or fighter's pet doesn't need to become self-aware and gain nifty magical powers like the wizard's familiar or ranger's companion does, but they do need some kind upscaling to keep from getting killed at middle and high level adventuring.

Isn't it possible to do this now, by the way? Or would some ruleswork need to be done?


There's a series of three feats that give you a full animal companion. Two from Faiths and Philosophies and Boon Companion from Animal Archive.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Shelton wrote:
Riggler wrote:

A new edition, no. A revised edition, maybe.

Fixing some minor things that should have been fixed the first time around. Druids for example are ridiculous from a GM perspective. I've got players not playing druids feeling like they are pointless, because the druid player is essentially playing a character with an animal companion that is equal to two of the other PCs. That's a problem that Pathfinder should have fixed from 3.5, but didn't. Just one example.

Would you approve of some rules tinkering that let *every* class have an animal companion as anoption? (IE as part of an archetype perhaps, rather than a feat, spell, or other effect).

How pimp-daddy would it be for Clerics to have a little Lantern Archon buddy following them around. Even if it shot like 1 damage nonlethal light beams. pew pew. pew pew


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. Most of the time, it doesn't matter which rooms are connected with which passages, and where the twists and turns are--all that matters is whether the party knows where it's going, or if it's lost. Thus, the grid represents progress through the dungeon, and the upper corners represent the main exits. (If there are any additional exits, these are marked on the first or last columns of any rows further down in the grid.)

Roughly speaking, the bigger the dungeon, the more columns the grid will have; the more complex the dungeon, the more rows the grid will have. Navigation of the abstract dungeon is checked via Survival and Knowledge/Dungeoneering checks. Success causes the "party progress" to move one square to the right (assuming you are doing it left-to-right). Ordinary failure means the "party progress" does not advance, but drops to the next lower row. Failure by 5 or more, i.e. getting lost, means the party moves in a semi-random direction on the grid; roll 1d8. 1-2 moves left, 3-4 moves right, 5-7 moves down, 8 moves up (accidentally moving the right way, heh).

Once having gotten lost, a party can try to retrace their steps with Survival & Dungeoneering...subsequent successes should let them get back to the main path, i.e. by moving up one square, or (if they roll really well) relocate on the next turn to a room they have already encountered--not as though it were a teleport, but in the same way that a person that's gotten lost in a maze will methodically retrace their route back to a familiar location from which they start their path again.

All you need to do as far as specific layout are those isolated parts of the dungeon where there's going to be combat encounters or anything else interesting. Each encounter is keyed to a specific square on the map (most of them near the top) and when the party enters the appropriate square, they trigger that encounter.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Sounds like a hexcrawl.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
thaX wrote:
The pools you talk of, sir, are not used for magic, or at least in the casting of spells.
Wizards, clerics, etc get 9 pools of spell points as they level up.

Nine separate pools?

My point is that the mechanic of casting spells is set within the inner structure of the class. Wizards have spellbooks and struggle to memorize a few spells to use for the day, Sorcerers know spells and can cast x times a day and so on. The Various pools the current classes use are auxiliary counterparts to the base structure of their main use of spells.

My overall feeling is that an alternative mechanic can be used for spell casting, one that does not use Mana to keep track of castings, or Psi points. Auxiliary Pools will, ofcourse, be around to augment.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
thaX wrote:
Nine separate pools?

Yes. Call them slots, call them points, call them mana, call them whatever you like. Mechanically they are just points with different restrictions on how they can be spent.

Quote:
Wizards have spellbooks and struggle to memorize a few spells to use for the day

Your bias is showing, sir. Wizards do not 'struggle' to prepare (note: not memorize) their spells, mechanically. They pick them just as easily as the sorcerer does.


As far as this topic is concerned, I wonder if there is something going on around or beyond April 2014. Except for the last couple months, near the beginning of each month Paizo seemed to be happy to put up news of the next few Pathfinder, Golarion, or Player's Companion books. The Strategy Guide and Alchemy Manual were posted in early July for an April 2014 release. September arrives, and here we are in October, and so far zip zero nada. Have I been missing the announced publications made last month and this month? Perhaps Paizo has shifted to publishing more Golarion-specific modules and things? (I'm not really into pregen adventures so I don't really keep up with those.) Is there anything interesting planned for April or May next year?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns Subscriber

I would like to see the Core Rulebook of the new edition, whenever it does come out, have a fully fleshed out magic casting system as well as a Words of Power System.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Matthew Shelton wrote:

As far as this topic is concerned, I wonder if there is something going on around or beyond April 2014. Except for the last couple months, near the beginning of each month Paizo seemed to be happy to put up news of the next few Pathfinder, Golarion, or Player's Companion books. The Strategy Guide and Alchemy Manual were posted in early July for an April 2014 release. September arrives, and here we are in October, and so far zip zero nada. Have I been missing the announced publications made last month and this month? Perhaps Paizo has shifted to publishing more Golarion-specific modules and things? (I'm not really into pregen adventures so I don't really keep up with those.) Is there anything interesting planned for April or May next year?

My guess is the lack of announcements is simply them not being caught up yet, and being busy with catching up to Gencon, ACG playtest, and all of that other stuff


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm sure there is lots of cool stuff planned next year. Nonetheless, the pause in revealing upcoming products is a pretty usual thing. Paizo's product announcements tend to come in batches, rather than trickled out. Presumably they've nailed down their schedule well into the second half of next year.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would it be practical to have a big giant, two-book Pathfinder Encyclopedia? This pair of books would be a hardcover printing of everything currently listed on the PRD (including the Mystic Adventures rules that will eventualy get put up). The two books will divide the content along these lines:

Book I, Player's Anthology: races, classes, mundane equipment, alchemical equipment, vehicles, combat rules, magic rules, spells, Words of Power. Primary sources: Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Race Guide, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Equipment (nonmagical items only).

Book II: Game Master's Anthology: All content from the Game Mastery Guide and Ultimate Campaign would go here, plus all magic item rules, treasure rules, NPC rules, Mystic Adventures rules, and all monsters not otherwise enhanced by the Advanced Race Guide. Primary Sources: Core Rulebook, Game Mastery Guide, Ultimate Campaign, Ultimate Equipment (magic items), NPC Codex, all Bestiaries.

To be quite honest, I would absolutely love to see the PRD itself be reorganized by content rather than by sourcebook. It would be wonderful to not have to look through each separate list of Bestiary monsters to find a particular one, or to have the entire list of official classes consolidated for view when trying to figure out what class I need to use for a given NPC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I left out a few things in my previous post.

From the Core Rulebook, the sections on "Gamemastering", "Environment", "NPC Classes", and "Creating NPCs" would go into the Game Master's Anthology as well.

Product Identity (that is, content from the source books that didn't make it into the PRD) would NOT appear in the Encyclopedia. For that material, you would still have to own the other books. This will hopefully forestall product cannibalization. For that matter, I would love the chance to see what Paizo's guesstimations are on the product life cycles of their various Pathfinder books.

Shadow Lodge

Matthew Shelton wrote:

Would it be practical to have a big giant, two-book Pathfinder Encyclopedia? This pair of books would be a hardcover printing of everything currently listed on the PRD (including the Mystic Adventures rules that will eventualy get put up). The two books will divide the content along these lines:

Book I, Player's Anthology: races, classes, mundane equipment, alchemical equipment, vehicles, combat rules, magic rules, spells, Words of Power. Primary sources: Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Race Guide, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Equipment (nonmagical items only).

Book II: Game Master's Anthology: All content from the Game Mastery Guide and Ultimate Campaign would go here, plus all magic item rules, treasure rules, NPC rules, Mystic Adventures rules, and all monsters not otherwise enhanced by the Advanced Race Guide. Primary Sources: Core Rulebook, Game Mastery Guide, Ultimate Campaign, Ultimate Equipment (magic items), NPC Codex, all Bestiaries.

To be quite honest, I would absolutely love to see the PRD itself be reorganized by content rather than by sourcebook. It would be wonderful to not have to look through each separate list of Bestiary monsters to find a particular one, or to have the entire list of official classes consolidated for view when trying to figure out what class I need to use for a given NPC.

The Core Rulebook alone is so large that many people find that it's spine self-destructs. The books you're suggesting would be MUCH more massive. Plus, once Paizo published another book in the rulebook line, you'd have people whining about how they wanted a new version that included the new book.

Agreed on the PRD, though. Or just make the index link a LOT more substantial.


Matthew Shelton wrote:

To be quite honest, I would absolutely love to see the PRD itself be reorganized by content rather than by sourcebook. It would be wonderful to not have to look through each separate list of Bestiary monsters to find a particular one, or to have the entire list of official classes consolidated for view when trying to figure out what class I need to use for a given NPC.

The [url="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/]pfsrd

is organized by content as you describe...it also includes links to relevant FAQs on pages containing content that has caused confusion and been FAQed.

Usually sorting by content is more useful IMO...
but there are a few times where I'd want it to be sorted by book. Not very often, but having two sites (one sorted by book, one sorted by content type) is occasionally helpful.

As for compiling it all into one (or two) volumes...I don't think so. It would be too big. Nice idea, but I doubt it's feasible.


Considering I only own the PDF versions of most of the books, perhaps Paizo can produce a PDF-only release of such a product? I know some prefer hardbound, but few would care how large the PDF became from this consolidation.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like an easier way to buy and maintain and keep track of mundane gear. Maybe a way to buy a pre-packed backpack?

And maybe bigger coin denominations? Copper, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Mithril, Adamantite?

I just hate doing all the accounting paperwork. Especially 17 necklaces worth 73 gps each and stuff like that.

Shadow Lodge

1. Eliminate the damnable magic item dependency. Here's a helpful hint: if your class basically requires item X to be viable at level Y, then build those bonuses into the class.

2A. Eliminate magic items with bonuses. Have magical items do cool and useful things. A +1 to Fortitude save might be useful, but it's pretty far away from being cool.

2. Give non-casters awesome abilities on par with casters of equivalent level.

3. Go through the spell list thoroughly. Get it needs a heavy purging. Eliminate spells that trample all over a non-caster's area of speciality. Also, rebalance the spell levels. This can mean either assigning spells new levels or needing/powering them up to actually fit the current spell level.

3A. Rethink the ability to spam cantrips endlessly.

4. Go through the feat list thoroughly. It needs a heavy purging as well. Excise the damnable "trap" options, or shore them up to be worthwhile. For most feats, include rules on how a character without the feat can achieve the same results. Finally, eliminate the horrible idea of feat trees/feat tax. If there is a particularly cool feat, you shouldn't have to wade through a bunch of crap feats to get to it.

5. A skill system that ignores level, and where improvement comes with practice. See Chaosium's BRP system.

Shadow Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
2A. Eliminate magic items with bonuses. Have magical items do cool and useful things. A +1 to Fortitude save might be useful, but it's pretty far away from being cool.

Subjective. I thin it's a lot cooler to have a ring that makes it harder to hit you by creating a sort of invisible force shield around your body like an aura than a sword that decapitates on a Nat 20, personally.

Kthulhu wrote:
2B?. Give non-casters awesome abilities on par with casters of equivalent level.

Such as? Magic that's not spells?

Kthulhu wrote:
3<before A>. Go through the spell list thoroughly. Get it needs a heavy purging. Eliminate spells that trample all over a non-caster's area of speciality. Also, rebalance the spell levels. This can mean either assigning spells new levels or needing/powering them up to actually fit the current spell level.

I do thin that some of the spell lists really need a good looking at again, but it's been that way since 3.0. However, this idea of getting rid of all the spells that trample all over non-casters is pretty ridiculous. They included those spells specifically so that if you do not have a Rogue in the party, there are other ways around different things. And that is a brilliant idea. Especially because not everyone plays with 4 or 5 players and are able to fill the big 4. I honestly wish they would have more options along those lines, not less.

Kthulhu wrote:
3A. Rethink the ability to spam cantrips endlessly.

Can't argue with you there, at lest not until later on. I kind of wish that 0, 1st, and 2nd level spell eventually became sort of free casting, but later on, like 13-15th level where it just doesn't really matter any longer.

Kthulhu wrote:
4. Go through the feat list thoroughly. It needs a heavy purging as well. Excise the damnable "trap" options, or shore them up to be worthwhile. For most feats, include rules on how a character without the feat can achieve the same results. Finally, eliminate the horrible idea of feat trees/feat tax. If there is a particularly cool feat, you shouldn't have to wade through a bunch of crap feats to get to it.

I agree, and one thing I thin would really help this out would be to have every class get an assortment of Bonus Feat Options sort of like the Ranger's Fighting Style. Some Feats I think just need to go away, Selective Channel, for example. I think that a few of the Metamagic Feats should just be universal options (you basically pay twice to use them).

Kthulhu wrote:
5. A skill system that ignores level, and where improvement comes with practice. See Chaosium's BRP system.

Would be nice, but all that really needs to be done is to have skills max out, without regard to level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
thaX wrote:
Nine separate pools?
Yes. Call them slots, call them points, call them mana, call them whatever you like. Mechanically they are just points with different restrictions on how they can be spent.

That defeats the whole point of points.

It's like walking into a cobbler and asking to buy boots but instead of you giving him money and walking out the door with a new pair of boots you give him money and he puts on a pair of boots and gives you a kick in the todgers. He's only selling boots in the most uselessly pedantic and misleading sense.

The D&D spell slot is to a fungible mana system as getting kicked is to owning a new pair of boots.


Kthulhu wrote:

1. Eliminate the damnable magic item dependency. Here's a helpful hint: if your class basically requires item X to be viable at level Y, then build those bonuses into the class.

2A. Eliminate magic items with bonuses. Have magical items do cool and useful things. A +1 to Fortitude save might be useful, but it's pretty far away from being cool.

2. Give non-casters awesome abilities on par with casters of equivalent level.

3. Go through the spell list thoroughly. Get it needs a heavy purging. Eliminate spells that trample all over a non-caster's area of speciality. Also, rebalance the spell levels. This can mean either assigning spells new levels or needing/powering them up to actually fit the current spell level.

3A. Rethink the ability to spam cantrips endlessly.

4. Go through the feat list thoroughly. It needs a heavy purging as well. Excise the damnable "trap" options, or shore them up to be worthwhile. For most feats, include rules on how a character without the feat can achieve the same results. Finally, eliminate the horrible idea of feat trees/feat tax. If there is a particularly cool feat, you shouldn't have to wade through a bunch of crap feats to get to it.

5. A skill system that ignores level, and where improvement comes with practice. See Chaosium's BRP system.

I like none of these.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:

1. Eliminate the damnable magic item dependency. Here's a helpful hint: if your class basically requires item X to be viable at level Y, then build those bonuses into the class.

2A. Eliminate magic items with bonuses. Have magical items do cool and useful things. A +1 to Fortitude save might be useful, but it's pretty far away from being cool.

2. Give non-casters awesome abilities on par with casters of equivalent level.

3. Go through the spell list thoroughly. Get it needs a heavy purging. Eliminate spells that trample all over a non-caster's area of speciality. Also, rebalance the spell levels. This can mean either assigning spells new levels or needing/powering them up to actually fit the current spell level.

3A. Rethink the ability to spam cantrips endlessly.

4. Go through the feat list thoroughly. It needs a heavy purging as well. Excise the damnable "trap" options, or shore them up to be worthwhile. For most feats, include rules on how a character without the feat can achieve the same results. Finally, eliminate the horrible idea of feat trees/feat tax. If there is a particularly cool feat, you shouldn't have to wade through a bunch of crap feats to get to it.

5. A skill system that ignores level, and where improvement comes with practice. See Chaosium's BRP system.

I like some of these.

Shadow Lodge

DrDeth wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

1. Eliminate the damnable magic item dependency. Here's a helpful hint: if your class basically requires item X to be viable at level Y, then build those bonuses into the class.

2A. Eliminate magic items with bonuses. Have magical items do cool and useful things. A +1 to Fortitude save might be useful, but it's pretty far away from being cool.

2. Give non-casters awesome abilities on par with casters of equivalent level.

3. Go through the spell list thoroughly. Get it needs a heavy purging. Eliminate spells that trample all over a non-caster's area of speciality. Also, rebalance the spell levels. This can mean either assigning spells new levels or needing/powering them up to actually fit the current spell level.

3A. Rethink the ability to spam cantrips endlessly.

4. Go through the feat list thoroughly. It needs a heavy purging as well. Excise the damnable "trap" options, or shore them up to be worthwhile. For most feats, include rules on how a character without the feat can achieve the same results. Finally, eliminate the horrible idea of feat trees/feat tax. If there is a particularly cool feat, you shouldn't have to wade through a bunch of crap feats to get to it.

5. A skill system that ignores level, and where improvement comes with practice. See Chaosium's BRP system.

I like none of these.

Well, that seems to confirm that they're good ideas.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Maybe instead of making non-spellcasters as powerful as spellcasters, make high level spells costly in some manner, like ability damage, non-lethal damage, fatigued/exhausted/unconscious, or something like that. Not $$$.

What I would like to see balance spellcasters and non-spellcasters is that spellcasters can nova, but are then vulnerable, but non-spellcasters can do what they do all day without running out of resources.

And I don't mean just running out of spell slots.

Maybe a system where, in a 5 round fight, the mage and the tank do equivalent amounts of damage. For example, the tank might do 20 or 25 points of damage each round, every round, but the mage does 50 points of damage a couple rounds, and only 5 or 10 points the other 3 rounds.

I don't know if I'm being clear.

Shadow Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

1. Eliminate the damnable magic item dependency. Here's a helpful hint: if your class basically requires item X to be viable at level Y, then build those bonuses into the class.

2A. Eliminate magic items with bonuses. Have magical items do cool and useful things. A +1 to Fortitude save might be useful, but it's pretty far away from being cool.

2. Give non-casters awesome abilities on par with casters of equivalent level.

3. Go through the spell list thoroughly. Get it needs a heavy purging. Eliminate spells that trample all over a non-caster's area of speciality. Also, rebalance the spell levels. This can mean either assigning spells new levels or needing/powering them up to actually fit the current spell level.

3A. Rethink the ability to spam cantrips endlessly.

4. Go through the feat list thoroughly. It needs a heavy purging as well. Excise the damnable "trap" options, or shore them up to be worthwhile. For most feats, include rules on how a character without the feat can achieve the same results. Finally, eliminate the horrible idea of feat trees/feat tax. If there is a particularly cool feat, you shouldn't have to wade through a bunch of crap feats to get to it.

5. A skill system that ignores level, and where improvement comes with practice. See Chaosium's BRP system.

I like none of these.
Well, that seems to confirm that they're good ideas.

Only one I disagree with is 3A. I like the unlimited cantrips. If a cantrip is strong enough that casting it at-will is liable to break the game, then just go ahead and shore it up (if needed) and make it a full-on first- or second-level spell.

Ambivalent on 5, if only because I've had no experience with a skill system like that. The rest though 100% agreement.


Make Trolls more powerful.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:

1. Eliminate the damnable magic item dependency. Here's a helpful hint: if your class basically requires item X to be viable at level Y, then build those bonuses into the class.

2A. Eliminate magic items with bonuses. Have magical items do cool and useful things. A +1 to Fortitude save might be useful, but it's pretty far away from being cool.

2. Give non-casters awesome abilities on par with casters of equivalent level.

3. Go through the spell list thoroughly. Get it needs a heavy purging. Eliminate spells that trample all over a non-caster's area of speciality. Also, rebalance the spell levels. This can mean either assigning spells new levels or needing/powering them up to actually fit the current spell level.

3A. Rethink the ability to spam cantrips endlessly.

4. Go through the feat list thoroughly. It needs a heavy purging as well. Excise the damnable "trap" options, or shore them up to be worthwhile. For most feats, include rules on how a character without the feat can achieve the same results. Finally, eliminate the horrible idea of feat trees/feat tax. If there is a particularly cool feat, you shouldn't have to wade through a bunch of crap feats to get to it.

5. A skill system that ignores level, and where improvement comes with practice. See Chaosium's BRP system.

Number one. I would have magical items be attuned to the character's power, instead of static numbers. Bonus's based on BAB for example. I would also have items that would enhance class abilities, instead of "giving" such to every Tome, Dude, and Harry that wears it.

Number two is simply a balance issue. Having Fighters be able to do more than "swing sword, outlast opponent" thing is something that has been needed since that first edition out of the miniture game back in the seventies. Some of the discord now is to do with Feats, and having Fighter specific class abilities instead of having Feats listed as "fighter feats" is a step in that direction.

Three needs more than spell editing, it needs a unified spellcasting system. Spells should be regulated and have less sharing between classes, though with a unified system, you wouldn't need two classes for each class type to have Vancian and Spontaneous versions for the same. (Wizard and sorcerer, Cleric and Oracle)

Three Aye . . . Yeah, spamming 0 level spells is not a problem. It is the fall back when other spells are gone.

Two and four are connected, as some Feats need to be accessed in other ways, not with Feats. Skill focusing, spell specialization, selective channeling, anything to do with improving saving throws... it should be a part of another aspect of the character, not feats. Traits, perhaps? Background? Feats need to stick with improving battle, not static bonuses for picking locks and saving against situations.

as for Five. Yeah, there was another edtiion that had the Train or Suck skills. It. Didn't. Work. The reason you have ranks is to put into the skills that you do use instead of more book keeping with a different skill system noting what you use and what tics up with use.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
thaX wrote:
Nine separate pools?
Yes. Call them slots, call them points, call them mana, call them whatever you like. Mechanically they are just points with different restrictions on how they can be spent.

That defeats the whole point of points.

The D&D spell slot is to a fungible mana system as getting kicked is to owning a new pair of boots.

Yep. Wizards ends up with only a pair of socks while a Sorcerer has slippers.


Was this thread created to troll people? If not, then in this order:
1. Have playtests for the purpose of fixing the problems with the game, and not for advertising.
2. Fix the problems in the first post of this thread: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083 (I think that Polymorph can be considered fixed, but the rest still stands)
3. Give bonuses that matter at the level they're received. +1 needs to cease to exist in a system where everything is rolled with a d20 die. A feat gained at 10th level needs to have the same power as a monster ability at 10th level: Weapon Focus (and every other static bonus, read: most feats) doesn't account for this. Greater Magic Weapon is worse than Magic Weapon at the level you get it because it's 2 levels higher for exactly the same effect, with only a longer duration - and that only reveals a deeper problem: most automatically-increasing effects don't actually change for the first 5-7 levels, and then they start changing rapidly (every 3-4 levels, like GMW) - this makes low levels less fun.
4. Make every skill mean something at levels higher than 6. If you can't do that, remove them. That means: Appraise, Climb, Craft, Disguise, Escape Artist, Handle Animal, Heal, Linguistics, Perform, Profession, Ride, Sleight of Hand, Survival, Swim. These skills are either useless at high levels because of the way the game works at that level (why climb when you can FLY?) or because they don't account for it (Handle Animal is significantly less useful when there are no animal encounters - see the CR on animals to see what I mean).
5. Give mundane classes options besides "I full attack" and "I move and attack." Spellcasters fling around different effects every round and <b>that is fun.</b> Mundane combat gets boring very quickly. The CMB/D system does NOT fix this, because you still need a feat to be capable of whatever maneuver you're trying to do, and while PF offers more feats than D&D, it's not enough to be decent at Grappling AND Tripping AND Disarming, especially when you consider that the creature you're trying to do it to probably has a Strength modifier that's twice as high as yours.
6. Make ranged attackers good without mid-high level optimization. Pathfinder is better than D&D 3.x about this, but it's still bad. Zen Monks, Gunslingers, and the Deadly Aim feat are not enough. The fact that the highest damage per round rankings go first: Summoner, second: TWF Rogue, third: two-handed meleer, and 4th: archer, is just bad (I'm not putting magus on the list because of their extreme variance). Archery is supposed to be high damage because you sacrifice high strength (and presumably HP), the ability to fight at close range (within 60' unless you can snipe or get someone to tank), and unlimited ammo (a melee weapon) to get it. At levels 1-5 archery is decent, but once again at 6+ it becomes bad, excepting specific builds like Pistolero and Archer Paladin, and they still lose to the TWF rogue.
7. Remove every "blade on a stick" (that joke was old when 3.0 came out, it's dead now) except the Lance and Guisarme. And maybe the Greataxe. Having tons and tons of weapons (of which many are worse than others) requires system mastery to make any sense of it. And while many players don't believe system mastery exists in Pathfinder, or that it should exist, the fact is that right now it does. The designer for D&D 3e said he wanted to "reward system mastery," and Paizo hasn't changed that. This is in a game where the DM has all the power and the only thing system mastery does is make you better than your fellow PCs, which makes the game less fun for them.
8. Remove all trap options from the game. This includes most feats, traits, weapons, magic items, and builds. Examples: the Weapon Specialization feat, the Demon Slayer trait, the Gauntlet weapon, +2-5 weapons/armor, and the Sword and Shield fighter build. I admit it's difficult to remove a build from a game (but not impossible, as the change to Wild Shape proved), it goes back to the problem of system mastery.

New players, including myself when I first started, often think "this will be fun, I'll just pick stuff that sounds good and go, and even if it's not the best, I'll get stronger later." When the opposite is true: unless you plan your build out from level 1 to 20 (or whenever it ends), you'll get weaker with each passing level, because your bad choices stay with you, but enemies get stronger and stronger. Even if you're allowed to use retraining rules, it's tough to find the one effective build (and it may not be what you want to play anyway) for your desired class/race/theme/whatever, and results in starting completely over <b>a lot</b>. For me, it's just not fun to suck, especially when I've worked at it, because I want my characters to have a reputation of being great, not terrible.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
That defeats the whole point of points.

And yet that is the system in place. A point system with only minor variation in spending restrictions.

351 to 400 of 677 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 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.