What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0?


Product Discussion

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

question: how many times has "actually unique and viable rogues/monks" been brought up here?

just curious.


I'd like to see:
An end to Vancian magic
A complete and integrated economy (for buying, selling, crafting, downtime, kingdom building) that makes sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with most posters here about potential room for improvement to the core mechanics beneath the PF game system.

I hope that changes reduce redundancy among classes and, as stated by others, rely on more scaling class abilities than tacked on bonuses.

I might be in a minority opinion in my preference for graceful simplicity but I would even prefer that just a handful of base classes were described in the core rule book which opened up through specialization at mid level to more complex and focused mid tier and high tier prestige classes. Like "Warrior" opens up into Ranger Knight Paladin Magus etc through meeting feat requirements over time. In this way simple, user friendly classes at the start of a campaign still allow for sophisticated archetypes later without redundancy among class abilities or muddied roles in party play.

Again, I might be alone in that vision.

Shadow Lodge

1.) All classes get some sort of Class Feature at nearly very level, (allowing for both a bit more customization, and also more equal number of Archtypes).

2.) Make 4+Int the min Skill Point for class with the exception of Wizards, Witches, and other classes. No need to tie in HD and BaB in my opinion.

3.) Tone down the Magus, and reevaluate how a lot of the newer classes compare to the older ones. Cleric vs Inquisitor for instance.

4.) Either make an effort to make all classes roughly equal in SAD or MAD.

5.) Give all classes a few Bonus Feat options along the lines of Ranger Fighting Styles (that are either/or).

6.) Might be cool to have mechanical differences between Arcane and Divine magic. Maybe Divine magic is unaffected by SR (except for from Divine Sources and Creatures), while only Arcane magic can utilize Metamagic, or something like that.

7.) Give all classes a 20th level Capstone ability, and maybe a minor 10th level one as well.


Maybe this thread isn't the place for this post. But, I think "pathfinder 2.0" should be a mixture of hardback books filled with optional rules that GMs can use for their campaign kind of like the Ultimate Campaign book. Players get fresh, polished systems and the developers get that proverbially clean slate to really fix things especially if you make optional rules clear in what they replace or should only be used in conjunction with other optional rules.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
1.) All classes get some sort of Class Feature at nearly very level, (allowing for both a bit more customization, and also more equal number of Archtypes).

They already kinda do this, with the exception of feat levels, but for the most part dead levels is something Paizo tries to avoid.

Quote:
2.) Make 4+Int the min Skill Point for class with the exception of Wizards, Witches, and other classes. No need to tie in HD and BaB in my opinion.

I disagree with this. Giving everyone more skills just makes skills matter less and you end up with skill heavy classes losing out on the fact that having those skills gave them something to do that everyone else couldn't or didn't have enough resources to do.

i.e. Rogues get even worse instead of better.

Quote:
3.) Tone down the Magus, and reevaluate how a lot of the newer classes compare to the older ones. Cleric vs Inquisitor for instance.

The magus is fine as is. Redoing the old classes with what we know now vs. attempting to carry over from the 3.5 stuff in the OGL I think is a better way of phrasing this instead of blaming a perfectly fine class that isn't even overpowered.

Quote:
4.) Either make an effort to make all classes roughly equal in SAD or MAD.

Or do away with Point Buy and come up with a more balanced stat generation method that allows all classes to be played equally.

Quote:
5.) Give all classes a few Bonus Feat options along the lines of Ranger Fighting Styles (that are either/or).

Or eliminate feat chains and taxes so that the Ranger doesn't even have to skip prerequisites.

Quote:
6.) Might be cool to have mechanical differences between Arcane and Divine magic. Maybe Divine magic is unaffected by SR (except for from Divine Sources and Creatures), while only Arcane magic can utilize Metamagic, or something like that.

There are mechanical differences already. Divine spells don't use components and can be used in armor.

Different metamagic feats for the different derivatives I can see.

Quote:
7.) Give all classes a 20th level Capstone ability, and maybe a minor 10th level one as well.

Already exists in game.


I asked a similar question a while back, and received some great replies.


Justabloke wrote:

I'd like to see:

An end to Vancian magic

You know, it's interesting to see this, it's fairly common. But I don;t get it.

1. Vancain is one of the things that sets D&D apart from all the other FRPs. All of whom, incidentally, are languishing on the 30% off rack down at your FLGS. Coincidence? Maybe.

2. There are dozens and dozens of non-vancian FRPs out there (All of whom are languishing on the 30% off rack down at your FLGS). Instead of changing D&D, why not play one of them?

3. I have no problems at all with non-Vancian alternate magic systems in D&D. In fact, they are a good idea. (Spontaneous casters are a alternate system which I quite support and enjoy, there are others, such as the Witches Hexes, etc) Why then do they Vancian haters insist that everyone else has to play THEIR way? That spellpoints or whatever is the ONLY way they will let anyone play D&D? They never seem willing to allow Vancian as a alternate system, it must be "An end to Vancian magic".

Shadow Lodge

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
1.) All classes get some sort of Class Feature at nearly very level, (allowing for both a bit more customization, and also more equal number of Archtypes).
master_marshmallow wrote:
They already kinda do this, with the exception of feat levels, but for the most part dead levels is something Paizo tries to avoid.

For the most part, yes, but Clerics have 19 dead levels, and that is the reason given for why there are so few Archtypes.

Quote:
2.) Make 4+Int the min Skill Point for class with the exception of Wizards, Witches, and other classes. No need to tie in HD and BaB in my opinion.
master_marshmallow wrote:

I disagree with this. Giving everyone more skills just makes skills matter less and you end up with skill heavy classes losing out on the fact that having those skills gave them something to do that everyone else couldn't or didn't have enough resources to do.

i.e. Rogues get even worse instead of better.

I disagree, but just my opinion. I don't think Fighters and Clerics have enough skill points to function in their basic roles.

Quote:
3.) Tone down the Magus, and reevaluate how a lot of the newer classes compare to the older ones. Cleric vs Inquisitor for instance.
master_marshmallow wrote:
The magus is fine as is. Redoing the old classes with what we know now vs. attempting to carry over from the 3.5 stuff in the OGL I think is a better way of phrasing this instead of blaming a perfectly fine class that isn't even overpowered.

The magus is pretty dang strong, and while it's debatable about overpowered, its really should have been two separate points, (on m part). The focus was on reevaluating the other classes.

Quote:
4.) Either make an effort to make all classes roughly equal in SAD or MAD.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Or do away with Point Buy and come up with a more balanced stat generation method that allows all classes to be played equally.

Could be, but a Point Buy is not going to do the trick.

Quote:
5.) Give all classes a few Bonus Feat options along the lines of Ranger Fighting Styles (that are either/or).
master_marshmallow wrote:
Or eliminate feat chains and taxes so that the Ranger doesn't even have to skip prerequisites.

The point was to give out a choice, preferably at later levels between option 1 or option 2. Has nothing to do with Feat Chains or Feat Taxes. :)

Quote:
6.) Might be cool to have mechanical differences between Arcane and Divine magic. Maybe Divine magic is unaffected by SR (except for from Divine Sources and Creatures), while only Arcane magic can utilize Metamagic, or something like that.

There are mechanical differences already. Divine spells don't use components and can be used in armor.

Different metamagic feats for the different derivatives I can see.

Casting in Armor isn't actually intrinsic to Divine magic, as some Arcane Casters can do it, fully or in limited capacity, while at least 1 Divine Archtype removes it, and Divine spells very much do use Components. Occasionally a Divine Spell will not use an expensive Focus in favor of a DF such as Identify, but that's pretty rare, and there are likewise cases where a Divine spell costs more.

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
7.) Give all classes a 20th level Capstone ability, and maybe a minor 10th level one as well.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Already exists in game.

Not for all classes, which was the point being made. With the exception of Air/Earth/Fire/Water Clerics, no 10th or 20th Capstone. Same with Wizards.

Shadow Lodge

DrDeth wrote:
Justabloke wrote:

I'd like to see:

An end to Vancian magic

You know, it's interesting to see this, it's fairly common. But I don;t get it.

1. Vancain is one of the things that sets D&D apart from all the other FRPs. All of whom, incidentally, are languishing on the 30% off rack down at your FLGS. Coincidence? Maybe.

2. There are dozens and dozens of non-vancian FRPs out there (All of whom are languishing on the 30% off rack down at your FLGS). Instead of changing D&D, why not play one of them?

3. I have no problems at all with non-Vancian alternate magic systems in D&D. In fact, they are a good idea. (Spontaneous casters are a alternate system which I quite support and enjoy, there are others, such as the Witches Hexes, etc) Why then do they Vancian haters insist that everyone else has to play THEIR way? That spellpoints or whatever is the ONLY way they will let anyone play D&D? They never seem willing to allow Vancian as a alternate system, it must be "An end to Vancian magic".

I don't mind Vancian Magic. White Wolf did a great example of a non-30% rack system, (or actually a few), but I'm not sure I'd want it changed, other than Spell Points.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
non-30% rack system,

huh?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
Justabloke wrote:

I'd like to see:

An end to Vancian magic

You know, it's interesting to see this, it's fairly common. But I don;t get it.

1. Vancain is one of the things that sets D&D apart from all the other FRPs. All of whom, incidentally, are languishing on the 30% off rack down at your FLGS. Coincidence? Maybe.

2. There are dozens and dozens of non-vancian FRPs out there (All of whom are languishing on the 30% off rack down at your FLGS). Instead of changing D&D, why not play one of them?

While I have no real stake on this (I am ambivalent on switching from a Vancian system, and I tend to be on the side of people who prefer no major overhaul/ground up system revise of Pathfinder)

I do think that points 1 and 2 may not be the best arguments. There are many, many reasons reasons why DnD and Pathfinder have been successful, but to blame it one element of ruleset is a bit misleading. Certainly historic legacy, company support, continued support, genre, and other rule elements (class system, d20 mechanics, etc) are also major reasons for DnD success, and probably more significant reasons than "Vancian is the only way to do magic"


MMCJawa wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Justabloke wrote:

I'd like to see:

An end to Vancian magic

You know, it's interesting to see this, it's fairly common. But I don;t get it.

1. Vancain is one of the things that sets D&D apart from all the other FRPs. All of whom, incidentally, are languishing on the 30% off rack down at your FLGS. Coincidence? Maybe.

2. There are dozens and dozens of non-vancian FRPs out there (All of whom are languishing on the 30% off rack down at your FLGS). Instead of changing D&D, why not play one of them?

While I have no real stake on this (I am ambivalent on switching from a Vancian system, and I tend to be on the side of people who prefer no major overhaul/ground up system revise of Pathfinder)

I do think that points 1 and 2 may not be the best arguments. There are many, many reasons reasons why DnD and Pathfinder have been successful, but to blame it one element of ruleset is a bit misleading. Certainly historic legacy, company support, continued support, genre, and other rule elements (class system, d20 mechanics, etc) are also major reasons for DnD success, and probably more significant reasons than "Vancian is the only way to do magic"

Perhaps. Do note I said: "Coincidence? Maybe.". But I alos note that the one d&D edition that is considered a failure by many got mostly rid of Vancian. Again: Coincidence? Maybe.

But however, did you address point 2? Why NOT play another system? Why insist that D&D drop one of the things that makes it unique?

I mean, I read "get rid of levels" "make it a skill based system" "get rid of Vancian" "get rid of alignment" all of which are available in other FRPGs- so why not play one of them instead of changing something that makes D&D unique?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:

Perhaps. Do note I said: "Coincidence? Maybe.". But I alos note that the one d&D edition that is considered a failure by many got mostly rid of Vancian. Again: Coincidence? Maybe.

But however, did you address point 2? Why NOT play another system? Why insist that D&D drop one of the things that makes it unique?

I mean, I read "get rid of levels" "make it a skill based system" "get rid of Vancian" "get rid of alignment" all of which are available in other FRPGs- so why not play one of them instead of changing something that makes D&D unique?

but that is still oversimplifying. After all, 4E made a lot of other changes to the system besides lost of Vancian (Not to mention a perhaps poorly designed approach to advertizing and product creation), and in fact, lack of Vancian was one complaint I seldom heard for turning people off on the game.

Similar, the other games that haven't caught on mechanics which incorporate many other differences than "not Vancian"

My personal feeling is Vancian is a perfectly fine system, but I don't think DnD's success would have been any different had Gygax and co came up with a spell point esq system versus Vancian.

Shadow Lodge

DrDeth wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
non-30% rack system,
huh?

Not sure which part you are questioning. The 30% off rack was from you, and I was saying that White Wolf has done a few products that did not make the 30% off rack and developed another system for magic that was not Vancian.

Notably is Mage (both new and old versions), but also WoD games. They also did Ars Magica. While potentially a 30% candidate, though more likely because it was only a single book and not a setting or gameline was Monte Cook's World of Darkness, which has a sort of blending of Vancian and "Free Form" magic not unlike a complex (but easy) Spell Point system involving multiple Pools of Spell Points and Words of Power (that worked).

Shadow Lodge

MMCJawa wrote:
After all, 4E made a lot of other changes to the system besides lost of Vancian (Not to mention a perhaps poorly designed approach to advertizing and product creation), and in fact, lack of Vancian was one complaint I seldom heard for turning people off on the game.

It's also very possible that the massive number of complaints about 4E from those that had issues with it went far beyond just a lack of Vancian Magic. On the other hand, in some ways 4E made everyone use Vancian Magic, if not in very simple ways. And unlike in D&D's form, a Wizard didn't simply cast a spell and have it vanish from their memory. Fighters would level up and forever forget how to use a special strike, (unless they kept a lower level power), as they advanced to the next circle of mastery.


DrDeth wrote:


3. I have no problems at all with non-Vancian alternate magic systems in D&D. In fact, they are a good idea. (Spontaneous casters are a alternate system which I quite support and enjoy, there are others, such as the Witches Hexes, etc) Why then do they Vancian haters insist that everyone else has to play THEIR way? That spellpoints or whatever is the ONLY way they will let anyone play D&D? They never seem willing to allow Vancian as a alternate system, it must be "An end to Vancian magic".

Agreed completely. The ability to have characters with wildly different mechanics is the primary strength of 3e.

DrDeth wrote:

1. Vancain is one of the things that sets D&D apart from all the other FRPs. All of whom, incidentally, are languishing on the 30% off rack down at your FLGS. Coincidence? Maybe.

2. There are dozens and dozens of non-vancian FRPs out there (All of whom are languishing on the 30% off rack down at your FLGS). Instead of changing D&D, why not play one of them?

And here's where you lost me. You talk of games "languishing on the 30% off rack"...as if D&D is not itself languishing in a tiny market. Or as if you think D&D is somehow popular or well known. Newsflash: a vast majority of the population, even in the U.S., has never played D&D. People of your generation may know D&D as "that thing a few creepy people did in high school." People from my generation are far more likely to recognize D&D as the predecessor to CRPG/JRPG videogames, or, if they are really into the gaming community, the inspiration for Neverwinter and DDO.

Speaking of which, CRPGs exist, and unlike pen-and-paper RPGs are widespread enough that most people from younger generations know about them, and a lot of people have played them. Many individual CRPGs outsell the entire pen-and-paper gaming industry! And a vast majority of CRPGs use...point based casting. Is it a coincidence that the games which permeate popular culture in an expanding industry use point-based casting, while the game very few have played in a fringe hobby uses Vancian? As you say, maybe.

Spoiler:
I do think it is a coincidence: I think CRPGs are more popular because of their convenience, not because they use point-based casting. After all, the original final fantasy uses the same casting mechanic as the 3e sorcerer, while pokemon uses a completely different 'casting' mechanic, and both still manage to be more popular than D&D. My point remains, though: in the grand scheme of things D&D is pretty far out on the fringe, so any argument which rests on "D&D is popular, therefore..." is silly.

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Clerics have 19 dead levels

Clerics do not have 19 dead levels, they have 10 (the even levels and level 19, except level 8 where they get a new domain power).

DrDeth wrote:


Perhaps. Do note I said: "Coincidence? Maybe.". But I alos note that the one d&D edition that is considered a failure by many got mostly rid of Vancian. Again: Coincidence? Maybe.

Ah, so we are back to "failure" being defined entirely as what makes you, personally, happy. Newsflash: WotC doesn't give a crap about whether you like their products, just whether they make a profit. 4e made fairly large profit margins (huge considering how small of an industry it is in); it was a success. That isn't a matter of opinion. The profits in WotC's banks are not opinions, they are reality. Are there people who don't like 4e? Absolutely! I'm one of them. And I take it you are as well, given that you are on this forum. We are perfectly entitled to that opinion. It doesn't change the fact (not opinion!) that 4e was profitable. Because everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

I do think you are correct when you say people who don't want vancian casting would be happier playing a different system, just like people who don't want multiclassing to exist would probably be happier with AD&D. Actually, people who don't like vancian casting would probably be happy with just banning vancian casters. The game has psionics, martial adapts, vestiges/spirits, invocations, infusions, grafts, shadowcasting, and truenaming. Removing vancian classes from one campaign won't destroy the system. There's really no reason to remove it from the system as a whole when alternatives exist. If someone really can't stand the thought of multiple distinct mechanics existing in the same game...then yea, this isn't the system for them.


I don't get how 4e didn't have vancian casting for you.

I guess not being limited to daily only spells means wizards aren't vancian? They got a spellbook and could select their spells per day and everything!

Man, if essentials wasn't such a freaking failure (despite going back to 3.5 design sensibilities... Coincidence? Maybe.) I bet there would be a wizard version without encounter powers, but the ability to prepare dailies multiple times.


Cleric "dead levels" and wizard "dead levels" aren't really a thing when you consider additional spells per day and/or access to higher level spells.

I think that is something people tend to forget.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Cleric "dead levels" and wizard "dead levels" aren't really a thing when you consider additional spells per day and/or access to higher level spells.

I think that is something people tend to forget.

Normally I count something as a dead level when your versatility doesn't expand. Just getting higher numbers, or being able to do something you could already do an extra time per day isn't enough. Otherwise you could say there are no dead levels at all since even the commoner gets more hit points each level.

Hence why I pointed out that the odd levels (except 19) are not dead for a cleric, because they learn a bunch of spells they couldn't use before. The even levels are still dead (except for whenever you get a new domain power).
Spontaneous casters don't have any dead levels, though, since every level they gain access to spells they previously couldn't get at all.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Cleric "dead levels" and wizard "dead levels" aren't really a thing when you consider additional spells per day and/or access to higher level spells.

I think that is something people tend to forget.

The issue with Wizard having dead-levels is that it leads to a weird problem, exemplified best by the 3.5 sorcerer. The rule for playing a 3.5 sorcerer was to stop playing one and prestige class as quickly as possible. The lack of class features/dead levels means that wizards are basically free (encouraged even) to multiclass without any real penalty.

This then leads to the weird conundrum: Give wizards good class features so that there is a trade off for prestige classing, or encourage wizards to get good class features with prestige classes.


I concur that more per day uses or higher number to something does not cure a dead level, but a new spell level does. Which is why I think at most clerics have 10 dead levels minus the one where they get their domain power

Shadow Lodge

The general idea of what a Dead Level is, when a Class does not gain new class features or options, outside of HD, BaB, Skills, Spells, or an improvement on an existing class ability that scales, (like +1d6 Sneak Attack). So, 5th level is a Dead Level for Druid, even though they get 3rd level spells, because the only things that increase are HP/HD, BaB, Saves, Skill Points, Spells, and the various Level dependent abilities, like CL. That was the original definition give back in Dragon mag in the 3E days. The idea was in comparing Base Classes to NPC Classes, (Adept get spells), so it's just Class Features basically, or the "Special" column in the individual Class Tables.

Different people, obviously, use it meaning slightly different things, and I admittedly forgot to include the 2nd granted powers for Cleric Domains, so 19 Dead Levels is incorrect, and it's actually 17 - 18 Dead Levels.


Full spellcasters are already powerful enuf, so that getting access to a new level of spells is fine.


Spellcasting is considered a class feature. Just because you don't see every spell level increase on the column of the class chart that says "Spellcasting" doesn't mean you don't have an improving class feature. For example, summoners and the summon monster spa. I would wager that would be called a class feature even though you can cast the summon monster spell.

The situation is largely the same with wizards and other casters except they don't explicitly call out every single increase in that chart. Instead you have a huge matrix of numbers on that same chart. It should be enough. In addition, wizards get free feats and school powers. Sorcerers get the same. The idea of a dead level for those classes in Pathfinder comes at a strained attempt to complain, imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Improving class features don't count. You can only alter them once when they first show up. The big problem with cleric and wizard is that the lack of class features make it nearly impossible to write meaningful archetypes. You can alter domains or school specialization, but not much else.


If I were to make changes to PF and make another addition, hmmm... Off the cuff;

1. Divorce ability scores from to-hit and spellcasting DC mechanics and adjust the game bonuses available to bring everything into line(e.g. remove the base ten bonus to armor class, remove resistance cloaks, etc.).
reasoning behind this is basically to help balance out the benefits of certain ability scores and make role-play choices less onerous.

2. Do something with spell-casting such that the caster has to choose to specialize in schools. An example of this might be something like the following; a specialist wizard gets to learn spells from their specialized school as normal. At each level(including first) the wizard also gets to choose a different school, each time a school is chosen the wizard may choose new spells known up to a level equal to the number of times a school is chosen(maximum level nine, obviously). A specialists restricted school requires double the investment and may only be taken up to spell level 4. This replaces the double slot penalty that exists currently. Universalist wizards would get two school training points per level instead of one and are not restricted from any schools.

3. Role feats into scaling feats so that character concepts come together more readily and help with the character divide between spell-casters and non spell-casters.

4. This one is a little left field, but hear me out. I think that the basic leveling chassis(e.g. hit die, skill points, save bonuses, base attack progression, etc.) should be separated from classes altogether and given generic class feature tracks. One track might be called(for example) combat track one. You get combat track one at level 1, and it progresses at 5, 9, 14, and 19 on the full base attack chassis(there may only be four instances of combat track 1 on the 3/4 chassis and 3 instances on the 1/2 bab chassis). Now, from a list of combat tracks you could take the hunter(again, for example) and gain something akin to favored enemy (with some alteration, like removing the numerous to-hit bonuses[see change 1]) which would scale at the above levels.

The beauty of this idea is basically that you can have balanced class features that scale throughout a characters career without falling into the balance trap that comes from a la carte style classless systems. You can also take this sort of feature on different chassis because every chassis will have a combat track, but it will scale at different rates(so a martial chassis might have more instances of a particular track as it levels when compared against a 3/4 bab class).

651 to 677 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.
Recent threads in Product Discussion