For Paizo to cease publication of their own system, and publish Golarion sourcebooks, modules, and Adventure Paths...for Swords & Wizardry.LawLz, I don't think the number of people who play Swords and Wizardry could even keep the lights on at Paizo.
So what you're telling me is that I didn't earn bonus xp's for getting the obscure reference? :(
Why do I never get what hipsters reference?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In would love to see power attack, combat expertise, and weapon finesse all built into the game without being feats. I would like a feat allowing Dex to damage when using the non-feat WF in that is available either at 1st level or 3rd at the latest. I also would like for martials to not be dependant on full-attacking. Things like standard-action-smash-earth to cause an earthquake and the ability to ready an action to reflect a spell back on the caster, even AOEs. I would like for skills to provide enough world shattering effects later that that a rogue with 15 ranks in 8 skills is just as terrifying as a wizard. In would like spells to be less specific and more general. I would like to receive HD+con healing after sleeping and possibly feats allowing that to multiply by 2, 3, 4...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stat block-level compatibility with the current game.
Rewrite combat rules and every character class from scratch if needed, but keep existing stats untouched so the only book that needs replacing in anyone's collection is the CRB, while all of the campaign setting, modules, bestiaries, and AP books will "just work" with the new version.
Trim the rules down to a simpler, streamlined form, and move the more complex material into an optional "Core Rulebook 2". Also trim it down to just four base classes in the CRB so there's enough to learn the game from but we're not carrying around an oversized tome full of material we're not actually using in the current game. The removed classes can either go into CRB2 or individual softcovers (the latter being my preference, as then it's relatively easy to carry the CRB+your class book, and to update those class books individually if needed later on)
And finally, call it 1.5 for marketing reasons, to avoid people thinking it's a whole brand new game that invalidates all of their existing collection.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woot... Another thread!!
List O' things...
First.) Revamp the magic system to have all casters use a linear Spontanious casting mechanic. Wizards keep spellbooks, "preparing" known spells, sorcerers will augment thier spells (as all casters do now with Meta magic feats) and most likely choose an element to specialize in and so on. Spells will need to be revamped to take into account the Spamming quota.
2.) No more skill bump/focus feats. Have this be a class feature for the Rogue and other skill monkey classes.
3.)Have some feats tied to the class feature abilities instead of being feats, especially Weapon Specialization for the Fighter. Nix the feats that elulate class abilities of other classes, like Evasion.
4.)Remove crafting/profession/perform skills and make use of these concepts in a background mechanic. Have the character gain a job skill from the background and from various class features that will gain points automatically from character and class levels. (Background and class ability stacks)
5.)Revamp the Combat Manuvers. Clarify use of CMB vs BAB in what situations. Have class/archtypes add stat bonus to CMD to show improve physical statuar. Have weapons that have manuver designates be able to be used without AoO. Change up some manuvers to go against other defenses other than CMD, such as Sunder.
6.)Monster Build System. No more class levels for monsters. HD, powers and abilities. Have some of the Monster abilities be listed as possible feats for players at the end of the book. Player character races will be listed at beginning of book with monster entry within the regular listings. (have a companion book that has these playable races from two Bestiarys released later on)
7.)Include Tiefling and Aasimars in the Core Races, remove the Half races and have a Half breed template up with all the races in the core having stats for it. (Still assume half human, they really get around)
8.)Psionics. Have a psionic class included in the core that uses a psi pool for class abilites instead of being tied to their powers. (Some abilities will, of course, effect powers) Make the Monk a Psionic class with some powers used in place of the useless 3.5 weak sauce abilities.
9.)Speaking of the Monk, fix it. Furry of blows will be regular BAB normal attack, monk weapons are only weapons profecent, dependent on Archtypes, and allow non-metal light armor.
All for now...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Setting-neutral rulebooks with Golarion-specific content and restrictions in Golarion-specific setting books.
A MAJOR reduction in the power of spells and spellcasters, including the removal of spells that render skills obsolete or simply ruin certain types of adventure/plotlines.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the Golarion setting being deeply seeded into the core is a benefit. I can't see this being Pathfinder without it.
One man's feature is another man's bug. I'm quite 'meh' on the setting in general.
For Paizo to cease publication of their own system, and publish Golarion sourcebooks, modules, and Adventure Paths...for Swords & Wizardry.IDK what that even is
A quick search on rpg drivethru reveals it to be a clone of OD&D. I don't know how true it is to the original, but it's free, so I'm gonna give it a skim just 'cause I never had the original!
For Paizo to cease publication of their own system, and publish Golarion sourcebooks, modules, and Adventure Paths...for Swords & Wizardry.LawLz, I don't think the number of people who play Swords and Wizardry could even keep the lights on at Paizo.
Way to stay classy and positive, dude! /sarc
Let people have their pipe dreams; I didn't title the thread "What we can reasonably expect from PF 2e."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an example from the 4e DMG:
Blood Rock
The site of ceremonial sacrifices, a great slaughter, or
some other calamity, the spirit of death hovers over
blood rock. A creature standing in a square of blood
rock can score a critical hit on a natural die roll of 19
or 20.
Oh, fantastic terrain! Yeah, that's fantastic stuff. ;)
I feel like—no offense guys—most of the "Pathfinder 2.0" wishlist are things that either take 5 seconds to houserule and don't warrant a new book, or are asking Paizo to make a very different game for no real, objective reason.
I see what you're saying, but on the other hand, there are guys still playing OD&D who don't think that there was a "real objective reason" for 1e D&D, or anything that came after. Everyone draws their own line in the sand, and most of those lines are a lot less extreme. Heck, we even got Nathanael Love to go from "Never ever ever ever gonna buy PF 2e hate Paizo forever!" to "Okay, maybe in 15 years."
The freedom to house rule is a great thing if you happen to be the DM of a home game, but players have limited influence over house rules at best, and PFS gamers have none.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . . Let people have their pipe dreams; I didn't title the thread "What we can reasonably expect from PF 2e."
I'm not sure which mine fall under, but here goes.
I'll echo a few other sentiments. Fold power attack, deadly aim, and combat expertise into the general combat system, as opposed to individual feats.
Feats should scale, either by skill ranks, base attack, or plain old hit die/level in some cases, but they should scale.
Skills should do more, so they are still useful at higher levels. We can pull examples from myths and legends of characters who weren't magical, but could do un-freaking-believable stuff. A fantasy role playing game should mirror that to an extent.
Multiclassing synergy. I'm not sure how, but it should be a element, similar to 3.5's Tome of Battle initiator levels stacking with 1/2 levels in another class. There were synergy feats near the end of 3.5, like swift hunter and ascetic sorcerer.
Point based spellcasting. Slots out. Mana in. And as in most fiction, magic should have an Achilles heel, a non-magical way for it to fail. It might not be easy, but it should be present.
I'll stop here for now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main thing that would need to be fixed in a new edition is preventing the game's numbers from getting out of wack at high levels. It is beyond annoying that saving throws and BAB diverge so much at high levels. It is possible to work around it, but I wish it wasn't an issue in the first place.
In addition, the 'big six' magical items need to all be destroyed and never seen again. I hate it when I see some fancy magical item with a great and fun ability, and then have to say "I can't use that, because I would die without my Cloak of Resistance". I would like choosing magical items to become an actual choice again.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In addition, the 'big six' magical items need to all be destroyed and never seen again. I hate it when I see some fancy magical item with a great and fun ability, and then have to say "I can't use that, because I would die without my Cloak of Resistance". I would like choosing magical items to become an actual choice again.
Seconded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how to do it mechanically, but a system without classes, just a menu of abilities to choose from at each level, with prerequisites of course.
Put simply:
The class is called 'hero'. The hero gets the following abilites:
Lvl1: Saves +1/+1/+1; BAB +1; 1 Feat; 4 skill points
Lvl2: -
Lvl3: Saves +1/+1/+1; BAB +1; 1 Feat; 4 skill points
Lvl4: -
Lvl5: Saves +1/+1/+1; BAB +1; 1 Feat; 4 skill points
Lvl6: -
Lvl7: Saves +1/+1/+1; BAB +1; 1 Feat; 4 skill points
...
Choose
A/ Three MINOR abilities (you can only select each ability once) at each level. You must meet the prereqs (if any) before you can select an ability with prereqs.
B/ One MINOR and one INTERMEDIATE abilty at each level. You must meet the prereqs (if any) before you can select an ability with prereqs.
C/ One MAJOR ability at each level. You must meet the prereqs (if any) before you can select an ability with prereqs.
MINOR abilities:
+2 Skill points; +1 Feat; +1D4 precision damage; +1 BAB; +1 Fort Save; +1 Reflex Save; +1 Will Save; +2 rounds of rage per day; +2 rounds of performance per day
INTERMEDIATE abilities:
+5 Skill points; +1 spell known & +1 spell slot of the highest level you can cast; ...
MAJOR abilities:
- +10 Skill points
- +10 base land speed (can only be taken 3 times in total)
- Magic user (you can learn and cast spells; only one spell list which is a combination of divine and arcane);
- Channeling (prereq: magic user; you can use a spell slot to channel energy, can be used for healing or damaging)
- Fury (you can rage: +4 strength, +4 con, +2 will saves while in rage. You can rage for 2+con mod rounds per day);
- Iron Skin (prereq Fury): DRx/- where x is half your class level
- Trap sense (you can detect and disable mechanical traps and gain a bonus on your save versus traps equal to 1/2 your level);
- Improved trap sense (prereq Trap Sense; you can detect and disable magical traps);
- Musician (something like the bardic songs with inspire courage)
- Vituoso (prereq musician; but can now inspire competence, etc)
...
Of course this is a flawed example, but I just wanted to get the idea across. Endless versatility with one core class :-)
Hope you get the jist :-)
To be published under the OGL and the rules on the Golarion books be OGC.
Other than that, i would be happy if they fixed (or at least improved) the system on the high levels (16+).
As to my ideal multi-class system, I don't know that I have one.
Are you saying that you don't have a preference, or that your ideal would be no multiclassing at all? No judgments either way.
I don't begrudge people wanting to take one level of everything over 20 levels.
An ideal a la carte MC system makes such a choice purely fluff, if that wasn't clear from my OP, btw. If a level is a level is a level, there's no mechanical advantage to having one level in twenty classes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and of course ... NO ALIGNMENT.
Stat block-level compatibility with the current game.
Rewrite combat rules and every character class from scratch if needed, but keep existing stats untouched so the only book that needs replacing in anyone's collection is the CRB, while all of the campaign setting, modules, bestiaries, and AP books will "just work" with the new version.
Trim the rules down to a simpler, streamlined form, and move the more complex material into an optional "Core Rulebook 2". Also trim it down to just four base classes in the CRB so there's enough to learn the game from but we're not carrying around an oversized tome full of material we're not actually using in the current game. The removed classes can either go into CRB2 or individual softcovers (the latter being my preference, as then it's relatively easy to carry the CRB+your class book, and to update those class books individually if needed later on)
And finally, call it 1.5 for marketing reasons, to avoid people thinking it's a whole brand new game that invalidates all of their existing collection.
They may have something you'd want like that already. The Beginner Box seems very close to some of the items you are asking for. If you wish you could play most of PF but modified to the Beginner Box rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and of course ... NO ALIGNMENT.
Not sure that Alignment actually needs to go, but I could see it's impact getting reduced so that 'normal people' are essentially all netural no matter what they believe. You'd have to be directly associated with a god or some other power in order to have a strong enough alignment for it to matter.
|
More skill points per level.
Allowing people to make their own Pregens for pfs
Adding a feat or class feature that allows a pc to move more than a 5 foot step and take every attack. Basically a pc with 3 to 4 attacks can move 20 feet and still take every attack.
Pfs modules past the lvl 12 eye of the ten.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo did a great job of updating the 3rd edition dungeons and dragons rules. With each new book they release, you can slowly see the Paizo way getting more developed. I'd love to see what they would come up with now if they did a complete ground up rebuild. I feel like there are still a number of leftover 3ed artifacts lingering around in the game that don't quite belong anymore.
I love class-less, level-less systems, but I'll go play a White Wolf game if I'm looking for that. The dungeons and dragons legacy is about epic fantasy. Part of playing epic fantasy is being able to play the archetypes of wizard, barbarian, etc. I think classes and levels are an excellent way to do that, and pathfinder should stick to them. Other game systems already do a great job at the complete customization route. I think there's plenty of customization in the multiclass system for what the game is trying to be.
I'd like to see the way their class design trend has developed to now reapplied back to the core rulebook classes. I think many of them would be fairly different written now.
While 4ed is popularly despised, I think there's a few streamlining things they did right that should be added. The biggest one to me was making all attacks be rolled by the attacker. Currently martial characters roll to hit the opponent, the opponent rolls no defense. Spellcasters roll nothing to hit, the opponent rolls a saving throw to defend. Turn saves into static defenses. Mechanically all it does is change who is rolling the dice, but it speeds up the game.
The saves way
GM: roll a saving throw.
Player: what kind of saving throw?
GM: a will save
Player: what's the DC?
GM: roll and I'll tell you if you've made it
Player: does a 18 make it?
GM yes.
the static defense way
GM: does a 15 hit your will
Player: no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love class-less, level-less systems, but I'll go play a White Wolf game if I'm looking for that. The dungeons and dragons legacy is about epic fantasy. Part of playing epic fantasy is being able to play the archetypes of wizard, barbarian, etc.
A classless, levelless system would not, in any way, impair your ability to play a classic archetype. It would simply make it not-a-requirement.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to see the APs get D&D Next versions, personally.
But if they do go with a Pathfinder 2 someday, I want the same things a lot of people do.
1. Scaling feats.
2. More powerful uses for skills.
3. More interesting abilities for Fighters and Rogues.
4. Better multiclassing system.
5. Kill the full attack- more combat mobility, please!
6. Magic items as optional, rather than required.
7. A combat maneuver system with better balance.
8. Class-based defense bonus. Sort of ties in with 6...
I think that covers it, I used to have a bigger list, but I think these are things we could actually expect to see.
Here's an example from the 4e DMG:
Blood Rock
The site of ceremonial sacrifices, a great slaughter, or
some other calamity, the spirit of death hovers over
blood rock. A creature standing in a square of blood
rock can score a critical hit on a natural die roll of 19
or 20.Oh, fantastic terrain! Yeah, that's fantastic stuff. ;)
I feel like—no offense guys—most of the "Pathfinder 2.0" wishlist are things that either take 5 seconds to houserule and don't warrant a new book, or are asking Paizo to make a very different game for no real, objective reason.I see what you're saying, but on the other hand, there are guys still playing OD&D who don't think that there was a "real objective reason" for 1e D&D, or anything that came after. Everyone draws their own line in the sand, and most of those lines are a lot less extreme. Heck, we even got Nathanael Love to go from "Never ever ever ever gonna buy PF 2e hate Paizo forever!" to "Okay, maybe in 15 years."
The freedom to house rule is a great thing if you happen to be the DM of a home game, but players have limited influence over house rules at best, and PFS gamers have none.
Disclaimer: I think PFS organized play is b$#!#@&s, so I'm less likely to be convinced by any problems between it and my way of thinking.
And I disagree on how we're both interpreting the phrase "objective reason", which I will admit is a flawed term, but I can't think of anything better.
Let me rephrase: By making a 2nd Edition, with any or all of these changes everyone is posting, Paizo risks losing a huge chunk of their audience like WotC did. Everyone who doesn't happen to like the changes won't buy 2e and certainly won't buy any of the subsequent splatbook or APs they publish for it.
My question is: What audience expectation or demand is so great that it warrants a complete system overhaul, and a guaranteed loss of fans, which may or may not be a huge number?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
6. Magic items as optional, rather than required.8. Class-based defense bonus. Sort of ties in with 6...
Oh god, yes! There's nothing that kills my suspension of disbelief in the overall game and screams I'M PLAYING A GAMEY GAME more than "As I've gained experience and world-spanning notoriety, I've gotten better at stabbing things, and I've gotten better at dodging fireballs...but I'm no better at dodging swords than a 0th level dirt farmer."
Woot... Another thread!!
List O' things...
First.) Revamp the magic system to have all casters use a linear Spontanious casting mechanic. Wizards keep spellbooks, "preparing" known spells, sorcerers will augment thier spells (as all casters do now with Meta magic feats) and most likely choose an element to specialize in and so on. Spells will need to be revamped to take into account the Spamming quota.
Could work, but I'm one of those old people that doesn't actually have a problem with the way spellcasting currently works.
2.) No more skill bump/focus feats. Have this be a class feature for the Rogue and other skill monkey classes.
Close, but not quite for me. Skill feature for skill-monkeys, yes please. Take it away as an available feat for everyone else? No thanks. Skill monkeys get better for free, others have to pay for it at the cost of being better at something else, the skill monkeys can use their available feats on other things or, if they're dedicated, they can also pick up the skill feats.
3.)Have some feats tied to the class feature abilities instead of being feats, especially Weapon Specialization for the Fighter. Nix the feats that elulate class abilities of other classes, like Evasion.
Evasion is a bad example, since it isn't a feat that others can take. However, I'm honestly not able to think of any feats that actually emulate class abilities. Magic items? Sure, those exist, and they should remain an option.
4.)Remove crafting/profession/perform skills and make use of these concepts in a background mechanic. Have the character gain a job skill from the background and from various class features that will gain points automatically from character and class levels. (Background and class ability stacks)
While I like the idea, I again balk at "remove". Is it not possible to learn new skills throughout life?
5.)Revamp the Combat Manuvers. Clarify use of CMB vs BAB in what situations. Have class/archtypes add stat bonus to CMD to show improve physical statuar. Have weapons that have manuver designates be able to be used without AoO. Change up some manuvers to go against other defenses other than CMD, such as Sunder.
Combat Maneuvers use CMB. Attacks don't. That's not that hard. Monks get to use their level instead of BAB to figure CMB bonus, but that needs to be extended to CMD. I agree with you there. I agree with you on the weapons. Don't agree with you on the last point, because now, instead of going against one number (CMD) for combat maneuvers, you are having to keep track of which maneuver targets which defense. This is counter to your first complaint in the paragraph.
6.)Monster Build System. No more class levels for monsters. HD, powers and abilities. Have some of the Monster abilities be listed as possible feats for players at the end of the book. Player character races will be listed at beginning of book with monster entry within the regular listings. (have a companion book that has these playable races from two Bestiarys released later on)
Better original monster building system, absolutely. The rest of it, for me, is a big hell no. Do not remove customization options. I *want* parties to look at a kobold and go "this will be easy" only to have the kobold actually be a bloodrager that tries to eat their faces. Additionally, what you're talking about would increase the page count of each Bestiary by...a lot. I don't have an issue with playable races being listed up front, but don't double up their entries and then don't throw out yet another book that has the exact stuff later on.
7.)Include Tiefling and Aasimars in the Core Races, remove the Half races and have a Half breed template up with all the races in the core having stats for it. (Still assume half human, they really get around)
Include Tiefling and Aasimar? Sure. Remove...no. Half-breed template...no. A single template will not suffice to explain the difference between a half-elf and a half-orc.
8.)Psionics. Have a psionic class included in the core that uses a psi pool for class...
I wouldn't put psionics in the Core. Additional book? Ok, no problem, but if it's in the Core then too many people will have an issue with it taking up space that could either be cut or devoted to other material.
Everybody's going to have issues with their own likes taking up not enough space and their dislikes taking up too much. Pretty much a non-issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*raises hand*
Nerve integrating VR where I play my character in a world created by the GM's mind.
Since I am also looking for a 2045 release date, this seems very doable.
|
|
A classless, levelless system would not, in any way, impair your ability to play a classic archetype. It would simply make it not-a-requirement.I love class-less, level-less systems, but I'll go play a White Wolf game if I'm looking for that. The dungeons and dragons legacy is about epic fantasy. Part of playing epic fantasy is being able to play the archetypes of wizard, barbarian, etc.
True, and as I said, I love those types of systems. And there are systems, like shadowrun, where it's customizable, but they also provide archetypes for you to start with if you want help in making a specific "class." But there's something fun to me about choosing classes, and building interesting multi-class combinations that doesn't exist in those systems. And again, there's several other rpg rules systems that already do a good job at that type of playstyle. I think pathfinder should stick to the class and level method of the dungeons and dragons tradition.
|
|
Here's an example from the 4e DMG:
Blood Rock
The site of ceremonial sacrifices, a great slaughter, or
some other calamity, the spirit of death hovers over
blood rock. A creature standing in a square of blood
rock can score a critical hit on a natural die roll of 19
or 20.Oh, fantastic terrain! Yeah, that's fantastic stuff. ;)
I feel like—no offense guys—most of the "Pathfinder 2.0" wishlist are things that either take 5 seconds to houserule and don't warrant a new book, or are asking Paizo to make a very different game for no real, objective reason.I see what you're saying, but on the other hand, there are guys still playing OD&D who don't think that there was a "real objective reason" for 1e D&D, or anything that came after. Everyone draws their own line in the sand, and most of those lines are a lot less extreme. Heck, we even got Nathanael Love to go from "Never ever ever ever gonna buy PF 2e hate Paizo forever!" to "Okay, maybe in 15 years."
The freedom to house rule is a great thing if you happen to be the DM of a home game, but players have limited influence over house rules at best, and PFS gamers have none.
Disclaimer: I think PFS organized play is b!%~$#*s, so I'm less likely to be convinced by any problems between it and my way of thinking.
And I disagree on how we're both interpreting the phrase "objective reason", which I will admit is a flawed term, but I can't think of anything better.
Let me rephrase: By making a 2nd Edition, with any or all of these changes everyone is posting, Paizo risks losing a huge chunk of their audience like WotC did. Everyone who doesn't happen to like the changes won't buy 2e and certainly won't buy any of the subsequent splatbook or APs they publish for it.
My question is: What audience expectation or demand is so great that it warrants a complete system overhaul, and a guaranteed loss of fans, which may or may not be a huge number?
1- WoTC lost players due to bad publicity between 3.5 and 4ed. Every time a new edition comes out, there is a percentage of players who stick to the old rules, but there wasn't the same bad turnover between 1ed, AD&D, 2ed, 3ed, and 3.5ed. So new editions do not necessitate losing a substantial chunk of their audience.
2- There is a chunk of pathfinder players who likes the game fine the way it is and won't change if a new version comes out. I know a few of this type of player. They already purchased all the rulebooks they want, they don't purchase any of the splat books. They run their own home written material. Paizo makes 0 money off them, so losing them as customers makes no difference to the company. I know some other players who will immediately purchase every new book that comes out. These are the players who are making money for the company, and these are the people would happily purchase a new edition.
It's not audience demand per say that warrants a system re-haul, it's usually financial demand. Now that can theoretically be the same thing if the audience stops purchasing the product because they feel the system no longer works and want a new version. If Paizo can continue to be financially stable without having to make a new edition, then that's great. I, for one, would like to see the company continue. If that means a new edition every 10 years then that's fine by me.
Oh yeah and a Simulacrum template.
Any sort of risky massive overhaul of the rules is going to be tough. Beyond losing people that don't like the new rules, if the old APs/CS books are no longer usable as is or mostly as is, you risk alienating people by making them buy the same material all over again, and suddently Paizo is sitting on a giant stack of unmovable material when people switch systems.
That is why I think a tweak or rules is more likely and desirable than a complete overhaul...
Disclaimer: I think PFS organized play is b%&%+!%s, so I'm less likely to be convinced by any problems between it and my way of thinking.
Fair enough; I'm not a fan of organized play either. However, some gamers are, and for other gamers, organized play is their only option. Poor sods.
Let me rephrase: By making a 2nd Edition, with any or all of these changes everyone is posting, Paizo risks losing a huge chunk of their audience like WotC did. Everyone who doesn't happen to like the changes won't buy 2e and certainly won't buy any of the subsequent splatbook or APs they publish for it.
My question is: What audience expectation or demand is so great that it warrants a complete system overhaul, and a guaranteed loss of fans, which may or may not be a huge number?
That's a fair question, and one that Paizo has to do its best to answer accurately. No doubt they're taking into account that the average PF fan is probably more change-averse than the average D&D fan, and probably 90% of the ideas being discussed here are pipe dreams that'll never happen, including my own wish.
But as gnoams mentioned, at some point PF 2e becomes an inevitability, and the demand (or lack thereof) for a system overhaul doesn't really matter. Whatever system changes happen will be the result of that inevitability, not the cause of it. Sure, some fans will stick with original PF -- there's always a tail of gamers who decide to permanently settle into every edition of every even mildly popular game -- but others will jump on board the new edition. And sooner or later, the number of jumpers will outnumber the number of settlers. New players especially tend to be jumpers, and every game wants new players.
And while Paizo risks losing fans with any new edition, it also stands to gain fans. Like me; I play PF maybe twice a year, I own no PF books or other paraphernalia, and don't intend to. Until PF 2e arrives, in which case I could be impressed enough with its changes to buy. I'm not saying I'm the spokesman for a huge population of would-be PF fans just waiting for its 2e; just that an edition change is both a risk and an opportunity.
Oh yeah and a Simulacrum template.
Agreed. But since I'm impatient, I went and made one of my own, heavily cribbed from some excellent Simulacra threads on the boards here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all honesty, the biggest problem with 4E was the marketing, which seemed to be aimed directly at making anyone who liked features of 3E extremely upset. Seriously. Those mini-commercial things left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth.
Look, I agree with Anzyr! Yeah, that whole "The previous edition was crud, this is great, so if you're still doing the old crud stuff (which we happily sold you as the best and latest for a decade) you're dumb and not hip." Wow.
I want two PF2's. One in about 2 years, with minor changes only. No re-writes, just all the FAQ, errata, a few fixes (honestly Fighters can have 4 SkP) and something better and more clearly written. All the weird crud like the Sno-cone wish machine fixed. I want it so that if you have the previous edition, you can just (for the most part) print out the free PDF they would offer, make a few notes and your old rulebooks would still be Ok, even if marked to heck. In other words, about the changes between 1st & 2nd, maybe even less.
Then TEN+ years later, it may be time for a real "2nd ed", as vis-a- vis 2nd vs 3rd. Maybe 2045 even.
gnoams- I hate & despise 'static defense'. If I am gonna die, I want my hands on the die that does it. None of this: (Dm rolls) "Hmm, you're dead."
gnoams- I hate & despise 'static defense'. If I am gonna die, I want my hands on the die that does it. None of this: (Dm rolls) "Hmm, you're dead."
So, your characters are never attacked with weapons?
I wonder how well the system would work if attacks worked the same way as spells, in that your attacks have a DC and the defender has to roll a "save" to dodge/block/parry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MINOR THREADJACK TO ADDRESS EARLIER ASKED QUESTION
I've been thinking about the whole multi-class aspect since last night and I think I'm gonna bring up a class rewrite with the guys I play with and see if we can try an experiment. Here's what I've got so far:
1. 2 classes: Warrior and Mage
2. Each class has two subtypes: Warrior has Power (Str) and Agile (Dex), Mage has Holy (Wis) and Mystic (Cha)
3. Warriors get 4 skill points + relevant ability mod and all physical skills are class skills, Mages get 6 skill point + relevant ability mod and all mental skills are class skills.
4. Warriors get full BAB and Fort is high save, Mages get 1/2 BAB and Will is high save.
5. Using only the CRB for right now, martials (barbarian, fighter, rogue, monk) have their abilities split up between Power and Agile and casters (cleric, wizard, sorcerer, druid) have their abilities split up between Holy and Mystic.
6. Characters choose their subtype at first level and have to stick with it. That being said, they can choose one warrior and one mage subtype to use. This, I think, is the best way to handle class customization while locking in some things. Paladin would = power warrior + holy mage, ranger = agile warrior + holy mage, bard = agile warrior + mystic mage, etc.
7. This stops martial classes from retaining martial superiority and lumping casting ability on top of it. Only a full warrior would ever keep max BAB.
There are more that I haven't full fleshed out in my head (redistributing feats for example) but I think I may take a go at it over the next couple of weeks.
/END THREADJACK
- Psionics and Martial Initiates in either the core book or in that game's equivalent of the APG.
- Prestige classes that weren't garbage
- proper explanation for why all undead are evil, and the cure spells being taken out of Conjuration and moved into Necromancy
A system built from the ground up instead of another patch on a game system that is over 10 years old, and that has been shown to be flawed on a basic level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly I'd just like to see them revisit all the rules difficulties that exist solely due to 3.0 baggage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Do You Hope to See in PF 2e?Nice players that are fun to be around.
Hippy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
C Copywrite Paizo 2030
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
. . . Let people have their pipe dreams; I didn't title the thread "What we can reasonably expect from PF 2e."Point based spellcasting. Slots out. Mana in. And as in most fiction, magic should have an Achilles heel, a non-magical way for it to fail. It might not be easy, but it should be present.
I'll stop here for now.
If Vancian casting is out, so am I. The magic system is the only thing I unreservedly like in PF.
As for what I want, I'll echo what others have said about scaling feats, that would be a brilliant idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . . Let people have their pipe dreams; I didn't title the thread "What we can reasonably expect from PF 2e."Point based spellcasting. Slots out. Mana in. And as in most fiction, magic should have an Achilles heel, a non-magical way for it to fail. It might not be easy, but it should be present.
I'll stop here for now.
If Vancian casting is out, so am I. The magic system is the only thing I unreservedly like in PF.
Definitively concur on Vancian magic-- its the top thing that makes this game connected to what its been forever; I'll never buy a PF/D&D product that ditches that as the core of how Wizards work.