What Do You Hope to See in PF 2e?


Homebrew and House Rules

101 to 150 of 763 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


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."

Holy bejeezers. I agree.

Especially the current design of *Dice rattle* "You're dead." "I didn't even get to roll!" "Thems the breaks."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A few notes on what my inexperience can see:

1) Fully static defense. I know some people dislike that (very much), but parry/dodge systems make the combat needlessly long (although that's my experience with warhammer fantasy roleplay). Saves as well should be static, with the caster rolling to "attack" the victim. This is a major overhaul though.

2) An option for bounded accuracy; I know some folks quite like it, but I enjoy the notion of scaling threats, and the article I read on the WOTC webstie didnt quite tempt me... It can work in a certain style of game, but not all... Warhammer fantasy roleplay also runs on bounded accuracy, and it is frustrating at times to be so dependent on the dice.

3) Better integration of "tiers" of play: I've seen the game levels described as : 1-5 (gritty) 6-10 (wuxia) 11-15 (heroic fantasy) 16-20 (demigod). I would like to see this better taken into account in the system. This allows most styles of play to co-exist, both those who like the grit and those who want ultimate power plays. This includes scaling of class abilities (to correspond to each "tier"), scaling of skill powers, scaling of spells as well to correspond to each stage.

4) More narative power to martials: This is a pretty big issue in pathfinder. With a good GM, it isnt an issue, but spellcasters can make the martials feel... emasculated (in a way). But avoid doing this by simply "adding numbers"; make sure there is diversity to the types of actions that can be taken.

5) DO NOT REDUCE THE POWER OF MAGIC! I play this game because magic is powerful. Plenty of other systems present magic as a risky gamble/barely worth the effort AND I DO NOT WANT THAT. Strengthen the martials first. Please.

6) Better integration/rejection of multiclassing & prestige classes: like Tequila sunrise, I like multiclassing & prestige classes. But the integration is terrible and seems like a relic they "had" to include from 3.5. Either get rid of it (which would make me sad) or make it work. I actually like the 4e notion of base/prestige/epic stuff, but I dont like being confined to one class if I dont want to.

Well, those are my observations. I expect to stick to pathfinder for a while, and likely will not be a "first adopter". But it will be the first TRPG I really loved.

PS: Do not get rid of organized play. I know people on the boards poo-poo it, but for many folks with irregular schedules & difficult access to players, PFS is a boon. My local chapter is really friendly & understanding, made mostly of people who simply dont have a reliable enough schedule to have a regular game.

Edit: 2 magic system; one vancian, one point-based. The demand is there for both, and I cant imagine it would be too hard to have 2 designed (at least as alternate rules)


Clearly explained crafting rules that allow for easy item creation for both mundane and magical items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Then TEN+ years later, it may be time for a real "2nd ed", as vis-a- vis 2nd vs 3rd.

That wouldn't be a new edition. 3.0->3.5? That was a new edition. 1e->2e? That was a new edition.

WotC marketing misuses the word edition, probably because one of the biggest selling points is the name "D&D".
There's no reason for Paizo to falsely market their games. If they make a new edition, call it a new edition. If they make an unrelated new game, call it an unrelated new game.

williamoak wrote:
5) DO NOT REDUCE THE POWER OF MAGIC! I play this game because magic is powerful. Plenty of other systems present magic as a risky gamble/barely worth the effort AND I DO NOT WANT THAT. Strengthen the martials first. Please.

Agreed. The relative ease of using high powered games compared to most other systems is one of my favorite parts about the system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shouldn't "Vancian" casting mean Wizards get around two spells per day?

Enough people like the system that there should be at least one class that keeps it, but spell point casters should be an option as well.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Te'Shen wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
. . . 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.

Funny thing, its also the thing thats made the system inequivalent for classes for all but a few levels. Nothing like 20 levels, where 3 your mages can be moved up to and killed in one hit, 6 or so of good game play, and 11 or so more where magic dominates the field.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Very strong language indicating to players and GMs that flavor is mutable, and encouraging the use of imagination and creativity in the creation of character identity and theme.


Athaleon wrote:

Shouldn't "Vancian" casting mean Wizards get around two spells per day?

Enough people like the system that there should be at least one class that keeps it, but spell point casters should be an option as well.

Well, the really powerful mages could cast 3 to 4 spells a day! And the excellent prismatic spray was like, a no save instant kill area effect. Really.

And who knows what Pandelume could do, or even what he was...

I'll stop gushing now.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I want a revision of Pathfinder, not a completely new version of it. A Pathfinder 2.0 should be as much of an upgrade as Pathfinder 1.0 is to D&D 3.5e. I'm actually compiling a list of things I want to implement in a homebrew revision of Pathfinder. These include:

Spoiler:
1) Have more general spell list definitions rather than make a new spell list for each class

2) Rogue gains more unique class features

3) Rogue gains the option to make the sneak attack do more interesting things other than doing damage

4) Fix traps. Specifically, use my houserules that in non-hostile conditions, any character can detect the presence of traps (without telling how the trap works or what it does) if a player states they're looking for traps. This allows traps to be a form of problem solving and display of player skill rather than random damage that blindsides the PCs.

5) Two-weapon fighting mechanics/penalties become more simplified

6) Monk's flurry of blow mechanics become more simplified

7) Monk revised into a mobile full attacker

8) Feats get a revision. Specifically:
a) Feats should be more powerful, more flavorful, and scale with level b) To offset the above, the game grants less frequent feats. This will eliminate the need for classes to have as many bonus feats.
c) Reduce the amount of feat tax in the game
d) Simplify feat requirements, preferably break them down into level tiers or have a unified metric (like character level or solely use skill ranks, BAB, or CL).
e) All feats should do more than simply grant a numerical bonus
f) If a feat requires another feat, it should do something significantly different and not be simply an upgrade. In other words, no Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting.

9) Allow magic item creation without feats and have it tied to a crafting/spellcrafting skill check instead

10) Introduce more class features and feats that interact with magic items in interesting ways. Seriously, I'm surprised how few classes do anything with magic items aside from reducing costs when magic items are so ubiquitous in the game.

11) Skills should have the following revisions:
a) Unified mechanic for long term activities
b) Perception as an inherent skill (like Initiative) to eliminate skill tax
b) Merge Craft with Profession. In other words, a Craft (weapons) check would become a Profession (weaponsmith) check.
c) Simplify crafting rules to function similar to magical item creation rules
d) Merge Climb, Escape Artist, Fly, and Swim into a new skill called Athletics
e) Simplify flying rules and bring back maneuverability classes
f) Merge Disguise with Bluff
g) Eliminate Appraise and merge its functionality with another skill
h) Merge Handle Animal with Ride
i) Intimidate should use an ability score other than Charisma

12) Eliminate class/race features that provide small, extremely situational, and often forgotten bonuses

13) Use a unified mechanic that encapsulates bonuses and penalties so they're easy to remember, like many modern systems are using

14) Races with more flexible ability score distributions (I do like how many new races have variant bloodlines)

15) Simplify how Strength applies to melee attacks from two-handed and two-weapon attacks. While we're at it, how about we already write rules for how a hand translates Strength bonus rather than rely on hidden rules?

16) Weapon Finesse and Cleave as weapon properties instead of feats

17) Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, and Deadly Aim as core combat options rather than feats -- though feats that upgrade and evolve them are perfectly acceptable

18) Any throwable weapon as small as a shuriken can be drawn as a free action

19) Returning weapon ability that returns immediately, at least on a successful hit

20) Refined archetype system where most archetypes don’t suck. I want archetypes that actually follow Sean K. Reynold’s guidelines: make ability trades fair, have each replacement be a straight trade, don’t rip off from other classes, don’t force choices, don’t replace a key class feature for lame flavor, etc.

21) Racial archetypes that actually make sense for them to restrict character race (Why can only humans be buccaneers?)

22) A rulebook that organizes rules in a logical, easy to reference manner. I’d hope it doesn’t require cross-referencing three different chapters just to find out how many hitpoints you get per level. I’d especially not want a rulebook that puts a wizard-specific rule in a generalist chapter instead of the actual wizard class description.

23) Rules with language that take into account of possible future supplements. For example, several feats in the CRB listed the “wizard class” as a requirement because rules assumed that the wizard would be the only prepared caster to be ever released.

24) Way for characters to learn weapon proficiencies without having to waste a feat.

25) A general spellcaster versus martial design where casting a spell should be the quick and inefficient way to solve a skill check. For example, a mage should be incentivized to save that knock scroll/spell for when the party doesn't have enough time to get someone to pick the lock.

26) Prepared spellcasting not requiring you to prepare multiple copies of the same spell

27) Spellcasters have more spell slots at early levels, but less at high levels

28) More creative Metamagic feats, perhaps even a new way to introduce metamagic

29) Allow the wizard to turn any mundane thing into a bonded item. Come on, it would be kind of cool to have a book or a skull as a bonded item.

30) Make combat maneuvers more accessible to martials

31) Give martials more options to handle challenges

32) Keep magic as powerful as it is. Instead, use #25 to simply give mages more opportunity costs in using magic to solve problems.

33) Have an actual ki system. Maybe allow classes that expand on the idea of the qinggong monk.

34) Prestige classes as roleplaying boons independent of normal character level progression. After all, nearly all prestige classes are related to factions or campaign setting. Any prestige class that do not fit this description should probably be an archetype or an alternate class.


My thoughts on spells:

Make all casters spontaneous casters.
All casters get to know 10 + casting stat mod spells per level. This allows for new spells to be picked up as the casting stat increases. Possibly include a mechanic to swap out spells.
Spells cast per day numbers will match the current sorcerer table but be bumped up the level to match the wizard table.
Eliminate unlimited 0 level spells per day.
EDIT: For wizard spell schools, make opposed schools truly unavailable.

Sovereign Court

williamoak wrote:


2) An option for bounded accuracy; I know some folks quite like it, but I enjoy the notion of scaling threats, and the article I read on the WOTC webstie didnt quite tempt me... It can work in a certain style of game, but not all... Warhammer fantasy roleplay also runs on bounded accuracy, and it is frustrating at times to be so dependent on the dice.

The threats only scale because the PCs numbers keep going up thats treadmill design. One of the biggest misconceptions of BA is that you cant have a traditional monster graduation process.


Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Te'Shen wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
. . . 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.

I agree, I prefer and want Vancian. But, I have no issues with including other systems as options.


Zhayne wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


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 have only been one shotted once in my DnD history, and that was weird houserule three 20s in a row.


Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Te'Shen wrote:

. . .

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. . .

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.

If you like Vancian spellcasting, good for you. I've just never seen anything, whether myth or current fiction, that mirrors Vancian spellcasting.

Some skill based systems do an interesting job of requiring a level of learning and skill which mirror some elements of fiction. A point based system somewhat mimics the fatigue of casting multiple spells (running out of oomph...) that I see in fiction. But in the 3.0 to Pathfinder, you can be skill-less (no Knowledge Arcane or Spellcraft) and cast spells. It can't be a fatigue thing either because you can run out of spells of a certain level, but still have several of another level... It just mirrors nothing I've seen in fiction, and so nothing I've come to expect in the staples of fantasy. I've even heard others say that it doesn't do a good job of emulating the Jack Vance (?) books that is it suppose to be drawing from as an inspiration.

Or maybe you just like the free scaling/metamagic reduction shenanigans. I know I don't mind. :)

DrDeth wrote:
. . . I have only been one shotted once in my DnD history, and that was weird houserule three 20s in a row.

I don't know... the save vs. massive damage bit has killed a character of mine, and I've seen a few others fall to it. It's pretty rough when you have to make a DC 50+ fortitude save. I also think of it as the fighter type's death attack.


Simon Legrande wrote:

My thoughts on spells:

Make all casters spontaneous casters.
All casters get to know 10 + casting stat mod spells per level. This allows for new spells to be picked up as the casting stat increases. Possibly include a mechanic to swap out spells.
Spells cast per day numbers will match the current sorcerer table but be bumped up the level to match the wizard table.
Eliminate unlimited 0 level spells per day.
EDIT: For wizard spell schools, make opposed schools truly unavailable.

I have to say, I love the unlimited 0 level spells per day.

In regards to many of the suggestions in this thread...for many of them there are just as many who don't want a certain thing as those who may.

The problem with that is it bears the chance of splitting the base.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Jack Assery wrote:

Do I think that the turaround between 3.0/3.5/4th edition were entirely money related?

I don't. It revitalized a dying frasnchise. The brand new content introduced a whole new generation to role playing games, and the content was great and well supported and well supplemented. I thought the investment was well worth the money every time they did it, especially for the new supported content.

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. Tack on the massive changes and incredible silliness of the rules ("Warforged to not to drink, eat or breath, but this does not render them immune to any effects." still makes me eyeroll at sheer stupidity of the statement, and don't get me started on 4E's massive hate for moving vertically.) and they basically had a tactical nuke aimed at alienating all 3.5 players of the game.

Prior to 4e coming out, I was the marketing director for a game company that had been regularly selling an accreted-on version of a set of rules for 25 years.

The fan base was vocal, largely in their mid-30s to early-40s, fanatical...and shrinking.

I wrote the marketing plan, and executed it, and roughly doubled that company's revenues in a year by aiming a new product line at the legions of people who'd given up playing the flagship line, while getting the design chief and company CEO out of the public spotlight, before he managed to insult everyone who played the legacy product line and drove them away. We were effectively doing "the new edition" of their game, we just called it a different product line, and supported the old product line side by side and pledged to do so until it stopped selling.

I watched the 2007 WoTC 4e D&D launch and regard it as a beautiful example of What Not To Do.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What do I want?

Still recognizably "patched Pathfinder"

A fix for the "move-or-fight" disparity for melee martials. My house rule Every time you get an iterative attack, you also get a 5' increase to how far you can "step" and make a full attack. Some feats could further add to this, Monk speed adds 5' to this as well. You may never make a "step" that's more than half of your move rating. You will provide AoOs normally for every 5' moved on this step past the first.

Fewer categories of bonuses.

Complete removal of Generic +X items. +1 swords, cloaks, rings, amulets, shields, armors...if you can't describe the item doing something cool, don't make it something that martial classes have to use to remain competitive. This will require scaling those bonuses into other abilities or (my preference) scaling back the numbers on monsters to compensate.

Some nerfing for archers/ranged combatants that isn't so easy to get around.

An actual system architect, and a database-driven development system that makes it easier to cross-check new material against old material.

Pruning away legacy crap.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:


<snip>

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)

<snip>

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.

Heheh. I picked it up a couple months back for that very reason :)

That's pretty much what's leading my wish for the next edition to lower the baseline complexity, along with an overall desire to make the CRB less of a giant paperweight for people that aren't currently playing any of the classes or using any of the spells inside it (anyone playing a non-CRB, non-caster class in PFS likely knows exactly what I mean here.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Te'Shen wrote:

Some skill based systems do an interesting job of requiring a level of learning and skill which mirror some elements of fiction. A point based system somewhat mimics the fatigue of casting multiple spells (running out of oomph...) that I see in fiction. But in the 3.0 to Pathfinder, you can be skill-less (no Knowledge Arcane or Spellcraft) and cast spells. It can't be a fatigue thing either because you can run out of spells of a certain level, but still have several of another level... It just mirrors nothing I've seen in fiction, and so nothing I've come to expect in the staples of fantasy. I've even heard others say that it doesn't do a good job of emulating the Jack Vance (?) books that is it suppose to be drawing from as an inspiration.

Or maybe you just like the free scaling/metamagic reduction shenanigans. I know I don't mind. :)

There a plenty of advantages (and disadvantages) to non-Vancian systems. But without that core magic system, its not D&D anymore and those of us who have been around for multiples of editions want to play D&D (even if it says Pathfinder on the cover)and will be completely out on PF 2.0 where Wizard doesn't get 1-9th level spells X number of times per day.

There are already a ton of games out there with other magic systems-- the three things that make this game what it is are the magic system, the classes, and l-20 level advancement-- take away any of those three and I don't see a reason to stay with this game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:


There a plenty of advantages (and disadvantages) to non-Vancian systems. But without that core magic system, its not D&D anymore and those of us who have been around for multiples of editions want to play D&D (even if it says Pathfinder on the cover)and will be completely out on PF 2.0 where Wizard doesn't get 1-9th level spells X number of times per day.

There are already a ton of games out there with other magic systems-- the three things that make this game what it is are the magic system, the classes, and l-20 level advancement-- take away any of those three and I don't see a reason to stay with this game.

TBH, I don't see any reason why we can't have a mix of classes for whom magic works different ways. A Wizard gets X spells per day per slot and has to prepare them each morning, a Sorcerer gets X spells per day per slot and can decide what they are spontaneously, and a Mage gets spell points.

That keeps the game a lot more flexible for running different settings in which magic could work differently, and allows people to just remove any classes they don't like.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

regarding vancian vs. Spell Point (Mana)

Listen, my major problem with the Wizard spell casting mechanic is the fact that he can't remember shist. (a sedementary soft rock that breaks apart easily)

Use the Spontanious Casting mechanics, use class point pools for abilities, have Familiars become sentiant creatures that can defend themselves and give abilities to the wizard (More so than the little stuff now), and end the "Fire and Forget" parigam.

Have all spell casting use this, have the various ability to cast higher level spells be the same, no more waiting one more level for 2nd level spells, and base the caster stat on the stat that makes sense instead of CHA for what was the spontanious casters previous.


AdAstraGames wrote:

What do I want?

Still recognizably "patched Pathfinder"

A fix for the "move-or-fight" disparity for melee martials.

Mythic may be experimenting with a few things in that direction.


thaX wrote:

regarding vancian vs. Spell Point (Mana)

Listen, my major problem with the Wizard spell casting mechanic is the fact that he can't remember shist.

That was the fluff given in previous editions . I think we have explained this to you many times now.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Te'Shen wrote:

Some skill based systems do an interesting job of requiring a level of learning and skill which mirror some elements of fiction. A point based system somewhat mimics the fatigue of casting multiple spells (running out of oomph...) that I see in fiction. But in the 3.0 to Pathfinder, you can be skill-less (no Knowledge Arcane or Spellcraft) and cast spells. It can't be a fatigue thing either because you can run out of spells of a certain level, but still have several of another level... It just mirrors nothing I've seen in fiction, and so nothing I've come to expect in the staples of fantasy. I've even heard others say that it doesn't do a good job of emulating the Jack Vance (?) books that is it suppose to be drawing from as an inspiration.

Or maybe you just like the free scaling/metamagic reduction shenanigans. I know I don't mind. :)

There a plenty of advantages (and disadvantages) to non-Vancian systems. But without that core magic system, its not D&D anymore and those of us who have been around for multiples of editions want to play D&D (even if it says Pathfinder on the cover)and will be completely out on PF 2.0 where Wizard doesn't get 1-9th level spells X number of times per day.

There are already a ton of games out there with other magic systems-- the three things that make this game what it is are the magic system, the classes, and l-20 level advancement-- take away any of those three and I don't see a reason to stay with this game.

NOOOO! CHANGE BADDDDD!

(grin)

The reason I play PF is because I can find players for it with my crazy schedule. The reason I want to play something else?

1) Vancian casting. Dungeon World does Vancian casting better than PF in a lot of ways, as it becomes the player's choice about whether or not to lose the spell for the day or take another consequence.

2) Fixed classes. If your fixed classes take 4000 words to describe (I'm looking at you, Gunslinger...) the putative benefit of fixed classes, especially with multi-classing, vanishes.

3) 1-20 level advancement is meaningless when the game turns into rocket-tag at level 10-12.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Oh, another thing to add. I'd like caster levels to stack among multiclassed spellcasters like BAB does.

thaX wrote:

regarding vancian vs. Spell Point (Mana)

Listen, my major problem with the Wizard spell casting mechanic is the fact that he can't remember shist. (a sedementary soft rock that breaks apart easily)

Use the Spontanious Casting mechanics, use class point pools for abilities, have Familiars become sentiant creatures that can defend themselves and give abilities to the wizard (More so than the little stuff now), and end the "Fire and Forget" parigam.

Have all spell casting use this, have the various ability to cast higher level spells be the same, no more waiting one more level for 2nd level spells, and base the caster stat on the stat that makes sense instead of CHA for what was the spontanious casters previous.

Prepared casting isn't about memorization. It's about preparation. A wizard has to read their spellbook and perform some rituals to prime their spells for the day. They don't fire the spell and "forget" it. All the preparations they made have been expended.

I greatly disagree with the idea of homogenizing spell mechanics because a some players prefer spontaneous casting over prepared casting. That's ridiculous. That would be like a chunky peanut better fan claiming stores should stop stocking smooth peanut butter. There's nothing wrong with a little variety.


Matt Thomason wrote:

That keeps the game a lot more flexible for running different settings in which magic could work differently, and allows people to just remove any classes they don't like.

Except that for a large contingent of players (PFS), it's difficult to remove classes that a chunk of the player base doesn't like. And there is much butthurt. Epic, mythic levels of butthurt.

Shadow Lodge

thaX wrote:

regarding vancian vs. Spell Point (Mana)

Listen, my major problem with the Wizard spell casting mechanic is the fact that he can't remember shist. (a sedementary soft rock that breaks apart easily)

He totally remembers schist. But once he crumbles it, he can't do it again until he forms some more.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

combine monk and rogue into one class. Let people tweak what kind of skilled character they want to be, hand to hand fighting, daggers,sneak attacking etc...


Nathanael Love wrote:

There a plenty of advantages (and disadvantages) to non-Vancian systems. But without that core magic system, its not D&D anymore and those of us who have been around for multiples of editions want to play D&D (even if it says Pathfinder on the cover)and will be completely out on PF 2.0 where Wizard doesn't get 1-9th level spells X number of times per day.

There are already a ton of games out there with other magic systems-- the three things that make this game what it is are the magic system, the classes, and l-20 level advancement-- take away any of those three and I don't see a reason to stay with this game.

Fair enough. I thought the question was what you as an individual gamer would like to see, and I threw out my short list, but I don't expect it at this point.

Obligatory Rabbit Trail:
I started with 2nd in '96. My first character was an elven ranger because for some reason everyone thought it was a good thing for me to start on. I think D&D could still be D&D without Vancian casting, but I might be in the minority. I gladly left THACO behind, that stoneskin made you invulnerable to damage for short durations, that you had to roll well to play certain classes, and other quirks. I am indifferent hit point bloat. I miss the fact that you got a free leadership around 10th because you became a fantasy medieval celebrity. But it's ok. I still liked things about 3.0 enough to play it. I liked enough things about 3.5 to play it. I didn't like 4th. So I came to Pathfinder. I can't tell you why. I lack the knowledge of self and prerequisite vocabulary to fully explain.

I liked enough things about FASA's Shadowrun to play it. I liked enough things about Guardians of Order's BESM to play it. I liked enough things about most White Wolf games (from Vampire and Mage to Aberrant and Exalted) to play the crap out of them. I never gave the Warhammer RPG a second shot... I couldn't tell you why. I just know that I like a good story, and I like mechanics that don't f*&#^@ my immersion. And if I play a game long enough, I start wanting to fix things.

That's just me.


I would change some of the names/terms, which just seem like holdovers from other editions:

Game master-Narrator
Fighter-Warrior
Warrior-Soldier
Dexterity-Agility
Constitution-Health
Cleric-Priest
Paladin-Knight
etc.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think you can have the spellbook without having to memorize Magic Missile multiple times. This would free up design to actually have the wizard and Sorcerer difference from each other instead of simply having differing mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

There are already a ton of games out there with other magic systems-- the three things that make this game what it is are the magic system, the classes, and l-20 level advancement-- take away any of those three and I don't see a reason to stay with this game.

Tradition, the great enemy of progress.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
Prepared casting isn't about memorization. It's about preparation. A wizard has to read their spellbook and perform some rituals to prime their spells for the day.

So, they never actually know a spell at all?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
So, they never actually know a spell at all?

Can you bake a cake with just a cookbook?


Mechanics must support the fictional underpinnings of the game.

For some people, "Vancian" casting does this. For others, it doesn't.

When you have a product like Pathfinder or D&D that sucks all the air out of the room, the people for whom Vancian casting *DOESN'T* work get upset because what they want never shows up in the games they play.

They may get two sessions of Ars Magica in and everyone switches back to D&D because they know how it works. Or three sessions of ShadowRun.

Only Pathfinder/D&D can get away with "It takes 3 hours to make your character."

I look for things like Dungeon World's playbooks because I can throw them on the table, the stats have the same name and I can get Pathfinder players to try it as a change-of-pace game...but one of the things D&D/PF has in its "favor" is that everyone who's spent 4 years absorbing 3,000 pages of rules, character building options and spells doesn't want to turn that into a sunk cost.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
So, they never actually know a spell at all?
Can you bake a cake with just a cookbook?

Relevance? Wizards don't know anything. They're just following directions.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
Relevance? Wizards don't know anything. They're just following directions.

You can know the recipe all you like, you still need to put the materials together before you eat it.


This is a cross-fertilization from another thread, but the Vancian caster I want is a hybrid of the Sorcerer and the Arcanist with a bumped up spell acquisition progression - basically delete the Valley of Suck that is level 2 on the Spells per Day and Spells Known table.

Bloodlines from Sorcerer (re-skinned as "focuses of emphasis"), prepare X spells known, cast them spontaneously, always have the bloodline spells known...and the bloodline spells get any metamagic you know at -1 spell slot level, a'la Magical Lineage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Relevance? Wizards don't know anything. They're just following directions.
You can know the recipe all you like, you still need to put the materials together before you eat it.

And everyone that doesn't think Zelazny is the be all and end all of epic fiction still finds it ridiculous. Especially when there exist sorcerers and oracles and bards that can cast in combat and spells with different casting times that belie the amberite "cast all but the last word of the spell" fluff.

Shadow Lodge

Atarlost wrote:
And everyone that doesn't think Zelazny is the be all and end all of epic fiction still finds it ridiculous.

I don't give a s&!% about Zelazny.


DrDeth wrote:
thaX wrote:

regarding vancian vs. Spell Point (Mana)

Listen, my major problem with the Wizard spell casting mechanic is the fact that he can't remember shist.

That was the fluff given in previous editions . I think we have explained this to you many times now.

If this is a frequent discussion, then you probably also know what thaX is getting at without having to have the discussion all over again. And by 'discussion,' I mean 'talking past each other by making a series of intentionally obtuse come-backs.'

Also, it would help if you specify "If I'm going to die because of a save-or-die effect, I want to roll the d20," which I think is what you were getting at earlier with your unrelated comment. I'm still kinda confused that you're okay with DMs rolling martial attacks, but not 'spell attacks,' btw. If you've only been one-shotted once in however many years, the only conclusions I can draw is that you either don't play much, you're phenomenally lucky, or your DM is fudging damage rolls. Probably the latter, in which case he'd no doubt fudge save-or-die 'spell attacks' too.


AdAstraGames wrote:
This is a cross-fertilization from another thread, but the Vancian caster I want is a hybrid of the Sorcerer and the Arcanist with a bumped up spell acquisition progression - basically delete the Valley of Suck that is level 2 on the Spells per Day and Spells Known table.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm kind of amazed that the Valley of Suck didn't get fixed in PF 1.0.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My main beefs with casters.

All but one of the spontanious casters are CHA based. (The Arcanist is CHA dipped)

All but the wizard has some sort of switch for spells to a default. (there is the Bonded Object, forgoing the Familar, another D&D staple, and an archtype tied to elves)

Later progression for spells for the spontanious vs. the forgetful.

Really, I want to keep the spellbook aspect without having the overall run with marking out spells after casting them. This goes for clerics and the like also.

Why do you think there are mirror classes for each of the prepared casters in PF? I believe it is because of the more intuitive mechanic and the versitillity of the casting of spells as they are cast instead of having to guess the day before what you need.


AdAstraGames wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:

That keeps the game a lot more flexible for running different settings in which magic could work differently, and allows people to just remove any classes they don't like.

Except that for a large contingent of players (PFS), it's difficult to remove classes that a chunk of the player base doesn't like. And there is much butthurt. Epic, mythic levels of butthurt.

If you're playing PFS, you're pretty much accepting there's going to be butthurt one way or another if you're a picky kind of player - it comes with the territory if you're not open to the idea of letting everyone at the table have fun their own way.

Giving a couple of classes different casting mechanics shouldn't really upset the average PFS player that is already okay with the idea they're running into a mix of playstyles at the table, a mix of people that run characters of the same level as everything from "extremely skilled" to "superheroic", and have firearms in the game whether they want them or not.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Relevance? Wizards don't know anything. They're just following directions.
You can know the recipe all you like, you still need to put the materials together before you eat it.

Wizards still need to refer to the recipe book EVERY TIME.

Kinda makes their vaunted intelligence look a bit suspect.

Especially when the INT 7 Sorcerer can managed to remember how to do that stuff, yet the wizurd can't.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Wizards still need to refer to the recipe book EVERY TIME.

No they don't.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Kthulhu wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Relevance? Wizards don't know anything. They're just following directions.
You can know the recipe all you like, you still need to put the materials together before you eat it.

Wizards still need to refer to the recipe book EVERY TIME.

Kinda makes their vaunted intelligence look a bit suspect.

Especially when the INT 7 Sorcerer can managed to remember how to do that stuff, yet the wizurd can't.

I can't believe this thread degenerated into arguments stemming from misconceptions about the flavor of wizards. Argh..


Such is the way of the world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Te'Shen wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

There a plenty of advantages (and disadvantages) to non-Vancian systems. But without that core magic system, its not D&D anymore and those of us who have been around for multiples of editions want to play D&D (even if it says Pathfinder on the cover)and will be completely out on PF 2.0 where Wizard doesn't get 1-9th level spells X number of times per day.

There are already a ton of games out there with other magic systems-- the three things that make this game what it is are the magic system, the classes, and l-20 level advancement-- take away any of those three and I don't see a reason to stay with this game.

Fair enough. I thought the question was what you as an individual gamer would like to see, and I threw out my short list, but I don't expect it at this point.

** spoiler omitted **...

To respond briefly to your Rabbit hole-- I love Shadowrun; I love the magis system shadowrun has-- but I don't want Shadowrun magic in my D&D/PF-- just like I don't want vancian magic retrofitted onto shadowrun or WoD; ect . . .

@"tradition the enemy of progress"-- ditching the core things that make the game what it is isn't progress. You want a completely different game? Those exist for you-- tons of them from a myriad of publishers.

I want the thing that closely resembles the game I've been playing for 20 years when I sit down to play PF. If I wanted something else I would start with a different set of books and play that game instead.

101 to 150 of 763 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / What Do You Hope to See in PF 2e? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.