The Breaking Bad analogy would be more like saying "The cast and writers should never make another show, just more Breaking Bad seasons, because their next show probably won't be as good and I'm not buying all those Blu-rays".That's not true at all because PF 2.0 wouldn't be a completely new thing, it would be a remake. . .
The whole thing is comparing apples to Winnebagos to begin with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You liked Breaking Bad? How would you like them to start it over with a new cast, new writers, but "fixing" all the problems that there were in it? You going to be in on watching "New Breaking Bad?"
I tried watching Breaking Bad, but just couldn't enjoy it. Who knows, a remake might make it watchable!
Like how New BSG is x10 better than the original, IMO.
So far I believe paizo when they say they don't plan to do that, but I get tired of hearing the clamoring to be taken advantage of and people who actually WANT this company to treat them like disposable cash machines instead of valued customers.
Honest question, having never bought or owned a PF product myself: If I buy PF 2e when it does eventually come, does that make me a disposable cash machine who wants to be taken advantage of?
So far I believe paizo when they say they don't plan to do that, but I get tired of hearing the clamoring to be taken advantage of and people who actually WANT this company to treat them like disposable cash machines instead of valued customers.Honest question, having never bought or owned a PF product myself: If I buy PF 2e when it does eventually come, does that make me a disposable cash machine who wants to be taken advantage of?
Buying anything makes you that. Especially if it's money spent to support a company that you would like to stay in business. After all, it's really the advertising that is eroding your weak will and forcing you to purchase something you wouldn't otherwise.
Better chase rules (my chase rules... lol) and CMD/CMB tossed out and just use the standard To Hit and AC rules. I'm doing it in one of my homebrews and it's working fine.
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."
I could get behind this only as long as AC bonuses from other sources subsequently decrease, and the averages recalculated. Otherwise, the only thing that happens is everyone hits things less and feels less powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A new edition doesn't necessarily mean it won't be compatible current material, or that they will go through and just redo all the book. IIRC, Call of Cthulhu has gone through 7? editions, but the actual rules have only been slightly tweaked. You can still use material from each edition pretty evenly
For instance, if say, Pathfinder tweaks the fighter, monk, and rogue classes, but leaves the rest of the classes the same, there probably won't be a need to reprint say the bestiaries. Similarly a book that largely keeps the same rules but clarifies corner cases or presentation material won't invalidate other rules.
And a good chunk of the material Paizo produces is flavor material, such as the campaign setting line. That stuff will remain useful regardless of most changes.
Also could we maybe dial back the emotion a bit and be a bit more careful on word choice?
Hey Mr. Love, you know that you can keep playing with your books, right? The same way people still play with heir 4e, 3.5, 3rd (some people do! especially here where 3.5 books actually weren't relased translated), 2nd, AD&D, OD&D, Basic, etc books. despite those editions no longer being supported.
The PF2 strikeforce won't come to your house and burn down your secret stash of illegal roleplaying books. Your purchaces will not be invalidated.
That's what they WANT you to think. The PF2 strike force also has a +442 Stealth mod, always acts in the surprise round, and their twin Quickened Disintegrates also have 14d6 of Mythic Sneak Attack damage!
The fact that you can't see them, your older gaming books or anything but occasional bits of dust on some of your remaining gaming books is the best evidence they do exist!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either in a blog or the core book for a 2E or 1.5 admit that one of their goals is to make money and a profitable edition. To silence one and for all the gamers in the hobby that seem to think that profit=bad. How and what exactly are they supposed to pay their employees with. Or pay rent. Or publish the new books like the APG and the ARG. Do you think JJ or anyone else that works for Paizo is loosing sleep because they publish a profitable edition of a rpg. As for the whole computer, rpg, car companies that make new product equals scam naive line of reasoning. Well I hope that your still driving a car that is at least five years old and a use a cellphone just as old. Otherwise you just lost any moral high ground. Accusing a company of scamming anyone while driving a newer model of car. With a Ipad 2 or 3 tucked under one arm. A Iphone 5S attached at your hip is being not only a hypocrite. As far as I'm concerned a poster child of hypocrites.
Crafting. The game attempts to emulate crafting in terms of how long it actually took to make a suit of armor. D&D is not a historical accurate rpg. With ways to reduce the time with feats and magic no reason why anything espcially regular items should take so long to build. If I was playing Ars Magica it would make sense not D&D. It's alos ot worth crafting anything because the amount of time it takes vs the amount of GP is imo hardly worth it. Same thing with skills. Make 12 ranks in Bluff count for something more than just a better chance to bluff. Give me more options the more skill points I spend in a skill. Faster to bluff someone. Easier to bluff a group or in combat. Bluff a group of people etc.
Giving certain weapons better advantages such as guns. Guns historically changed the face of the battlefield once they were safer and easier to use. So did bows then crossbows. If one weapon gets to target something other than regular AC it has to be done across the board to other approriate weapons.
I'm firmly in the camp that martials deserve nice things. I'm not asking for them to be the equal of casters. I do think that Fighter at least need a upgrade. Before anyone says "no you can't that breaks the immersion of the game". Why is it okay for Wizards and to a lesser extent clerics and druids to bend the laws of reality to their will. Yet seeing a Fighter leap from roof to roof like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon suddenly involve a loss of immersion.
Feats. Fix Feats. No feat taxes. If I have to take sunder and improved sunder I want more than just a lack of AOO as a benefit. Have the improved version give a character a better chance to sunder. Stuff like prone shooter should not be a feat. Make them scale like spells over time. Another reason I don't play Fighters is because the bread and butter feats are just so damn boring. Yay dodge gives a +1 to
AC. Man I really have something awesome to look forward to.
While I despise Vanacian Casting I see why it needs to be in the game. I never liked and still don't liek the reasons given about casters forgetting spells. No reason they can't offer it and other optional casting systems side by side like spell points.
Alignments keep them as well. I want to see in point form what I can do with a alignment. Not some vague generalization that really says everything and nothing at all. Can I attack a enemy by suprose I wan a yes or no answer. Can I steal something from someone else I want a yes or no answer. THe Palladium set of rules has it's issues. It's the only alignment system where I never ever had trouble at the table. As well classes dependent on alignment like Paladins should have the option of being lawful good or not. No it's not going to ruin the game either. Nor do care about tradition. I have seen here and elsewhere where DMs allow players to take the alignment of their gods. THe hobby has not ended overnight and it never will.
Home games, society and tournament games all should use the same rules. I don't like how PF society uses one set and my game another. I never understand and never will why they are different.
Errata should be fixed at the source. Not just by the fans. No reason why Paizo can't first do errata nbefore asking the fans to do it. We truly don't need another repeat of the Great Crane Wing Fiasco of 2014.
Whatever the edition to be created It must have all levels of play in mind from the start. No releasing lwevles 1-20 then 5 years later Mythic levels. Espcially if 5E allows all elves wit the core.
Give the DM and players ways to reward thinking outside of the box. In yesterdays game. I l jumped off the roof the hut to attack a Vrock. It was either do that. Or make a hole in a stone hut or climb done. Instea all I ended up doing was getting a AOO. For doing something cool and courageous. Sure the DM could have given me a bonus yet again the system imo does not reward outside of the box thinking. In a newer edition that imo truly needs to change.
A release date of withing the next 10 years or so. Not 2045. I'm going to be 70 or 80 by then. I probably will no longer be playing rpgs at that age. And seriously guys 2045. Why not when Buck Rogers body is found frozen in space.
Lastly I need more than just a rehash with new cover art to get me to buy any other edition of PF. Already some in the hobby refuse to play the current version thinking it just 3.5. with house rules. I don't see a 1.5 with little or no changes doing that well with fans able to just from 3.5., and PF 1E
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if pathfinder 2.0 was just 4ed rewritten to be just as mechanically sound but re-fluffed to not feel like a MMO wargame when I read the rules?
Ex:
Change squares to feat.
Change encounter powers to "abilities you can't use again without a 5 minutes of rest or walking"
ALSO: It would follow Paizo's tradition of taken abandoned WoTC products and making hand-over-fist money with them.
What if pathfinder 2.0 was just 4ed rewritten to be just as mechanically sound but re-fluffed to not feel like a MMO wargame when I read the rules?
Ex:
Change squares to feat.
Change encounter powers to "abilities you can't use again without a 5 minutes of rest or walking"ALSO: It would follow Paizo's tradition of taken abandoned WoTC products and making hand-over-fist money with them.
Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.
And especially since WotC's next move is modular play supporting multiple different types of playstyle, I would be very surprised if Paizo doesn't try to do it better since that is a damned appealing idea if I do say so myself. They've also withdrawn from having a heavier rules style gameplay. Skills are vaguer, emphasizing creative play.
|
What if pathfinder 2.0 was just 4ed rewritten to be just as mechanically sound but re-fluffed to not feel like a MMO wargame when I read the rules?
Ex:
Change squares to feat.
Change encounter powers to "abilities you can't use again without a 5 minutes of rest or walking"ALSO: It would follow Paizo's tradition of taken abandoned WoTC products and making hand-over-fist money with them.
It seems a lot of folks are under the impression that gamers didn't like 4E simply because of the wrapping paper. There was a rather fundamental shift in playstyle with 4E. The game became combat as sport and if you wanted a traditional combat as war game you had to fight it at every turn to do so. WOTC couldnt sell it to me no matter how it was wrapped and neither will Paizo. (*Disclaimer not saying combat as sport is wrongbadfun. Its just not appealing to me)
And especially since WotC's next move is modular play supporting multiple different types of playstyle, I would be very surprised if Paizo doesn't try to do it better since that is a damned appealing idea if I do say so myself. They've also withdrawn from having a heavier rules style gameplay. Skills are vaguer, emphasizing creative play.
This I agree with, and actually hope is how things work out.
|
|
I know you said "never will" but there are perfectly sensible reasons for PFS to have its own rules. The PFS rules are there to provide for a uniform experience. This helps account for players trading tables often. Some rules that could be disruptive one way or another have been removed from play for sake of smooth running. A new XP system has been implemented to help facilitate running organized play.Basically, at home you have a lot more liberties available to you to arbitrate your own games. You also don't have to fit a time slot or uniform session. Making all the rules uniform would mean many of these home nuances would go away because everything would have to fit organized play format. I would rather not tie GM and designers hands this way.
Dammit Pan you made some good and logical points. I see why the rules are different. Still I do think imo everyone should use the same set of rules.
And especially since WotC's next move is modular play supporting multiple different types of playstyle, I would be very surprised if Paizo doesn't try to do it better since that is a damned appealing idea if I do say so myself. They've also withdrawn from having a heavier rules style gameplay. Skills are vaguer, emphasizing creative play.
If Wotc can manage to produce a edition that is modular it would imo put them ahead of their competition. Espcially if they produce products without stats. With the ability to then download stats from their site as needed depending on the edition being played.
|
|
Dammit Pan you made some good and logical points. I see why the rules are different. Still I do think imo everyone should use the same set of rules.
I know you said "never will" but there are perfectly sensible reasons for PFS to have its own rules. The PFS rules are there to provide for a uniform experience. This helps account for players trading tables often. Some rules that could be disruptive one way or another have been removed from play for sake of smooth running. A new XP system has been implemented to help facilitate running organized play.Basically, at home you have a lot more liberties available to you to arbitrate your own games. You also don't have to fit a time slot or uniform session. Making all the rules uniform would mean many of these home nuances would go away because everything would have to fit organized play format. I would rather not tie GM and designers hands this way.
Nice you were able to quote me before I deleted the post on accident thinking it was a double post. I really need to slow down when Ive had a few while browsing the boards. :)
If Wotc can manage to produce a edition that is modular it would imo put them ahead of their competition. Espcially if they produce products without stats. With the ability to then download stats from their site as needed depending on the edition being played.
And especially since WotC's next move is modular play supporting multiple different types of playstyle, I would be very surprised if Paizo doesn't try to do it better since that is a damned appealing idea if I do say so myself. They've also withdrawn from having a heavier rules style gameplay. Skills are vaguer, emphasizing creative play.
I am really curious about 5E adventure design. I really think it needs to step up if they want a chance. I do love WOTC approach on design and will be keeping an eye on things. /thread jack
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
Less of this:
Weapon Proficiency and its prerequisites as a nodal diagram.
g!&%!&n
whoever created this had WAY too much free time
Anything that can make the severed skull of an Elder God babblingly incoherent and triggering the naughty filter is powerful magic indeed!
(The person who created it is still tweaking the program that does it; he's also got something that parses the feat prerequisite text out of the SRD to feed into the program that graphs this.)
*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.
You should watch the anime Sword Art Online to know why that's a terrible idea. ;)
You should watch the anime Sword Art Online to know why that's a terrible idea. ;)*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.
You mean the best idea!
I'm more scared of the Log Horizon scenario.
I could get behind this only as long as AC bonuses from other sources subsequently decrease, and the averages recalculated. Otherwise, the only thing that happens is everyone hits things less and feels less powerful.
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."
Oh, absolutely! All but one or two of the +X AC boosters would have to be axed, assuming that "Oh, f&## all these +X items!" is a pipe dream.
Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.What if pathfinder 2.0 was just 4ed rewritten to be just as mechanically sound but re-fluffed to not feel like a MMO wargame when I read the rules?
Ex:
Change squares to feat.
Change encounter powers to "abilities you can't use again without a 5 minutes of rest or walking"ALSO: It would follow Paizo's tradition of taken abandoned WoTC products and making hand-over-fist money with them.
I already play 4e without having bought nearly every book and without DDI or its character builder -- honestly, where do these ideas come from? -- so I'd buy the crap out of a Paizo 4e clone!
Frankly, money IS a factor. Buying a bunch of new books really does present an obstacle for a significant portion of gamers.
It's not simply a matter of "Hey, the new edition fixes problem X and adds feature Y, so everyone should get it!" The reply "How much will it cost me?" is legitimate, and a savvy company like Paizo knows that perfectly well.
Too true for many of us! I'm a broke college student at the moment, so my bar for new rpg purchases is very high indeed. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, just being painfully honest; I'm seeing a lot of "grognard" going on in here. ;)
You can like the current system all day long, but just because you like it, doesn't mean it doesn't have problems that could use fixing.
Problems I'd like to see fixed?...
•Reshuffle the entire Spell List. I want my Cure line back in Necromancy. I want my Enchantment to get the heck out of Necromancy. I want my "create something out of nothing" to all get back into Evocation. And I want Transmutation trimmed down and spread out so it's a Spell School and not a Spell University.
•Clean out the Feats list. Trim the fat. Take feats that should just be do-able by anyone (PA, Combat Expertise, etc.) and make them part of the combat rules. Get rid of stupid prereqs. Make the effects stronger and/or scale with level better. There is thousands of feats and 90% of them are garbage.
•Give me Spirit Shaman casting. I like the "Vancian-ish" casting we have now, but "fire-and-forget" is dumb. When I prepare Magic Missle, I should be able to cast it as many times as I have spell slots.
•Normalize the Casting Levels. In other words, get rid of the delay for spontaneous casters.
•Revisit Skills entirely. PF stepped in the right direction from 3.5, but they could have done a better job at it. Examples: I like Perception being a combination of Spot and Search, but I think Listen should still be separate. I love 'Acrobatics' but I don't understand why we still have 'Swim' and 'Climb' when we could have 'Athletics.' I don't see the point of 'Profession' skills - They serve no purpose. You can't make enough money from them to buy anything realistically useful unless your goal is to not go adventuring. (Uh, why are you even playing then?) Bluff and Disguise can be entirely rolled into Perform: Acting. Etc. etc. etc. and so forth.
•Mobile combat needs to happen. I refuse to believe that the devs actually think separating Full-Attacks from Movement was ever a good idea. This is a perfect example of, "It's baggage from the old system that we refuse to move away from, in the interest of 'backwards compability.'"
•Magic items need to be special. There is absolutely nothing special about a +X item of whatever. Belt of Str/Dex/Con? Boring. +X Weapon? Boring! Cloak of Resistance +X? boring, Boring, BORING BORING BORING!
It's a real shame that they're entirely and utterly necessary though. Cloak of Elvenkind? Only if you wanna fail all your saves! /facepalm
•Spell DCs based on Caster Level. Complain about the "power of spellcasters" all you want. We know the truth is that spellcasters are fine and you'd complain less if they buffed martials. But what I'd really like to see is high level casters using their low level spells. Currently, they're wasted space on the character sheet, and that's a shame.
•Stop being afraid to fix things that were wrong with 3.X.
This pretty much sums up everything I have against PF as it currently stands, everything above included. Sacred Cows are dumb, and if you can make a better rule, you should. You're not kidding anyone with claims of, "PF is backwards compatible" anymore anyway - no sense sticking to dead rhetoric.
|
|
Frankly, money IS a factor. Buying a bunch of new books really does present an obstacle for a significant portion of gamers.
It's not simply a matter of "Hey, the new edition fixes problem X and adds feature Y, so everyone should get it!" The reply "How much will it cost me?" is legitimate, and a savvy company like Paizo knows that perfectly well.
No one is saying money is not a factor. Except paizo is not a non/ profit organization. It's just that to me at least that their seems to be a misconception that any company trying to make a profit=bad. A company can't very well keep taking a loss in profit. Simply because buying another edition might be expensive for some of the fanbase. Which with the online srd is really not going to be a issue. With it bring free.
Oh, absolutely! All but one or two of the +X AC boosters would have to be axed, assuming that "Oh, f~$@ all these +X items!" is a pipe dream.I could get behind this only as long as AC bonuses from other sources subsequently decrease, and the averages recalculated. Otherwise, the only thing that happens is everyone hits things less and feels less powerful.
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."
If you replaced BaB with BCB (Base combat bonus), allowing it to add to both attacks and AC, you could get rid of the enhancement bonus to armor and shields, as well as Amulets of Natural Armor and Rings of Protection. That's just my quick patch version, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, just being painfully honest; I'm seeing a lot of "grognard" going on in here. ;)
•Give me Spirit Shaman casting. I like the "Vancian-ish" casting we have now, but "fire-and-forget" is dumb. When I prepare Magic Missle, I should be able to cast it as many times as I have spell slots.
I don't see the point of 'Profession' skills - They serve no purpose. You can't make enough money from them to buy anything realistically useful unless your goal is to not go adventuring. (Uh, why are you even playing then?) •Stop being afraid to fix things that were wrong with 3.X.
This pretty much sums up everything I have against PF as it currently stands, everything above included. Sacred Cows are dumb, and if you can make a better rule, you should. You're not kidding anyone with claims of, "PF is backwards compatible" anymore anyway - no sense sticking to dead rhetoric.
Hey, I resemble that remark! ;-)
We call those "sorcerers" . What's wrong with having a Wizard with true Vancian and sorc and even other systems, all as choices? I don't get the Vancian haters- if you don;t have to play vancian, then why not let the rest of us have it? Can't we have 2-3-4+ systems?
Roleplaying. Droop one rank in there and it helps for background. Other than Seaman, none really mean much anyway.
They are getting away from that, but remember, tradition is something many of us like. I agree, dump "PF is backwards compatible", tho.
Balance the classes so that a level 15 rogue, a level 15 antipaladin, and a level 15 wizard are the same CR in fact as well as in name.
I am almost with you. I'd like to go back to Old School, and that would mean levels 1-4 martials rule, 5-16 is balanced, and 17-20 spellcasters take over.
So, I have no problem with Wizards being demiurges at 20th level. Gives 'em something to to work towards.
But I do want a large and long sweet spot where the classes are balanced. From what I have seen, this occurs in PF level 4-13.
. . .
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. :)
. . . 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.
I don't care, if for example, Paizo decides "okay, sorcerers now use mana points". I'm saying that if Vancian is deleted from system, I'm not buying. I don't mind if another magic system is introduced, I'm just worried that us Pro-Vance types aren't being vocal enough to make our presence known compared to the very vocal Anti-Slots crowd, and that that will create a lopsided impression on game developers.
I like both the flavor and mechanics of Vancian casting, absolutely love the writing of Vance, and disagree with those who say the current system doesn't represent the magic system in Vance's books. the only real difference is the quantity of spells known and castable per day are much higher in D&D/Pathfinder. It's close enough that a Pathfinder Wizard could have been written into the Dying Earth as a Mage from an earlier, less decadent time before so much magical lore had been forgotten and degraded, without any further explanation.
I don't see why we couldn't just have different casting archetypes or something.
Look to 3.5 psionics or PF words of power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian casting strikes me as something that only makes sense in the setting it was invented for. It would be like sci-fi games adopting the FTL mechanics and fluff from Warhammer 40k.
So, just being painfully honest; I'm seeing a lot of "grognard" going on in here. ;)
•Give me Spirit Shaman casting. I like the "Vancian-ish" casting we have now, but "fire-and-forget" is dumb. When I prepare Magic Missle, I should be able to cast it as many times as I have spell slots.
I don't see the point of 'Profession' skills - They serve no purpose. You can't make enough money from them to buy anything realistically useful unless your goal is to not go adventuring. (Uh, why are you even playing then?) •Stop being afraid to fix things that were wrong with 3.X.
This pretty much sums up everything I have against PF as it currently stands, everything above included. Sacred Cows are dumb, and if you can make a better rule, you should. You're not kidding anyone with claims of, "PF is backwards compatible" anymore anyway - no sense sticking to dead rhetoric.Hey, I resemble that remark! ;-)
We call those "sorcerers" . What's wrong with having a Wizard with true Vancian and sorc and even other systems, all as choices? I don't get the Vancian haters- if you don;t have to play vancian, then why not let the rest of us have it? Can't we have 2-3-4+ systems?
Roleplaying. Droop one rank in there and it helps for background. Other than Seaman, none really mean much anyway.
They are getting away from that, but remember, tradition is something many of us like. I agree, dump "PF is backwards compatible", tho.
This is what I'm talking about. If some people want point based or skill based casting, that's fine, but why does that have to entail gutting the current system?
The Wizard isn't all that different from the Magic-User of old, and for those of us who prefer to continue playing that class more or less as is, and has been, let us do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, I resemble that remark! ;-)
We call those "sorcerers" . What's wrong with having a Wizard with true Vancian and sorc and even other systems, all as choices? I don't get the Vancian haters- if you don;t have to play vancian, then why not let the rest of us have it? Can't we have 2-3-4+ systems?
Roleplaying. Droop one rank in there and it helps for background. Other than Seaman, none really mean much anyway.
They are getting away from that, but remember, tradition is something many of us like. I agree, dump "PF is backwards compatible", tho.
Well, here is something that doesn't happen every day...
I... Agree with DrDeth.
While I don't particularly care for tradition and I'm not a big fan of vancian spell casting, it's always better to have more options, so that more people can enjoy the game.
It doesn't have to be in the form of different classes, though. I'd be perfectly fine with having alternate spell casting system that every caster could use.
Hell, they don't even have to change anything! Just publish an alternate casting mechanic that allows Sorcerers to use the Psionics PP system and does the same for Wizards, but making it so they have to spend their PP when they prepare their spells. That'd be good enough for me.
We call those "sorcerers".
Not at all. Sorcerers would remain innate and Wizards would still have to collect spells in their spellbook and prepare them daily.
What's wrong with having a Wizard with true Vancian and sorc and even other systems, all as choices? I don't get the Vancian haters- if you don;t have to play vancian, then why not let the rest of us have it? Can't we have 2-3-4+ systems?
There's nothing wrong with having multiple system choices - I just doubt you'll ever see that much "sandbox" in a D&D/PF game.
Besides, if we go with my system, you can choose to limit yourself to one cast per prep all you want.If we're stuck with the current system, I can't choose to cast another Dispel Magic if the only one I prepared failed to land.
If we're stuck with the current system, I can't choose to cast another Dispel Magic if the only one I prepared failed to land.
Yes, you can, because the Sorcerer was written for you.
I already play 4e without having bought nearly every book and without DDI or its character builder -- honestly, where do these ideas come from? -- so I'd buy the crap out of a Paizo 4e clone!Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.What if pathfinder 2.0 was just 4ed rewritten to be just as mechanically sound but re-fluffed to not feel like a MMO wargame when I read the rules?
Ex:
Change squares to feat.
Change encounter powers to "abilities you can't use again without a 5 minutes of rest or walking"ALSO: It would follow Paizo's tradition of taken abandoned WoTC products and making hand-over-fist money with them.
Teach me your ways master. PM me please because I'd really to get into the game without huge amounts of writing/prep.
I would like to see them do a whole new system. For all the complaints about x class/race/feat tree not being optimal, this is about as close to perfecting 3rd edition as we're getting. Even if it isn't, how many of us want to buy a core rulebook, bestiary, and gm guide to a refinement of a refinement of a twice refined sequel to AD&D?
It seems to me Paizo's latest stuff is trying to move away from 3.5 anyway.
I for one would be very excited to see what they could do with a unique engine tuned to answer 3rd edition's limitations.
That being said, if they just did Pathfinder forever that'd be cool too.
|
|
Teach me your ways master. PM me please because I'd really to get into the game without huge amounts of writing/prep.I already play 4e without having bought nearly every book and without DDI or its character builder -- honestly, where do these ideas come from? -- so I'd buy the crap out of a Paizo 4e clone!Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.What if pathfinder 2.0 was just 4ed rewritten to be just as mechanically sound but re-fluffed to not feel like a MMO wargame when I read the rules?
Ex:
Change squares to feat.
Change encounter powers to "abilities you can't use again without a 5 minutes of rest or walking"ALSO: It would follow Paizo's tradition of taken abandoned WoTC products and making hand-over-fist money with them.
The same way people have played a crapton of other games, to include Pathfinder, without needing every published book or character building software.
|
|
Anything that can make the severed skull of an Elder God babblingly incoherent and triggering the naughty filter is powerful magic indeed!
(The person who created it is still tweaking the program that does it; he's also got something that parses the feat prerequisite text out of the SRD to feed into the program that graphs this.)
The fact that he considers it more efficient to write a freaking program to do that is telling in and of itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.I already play 4e without having bought nearly every book and without DDI or its character builder -- honestly, where do these ideas come from? -- so I'd buy the crap out of a Paizo 4e clone!
Maybe I misunderstood, but why would you buy the crap out of a paizo clone of 4E but not the actual 4E books and/or DDI?