What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, When / If it is make?


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 100 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

#1
Magic and Casting

A:
The default assumption should be that casting requires two hands. One for the Somatic component, another for the Material component. Eschew Materials frees up a hand in most cases.

B:
Somatic components should be more than finger wiggles and include full body motions causing the caster to be Flat-Footed while casting. This has Sneak Attacks be devastating when interrupting.

C:
During the casting of a spell, or maintaining Concentration, a penalty should be applied to Perception; the caster is distracting themselves.

D:
Most buffs/debuffs should be Concentration based, or otherwise limited in how many may be applied.

#2
Stealth and Perception

A:
There needs to be a complete overhaul of how to evade notice and to find targets that actually works.

B:
Stealth should be a viable tactical choice for every class. The game should not place the pinnacle of combat as door kicks + novas.

#3
Martial Classes

A:
Every class at level seven should be magical or supernatural in some way. It is highly unusual to survive that long without ever being subjected to spells or using magic items. You should either get something supernatural, or cancer.

A fighter should wind up with the knowledge and ability to fight anything, not because they have a caster standing behind them. Flying, invisible, and made of fire? A twentieth level fighter should be able to handle it with a signal mirror and a stack of plates. A twentieth level rogue should straight up play like an Urbanomancer from Unknown Armies.

B:
There should be good mechanical reasons to -not- use magic or magical gear; things like DR/ordinary.

Liberty's Edge

3A. Not every class needs to be magical. I'm doing an OSR-inspired game, and the mage in it is the only magical class. By comparison, the fighter is just really, really, really, really good at killing people.


Cyrad wrote:
I don't understand the point of Name Levels.

So back in 1st Edition D&D, if you went by the book, everyone had to train to raise a level. You had to seek out a trainer who was higher level than you, you had to pay exorbitant amounts of money, and spend many weeks training. Every. Level.

Then when you got to "name" level, you could train yourself. Yay.

Then, in D&D (not AD&D), name level was a time to make a choice amongst several paths, much like prestige classes. A fighter could become a Paladin, Knight, or Champion, depending on ones alignment.

Clerics founded temples and got followers, etc.

I believe that is where the nostalgia comes from. It said, in the game rules, that you were an accomplished badass. Personally, I loved it when my 1st Edition Ranger became a Ranger Knight, and then a Ranger Lord. When I first read that class many years before at age 11, I was transfixed by those titles. Later, after I found my game group, levelled up and became a Ranger Lord, I thought "hell yeah".

I don't think it is something that is good to codify in the class rules. But...it was fun.

Dark Archive

I want Martials to have nice things.


It would be nice to see Challenge Rating's party-vs-one assumption replaced with a one-vs-one assumption. Single-monster encounters don't work very well, and Challenge Rating assumes a single-monster encounter.

-Matt


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Art direction that completely excludes WAR and his legion of imitators.

Hey, a guy can dream.


Quadratic Martial Characters


Oh right, one last thing. I want to be able to play a more stally character. One that relies on high AC, CMD, HP, saves, all of that to keep them safe while poison/magic/whatever slowly works on the enemy.

Side note, poison being viable would be nice.


WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
I would rather see 1.2 style update, rather than a complete rebuilding of the system. Alter the system too much and we'll get another 4th edition that none of the veterans can easily pick up.

Did 4e fail because it was unfamiliar or did it fail because it was unsatisfying and obviously homogenized compared to its predecessors?

I would argue that the latter is more true even if stubborn veterans (who may not even want and buy expansions to the previous edition) refuse to convert purely because they hate change. 4e was so focused on fixing what people said was broken with 3.Xe (unfocused mechanics and lack of balance between classes both in terms of balance and "fun") that they traded away some bits of the game that people really enjoyed.

I would really like to see a second edition of pathfinder.


Whitemagus 4E was one of the easiest game to pick up that I have ever played. WE just did not like it. In no edition war did I ever see anyone say 4E is too hard to understand.


I don't see the need to highlight certain classes as 'hybrids' or 'alternate' classes. A few general notes about classes that have the same named class features not stacking their abilities should be sufficient. If a class acts like two others mashed together, even if it was inspired by such a mashup, it is still its own thing. And telling players you should mix ninjas and rogues or paladins and samurai doesn't make sense. This is like mandating world flavor where there doesn't need to be any.


I want the devs to clearly state that fluff is not rules. Some people seem to think they are, and I want flavor to be clearly noted by making it italicized or marking it in an obvious manner.

I understand that for a class like the paladin that would be an exception.<----In before someone tries to pretend they dont know what I was talking about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Different names. Most of the Paizo developers have done too much damage to their own reputations through terribly designed classes. I'd like to see someone of good repute who actually understands game balance as primary system designer. Last time this thread was made I named Kirth Gersen, but he's been less active lately. I'd also like to see someone with a programming background writing the actual rules text. Someone who knows how to run edge cases through the rules in search of bugs and write clear pseudocode.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that some of the problem is that the majority of the Core Rulebook text wasn't written, it was copy/pasted from the SRD, and then modified. Which, if they stay as close to Pathfinder 1E as I fear they would for a 2E, would probably once again be the case...copy/paste from the PRD, and then modifications made.

The problem with that approach is that it's easy to miss modifications that you SHOULD have made, but didn't.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I want the devs to clearly state that fluff is not rules. Some people seem to think they are, and I want flavor to be clearly noted by making it italicized or marking it in an obvious manner.

I want more or less the opposite - and I want the words "fluff" and "flavor" to disappear from this context forever. I consider them the unholy marks of a shallow, faulty, Johnny-come-lately style of thinking that has taken the gaming culture by storm and tangibly and needlessly degraded it over the past decade.

You are playing a character in an alternate world. While you play the game, that world and everything about it are real. The rules are an imperfect UI for that world, but the world comes first, then the rules. What is referred to as "fluff/flavor" is nothing of the sort - it is the heart and soul of the game, and the mechanics are subordinate to it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
Different names. Most of the Paizo developers have done too much damage to their own reputations through terribly designed classes. I'd like to see someone of good repute who actually understands game balance as primary system designer. Last time this thread was made I named Kirth Gersen, but he's been less active lately. I'd also like to see someone with a programming background writing the actual rules text. Someone who knows how to run edge cases through the rules in search of bugs and write clear pseudocode.

Lets get rid of another bad notion here. Roleplaying Games are not software, and gaming groups are not computers. If you want games that play on that strict level... That's what your playstation and Xbox are for.


@ LazarX

I agree with you somewhat but it would be really nice if certain search engines within pathfinder were developed to just help find the rule you are looking for. For example, A spell search engine that let you type in key words like "fire" or "necromancy" or even effects like "Stun" or "Blind" and it would just show all spells with that keyword. Simple search engines like that would make it easy to create the character you want...

Paizo Employee Design Manager

LazarX wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Different names. Most of the Paizo developers have done too much damage to their own reputations through terribly designed classes. I'd like to see someone of good repute who actually understands game balance as primary system designer. Last time this thread was made I named Kirth Gersen, but he's been less active lately. I'd also like to see someone with a programming background writing the actual rules text. Someone who knows how to run edge cases through the rules in search of bugs and write clear pseudocode.
Lets get rid of another bad notion here. Roleplaying Games are not software, and gaming groups are not computers. If you want games that play on that strict level... That's what your playstation and Xbox are for.

While I agree that there doesn't need to be a rule for everything, and that attempting to have a rule for everything can be detrimental, I also think that Pathfinder's rules heavy nature is part of its appeal, and clarity in those rules is a worthy goal, and something that can make the game a better experience.

Here's my reasoning, starting with basic premises I believe to be true:

1) It takes 5 people, 1 GM and 4 players, to play Pathfinder as it's meant to be played.

2) Most GMs like to have a turn at being a player.

3) Rules lawyers are most likely to be willing to step up as GM, since the largest barrier to GMing is typically feeling comfortable with the rules.

4) The Internet has taught me that 1 out of every 3 people is a complete douche-nozzle.

5) It can be really hard to get 5 people who all have schedules that align well enough for them all to get together for a 4 hour gaming session every week, so it's better to have a douche-nozzle at the table than not play.

Now, I'm GMing, and statistically I've got 1.5 douche-nozzles around the table. There's a rules disagreement, and I have two options: appeal to the developers, whether through direct interaction on the forums, checking the FAQs, or sifting through errata to see if it's been addressed, or "bringing down the hammer" and saying "I'm the GM, this is how it is, get over it". Option 1 is time consuming, but allows me to give an answer that is a reflection of developer intent rather than me throwing my weight around. Option 2 is less time consuming, but means that the day may not be far off where my character finds himself at the mercy of a vengeful douche-nozzle who's been patiently waiting for the chance to throw that "I'm the GM" line back in my face when he screws me over. Neither of those options is a lot of fun, and both of them can be avoided by careful and concise rules language being implemented right from the start.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I want the devs to clearly state that fluff is not rules. Some people seem to think they are, and I want flavor to be clearly noted by making it italicized or marking it in an obvious manner.

I want more or less the opposite - and I want the words "fluff" and "flavor" to disappear from this context forever. I consider them the unholy marks of a shallow, faulty, Johnny-come-lately style of thinking that has taken the gaming culture by storm and tangibly and needlessly degraded it over the past decade.

You are playing a character in an alternate world. While you play the game, that world and everything about it are real. The rules are an imperfect UI for that world, but the world comes first, then the rules. What is referred to as "fluff/flavor" is nothing of the sort - it is the heart and soul of the game, and the mechanics are subordinate to it.

But, the game rules have to serve thousands of individual campaigns, many of which are not in Golarion, and even in those that are, details vary by GM and game group.

The game rules need to be generic-ish. With fluff and flavor suggesting style and helping GM's and players imagine their own vision.

One of my pet peeves is a totally new game rules set with detailed setting specific material integral to that rules set. For instance, Dragon AGE. GREAT rules, smeared with setting. Had to wait 6 years to get the upcoming Fantasy AGE version.

Shadow Lodge

I just seriously hope the Vigilante is not some sort of Stealth PF 2.0 Playtest. . .


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I want the devs to clearly state that fluff is not rules. Some people seem to think they are, and I want flavor to be clearly noted by making it italicized or marking it in an obvious manner.

I want more or less the opposite - and I want the words "fluff" and "flavor" to disappear from this context forever. I consider them the unholy marks of a shallow, faulty, Johnny-come-lately style of thinking that has taken the gaming culture by storm and tangibly and needlessly degraded it over the past decade.

You are playing a character in an alternate world. While you play the game, that world and everything about it are real. The rules are an imperfect UI for that world, but the world comes first, then the rules. What is referred to as "fluff/flavor" is nothing of the sort - it is the heart and soul of the game, and the mechanics are subordinate to it.

While the 'fluff/flavor' [I]it is the heart and soul of the game/I], mechanics should never be subordinate to it in the way they are usually treated.

Yes story should be placed first, above mechanics. However, they also shouldn't dictate mechanics. Players should be able to craft their own stories without a game designer telling them what type of story they have to play in order to use certain rules.


Can we just consolidate this all into a single thread instead of 30? I know that people always say their new thread is because the other threads devolved, but sad news; they all dissolve. Stop posting the same thread over and over. Resurrect another version and post there please.

Shadow Lodge

After they devolve to a certain point, they tend to get locked.

Shadow Lodge

DM Beckett wrote:
I just seriously hope the Vigilante is not some sort of Stealth PF 2.0 Playtest. . .

Nah, that was Unchained.

The vigilante is them preemptivly combatting the.criticism of class bloat by shoving four completely different classes onto a single, awkward class frame. With added enforced fluff.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Did 4e fail because it was unfamiliar or did it fail because it was unsatisfying and obviously homogenized compared to its predecessors?

Neither. It "failed" because "$50M per year with a growth path towards $100M" was not, as it turned out, a particularly realistic goal for an RPG.

_
glass.


LazarX wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Different names. Most of the Paizo developers have done too much damage to their own reputations through terribly designed classes. I'd like to see someone of good repute who actually understands game balance as primary system designer. Last time this thread was made I named Kirth Gersen, but he's been less active lately. I'd also like to see someone with a programming background writing the actual rules text. Someone who knows how to run edge cases through the rules in search of bugs and write clear pseudocode.
Lets get rid of another bad notion here. Roleplaying Games are not software, and gaming groups are not computers. If you want games that play on that strict level... That's what your playstation and Xbox are for.

Game system writers are being paid to write rules. Unclear rules are not a benefit. A game system with unclear rules is about as useful as an aircraft with no instruments. Except instead of dieing in a fireball when you don't judge your altitude correctly you just get arguments that strain and may eventually wreck friendships.

If you want to play magical storytime you don't need rules at all. Me, I want a consistent and impersonal means of resolving disputes like "Did the dragon kill my character?" and "Does everyone make it off the sinking ship" and "Did she really turn me into a newt and will I get better?" "Can my character also learn to turn people into newts and how reliably will he be able to do so?" The impersonal part is really important. If there isn't room to misinterpret the rules that's one less source of interpersonal conflict at the table, but anything that ever relies on rule zero just means that all conflict is focused on the person of the GM.


1d2 ⇒ 2
1d3 ⇒ 2
1d4 ⇒ 4
1d5 ⇒ 3
1d6 ⇒ 6
1d8 ⇒ 7
1d10 ⇒ 8
1d12 ⇒ 7
1d20 ⇒ 12
1d30 ⇒ 16
1d40 ⇒ 39
1d50 ⇒ 49
1d60 ⇒ 30
1d70 ⇒ 28
1d80 ⇒ 44
1d90 ⇒ 49
1d100 ⇒ 92

Shadow Lodge

Atarlost wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Different names. Most of the Paizo developers have done too much damage to their own reputations through terribly designed classes. I'd like to see someone of good repute who actually understands game balance as primary system designer. Last time this thread was made I named Kirth Gersen, but he's been less active lately. I'd also like to see someone with a programming background writing the actual rules text. Someone who knows how to run edge cases through the rules in search of bugs and write clear pseudocode.
Lets get rid of another bad notion here. Roleplaying Games are not software, and gaming groups are not computers. If you want games that play on that strict level... That's what your playstation and Xbox are for.

Game system writers are being paid to write rules. Unclear rules are not a benefit. A game system with unclear rules is about as useful as an aircraft with no instruments. Except instead of dieing in a fireball when you don't judge your altitude correctly you just get arguments that strain and may eventually wreck friendships.

If you want to play magical storytime you don't need rules at all. Me, I want a consistent and impersonal means of resolving disputes like "Did the dragon kill my character?" and "Does everyone make it off the sinking ship" and "Did she really turn me into a newt and will I get better?" "Can my character also learn to turn people into newts and how reliably will he be able to do so?" The impersonal part is really important. If there isn't room to misinterpret the rules that's one less source of interpersonal conflict at the table, but anything that ever relies on rule zero just means that all conflict is focused on the person of the GM.

I do believe there's probably a good bit of ground between no-rules storytime and having to roll urination checks.


1) Fix Class (in)Balance.

2) Scaling Feats.

3) Stealth/Perception Fix.

4) Sneak Attack should be a Combat Maneuver, Rogues, Ninja and the like having a bonus to perform it and a bonus to damages.

5) Skills Synergy.

6) Remove Alignment restrictions on some/all of the class features (Cleric/Inquisitor/Warpriest and Channeling energy).

7) Less "Good vs Evil" and a bit more "Law vs Chaos".

8) Monk get D12 hit dices.

9) Monk lose the need for Ki Points, or any classes emulating it NEED Ki Points (hello there Brawler).

10) Musical Instruments Weight and Prices fix.

11) Rules for Handicapped BadAsses.

12) Better Child/Kid/Young Characters rules.


Kthulhu wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Different names. Most of the Paizo developers have done too much damage to their own reputations through terribly designed classes. I'd like to see someone of good repute who actually understands game balance as primary system designer. Last time this thread was made I named Kirth Gersen, but he's been less active lately. I'd also like to see someone with a programming background writing the actual rules text. Someone who knows how to run edge cases through the rules in search of bugs and write clear pseudocode.
Lets get rid of another bad notion here. Roleplaying Games are not software, and gaming groups are not computers. If you want games that play on that strict level... That's what your playstation and Xbox are for.

Game system writers are being paid to write rules. Unclear rules are not a benefit. A game system with unclear rules is about as useful as an aircraft with no instruments. Except instead of dieing in a fireball when you don't judge your altitude correctly you just get arguments that strain and may eventually wreck friendships.

If you want to play magical storytime you don't need rules at all. Me, I want a consistent and impersonal means of resolving disputes like "Did the dragon kill my character?" and "Does everyone make it off the sinking ship" and "Did she really turn me into a newt and will I get better?" "Can my character also learn to turn people into newts and how reliably will he be able to do so?" The impersonal part is really important. If there isn't room to misinterpret the rules that's one less source of interpersonal conflict at the table, but anything that ever relies on rule zero just means that all conflict is focused on the person of the GM.

I do believe there's probably a good bit of ground between no-rules storytime and having to roll urination checks.

PathFinder: F.A.T.A.L. Edition?


Gars DarkLover wrote:
Things

Think I could ask you to elaborate on 5 and 10?


Opuk0 wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:
Things
Think I could ask you to elaborate on 5 and 10?

Sure.

5) Skills Synergy from DnD 3.5

10) All instrument Weight the same and have the same cost, so fixing that.


It would help if Glorion specific rules were somehow highlighted.
Animate dead says zombies are only capable of following their master, defending a place, or attacking. In a game world where dead things are capable of doing things that don't involve killing, you could give them simple instructions such as dig, carry, sweep up, ect.


Gars DarkLover wrote:


8) Monk get D12 hit dices.

ಠ_ಠ


Barathos wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:


8) Monk get D12 hit dices.
ಠ_ಠ

Barring DR, that could increase their survivability.


Gars DarkLover wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:


8) Monk get D12 hit dices.
ಠ_ಠ
Barring DR, that could increase their survivability.

It's just... it makes zero thematic sense. Monks need, deserve even, better class features, but increasing the hitpoints of a class that isn't meant to be hit is just silly. I'd rather have various ki based abilities that can, as an immediate action, give temporary DR, boosts to stats, etc, maybe even a variation on parry or a higher monk ac bonus.


Off the top of my head:

NO MORE SCALING HP! At level 1 or level 20, you should have the same basic amount of HP, though certain things should be able to modify it. You can add stamina, DR, and whatever else you want, but keep health consistent.

Support for cool variants like words of power from day 1. Theres lots of interesting things which have come and gone, it would be nice if some of the better ones were built in and supported next time around.


Keep scaling HP and ADD SCALING BASE AC! Between level 1 and 20 a character should get better at avoiding damage and a martial character should do so at an especially good rate.


Barathos wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:


8) Monk get D12 hit dices.
ಠ_ಠ
Barring DR, that could increase their survivability.
It's just... it makes zero thematic sense. Monks need, deserve even, better class features, but increasing the hitpoints of a class that isn't meant to be hit is just silly. I'd rather have various ki based abilities that can, as an immediate action, give temporary DR, boosts to stats, etc, maybe even a variation on parry or a higher monk ac bonus.

For when AC fails? Monk vs Monk? A Monk who care more about beating the **** out of an opponant than avoiding blows? etc...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Remove WBL and Expected gear. Basically R.I.P. christmas tree effect. Possibly eliminate all items that grant flat bonuses, i.e. no more stat belts/bands/+weapons/+armor or shield.

Mathhammer the whole system from the ground up. CMB vs CMD saves VS DC's Attack VS AC all need redone.

Rewrite the combat rules, eliminating the idea of Reality or "making sense". Write it solely as a game and use specific game terms none of this attack action vs attack as an action nonsense or wield vs wield.

Rewrite the magic chapter and spells to lower overall power level and remove "Gotcha" spells such as Simulacrum, Create Undead, and Planar Binding.

Rewrite skills to be worth something and to be something a character can be based around.

Rewrite weapons and armor so that there are valid weapon choices beyond 1 or 2 per category and more than one best armor choice.

Condense and enhance feats so having more is a good thing rather than "Yeah I can trade for another Rage power/Exploit."

After rewriting all of this mathhammer again.

And just to be clear do all of this with the focus on creating a readable, understandable, and internally consistent rule-set, not a setting. All of this should be done based on what makes the game work not on "reality" or "this book was cool" or "I don't/do like that."

This is just what I want, I am not saying it is a good idea or even doable, but I can dream.


Gars DarkLover wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:


8) Monk get D12 hit dices.
ಠ_ಠ
Barring DR, that could increase their survivability.
It's just... it makes zero thematic sense. Monks need, deserve even, better class features, but increasing the hitpoints of a class that isn't meant to be hit is just silly. I'd rather have various ki based abilities that can, as an immediate action, give temporary DR, boosts to stats, etc, maybe even a variation on parry or a higher monk ac bonus.
For when AC fails? Monk vs Monk? A Monk who care more about beating the **** out of an opponant than avoiding blows? etc...

My Fighter wants more hit points...for when AC fails....can he have D12 Hit Dice?


No Pathfinder 2.0, thank you.

Based on the OP, I think you (speaking to the thread starter) are misreading how armor class works. Armor Class has always factored in more than just hits and misses but the armor, parries, deflections and protection from the armor itself. So when an attack "hits" a specified armor class, it is not just that the attack hit, but that it made it through the protective layers or armor. The attacks that "miss" could at times be considered a hit that didn't go through the protective layers of armor.


Brother Fen wrote:

No Pathfinder 2.0, thank you.

Based on the OP, I think you (speaking to the thread starter) are misreading how armor class works. Armor Class has always factored in more than just hits and misses but the armor, parries, deflections and protection from the armor itself. So when an attack "hits" a specified armor class, it is not just that the attack hit, but that it made it through the protective layers or armor. The attacks that "miss" could at times be considered a hit that didn't go through the protective layers of armor.

Seems to me that the OP understood correctly the current concept of AC, as you do.

Right now, Attack VS AC checks if an attack penetrates.

However, the OP think that it should check if the attack hits, not if it penetrates. In effect, he want, for PF2.0, something similar to how Shadowrun handle hit & damages : the attack roll checks if the attack hit the target (but not if it goes through the armor), and the actual armor is used to mitigate the damage (working as DR).

I think that the main issue here is an issue of semantics. Either we have a check to hit (and thus we don't factor armor, and we don't use the term "Armor Class"), or we have a check to penetrate (and then we don't use the term "hit").

That said, I personally agree with the idea to not have armor in the "AC", since it de facto removes the difference between AC and "touch AC". Both normal and touch attacks would oppose the same Defense Value, and "touch attacks" would simply ignore DR (which they for the most part already do, since when they do damage, it usually is energy damage)

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
Different names. Most of the Paizo developers have done too much damage to their own reputations through terribly designed classes. I'd like to see someone of good repute who actually understands game balance as primary system designer. Last time this thread was made I named Kirth Gersen, but he's been less active lately. I'd also like to see someone with a programming background writing the actual rules text. Someone who knows how to run edge cases through the rules in search of bugs and write clear pseudocode.

The bolded part is one of the most unintentionally funny things I've read on these boards in a while.

-Skeld

51 to 100 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, When / If it is make? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.