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


Homebrew and House Rules

101 to 150 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Atarlost wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

FATAL has urination checks. And I could make the same reply as to you, since you insist on implying that any game where the core rulebook's spine doesn't self-destruct are no-rules magic storytime non-games.

Don't accuse me of erecting a strawman if you're stuffing hay into a plaid flannel shirt.

Ah, got it. You actually aren't capable of comprehending written English. Hint: "rules that have their edge cases considered" does not mean "rules for everything." It means rules that have their edge cases considered.

Chess fits that condition. People actually put in rules cases to handle oddities like double moving pawns or wanting to castle to either side. Pathfinder doesn't fit that condition. Which needs a larger rulebook?

Atarlost, your comments about "unclear rules" seem to be directed at Pathfinder. So when you compare "unclear rules" to "magical storytime", you are saying that playing Pathfinder is akin to playing "magical storytime". If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is.

Attacking someone's reading comprehension because they call you out for ridiculous and inflammatory statements is pretty childish.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
I just seriously hope the Vigilante is not some sort of Stealth PF 2.0 Playtest. . .

Considering that it's all built on standard Pathfinder 1.0 rules, I'd say that's highly unlikely.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
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.

Not something I want at all. By making a scaling base AC, you end up with one or more of several potential problems:

1) You get the "4E effect" where you basically always have the exact same chance of success or failure, and the only thing that changes is the size of the base numbers involved.

2) It ends up with the same issues saves have now, where high save characters are almost always guaranteed success after a certain point, and low save characters are almost always guaranteed to scale. The game becomes rock-paper-scissors instead of a more dynamic system.

3) Gear choices cease to matter, or begin to work in reverse. This was another issue that 4E had, where trying to balance heavy armor and light armor within the system ultimately meant that the guys with the best armor were invariably the guys wearing little to no armor at all.

4) It removes player agency within their character. Their ability to take or avoid a blow will be largely predetermined from the moment they choose their class.

What I wouldn't mind seeing though, is removing saving throws and switching to more of a Star Wars: Saga Edition style of defense, where instead of the targeted player rolling to see if the attack misses, the character making the attack rolls against static defenses to see if they hit. This would help keep combat moving quickly, or free up time for immediate action / off-turn abilities to keep the table engaged without bogging things down. This could also be really cool if different types of armor shored up different defenses (hints of which could be seen in both SW:SE and 4E), with, for example, heavy armor shoring up Fortitude and light armor strengthening Reflex. You could even fold holy symbols into shields and make them shore up Will, which would be beneficial to combat clerics in a way that helps streamline combat without oversimplifying it (no more juggling shields, holy symbols, and weapons), fortifies areas that can be problematic in the current game, and helps maintain the "iconic" proficiencies of the current system.

LazarX wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
I just seriously hope the Vigilante is not some sort of Stealth PF 2.0 Playtest. . .
Considering that it's all built on standard Pathfinder 1.0 rules, I'd say that's highly unlikely.

I wouldn't be so sure. Book of Nine Swords back in 3.5 was a testing ground for 4E, and it was still built to function using the standard 3.5 rules. And realistically, the Vigilante already takes some pretty big steps away from some of Pathfinder's core design assumptions (like the Avenger's BAB being divorced from his hit die, and the Warlock's casting being basically divorced from his base chassis).

Also, it could potentially be a very smart move on Paizo's end to ensure that a Pathfinder 2.0 is roughly as similar to original Pathfinder as original Pathfinder was to 3.5. If existing materials are still largely useable with a few adjustments or easily ported over, they're less likely to anger their existing fanbase who are heavily invested in the current materials with extensive collections.

It actually wouldn't surprise me at all if Unchained and the Vigilante are both early testing grounds for a potential PF 2.0, a chance for the design team to see what kinds of things people go for, what doesn't work as expected, what does work as expected but isn't as fun for the bulk of players as they'd anticipated, etc.

Vigilante would actually be a great testing ground for a system where archetypes were intrinsic to each class. Archetypes instead of PrCs or multiclassing are a big part of what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder, but they've had some issues in a few areas since the core classes weren't originally designed with archetypes in mind and they kind of had to shoehorn in various features wherever they fit. Instead of having 50 base classes, you could have maybe 4-6 base classes similar to the vigilante, built in such a way that they can be infinitely modified with new releases and material. A few tweaks to the Vigilante chassis and suddenly you've got your skill monkey class to which you can easily click in features for a combat-oriented swashbuckler, an arcane trickster who blends spells and skills, or a more dedicated trapsmith who can leverage his facility with skills alongside mechanical expertise to be the master of the mundane who's anything but. You could easily do the same thing with a base caster or warrior chassis, and not only does it simplify numerous design aspects, but it also makes it much easier to focus on cool new ideas in the future without having to dedicate numerous pages to new spell lists every time you want to do something new, like the Bloodrager or the Shaman.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not deluded enough to believe Paizo has any interest in any of these things, but here is what I'd love to see in a new version of Pathfinder:

1. Editing that values clarity (unambiguous wording) instead of only low word count.
1a. Writing/Editing that understands the actual written mechanics of the game, eliminating for example feats that have no actual effect, or feats that actively penalize you.
1b. Writing/Editing that recognizes that Words Mean Things. Stop overloading words (character level, class level, spell level). Use keywords/tags instead of leaving it to the GM/players to figure out which things count as X (such as fear effects).

2. Playtesting by groups including optimizers, to find imbalances and missing/broken rules before publish.

3. The death of Vancian casting mechanics. Go with spell drain, mana points, cooldowns, whatever... just get rid of spell slots entirely. It's a bad mechanic and the major contributor to the "15 minute workday" problem.

4. The death of the "martials can't have nice things" problem arising from the mindset that martials have to be "realistic" even though casters can bend reality over their knees even at low level.

5. The death of "zero to hero" character advancement. Beginning characters should be competent and should have meaningful options in every major area of play (combat, non-combat, and affecting the story).

6. A challenge rating system that works.

7. Support for so-called "high level" play, meaning APs or at the very least modules intended for all levels for which there are published rules. If the Core Rulebook shows a progression to level 20, then by all the gods there should be things to DO at that level (and ways to actually get there, instead of stopping at 14th like almost every AP does).

8. GMing advice that doesn't include suggesting the GM should cheat. Not even "call it fudging instead".

9. Even power scaling between classes. No more quadratic wizards. Spells should not scale on SIX axes at once (# of slots, spell level of slots, save DC, duration, range, and damage) while martial abilities only scale on three or less (damage, chance to hit, save DC sometimes). Alternatively, give martials nice things that scale the same way spells do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
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.

Not something I want at all. By making a scaling base AC, you end up with one or more of several potential problems:

1) You get the "4E effect" where you basically always have the exact same chance of success or failure, and the only thing that changes is the size of the base numbers involved.

This would depend on always fighting enemies with the same base statistics relative to the characters. In Pathfinder [and 3.X before it], the opposition within a single CR runs quite a gammut of Armor Class's and to-hits, and then GM's are free to pull from any CR they desire up to APL+4ish [perhaps one or two higher for parties which are particularly large or well-optimized]

I'm actually experimenting with this in houserules and it's working quite well.

Quote:
2) It ends up with the same issues saves have now, where high save characters are almost always guaranteed success after a certain point, and low save characters are almost always guaranteed to scale. The game becomes rock-paper-scissors instead of a more dynamic system.

Wait... what? Right now AC-Without-Magic very quickly becomes totally meaningless, characters who lack a magical Enhancement Bonus to Armor, to Natural Armor and a Deflection Bonus are usually hit damned near all the time. As for the high save low save debate, the characters with the lowest 'AC' are usually the most well protected in this game already, with miss chances and numerous ways to simply avoid being attacked.

Quote:
3) Gear choices cease to matter, or begin to work in reverse. This was another issue that 4E had, where trying to balance heavy armor and light armor within the system ultimately meant that the guys with the best armor were invariably the guys wearing little to no armor at all.

I presume you're thinking of a system where the scaling AC overrides armor or is limited by it.

I'm thinking of a system where scaling AC is supplemented by armor. Say for example Light Armor gives +2, Medium +4, and Heavy +6 [with the stupid movement restrictions lifted from heavier armors] Then we get a scenario where there's a meaningful difference between the armors.

Quote:
4) It removes player agency within their character. Their ability to take or avoid a blow will be largely predetermined from the moment they choose their class.

Except for when they choose their feats and armor type [and whether or not to use a shield] and class features [Rage Power, Rogue Talents etc etc etc].

To be perfectly honest, I don't WANT the Big Six style item slot competition. I want characters to be fully capable on their own, without magical bling.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

kyrt-ryder wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I don't WANT the Big Six style item slot competition. I want characters to be fully capable on their own, without magical bling.

This is a completely different design goal than "scaling AC", and is actually closer to the inherent bonuses they tested in Unchained. I agree with the desired result.


Ssalarn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I don't WANT the Big Six style item slot competition. I want characters to be fully capable on their own, without magical bling.
This is a completely different design goal than "scaling AC", and is actually closer to the inherent bonuses they tested in Unchained. I agree with the desired result.

Scaling AC is part of my method of obtaining that result, along with Saga-Style 'A good save is only a flat X higher than a poor one' and higher base saves and no Resistance Bonus Items.

EDIT: I take back the no Resistance Bonus items. No Cloaks/Capes/Vests etc etc of Resistance, but having a +1 or 2 resistance tacked onto something far more interesting is fine by me.


A) a revised edition, so all the f***ing errata can be put into well rewritten books and make sense.

B) A new system not called Pathfinder, since Pathfinder is tied to the Campaign Setting a bit too much, and lose on Setting Neutrality.

C) Don't make a new edition/system and forget the older one exist.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Atarlost, your comments about "unclear rules" seem to be directed at Pathfinder. So when you compare "unclear rules" to "magical storytime", you are saying that playing Pathfinder is akin to playing "magical storytime". If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is.

The latter then. Kthulhu at least has encountered the term and should know what it refers to.

Kirth Gersen explains it best:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qorx&page=2?small-things-to-errata-that-ar e-RAW-but-not-RAI#57
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lje3&page=9?Does-anyone-else-think-the-gam e-is-just-fine#446
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m2j2&page=4?Cha-and-why-its-a-dump-stat#17 9
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pief&page=42?The-Main-Problem-with-Fighter s#2090
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qtv2&page=14?What-Do-You-Hope-to-See-in-PF -2e#674
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pzd7&page=2?I-just-dont-understand-how-cas ters-are-better#89

If the rules are useless either because they are bad (like a level 20 wizard being the same CR as a level 20 rogue) or because they don't function (like the stealth rules) or because they're unclear (like almost everything that got a FAQ request ever) the DM makes stuff up and you're not playing a game anymore. You're playing "magical story hour" or "DM may I?"

You also get that when the DM is a control freak who ignores the rules or fudges dice and control freak DMs and their sycophants don't care for the quality of the rules. But kthulhu can ignore rules and fudge dice just as well when the rules function as when they don't. Those of us who don't want to play magical story time find a game with rules that don't work unfit for its purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Atarlost, your comments about "unclear rules" seem to be directed at Pathfinder. So when you compare "unclear rules" to "magical storytime", you are saying that playing Pathfinder is akin to playing "magical storytime". If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is.

The latter then. Kthulhu at least has encountered the term and should know what it refers to.

Kirth Gersen explains it best:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qorx&page=2?small-things-to-errata-that-ar e-RAW-but-not-RAI#57
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lje3&page=9?Does-anyone-else-think-the-gam e-is-just-fine#446
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m2j2&page=4?Cha-and-why-its-a-dump-stat#17 9
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pief&page=42?The-Main-Problem-with-Fighter s#2090
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qtv2&page=14?What-Do-You-Hope-to-See-in-PF -2e#674
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pzd7&page=2?I-just-dont-understand-how-cas ters-are-better#89

If the rules are useless either because they are bad (like a level 20 wizard being the same CR as a level 20 rogue) or because they don't function (like the stealth rules) or because they're unclear (like almost everything that got a FAQ request ever) the DM makes stuff up and you're not playing a game anymore. You're playing "magical story hour" or "DM may I?"

You also get that when the DM is a control freak who ignores the rules or fudges dice and control freak DMs and their sycophants don't care for the quality of the rules. But kthulhu can ignore rules and fudge dice just as well when the...

All true, although "magical storytime" is a very condescending term. That reasoned argument was not present in your previous statements. That is what I take issue with.

I do like the rules to be as clear as possible, however I also feel the advent of very detailed rules in D&D 3rd thru PF tends to trap GM's and takes away some of their ability to run a successful and fun game.

Oh, and I almost forgot...I wouldn't want you to take any of this post as an apology or retraction. Your rudeness does not make your argument stronger. It just makes you rude.


To balance the classes, the current Vancian system need to go/get revamped.


Gars DarkLover wrote:
To balance the classes, the current Vancian system need to go/get revamped.

They certainly don't need to go. Which sort of revamping were you looking at?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:
1) To balance the classes, the current Vancian system need to go/get revamped.
1) They certainly don't need to go. Which sort of revamping were you looking at?

1) Make it more linear, less exponential.

2) Reduce the disparities between Fluff/Stories and the Rules.


1) 5E is more linear, I'd much rather Pathfinder go the opposite route and make every class exponential

2) Can you elaborate on this point? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

1) 5E is more linear, I'd much rather Pathfinder go the opposite route and make every class exponential

2) Can you elaborate on this point? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

1) I wouldn't mind either, but it can be hard to do without Rules bloats/mess.

2)

a) Fluff/Stories: A few powerful Wizards/Casters need to combine their powers to do X... Rules: Wizard/caster can do the same thing on his/her/its own before reaching level 17.

b) Fluff/Stories: Fighter/Warrior/Rogue/Thief can do super awesome things... Rule: without Mythic, they can't even do half of them even at level 20, while the fluff/stories have them pulling those feats at levels 4-11.

c) or basically, in fluff/stories, martials and casters aren't very far appart in powers... by the rules, linear martial, quadratic casters.


So Magical Storytime is a derogatory term for a GM interpreting the rules.

I care more about Dr Who than MLP-FIM, but I get called a Brony so much I don't bother denying it.

My point being Magical Storytime should mean any FRPG where combat is only 50% of the game because there is more storytelling going on. They would do well in the new version to address backstory awards such as free mundane equipment and or feats. Also, what a character does during their downtime should affect what is available when they go up levels.

If a character collects unicorn art, they should get a circumstance bonus to spot an illusion of a unicorn.


I could be mistaken here [it's not one of the terms I personally use] but I'm pretty sure 'magical tea time' means the GM is making up the rules as he goes, rather than him interpreting actual rules.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
I could be mistaken here [it's not one of the terms I personally use] but I'm pretty sure 'magical tea time' means the GM is making up the rules as he goes, rather than him interpreting actual rules.

Come to the Looking Glass Tea House where it's always magical tea time. :)


Gars DarkLover wrote:


B) A new system not called Pathfinder, since Pathfinder is tied to the Campaign Setting a bit too much, and lose on Setting Neutrality.

Could you elaborate on this? I don't play golarion.


Barathos wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:


B) A new system not called Pathfinder, since Pathfinder is tied to the Campaign Setting a bit too much, and lose on Setting Neutrality.
Could you elaborate on this? I don't play golarion.

There are Classes/Concepts/Feats/Items/Rules/etc Paizo won't make because they don't fit into Golarion.

Liberty's Edge

You know that those classes/feats/items can just be reflavored to be as extremely generic as possible so you can use them outside of Golarion. =p

(Incidentally, ioun stones seem to have slipped by into the SRD even though those are named after Ioun, Greyhawk's god of knowledge...)


Snorb wrote:
You know that those classes/feats/items can just be reflavored to be as extremely generic as possible so you can use them outside of Golarion. =p

I think you understood the opposite of what I said, exporting to another CS isn't the problem, the problem is, Paizo won't make XyZ because it "doesn't fit in Golarion", and for some reasons, it means XyZ can't be in supposedly setting neutral rulebooks.


Gars DarkLover wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Gars DarkLover wrote:


B) A new system not called Pathfinder, since Pathfinder is tied to the Campaign Setting a bit too much, and lose on Setting Neutrality.
Could you elaborate on this? I don't play golarion.
There are Classes/Concepts/Feats/Items/Rules/etc Paizo won't make because they don't fit into Golarion.

What does that have to do with the name "Pathfinder" being only relevant to Golarion?


I'd want alchemist altered into a general scientist class rather than just chemistry, or that there is more to scientific magic rather than just extracts.

Shadow Lodge

Barathos wrote:
What does that have to do with the name "Pathfinder" being only relevant to Golarion?

In Golarion, there is a world spanning army called the Pathfinder Society. What they are saying, I believe, is that the System Neutral material is written to follow the Setting Material, so for example you have the Setting's major deities in the Core book. They refused, until recently, to publish a Dex to Damage style Feat/option because of the Setting centric Dervish Dance. Things like that.


It's not something I would say is needed for a new edition, but for the current edition i would like to see updates/enhancements to their aging adventure modules and paths. With the ever expanding collection of base classes and alternate (balanced) rules being published it would help rookie Gms (like me) out a tad.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I don't WANT the Big Six style item slot competition. I want characters to be fully capable on their own, without magical bling.

They actually ARE in the present system. It's the mindset of the players that brought forth the notion that the Big Six are necessary, to the point where some encounters are designed assuming they have it.

Paizo's PFS scenarios and AP's don't have a mandated Big Six assumption to them, however.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gars DarkLover wrote:
Snorb wrote:
You know that those classes/feats/items can just be reflavored to be as extremely generic as possible so you can use them outside of Golarion. =p
I think you understood the opposite of what I said, exporting to another CS isn't the problem, the problem is, Paizo won't make XyZ because it "doesn't fit in Golarion", and for some reasons, it means XyZ can't be in supposedly setting neutral rulebooks.

Which is pattently untrue. Words of Power, Spellslingers, are at least two of the mechanics that are not integrated into the setting, but were made anyway.

Most of what Paizo makes however WILL be done so with an eye towards integration with the setting because the setting and the rules set effectively sell each other.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Manager

I removed some unnecessarily fighty posts. Keep it classy foiks.


LazarX wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I don't WANT the Big Six style item slot competition. I want characters to be fully capable on their own, without magical bling.

They actually ARE in the present system. It's the mindset of the players that brought forth the notion that the Big Six are necessary, to the point where some encounters are designed assuming they have it.

Paizo's PFS scenarios and AP's don't have a mandated Big Six assumption to them, however.

My group played from 1995-2015 through dozens of campaigns and almost never had any "big 6" items for any characters, much less all for all characters.

They still crushed ECL +4 encounters easily enough.

It's only a power gaming mindset that makes it an "assumption".


LazarX wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I don't WANT the Big Six style item slot competition. I want characters to be fully capable on their own, without magical bling.

They actually ARE in the present system. It's the mindset of the players that brought forth the notion that the Big Six are necessary, to the point where some encounters are designed assuming they have it.

Paizo's PFS scenarios and AP's don't have a mandated Big Six assumption to them, however.

I don't use published adventures, I use the basic CR suggestions and pull creatures out of books and throw together encounters with them on the fly.

Therefore I expect characters to be able to hit at their expected weight- which in the 3.X system includes expected gear. [Somewhat so for spellcasters.]


LazarX wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
To be perfectly honest, I don't WANT the Big Six style item slot competition. I want characters to be fully capable on their own, without magical bling.

They actually ARE in the present system. It's the mindset of the players that brought forth the notion that the Big Six are necessary, to the point where some encounters are designed assuming they have it.

Paizo's PFS scenarios and AP's don't have a mandated Big Six assumption to them, however.

I want a mechanic, any mechanic, that makes the big six increases inherent to the characters.

Also, characters can have a bonus to hit and damage with any weapon, including their fists. As the night follows the day, magic weapon qualities will no longer require a hit and damage bonus.

Finally, the deflection bonus should likewise be a level dependent character perk.

I'm tired of losing the +5 charisma when my character finds the cloak of the manta ray.


Goth Guru wrote:


I want a mechanic, any mechanic, that makes the big six increases inherent to the characters.

Also, characters can have a bonus to hit and damage with any weapon, including their fists. As the night follows the day, magic weapon qualities will no longer require a hit and damage bonus.

Finally, the deflection bonus should likewise be a level dependent character perk.

I'm tired of losing the +5 charisma when my character finds the cloak of the manta ray.

You could use a higher point buy. It kind of evens it out by the end.


Flame Effigy wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:


I want a mechanic, any mechanic, that makes the big six increases inherent to the characters.

Also, characters can have a bonus to hit and damage with any weapon, including their fists. As the night follows the day, magic weapon qualities will no longer require a hit and damage bonus.

Finally, the deflection bonus should likewise be a level dependent character perk.

I'm tired of losing the +5 charisma when my character finds the cloak of the manta ray.

You could use a higher point buy. It kind of evens it out by the end.

Maybe the Idea is having the Martial classes being able to keep up with Full Casters (mainly Arcane) a bit more easily?


Goth Guru wrote:

I want a mechanic, any mechanic, that makes the big six increases inherent to the characters.

Also, characters can have a bonus to hit and damage with any weapon, including their fists. As the night follows the day, magic weapon qualities will no longer require a hit and damage bonus.

Finally, the deflection bonus should likewise be a level dependent character perk.

I'm tired of losing the +5 charisma when my character finds the cloak of the manta ray.

So, Automatic Bonus Progression from Unchained.


Gars DarkLover wrote:
Flame Effigy wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:


I want a mechanic, any mechanic, that makes the big six increases inherent to the characters.

Also, characters can have a bonus to hit and damage with any weapon, including their fists. As the night follows the day, magic weapon qualities will no longer require a hit and damage bonus.

Finally, the deflection bonus should likewise be a level dependent character perk.

I'm tired of losing the +5 charisma when my character finds the cloak of the manta ray.

You could use a higher point buy. It kind of evens it out by the end.
Maybe the Idea is having the Martial classes being able to keep up with Full Casters (mainly Arcane) a bit more easily?

Belt of Dwarvenkind gives you darkvision and lots of other stuff. The Belt of Giant Strength only gives you Strength.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Snorb wrote:

You know that those classes/feats/items can just be reflavored to be as extremely generic as possible so you can use them outside of Golarion. =p

(Incidentally, ioun stones seem to have slipped by into the SRD even though those are named after Ioun, Greyhawk's god of knowledge...)

Uh, what?

Ioun wasn't a deity until 4e came out. Boccob was always the deity of knowledge and magic (Hence, Boccob's Blessed Book). Ioun as a god is purely invented out of nothing for 4e.

Ioun stones are from Jack Vance's 'A Dying Earth' series, in 1973 from before D&D...the same line of novels which inspired the game's fire-and-forget Vancian casting.

==Aelryinth

Shadow Lodge

The whole "magical story time", along with it's companion "Mother-May-I?" are phrases used to impulse that a system isn't a REAL game, since you don't have to make half-a-dozen skill checks while having a casual conversation with a random barkeeper. You can also be sure that they'll soon imply that you ACTUALLY prefer their game of choice, but you don't realize it because you are blinded by the rose-coloured glasses of nostalgia.

In other words, the person saying it is almost certainly a complete jackass.


I find the nostalgia thing funny, since I've generally played the game I'm supposedly misremembering within the last week.

"Ah....Last Wednesday night, those were the days..."


The aforementioned nostalgia is implied to be as relates to the roleplaying you grew up with. It's expected you're still playing that way.


I'm afraid I don't really understand what you mean.

The nostalgia comments I find amusing are along the lines of: "AD&D wasnt really like that - you're just remembering your childhood games through rose-tinted glasses"

Shadow Lodge

Atarlost wrote:

Kirth Gersen explains it best:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qorx&page=2?small-things-to-errata-that-ar e-RAW-but-not-RAI#57

I personally find this exchange hilarious:

Kirth Gersen wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
The big advantage to a solid set of rules is that I can sit down at a table in another state, pull out my dice, and be ready to play in five minutes, after reading maybe a page of houserules.
Yes, indeed.

Kirth's houserules are slightly more than "a page".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Kirth's houserules are slightly more than "a page".

If he thought Pathfinder was a solid set of rules, he wouldn't need more than a page.


You can just allow fighters a max deflection bonus of 10 instead of 8.

Another rule I would like to see.
If someone is wearing no armor and not using a shield, they can cast one defensive spell which will only activate when they are attacked. I am mostly thinking of shield spell and mage armor. They cannot use the spell slot till after the spell activates or is dispelled. The defensive spell is also dispelled if the user uses any armor or shield. Deflection bonuses would no longer count as armor or a shield.

Shadow Lodge

Monks?


Kthulhu wrote:

The whole "magical story time", along with it's companion "Mother-May-I?" are phrases used to impulse that a system isn't a REAL game, since you don't have to make half-a-dozen skill checks while having a casual conversation with a random barkeeper. You can also be sure that they'll soon imply that you ACTUALLY prefer their game of choice, but you don't realize it because you are blinded by the rose-coloured glasses of nostalgia.

In other words, the person saying it is almost certainly a complete jackass.

Yup. (clinks mug)


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Monks?

If monks were officially recognized as a type of fighter they would get the ten max deflection bonus too.

With that in mind, clerics must draw power from a diety, while monks draw power from philosophy and the multiverse through their being.

101 to 150 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.