Personally, I would change the grid rules from squares to hexes. That 5'/10' diagonal step crap is really annoying. If the map used hexes, every step would be 5'. Also the diagonal square rules make threatening those squares with a polearm very funky.
|
Personally, I would change the grid rules from squares to hexes. That 5'/10' diagonal step crap is really annoying. If the map used hexes, every step would be 5'. Also the diagonal square rules make threatening those squares with a polearm very funky.
For games which deal with large open spaces (more strategic games - space games etc) I'd agree. But hexes make everything weird - and frankly I think that it takes longer to figure out the most efficient ways to get places if there are any obstacles. You ever try to draw/get around a town on a grid? Ugh.
And the reach weapon thing was FAQ'd.
4. Weapons no longer have critical multipliers, they now have critical damage dice. A rapier, for example, might be "18-20/+2d4" while a wakizashi is "18-20/+1d8" and a scythe is "20/+2d12". This would allow different weapons to have more visibly different stats and thus make more room for new weapons to be released in previous books. It would also mean your Strength bonus et al. aren't multiplied on a crit anymore, which would make crits much less of a novablast and make the crit range of a weapon less important than it currently is.I really really really am intrigued by and like this idea.
Martials are anemic enough as it is without nerfing them heavily.
4. Weapons no longer have critical multipliers, they now have critical damage dice. A rapier, for example, might be "18-20/+2d4" while a wakizashi is "18-20/+1d8" and a scythe is "20/+2d12". This would allow different weapons to have more visibly different stats and thus make more room for new weapons to be released in previous books. It would also mean your Strength bonus et al. aren't multiplied on a crit anymore, which would make crits much less of a novablast and make the crit range of a weapon less important than it currently is.I really really really am intrigued by and like this idea.
It looks like it would make crits fairly irrelevant at high levels.
Player: "Natural 20, so that'll hit... I do 43 damage to the Froghemoth."GM: "Aren't you going to roll to confirm the crit?"
Player: "Oh, yeah, that... Another natural 20. What a waste of a good roll... OK, so with the bonus that's 46 damage total."
|
4. Weapons no longer have critical multipliers, they now have critical damage dice. A rapier, for example, might be "18-20/+2d4" while a wakizashi is "18-20/+1d8" and a scythe is "20/+2d12". This would allow different weapons to have more visibly different stats and thus make more room for new weapons to be released in previous books. It would also mean your Strength bonus et al. aren't multiplied on a crit anymore, which would make crits much less of a novablast and make the crit range of a weapon less important than it currently is.I really really really am intrigued by and like this idea.It looks like it would make crits fairly irrelevant at high levels.
Player: "Natural 20, so that'll hit... I do 43 damage to the Froghemoth."
GM: "Aren't you going to roll to confirm the crit?"
Player: "Oh, yeah, that... Another natural 20. What a waste of a good roll... OK, so with the bonus that's 46 damage total."
To be fair, a LOT of things become irrelevant at high levels.
|
|
Like certain classes.
To be fair, a LOT of things become irrelevant at high levels.
Which would be one thing to change if one were to rebuild Pathfinder. I find that - except for a few spell combos - that's not really true until at least level 13ish. It's one reason I rarely play that high.
Frankly - I think it's a direct result of how the leveling system is set up to make characters become exponentially more powerful as they level (one major thing I'd change) and that it's by a greater factor for spell-casters.
One thing that I would do is have Armor = DR. I really like the vibe that it gives - but slapping it on top of the current system doesn't work as the whole system would need to re-balanced around it.
If you are not aware. Ultimate Combat gives rules for turning armor into DR. As well as Piecemeal armor.
Sorry, I am not well versed in the technicality
of forum posting. The second line is my text.
|
|
One thing that I would do is have Armor = DR. I really like the vibe that it gives - but slapping it on top of the current system doesn't work as the whole system would need to re-balanced around it.If you are not aware. Ultimate Combat gives rules for turning armor into DR. As well as Piecemeal armor.
The Ultimate Combat rules are just the sort of "slapping it on top of the current system" that I was referring to. They're a mess and horribly imbalanced with the current base rules system.
|
4. Weapons no longer have critical multipliers, they now have critical damage dice. A rapier, for example, might be "18-20/+2d4" while a wakizashi is "18-20/+1d8" and a scythe is "20/+2d12". This would allow different weapons to have more visibly different stats and thus make more room for new weapons to be released in previous books. It would also mean your Strength bonus et al. aren't multiplied on a crit anymore, which would make crits much less of a novablast and make the crit range of a weapon less important than it currently is.I really really really am intrigued by and like this idea.
I toyed with this once. Maybe change x2 multiplier to +2d6, x3 to +3d6, and x4 to +4d6? And max base damage on a critical hit as well?
|
|
I toyed with this once. Maybe change x2 multiplier to +2d6, x3 to +3d6, and x4 to +4d6? And max base damage on a critical hit as well?4. Weapons no longer have critical multipliers, they now have critical damage dice. A rapier, for example, might be "18-20/+2d4" while a wakizashi is "18-20/+1d8" and a scythe is "20/+2d12". This would allow different weapons to have more visibly different stats and thus make more room for new weapons to be released in previous books. It would also mean your Strength bonus et al. aren't multiplied on a crit anymore, which would make crits much less of a novablast and make the crit range of a weapon less important than it currently is.I really really really am intrigued by and like this idea.
So - 4e's crit system?
|
|
So - 4e's crit system?I toyed with this once. Maybe change x2 multiplier to +2d6, x3 to +3d6, and x4 to +4d6? And max base damage on a critical hit as well?4. Weapons no longer have critical multipliers, they now have critical damage dice. A rapier, for example, might be "18-20/+2d4" while a wakizashi is "18-20/+1d8" and a scythe is "20/+2d12". This would allow different weapons to have more visibly different stats and thus make more room for new weapons to be released in previous books. It would also mean your Strength bonus et al. aren't multiplied on a crit anymore, which would make crits much less of a novablast and make the crit range of a weapon less important than it currently is.I really really really am intrigued by and like this idea.
Wouldn't know, I don't have my 4e books anymore. I was neatly ripping off borrowing this from the 5e playtest. =p
EDIT: just Googled "D&D 4e critical hits," turns out that it's "Max damage, and that's it for the most part." Which is lame as hell sometimes.
|
|
EDIT: just Googled "D&D 4e critical hits," turns out that it's "Max damage, and that's it for the most part." Which is lame as hell sometimes.
It was max damage with an extra d6 per magic enhancement. (so a +3 sword would be an extra 3d6) Some magic variants made this higher. (vicious made it d12 instead of d6 - Berserker was d10 - etc) and some weapons such as the Greataxe had an extra d12 inherent.
I would like to see spells put into two groups, combat spells and rituals.
Combat spells
-They are standard action casting time or less and do not provoke AoO.
-Can be used at will but are weak unless empowered by a mana pool like mechanic.
-Spells are still memorized(wizard) or known(sorcerer) but are not lost when cast.
-Common spell effects such as evocation, personal or small group protection spells, healing, enchantments, most illusions, weak summoned creatures, etc.
Example would a 9th level wizard could cast a at will fireball that does like 3d6+Int mod damage or use some mana and make it 9d6+Int mod damage instead.
Rituals
-Casting time at least a full round and does provoke AoO.
-Can have more then one caster for a single spell to make it stronger.
-Used to create more powerful or longer lasting(even permanent) effects.
-More limited resource maybe x/day or cost a lot of mana.
-Common spell effect like powerful summoning creatures, powerful barriers/wards, magical traps, raising the dead, creating undead or constructs, etc..
I think all damage dealing spells should get the casting stat mod added to damage.
Personally, I would change the grid rules from squares to hexes. That 5'/10' diagonal step crap is really annoying. If the map used hexes, every step would be 5'. Also the diagonal square rules make threatening those squares with a polearm very funky.For games which deal with large open spaces (more strategic games - space games etc) I'd agree. But hexes make everything weird - and frankly I think that it takes longer to figure out the most efficient ways to get places if there are any obstacles. You ever try to draw/get around a town on a grid? Ugh.
And the reach weapon thing was FAQ'd.
I just found that FAQ, cheers thanks! I'm playing a polearm user in an upcoming game and this ruling will be really handy!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're talking about MAJOR changes, my big one would be to condense the game down to 10 levels instead of 20.
Let's be honest, how many groups actually play a campaign out to all 20 levels? Even PFS only goes to 12, as a consent that 20 is too many.
And it seems like most PF arguments I see are caused, at their root, by the fact that high-level and low-level play are essentially two different games. Which would be fine if they actually WERE two different games, but people who like the first game have to inevitably watch it slowly metamorphose into the second game, while people who prefer the second game have to slog through the first game to get there.
So, make it a 10-level game instead. A 1st-level character in this paradigm would be about as powerful as a 3rd or 4th level character is now, while a 10th-level character would be as powerful as a15th-level character is now.
Spells would get condensed into four or five levels. 1st-level spells can either get rebalanced or dropped altogether (srsly, every class's 1st-level spells, half of them look like something I'd pay a clown to do at a birthday party). 7th, 8th, and 9th-leve spells can mostly be cut, or repackaged into "epic events" that can happen when the plot says so (9th-level casters are long overdue for their date with the nerf bat anyway).
Feat chains will have to be condensed as well, to allow for the fact that characters will get fewer feats over the course of their lifespans.
Prestige classes can either become base classes in their own right, or be dropped. Their more flavorful abilities can perhaps become feats, talents/powers/discoveries, or spells, so as to remain options for that style of play.
This is in many ways building a new RPG from the ground up rather than "changing Pathfinder", but it would solve a lot of the issues of Pathfinder.
I would like to see spells put into two groups, combat spells and rituals.
Combat spells
-They are standard action casting time or less and do not provoke AoO.
-Can be used at will but are weak unless empowered by a mana pool like mechanic.
-Spells are still memorized(wizard) or known(sorcerer) but are not lost when cast.
-Common spell effects such as evocation, personal or small group protection spells, healing, enchantments, most illusions, weak summoned creatures, etc.Example would a 9th level wizard could cast a at will fireball that does like 3d6+Int mod damage or use some mana and make it 9d6+Int mod damage instead.
Rituals
-Casting time at least a full round and does provoke AoO.
-Can have more then one caster for a single spell to make it stronger.
-Used to create more powerful or longer lasting(even permanent) effects.
-More limited resource maybe x/day or cost a lot of mana.
-Common spell effect like powerful summoning creatures, powerful barriers/wards, magical traps, raising the dead, creating undead or constructs, etc..I think all damage dealing spells should get the casting stat mod added to damage.
So Dresden Files magic, then? I can dig it.
I think you should have a choice of ether Str or Dex to hit and damage, no feats required.
I think you should get to add your casting stat mod to damage with any spell that does HP damage.
I think it would be cool that if/when you got a stat to 25 naturally(no enhancement bonuses) you should get a special ability. Like for example 25 Str would give you the giant's rock throwing or the ability to take a 10 on Str checks, 25 Con would grant you fast healing 1 or immunity to disease or poison, 25 Int could make all skills class skills or you can take a 10 on knowledge checks(even untrained). This also goes with the idea that you should get a stat point every level with stat max restrictions based on level of course.
|
|
I think you should have a choice of ether Str or Dex to hit and damage, no feats required.
If you added that to the current system - everyone with any amount of optimization would ALWAYS pick dex. Essentially all Str gives you is melee accuracy/damage - dex gives you a dozen other useful things. (I could see an argument for giving WF for free - but it'd still probably require a slight re-balance.)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think you should have a choice of ether Str or Dex to hit and damage, no feats required.If you added that to the current system - everyone with any amount of optimization would ALWAYS pick dex. Essentially all Str gives you is melee accuracy/damage - dex gives you a dozen other useful things. (I could see an argument for giving WF for free - but it'd still probably require a slight re-balance.)
But you did say "if they were designing a similar but new system from the ground up". :)
|
|
But you did say "if they were designing a similar but new system from the ground up". :)I think you should have a choice of ether Str or Dex to hit and damage, no feats required.If you added that to the current system - everyone with any amount of optimization would ALWAYS pick dex. Essentially all Str gives you is melee accuracy/damage - dex gives you a dozen other useful things. (I could see an argument for giving WF for free - but it'd still probably require a slight re-balance.)
Fair 'nuff.
Though I don't think it'd work unless you also split dex into dex & agility. You could choose to use Str for both - or choose to have dex for accuracy & agility for damage.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But you did say "if they were designing a similar but new system from the ground up". :)I think you should have a choice of ether Str or Dex to hit and damage, no feats required.If you added that to the current system - everyone with any amount of optimization would ALWAYS pick dex. Essentially all Str gives you is melee accuracy/damage - dex gives you a dozen other useful things. (I could see an argument for giving WF for free - but it'd still probably require a slight re-balance.)Fair 'nuff.
Though I don't think it'd work unless you also split dex into dex & agility. You could choose to use Str for both - or choose to have dex for accuracy & agility for damage.
Actually, 5E does it just fine; it's just that there are a lot of subtle changes throughout the system that make it work.
For example: the scaling of damage is so much lower (such as by capping all stats at 20 and not really assuming magic items and so forth) that the weapon damage die for your weapon actually matters, and the DEX weapons only get around a 1d6 (or 1d8 for rapier), while the STR-only weapons can get as high as 1d12 or 2d6, therefore getting better damage than DEX-based characters will have.
There's more, but you get the idea. You're right that it requires systemic rebalancing, but it doesn't require splitting up DEX or anything like that.
|
|
For example: the scaling of damage is so much lower (such as by capping all stats at 20 and not really assuming magic items and so forth) that the weapon damage die for your weapon actually matters, and the DEX weapons only get around a 1d6 (or 1d8 for rapier), while the STR-only weapons can get as high as 1d12 or 2d6, therefore getting better damage than DEX-based characters will have.
There's more, but you get the idea. You're right that it requires systemic rebalancing, but it doesn't require splitting up DEX or anything like that.
Also - from what I understand there are Str saves - so you can't get away with dumping it entirely like you could in Pathfinder.
Maybe saves should go something like this.
Base saves
Str mod + Con mod= Fort
Dex mod + Int mod= Ref
Wis mod + Cha mod= Will
Then you get a point or points per level you can add to wich save(s) you want.
Also the Dex to hit and damage should only apply to weapons that have the "finesse" trait.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Maybe saves should go something like this.
Base saves
Str mod + Con mod= Fort
Dex mod + Int mod= Ref
Wis mod + Cha mod= WillThen you get a point or points per level you can add to wich save(s) you want.
That's actually remarkably close to 4E.
Also the Dex to hit and damage should only apply to weapons that have the "finesse" trait.
And that's how 5E works.
I hope they never get rid of Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, and Cha.
|
|
4. Weapons no longer have critical multipliers, they now have critical damage dice. A rapier, for example, might be "18-20/+2d4" while a wakizashi is "18-20/+1d8" and a scythe is "20/+2d12". This would allow different weapons to have more visibly different stats and thus make more room for new weapons to be released in previous books. It would also mean your Strength bonus et al. aren't multiplied on a crit anymore, which would make crits much less of a novablast and make the crit range of a weapon less important than it currently is.I really really really am intrigued by and like this idea.
Looks like you might get your idea into PF 2.0 ;)
That is pretty neat, though - and truly, crit fishing is a tad overpowered right now. I'm curious how would you rule it on ray spells and the like, though? Same thing or just double the damage die since they typically don't include modifiers?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the changes I would prefer are mostly in the opposite direction from a lot of what I'm reading.
I would eliminate almost all hero point/panach/ki points/other points to keep track of. Most #per day special powers would either become at will, or only in special circumstances. The only real exception to this would be to keep Vancian casting. (Note this does _not_ apply to hit points)
I would return all spellcasting to be Vancian. This would probably mean totally eliminating the sorcerer, oracle, and other such spontaneous casting classes. I don't know if it would be better to go as far back as strict Vancian casting, or to maintain the current orison/cantrip exception. The bonded item emergency spell does make some sense.
I also would change all point buys to level, instead of exponential (i.e. an 18 costs 8 points because 18-10=8, a 5 gives 5 more points to spend on something because 5-10=-5) This one is easy to manage by house rule, though.
I also want all prestige classes to have class levels for as far as anyone could take them. As an example, mystic theurge needs to have at least 14 levels, more if allowing for some of the spell-like ability shenanigans.
In general, I would prefer to make things more like previous D&D editions, rather than keep moving further away from D&D roots like many seem to wish for.
I'd rather not focus on small changes, none of this nickel and diming.
My favorite thing about Pathfinder is the modules that Paizo writes. Thus, any changes in Pathfinder I would want similar enough to both original Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 that I can make conversions. Thus, I favor the small changes. For example, Charlie Brooks' idea below.
I'd work on eliminating the rules that are basically one-off tangents to the system.
Example: arcane spell failure. It exists only in the situation that a wizard or sorcerer decides to cast spells while in armor. It's a rule that handles what amounts to a corner case in play and which doesn't have any other application elsewhere. Seems to me that it could be cut entirely and replaced with something like a caster needing to make a concentration check if casting in armor he isn't proficient with.
Back in post #29, Rynjin had a good list of things to change, but few details on how to change them. Let me play with those ideas.
1.) Scrap CMB/CMD and Attack Rolls/AC as separate systems. You now have a combined defense against all sorts of attacks that require a d20 roll to resolve. You can now Grapple as well as you can swing a sword, and vice versa.
How we compromise with one kind of attack and two kind of defenses? Currently, armor has a maximum dex bonus, and we have flatfooted AC and touch AC, so we already have a division in AC by armor or by dexterity. So we give everyone a Block AC (flatfooted AC) and a Dodge AC (touch AC):
Block AC = 10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + size modifier + other block modifiers,Dodge AC = 10 + Dexterity modifier + shield bonus - size modifier + other dodge modifiers.
Large creatures are better at blocking and small creatures are better at dodging. Whenever someone swings at a character, he choses which AC to block with.
Thus, we can eliminate maximum dex bonus on armor. Outdated stat blocks can be converted by using flatfooted AC as Block AC and touch AC as Dodge AC. Also:
a) Touch attacks are always against Dodge AC.
b) Flatfooted, feinted, and grappled people can only use only Block AC except against touch attacks.
c) Sneak attack damage is dealt by any successful hit against a character using Block AC.
d) Some combat manuevers are against Block AC, some are against Dodge AC, and some are against the target's choice.
e) Any character with Dex 13 or higher gets a +1 dodge bonus when wearing light armor or using a shield.
f) Deflection bonuses count as shield bonuses.
Rule (c) gives armored people have a choice between using their best AC or risking sneak attack damage, which would probably work out better for rogues than the flanking rule. We can eliminate flanking rules entirely.
2.) Eliminate the need for magic items. Make them a cool extra, not something your character requires to function.
If they are cool, then they do something, Doing something adds to an optimized character, therefore, he will have a magic item. But we could limit their power. Only +1 to hit and damage, not +5.
3.) Scrap the "1 is auto-fail" and "20 is auto-success" rules. Maybe implement a "degrees of failure/success" rule so a 1 gives you a -5 and a 20 gives you a +5, or some other commensurate benefit.
Auto-fail and auto-success are simpler, so I disagree with this one.
4.) Both reduce the narrative power and skill obsoleting nature of spells, and provide a similar level of power (to the new status-quo) to non-casting classes. Skill Unlocks are a good start, if only 99% of them didn't suck so hard.
I had to look up "Skill Unlocks." It means enabling new abilities to a character in a computer game, where usually the game does not provide a command for using that ability, right? That would be like feats.
5.) Do something about multiclassing. It needs to be a viable option beyond dipping. I'm not sure how this one would be accomplished while still making single classed characters just as attractive, however.
Paizo did succeed in making single-classed characters attractive. The solution to long-term multiclassing is to design the abilities of different classes to work together rather than separately. For example, both monk and ninjas have ki pools, so their abilities can support each other.
6.) Allow for more mobile combat. Things like Spring Attack and Ride-By/Fly-By attack should be core options, not something you need to spend oodles of useless Feats to gain access to.
So Run-By-Attack would be a core option that allowed an attack in mid-move, but still provoked an attack of opportunity for moving. Ride-By-Attack would come free with the Mounted Combat feat.
7.) Eliminate nasty feat chains. The only time a Feat should chain into another one is if it grants a new, exciting, powerful option, not "I need to eat 4 Feats just so I can spend a 5th to hit a bunch of dudes in a circle" or "I need 3 Feats to hit people with a Whip good".
Does Rynjin want a Whirlwind Attack to be an option for fourth-level characters, assuming it keeps the BAB +4 prerequisite? I admit that the feats in its prerequisites make no sense: Combat Expertise and Dodge are defensive, Spring Attack and Mobility aid mobile combat, but Whirlwind Attack is purely offensive and stationary. The only problem I see is that fourth-level Whirlwind Attack against a crowd of opponents it is better than the sixth-level iterative attacks from BAB +6, yet a feat should be better than no feat regardless of the BAB prerequisite.
8.) Likewise, improve Feats as a whole. Feats are much, much, MUCH less frequently gained than spells...should that not suggest they should be more powerful? As-is most Feats (especially Combat feats) are on par with the effect of a 1st level spell. On a good day.
Yes, compare a Whirlwind Attack by a fourth-level fighter (2d6 + 1.5*Str damage with a greatsword, attack rolls required) and a Burning Hands spell from a fourth-level wizard (4d4 damage, reflex save for half). And that is the no-feat-chain Whirlwind Attack from suggestion 7.
9.) Also similar to the above, all of the "Take -X to add +Y" Feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise should be core options. Really, anything that sounds like "Why do I need a Feat to do this?" (and they're usually pretty clear what they are) should just be a rules option like Fighting Defensively. This includes "Improved Combat Maneuver" Feats. You shouldn't need a Feat to Grapple someone, and you certainly shouldn't need two Feats and 13 Int to trip a man.
Um, my character doesn't need a feat to grapple someone. All combat maneuvers are innate abilities. However, without the feats, they provoke an attack of opportunity. Which my character would be willing to take if the combat maneuver were important. And the damage from the attack of opportunity reduces the chance of success. Okay, that last detail prevents the use of the feat-less combat maneuver. Just drop the rule about damage reducing the chance of success.
|
|
4. Weapons no longer have critical multipliers, they now have critical damage dice. A rapier, for example, might be "18-20/+2d4" while a wakizashi is "18-20/+1d8" and a scythe is "20/+2d12". This would allow different weapons to have more visibly different stats and thus make more room for new weapons to be released in previous books. It would also mean your Strength bonus et al. aren't multiplied on a crit anymore, which would make crits much less of a novablast and make the crit range of a weapon less important than it currently is.I really really really am intrigued by and like this idea.Looks like you might get your idea into PF 2.0 ;)
That is pretty neat, though - and truly, crit fishing is a tad overpowered right now. I'm curious how would you rule it on ray spells and the like, though? Same thing or just double the damage die since they typically don't include modifiers?
It's been pointed out that this change is a nerf for martials, who certainly don't need to be nerfed. I'd be perfectly happy to just rule "spells don't crit".
Honestly, getting rid of the idea that ray spells are a type of weapon closes up a lot of rules ambiguity without really "nerfing" anybody. Who's taking Weapon Focus: Ray, really?
That said, since my idea was that each weapon can have its own critical damage dice, and two otherwise identical weapons might deal different extra damage on a crit, it would make sense that each individual spell has its own text on what extra bonus a nat 20 gets you, if any.
I had to look up "Skill Unlocks." It means enabling new abilities to a character in a computer game, where usually the game does not provide a command for using that ability, right? That would be like feats.
Nah, skill unlocks are a thing from Pathfinder:Unchained. Give you extra abilities for a skill the more ranks you put into it.
I would add an ignore function to the forums.
I had to look up "Skill Unlocks." It means enabling new abilities to a character in a computer game, where usually the game does not provide a command for using that ability, right? That would be like feats.Nah, skill unlocks are a thing from Pathfinder:Unchained. Give you extra abilities for a skill the more ranks you put into it.
Thanks for the information. I have not purchased Pathfinder Unchained yet. I checked skill unlocks on the d20pfsrd site.
Since unlocking skills requires the Rogue Unchained edge ability or the Signature Skill feat, it still looks like feats. But it also looks like a good solution to the feat chain problem. Instead of feat chains, we could link some feats to skill ranks and have them level up. For example:
Disarm Practice (Combat)
You grow better at knocking weapons from a foe's grasp.
Prerequisite: Int 13
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a disarm combat maneuver. In addition, you may add your Dex bonus to attack rolls made to disarm a foe.
If you have Disable Device as a class skill, you may add 3 to your AC (I'm assuming AC has replaced CMB) whenever an opponent tries to disarm you.
If you have 3 ranks in Disable Device, you do not drop the weapon that you used in a severely failed disarm attempt.
If you have 6 ranks in Disable Device, you may direct the disarmed weapon to land 15 feet away from its previous wielder, in a random direction.
If you have 9 ranks in Disable Device, you may make a thrown-weapon attack with the disarmed weapon up to 15 feet away using the same attack roll with a -4 penalty.
If you have 12 ranks in Disable Device, whenever you score a critical hit against an opponent in a melee attack, you may use the same attack roll in a disarm combat maneuver instead of dealing extra damage.
If you have 15 ranks in Disable Device, whenever you score a critical hit against an opponent in a melee attack, you may use the same attack roll in a disarm combat maneuver in addition to dealing extra damage.
Normal: You provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a disarm combat maneuver. If your disarm attack fails by 10 or more, you drop the weapon that you were using to attempt the disarm.
That makes the Int 13, originally from the Combat Expertise requirement, make sense, since Intelligence and skill ranks go together. The feat is terribly long, but it replaces four feats: Improved Disarm, Greater Disarm, Disarming Strike, and Directed Disarm. We can associate a different skill with each combat maneuver.
Having to prepare spells ahead of time, and when you use it, it's gone. I mean, I'm okay with preparing spells and having a specific amount of spells per day, but if you have 4 level-1 spells available in a day, you should be able to choose whether you want to to use each of your prepared spells once, or use one of your prepared spells multiple times.
My GM made a house rule where instead of having to expend each prepared spell only once, or having to prepare one spell in multiple slots, you have a "level x spell pool", and you can cast whichever of the x level spells you prepared for one point from the pool.
|
|
Having to prepare spells ahead of time, and when you use it, it's gone. I mean, I'm okay with preparing spells and having a specific amount of spells per day, but if you have 4 level-1 spells available in a day, you should be able to choose whether you want to to use each of your prepared spells once, or use one of your prepared spells multiple times.
My GM made a house rule where instead of having to expend each prepared spell only once, or having to prepare one spell in multiple slots, you have a "level x spell pool", and you can cast whichever of the x level spells you prepared for one point from the pool.
I would point out - that makes spontaneous casters suck. That's kinda their thing - except they're stuck with the same spells forever instead of daily. (and fewer different ones)
Basically - it's a hybrid of the two with the best of both worlds.
|
|
Pathfinder is the fantasy version of RIFTS. There's nothing that you can change that would make the game better or worse. It's based on a very old engine that most modern games no longer use. The only thing I would do is use another game's mechanics like 5e or the Cypher system; but then it wouldn't be Pathfinder, now would it?
Pathfinder is the fantasy version of RIFTS. There's nothing that you can change that would make the game better or worse. It's based on a very old engine that most modern games no longer use. The only thing I would do is use another game's mechanics like 5e or the Cypher system; but then it wouldn't be Pathfinder, now would it?
I think we might have a misunderstanding, but I'm not certain... In my description, the player still has to choose a maximum of, say, 5 different level-one spells at the beginning of each in-game day (or whatever their spells-per-day limit is,) and they can only cast 5 level one spells that day, but they can choose whether they want to repeat a spell from the list of those they prepared.
Is that how spontaneous casters work? I thought they could choose from any spell on their list to cast?
I'd like to see weapons have a bit more variability, enough so there aren't any weapons that are clearly inferior to all of the others; I just see, or in least the games I play, that everyone chooses the same weapon and it comes to a point where you forget about the weapon (as well as its design) and just think about the number of dice you'll roll. It's only a small change, but I would enjoy more creative uses of certain weapons.
Also, like most, I'd love to see feats culled so only the actually useful ones remain, and certain skills like power attack can be pulled off by anyone - as someone already said, they're rarer than spells but often a lot worse. I feel that feats should be achievements - they should actually live up to their name, and not just be 'I can swing my sword harder'.
Sure if you want to define it that way.you have to think more about what you do in a turn and where you are positioning is a lot more important in this. thus combat is RPed less.I've yet to experience repeated instances of 'chess match' mentality in the games I run, but I do run them battlefield of the mind [with AoO's and combat maneuvers and all of that] and make a point to discuss story elements with my players and encourage them to remain in character at all times.I would change Pathfinder back to a roleplaying game from the battle-game it's become.That's more of a personal game issue rather than a system issue. You can do as much or as little roleplaying as you want to when playing Pathfinder.You can, but it's harder. The combat rules from 3rd Ed require much more tactics and "chess-like" maneuvers. Combat requires more optimizing. Most of us have only so much time and brain power.
Thus, while though it is certainly possible to have scads of RP in a 3rd Ed variant (which PF is) and all combat dungeon hacks used to occur in AD&D, generally there was more time to do RPing.
Where you are positioning is part of the roleplay.
It's not about how poster X defines it, it's about how player Y plays it.
If the player is in character, then the movement is part of the roleplay, its integrated into their experience of events portrayed at the game table.
If they're not in character, you get something resembling Chess or Checkers.
I forgot about this thread, but... am i the only one who plays chess as if they were people... with hopes and dreams?
lol i thought of the same thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see weapons have a bit more variability, enough so there aren't any weapons that are clearly inferior to all of the others; I just see, or in least the games I play, that everyone chooses the same weapon and it comes to a point where you forget about the weapon (as well as its design) and just think about the number of dice you'll roll. It's only a small change, but I would enjoy more creative uses of certain weapons.I'm exactly the opposite. "There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people." Minimise the differences between the weapons to something really simple. Increase the differences between the users, with fighting styles and stances and other reasonably unique tricks that attach to the character and not the weapon. So Trogdor is famous for being Trogdor, not for being That Guy Who Carries Excalibat.
Even better, add to that the ability to learn certain combat skills that apply to different types of weapons or fighting styles. Make there be a real difference between the Swordsman, the Pikeman, the Archer, the Axeman, the Spearman, the Dual-Wielder, the Duelist, the Hammerman.
Let the weapons themselves differ only in how many hands they need, whether they're melee or ranged, and what type of damage they deal. Then let the character learn what a master can do with a given type of weapon or style.