| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd start by removing HeadFirst's limitation that I am only allowed to remove three things. There, now I can remove as many as I want!
With my remaining ability to remove things, I would remove everything on the Ban List.
2: Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Cavalier, Samurai, Ninja, Swashbuckker, Gunslinger (to be replaced with a flexible powerful hybrid class that can fill any of those niches)
I'd keep most of those, though I'd move the Ninja and Samurai to my Oriental Adventures book and ditch the Gunslinger (that's just personal dislike coming in there).
Yeah, I get what you're saying and it's not bad.
Another thing I'd do is what I do as a houserule. Classes get the same number of skills they already do, but they can pick and choose the ones they want instead of having a static list. I love being able to customize classes, and I see this as another step in that direction, because traits and feats can all be chosen to suit the player. I know lots of folks will have a problem with this, but we do it in my homebrew and it works fine.
For what it's worth, I'm with you on the Gunslinger.
Guns I like, but locking them behind specialized classes is ridiculous.
I ***might*** allow them if that were the case, but they'd be limited to very primitive ones and I'd do away with Grit points. Probably change the name to Musketeer or something less Wild West sounding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally I think it'd make sense to do away with all the classes that are just built around a single weapon. I mean, the fighter is theoretically a generic class that specializes around whatever you want to build, so then having specialist classes designed around a single combat style seems redundant.
Ideally you should be able to build a cavalier or gunslinger or swashbuckler or monk out of the fighter by picking the right options.
I'd start by removing HeadFirst's limitation that I am only allowed to remove three things. There, now I can remove as many as I want!
With my remaining ability to remove things, I would remove everything on the Ban List.
wat
1. DEX-to-damage
2. Anything below 20 point buy.
3. Weapons that aren't 20/2x.
i mean the thing that got me was greatswords.
|
Consumers can't use rules that aren't written.
Human beings use unwritten rules every day. What makes you think that just putting on one's customer hat makes this behavior suddenly impossible?
As it stands, I already ignore a lot of the written rules in Pathfinder RPG not necessarily because they are terribly bad but because we are used to wing it a lot or are too lazy to look them up in the book or simply are creative enough to invent our own rules. I don't mind publishing Paizo new rules per se, as it might give me new insight or show me a probably better alternative and as I'm just interested in how other people tackle a problem, but it's not as if I'm paralyzed by Paizo not doing my job for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) The unwritten rules. Paizo is in the business of selling rules. They can't sell rules that aren't written. Paizo is in the business of selling content for a rules system. Consumers can't use rules that aren't written. Unwritten rules are for illicit organization where writing down the rules would be evidence that could get the members prosecuted. A perfectly legal corporation whose major business is selling rules has no reason to have such things. Write them down in clear English and publish them or retract them.
It would be easier to make a book report on the book >Ulysses< with less than 24 hours to read the book and write the report, that it would be to codify the unwritten rules if you had 1 year to do so. It would probably more than quadruple the size of the CRB and would be mostly filled with lame stuff like what exactly happens when a character's HP hit's zero(ergh... negative con score...), aka a definition for the "dead" condition and what not.
1) Actually, adding a Book called Ultimate Creation Guide.
2) That's it.
you're never going to stop are you? :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see the Path of War classes make it into "core" Pathfinder.
Again, I don't think Paizo should get their hands on any of the 3rd party classes.
Why not? They've done great things with 3rd party monsters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly because they'd quickly get FAQ'd and errata'd into trash becaus they aren't core. Minor lay because any archetypes they made for the classes would be terrible(looking at you, Drake-based archetypes...).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, there are FAQs and erratas for official Paizo stuff?
Just kiddin' of course, but the truth is that apart from the erratas already integrated in my core rulebook and/or any rule book pdfs, I just don't use any of them.
I'm quite confident that, if something like this would happen, Paizo would be smart enough to understand that the fans like those classes as they are and didn't wish for them to be included just to be changed into something else. And I think that the beauty of the OGL actually would make it quite easy to sanction them for PFS play if Paizo wanted to.
But then, apart from official PFS play, I can already use them as I want to. So I don't mind that this won't happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised I never mentioned Ultimate Combat firearms when I wrote an article about them. I don't think it was a good idea to build upon Inner Sea World Guide's gimmicky Alkenstar guns. It would have been better just to make firearms be like a short range crossbow with a Dexterity rating like composite bows. Making a weapon so broken that it has to be locked behind an entire class just feels like a punch in the face.
I'm surprised I never mentioned Ultimate Combat firearms when I wrote an article about them. I don't think it was a good idea to build upon Inner Sea World Guide's gimmicky Alkenstar guns. It would have been better just to make firearms be like a short range crossbow with a Dexterity rating like composite bows. Making a weapon so broken that it has to be locked behind an entire class just feels like a punch in the face.
Kyrt-Rider and I discussed earlier just doing away with the Gunslinger and Grit points entirely and allowing any class to use firearms. Should probably have a Firearms Proficiency feat, but yeah, building a whole class around one weapon is kinda silly, IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally would do away with the gunslinger and grit (and the similar Swashbuckler and its panache mechanics)... as for letting any class have firearms, it all depends how prevalent you want them to be in your campaign, I quite like the options given on p 135 of Ult Combat to that effect.
I'd also do away with the nerfing of spellcasters and roll back many spells to their 3.5 or maybe even 3.0 or Ad&D1 statistics, and do away with damage caps
I personally would do away with the gunslinger and grit (and the similar Swashbuckler and its panache mechanics)... as for letting any class have firearms, it all depends how prevalent you want them to be in your campaign, I quite like the options given on p 135 of Ult Combat to that effect.
I'll have look up that page and see what it says. But since I don't really want firearms in my campaign anyway, it's kind of a moot point. But if I were to allow them the Gunslinger class would be right out and anyone could use them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, firearms are definitely an optional rule, like most of the stuff in UC, nobody will force you to allow them, I myself would probably either forbid them altogether, or make them highly prevalent for a western atmosphere.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, let's see:
The Antagonize feat (aggro mechanics are so unnecessary in a tabletop game)
The custom magic item table (abused by so many)
The PFS potion/scroll/wand campaign rules (I find them indecipherable. Just let people buy paladin potions of lesser restoration.)
Actually, if I could add something, I'd add a line to each spell description detailing the cost of making a potion, scroll, and wand of that spell. It would simplify so many things.
|
With no aggro mechanic or nonmagical battlefield control, the tank is more of a theory than something a player can actually do.
How about this?
Hmm, let's see:
The Antagonize feat (aggro mechanics are so unnecessary in a tabletop game)
The custom magic item table (abused by so many)
The PFS potion/scroll/wand campaign rules (I find them indecipherable. Just let people buy paladin potions of lesser restoration.)Actually, if I could add something, I'd add a line to each spell description detailing the cost of making a potion, scroll, and wand of that spell. It would simplify so many things.
I'll second the idea of getting rid of Antagonize (if you're going to tank, build so that an enemy really pays in blood for ignoring you), and of putting magic item tweaks in individual spell descriptions. Of course, the latter would be a huge amount of work now, but imagine what things would be like if Pathfinder had started that way . . . .
3. The Full Attack system- replace with something that works.
Reasoning: Stand still or suck syndrome is awful and Full Attacks limiting a melee class to a five-foot shuffle or they won't be able to use most of their offensive abilities is versmilitude-breaking. Nobody likes being the class that has to ask "Is the enemy in reach of a 5-foot-step?" while their buddy is running around throwing lightning bolts without a care in the world. Fighting classes need to be able to MOVE AROUND while still using their techniques. This is particularly egregious with two-weapon types, who are generally supposed to be agile skirmishers but might as well not have their other weapon if their target isn't standing RIGHT NEXT TO THEM.I have to say I preferred 5e's system, where martial classes get two attacks at level 5, but both are at full BAB and you can move freely while using them. (Fighters and Monks can get up to four attacks, although the Monk needs to spend actions or resources to get past the normal double-attack.) I know combat math would need to be reworked, but the current system tends to mean players lose interest in full-attacks after the novelty of rolling a big bucket of dice wears off.
Something I've considered doing is allowing full-attacks with movement, but at a -1 attack penalty per 5' moved previously on your turn.
only thing I don't agree with you on is the fewer weapon groups.The fighter can currently get Weapon Training for 4 weapon groups. The problem is that your typical fighter will have one primary melee weapon, one primary ranged weapon and probably one backup melee weapon. Even then, your fighter will focus on either melee or ranged combat, making the other weapons very situational.
Rare are the times where a fighter will have a longsword, longbow, longspear and short sword, because most fighters will favor a specific fighting style instead of having a weapon for "every" situation.
oh yeah keep in mind you can now exchange the new weapon groups for other bonuses via thew weapon masters handbook.
As a note, I've taken great steps to make firearms on the level of bows with equal accessibility, and very few of my players have pursued them, though picking up an enemy'a sidearm and ammo reserve and using them until depleted was common enough.I personally would do away with the gunslinger and grit (and the similar Swashbuckler and its panache mechanics)... as for letting any class have firearms, it all depends how prevalent you want them to be in your campaign, I quite like the options given on p 135 of Ult Combat to that effect.
I'd also do away with the nerfing of spellcasters and roll back many spells to their 3.5 or maybe even 3.0 or Ad&D1 statistics, and do away with damage caps
Single shots would have high base damage and allow dex to damage maybe. How they'd work is if you fire as a full round action you get a single shot per turn but every time you miss you get to make an iterative attack and if that one hits you can do damage as normal, but you can NEVER gain more than one attack applied per turn. basically, you can roll all your iteratives and if at least 1 of them hits, you apply your weapon's damage.
Semi-automatic would use normal iterative attacks and fully automatic would have an extra full BAB attack but -2 or 4 or something to all shots.
then there'd be shotgun, rifle and pistol versions of each firing method with relevant stats. shotgun would be high variable damage(like 1d8 damage), while rifles would have higher crit ranges, and pistols have neither but are one handed.
Then maybe a few feats to improve range or something
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hybrid classes.
Attacks of Opportunity (or at least find another way to handle it).
Grapple rules (and do new ones that don't need a PHD in nuclear physics to work out).