| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tiny little things that maybe don't have a big overall impact but fix some annoyance you have. For me, I want leaning from cover to be codified as an actual action. As it currently exists, you *can* lean around cover for one action to attack (or for free if you're shooting through a slit or similar), but it's buried in the cover rules where it's hard to find and reference. Myself and players alike just assume that it would be an action if it existed and start thinking we misremembered it or something, only to find where it is in the rules after the session. I wanna be able to add that action to a character sheet in Foundry and just click it so everyone can see the rules and see the action being spent.
Whether domain initiate gives a cleric or champion a focus point.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remembered studded leather isn't real, so that could go. Easily replaced by brigandine, which is near visually identical, but a real historic type of armor - the 'studs' are rivets that hold steel plates on the inside.
As a bonus, studded leather was even invented by WotC long ago so there's a case that it's OGL property and should be replaced.
Now that you mention it, I understand that they were kept as-is because people love their fantasy armour, but I would love an armour choice that acknowledges that 'cloth' armours like gambeson were actually very effective and not just a weaker choice that you wouldn't ever take if you had money. Besides which, cloth armours actually look amazing and I think it's time modern fantasy gets some rep in on that.
I remembered studded leather isn't real, so that could go. Easily replaced by brigandine, which is near visually identical, but a real historic type of armor - the 'studs' are rivets that hold steel plates on the inside.
As a bonus, studded leather was even invented by WotC long ago so there's a case that it's OGL property and should be replaced.
Well, Gygax, but WotC would theoretically own the rights to it. Dunno if one can claim copyright over mistaken historical fact? Like Gygax apparently thought it was just legit armor.
Regardless, would be nice to have "real" armor in its place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm kind of hoping that 'Charm' spells get whatever the equivalent of an [Evil] tag/descriptor will end up being.
This seems terribly unlikely, but it does raise an interesting question. We know there's no more such thing as 'evil' in the sense of objective alignment mechanics, and we know that people can be you can cast spells consecrated with holy/unholy energy do more damage to celestials/fiends, but an interesting blank space is whether there will still be spells which are inherently 'unholy' irrespective of damage.
For example, we know that creating undead is basically always evil in Golarion for various reasons. The create undead ritual has the [evil] tag for this reason. Do you suppose that such spells will similarly have an [unholy] tag? I wonder how might they interact with consecration? Perhaps you cannot cast spells with the opposite tag if you are consecrated, or perhaps you must be consecrated to evil to cast any kind of spell that is default unholy?
While I'm aware some people aren't entirely happy with the removal of the present version of Wizard schools and it's replacement schools that are more defined by what the character studied at the school (per the examples they gave such as the Battle Magic school or the Civic Wizardy). What I would like to see is for these schools to actually have a bearing on the Wizard beyond just character creation, such as feats unique to the school or possibly ways that you scale spells up also possibly unique to the school or as an alternative the school could possibly be able scale up certain spells easier(maybe a +1 level bump) and lastly look into making the focus spells useful as the player gains level.
I'm bringing this up because as it stands there is little no difference between Wizards of any of the Schools presently. The Spell Trickster in Pathfinder Infinite by Dustin Knight was a way allow a caster to modify and differentiate themselves even if they have the same spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remembered studded leather isn't real, so that could go. Easily replaced by brigandine, which is near visually identical, but a real historic type of armor - the 'studs' are rivets that hold steel plates on the inside.
As a bonus, studded leather was even invented by WotC long ago so there's a case that it's OGL property and should be replaced.
Ugh now I am thinking about how dumb bucklers are.
A minor trait I want is for shields to state that they are strapped on and to use a different trait than "strapped" for items like the current buckler.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably that gnomish Flickmace thing could go the way of the do-do, if I've followed discussions here correctly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably that gnomish Flickmace thing could go the way of the do-do, if I've followed discussions here correctly.
I was thinking smaller things than impactful balance changes, but I don't think that'd be necessary with the upcoming changes.
What made flickmace good was being a d8 one handed reach weapon whose crit spec knocked the target prone with no save, with bludgenoning damage type being really good too. The original nerf took it from d8 to d6 (so not maxing out one handed damage while also having an incredibly powerful weapon trait) while giving it sweep (apparently to make it feel more flail-y), but this didn't change that its crit specialization knocked people prone. Being able to knock enemies prone at reach is very powerful, and on a Fighter they're very likely to crit. But because the flickmace is one-handed and very easy to get due to its racial trait (racial advanced weapons are much easier to get than regular advanced weapons), you could either do this *and* have a shield, or more annoying you could hold another g$+~~@n flickmace in the other hand and just absolutely ruin an NPC's day.
Now that hammers and flails are going to at least require a save, I think that capacity to stunlock enemies will be reasonably addressed. Pretty much all the hammers and flails were annoyingly effective auto-picks for Fighters outside of specific builds that need a particular trait or weapon and this dials them back reasonably. The flickmace simply stood out for being the most obnoxious of these weapons due to its reach and damage output while also having a hand free to do yet more b&$$*@@@, but without the stunlock it's merely going to be good but not necessarily worth spending a feat or heritage on.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Standardized rules for redundant skill trainings and bonus feats, so we don't need a "If you already have x" corollary on every. Single. Feat.
A boost to Natural Medicine. Right now, it's in a weird place. It's not exactly awful, but it represents an incredibly confused set of priorities--"if you wanted to invest in a Wisdom-based healing skill that bad, why wouldn't you take Battle Medicine?"
Hedging my bets, but magnuskin may have been implying that the flickmace would be unusable without OGL content. If this is the case, rest assured (or dismayed) that as far as I can find, that particular weapon seems to originate from Pathfinder. If that's not the case I can't think of any other reason they'd have to go.
EDIT: Standing corrected.
Hedging my bets, but magnuskin may have been implying that the flickmace would be unusable without OGL content. If this is the case, rest assured (or dismayed) that as far as I can find, that particular weapon seems to originate from Pathfinder. If that's not the case I can't think of any other reason they'd have to go.
No, I actually meant the power level of the weapon, which was one of the few things I picked up on over the last three years in regards to 2E, since I saw frequently complaints about it here or on Reddit.
Helmics post seems to indicate it'll be nerfed via some changes to weapon groups overall.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sling stuff. There aren't enought. Crossbows and firearms get whole feat trees to compensate for the reload 1, sling have one ancestry specific feat. Slings are cool, I'd like more insentive to use them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sling stuff. There aren't enought. Crossbows and firearms get whole feat trees to compensate for the reload 1, sling have one ancestry specific feat. Slings are cool, I'd like more insentive to use them.
+1 for this. Slings are a very iconic weapon in fiction as well as being incredibly potent historically, so it's a shame it got pushed to the side as much as it did (Even the 'slinger class just has boltslingers & gunslingers, no "sling-slingers").
For a different one: I'd want whichever book (PC1 or PC2) has Contingency in it to also include a small handful of other contingency spells in it. I want this purely as it gives an excuse for Contingency to get the contingency trait (without it being a trait for literally 1 spell in the book) and thus let it's wording be simplified ("You can have only one spell with the contingency trait active at a time" vs "You can have only one spell with the contingency trait, or one contingency spell, active at a time" which we have right now)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A new archetype for slingers would make my absolute day.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Give each ancestry a list of "Ancestral Skills" and "Ancestral Weapons" and make "Ancestral Lore" and "Ancestral Weapon Famiiarity" a feat with the ancestry tag that any ancestry can take which refer to these lists.
Basically every ancestry has a lore feat and three weapon feats that could be replaced by this approach.
You would have to errata the other books with ancestries in them, but "how to do this" would be obvious.
Have Magic Fang and Magic Weapon be a single spell.
If it could scale, it would be great.
Still separate, but Runic Weapon (now also on the Primal list) and Runic Body will both scale from the sound of it.
|
Still separate, but Runic Weapon (now also on the Primal list) and Runic Body will both scale from the sound of it.Have Magic Fang and Magic Weapon be a single spell.
If it could scale, it would be great.
Having those separated is a real bother in PFS when you, as usual, prepare Magic Weapon only to discover the frontliner fights unarmed :-(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Change proficiency feats to have some sort of scaling going on with them.
No reason why we should have feat traps in 2023.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder a lot about the scaling thing. It's sort of a minor skill trap--a seasoned player knows they can pick up Armor Proficiency in the short term, then grab Sentinel later and retrain.
On the other hand, true scaling proficiency is strong. It's the province of very specific ancestry feats and, primarily, archetypes. A general feat shouldn't be that strong. I think language around, "if your proficiency in any kind of defense/weapon increases to Expert, you can retrain this feat for free" might be the safest bet.
I have some equipment gripes.
I'd like a reworking of the weapons that takes more into account the usefulness of the different traits. Slashing weapons that are versatile piercing are not that useful.
1. Bastard swords that are versatile piercing.
2. Greatswords that have a sweep or backswing.
Also, I would like the deer totem barbarian to get a different trait added to its antlers than grapple. For one thing, it seems to assume the giant antlers of a male deer. Shove would make more sense and would actually be more useful along side reach (since you could shove as a followup to force them to take an attack of opportunity). Also, it would be cool if they had some special thing that works with sudden charge.
They really need to give a saving throw vs. the trip critical specialization on hammers and flails.
I think they should rework what is a light weapon. Short swords should not be light. You can't easily carry 10 of them. When considering what a light encumbrance item is, I like a reality check of 'does it make sense that someone can easily carry 10 of these?'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing whether each spell on a scroll is a separate crafting formula, each spell level of scroll is a separate crafting formula, or if scrolls as a whole share a common crafting formula. Same with potions, and wands.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like the Lore skill you get from your background to automatically scale like the skill from the Additional Lore skill feat.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love a boost to Lore skills.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, true scaling proficiency is strong. It's the province of very specific ancestry feats and, primarily, archetypes. A general feat shouldn't be that strong.
This is definitely the conventional wisdom, and there's a lot of sense to it, but I wonder how too strong it would actually be. Especially when you consider level ranges. Full proficiency for a single general feat is the balance norm for most of a campaign (potentially all of a campaign, tbh, I see more games conclude or fall apart before high level than survive), because armor expertise is a fairly high level feature.
I have trouble finding a good way to pin down what about a level 12 ruffian in plate or sorcerer in studded leather is balanced at a cost of 1 general feat, but ostensibly cannot be balanced with any number of general feats one level later at 13.
The way general feat proficiency just falls off a cliff over a single level is really awkward, and almost feels more like a gap in the system than a critical feature.
This conversation might be beyond the scope of this thread though, since it's a fairly significant change (if you're playing past level 12).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like a clearer definition of actions and activities. The Core Rulebook defines Activities on page 461 as, "An activity typically involves using multiple actions to create an effect greater than you can produce with a single action, or combining multiple single actions to produce an effect that’s different from merely the sum of those actions. In some cases, usually when spellcasting, an activity can consist of only 1 action, 1 reaction, or even 1 free action."
That definition looks clear to most people, but when I created a thread Subordinate Actions, I learned that some people defined activities as tasks that took longer than one action (my definition) and other people defined activities as tasks that contained subordinate actions. The phrase, "involves using multiple actions," in the definition fits both interpretations.
Furthermore, the Core Rulebook sometimes uses the word "Action" as a blanket term for actions, activities, free actions, and reactions. And sometimes an action is a cost and sometimes it is doing something. This makes the rules ambiguous whether limitations like "cannot use actions" refer to free actions, too. I use the non-rule word "task" for the blanket term, but "act" fits the naming pattern already in use.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, on that note, I would like a small note under Lore that mentions one of the game's more common house rules: "you may be able to use Lore for other purposes at GM discretion". Like, Warfare Lore to befriend a soldier who fought alongside you in the war.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, on that note, I would like a small note under Lore that mentions one of the game's more common house rules: "you may be able to use Lore for other purposes at GM discretion". Like, Warfare Lore to befriend a soldier who fought alongside you in the war.
Or using a specific plannar lore as a substitute for survival when in that plane... It's so common I was sure it was already part of the rules, but apparently not. Definitively worth adding.
A defensive action that gives some kind of defensive bonus like the old Fight Defensively or Total Defense action in PF1. Seems like you don't have a shield spell or a shield or are near cover, you don't have an action where you go total defense to avoid getting hit. Be a nice third action option to use as needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A boost to Natural Medicine. Right now, it's in a weird place. It's not exactly awful, but it represents an incredibly confused set of priorities--"if you wanted to invest in a Wisdom-based healing skill that bad, why wouldn't you take Battle Medicine?"
All of the ways to get 'treat wounds' that are NOT the Medicine skill should qualify as prereqs for the same down the line feats as Medicine does.
I believe that 'all' is just Natural Medicine, but in case there's anything else - that too should get this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just let Natural Medicine work with Battle Medicine, honestly. That would probably be enough to make it somewhat coherent.
|
|
I would like a clarification of whether things such as Bardic Lore can benefit from the lower DC or not. I have met big table variance on this in PFS and it has a real impact on builds.
Also, RAW seems to say that you can use RK with Lore untrained. So, can I make a Lore : vampire untrained (but at -5 to DC) to identify a creature I fight who is in fact a vampire ? It sounds extremely odd.
I wish for clarified Recall Knowledge rules. And that you could retry after failing and crit failing. The action cost and higher penalty are enough by themselves.
I also add the removal of rarity penalties. Rarity isn't a power metric this penalty just penalize the identification of the monsters and other things and indirectly increases the difficult without a fair justification. The GMs can already decide the penalty difficult by themselves based in the current adventure plot context.
Also clarify what kind of information you get instead of just let everything to GM choice. RK is probably the most homebrewed rule after Hero Points.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish for clarified Recall Knowledge rules. And that you could retry after failing and crit failing. The action cost and higher penalty are enough by themselves.I also add the removal of rarity penalties. Rarity isn't a power metric this penalty just penalize the identification of the monsters and other things and indirectly increases the difficult without a fair justification. The GMs can already decide the penalty difficult by themselves based in the current adventure plot context.
Also clarify what kind of information you get instead of just let everything to GM choice. RK is probably the most homebrewed rule after Hero Points.
I would like the clarifications for Rarity to clearly state what you can learn about, for example, a Unique individual of an Uncommon class hailing from a Common ancestry.
And I think RK is the most homebrewed because I am pretty sure there are GMs out there who adjudicate it as they feel is reasonable without even realizing they are straying from RAW.
Small stuff that's been nagging me about 2E for the years I've been playing it include;
The Deafness condition is possibly quite useless if run RAW, though what's actually RAW isn't fully clear. I would like it if the condition was changed to be more clear, and also that it lands on being useful rather than not.
I wish that resting between combat wasn't so granular. I would much prefer a system where the party could commit to a 10 minute or 1 hour rest to gain discrete benefits or something, rather than getting varying benefits for 10, 20, 30 and so on minute rests. This has been a pretty significant pain and timesink for me as a GM. I have reason to believe this is getting a tiny bit worse with the remaster due to the focus changes, which is not the end of the world but in a perfect world I'd like the game to go in the opposite direction.
I heard the crafting system is getting a second pass, so perhaps this is a little moot; but I think the current crafting system that's in the CRB is missing a pretty vital component. In some APs, players can find crafting materials as loot (such as finding 20 gp worth of alchemical materials). This is, IMO, a vital component to making crafting in base 2E interesting and I think it's a shame it's not mentioned in the rulebook.
I never liked how the focus pool and point recovery was disjointed. I've had to explain how this works to new players a lot and it always kills a little of the light in their eyes. Good riddance on it getting changed, even though I do have some mild concerns over the specifics of this change.
The game dropping class-specific weapon proficiency is something I've wanted for a long time. It never led to anything good and it kinda eroded the purpose of having weapon categories in the first place. The remaster does exactly what I want in this regard (well, maybe I don't think Bard deserves martial weapons but I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth).
This is the most petty thing ever, and I don't even feel like I have a stake in this because I don't use exp (my players tell me they prefer milestone and I'm happy to accomodate). But it would greatly satisfy me personally if exp went from 1000 to level to 100. 2E is one zero away from having the same exact exp system as Paper Mario which would be fantastic I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never liked how the focus pool and point recovery was disjointed. I've had to explain how this works to new players a lot and it always kills a little of the light in their eyes. Good riddance on it getting changed, even though I do have some mild concerns over the specifics of this change.
I don't understand this comment. Could Henro elaborate more?
Refocus seems to operate smoothly to me, but I have made rulings at my table to keep it smooth. I treat Refocus as a recharge period rather than a 10-minute activity. If the character is doing something that spiritually connects them to their source of magic for 10 minutes, then they restore a focus point.
For example, in my campaign the champion follows a god of crafting. Before she took Quick Repair repairing her shield after combat would take 10 minutes. The player asked me whether she could count that as a Refocus activity, and I allowed it. If she does not have a shield that needs repair, she reads a prayer book instead.
Druids restore their focus points by communing with nature. When the stormborn druid in my party managed to acquire a Large fledgling roc animal companion Roxie through roleplaying and the Order Explorer feat, I decided to give her an extra focus spell as a variant of her Stormwind Flight spell. She could cast Stormwind FLight on Roxie instead of herself, and Roxie's flying ability would grow strong enough to let the roc carry a rider for 10 minutes. And I said that her focus point would recharge as she rode on Roxie, so that she could travel on Roxie for hours while the rest of the party rode their own animal companions or Phantom Steeds. This house rule was for pure convenience, but riding on Roxie has become iconic behavior for the druid. She does it during battle instead of casting Stormwind Flight on herself.
The sorcerer's Refocus is the simplest of all. Ten minutes after casting a focus spell, she regains the focus point. She is always communing with her bloodline.
To me, this seems similar to regaining daily spell slots after a full night's spell. The character's magic returns after enough rest, though the rest for refocus is more spiritual than physical.
Hm, maybe the Remastered rulebook should change Refocus from an activity to a trait. A Prayer activity gains the Refocus trait for clerics and champions, a Meditation activity gains the Refocus trait for monks, all Nature activities gain the Refocus trait for druids, and all activities gain the Refocus trait for sorcerers. Other activities can also gain Refocus trait if it relates to their source of magic; for example, Treat Wounds would gain Refocus for a cleric of a healing god. And the trait would say, "Ten minutes spent performing Refocus activities restore one focus point to the character's focus pool. Spending a focus point interrupts the Refocus process so that the character has to start the 10 minutes anew."
|
|
Hm, maybe the Remastered rulebook should change Refocus from an activity to a trait. A Prayer activity gains the Refocus trait for clerics and champions, a Meditation activity gains the Refocus trait for monks, all Nature activities gain the Refocus trait for druids, and all activities gain the Refocus trait for sorcerers. Other activities can also gain Refocus trait if it relates to their source of magic; for example, Treat Wounds would gain Refocus for a cleric of a healing god. And the trait would say, "Ten minutes spent performing Refocus activities restore one focus point to the character's focus pool. Spending a focus point interrupts the Refocus process so that the character has to start the 10 minutes anew."
Anything that clarifies which useful actions can be done while refocussing would be great.
Currently, disagreements between GM and player about this are both common and impactful IME.
The only safe activity is the one mentioned in the RAW : healing people for Sarenrae.