|
... you stumble across the unlocked computer of Lisa Stevens, CEO of the company. You suddenly recall a memo they sent out a while back: "Once Lisa announces it, it's official no matter what." Figuring it's now or never, you seize the opportunity to push your own agenda for Pathfinder.
Using her account to make whatever you say the actual, legitimate direction for the company and the product, what do you announce as Paizo's next book?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Rules Compendium Omnibus
Being a completely compiled, errata-ed, organized, indexed, appendixed, table of contents-ed version of all the Pathfinder rules, including all "Advanced" and "Ultimate" books, relevant Paizo blog entries, and official FAQ answers, in one giant leatherbound tome, with complimentary accompanying searchable PDF. Option to have the leather on the cover be skinned from carcasses of one's enemies.
You know when such rule omnibus's are put together....that is a sign that the end is neigh.....the end of an edition.
These things are always published towards the end of an edition publication cycle.
Hmmmmm, you don't say... That would mean publishing such an omnibus would be the harbinger of a new edition, wouldn't it? Well, I had no idea... ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Advanced Strategy Guide. The first one was for newbs. This one would be for intermediates. You could also release an Ultimate Strategy Guide for the really hardcore players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making the psionic rules by dreamscarred Press and official addendum to PF, AND PFS legal
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The core rulebook to be rewritten.
No actual rule changes. Just revised to have clear, unambiguous text that doesn't borrow copy from a 13 year old rule book. And maybe written with a tone that doesn't assume new players read the 3.5e player's handbook.
The core rulebook to be rewritten.
No actual rule changes. Just revised to have clear, unambiguous text that doesn't borrow copy from a 13 year old rule book. And maybe written with a tone that doesn't assume new players read the 3.5e player's handbook.
I think I would support just such a project.
The core rulebook to be rewritten.
No actual rule changes. Just revised to have clear, unambiguous text that doesn't borrow copy from a 13 year old rule book. And maybe written with a tone that doesn't assume new players read the 3.5e player's handbook.
Agreed. It would be very hard to resist the urge to make a few tweaks though.
The core rulebook to be rewritten.
No actual rule changes. Just revised to have clear, unambiguous text that doesn't borrow copy from a 13 year old rule book. And maybe written with a tone that doesn't assume new players read the 3.5e player's handbook.
I would do the same.
As much as I love Pathfinder this is probably one of the biggest improvements it could see and would benefit old and new gamers alike.
Although I wonder how they could launch this without confusing people into thinking it's a Pathfinder 2.
The core rulebook to be rewritten.
No actual rule changes. Just revised to have clear, unambiguous text that doesn't borrow copy from a 13 year old rule book. And maybe written with a tone that doesn't assume new players read the 3.5e player's handbook.
I would do the same.
As much as I love Pathfinder this is probably one of the biggest improvements it could see and would benefit old and new gamers alike.
Although I wonder how they could launch this without confusing people into thinking it's a Pathfinder 2.
You know what - they could call it Pathfinder 2.
"Pathfinder 2.0 - no old rules thrown out.
Clearer, cleaner, expanded.
Attack action language - tossed
Action types languages cleaned up
Corner cases eliminated
Troublesome spells given expanded text
NEW:
Rules for mounted combat that work!
Rules for flight that (while not simulating reality) are usable at the table!
Page 1 now reads in 42 point font that any words in the book can be changed by the GM and that going to the Paizo forums to complain doesn't mean your GM was wrong!
Paladins removed from the game! (ok seriously I'd settle for a new fall mechanic that had 10 levels of 'fall' - which would let GMs use the stupid moral traps apparently 99% of them want to run with and provide a way to work a sin/atonement mechanic into the game without screwing the player).
Wheeee!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2nd edition
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well no matter what, I'd definitively put the following clause:
"[insert employee name here] will be exempt from any perceived mischief between the hours of [insert time of editing done here]. No take backsies on anything, this document included."
Always a good idea to cover your butt.
Pathfinder Rules Compendium Omnibus
Being a completely compiled, errata-ed, organized, indexed, appendixed, table of contents-ed version of all the Pathfinder rules, including all "Advanced" and "Ultimate" books, relevant Paizo blog entries, and official FAQ answers, in one giant leatherbound tome, with complimentary accompanying searchable PDF. Option to have the leather on the cover be skinned from carcasses of one's enemies.
So.. you mean d20pfsrd?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimate Kobold, a hardcover book that was nothing but crunch for kobolds.
So.. you mean d20pfsrd?Pathfinder Rules Compendium Omnibus
Being a completely compiled, errata-ed, organized, indexed, appendixed, table of contents-ed version of all the Pathfinder rules, including all "Advanced" and "Ultimate" books, relevant Paizo blog entries, and official FAQ answers, in one giant leatherbound tome, with complimentary accompanying searchable PDF. Option to have the leather on the cover be skinned from carcasses of one's enemies.
Yeah, but without all the advertisements and broken links. ;)
The core rulebook to be rewritten.
No actual rule changes. Just revised to have clear, unambiguous text that doesn't borrow copy from a 13 year old rule book. And maybe written with a tone that doesn't assume new players read the 3.5e player's handbook.
So much yes!
Stuff like:
- The magic rules being in the magic rules chapter. Prepared, spontaneous, arcane, divine and maybe even psychic casting, along with casting ability score (including bonus spells per day), and cantrips/orisons/knacks all explained here.* A wizard's class entry for 'Spells' should only say "A wizard casts prepared arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, using his Intelligence (see Chapter 9)." 'Starting Spells' and 'Spells Gained at a New Level' belong in the spellbook part that follows.
- A working and binding glossary, containing stuff like bonus types (including stacking rules - why the hell are the stacking rules in the magic section?), bonus feats (this is where "The character must meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat. These bonus feats are in addition to the feats that a character of any class gets from advancing levels." belongs, not repeated for every class!), and natural attacks (with apart from the fact that those are half under the standard attack action and half only in the bestiary, should not be repeated in the text of every natural attack).
- No more rules filed under different sections - like putting the rules when you have to chose a spell's target under the casting time rules.
- No actual rules text in parantheses! Seriously Paizo, stop butchering the english language! "Parentheses (...) contain material that serves to clarify (...) or is aside from the main point." Quoted from Wikipedia. No more maximum values in parantheses or stuff like "whip (or another weapon in the flails fighter weapon group)"! Parantheses are only to be used for uncertain plural, reminder text, and reference.
- Missing rules, like sleeping and lack thereof, mounted combat, and feat selection (can you select feats more than once? And do you need to fulfill the prereqs including ability scores permanently, only when you level up, or like the fly skill?).
- Normalized language. For instance, use either "denied it's dex bonus to AC", or "looses it's dex bonus to AC", not both. Also, not using the same term multiple times, like how 'attack' is defined in the combat section as a single attack done as a standard action, and defined in the magic section as any offensive action.
*) Seriously, why are rules like casting ability scores that are the same for every caster repeated in every class text, while the rules for spellbooks that affect no other CRB class than the Wizard are under the general magic rules?
'The Complete Guide to the Dark Folk'
Reprint all the various dark folk in one volume, provide FCB, height and weight tables, alternate race trait options, racial feats, and all that good stuff for Caligni, provide more details on dark folk society so people that want to play Caligni *cough*me*cough* don't have to wildly make s%@! up in their character's backstory.
The core rulebook to be rewritten.
No actual rule changes. Just revised to have clear, unambiguous text that doesn't borrow copy from a 13 year old rule book. And maybe written with a tone that doesn't assume new players read the 3.5e player's handbook.
So much yes!
Stuff like:
...
Also, not using the same term multiple times, like how 'attack' is defined in the combat section as a single attack done as a standard action, and defined in the magic section as any offensive action.
An attack and an attack action are different things. An attack is not an action in itself but rather something that happens as part of other actions (attack action, full-attack action, combat maneuvers, spell effects, etc). But I totally agree that the language is incredibly confusing, which is why when I design any content that uses the attack action, I clarify that I mean the standard action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using her account to make whatever you say the actual, legitimate direction for the company and the product, what do you announce as Paizo's next book?
Sandpoint Boxed Set.
Or "Powers of Varisia" a hardcover further detailing Magnimar and Korvosa plus those settlements within their respective spheres of influence.
Disclaimer: Yes, I know what they mean, but at this point, I simply have to point out how bad exactly the rules are written.
]An attack and an attack action are different things. An attack is not an action in itself but rather something that happens as part of other actions (attack action, full-attack action, combat maneuvers, spell effects, etc).
CRB page 182: "Making an attack is a standard action." No 'attack action', simply 'attack'.* Now, according to page 208, "All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks.". Sleep is a spell forcing a saving throw, so clearly falls under attack according to the magic rules. Now, the combat rules say using it is a standard action, even though the casting time says "1 round".
And then it get's even worse because a full-attack action is an action that is an attack, but not is not the attack action, that's something different.
So, we got actions that are attack but not the attack actions. Then we have an action that has 'attack and 'action' in it's name but is still not the attack action. And then we have the actual 'attack action', except it's not called that. Whew.
*) It's under "Standard Action", but so is "Cast a Spell". Referencing the latter calls it 'casting a spell', not 'using the cast a spell action'. So referencing the one called "attack" should logically be 'attacking', and not 'using the attack action'. Do you know when the words "attack action" outside of "full-attack action" appear next in the CRB? Seventeen (in letters: 17) pages later! Under "special attacks", four sections after "actions in combat".
lots of stuff
And the entire thing can be fixed with the following:
"You can make a single (never more than one) attack as a standard action."
Once done - go to vital strike and change the words to:
"As a standard action"
The "attack action" was confusing in 3... still in 3.5 ... and was carry over in pathfinder because the book went to print with a feat that used bad language. As a relic of the past it should be discarded. You want proof that the 'attack action' was not clear - go look at the faqs and questions for those earlier systems.
Ultimate Disasters. All of the current diseases, curses, poisons, haunts, natural disasters, corruptions, etc, plus new ones. Some disaster themed archetypes, feats, spells, templates, and creatures. New rules for apocalypse scenarios? Undead uprisings, constructs destroying all life, plague sweeping across the world, that kind of thing. Maybe something like a Rapture corruption, where you know the end is near and you try to hurry it along to reach your afterlife.
Aroden's Death. A time traveling AP where the party must try to stop Aroden's disappearance...
** spoiler omitted **
Or...
Aroden's Death. A time traveling AP where the party must try to stop Aroden's disappearance...
** spoiler omitted **
Or...
** spoiler omitted **
I thoroughly recommend this book, in a not-entirely-off-topic way.
|
The core rulebook to be rewritten.
No actual rule changes. Just revised to have clear, unambiguous text that doesn't borrow copy from a 13 year old rule book. And maybe written with a tone that doesn't assume new players read the 3.5e player's handbook.
That's basically the Beginner Box with expanded material. you can find it here