|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be less in favour of a reboot, I love a lot of options. But a big revision cycle of the core rule books (core, ultimate x, etc.) seems called for. Between new things like spell manifestations and old issues like feat confusion (I'm looking at you, shield master) to straight up typos and poor wording/organization (kineticist...) it makes me think a cycle of errata and reprints would be healthier for the game than a new edition. And it should avoid the problems of a new edition as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be less in favour of a reboot, I love a lot of options. But a big revision cycle of the core rule books (core, ultimate x, etc.) seems called for. Between new things like spell manifestations and old issues like feat confusion (I'm looking at you, shield master) to straight up typos and poor wording/organization (kineticist...) it makes me think a cycle of errata and reprints would be healthier for the game than a new edition. And it should avoid the problems of a new edition as well.
I strongly agree
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait . . . just how did you manage to find my bathtub?
Divination spell "Find the WC". Always prepare when traveling.
If we're going to talk reboot, it shouldn't be like a movie franchise reboot, but an operating system upgrade and its associated reboot, provided that it's one of the ones where you do the operating system upgrade and after the reboot all your old programs still work. (Yes, I've experienced those from time to time, although it seems like these days it's never something you can count on.) But even then, this analogy still doesn't do one thing that is needed, which is compaction: Spells that do almost the same thing, feats that do almost the same thing, etc. get compacted into one thing with multiple options, and then you get cross-reference tables ("What happened to my favorite spell?"; "What happened to my favorite feat?"; etc.) (depending upon how big these get, they could be in an on-line supplement rather than in the printed new Core Rulebook -- not everyone is going to want the extra bulk of the conversion guide tables in there).
Whatever made the lighting strike as 3rd edition bit the dust allowing Pathfinder latch on, we just need history to repeat itself. Simple yeah?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo do decide to make a Parhfinder 2.0 my hope is that they build it from scratch rather than simply modify what has gone before. When I think of all the things I like about Pathfinder: the world building, the maps, artwork, the forums, adventure paths etc. it is stuff that is wholy Paizo content. All the problems I have with Pathfinder are related to the game mechanics which are a legacy of being tied to an outdated D&D system. I would really love to see what Paizo can come up with when they aren't restricted by backwards compatibility.
While I support a 2.0 version of the core rules, the last thing I want is a rebuild from scratch.
Clean up the rules, add support in the Core Rulebook for things that did not exist when it was written, resolve longstanding rules conflicts, keep everything compatible.
Shifting version numbers allows for a reformatting of the core rules without having to keep everything on the same page numbers. It also allows rules that are defined in more than one location to be consolidated and streamlined. It does not mean existing material should be invalidated.
If you really feel this way, then 5E is the answer for you.
And other than trolling, the reason is...?
(when every character concept could already be done with the CRB classes and, at worst, with those nice archetypes)Unless your the least imaginative person on the planet (which I severely doubt any of us are), this is blatantly untrue... So untrue I cannot tell if it's just elaborate sarcasm or what.
Which concept is there that you couldn't use the base classes for?
Keeping it to "standard" fantasy, of course, because "Star Wars Stormtrooper" is obviously a different field (though still...).The base classes are even redundant within themselves (Sorcerer/Wizard, Cleric/Paladin, Cleric/Druid, Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger, Bard/Rogue), the only difference is in rules, but rules only affect character concept so far. The Alchemist, Summoner and Witch are still Sorcerers/Wizards, from an archetypal and conceptual perspective, the Cavalier is still a Fighter, and so on. What do you want to bring in? A Kineticist who could be an elemental-focused Sorcerer/Wizard?
Just because they made different rules for something, it doesn't mean you weren't already able to play it. Unless you're the least imaginative person on the planet, etc., etc.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you really feel this way, then 5E is the answer for you.And other than trolling, the reason is...?
5E is all about building a strong simple core with very few expansions. That is pretty much exactly what you are asking for. Solves your "player wanting more" problem and stops add ons being "90% crap" 5E also assumes archetypes will be created with core classes and backgrounds. No need for continual classes like witch and Sorcerer. Not trolling an honest answer. On you if you take that as an insult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which concept is there that you couldn't use the base classes for?
Keeping it to "standard" fantasy, of course, because "Star Wars Stormtrooper" is obviously a different field (though still...).
The base classes are even redundant within themselves (Sorcerer/Wizard, Cleric/Paladin, Cleric/Druid, Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger, Bard/Rogue), the only difference is in rules, but rules only affect character concept so far. The Alchemist, Summoner and Witch are still Sorcerers/Wizards, from an archetypal and conceptual perspective, the Cavalier is still a Fighter, and so on. What do you want to bring in? A Kineticist who could be an elemental-focused Sorcerer/Wizard?
Just because they made different rules for something, it doesn't mean you weren't already able to play it. Unless you're the least imaginative person on the planet, etc., etc.
Any mage who doesn't use vancian casting? A warrior who is a living conduit to the plane of negative energy which tears apart their body as they use their power is just a wizard to you? Warriors who can destroy spells through pure skill? Heracles? A young man is accompanied by the ghost of his dead twin? Dragon riders? The warrior who can summon hundreds of weapons and launch them at their enemies? Anyone from celtic myth? A person who died and is possessing their own body by exploiting the fact they were destined for greatness? A warrior who get's supernatural power from her mother's bow? A mage who get's knowledge by literally eating books? A mage who get's his magical power from just having genies who bring the magic to him? A mage which battles foes in a thought-space rather than the realworld? The warrior who can feast on creatures and take their powers? A gunslinger who shoots spells? A nature mage who can use ritual sacrifice to help plants grow? A warrior who is merged with a freaking cosmic-soulstuff-mecha-cop? Undead powered by positive energy? A person who turns takes their soul and shapes it into armour and weaponry? The boy who literally has an angel and a devil on his shoulder?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any mage who doesn't use vancian casting? A warrior who is a living conduit to the plane of negative energy which tears apart their body as they use their power is just a wizard to you? Warriors who can destroy spells through pure skill? Heracles? A young man is accompanied by the ghost of his dead twin? Dragon riders? The warrior who can summon hundreds of weapons and launch them at their enemies? Anyone from celtic myth? A person who died and is possessing their own body by exploiting the fact they were destined for greatness? A warrior who get's supernatural power from her mother's bow? A mage who get's knowledge by literally eating books? A mage who get's his magical power from just having genies who bring the magic to him? A mage which battles foes in a thought-space rather than the realworld? The warrior who can feast on creatures and take their powers? A gunslinger who shoots spells? A nature mage who can use ritual sacrifice to help plants grow? A warrior who is merged with a freaking cosmic-soulstuff-mecha-cop? Undead powered by positive energy? A person who turns takes their soul and shapes it into armour and weaponry? The boy who literally has an angel and a devil on his shoulder?
Which concept is there that you couldn't use the base classes for?
Keeping it to "standard" fantasy, of course, because "Star Wars Stormtrooper" is obviously a different field (though still...).
The base classes are even redundant within themselves (Sorcerer/Wizard, Cleric/Paladin, Cleric/Druid, Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger, Bard/Rogue), the only difference is in rules, but rules only affect character concept so far. The Alchemist, Summoner and Witch are still Sorcerers/Wizards, from an archetypal and conceptual perspective, the Cavalier is still a Fighter, and so on. What do you want to bring in? A Kineticist who could be an elemental-focused Sorcerer/Wizard?
Just because they made different rules for something, it doesn't mean you weren't already able to play it. Unless you're the least imaginative person on the planet, etc., etc.
I'm pretty sure a wizard could do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) only requires an optional magic system (like soheres), but is a problem with the core rules, not classes.
2-5 (ish)) sounds like a fighter with a set of feats, or a mount (or special animal companion)
6+) sounds like a bunch of background thoughts that either grant no real mechanical behavior (for the most part), or could be done by spheres (mind focused wizard), or are done with extra characters (angel & demon are gm controlled npcs, the ghostly twin is another player, etc)
And while I like most of your list, a lot feels like either character background fluff, or things that could be accomplished with one of the listed chassis & the feats they take as they level. Spheres could probably even do gilgamesh with a combination of creation & telekinesis.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo do decide to make a Parhfinder 2.0 my hope is that they build it from scratch rather than simply modify what has gone before. When I think of all the things I like about Pathfinder: the world building, the maps, artwork, the forums, adventure paths etc. it is stuff that is wholy Paizo content. All the problems I have with Pathfinder are related to the game mechanics which are a legacy of being tied to an outdated D&D system. I would really love to see what Paizo can come up with when they aren't restricted by backwards compatibility.
Yeah, I'm just the opposite. I like the system, I don't use the world. Change the system too much and Pathfinder wouldn't be something I'm interested in.
Making changes that fix problems like what we saw in Unchained, I'm all for. But not sweeping changes to the system. I love it's wealth of choices and options. Yeah some may not be the best, and be "trappish" options, but I'd much prefer a system with that many options, than something like D&D 5th, which is way to simple a system for me to enjoy.
We have 7 years behind us, and there are still interesting and new things being done with the system - and starting over would reduce the options to the point it wouldn't be any fun for those of us that like options.
So keep it very compatible with Pathfinder as is, or make slow incremental changes (like unchained).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo do decide to make a Parhfinder 2.0 my hope is that they build it from scratch rather than simply modify what has gone before. When I think of all the things I like about Pathfinder: the world building, the maps, artwork, the forums, adventure paths etc. it is stuff that is wholy Paizo content. All the problems I have with Pathfinder are related to the game mechanics which are a legacy of being tied to an outdated D&D system. I would really love to see what Paizo can come up with when they aren't restricted by backwards compatibility.Yeah, I'm just the opposite. I like the system, I don't use the world. Change the system too much and Pathfinder wouldn't be something I'm interested in.
Making changes that fix problems like what we saw in Unchained, I'm all for. But not sweeping changes to the system. I love it's wealth of choices and options. Yeah some may not be the best, and be "trappish" options, but I'd much prefer a system with that many options, than something like D&D 5th, which is way to simple a system for me to enjoy.
We have 7 years behind us, and there are still interesting and new things being done with the system - and starting over would reduce the options to the point it wouldn't be any fun for those of us that like options.
So keep it very compatible with Pathfinder as is, or make slow incremental changes (like unchained).
The Paizo team is very conservative when it comes to rules, so I fully expect BN and I to be the ones disappointed by PF 2.0, should it ever come. But I'm totally with BN on this...
I'm a rules guy, and I find something deeply compelling about the 3e family of editions. Unfortunately, like 3.5 and 3.0 before it, PF doesn't live up to the potential I see in it. For example, there is something to be said for simulating a fantasy-land world insofar as it doesn't bog down play, but PF flirts with simulationism inconsistently, and in the oddest of ways. As another example, I love the concept of a la carte style multiclassing and zillions of options, but its execution is still muddled by the legacy of D&D. And with a lot of these things, I see no real way for PF to live up to its potential and maintain backwards-compatibility at the same time.
And given the PF team's tastes, I see them continuing to fall on the side of traditionalism and backwards-compatibility. But hey, we can dream right?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lot of folks want to see what Paizo can do unchained. Also, a new system might allow them to get out from under the OGL. Not saying, just sayin.
Well I really hope that they have learned from their competition what happens if you try this stunt. Though given the history of the powers that rule in Paizo-land, I'm actually not too concerned about it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lot of folks want to see what Paizo can do unchained. Also, a new system might allow them to get out from under the OGL. Not saying, just sayin.Well I really hope that they have learned from their competition what happens if you try this stunt. Though given the history of the powers that rule in Paizo-land, I'm actually not too concerned about it.
Yeah, Paizo's embracing of the OGL and support of 3rd party companies is what I love about it. I have more 3rd Party rules material that I do Paizo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) only requires an optional magic system (like soheres), but is a problem with the core rules, not classes.
The person suggested you can do every character concept with just the core rulebook classes. You'll note the CRB is not Spheres of Power (I know Spheres of Power added in archetypes for the core classes, but it's rather disingenuous to think "CRB classes cover every character concept possible in fantasy.... if you use this book which completely throws how the CRB treats fantasy elements".)
2-5 (ish)) sounds like a fighter with a set of feats, or a mount (or special animal companion)
I would love to see the feats that give a fighter to released negative energy which harms their body, or the feat which gives the fighter the ability to redirect rivers with his strength, or the feat which gives him a ghost?
6+) sounds like a bunch of background thoughts that either grant no real mechanical behavior (for the most part)
I disagree with this. Unless your doing a lot of handwaving or going into non-CRB sources I don't see how you cut off the tops of mountains with your sword, I don't see how your turning yourself into a cosmic-soul-mech, I don't see how genie are bringing you spells, I don't see how the warrior is going to get powers from feasting on corpses of monsters, how is the mage fighting in thoughtscapes? etc.
or could be done by spheres (mind focused wizard), or are done with extra characters (angel & demon are gm controlled npcs, the ghostly twin is another player, etc)
Spheres isn't CRB.
"This character concept works fine, as long the GM gives me friggin angel & demon minions out of nowhere"How the hell does a CRB class cover playing a ghost?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And at a fundamental level 5e rules assume the same things about magic that PF and 3e did; that it's powerful and reliable and quickly repeatable and powerful magic doesn't depend on learning weaker magic. Try doing the same in Gurps or Runequest or Fate and you'll find that a lot of things that make sense in a campaign using the PF/5e context are simply implausible with many/most other rules sets.All that stuff you like wouldnt work with PF 2 then.The stuff I like, the non mechanical stuff, would work just fine in any rule set. The campaign I am working on now is set in Golarion with all the associated history, maps, gods etc. but will be played using 5e rules because they are simpler and easier.
Interesting that you say that. My old group ditched D&D in 1993 and through to around 2004 we converted everything to gurps 3rd edition. I didn't matter what the setting was: cyberpunk, Shadowrun, VTM, even D&D we just converted it to gurps. My favourite as GM was probably my Dark Sun inspired gurps campaign. I've only played a little bit of Runequest and I have only just downloaded the rules for Fate, so certainly no expert on those systems but the impression I get is that they are at least as flexible as gurps. Mechanically they are better designed games than D&D in my opinion and could handle high fantasy just as well as the original.
My new group's default system is Pathfinder for fantasy with some D&D 5e, gurps and other stuff. The Pathfinder rules are decent, but I can't help thinking Paizo could do a lot better if they did not have to worry about backwards compatibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unchained has some cool rules about unreliable magic.
I hope they get a chance to do a full Unchained Magic book one day.
@Milo
I believe the point is more that all character concepts could be accomplished with the core classes as a chassis. Can you do all of your requests with just core rules? No. Do you need new classes to add such functionality? Absolutely not. Most of what you ask could be feats (or subsystems). Feats that don't currently exist, but feats none the less.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Putting it all on feats does produce a lot of feat-starved characters, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Milo
I believe the point is more that all character concepts could be accomplished with the core classes as a chassis. Can you do all of your requests with just core rules? No. Do you need new classes to add such functionality? Absolutely not. Most of what you ask could be feats (or subsystems). Feats that don't currently exist, but feats none the less.
At some point, those things are not actually the CRB class that trying to make it with feats isn't appropriate. For example, the second one I said is a void-kineticist. Could you eventually mangle together a sorcerer archetype that covers it? Yes... but it'd require turning the sorcerer into a warrior and adding in tonnes more negative energy spells and a system so using their magic is harmful.
Would it be a lot more efficient and less hideous to just make the kineticist class and have void as an element? Yes.
And with that line of thinking, there should only be 3 classes at most "Low BAB", "Medium BAB" and "High BAB"... and I haven't really like any implementation of that I've ever seen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember 3rd edition, there's feat starved for you.
Or even second edition, my dwarven fighter (because dwarves can't be rangers, that would be ridiculous!) only had two feets and he made it to 12th level before he was disintegrated.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
because dwarves can't be rangers, that would be ridiculous!
Bro, I've seen Harsk. That rule exists for a reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo do decide to make a Parhfinder 2.0 my hope is that they build it from scratch rather than simply modify what has gone before. When I think of all the things I like about Pathfinder: the world building, the maps, artwork, the forums, adventure paths etc. it is stuff that is wholy Paizo content. All the problems I have with Pathfinder are related to the game mechanics which are a legacy of being tied to an outdated D&D system. I would really love to see what Paizo can come up with when they aren't restricted by backwards compatibility.While I support a 2.0 version of the core rules, the last thing I want is a rebuild from scratch.
Clean up the rules, add support in the Core Rulebook for things that did not exist when it was written, resolve longstanding rules conflicts, keep everything compatible.
Shifting version numbers allows for a reformatting of the core rules without having to keep everything on the same page numbers. It also allows rules that are defined in more than one location to be consolidated and streamlined. It does not mean existing material should be invalidated.
To a large extent I share your point of view. If Paizo were to publish a book of the type you suggest I would probably be one of the first to buy it.
But I am more interested in seeing something shiny and new, I can't wait for Starfinder to come out for example. So perhaps this is not an either/or proposition.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be less in favour of a reboot, I love a lot of options. But a big revision cycle of the core rule books (core, ultimate x, etc.) seems called for. Between new things like spell manifestations and old issues like feat confusion (I'm looking at you, shield master) to straight up typos and poor wording/organization (kineticist...) it makes me think a cycle of errata and reprints would be healthier for the game than a new edition. And it should avoid the problems of a new edition as well.
The problem with this is Paizo is pretty terrible about using errata to make the problem even worse instead of fixing it. Reprints tend to cause confusion, especially when peppered all over the forums are tons and tons of explanations on intent/errata/clarifications that just don't make it to print or the PRD. It's sort of been a band aid over a band aid over a band aid, and to be honest, I think the Core book, and even the APG could really benefit from some of the innovations of later books. Imagine if Domain and Bloodline powers that do 1d6, +1/2 levels used the Kinetic Blasts and Burn rules and stayed useful? Or the Fighter or Rogue had a simple Studied Target, Martial Flexibility like ability?
A few thing's I'd personally like to see:
Spells, almost across the board having more effective minimum results and less devastating maximum results. This would decrease the need to focus so heavily on a single caster stat for most Arcane Casters as maxing DCs just wouldn't be as important.
4+Int minimum Skill Points except for Int based casters (0+Int?). Skills have really not be the Rogue's special power since 3.0.
Core classes that haven't already been done so (Unchained or similar things) being given a rewrite, tossing out the early PF and even Golarion assumptions from 3.5 days and with an eye for much of the newer mechanics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
because dwarves can't be rangers, that would be ridiculous!Bro, I've seen Harsk. That rule exists for a reason.
It so happens Harsk and Lem were the two pieces of art that most convinced me to switch to Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm referring more to his infamously terrible build in his pregens. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never used the pregens, so never had to put them under the microscope.
So I'll take your word for it. :-)
Edit: also I was referring to first and second edition with the class restrictions. Which is a major reason I stopped playing until 3rd edition and onward did away with that silliness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I know. I was making a joke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all have off days. :-)
Ironically, I've only made one dwarven ranger since coming back to RPGs, and that was for my son. :-)
Putting it all on feats does produce a lot of feat-starved characters, though.
It doesn't have to if feats are increased in power. The only reason feat starved really exists at the moment is because of how long some chains are (two weapon fighting, improved, greater, double slice, two weapon defence / rend, etc could be cut in half in size for example).
Would it be a lot more efficient and less hideous to just make the kineticist class and have void as an element? Yes.
I mean, imagining we're using spheres of power as a casting system, why not have negative energy be a talent option for destruction & take a casting tradition that allows (or requires) you to sacrifice HP to cast? That second one is even a base option in the system without me needing to bring it up as an idea. Is that not comparable? Then one would have to decide if that power came from study (wizard) or bloodline (sorcerer). When I can allow your character concept with an existing trait in a subsystem and one new feat, a new class seems unnecessary (and the elementalist kinetisists are again handled by the destruction sphere).
The point I'm meaning to make in this case is spheres of power (or similar) as a casting subsystem that could be used in place of Vancian (were it published as part of the core rules) eliminates the need for various classes. Expansion of the power of feats eliminates the need for others. Indeed, look at the base Druid. What makes it special? You get wild shape and a bunch of dull bonuses and a special spell list. But if spell lists aren't all that unique (because core includes a secondary casting system), the druid doesn't really have anything special.
Now, of course, this would require the base game to have an optional casting subsystem like spheres, but as that was one of your asks...that seems reasonable to include.
And with that line of thinking, there should only be 3 classes at most "Low BAB", "Medium BAB" and "High BAB"... and I haven't really like any implementation of that I've ever seen.
Actually you could remove classes altogether and create a system where each "feature" costs a set number of points you have at level up. +1 BAB is 2 points, +1hp is 1 point, +1 skill is 1 point, feat is +4 points, etc. I like this idea for customization, but it creates a very unapproachable system at first glance, which is why I hesitate to pursue it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few thing's I'd personally like to see:
Spells, almost across the board having more effective minimum results and less devastating maximum results. This would decrease the need to focus so heavily on a single caster stat for most Arcane Casters as maxing DCs just wouldn't be as important.
This also makes a lot of sense to me from a fluff PoV. If pressed, I can think of a genre example or two of magic that has a chance to simply not work once cast -- many Potterverse spells are projectiles that must physically connect with a target to take effect, for example -- but when I think of magic, I think of spells that simply work once cast.
Save-negates spells are a way to balance powerful spell effects for the sake of the game, and I'm kool with making concessions for the sake of gameplay. But this is one of those instances where I think D&D tradition is a blunt instrument. Save-fail effects don't need to be the game-altering things that some of them are, and there are better ways to balance powerful effects than "You're either totally screwed or 100% okay."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're going to talk reboot, it shouldn't be like a movie franchise reboot, but an operating system upgrade {. . .} But even then, this analogy still doesn't do one thing that is needed, which is compaction: Spells that do almost the same thing, feats that do almost the same thing, etc. get compacted into one thing with multiple options, and then you get cross-reference tables ("What happened to my favorite spell?"; "What happened to my favorite feat?"; etc.) {. . .}
Add to this: Compact archetypes by making alternate class features be alternate Talents (sometimes in more than one family) that you can pick a-la-carte. In this case, the cross-reference table would say something like "To get a Pathfinder 1.0 Two-Weapon Fighter, pick the following Offensive Fighting Talents and the following Defensive Fighting Talents" . . . .
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be less in favour of a reboot, I love a lot of options. But a big revision cycle of the core rule books (core, ultimate x, etc.) seems called for. Between new things like spell manifestations and old issues like feat confusion (I'm looking at you, shield master) to straight up typos and poor wording/organization (kineticist...) it makes me think a cycle of errata and reprints would be healthier for the game than a new edition. And it should avoid the problems of a new edition as well.The problem with this is Paizo is pretty terrible about using errata to make the problem even worse instead of fixing it. Reprints tend to cause confusion, especially when peppered all over the forums are tons and tons of explanations on intent/errata/clarifications that just don't make it to print or the PRD. It's sort of been a band aid over a band aid over a band aid, and to be honest, I think the Core book, and even the APG could really benefit from some of the innovations of later books. Imagine if Domain and Bloodline powers that do 1d6, +1/2 levels used the Kinetic Blasts and Burn rules and stayed useful? Or the Fighter or Rogue had a simple Studied Target, Martial Flexibility like ability?
A few thing's I'd personally like to see:
Spells, almost across the board having more effective minimum results and less devastating maximum results. This would decrease the need to focus so heavily on a single caster stat for most Arcane Casters as maxing DCs just wouldn't be as important.
4+Int minimum Skill Points except for Int based casters (0+Int?). Skills have really not be the Rogue's special power since 3.0.
Core classes that haven't already been done so (Unchained or similar things) being given a rewrite, tossing out the early PF and even Golarion assumptions from 3.5 days and with an eye for much of the newer mechanics.
It's the "peppered all over" that I'd like to see fixed. Yeah, they suck at errata, everyone can admit to that. But just because they suck at it doesn't mean it isn't the way to go. Maybe a big enough cycle of big reprints would motivate them to do it right for a change, but I might be dreaming.
But your ideas there are great ones, I have a lot of problems with similar things. Although I do find newer classes have less issue with them.
Edit2:
Actually one final related thing. This concept is important for gaining new players. A complex and unapproachable system is intimidating to many, whereas a simpler or more organized system is not. This is also speculation, but I don't expect a superficially simple system to be a turnoff to those looking for more depth, so long as the knobs presented are able to provide that (think chess. Easy to understand piece movement, complex game).
Complex and unapproachable is subjective. I have always been able to teach new players how to play. That includes the time when I was allowing 3.5 material with much less restriction into my Pathfinder games. Now admittedly even some experienced(1st edition) players had trouble with things, but I also found out they had issues with 2nd edition rules.
In my experience, if I don't turn the dial up to 11 on difficulty when I GM for new people, and I run at least a decent game people stick around and learn(good enough to be sufficient), even if they don't master the game.
"Unapproachable" perhaps is, but "complex" is not.
Unless you can objectively show how something is complex it is still subjective.
I find building computers to be simple(and I dont mean "easy"). Some will say it is complex, even if they think it is easy.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually you could remove classes altogether and create a system where each "feature" costs a set number of points you have at level up. +1 BAB is 2 points, +1hp is 1 point, +1 skill is 1 point, feat is +4 points, etc. I like this idea for customization, but it creates a very unapproachable system at first glance, which is why I hesitate to pursue it.
At that point it's just another flavor or GURPS or HERO. System I love by the way, but it certainly isn't Pathfinder.
The biggest problem with that approach is that balance then becomes up to the game master. The greater the flexibility, the greater that chance for imbalance. As someone who has played HERO over 30 years, I've seen that in action. People newish to the system end up with way overpowered or completely useless characters.
|
At that point it's just another flavor or GURPS or HERO. System I love by the way, but it certainly isn't Pathfinder.
The funny thing is some in the hobby try and make characters that can do it all. D&D as system imo does not really allow one to do it. Either one ends up with a character who is good at roleplaying and not that great in combat. Or vice versa. Or one needs a specific class or build. I think eventually D&D needs to go a more generic route imo. As it's the only way for say someone to take A Fighter have the character good both in and out of combat. With the system as is either the Fighter ends up really good at combat. Or social aspects in terms of roleplay. It's not easy to build a character that does both.
The biggest problem with that approach is that balance then becomes up to the game master. The greater the flexibility, the greater that chance for imbalance. As someone who has played HERO over 30 years, I've seen that in action. People newish to the system end up with way overpowered or completely useless characters.
Unlike D&D Hero does have warnings about certain abilites being more powerful than the others. Warning GMs to either not allow or to be careful if the players choose it. With D&D it's well one gets see during play. The gun rules don't look to bad on paper until one has a Gunslinger. Unless the Gunsliger is either very unoptimized or the campaign has creatures with high touch AC. The player runnning the character is almost never going to miss. The only way to find that out is through gameplay.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing is some in the hobby try and make characters that can do it all. D&D as system imo does not really allow one to do it. Either one ends up with a character who is good at roleplaying and not that great in combat. Or vice versa. Or one needs a specific class or build. I think eventually D&D needs to go a more generic route imo. As it's the only way for say someone to take A Fighter have the character good both in and out of combat. With the system as is either the Fighter ends up really good at combat. Or social aspects in terms of roleplay. It's not easy to build a character that does both.
At that point it's just another flavor or GURPS or HERO. System I love by the way, but it certainly isn't Pathfinder.
I think part of the problem is folks often think characters work in what Yoda would call a "do or do not" situation. There is no proficient, there is effective or not effective in most build conversations. The result is often hyper-specialization, which means, most secondary options become impossible because there is zero investment in anything but specialization. 5E bound things up and so now a trained character is real good, but a non-trained character still has a decent chance too. That generality seems to have irked many. (Skills are a big sore point for me with 5E)
In PF at the table I find things works as often as I suspect they should when my character starts with a 16 in the primary stat. Many will argue that's poppycock though. I cant blame them as the 3E/PF system does promote system mastery so its an understandable place to reach. Where to go from here though is the big question. I don't want to see a generic general system where characters are more or less self sufficient. I like having to work as a team and not being able to handle everything myself. I think the two philosophies can meet in the middle. I'd achieve it by binding up accuracy (not to the 5E level tho) and focus on building on traits and feats. Id also do away with WBL by baking in those assumptions into leveling.
Im not sure we would see anything like this though. 5E took the simple and bounded route, which leaves PF as the Gonzo option. I think Paizo would be foolish to abandon their differentiation and try and compete with WOTC by using the same philosophies with PF. /shrug
Im not sure we would see anything like this though. 5E took the simple and bounded route, which leaves PF as the Gonzo option. I think Paizo would be foolish to abandon their differentiation and try and compete with WOTC by using the same philosophies with PF. /shrug
Gonzo is part of why I love PF. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unlike D&D Hero does have warnings about certain abilites being more powerful than the others. Warning GMs to either not allow or to be careful if the players choose it. With D&D it's well one gets see during play. The gun rules don't look to bad on paper until one has a Gunslinger. Unless the Gunsliger is either very unoptimized or the campaign has creatures with high touch AC. The player runnning the character is almost never going to miss. The only way to find that out is through gameplay.
True.
What I was getting at is that people (in general) expect a certain level of balance based on the game system itself in Pathfinder. How many threads have there been about whether banning/restricting things is a good idea or bad, from player and GM side. There is an expectation of a certain level of balance. And by and large there is.
HERO on the other hand, there isn't any. What the balance is, and making sure characters are appropriate is completely up to GM. A GM HAS to say "No, this won't work" is something is too weak or too strong. As a gaming culture that is baked into HERO players and fans. If that flexibility hit Pathfinder, with the unwritten assumption that the game is balanced, chaos would ensue. :)
Edit - just to be clear I consider HERO flexibility in that regard a feature, not a bug.
Something else to consider (on the general question) - Hero fans are very strong fans. When Hero moved from 5th to 6th, it did well for a bit, but ended up pretty much closing it's doors shortly thereafter. A LOT of fans didn't want or like 6th, and the whole "rebuying the core books and base expansions" didn't go well. I'd expect the same thing from Pathfinder - new blood wouldn't necessarily come in, as there are options out there that fit their playstyle better, so changing pathfinder in a huge way could easily have that happen. So changing too much loses their current fanbase, but changing too little wouldn't bring in new blood. It's a conundrum.
|
|
I think part of the problem is folks often think characters work in what Yoda would call a "do or do not" situation. There is no proficient, there is effective or not effective in most build conversations. The result is often hyper-specialization, which means, most secondary options become impossible because there is zero investment in anything but specialization. 5E bound things up and so now a trained character is real good, but a non-trained character still has a decent chance too. That generality seems to have irked many. (Skills are a big sore point for me with 5E)
I think the issue is at least to me is that the system rewards specialization to a certain extent. A Fighter with low str and con. While vialbe is simply not going to be as effective as one built the opposite way imo. Except some in the hobby want to be able to do everything. I know if I were to build a low str and con Fighter that I either better in social elements in a campaign. While being less effective in combat. I limited to what I can carry. Encumberance penalties limit the character even more. As long as attributes are so tied into what a character can do it will remain a issue.
In PF at the table I find things works as often as I suspect they should when my character starts with a 16 in the primary stat. Many will argue that's poppycock though. I cant blame them as the 3E/PF system does promote system mastery so its an understandable place to reach. Where to go from here though is the big question. I don't want to see a generic general system where characters are more or less self sufficient. I like having to work as a team and not being able to handle everything myself. I think the two philosophies can meet in the middle. I'd achieve it by binding up accuracy (not to the 5E level tho) and focus on building on traits and feats. Id...
When 3E came out I was very much have 20 or if not a 18 in a primary stat. Now depending on what class I play I'm more of a 16 or 14. I do generic is the way to go. As I said some in the hobby want the do all character. Or for example take a fighter and be more than just hitting and killing stuff. Without penalizing what they are best at. It's not easy to do in the system imo. Generic does not mean do all characers either.. One can play a campaign using Fantasy Hero. Yet the Fighter is still better than the Wozard at combat. Except the Fighter can also do more at the table than just attacking. I do think their also needs to be more penalties invovled with dup stating as well. In 2E at least in my experience their it was rarely done Dump stat cha. Good luck followers. Do it with Con well one better have a second character ready as chances are good one is not coming back from the dead.
I'm not saying go the 5E route. They do need to shake things up somewhat. As a simple rehash with errata is not the way to go. How does one justify to the fans to buy the same book twice with little to no changes. At least with a new edition it's new material. Even incorporating some of their current changes results in something similar and different. The revised action economy system changes the game. I'm not saying follow the Wotc route. Keeping the status quo and changing nothing also leads to stagnation as well imo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm Just gonna ask for more narrative approach and les Video gamelike stuff.
That is what annoys me.That you have to have like 3 feats just for graple or atempting a trip
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And at a fundamental level 5e rules assume the same things about magic that PF and 3e did; that it's powerful and reliable and quickly repeatable and powerful magic doesn't depend on learning weaker magic. Try doing the same in Gurps or Runequest or Fate and you'll find that a lot of things that make sense in a campaign using the PF/5e context are simply implausible with many/most other rules sets.All that stuff you like wouldnt work with PF 2 then.The stuff I like, the non mechanical stuff, would work just fine in any rule set. The campaign I am working on now is set in Golarion with all the associated history, maps, gods etc. but will be played using 5e rules because they are simpler and easier.
Wait what? Fate can do that better than any edition of D&D. It took Evil Hat a while to get to that point but yeah the magic system works so much better than 5e or Pathfinder magic is powerful reliable and quickly repeatable.
EDIT:And I say this as a person who once thought that their magic systems were completely unintelligible and unreadable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm Just gonna ask for more narrative approach and les Video gamelike stuff.
That is what annoys me.That you have to have like 3 feats just for graple or atempting a trip
Can you expand on this? What is videogamey that you would change & how would you change it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish video games had less RPG aspects personally... Or wait, maybe I mean the opposite...