| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The longer you have played, the more role you become......
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just think some Compendiumy books are overdue. I imagine the developers don't want to drive away customers with "repeats," but with the incredible number of rules, feats and spells scattered throughout the published materials, having compendium-style books to collect a bunch of that stuff all together would be heaven for me as a GM.
I'm sooooo tired of trying to remember whether a given rule is in the glossary, or the combat chapter of the CRB, or the universal monster rules, or a stealth rule hidden in the text of a feat, etc.
Hell, most of the time I just make some crap up that sounds like it makes sense and say "I'll look it up later, we'll do this for now," because it's just not worth it derailing a combat to look up the rule for an obscure situation.
Note that is completely different from desiring a new rule set. I most definitely do not - but updated organization of the rules after 8 years? Yeah, I can go for that.
Heck, 3.5e was collating the rules after less than 4 years - 3.5e was first published in 2003, and the Rules Compendium came out in 2007, only 4 years later - and the Spell Compendium came out in 2005, only 2 years after the rul set started. So I'd actually say a Rules Compendium for Pathfinder is sorta overdue :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any grognards here? I was wondering about this in regards to the BECMI tier of OD&D. Did they do a good job of scaling the game up to "Immortals"?
BECMI was how I started playing D&D. Master level characters - level 26-36 - were pretty darn broken, and rocket tag was a much worse problem. Damage dealing spells capped at 20d6, but hit dice for PCs stopped at 9, so you could easily reach situations where a high level fireball would wipe out characters even if they made their save. That, and weapon mastery rules in the Master set suddenly boosted everyone's attacks, AC, and damage through the roof.
The one high level advantage that early editions had was that SoS/SoD spells were much less effective. Save DCs went down as your target got higher level, so your chances of landing that finger of death spell were like 3/20. It would be like playing PF where all save DCs are set to 18 and never change.
The Immortals set was just...weird. Your XP converted over to PP at a 1/10k rate, and you could spend 100 PP (which renewed daily) to have unlimited access to nearly all spells for the day. You lost basically all your mortal class features, and used the stats of a 15HD monster(to start). As you gained PP your physical stats got better, and you could spend permanent PP to do things like shape outer planes and such, or to permanently increase your ability scores, up to 100.
All in all, the Immortals set was an interesting read but it wasn't really clear on what you do with characters at that point.
Woah. Thanks for the long answer.
I had no idea the game was so diverse even in its early days. Sounds like the Immortals section was more conceptual than actual. No wonder they stat'd up the gods in AD&D! :DFunny too because from what you're saying is that very high level characters have always been rather game-breaky.
Immortal vs immortal combat was weird. It was like an iterative version of Rock Paper Scissors. Mortals, even high level wizards, were no match for even the weakest immortals. If you think Mythic is overpowered, well, the immortal rules took it to a whole new level.
{. . .}
Probably also a cultural thing. As a german, I grew up with "Das Schwarze Auge" (The Dark Eye) with started as a D&D rip-off but has lost any setting neutrality somewhere in the 80's. The rules might be even more dense (and clunky) than those of 3.5 but where it shines is with the setting books and the adventures, so it's kinda doing what Paizo does only for over 30 years now and without separating setting and crunch.
{. . .}Well, I was wondering what RPG they play in Germany -- now I know. Even has an English translation, and just got its own 5th Edition last year.
Just in case anybody wasn't on at the right time to catch this: this is now on the Paizo Store Blog (which has links to some of the available products and to the page that has the rest of the available products).
Note: I downloaded and read the free starter PDF -- although this leaves out much, it shows that this DEFINITELY isn't a D&D clone.
|
Spell/Magic Points?The whole point with the Vancian casting is the overall limitation of firing off one spell slot at a time and not being able to choose what you cast at the time of casting. (the Memorization aspect) This is what needs cut out, not the spellbook itself or being able to change out spells from the spellbook.
The best example is the Arcanist in the current system. Without the limited spell slots and level gains for spells, it could be the next version's "Wizard" with very little adjustment.
The next iteration of PF needs to start with the Spontaneous caster mechanic and go from there, combining some classes, having the other mechanic exclusive classes (Oracle, for example) be folded into the base class or be changed up to expand on their potential.
Fire and forget need to go the way of the dodo.
I would rather have stat pools, like the Arcanist and a lot of the newer classes have, to augment or use abilities in addition to spells. I would think Wizards would have school related pool powers and be, in part, a replacement for the Bonded Object Vancian crutch, giving the familiars a place in the game again.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm left with a lot of questions. As an optional system, will the DM let me variant multiclass? Will he let me use the unchained Rage rules? I don't know, that's another optional system. Then can I traditionally multiclass that level in rogue after variant multiclassing? The rules say something to the idea of "I don't know, not such a great idea ask your dm". Can the rogue be unchained? Whattevs, ask your dm.
The problem isn't bloat. The problem is a lack of communication. I can have these same problems using CRB only: I want to play Professor Snuffleboots. I want him to be a Drow paladin. Problem is: Will the DM let me play a Drow? Will he let a paladin be played? Will he strip my character of class features at the first chance he gets? How will he rule what are and aren't evil acts? Will he have me hunted down by every elf on the planet? Will he let me take 3.5 feats?
A new edition won't fix your problems.
"I'm left with a lot of questions. As an optional system, will the DM let me variant multiclass? Will he let me use the unchained Rage rules? I don't know, that's another optional system. Then can I traditionally multiclass that level in rogue after variant multiclassing? The rules say something to the idea of "I don't know, not such a great idea ask your dm". Can the rogue be unchained? Whattevs, ask your dm."
That is odd - to me that is part of character creation, you talk to DM get theme, tone and rules expectations from him, and his world before you even come up with a character concept, and mold the character to the existing world. Just like a adventure path player's guide gives advice to fit the adventure path.
Building a character in vacuum is alien to me.
You've never played a one-shot, or even an extended campaign that starts with a call or an email reading "Show up with a level 1 PC, we're going to dive right into the adventure on game day"?
Don't get me wrong, I think that having a session 0 with a chargen huddle is a great practice, and it's downright necessary in universal systems like Fate, GURPS, and Savage Worlds. But for some, one of the advantages of a game like D&D/PF is being able to hit the ground running.
Even restricting the topic to the chargen huddle though, the core books -- and whatever lies inked within them -- are generally treated with more respect than anything not. Regardless of where the best quality lies, which options fit the campaign better, or any other concern, there's a general overall tendency for DMs to treat the core options as standard, stock, foundational, game touchstones, etc.. We've all witnessed or at least read on these very forums DMs who will allow an option which they don't feel fits their campaign (see: kung-fu monks in pseudo-medieval-europe-land) just because it's core. And we've all seen or read DMs who will disallow options just because they're from a splatbook, or because of the result of being in a splatbook. "I think that splat is OP," "I don't have the interest/energy to understand that non-core option," "I didn't write that option into my homebrew setting when I wrote it 30 years ago," and my all-time favorite "Why do players need so many classes? I got along just fine with four back in the day..."
So maybe in a perfect world having PF as it is would always be the same thing in every group to having a PF 2.0 with lessons-learned incorporated into the core rules and options. It'd be great if every DM had the time, interest, and energy to know just which options out of...how many books?...are appropriate to his/her game. But unfortunately there is often a difference.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
there's a general overall tendency for DMs to treat the core options as standard, stock, foundational, game touchstones, etc.
Never understood that kind of thinking. to me it ever was more the social pressure by the players not to disallow anything in the CRB. That's for example why I was so averse to the inclusion of the Dragonborn in 4E Core Rules because it would (in my experience) invariably lead to a player arguing that "You can't disallow that because it's in the PHB".
Now I'm normally more on the lenient side of GMing, meaning that as long as you can show me the source I basically allow nearly anything and even might go so far as to allow 3.5 or even older stuff in my Pathfinder game as long as we are able to agree on the adaptation (might even allow Dragonborn^^).
But that's in kitchen sink setting gameplay. Realms, Golarion and so on. Even there, I might not like it, because I prefer to have characters that fit the setting (are not played against setting expectations, which I've come to find terribly cheesy and boring in the meantime), but if a player want to play something, it's his choice after all.
In my own world though it's me who decides what's included and what's not and if I think that wizards (or elves, or whatever other core rule option) are not fitting my setting, then they don't exist. Even in this case, I might be willing to compromise (makes no sense building a world without elves if you know one of your players loves elves so much he would hate playing in this setting).
But just because it's in the CRB doesn't mean that it's sacrosanct anyhow. and if out of the many options you can choose from a player invariably decides to want to have the option that is disallowed/disencouraged and throws a tantrum over that, it may be a good sign that you don't want to have that player at your table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've never played a one-shot, or even an extended campaign that starts with a call or an email reading "Show up with a level 1 PC, we're going to dive right into the adventure on game day"?"I'm left with a lot of questions. As an optional system, will the DM let me variant multiclass? Will he let me use the unchained Rage rules? I don't know, that's another optional system. Then can I traditionally multiclass that level in rogue after variant multiclassing? The rules say something to the idea of "I don't know, not such a great idea ask your dm". Can the rogue be unchained? Whattevs, ask your dm."
That is odd - to me that is part of character creation, you talk to DM get theme, tone and rules expectations from him, and his world before you even come up with a character concept, and mold the character to the existing world. Just like a adventure path player's guide gives advice to fit the adventure path.
Building a character in vacuum is alien to me.
No actually. My situation sort of colors my view. Our group has been together since '95 or so. It's also primarily HERO system,one those universal system you mention, so that colors our habits.
My purpose for gaming is character immersion so the idea of one shots or "instant starts" is something antithetical to my approach. Every new campaign in our group starts with a pitch from one of us to GM, then there is some back on forth on the idea, then there will be back and forth about characters, then characters get built. So I've never done a con game, and the last one shot (which ended very badly) I played was 20+ years ago.
normally if the situation calls for a 1 evening no prep entertainment, we play Sentinels of the Mulitverse or Magic or something. We don't consider that suitable for RPGs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You've never played a one-shot, or even an extended campaign that starts with a call or an email reading "Show up with a level 1 PC, we're going to dive right into the adventure on game day"?
Is that normal? For one-shots we've always had the GM make the PCs, and for extended campaigns the inciting e-mail is generally something like "game starts on [day], please submit character sheets and backstories by [approximately a week before day]" along with a brief explanation of the premise of the campaign and information about any optional or non-standard systems we're using.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's pretty rare that we don't heavily discuss our character options and party composition well in advance of the first session. We had our Hell's Rebels team formed for two months beforehand, mostly because it took so long to get a day everyone could meet up on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just seems like if you don't discuss who's playing what, you can get some weird parties that don't really work together that well, at least in the sense of each player getting their own opportunity to shine (the party of four druids and a bard can steamroll most things, but it'll be hard to make sure each druid gets their time in the spotlight.)
You've never played a one-shot, or even an extended campaign that starts with a call or an email reading "Show up with a level 1 PC, we're going to dive right into the adventure on game day"?Is that normal?
Not for extended games, IME, but for one-offs and con games, pregens and "show up with a level X PC" is the norm. (Sometimes in the same game.) Not being a fan of pregens myself, I vastly prefer the latter.
Never saw a party full of one class or another, but it could happen. In a one-off, people are more willing to take risks like that, for the same reason that even point-buy fans may be more willing to roll stats in a one-off: It's a standalone adventure, and even if the worst happens you'll be writing up a new PC next time.
This is really a side-issue though, because like I said, even assuming a chargen huddle before every game begins, core matters to many gamers.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There will never be "the edition", asking for PF 2.0 is simply a stepping stone to asking for 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, repeat...
The trick is to have fun 'within the limits' of the version you are playing.
To paraphrase Mel from Serenity:
"Perfect RPG, that's a long wait for a train that don't come."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^Especially since Pathfinder as is already has ways for Evil characters to get Positive Energy Channeling (Oracle or Shaman of Life with Channel Energy Revelation or Hex), but not for Good characters to get Negative Energy Channeling that isn't restricted to use with the Command Undead feat.
Hell, I'll go even further and make it so only planar beings and undead ping as evil. Mortals are more fluid in their alignment and don't ping regardless, IMHO.
Hell, I'll go even further and make it so only planar beings and undead ping as evil. Mortals are more fluid in their alignment and don't ping regardless, IMHO.
Maybe keep the auras possessed by divine casters, but only because they're channeling magic granted by said planar beings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see Detect Evil have the similar number of uses per day like Channel energy. To avoid the endless "I detect evil" spamming done by some players.
I don't know what to do with channel energy. I'd like it to have limited uses per day (like a monks ki pool) to prevent infinite full healing (and strengthen it to be the main cleric feature), but I don't like Clerics having to manage two different pools of energy...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see Detect Evil have the similar number of uses per day like Channel energy. To avoid the endless "I detect evil" spamming done by some players.I rather prefer a constant sense of 'detect evil.'
However, I would prefer 'evil' and 'good' both be restricted to extreme examples. Most mortals SHOULD be normal, aka neutral.
Most are, and even in the aligned cases you can't detect anything on them if they're under 5th level, which would cover most mortals.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
which is understandable, considering that asking players to read a multipage manifesto about what you allow within 5-15 different books they may not have heard of let alone read is rather difficult if they are pressed for time, and if you cut out their character options last minute it doesn't exactly give them hope of realizing their character concept...
1. What multipage manifesto?
2. Why are they pressed for time?3. What 5-15 different books? (I guess you don't mean those 5-15 different books the players normally expect me to read so just that they can have their special snowflake characters, right?)
4. Why do you think I cut out character options last minute?
Sorry but this corner case argument has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
I'd like undead to not automatically ping as evil. Give paladins detect evil or detect undead, or both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see Detect Evil have the similar number of uses per day like Channel energy. To avoid the endless "I detect evil" spamming done by some players.I don't know what to do with channel energy. I'd like it to have limited uses per day (like a monks ki pool) to prevent infinite full healing (and strengthen it to be the main cleric feature), but I don't like Clerics having to manage two different pools of energy...
It's even more than that.
One of my problems with PF as it currently stands is how every class has multiple pools they have to juggle, kind of to an absurd degree.
Clerics have: individual domain powers (4), channel energy, and spell slots (9*5+x*y {based on ability score}) for at least 5 different pools, one of which has 45+ unique combinations and iterations.
Wizards and sorcerers have: class powers (usually 2-5? 2-6?) different abilities and all of their spells (averaging out similar to the cleric - wizard with less and sorcerers with more). Plus spell scrolls, which wizard likely have a ton of.
You have bards as "not as bad" with spells and performance and lore master.
You have Paladins with lay on hands (the same as their channel), smite evil, special mount/weapon, and spells - at least it's better than the 3.x of also tracking remove disease!
And so on.
That's not to say that managing all those things are bad, per se - bards and Paladins, in particular, I find less problematic because their individual pools cover their own niche for the class. But generally speaking, cleric/wizard abilities especially are substantially in overlap with their largest and most complex pools - their spells - and don't really add much to what the character can actually do beyond those spells - it leaves flavorful options somehow sort of less flavorful and also often highly unbalanced within their own options.
It's complexity without much depth in many cases, or plenty of depth, but highly unbalancing in others. I mean, if one always goes first and wins because of it, that leaves the guy able to deal 1d6+half his level 3/day kind of looking like a moron for his life choices, you know? Especially when they can both have, if not unlimited, not really all-that-limited-by-comparison abilities that vastly exceed the latter's meaning it's a pool that'll probably never see use, but still needs to be kept up with.
That said, I'm not necessarily against following mutiple pools - it's just that I often find such abilities somehow two-dimensional - if every 4th level conjurer can do "X" just as many times as I, that's clear in-world evidence of class distinction, and tends to go, "hey! Look! Totally a game! Not real people!" which, to be fair, they aren't - but in telling a story, I'd like my illusion to be a little more solid to help me suspend my disbelief.
But I understand others feel differently. To each their own in that regard.
I don't expect a second edition to remove this feature. I do wish Paizo would reconsider how they look at such and what they want to do with it. It's a cool idea, and I know they've put a lot of thought into it - the execution just isn't doing it for me.
Of course, I'm an advocate of cutting down the feat numbers and switching to Psionic pp-style system, but that may put me in a very small minority.
Hell, I'll go even further and make it so only planar beings and undead ping as evil. Mortals are more fluid in their alignment and don't ping regardless, IMHO.Maybe keep the auras possessed by divine casters, but only because they're channeling magic granted by said planar beings.
I could live with that exception.
Most are, and even in the aligned cases you can't detect anything on them if they're under 5th level, which would cover most mortals.
Oh right, I forgot about that change. Hurray Paizo.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, Paizo has done a good job keeping the rules system up to date and working. There will, however, come a time when the long tooth of age will come to bite off more than what can be worked around or Errata'd. The need for rules cleanup and modernization will make a new edition that is needed and will likely warrant the move away from Wizard's OGL into Paizo's own license for 3rd party support instead.
Search your feelings, you know it to be true...
Overall, Paizo has done a good job keeping the rules system up to date and working. There will, however, come a time when the long tooth of age will come to bite off more than what can be worked around or Errata'd. The need for rules cleanup and modernization will make a new edition that is needed and will likely warrant the move away from Wizard's OGL into Paizo's own license for 3rd party support instead.
Search your feelings, you know it to be true...
To an extent, yes. I think, however, the existence of an O GL is almost guaranteed. Further, it doesn't mean that it's entirely incompatible-whatever it is that they come up with-to the current rules system. Of course, with enough iterative changes, there will come a time at which, eventually, whatever current rule system will be entirely incompatible with the real system that are "current" to us now. But I don't believe that we have reached that point just yet. Even as a firm believer in the, if not need, growing tendency towards that need, of a cleanup, I don't feel that entirely and validating their current rules set is the best decision for them. And, I suspect that Paizo agrees. That said, I do believe that at some point those changes will come, or Paizo will be purchased otherwise acquired, or go under some sort of major change, or, as is the way of most things, fade. Of all of those options, I tend to prefer the one that they continue and thrive. But the best way forward? I'm not sure anybody knows that for sure, we can just give our own opinions.
Nine is that Paizo might be soon best served by re-organization and cleanup of their current, I ratted rules systems. Then re-packaging and re-presenting a new core book, that, while entirely compatible with the current system, does change how and What it presents players. Or jams. Dad gum it talk type system: capital G capital in is not the same as "jam".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff about lots of different pools to manage
In my defence (and curse me for failing to provide context) I'm operating under spheres in an effort to consolidate such pools. I'd also remove domains from clerics because they feel like a way to codify a concept rather than let the concept speak for itself. My current thought is just let channel cost a spell point like everything else, but I don't know if I'll stick with that.
stuff about classes not feeling like classes for immersion
I think this can be accomplished "in system" with tweaks to feats & class features. Stronger focus on what a class is (eg sorcerer bloodline influence) with the addition of more significant feats means that every class, as a baseline, has a thing they are. Rogues are fast, sneaky & skilled. Clerics channel the power of their diety. Monks master themselves & the power of ki. Then, the feats (or feature choices) mold that. One monk focuses on mobility (fleet, mobility, abundant step) while another on direct combat (ki strike, vital strike / double slice). One cleric channels energy for protection & defence (fast healing, resoration) while another to smite foes (channel smite, elemental channel).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like undead to not automatically ping as evil. Give paladins detect evil or detect undead, or both.
Pathfinder did make that change. Undead don't ping as evil unless they are evil, and they ping as good if they are good. This is shown in the table used by detect spells rewording it to have it detect "Aligned Undead".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's been like 16 years, but to this day mindless animated skeletons having an alignment other than "neutral" bugs me. I heard 5e made them LE, which is among the silliest things I've heard in regards to this family of games.
Skeleton Law, y'all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most are, and even in the aligned cases you can't detect anything on them if they're under 5th level, which would cover most mortals.I would like to see Detect Evil have the similar number of uses per day like Channel energy. To avoid the endless "I detect evil" spamming done by some players.I rather prefer a constant sense of 'detect evil.'
However, I would prefer 'evil' and 'good' both be restricted to extreme examples. Most mortals SHOULD be normal, aka neutral.
To be honest, I'd prefer if almost everything that was Detect Evil-like, (based on Alignment), to instead become Detect Not Good. Weed those fence-sitters out, too and make them Smitable.
:PBut, in all honesty, that would go a long, long way in fixing a few issues, from making fixing the "Detect Evil" problem to making ethical and/or religious wars actually plausible, to enforcing a sense of mystery and the unknown.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the alignment of a puppet?
Well, Kermit is LG, Gonzo is CG, Sam the Eagle is LN, Dr. Bunsen Honeydew is LE, Animal is CN; so it takes all kinds.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
but being completely mindless makes the idea of them holding any moral position seem a bit sketchy to me. I mean, how can a creature with no ability to think or process information on any meaningful level be considered honorable? Or ruthless? or cruel? Or selfish? Or any of the other descriptors that reference lawful or evil.
For that reason I decided that they aren't actually evil but they do detect as evil as a consequence of the evil act that created them. Or another way of stating this: what the spell detect evil actually detects is the residual evil of the necromancer who created them.