| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, there's no doubt Paizo needs to streamline and update the rules of the game. I know several people think the same.
This thread is not for debating whether or not this should happen, as we have an active thread dedicated to that purpose already.
This thread is for debating what rule changes you'd like to see if it happens.
Character Rules
- Cap ability score growth. Endlessly stackable attributes create balance issues.
- Make clear bonus/penalty stacking rules. Right now, there are an unlimited amount of bonuses you can receive. If these are restricted to a few types, then it makes for more predictable balance, particularly in regards to wealth balancing with tons of equipment and skill bonuses.
Combat Rules
- Remove full-attacks. Allow movement to be a part of combat for martial classes. Maybe some boost can be given for Steady Engagement (attacking without moving), but it shouldn't be so major so as to cripple classes that rely on getting several attacks out.
- Remove the swift/immediate action paradigm. It has memory issues, confusing interactions and is needlessly complicated.
- Revamp combat maneuvers. The rules baggage is extremely hard to learn, they are very hard to apply to an encounter naturally, and include major restrictions that make them increasingly futile.
- Add a self-contained set of attack options. Nothing too complex, but things like recklessly attacking or defensively attacking should be available to anyone with some combat training.
- Balance STR and DEX as main options for combat from the get-go. I'm of one mind that DEX-to-damage is a mistake for Pathfinder, but if it is appropriately applied, I could see it having a place in Pathfinder 2.0.
- Make mundane healing simpler and have it scale more powerfully so that out-of-combat magical healing is not a necessity. In-combat healing can remain a niche of the Divine classes.
Skill Rules
- Appropiately scaling DCs. It shouldn't be as easy for a Dragon to maintain its ability to stay in the air if its hit with a Magic Missile as if it is hit with a fully powered, SR-piercing Disintegrate. Similarly, it shouldn't be as easy to curry favor through Diplomacy with a commoner and a level 20 Wizard with no ranks in Sense Motive.
Class & Advancement Rules
- Revamp all classes so they get meaningful choices every 2 or 3 levels.
- Get rid of feat-lines longer than 2 links. I'd say that the biggest entry barrier to Pathfinder is the sheer amount of feats and their interconnectivity. If you make feats strong enough to stand on their own as viable options, then players will find it much more simple to select among them, even if they don't have a thousand splatbooks.
- Standardize item slots. An unarmed character should not have to forgo their natural armor to get an enhancement bonus.
- Standardize defenses. Each class should be designed with a target AC, saves and HP progression that shouldn't be easy to subvert.
Okay, I could go on forever.
What are some of the rules you'd like to see revamped?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we get key words like "wield" and "unattended" spelled out unambiguously, or at least used consistently throughout the material?
I'd kind of also like to see iterative attacks go away entirely. Let people hit harder and more accurately at higher levels than have to roll for piles of attacks (most of which will be misses).
To this end, I'd like to see weapon damage based on weapon category (e.g. hammers, swords, polearms) and character class, so we avoid the situation where "everybody with a free EWP uses the Estoc or the Fauchard because it's got the best statline." Let people with specific visions for a weapon their character uses just describe their weapon to look like whatever it is and use the statistics for a general item of that class, rather than penalizing people for choosing a "suboptimal" weapon for flavor reasons. Is there anything actually gained from having 12 different polearms? I mean there's a glaive, a guisarme, and a glaive-guisarme...
Healing should be cheaper and easier too. There's a lot of factors that lead to 15-minute adventure days. Mitigating "we have to rest due to HP attrition" would be a good way to reduce them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... back on topic:
1) Do something with spellcasting. Fix trouble spells, remove prepared casting, or change away from vancian completely, etc. Not sure exactly what change to make, but the current casting system is probably the #1 source of trouble for the system.
2) Bound and diversify. Heresy, I know. I hear your cries of "that's just 4e/5e". I mean this in a very light-handed way. Hyper-specialization causes many balance issues, such that the game can turn into a binary "always succeed or always fail", depending on the character. Reduce the rate of bonus gain from ability scores as the score gets higher, and reduce how many different bonuses can stack.
3) Remove +X items. Every magic item should have an effect that isn't based on making numbers bigger.
Overall I'd echo most of what Secret Wizard said.
"Revamp combat maneuvers. The rules baggage is extremely hard to learn, they are very hard to apply to an encounter naturally, and include major restrictions that make them increasingly futile."
I like what PF did for combat maneuvers, but I agree that it can go further. Maneuvers are highly cinematic, but generally a hassle to actually use. I'd also like to see special combat maneuvers that key off of other ability scores.
I would like to see Pathfinder switch from a "conversational" writing style to a "mechanical" writing style. The fact is we can't hold a real conversation with the designers. The conversational style of rules development is to blame for a huge number of misconceptions and poor rules interactions. Instead the rules need to be presented clearly, and concisely, without ambiguous terms or phrases.
I would like to see common, real world activities codified as actions. For example, sitting down, throwing an object/creature for distance (as opposed to using it as an improvised weapon).
I would like to see the concept of Attacks of Opportunity abandoned; or at least for it not to be used as either a method of punishing players for making creative decisions, or as fuel for unnecessary feat-taxes.
I would like to see ALL of the martial classes have a damage table similar to the Brawler/Monk/Warpriest's Damage Table. With a fair, consistent, and expandable methods of selecting what weapons said damage table applies to. A Warpriest's ability to define a sacred weapon by taking weapon focus with it is a good example.
I would like to see fairer rules for Multiclassing. Attack Bonuses, Saving Throws, etc should automatically use a fractional system. I would also like to see better rules for Class Feature Stacking, and fewer mechanically different versions of similar class features. For example, vigilantes and investigators don't need their own unique versions of "Sneak Attack", and Sneak Attack dice should be able to stack regardless of their source. Likewise, dice & uses per day of Channel Energy (and abilities powered by it) should be able to stack regardless of their source.
I would like to see classes designed more consistently. For example, if there is a class like Paladin or Ranger, who is a first tier Martial with third tier divine magic... there should also be similar classes for first tier martials with third tier arcane and psychic magic.
I would also like to see most classes designed to be customized by selecting "Talents" at every even level like rogues, witches, etc; with more class options presented in the form of such talents, and fewer presented in the form of Archetypes. Don't get me wrong, I actually love archetypes, but many of them are unnecessary because they are effectively built around one good class feature, and a whole bunch of filler which only exists to justify the option being called an Archetype.
I would like to see Feats have more a significant impact on your character's abilities; as opposed to feats which exist only to act as gateways to other, better feats.
I would like to see many classes (such as fighters) gain more skill points, and fewer automatic proficiencies. In addition, I would like to see weapon proficiencies cost a single Skill Point each, instead of requiring the expenditure of Feats... or if they must cost feats, I would like characters to gain a litany of weapon proficiencies with the expenditure of a single feat.
One thing I'd like to see addressed is magic item slots. I imagine they exist to limit the number of magical items a character can use at one time. However there are so many different items slots that I don't think this really achieves this goal in any way except in very high levels. There are also many magical items that don't require a slot to use, many of these are very important to casters, they include: scrolls, wands, staves, pearls of power, meta magic rods and so on ...
I believe that perhaps the number of magic items usable by a character could be tied to the campaign type. In the section about point buy there is mention of the campaign types: low, standard, high and epic fantasy. Perhaps this could be expanded upon to allow further mechanical differences between these different levels of fantasy.
Limiting the number of available magic item slots by fantasy tier would be a good place to start IMO. For example at low fantasy each character could choose to use 2 permanent magic items, and 2 (slot less) items.
I would imagine that providing a sound explanation as to why a certain character could only benefit from limited slot less items would take a considerable amount of explanation. Perhaps a certain character can only absorb a certain amount of magical energy from potions before the energy begins to be rejected (in the case of potions and "why can't I benefit from more than X potions per day or carry more than X potions}.
In short: magic item slots do little to stem the tide of magical Christmas tree effect. Limiting the number of magic items usable by characters by campaign type (which could have other mechanical distinctions too) would help in this regard.
I agree on clarity being improved. If something is like channel energy just say it is and leave out the ambiguity. Don't give it a funky name like, channel spirits, or channel power or whatever.
Like, the mutation warrior has discoveries, does this allow for extra discovery?
Exploiter wizard and extra exploits and extra pool.
Weapon training, some archetypes modifications counts and others don't and it depends on if they have a key word, even though they are otherwise the same.
Clarifying that if I have monk levels and something that is treated as monk for IUS if they stack for damage die or not, but making it very clear.
I feel that there's a decent portion of stuff that I don't even bother with because it's not clear and I don't want to hash it all out with a GM to see if it works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'll echo @Chess Pwn and @Cantriped --
It would be great to see an editorial standard for feature writing.
For example, if you have a feature that grants access to a talent pool (like Rogue Talents), it should note whether it interacts with Extra Talent feats.
I think most of these suggestions in the OP won't really make the game better. Furthermore, several of them will create more problems than they "fix." They sound more like preferential houserules.
|
I think most of these suggestions in the OP won't really make the game better. Furthermore, several of them will create more problems than they "fix." They sound more like preferential houserules.
'
Well, houseruling is advocated in this Pathfinder, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of these said "updates" are put into similar use at various home games.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly I want to see a clean up of language and streamlining of text (not necessarily rules). Use some of the lessons from the Strategy Guide to simply make the core rule book a bit more reader friendly.
Actual rule-wise, I would like to see the Fighter buffed some, and 9th level spellcasting nerfed some. For Fighter, I would argue for more skill points (4 per level). Also feats are an issue. If the Fighter mechanically is "lots of feat class", having a lot of feats locked behind feat chains cancels out of that benefit. So I would prefer to see consolidation of feats and/or some way of making feats better, either via stamina, buffing, or just giving the fighter a way to condense feat chains.
For 9th level spell casters overall, I would clarify the language and add more detail to some of the "known problem" spells. I would also enforce greater specialization on wizards, So that Wizards could be good in one or two schools, but at the cost of not being able to do other things. That would reduce the ability of a wizard to step on everyone else's shoes.
Cleric is boring and I would probably try to make diety choice a bigger deal, and worship of particular gods changes other properties of the class (BAB, skill points, free feat access etc). A cleric of Pharasma, Gorum, and Iomedae should all far more distinct than they do currently.
Probably other things, but those are the biggest ones right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of these suggestions in the OP won't really make the game better. Furthermore, several of them will create more problems than they "fix." They sound more like preferential houserules.'
Well, houseruling is advocated in this Pathfinder, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of these said "updates" are put into similar use at various home games.
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's houserule/homebrew parade. I have issue when someone says "Pathfinder 2.0 should have X, Y, and Z" and most of the items dip dangerously into preference territory. To me, that's like saying "The way I play Pathfinder should be codified as the official standard way of playing Pathfinder, and everyone should have to follow it!"
How much would it help if casters had to learn spell chains? You can't learn Gate unless you spend a certain amount of your lower level spells known on summoning spells.
For 9th level spell casters overall, I would clarify the language and add more detail to some of the "known problem" spells. I would also enforce greater specialization on wizards, So that Wizards could be good in one or two schools, but at the cost of not being able to do other things. That would reduce the ability of a wizard to step on everyone else's shoes.
Something like this would help, although I would argue that some chains include spells almost everyone takes, so it's probably an incomplete solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on a discussion in another thread, I nominate poisons as something needing to be revamped in v2. A character could spend weeks concocting a single dose of poison, and if the enemy actually fails it save and suffers a few points of ability damage then the GM has to quickly recalculate some of its numbers for the last few rounds of its life. The effects work better when a monster uses poison, but are pretty futile in a PCs hands.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based on a discussion in another thread, I nominate poisons as something needing to be revamped in v2. A character could spend weeks concocting a single dose of poison, and if the enemy actually fails it save and suffers a few points of ability damage then the GM has to quickly recalculate some of its numbers for the last few rounds of its life. The effects work better when a monster uses poison, but are pretty futile in a PCs hands.
Y'know, a simple chain of Sickened-Nauseated-Dead would represent most poisons' effects pretty well, with weaker ones not using the entire chain and stranger ones starting further down. A nonlethal poison could go Staggered-Stunned-Paralyzed.
I have a homebrew thingy going on that works along those lines. I have those same chains (minus the dead part) for different poisons. I hadn't thought of deciding one was non lethal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I'd like: Pathfinder becomes two similar but different games.
Pathfinder as we know it (incorporating whatever else changes for 2.0) goes up to lvl 15. This way it still supports most of the existing Adventure Paths and is basically backwards-compatible.
Starting at lvl 15 you graduate into Pathfinder Epic, which supports levels 16-30. Pathfinder Epic rules are familiar but extremely pared down and streamlined to make high-level play manageable for the GM and to keep combats fast. So your character is still recognizably herself but many of the fiddly, time-intensive rules that slow things down at the table are hand-waved. Pathfinder Epic would play much more like a superhero game, I think, but it would allow for high-level play to still be fun.
Some of these issues have been addressed in Pathfinder Unchained, while some others might be better addressed with a reprinting/rephrasing of existing rules. I for one would love to see some print-on-demand rules compendia - which I can wax on about later.
From Secret Wizard's OP:
Ability score growth has not been a problem for me and I tend to feel like I could address that ad hoc if it were, but I don't get to run games as often as I'd like, so maybe I'm just not getting the natural breakdown of the system. I'd be interested to hear more about the problems you all have with stacking ability scores. I also feel like the rules for stacking bonuses and penalties are pretty clear, but perhaps I just misunderstand them.
While I haven't implemented the Pathfinder Unchained rules on eliminating iterative attacks, I do think that this would be a good smoothlining houserule for most games. Action types do give me some grief, so I largely adjudicate based on common sense/whim. Can you do it out of turn? Does it take time to do? Closer to 3.1 seconds or 2.9 seconds? I'll concede that combat maneuvers could use some work, and it probably will require rebuilding from the ground up rather than tacking on more Improved Combat Maneuver feats. I think if I were responsible for this onerous and thankless task, I might start with the Iron Heroes ruleset Mike Mearls wrote for Monte Cook under the Malhavoc imprint. Attack options? +2/-2 still works pretty well for me. I like the STR mod for dmg model, too, and I don't encourage players to look for DEX mod to dmg options.
I like the idea of better mundane healing (mostly because I can rarely get anyone excited about playing a healer), but this feels like an option that might be easy to tack on. I'd have to think more about this.
Skill DCs almost always get circumstance modifiers in my game. 1st level commoners tend to invite PCs to ride roughshod over them while 20th level wizards never do.
I like the idea of more meaningful choices more frequently, but I like to tinker with characters and experiment with classes and archetypes. Some of my players like to play the same characters again and again, and some would prefer pre-gens without options beyond attack or don't. The Advanced Class Guide and Pathfinder Unchained offer some tweaked classes and I think there's still some design space left for classes that fill the space of existing classes, but afford more (or fewer) options. This might be a fun series of splatbooks to write: One with pared-down classes (Caster, Combatant, Skill-monkey, Healer, & Skirmisher) and a whole bunch with one class each and whole snotload of options to tweak and customize that class. I love that PF offers so many choices, but I encourage players to stick to a theme. I think that presenting choices in a narrower field of fire than the Core Rules does would go a long way to making the game more accessible, but also might restore some of the mystery and wonder in newer players. Item slots can be tweaked easily enough for any given campaign. Frankly, I almost don't even read the magic items in new splatbooks, because I know I'm generally going to just write my own as needed. When I build a PC, I almost invariably pay more to stack different abilities on the same slots. I think that standardizing defenses and damage dealt is an awesome direction for the simple-play classes I describe above, but for some players, the joy of the game is in experimenting with optimization options.
PossibleCabbage, your idea of giving clear, precise definitions for all key game terms is genius - especially in that it seems obvious in retrospect. How does the glossary not already define wield and unattended?
I, personally, would love to see more granularity in the spell levels. I loved the MC BoXM twenty-spell levels as well as the Arcana Evolved system of casting spells with higher or lower spell slots. I agree that spells could use some help, but I don't feel like they absolutely need it. The system works fine as it is, but there's room for entirely distinct systems of magic in the same game.
A system of weapon classification for fewer stat options with more names could work pretty well, and would almost certainly have to replace the existing system.
Riuken, can you explain what you mean by "Bound and diversify?"
Static bonuses is another Pathfinder Unchained system worth looking at. Personally, I like the default +X, etc system because it helps me fine-tune characters' power as needed.
I'll echo what others have said about standardizing the description of abilities and clarifying their interactions with one another. This is something that could be accomplished with another edition of the Core Rules conveying the existing rules - much like what TSR did with AD&D 2nd Edition: new art, new layout, but the same rules - mostly.
Yolande, I think you're on to something, but Paizo already did Mythic rules in lieu of Epic play.
I love the idea of chained spells, but I do think there's a lot of design work to be done to achieve such a thing. That might really require a new edition.
Pathfinder actually does cap ability scores. It just does so implicitly using typed bonuses, which is a much more elegant solution than hard-capping.
Okay, I could go on forever.
What are some of the rules you'd like to see revamped?
Hooboy, same here!
My biggest one -- that will never ever see print -- is that I'd like 1st level re-invisioned as a true apprentice-level and have the suggested starting level be 3 or so. Why do all that? So that all the 1st-class-level frontloading can be spread out over 3 or so levels, and 3e-style multiclassing can finally work really well. No favored classes, no xp penalties, no hit point carrots -- just a solid set of classes that can be multiclassed into and out of (or not), with no worries over traditionalism or game balance.
But that requires a few other changes, and is much too experimental for the Paizo team anyway, so back to my fantasy heartbreaker it is. ;)
Pathfinder actually does cap ability scores. It just does so implicitly using typed bonuses, which is a much more elegant solution than hard-capping.
Yeah, this is one of my big turnoffs with 5e. If you don't want arbitrarily-inflating stats -- which I don't -- don't have level-based bonuses, enhancement bonuses, inherent bonuses, AND whatever else. Think through what you want stats to look like as levels progress, where you want them to stop, and design the bonuses and sources such that PCs can't go higher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would having a class building system (similar to race building) help?
I have often wondered if you eliminated named classes and just allow players to build exactly their personal concepts using a point system for everything, that would solve certain issues.
A good save costs x amount of points; you begin character creation with x amount of points to buy features, proficiencies, save types, BaB type, and so on.
At every level, the character receives x amount of points to buy another feat, feature, proficiency.
Just spitballing...
Elimination of multiclassing and prestige classes. Instead, focus on archetypes that incorporate features from other classes, and take a cue from the VMC system and develop feat style options for working in new class features.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just go play a different game. Trolls and Tunnels. Swords and Wizardry. D&D 5E. Take your pick. Pathfinder is not for you if you want it to be a different game.
Would having a class building system (similar to race building) help?
I have often wondered if you eliminated named classes and just allow players to build exactly their personal concepts using a point system for everything, that would solve certain issues.
A good save costs x amount of points; you begin character creation with x amount of points to buy features, proficiencies, save types, BaB type, and so on.
At every level, the character receives x amount of points to buy another feat, feature, proficiency.Just spitballing...
The advantage of the class system is that you can have much more complete "package" of class features that all work together and make more elaborate game mechanics. A point-buy system has a lot of flaws. I've tried to make one and seen a lot of homebrew attempts. It's extremely difficult to balance all the options.
A better approach might look like something like Shadowrun's priority system or a system where you choose a "template" that determines your BAB, spellcasting progression, feat progression, etc and lists features you can purchase.
Another possibility is something like the archetype system from Tenra Bansho Zero where you create character concepts by combining modular pieces.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just go play a different game. Trolls and Tunnels. Swords and Wizardry. D&D 5E. Take your pick. Pathfinder is not for you if you want it to be a different game.
Frankly, that's silly. Pathfinder is a different game every month than it was the month before. Having an idea about "what changes you would like to see" is only natural. I mean, this is literally the house rule forum and what is a "house rule" but "make the game different somehow because you like it better this way."
I mean, they literally published a hardback with the premise "here's a direction we could take the game in if we just forgot about back compatibility, so enjoy it as optional rules."
Seconding what Cyrad said about difficulty in balancing point buy modular classes. Anothe problem is such a system is rather unapproachable for new players. Classes are nice & simple to parse and there's an assumption that the features built into the class will let the player accomplish what the class is described as.
Would having a class building system (similar to race building) help?
I have often wondered if you eliminated named classes and just allow players to build exactly their personal concepts using a point system for everything, that would solve certain issues.
A good save costs x amount of points; you begin character creation with x amount of points to buy features, proficiencies, save types, BaB type, and so on.
At every level, the character receives x amount of points to buy another feat, feature, proficiency.Just spitballing...
That's an interesting idea, though I'm not sure there's much of a fan-gap between 'class-based fans' and 'total point-buy fans.' The 2e DMG has guidelines for building custom classes using a point buy system, but honestly, I'm only just now remembering it because your post reminded me of it. Never heard of anybody actually using them, and IIRC, I don't think any of the 2e classes actually adhere to the guidelines.
Personally I think that the great potential of 3e-style multiclassing is that Beer n' Preztels Joe can spend ten minutes making Mak the 3rd level fighter, and just keep adding fighter levels as the campaign progresses; while Roleplayer-Chargenner Art can spend an hour carefully crafting Manduthalas id Karth-en the fighter 1/wizard 1/rogue 1, and level up as appropriate to Manduthalas' experiences in game. I think it's a very elegant compromise between a pure class-based and a pure point-buy system. In hypothesis.
The problem so far has been the execution. I think PF is better than 3.0 and 3.5 for rewarding players who stick with favored classes rather than punishing those who break tradition. (Or who don't have the system mastery to level-build and PrC around tradition.) But there's still the front-loading of martial classes, the fact that multiclassing a caster is insanity without a full-caster-level PrC, and the extra step of adding hit point carrots and/or favored class bennies at each and every level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder actually does cap ability scores. It just does so implicitly using typed bonuses, which is a much more elegant solution than hard-capping.Yeah, this is one of my big turnoffs with 5e. If you don't want arbitrarily-inflating stats -- which I don't -- don't have level-based bonuses, enhancement bonuses, inherent bonuses, AND whatever else. Think through what you want stats to look like as levels progress, where you want them to stop, and design the bonuses and sources such that PCs can't go higher.
Exactly. 5th Edition's hard-cap is lazy design that conjures the illusion of balance when it actually creates new problems and establishes a design space that encourages power creep.
To me, there's no doubt Paizo needs to streamline and update the rules of the game. I know several people think the same.
This thread is not for debating whether or not this should happen, as we have an active thread dedicated to that purpose already.
This thread is for debating what rule changes you'd like to see if it happens.
Character Rules
- Cap ability score growth. Endlessly stackable attributes create balance issues.
- Make clear bonus/penalty stacking rules. Right now, there are an unlimited amount of bonuses you can receive. If these are restricted to a few types, then it makes for more predictable balance, particularly in regards to wealth balancing with tons of equipment and skill bonuses.
Combat Rules
- Remove full-attacks. Allow movement to be a part of combat for martial classes. Maybe some boost can be given for Steady Engagement (attacking without moving), but it shouldn't be so major so as to cripple classes that rely on getting several attacks out.
- Remove the swift/immediate action paradigm. It has memory issues, confusing interactions and is needlessly complicated.
- Revamp combat maneuvers. The rules baggage is extremely hard to learn, they are very hard to apply to an encounter naturally, and include major restrictions that make them increasingly futile.
- Add a self-contained set of attack options. Nothing too complex, but things like recklessly attacking or defensively attacking should be available to anyone with some combat training.
- Balance STR and DEX as main options for combat from the get-go. I'm of one mind that DEX-to-damage is a mistake for Pathfinder, but if it is appropriately applied, I could see it having a place in Pathfinder 2.0.
- Make mundane healing simpler and have it scale more powerfully so that out-of-combat magical healing is not a necessity. In-combat healing can remain a niche of the Divine classes.
Skill
...
With a couple of tiny quibbles on certain details (not really worth mentioning), I agree completely with this list. These are almost exactly the things I have identified as most in need of development.
-Cheers
I would like to see ALL of the martial classes have a damage table similar to the Brawler/Monk/Warpriest's Damage Table. With a fair, consistent, and expandable methods of selecting what weapons said damage table applies to. A Warpriest's ability to define a sacred weapon by taking weapon focus with it is a good example.
Every one of Cantriped's points is spot on, but this one is a great idea. Combine this with the very common call to get rid of iterative attacks, and the less common call for "describe-your-own-weapon". Add in special options for your attacks, similar to sneak attack feats, that enhance the attack with special effects requiring saves.
This would go a long way toward making martial actions more interesting, and also address balancing martial combat with spell combat.
Yeah, I'll echo @Chess Pwn and @Cantriped --
It would be great to see an editorial standard for feature writing.
For example, if you have a feature that grants access to a talent pool (like Rogue Talents), it should note whether it interacts with Extra Talent feats.
I want to see, not only keyword proliferation (pos/neg energy effects, I'm looking at you), but also bullet points. Lots of bullet points. Nearly all the rules are buried in HUGE swaths of conversational text walls. Lower word counts, and calling out the main points in charts and bullet pointed highlights, with minimal clear explanatory text, would go a long way toward making the game run faster, and be approachable for newer players and GMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Elimination of multiclassing and prestige classes. Instead, focus on archetypes that incorporate features from other classes, and take a cue from the VMC system and develop feat style options for working in new class features.
I would take the opposite approach. Have fewer, more adaptable, classes with many options to build your vision. Then, give multiclassing better support within this framework, so your diverse abilities scale properly with level.
[Edit]...but that is because I always wanted multiclassing, since 1st Ed, to WORK.
Your approach is just as viable, with a well revamped VMC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just go play a different game. Trolls and Tunnels. Swords and Wizardry. D&D 5E. Take your pick. Pathfinder is not for you if you want it to be a different game.Frankly, that's silly. Pathfinder is a different game every month than it was the month before. Having an idea about "what changes you would like to see" is only natural. I mean, this is literally the house rule forum and what is a "house rule" but "make the game different somehow because you like it better this way."
I mean, they literally published a hardback with the premise "here's a direction we could take the game in if we just forgot about back compatibility, so enjoy it as optional rules."
Not to mention, Pathfinder itself is the FIFTH iteration of "I prefer this way" since OD&D...1st Ed AD&D, 2nd Ed., 3rd Ed., 3.5, and finally Pathfinder Core Rulebook...but then every hardback has added more refinement and options since. So...
Elimination of multiclassing and prestige classes. Instead, focus on archetypes that incorporate features from other classes, and take a cue from the VMC system and develop feat style options for working in new class features.I would take the opposite approach. Have fewer, more adaptable, classes with many options to build your vision. Then, give multiclassing better support within this framework, so your diverse abilities scale properly with level.
[Edit]...but that is because I always wanted multiclassing, since 1st Ed, to WORK.
Multiclassing is one of D&D's enduring frustrations, isn't it?
The game started with what, the fighting-man and the magic-user, a very simple and rigid class system. But very quickly, players obviously wanted to start mixing and matching, and then came all the later classes -- most of which are somebody's quirky setting-specific mish-mashes of literary inspirations and odd mechanics. Even one of the big Classic Four is a strange mish-mash of a knight templar and Van Helsing, and is essentially the first gish class, combining a Christian miracle-themed spell list and fighting capability restricted by a medieval Christian historical oddity concerning the "you will not spill blood" injunction. And because that somebody was Gary Gygax, we still have the cleric class in every PHB, rather than a dedicated and truly deity-versatile priest class, which can be MCed with the fighter if one wants a divine gish type character.
And not a single edition has done MCing really well, IMO. I like 3e-style MCing best in concept; I like 4e MCing best in execution. But a really well done, through and through MC system still eludes D&D.
Anyhow, yeah, your vision sounds a lot like mine. Fewer and more adaptable classes that can be molded into a variety of concepts and be freely MCed into and out of, in order to create character- and setting-specific combinations. Written well enough so that OP and UP combos are a non-issue, ideally.
I don't like multi-classing (and I especially dislike "dipping") but probably allowing it to be accomplished *somehow* is better than trying to create archetypes for every single combination of two classes, particularly if Pathfinder is going to keep "there are dozens of classes" as part of its identity.
Probably some kind of expanded VMC-like system where you can trade class features for different features of a different class would work, though.
|
Good point on the multiclass trouble points.
So, if instead of getting 3-5 core class features right at first level, if instead 2 class abilities for the first three (or so) levels was the distribution, with later levels adding at most 1 class feature and building off the early one, you think this would better facilitate meaningful multiclassing in the d20 system?
Example:
Barbarian
1 - Fast Movement, Power Attack
2 - Rage, Rage Power
3 - Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense
4 - Rage Power
5 - Improved Uncanny Dodge
6 - Rage Power
7 - Damage Reduction
...