| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the playtest is still several months away from being public, this might be a good time to just list hopes and fears for the playtest ahead of time in a little game I like to call "Please do this, Please don't do that". I'll start.
Please do this:
Cut down on feat taxes, so people don't have to dedicate half of their feats to do one thing.
Condense and significantly simplify all the fiddly rules that nobody really uses often enough to commit to memory but happens often enough to be a pain, like breaking/bursting objects and object hardness/HP, environmental/falling damage and strange interactions, the swim and fly rules, etc.
Remove or fix trap options. If someone wants to be the best gosh darn crossbowman there ever was he shouldn't be locked into a single option that still functions worse than a regular person with a bow.
Bring back Wordcasting. It's a pipedream, but I can still hope.
Please don't do that:
Completely remove options, either by just not printing them or writing the rules in such a way that old feats and options are completely incompatible with the new edition.
Make martial characters moderately good at a single thing at the cost of being able to do anything else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will they replace traits with Themes?
Since they are going with 10th level spells, they sadly are not going the Technomacher/Mystic route. :(
Will the art changes de-"sexualize" Seoni & Amiri? (I hope not!)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of pipedreams, here's a big one. Please follow Starfinder's shining example and make alignment a completely optional part of the game, such that players that simply don't buy into the notion that being lawful or chaotic or some other specific combination as being integral or even peripherally related to having a character who has abilities best represented by the Monk or Barbarian or Paladin classes don't have to fight an uphill battle to play their heroic characters alongside other Pathfinder players.
Spending a Saturday afternoon playing a fantasy RPG simply shouldn't be an exercise in exiling other players for badwrongfun character concepts any longer (it never needed to be the case in the first place, but here's an opportunity to nip that awful practice in the bud once and for all).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please do this
Ensure that trample and mounted combat (to name but two) work and are clear.
If re-balancing martial/casters - tend more to bringing martials up to caster levels of versatility, rather than limiting casters.
please don't do that
Remove the capacity for multiple attacks of opportunity.
Well, although I've already voiced my opinion of not wanting to switch editions, here is one thing that would be a pro for switching for me. Get rid of alignment. That is one thing that has always bugged me about this game. Morality is a subjective thing, and having objective rules for it bugs me to no end.
EDIT: It appears Tectorman beat me to it. When I opened this tab there were no replies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This: Keep it backwards compatible.
Starfinder isn't. 2.0 won't be.
That: Done.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This: Keep alignment as an important mechanic. It feels like a core of the setting, and an important one at that.
That: Make alignment like in Starfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that alignment will cause debates is a constant in D&D and D&D-esque games.
At the end of the day, I've never seen a person who plays a non-D&D game sorely ache for alignment, so I'm skeptical it's core in any way or for any reason except tradition.
I suppose they'll have to use surveys to tell.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't:
Nerf the power of spells. If we're going up to 10th level, I don't want that to be the same power as that of a 6th level is in 1st edition.
Completely remove prepared casters. There's something about the idea of the old, wise wizard who has a trick up his sleeve for just about everything, if he has time to plan. Go the Arcanist route if nothing else, but leave a spot for the incredibly powerful, but very niche, spells.
Make monster/NPC creation like Starfinder. The joy of TTRPGs is that everything- from the greatest archmage to the lowliest thief- runs on the same rules and can do, to an extent, the same things.
Make ability scores work like they do in SF- it can be fun to try and figure out how to make your wizard smarter than everyone in the room combined, or your fighter to have the literal strength of a giant
Please:
Give martials more to do- make more in-combat options, more ways to be epic and cinematic moments inside the second-to-second combat. Let wizards warp the world during downtime. Let fighters smash the ground during combat.
Make it easier for martials to get going- i.e. remove feat taxes, make combat maneuvers more prolific and easy to execute
Keep it backwards compatible, at somewhat to the same extent as PF was to 3.5
Make skills something anyone can be good at, and let a character be skilled enough in stealth where using magic can only shallowly replicate what they do. Let a wizard turn invisible and sneak past the guards. Let the rogue hide and sneak past the dragon with ten million detection spells going.
Basically? When balancing the classes, bring martials UP to the level of Casters. DON'T bring DOWN to the level of martials. Let them do different things entirely, not the same thing two different ways.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that alignment will cause debates is a constant in D&D and D&D-esque games.
At the end of the day, I've never seen a person who plays a non-D&D game sorely ache for alignment, so I'm skeptical it's core in any way or for any reason except tradition.
I suppose they'll have to use surveys to tell.
It's interwoven into the Outer Planes, lots of aligned Outsiders, and the alignment detect/smite spells. Also, the Paladin (though making that any good would be fine with me), and Deities+Divine Casters.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please do this:
Talking familiars at level one. Not just one kind, all of them. This is fantasy; I was promised a talking cat.
Sorcerers that are at least passable at skills.
Class-specific archetypes. If I don't like something about a class, it'd be really nice to eventually have options for trading it out!
Please don't do this:
Unpopular opinion, but backwards compatibility. I would much rather have combat math, skills, and everything else be designed and balanced for fun/simplicity rather than designed and balanced to allow previous bestiaries to work. I have stacks of books I've purchased, and I'm cool with them being obsolete.
Starfinder archetype system. I think even a VMC deal would work better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will the art changes de-"sexualize" Seoni & Amiri? (I hope not!)
Actually, scratch that.
Make Seoni's art more like a historical Romani woman - which can still be very sexy.
Same with Amiri.
Also:
Please KILL Touch AC!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please keep Alchemists what they are now-a ridiculously malleable class that you can build to do just about anything. Along with Bards, they've become pretty much THE jack of all trades class, with an enormous variety of build options that drastically change the base class. Please don't make them just a generic "blowing stuff up" class. Kind of going off of other people's fears about archetypes, I'm really worried that we're about to lose a lot of the Alchemist's versatility.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please do this:
Actually explain the poison rules.
Make abilities that call for a save worth using for people other than DC stacking specialists.
Even the playing field between martial and casters.
Support character concepts that didn't work well in Pathfinder (blasters, thrown weapon specialists, Jekyll and Hyde characters who don't have to have 20 Strength in Jekyll mode to be strong in Hyde mode) [EXTRA emphasis on this last one. Seriously.]
Include firearm rules in the core book. I don't use Pathfinder for sword-and-sorcery. I use it for musket-and-magic.
Please don't:
Make the core rules too setting specific. I like Golarion fine, but world-building is an important part of the game for both myself and my fellow players.
Make monsters and PCs use different rules. I want to be able to become a lich and have the same abilities as my NPC counterpart.
I want to be able to make a character, and then have the GM use them without any issue as an NPC in a future campaign, who's not meaningfully different from other NPCs.
If I see an NPC use an interesting ability, I want to be able to pick up the feat or item that lets me use that same ability on my character. The same ability. Not something that's called the same thing but works differently for a PC than an NPC.
I'm ok with this in SF, but I wouldn't be ok with it if I didn't have Pathfinder where I could escape from it.
I'm sure I'll think of more things as I mull this over.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please get rid of two numbers to define abilities. Get rid of score and build everything off of modifier. It's such an easy way to streamline a character sheet and that's a very good thing for new players.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please make combat maneuvers fun and meaningful tactical options for combat characters.
Please do not make such combat maneuvers worthless unless you overspecialize them to crippling degree.
Please make crossbows and spears good again. I loved the Bolt Ace. There aren't any good options to make a spear wielder great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's interwoven into the Outer Planes, lots of aligned Outsiders, and the alignment detect/smite spells. Also, the Paladin (though making that any good would be fine with me), and Deities+Divine Casters.The fact that alignment will cause debates is a constant in D&D and D&D-esque games.
At the end of the day, I've never seen a person who plays a non-D&D game sorely ache for alignment, so I'm skeptical it's core in any way or for any reason except tradition.
I suppose they'll have to use surveys to tell.
So? The Greeks had Planes which didn't require alignment. Angels and Demons in fictions easily convey their identity without alignment. Paradise Lost was written successfully without alignment. So was Faust.
Alignment doesn't exist in The Strange, which has many planes. It doesn't exist in Tales from the Loop, which has at least a few Outsider equivalents.
It's really habit and tradition and the tropes which cause folks to so desperately claim that it's necessary.
Alignment was originally conceived from Three Hearts and Three Lions, before any of this planar stuff existed. And that's fine. But if a modern game doesn't pay tribute to that book, then to me, that's good riddance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So? The Greeks had Planes which didn't require alignment. Angels and Demons in fictions easily convey their identity without alignment. Paradise Lost was written successfully without alignment. So was Faust.
Not completely true. All those stories do require a basic understanding of Good and Evil.
The Outer Planes and Outsiders *Of Pathfinder*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Outer Planes and Outsiders *Of Pathfinder*
Right. And I'd contest that "if you strip away alignment you can still have a basic understanding of good and evil, and thus generate a meaningful roleplaying experience."
We don't suddenly lose our ability to understand morals when the gameworld's magical planes lose their labels.
I think it'd be fine and completely healthy without alignment, as again evidenced by everything I've mentioned above.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be 100% for a Pathfinder 2nd Edition that didn't depend on alignment. I'm fine with Evil-Aligned or Lawful-Aligned planes and outsiders/immortals that have Alignment built into them, but don't make paladins/clerics/spells etc. entirely specialized/dependent on them. Let the paladins keep their smite against opponents, and various protection spells still work as defensive measures against opponents, but let them work against all (or mostly all) opponents. Sure, let them work better against opponents with the Evil* baked in, like outsiders made of an Aligned-plane, or some forms of undead.
A paladin or cleric or whomever can still face consequences for breaking their order's/diety's strictures or oaths they've made.
Keep alignment and Alignment, evil and Evil, as separate things.
(* or Law or Chaos or Good)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please do this:
Limit shut-things-down-entirely abilities, at least for PCs. True Seeing gets rid of illusion, and Mind Blank gets rid of divination. Protection From Evil is a first level spell that completely stops eighth level spells. I'm okay with angels getting very strong protections against evil spells, or certain creature types being able to pierce illusions, but it's better if PCs and similar NPCs don't have access to stuff-busting abilities.
More even treatment of alignments and outsider types! Since the whole thing is resetting, it would be really nice if a daemon-summoning character wasn't at a huge disadvantage to a demon-summoning character because Summon Monster was set at the beginning. I get that demons might be more common, but it's really nice for characters to have flexibility in their choices.
Fix paladin's intra-party issues and generally lighten up alignment restrictions on classes. Wow would it be nice to not have to worry about whether the paladin is going to throw the game off.
Let evil get built-in healing too, even if it's just selfish healing.
Have a great time. Congrats on developing 2.0, and thanks for all the hard work! I look forward to the playtest.
Please don't do this:
Ditch alignment entirely. I'm fine with it playing less of a role, but the aligned planes are a nice element, and I'm rather fond of categorizing my characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please keep alignment relevant to the game. I hate how everyone is trying to scrub alignments out, they are an important part of D&D and should remain an important part of Pathfinder. I want them MORE relevant than they were in Pathfinder. Keep Paladins Lawful Good.
Also - Please scrap the Proficiency System... That is exactly what you described for skills... I LIKE putting points in my skills as I level. I don't want to have my skill points spent for me.
Alignment was important when it was just the Law vs. Chaos linear axis, when Paladins were effectively a prestige class rather than a normal class, and when you would transition from Paladin to fighter if you didn't act Lawful, or from Antipaladin (in supplements) to fighter if you didn't act Chaotic.
Alignment was important when alignment languages mattered (those are gone?), when alignment impacted reaction rolls (those are gone?), and even then, the law vs. chaos didn't like, really impact behavior, right. They existed as a way of influencing which followers/hirelings you could nab (this is also minimized in modern games).
The only behavioral prescription they had was for druids and paladins, and even then, it was fairly loose. In the B/X conception, the biggest restriction to being a paladin was the low rolls you had, not the alignment. Once you got the rolls, alignment only mattered if you violated your precepts utterly (which you can do without alignment). The restriction on druids was you'd be removed from the Order...and I haven't seen a Druidic Order that a druid was supposed to report to ever, in Pathfinder or D&D 5e.
Like, if you want those back, or some variant of those things, then sure. Alignment is great.
But which of those do you want back? And why? Or, if not those things, why not, since those were more fundamental to its implementation?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please do this:
Limit shut-things-down-entirely abilities, at least for PCs. True Seeing gets rid of illusion, and Mind Blank gets rid of divination. Protection From Evil is a first level spell that completely stops eighth level spells. I'm okay with angels getting very strong protections against evil spells, or certain creature types being able to pierce illusions, but it's better if PCs and similar NPCs don't have access to stuff-busting abilities.
And please, no more detect magic cantrip shutting down 2nd-level invisibility.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please DO
-Make non-casting classes be able to do awesome thing comparable to the things the magic-users of the same level are doing.
-Keep alignment
-Put anitpaladins in the core as an archetype/alternate class. And give them a better name.
-Make paladins Any Good and antipallies Any Evil
-Keep skill points.
-Keep multiclassing the same
-Make PCs, NPCs, and monsters continue working off the same basic rules. It never makes sense when you have to use 2 different rulesets to make Bob the pc fighter and Bob the npc constable.
-Redo prestige class entry requirements for those that need it, like the Mystic Theurge.
-Update the PRD before you switch systems. Please?
-tie max spell level to bab/hit die. no more 3/4 bab, d8, 9th level casters please
-Make access to the highest spell level for your class a thing you get at level 20.
-have a clear separation of rules text and flavor text
Please DON'T
-Use a skill/save proficiency system similar to how 4th/5th ed D&D have it. It's honestly pretty lame and doesn't let me properly diversify nor specialize my talents.
-Release any rules material for pathfinder 1.0 within a certain period (say 6 months for arguments' sake) before the release of 2.0. It would kind of stink to get a fancy new rule book only to have it be "invalidated" 2-3 months later. Adventure paths are fine though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't let the assumptions of Golarion's setting limit what the rules support. I couldn't easily run my old west style campaigns if Pathfinder didn't have rules for widespread firearms. I'm not super worried about this thanks to Golarion's kitchen-sink fantasy setting, though.
This might be kinda controversial, but Don't focus on making all classes and options perfectly balanced against each other. Too much balance makes for a boring RPG. Sometimes an option is a little suboptimal or high-powered, and that's OK. As long as those things don't end up in a "never use" or "always use" category, as tends to happen currently.
Do let Mark Seifter check all your math.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please keep alignment relevant to the game. I hate how everyone is trying to scrub alignments out, they are an important part of D&D and should remain an important part of Pathfinder. I want them MORE relevant than they were in Pathfinder. Keep Paladins Lawful Good.
Also - Please scrap the Proficiency System... That is exactly what you described for skills... I LIKE putting points in my skills as I level. I don't want to have my skill points spent for me.
How does this not boil down to “If any class can be played however the player wants, then I can still play my Paladin the way I want to, but I can only enjoy playing my Paladin my way when other players can’t play their Paladins their way”?
Because I have never, no, not once wanted HWalsh to not be able to play his Paladin characters his way. He absolutely without question should be able to sit down at any Pathfinder/D&D/what-have-you game expecting to play a lawful good code-of-conduct-abiding shining beacon of honor if that’s what he thinks a Paladin should be without dreading a slog of an argument whether his beloved character concept is badwrongfun or not. And I will never understand why that courtesy, that basic human decency, should not go both ways. Why is the core identity of the Paladin, allegedly a character archetype inspired by humanity’s very best, contingent on this need for some players to be able to say, essentially, “Neener-neener”?
Because I have never, no, not once wanted HWalsh to not be able to play his Paladin characters his way.
:p
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PLEASE DO
1. Make it easier to tell the kinds of SWORDS & SORCERY stories you want to tell. (Not the gonzo power-gamer's dream stories, TYVM.)
2. Streamline character creation to make it easier for new players to pick up the game.
3. FLATTEN THE MATH
4. REMOVE STAT BOOSTER ITEMS
5. Improve the game.
6. Clarify the game language.
7. Reallocate spells to more appropriate levels/tiers. I don't care if it was a 3rd level spell since 1e; it was broken at that level then as well.
8. Have different "game tiers" - encounter/exploration/downtime
9. Eliminate, once and for all, the Christmas-Tree-Effect
10. Make movement-in-combat and combat maneuvers viable & essential elements of combat.
PLEASE DON'T
1. Increase the PC power level (again)
2. Decrease character customization. Especially with archetypes. (Really, Valeros & Harsk have to change weapons to better "represent" the new class?)
3. Have NPCs use different rules than PCs. However, it's ok to do it to monsters.
4. Nerf/consolidate skills. Proficiencies SUCKED in 2e, btw.
5. 10th-level spells. You REALLY think magic needs another boost in this game?!?
6. Sacrifice immersion/in-world consistency for gamism
7. "Fix" the martial/caster imbalance by embracing WUXIA for martials at all levels. If you have to mix in some Mythic at the higher levels, I don't like it, but levels 1-15 better look like Conan and not Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
8. Change your PDF policy or Hero Lab licensing.
9. Try to be "5e but different"; I apologize for even implying it but I'm already seeing posters "seeing" that result and praising it.
10. Make the Fast XP/Zero-to-demigod-in-6 weeks track the baseline progression track.
PLEASE DON'T
5. 10th-level spells. You REALLY think magic needs another boost in this game?!?
I 100% agree. I would have prefered something closer to the Technomacer & Mystic. Six spell levels allows for more class abilities, which can make different kinds of Arcanists (sorcerers, bards, wizards, etc) more distinct.
Alas, since it has been publically anounced, 10th level spells may already be hard coded in - not to be changed by the playtest results.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm back:
Please:
Give us lots of interesting feats that people actually want to use. We don't need a million feats that give us a +3 to tracking deer through a forest within an hour of a rainstorm. Give us ten feats we do want, not a hundred that we don't.
Keep Martials, Casters, and Skilled characters distinct. Let Martials be the ones that dominate in combat, let Casters be the ones open a hole in the wall to the BBEG's lair, and let the Skilled character sneak past the dragon to win over the guard.
Please don't:
Remove bonus types. If I wanted advantage/disadvantage, I'd be playing 5e. When I'm playing PF, I want the fact I have the high ground to not cancel out/make redundant the potion I drank to increase my combat prowess.
Give us skill proficiencies. What if I want my wizard to have had a background as a smith? I don't want to have to burn a 'proficiency' that improves over time. I want to put a single rank in it at character creation and have it not affect anything else for the rest of the campaigns (Backgrounds that give skill bonuses are also NOT what I want)
More to come, I'm sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please DON'T
-Use a skill/save proficiency system similar to how 4th/5th ed D&D have it. It's honestly pretty lame and doesn't let me properly diversify nor specialize my talents.
Per the FAQ, too late.
All of the varied systems and formulas for determining your character's bonuses and statistics, like saving throws, attack bonuses, and skills, have been unified in a single, easy-to-use proficiency system based on your choices and your character's level.
Not happy about this. If I want to play 5e, I can go play 5e. I don't need PF to make a clone.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Please do:
Condense the bonus types in the game. I like having them, but there's too many that can stack which leads to some crazy high bonuses. Also, don't allow untyped bonuses that stack with everything, or dodge bonuses that stack indefinitely. Circumstance bonuses should be the only type that stacks with itself.
Make shields an equally good choice as two weapon fighting or two-handed fighting, without simply making shield bashes and effectively being a two weapon fighter.
Make paladins a prestige class. Any martial character should be able to be recognize a calling to become a paladin, as well as clerics who want to be more martial (or any class, but those would be the most likely suspects.)
Make magic item crafting a non-automatic success. Don't have an issue with creating a basic item pretty reliable, but being able to layer on multiple increases and still automatically make it work makes it trivial rather than wondrous. I'd rather it work so that if you know all of the required spells and don't rush you can make the item automatically, but once you start skipping requirements there be an actual chance of failure.
Slow down the production schedule of books after the core rulebook. I'd love to have just 2 hardcover rulebooks a year, and use the 3rd hardcover slot in the schedule for starfinder. With some of the best concepts of the past 10 years baked into 2E, there shouldn't be as much need to churn out as much new stuff quite so fast, and it would give a bit more time to digest new material before the next new things hits. I'd also prefer to have player companions go back to their original 6/year schedule for the same reasons.
Please don't:
Entirely remove enhancement buffs/items/spells, etc. It's great to remove the need to have every single +1 item to stack upon themselves, but don't swing the pendulum so much that the game doesn't have spells to increase your strength or dexterity and have it impact things. Logically those types of spells and items need to exist, just find a way to have them not stack with every other bonus out there (see above request to reduce the bonus types).
Use separate systems for NPC/monsters as PCs. Even if a monster isn't good at it, I want to know how good they are at bluffing (as well as tweak it using the same skill system PCs use to make an exception that is good at bluffing at the expense of some other skill), since it comes up. Completely fine to have special abilities PCs don't such as breath weapons for dragons, petrification gazes for medusas etc, but if a monster trips, it should use the same rules as when a PC trips.
Require attack rolls for magic missiles
Have spells that "can be cast with 1-3 actions" that don't do anything different than casting them three times as one action. If magic missile cast as 1 action creates one missile, then using 2 actions should get 3 missiles and 3 actions should get 5 missiles (or something to that effect). Otherwise you're effectively making it a 1-action spell, and you can simply choose how many actions you want to use for it, just like an attack with a sword using 1 action.
Let spellcraft automatically pierce illusions. Let illusions have default "identified by spellcraft alternative", so your silent image might be identified as a summon monster I unless your spellcraft beats the DC by 10 or so.
Have spells that "can be cast with 1-3 actions" that don't do anything different than casting them three times as one action. If magic missile cast as 1 action creates one missile, then using 2 actions should get 3 missiles and 3 actions should get 5 missiles (or something to that effect). Otherwise you're effectively making it a 1-action spell, and you can simply choose how many actions you want to use for it, just like an attack with a sword using 1 action.
… Well, I think the difference is that if you cast the three-action version, you get three missiles with one spell, rather than three missiles with three spells. Making it five missiles instead just makes the difference in efficiency too much, I would think. Does seem like it'd hold true for cantrips, though.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please do:
Have magic items scale DCs by default so they're actually useful. All magic items should work like staves and use the character's ability score or level or something to make them relevant longer. Too many 1E items are barely useful with the built in low DCs when you can afford them, and they quickly become obsolete with static DCs.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Have spells that "can be cast with 1-3 actions" that don't do anything different than casting them three times as one action. If magic missile cast as 1 action creates one missile, then using 2 actions should get 3 missiles and 3 actions should get 5 missiles (or something to that effect). Otherwise you're effectively making it a 1-action spell, and you can simply choose how many actions you want to use for it, just like an attack with a sword using 1 action.… Well, I think the difference is that if you cast the three-action version, you get three missiles with one spell, rather than three missiles with three spells. Making it five missiles instead just makes the difference in efficiency too much, I would think. Does seem like it'd hold true for cantrips, though.
Could be. In which case it's not so much of an issue as I thought. However, after reading the scaling of 1-3 actions for channel energy in the podcast summary, it seems like that example suggests the more actions, the more you get beyond linear scaling.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please give Clerics more skills/level. please. please please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PLEASE DON'T
2. Decrease character customization. Especially with archetypes. (Really, Valeros & Harsk have to change weapons to better "represent" the new class?)
They're changing up the iconics because the original iconics looked awesome, but Harsk and Valeros were not really good at their jobs. Harsk is still notorious in the PFS community for this reason. Changing up the equipment of the iconics lets you highlight through book art what effective builds are. Other classes exemplify this in their iconic artwork, from Sajan having weapons that aren't unarmed strike to Imrijka being an archer.
The more sensible to Pathfinder as played Iconics are, the better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please do:
Have the gameplay match the fluff in that a “build” is the means by which a player combines the elements of the game to match his concept as closely as possible, rather than as a means of exploiting the artifacts of the game. I.e., in all of human literature, how many characters are what you would call an “ubercharger”? Now how many 3.X/Pathfinder martial characters are built with that sort of ability set? I’d never even heard of that word until I’d started playing this game. Or “rage-cycling”? Rage-driven Barbarian characters, sure, but ones that drop in and out of rage to exploit a rules technicality? What novel series is that from? Ugh.
Different but related, I don’t know how defenses are going to work in P2E, but it annoyed me to no end that Reflex saves and Touch AC both represent you avoiding harm by dodging, but depending on the specific mechanics of whatever incoming harm you might be facing, you might be really good at dodging one kind (a high Touch AC) only to be poor at dodging the other kind (sucky Reflex saves). Or vice versa. They both represent dodging. Why the disconnect?
Related to that, I’ve also never liked how your inherent AC never goes up. You got a better and better attack bonus as you leveled up, but it seems like all you did defensively is learn to dodge to the left and never improve beyond that (outside of equipment and Christmas tree magic item defenses). Instead, we’re supposed to go through the mental contortions of re-envisioning our increased hit points as our improved ability to dodge or some such. The Constitution modifier is what governs how well you can avoid a hit? Really?
Different but related, I don’t know how defenses are going to work in P2E, but it annoyed me to no end that Reflex saves and Touch AC both represent you avoiding harm by dodging, but depending on the specific mechanics of whatever incoming harm you might be facing, you might be really good at dodging one kind (a high Touch AC) only to be poor at dodging the other kind (sucky Reflex saves). Or vice versa. They both represent dodging. Why the disconnect?
That's one thing I felt the Star Wars SAGA rpg got right.
PLEASE DON'T
2. Decrease character customization. Especially with archetypes. (Really, Valeros & Harsk have to change weapons to better "represent" the new class?)
They're changing up the iconics because the original iconics looked awesome, but Harsk and Valeros were not really good at their jobs. Harsk is still notorious in the PFS community for this reason. Changing up the equipment of the iconics lets you highlight through book art what effective builds are. Other classes exemplify this in their iconic artwork, from Sajan having weapons that aren't unarmed strike to Imrijka being an archer.
The more sensible to Pathfinder as played Iconics are, the better.
Wouldn't it be better to fix that by having the current iconic fighting styles be effective under P2E rules?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please do: Make Save Or X spells a bit less absolute.
Instead of "Either you win the battle immediately, or you waste your turn and your spell slot," make it, say, "Either the enemy takes some damage and is blinded for one round, or the enemy takes a half damage and is not blinded".