Please This, Not That

[Matthew Downie]

Please do: Create some interesting feat (or feat-like) options to make level 1 characters of the same class vary widely in interesting ways. This would at least be something that D&D5E doesn't have.

[GreyWolfLord]

A short list of thoughts

Please Don't

1. Do a 5E ism on us where you give Fighters and Wizards the same BAB per level.

2. Get rid of multiple attacks. If anything, a nice thing to even out martials with casters it to make them ALL made at their top Attack Bonus with it just being an action instead of a Full Action

3. Get rid of Prestige classes

Please Do

1. Make it simpler and easier to make characters quickly

2. Get rid of Trap Options as much

3. Make higher level monsters easier to make

4. Have backwards compatibility

5. Have PF fun to play at all levels, including HIGH levels (even for PFS) all the way up to lvl 20.

6. Keep Archetypes and multiclassing.

[Kerrilyn]

Please do:
- Make Combat Healing effective before Heal and Mass Heal.

Please don't:
- Make everybody able to do everything. Why bother having classes if everybody can do anything? Make sure everybody has something to do, and nobody can do it all.

Arutema wrote:

Please do:

* If NPCs are to be built differently than PCs, have them at least similar in statistics to a similarly-leveled PC.

Please don't:
* Give NPCs absurd accuracy bonuses just for being NPCs, as Starfinder did.

We spent a good 30 minutes during our last Starfinder campaign (Incident at Absalom Station) trying to figure out why NPCs were getting +2 to damage at level 1. They weren't even monsters, just humans and stuffs with guns. Our DM gave up and said, "a Paizo did it!" at the end.

[HWalsh]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

2. Get rid of multiple attacks. If anything, a nice thing to even out martials with casters it to make them ALL made at their top Attack Bonus with it just being an action instead of a Full Action

The new system does away with full actions, standard actions, move actions, and swift actions.

Each character gets 3 actions per turn.

Move? It's an action.
Attack? It's an action?
Draw a weapon? Action.

So a fighter with a drawn weapon at level 1 can move and attack twice. Granted the second attack has a -5 penalty.

A Spellcaster wants to cast a spell with a V and S component?

Using a verbal component? Action.
Using a somatic component? Action.

V, S, M? All three actions.

[Swordwhale]

Good idea. Sure hope the devs take a good look at all those ideas mentioned in this thread.

Please DO:
- Keep Archetypes, even increase the amount changed to enable the Archetype's mechanic and fluff
- Getting rid of magic items buffing stats is GOOD
- Remove Feat Taxes (Traps) and ensure that each Feat feels good, powerful and important rather than: "Oh I need X to get access to Y in seven level". This is seriously bad for new players.
- Acknowledge the existence of Dex vs Str martials and make them work different without Feat Taxing one of them
- Combat Maneuvers should be combat options doable and exiting WITHOUT ANY Feat investment
- Have a look at Feat Taxes. They put up a nice distinction of STR-based and DEX-based combat maneuevers. Something like that can REALLY help to differentiate between STR and DEX builds.
- Conversion Guide or something like a "Create your own Archetype" System would be highly appreciated
- Offer more flexibility to the Class Progression to fit different play styles / archetypes
- Get rid of prepared casters, at least mostly. that's really one of the most difficult thing to teach new players. I play PF for 6 years now and I still don't like it. Just too much hastle and bookkeeping and anger because you still picked the wrong spell for the day...
- Ensure Casters have interesting options in Combat once their flashy spells are dry or the combat just isn't worth it (at-will dmg spells like 'Blast' from the Kineticist) WITHOUT overshadowing martial damage
- Ensure that each class is getting something actually interesting at each level
- Put effort into CLEAR rules for Combat Maneuvers, Mounted-Combat (as well as for flying) and poisons (please make them usable regularly and meaningful)
- Make Sword&Board and Polearm builds meaningful and competitive without forcing one to have an INCREDIBLE amount of feats
- Remove skills/feats/class abilities that force the player to use one particular weapon FOREVER or loose much of their 'cool' abilities (no more 'Weapon Focus: Kukri' but 'Weapon Focus: Short Knives', similar to fighter weapon groups
- Merge seldom used skills (Climb&Swim could become Athletics, ...) and implement the background skill system from Unchained into Core.2
- Keep teamwork Feats. They are awesome! Add more ways to get them for martial classes (beside Feats) so they become more widespread.

Please Don't
- Oversimplify things: Nothing against streamlining rules and bonuses, but we're here because we like some depth in our system. Otherwise we'd be playing 5e or some WoD
- Use another system for monsters than for players. It'd be hell for us GMs. Rather provide pre-made stat blocks for monsters of different CR ordered by encounter type: 'Martial', 'Ranged', 'Blaster', 'Trickster' plus a couple of rules for SLAs/Spells per Level (and of course Bestiary-Books)
- Kill multiple AoOs per round. I like Defender builds and they don't work without those!
- Copy&Paste Weapon stats and have a review. There are many clearly superior weapons out there. I'd love some kind of weapon-depending special combat options, similar to the way Dark Souls is handling weapon special attacks. That way you can clearly distinct weapons and give them use, beside simply comparing their damage, crit rating and threat range...

[Brew Bird]

Please do make physical books worth buying. I stopped buying hardcover PF books a while ago, since a fair bit (or at least enough to bother me) is broken on arrival and has to get fixed in errata, or is never fixed at all. I came real close to stopping my Starfinder subscription for the same reasons (though so far, barring the huge oversight with Starship combat DCs, I've been much happier).

Please do listen to the playtest feedback. I can think of a couple of problems in Pathfinder books that were caught in the playtest, but still made it into the finished product.

Also, I know this is a longshot, but can we the community try our best to not be awful with our feedback? Devs shouldn't have to wade through abuse just to get playtest critique.

[CyberMephit]

Please remove the link between a monster's CR and its Knowledge DC to identify. The rules for identification should be part of a specific monster's stat block.

Please keep some form of mechanical benefits from in-world associations, even if they're not called Prestige Classes anymore.

Please make (more) feats scale with level to avoid long feat chains and have them more similar in power progression to spells.

Please add Inquisitor to the game as soon as you can.

Please let us experience existing content (especially APs) with the new rules.

Please make sure each PC gets at least one new cool thing to play with at each level, instead of just +1 to something (this was mostly observed in PF compared to the other game but not always).

Please make solo bad guys a viable threat against a group of players.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Swordwhale wrote:

Good idea. Sure hope the devs take a good look at all those ideas mentioned in this thread.

Please DO:
- Keep Archetypes, even increase the amount changed to enable the Archetype's mechanic and fluff
- Getting rid of magic items buffing stats is GOOD
- Remove Feat Taxes (Traps) and ensure that each Feat feels good, powerful and important rather than: "Oh I need X to get access to Y in seven level". This is seriously bad for new players.
- Acknowledge the existence of Dex vs Str martials and make them work different without Feat Taxing one of them
- Combat Maneuvers should be combat options doable and exiting WITHOUT ANY Feat investment
- Have a look at Feat Taxes. They put up a nice distinction of STR-based and DEX-based combat maneuevers. Something like that can REALLY help to differentiate between STR and DEX builds.
- Conversion Guide or something like a "Create your own Archetype" System would be highly appreciated
- Offer more flexibility to the Class Progression to fit different play styles / archetypes
- Get rid of prepared casters, at least mostly. that's really one of the most difficult thing to teach new players. I play PF for 6 years now and I still don't like it. Just too much hastle and bookkeeping and anger because you still picked the wrong spell for the day...
- Ensure Casters have interesting options in Combat once their flashy spells are dry or the combat just isn't worth it (at-will dmg spells like 'Blast' from the Kineticist) WITHOUT overshadowing martial damage
- Ensure that each class is getting something actually interesting at each level
- Put effort into CLEAR rules for Combat Maneuvers, Mounted-Combat (as well as for flying) and poisons (please make them usable regularly and meaningful)
- Make Sword&Board and Polearm builds meaningful and competitive without forcing one to have an INCREDIBLE amount of feats
- Remove skills/feats/class abilities that force the player to use one particular weapon...

I am amazed at how accurately this post reflects my own point of view.

I couldn't agree more. I'm literally 100% aligned with this.

Please, paizo. Listen.

[Matthew Downie]

Swordwhale wrote:

Good idea. Sure hope the devs take a good look at all those ideas mentioned in this thread.

I'm sure they will, and then they'll realise that people want opposite things. Prepared casters! No more prepared casters! Alignment! No more alignment! Make it like D&D 5E! But don't, because we already have D&D 5E! Make NPCs be simple and quick to run! But make them work exactly like PCs, and we need thousands of options for PCs! Make it backwards compatible, but completely different!

[Swordwhale]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Swordwhale wrote:

Good idea. Sure hope the devs take a good look at all those ideas mentioned in this thread.

I'm sure they will, and then they'll realise that people want opposite things. Prepared casters! No more prepared casters! Alignment! No more alignment! Make it like D&D 5E! But don't, because we already have D&D 5E! Make NPCs be simple and quick to run! But make them work exactly like PCs, and we need thousands of options for PCs! Make it backwards compatible, but completely different!

That true, as with all changes (just take a look into the feedback threads for the new paizo page).

But I trust them to filter out Trends and maybe provide options or let's say starting-points to enable/disable options that are very controversially discussed here.
But there are certainly many, many things the vast majority of us can agree upon (Combat meneuvers, feat taxes, trap options, rule clarification, ...)

To answer some of your mentioned topics directly:
- Alignment: Probably keep alignment mostly as-is, but provide hints for players/GMs of how to play without and how do handle the most pronounced alignment-dependent skills/effects/spells/classes
- Prepared Casters: Also likely that they will keep them, despite my own wish, but please add some hint or maybe even a complete optional system to allow people to play a wizard without the hastle of prepared spells. E.g. add a class feature for prepared-casters to switch a prepared spell with an unprepared with 'one action' (looking the spell up in their book). So they would prepare (or simply declare their favorites) and can still cast any of their known spells with a little delay for looking them up. This sounds really wizard-y for me
- NPC system. That's probably a very hard one. But I think they were on the right track in 1e already. Same system is a requirement for transparency, which is important for players. With some more Monster-Creation templates (per CR) and more detailed tactics section for each published monsters, I think they will hit a sweet spot.

[HWalsh]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Swordwhale wrote:

Good idea. Sure hope the devs take a good look at all those ideas mentioned in this thread.

I'm sure they will, and then they'll realise that people want opposite things. Prepared casters! No more prepared casters! Alignment! No more alignment! Make it like D&D 5E! But don't, because we already have D&D 5E! Make NPCs be simple and quick to run! But make them work exactly like PCs, and we need thousands of options for PCs! Make it backwards compatible, but completely different!

If they remove alignment... I'm out.

[Mekkis]

Please do:
Keep the skill-point system!
Playtest the classes at mid-high level (this was a big failing of 4e and 5e - I want a clear difference between a 10th level character and a 15th level character).
Make it an evolutionary change rather than a revolutionary one: Many people went with Pathfinder because of its backward compatibility with 3.5. Let's keep this going.
Keep prestige classes.

Please don't:
Overly prioritise balance over flexibility: I'm okay with there being some imbalance if it opens up options.
Use disparate rules for NPCs vs PCs. It might appear simpler, but it breaks immersion and causes frustration.

[Vidmaster7]

I learned today that no one wants the same thing.

(Edit: ok you got me I already knew that.)

[KapaaIan]

Please do these:

1. Straighten out "mental" ability scores. By a straight forward reading, Wisdom and Intelligence have lots of "flavor" overlap. And Charisma and Wisdom do too. Drop physical attractiveness from charisma completely and go to something like:

Wisdom: What you know.
Intelligence: What you can figure out.
Charisma: Force of Will.

Adjust casting stats accordingly (e.g. Druids should be Wisdom, Clerics Charisma)

2. Get away from alignment. This will fix a lot of immersion breaking spells (e.g. detect evil). Very few classes also really care about it as is. Classes that do depend on it (e.g. Paladin, Monk) can have mechanics specific to them placed in their class.

PLEASE DON'T DO THIS:

Don't nerf wizards (and other primary casters) too hard. I maintain that a perfectly played Wizard inherently SHOULD be the most powerful class by a fairly substantial margin. But a poorly played Wizard should be dead, and an average one maybe a bit below average. Make them harder to play, easier to die, but please please don't break logic and immersion to make all the classes like WOW.

I liken this to a quote (very paraphrased) I remember about the differences between a Dodge Viper and a Nissan GT-R. The GT-R almost anyone can get into and drive fast. It has safeties, it's fun, it is fast. Your grandma can do it. The Viper will straight up KILL you if don't know what you are doing. If you burn your leg getting into or out of it. If you screw it up, best case scenario you kill yourself. BUT, if you are able to drive it right, and massage it, and willing to learn it, you can put in times better than (at the time) anything else that is street legal.

[GM Rednal]

Please Do:

Ensure all the "base" versions of classes have a good distribution of Encounter, Exploration, and Downtime abilities. There's a place for the Fighter who only fights, but I think that sort of thing should be limited to archetypes.

[Windcaler]

Please do

1. Cut down on skills again. Pathfinder did this the first time to great success but I feel like more skills could be combined like dimplomacy, bluff, intimidate could all be rolled into one "Talky" skill

2. Cut down on the number of knowlege skills and have clear monster lore rules for the ones you do have

3. Increase the number of skill points all classes get or alternatively improve the class skill lists. Or both. Starfinder has the right balance IMO

4. Feat tax rules. Feats should be something that allow you to break/bend rules and do something awesome but as they are now many feats feel lackluster at best and to be really good at one thing you need 5+ feats related to that one thing

5. Add a lot of white necromancy options. Pathfinder had way to much focus on the death side of the arcane study of life and death.

Please dont

1. Remake the entire engine. 3.5, pathfinder, etc works fine IMO. Im not even sure we need a new edition so much as we need and updated Errata that fixes the most glaring issues like feat tax

[Dαedαlus]

Please do:
Leave classes with different levels of system mastery. If a brand-new player can pick up the core book and make a good fighter, that's fine. Just don't make that the case for every class. Make wizards with a lower power floor and a higher power ceiling.

Move conjuration (healing) spells to necromancy. Necromancy is supposedly the 'study of life and death,' but there's very little actual support for the 'life' part of that.

Polish what we have, not make something new. In 30 years, when we get PF 4e, it would be nice if someone who played 3.5 to be able to recognize the base game, but just have it be streamlined and smoothed out. To put it in woodworking terms, we already have a decent statue. 2e should sand and smooth what we have, not start carving something out entirely different.

Please don't:
Hyper-consolidate skills. Some things, like climb+swim, sure. But there is a very big difference between knowing how to bully/intimidate someone into talking and fast-talking yourself out of a sticky situation.

Remove the customization of PF. I don't want the entire game to be modular- plug in a race, class, background, and three proficiencies. I want to have alternate race traits, class-specific archetypes, the ability to choose each of my skill ranks, and figure out exactly how I want my character to play down to the nitty-gritty.

(and, because it bears mentioning again)
KEEP ARCHETYPES CLASS-SPECIFIC. Don't do them like in SF. If you do put on a 'plug into any class to change something' feature (but please don't), make them something else entirely. Make them special, too. Each archetype should allow you to focus on just what you want to, swapping out different class features to focus on one in particular. And don't make a 'one size fits all' archetype for (guns, psychic magic, nature stuff, etc.) A wizard archetype that uses guns should be RADICALLY different from the Fighter's, and different again from the Rogue. Let the wizard fire spells from the gun, and let the fighter pull off trick shots, and let the Rogue get bonuses to shooting first and firing fast.

[Volkard Abendroth]

Please Do

• Standardize rules language to minimize ambiguity.
  
• Clarify core rules that have never had their full impact clearly defined, e.g. attacking from stealth.
  
• Revise and adjust broken/poorly written content, e.g. gunslingers, sytnhesist, Blood Money, Paragon Surge. Clarify & Adjust does not mean "remove from the game."
  
• Consolidate spell lists: every single class does not need it's own spell list, e.g. Magus should have used the wizard spell list.

Please do not

• Use the Revised Action Economy from Unchained. This is a horrible system and would be a deal breaker for me.
  
• Use anything like the proficiency system from D&D 5.0. I enjoy being able to allocate skill points based on what I want my character to be. This often includes assigning a small number of points to skills that need only basic proficiency or that I just want to be able to Aid Other with.
  
• Mess with the alignment system: it has been a core game mechanic since 1st edition.
  
• Don't do what 4th or 5th edition D&D did to spellcasters. This is also a deal breaker for me.

I have categorically refused to purchase either 4th or 5th edition D&D and the same will be true of Pathfinder 2nd edition if it follows the design philosophies of either of those games.

If Starfinder is an example of what to expect from Pathfinder 2nd edition, I will also most likely not buy in. I have all of the Pathfinder core rules and most of the campaign setting and player companion rules. If Starfinder is used as a template for Pathfinder 2.0, I will most likely shift over to 3PP content/homebrew rather than purchase a new edition that I do not enjoy.

[Planpanther]

Please make all Classes MAD.

Please dont make all classes SAD.

[Elegos]

Please do: Teach Wayne Reynolds to draw feat.
Give Amiri some stomach armour
Alternately: Give Ezren a V neck. Fairs fair
Make rules for npcs streamlined. If a person wants to make a full pc rules equivalent NPC all those rules are still there. But as a gm? I dont want to waste time and effort working up a full stat block for npcs that will get maybe 5 minutes of playtime before the players stomp over them. The addition of simple npc creation would be amazing for me.
Make feat choice a) meaningful and b) understandable. There are too many feat paths that unless you really understand the system can be all but impossible to navigate without years of system experience

Dont: do 5e skills. Overhaul them because that stuff is too complicated with bonuses from feats, races, class abilities etc, but make it more granular then 5e.

Oh and if we could get a line in the corebook that tells pushy players theyre blanket wrong like in Numenera, Id appreciate that

[Matthew Downie]

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Don't do what 4th or 5th edition D&D did to spellcasters. This is also a deal breaker for me.

What do you mean by this, in the case of 5E?

The major changes I've noticed are:
5E Wizards and Clerics cast more like Pathfinder Arcanists.
A few spells, like Teleport, have been moved up to higher levels.
Cantrips are quite good - a Wizard is better off using Fire Bolts than a crossbow.

[SlimGauge]

I am mostly in agreement with Volkard.
His first three Please Do, especially.

Consolidated spell lists ? Eh, I don't think it hurts anything, although folks will quibble about spells included/left off any particular list

As to the Please Don'ts:
I don't have enough experience with the Unchained economy to have an informed opinion, but having had a quick read-through due to this thread, I'm skeptical.
Likewise, I have no experience with 5e. My opinion is formed entirely from the statements of others I know who have tried it.

[shaventalz]

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Please Do

• Standardize rules language to minimize ambiguity.
  
• Clarify core rules that have never had their full impact clearly defined, e.g. attacking from stealth.

Please do not

• Use anything like the proficiency system from D&D 5.0. I enjoy being able to allocate skill points based on what I want my character to be. This often includes assigning a small number of points to skills that need only basic proficiency or that I just want to be able to Aid Other with.
  
• Mess with the alignment system: it has been a core game mechanic since 1st edition.

This.

I would really appreciate rules being clarified AS THEY'RE MADE, rather than ignoring them for 10 years. Or, like masterpieces, releasing more options that use those rules without apparent agreement on what the rules to be used are.

[Matthew Downie]

Having thought about it some more I think my overall opinion is:

Please Do: Make a backwards-compatible P2e that allows people to use existing material with minor changes. Clear out the bloat, fix unbalanced options, simplify complex options, remove potential FAQ issues from the start, and make the game a bit more accessible.

Please Don't: Make the product that is currently being proposed. I don't think it will be a bad game; I just don't think it will be able to take enough market share from Pathfinder 1e, Starfinder, D&D5e, etc. (And it may also have to compete with a future unofficial Pathfinder1e-compatible system that caters to former players in the same way that Pathfinder appealed to D&D3.5e players, assuming that's legally possible.)

[Jack Rift]

I am also in agreement with the don't make a Pathfinderized version of 5ed. From what I am seeing, I don't like the proficiency idea at all. If this is what happens, looks like I will stick with Starfinder.

[CyberMephit]

Oh, here's another one:
Please change the group skill rolls/aid another mechanic. Putting just enough points to be able to roll 10 or auto-succeeding on rolling 10 are badwrongfun which I want to see go away. There should be diminishing returns from multiple helpers, and inept helpers should actually increase chance of failure. 5e has a decent system for group checks, but I'm confident that PF2 designers can do even better!

[Harveyopolis]

Brother Fen wrote:

This: Keep it backwards compatible.

Starfinder isn't. 2.0 won't be.

That: Done.

Off-topic Have you read the Starfinder Core Rulebook? There's literally a chapter about porting Pathfinder content to Starfinder rules. I do it all the time.

Coincidentally on topic:

Please: Make 1e Pathfinder content in some way compatible with 2e, like in Starfinder. There's a whole wealth of monsters that I would love to work with in a simpler streamlined system.

Please Don't: Remove character options or customizability. One thing I disliked about 5e was that every fighter played the same, and so on. I want to have the same depth of character customization just with a cleaner rule set.

[ulgulanoth]

Having thinking for a bit, things that I want to see:
1) Demi-humans as part of the ancestry part of human, so half-orc, half elf, Dhampir, Changelings and the planar-touched races in the core book
2) Non-combat class abilities that are gained every level, possibly tied to skills. I want that a +1 rank to bluff checks mean more than just a bonus to the die roll
3) Kingdom building/ruling, organisations and professions to be backed in to the core rules. Make it so that there are mechanical differences for someone who is working for the king, someone who is hunted by the king and someone who is the king
4) As said before do away entirely with the values of stats and just use the bonuses

What I don't want to see
1) Rules that bake my character in place at lv1, I have played many games where characters drastically change as they grow, and I want to be able to do that with the rules without having to swap out levels or feats or other such options
2) To many lists; I have players that refuse to play any game if they have too many lists to read. So I would like it that feats and spells are kept simplistic
3) Keep rules no one uses, if the game testers show that no one remembers this rule or that one, remove it.

[Scintillae]

Do:
Keep alignment.
Keep archetypes. Maybe allow for more mix-and-match within archetypes for better customization and broader concepts.

Don't:
Penalize spontaneous casters with delayed casting. It really doesn't unbalance the game to keep their progression on par with prepared.
Tie favored class options to specific races without an actual physical need. As is, most spont classes almost need to be human because of that bonus spell known.

[Igwilly]

What I would say:
Keep Vancian magic. No, I'm not talking about d6/level stuff. I'm not talking about Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards. I'm talking about the basic system.
Do not water down Paladins. They aren't just "Holy Warriors", or "Warrior Monks". They're not available to every faith. They are Paladins: this has an intrinsic history and should be kept that way.

About alignment: I'm not so deadly locked into alignment, but if we're going to discard them, classes should still have the same psyche and behavior: Paladins should still be the Paladins I love, same way for Clerics, Monks, Druids, etc.
How one can do that without alignment is open for discussion, but I just want these guys to remain the "same" - fluff-wise, behavior-wise, not mechanics wise. Especially, I want my Sir Galahad Class! Specific alignment mechanics are optional.

[Ectar]

Please do:
Keep strong class differentiation. 5e classes feel very homogenized, which makes me less interested in every class, because they're less unique.
Keep buffing a viable thing to do. 5e has so few buff spells and abilities that buffing can never be your combat shtick. After a round, two at the most, you've done all the buffing you can do and you have to do your own combat now. Keep full support playstyles viable.
Keep long duration buffs.

Please don't:
Make healing hp too easy. Getting stabbed several times shouldn't be fixed overnight without magic. I'm okay with widely available magical healing like PF 1.0 with wands. At least magic maintains immersion.
Make every class totally self sufficient. A party of 4 fighters, wizards, clerics, or rogues should have some challenges. This is not a bad thing. This is a storytelling opportunity.
Make any one attribute too strong or too weak. With 5e I often feel I need to justify playing a strength based martial, because Dex is so good. SF did okay in this regard, with Dex being safer, but str having higher damage potential. However, SF made charisma a pretty weak stat for non-envoy classes.

[PossibleCabbage]

Please Do: Add attribute bonuses due to class. A gnome who goes off to be a barbarian is going to be tougher or stronger than other gnomes moreso than just "how you allocate your points"

Please Don't: Keep racial, well, ancestral attribute penalties. A lot of interesting concepts are limited/prevented by the whole "you get a -2 because of who your parents were, sorry dwarf bards,"

Bonuses to things because of what you chose are more fun than penalties.

[GM Rednal]

Oh, that reminds me...

Please Do:

Give Charisma an inherent value other than providing boosts for the three social skills (Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate). It's too easy to dump the stat if you're not a Cha-based Caster or a Party Face. Each ability score should provide distinct value to a character, and Charisma is lacking in this regard.

[JoelF847]

Please do:
Make counterspells a reaction spellcasters can choose, and not force them to use one or more of their 3 actions to do so (and prevent them from casting a spell in their turn). It would be great if they could spend some of their actions to improve counterspelling, but make sure they can counterspell without doing nothing or spending a feat to be able to.

Change metamagic so some of the lesser options (which currently have a +1 level adjustment) can instead use an additional action during casting if you have the right metamagic choice. Things like enlarge spell, extend spell, silent spell, and still spell could instead require spending 1 more action. More powerful metamagics like empower, maximize or quicken should still use a higher spell level for the greater effect.

Make Dex and Str based combat styles work differently. Don't make Dex the ability score that rules them all by allowing Dex to damage just like Str does, have dex based combat styles work differently but equal, rather than the same and equal or differently but worse.

[LuZeke]

First off:

Brew Bird wrote:

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.

I agree with this very much. With risk of harping on 4E, over-zealous balancing will make the game very flat and you could just as well do away with classes completely then. 4E turned everyone into spellcasters. I don't want PF2nd to fall down a similar slope.

Now then.
Please Do:

1. Rework all of the Prestige Classes into full classes. I personally really like the Duelist, but it suffers from being a PrC. In all of the years I've played, outside of myself as GM, no one has ever picked up a Prestige Class.

2. Improve on PF1e with clearer rules descriptions. PF1e had a lot of very vaguely or confusingly worded rules that became immediate Rules-As-Intended vs Rules-As-Written debate fodder. Many were hold-overs from 3.5.

3. Lessen Feat Taxes, as many have already stated. Many feats have very interesting synergy with each other, but the path to actually get to that point is so long and can or will gimp your character, all for that -one- feat, or that -one- feat that will work with that other -one- feat (both of which are at the end of a 4 feat progression branch).

Of course, to be exceptional at one thing, you will have to give up something else. Not arguing against that, but the current state of feat branching is a bit harsh when all I want is wield a blade and pistol in melee without having people punch me in the beak whenever I fire the pistol.

4. Change meta magic, or remove it. Frankly put, meta magic is so rarely used (at least in our games) that it might as well not be in the game at all. The investment of a precious feat (see #3) to be able to alter spells to a degree, but with the drawback of not being able to utilize the spell's full power, fails the cost/benefit equation for most players. So they take another feat.

Please Don't:

1. Sacrifice complexity for simplicity. From what I've seen, when people talk about "complexity", what they're actually talking about is "density". Pathfinder is a complex and a dense game.

Pathfinder is dense, because there is a veritable ton of material for even a single class.

Pathfinder is complex, because you have many courses of action for any given situation without having to resort to free form or GM fiat.

To me there's a difference between making the game easier to learn and play, and making the game simpler. The former is a matter of pedagogy.

It's difficult to be specific on this point, since we don't know what the planned changes to the mechanics are. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but my gut reaction is that the stated "proficiencies" are sacrificing complexity for simplicity.

2. Reduce skills further. I found the skills in PF1ed close to perfect. The combination of some felt justified and needed, plus the obnoxious skill rank math from 3.5 was gone. But if even more skills were to be squished into one, at this stage, I feel it would be a detriment. The way I see it, the fun of the skills system as it is now lies in its granularity. The whole idea of being good at some things and being not-so-good at others. Someone argued for combining Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate. That means the barbarian is just as silver tounged as the bard. Might as well ditch skills and go freeform at that point.

[Patrick Newcarry]

CyberMephit wrote:

Please remove the link between a monster's CR and its Knowledge DC to identify. The rules for identification should be part of a specific monster's stat block.

Please keep some form of mechanical benefits from in-world associations, even if they're not called Prestige Classes anymore.

Please make (more) feats scale with level to avoid long feat chains and have them more similar in power progression to spells.

Please add Inquisitor to the game as soon as you can.

Please let us experience existing content (especially APs) with the new rules.

Please make sure each PC gets at least one new cool thing to play with at each level, instead of just +1 to something (this was mostly observed in PF compared to the other game but not always).

Please make solo bad guys a viable threat against a group of players.

yes yes yesyesyesyesYESYESYESYES

Nailed it on the head. Totally agree with all of the above, especially the stuff in bold.

[Patrick Newcarry]

I'd also like, as a small request, to see Swim and Athletics condensed into one skill, like Athletics from 5e. It's really weird that my super strong fighter might be great at climbing but can't swim more than twenty yards out to sea without drowning.

[Bruno Mares]

PLEASE DO:

*KEEP Two-Weapon Fighter giving extra attacks!

*Add Oracle and Magus to the game as soon as possible!

*Give a spotlight to background and character roleplaying.

PLEASE DON'T:

*Make Skill Proficiences like D&D 4e/5e.

*Make shield using more difficult, please don't add more math to HP reduction.

*Split HP into Stamina and Hit Points. It just made Starfinder slower.

*PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T entirely remove the spells, items, feats and class features that gives numerical bonuses. This is an important part of the game.

[JoelF847]

Please Do: Include chase rules in the core book

Include haunts in the core book

Have the playtest adventures cover a breadth of encounter types. At least one social encounter and once chase, not entirely combat and dungeon delving

[Kvantum]

Please Don't: Change the terminology used for "Races". Yes, it's an inaccurate use of the word, but still, come on. "Ancestries" instead of Races? Why? It's just an accepted part of fantasy RPGs for as long as there have been fantasy RPGs. "Race" and "Class" are the two core parts of any character for any game. You're breaking away from every fantasy RPG ever, and you're just making things so fuzzy and grey. "That character? They have Elven and Celestial Ancestry." Yes, but what are they?

Please Do: Now "Ancestries" as essentially Racial Archetypes? Flexibility for racial abilities is a good thing, as long as it's fairly balanced. "Race - Elf; Ancestry - Celestial"? That's a character with a clear vision, an elf with Celestial heritage, nice, clean, clear concept.

[gustavo iglesias]

Please do this:
Take risks, feel free to push boundaries, try, and follow your hunch.

Don't do this:
Feel restrained by the need to please a crowd of noisy people in the forum.

[Alchemaic]

Please do this:

Create feats that are worth taking in the majority of situations but that shine in specific situations, such as the Creature Focus/Focused ____ Expertise feats.

Please don't do that:

Make super hyperspecific feats that only function in super hyperspecific scenarios, or feats that function in very uncommon situations but grant such a minor benefit that nobody would bother taking them anyway.

Make hundreds of feats that only grant +1 or +2 bonuses to specific things.

[ScalyTrex]

Please this:
1. Keep the new rules concepts for Actions
2. Upgrade the stats for some of the dinosaurs. Tyrannosaurus rex should be a CR 12 monster
3. Prestige Classes should return, in some small capacity.
4. Easier customization without having to rely on Archetypes.
5. Make martial/combat feats easier for non-Fighter martial classes to obtain. Weapon Specialization should be easier for a Fighter to take than a Paladin, but a Paladin character should not have to take Fighter levels to get it.
6. More evil Abberation type monsters.
7. Keep the artwork sexy. More Fanservice, please! And make sure we get as much Wayne Reynolds art as possible.
8. As much backward compatibility as possible with Pathfinder 1E.

Not that:
1. Modifiers at high levels that are difficult to keep track of. Streamline the math
2. Poor quality archetypes that over specialize. I don't think there's a single archetype concept I'd actually prefer to play over the core class as is.
3. Use of the Female pronoun in the text. This is unbelievably distracting. Centuries of use have neutered the male pronoun. There's nothing chauvinistic about using it and it makes the text easier to read and understand.