Please This, Not That

[Alexander Augunas]

GM Rednal wrote:

Please Do:

>Ask Alexander Augunas to make a PF2 version of the Skill Challenge Handbook. The original is a thing of true beauty, and frankly, I think it would be wise to make such a handbook a 'Core' product in Pathfinder 2 (encouraging, basically, all adventure designers to reach for it on a regular basis). This would help make skill checks far more fleshed-out than one-and-done in cases where one roll honestly isn't appropriate.

D'aw, thank you!

[*Thelith]

Tectorman wrote:

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).

Please don't do this.

[SilverliteSword]

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!

To be honest, I don't want them to listen to us. Allow me to explain.

The people who work at Paizo know and love Pathfinder. They have been play testing a ton and know what it is like to GM and to be a player, and they are probably playing martials and casters. Anything that we have experienced being an "issue," they've experienced it too. They know about C/MD. They know about trap feats. They, in their roles as players and DMs, probably (collectively) feel about these things the same way we (collectively) do.

The difference is that they are actually putting in the work to design a new system. I've been suggesting giving casters more (relevant and level-scaling) cantrips and less spell slots. Someone else suggested spell specializations. While it's possible they've never considered any of those things, chances are that they have, and they've run the numbers to see how it plays out. Of anyone here, the Paizo people are in the best position to make PF2 the most fun it can be.

The WORST thing that Paizo could do right now is to hold on to an un-fun mechanic just because the fan base is attached to it. Once the playtest launches, and we get to try it ourselves, it's possible that we will love some radical new thing Paizo did, but we will probably not love the radical thing on paper (or screen). So, really, Paizo should listen to the people who have been playing PF2 for the past two years, and not us. We should be keeping an open mind and listening to Paizo when they tell us that cannoli ice cream really is a good idea no matter how crazy it sounds. Because we just might like this crazy new thing better than we could ever imagine.

[Wicked Woodpecker of the West]

Guys, just do it like you want to do it.
Honestly.

With two editions and hand, and all D&D editions, and all 3pp materials I can Houserule and Homebrew any mutation I want.

Sure I'd prefer to have most possibly open rules - because it's easier to ban Tyrant and Liberator paladins for paladin purists than craft new classes from the get go, but still I can survive it.

So sure give non-caster character Craft Magical Weapon option so guys who want to use it - will use it. And I will ban it at my table - and all people will be content.

[Thurgon]

I love the current PF skill system, so if you can keep it.

I want less feats but more meaningful ones. And some class specific ones that have some meat on them,

I would love a trip back to 2e style clerics with your warrior priest type, heavy armor and all but with a much more limited spell selection and your more specific type with more spells and maybe less access to armor/weapons.

Make alignement matter. It should its add flavor and defines things like Paladins.

Don’t

Make Paladin a generic class, open to all alignements.

Let worries about balance overwhelm you. The PCs aren’t fighting each other just try and make sure each has some way to stay relevant.

[Frogsplosion]

Please Do:

bring martials up to the level of casters, not the other way around.

give martials active abilities ala path of war, don't make them boring one button meatheads again.

let us have actual good old shapeshifting back instead of your hilariously terrible version.

make better archetypes with less crappy flavor abilities that are obviously bad mechanically

Give ranged and finesse weapons dex to hit and damage and melee and large thrown weapons strength to hit and damage.

Let casters use their casting stat for more things like spell to hit and damage, or for a gish/arcane archer, their actual weapon

downscale martial damage, the only reason people played martials was because no other class could hit their crazy thousands of damage per round dps.

Make a class/es/ or class archetype/s that actually turns being MAD into a huge advantage, like giving ability score synergy buffs or something

~~~~~

Please Don't:

Gimp casters and make them as boring as martials are now

make martials just as boring as they are now

make shapeshifting even worse

make terrible archetypes full of minor situational bonuses especially ones that replace the best class abilities in return

make being a ranged weapon character MAD again

make MAD characters continue to suck

overcomplicate the 3.5e based ruleset more than necessary

[Steelfiredragon]

Davia D wrote:

Please do-

Include a variety of races- that is to say, skin colors among elves (and quite possibly dwarves/gnomes/whatever? But especially elves) from the start. I know in the plot their color is supposed to be quite varied with proper-brownskin elves around, but we never see them. We shouldn't have to rely on word alone to know they exist- and bonus points if they do NOT have white hair!

Seeing a black elf fight a drow in an early book would really draw the contrast between 'these ones are racial diversity, these ones made pacts with demons and are now purple and white.'

Please don't-

All-white or mostly-white non-draw elves.

another one of these.....

I hate to bring, but when they send the stuff for the artwork a lot of stuff maybe given leeway on it, if they need an image of elf in a fight side by side with 2 humans a cleric and fighter, against the dreaded owlbear of grizswal in the plains of Varisia, we're likely to get artwork of Mirisiel , Kyra and Valeros fighting a big owlbear in the plains of varisia

and just because I Want to see an image of Mierusildas nude and in draconic armor doesn't mean Ill get the latter since she is a copper dragon...( nude dragons and all)

oh and before I go, some of the best dnd/pathfinder art I have ever seen are the group images, the tavern( the one with the gnome bard sitting up in the rafters) scene from 3.x and the bartable scene from pathfinder.( the one with the calistrian cleric).

anything else tends to or has tended to have come on form a book on said topic or said topic location. ( and this is all speculation as I am in no way form or fashion in any way connected with Pazio or any of its subserities ..
and larger group art takes up pages for word count....

and I'm done

[Sara Marie]

I removed a bunch of posts and replies to posts derailing the thread. The formatting of this thread is wishlist "Please do/don't" style. It is not the place to start discussions on the utility or merit of other people's wishlists. If you find a subject you want to go in depth on or debate the the utility of particular rules or setting content, start a new thread or look for a conversation that has already been started that you can join. Creating chains of posts dissecting other people's do's and don'ts wishlists clogs this thread. Furthermore, debating the appropriateness of referring to a GM as she/her within rules text is one that comes off poorly. It does not promote a welcoming forum environment and if you need to debate that subject you'll need to take it off of paizo.com.