This is probably wishlisting of the highest order, and I'm almost 99% sure that most if not all of these are going to be an integral part of the new edition just as much as they were before, in part because one of the stated design goals is to keep the game recognizable, which it might not be anymore if these were actually put into practice. But i'd like to express these thoughts anyway. I just want to put the thought out there and why I think they don't benefit the game.
1. Per Day/Rest Features
Abilities that rely on a number of uses per day/rest, including pool mechanics, like grit and magus arcana, set a prerequisite number of encounters per day in order to balance the game. The current system assumes that a party will have about 3 combat encounters each day. This means players have to ration their limited use abilities between these encounters. If you only have one encounter a day, a class that primarily relies on limited use abilities can blow its full potential on that single encounter with extreme prejudice quickly becoming more powerful than any other. Meanwhile, if there are significantly more encounters the same class would become spread extremely thin being barely able to contribute while those who don't have this restriction can just keep going and going.
I used to run very typical dungeon crawling campaigns, but later I shifted toward a less combat-heavy style and it quickly became apparent that some characters could exploit this to generate massive damage output.
If we removed the per day restriction it would not only de-gamify some of the mechanics ("What do you mean, you're too exhausted to get angry anymore? You seem perfectly spry to me!"), it would help accomodate for more varied styles of play.
2. Classes
This is the big one. Classes exist to balance different types of characters by moving them along a certain predefined path of traits as they level up. Yet at the same time the game has mechanics such as multiclassing and archetypes so that people can build their characters outside these predefined paths. Over time this has lead to 41 different classes (not counting unchained variants) each with anywhere from a dozen to 50 or more archetypes. Some of which are expressedly designed to combine one class with another. Feats allow characters to tap into class features from other classes as well, so at this point, I have to wonder, why even bother with classes in the first place?
An open character building system is, it seems, what Pathfinder secretly really wants. Start off with a number of build points, and let players buy feats and class features from these.
Spend build points on gaining more skill ranks, more hit points, better spellcasting, better combat proficiency etc. And each level up the character gains new build points to spend. You could run this along certain automatic gains per level, such as a minimum hit die and a minimum amount of skill points per level and a choice of one saving throw increase for example.
This wouldn't only open up a more versatile and less convoluted path to getting the host of abilities that the player really wants for his character, it would also allow for a variety of other things:
- You could spend part of your build points on your ancestry, if you want to play a more powerful race, or gain extra build points from your ancestry if you are for example a kobold, which may have very low inherent abilities. This would free the game of the constraint of having to have each race/ancestry being exactly equivalent in power. 3rd edition tried to adress more powerful races with level adjustment, which didn't work, with this more flexible system it's much easier to adjust for a more powerful creature.
You could even bake ancestry completely into this buildpoint pool. Your character buys her ancestry from the same starting pool from which she chooses class features. It also opens up the ability of building your own 100% legal ancestry from various features instead of buying a one of the pre-build sets (human, elf, gnome, goblin...)
- You could choose to use build points to improve your base ability scores. Or reduce your base ability score total to gain more build points
- You can spend build points on feats when you want them, rather than being roped into taking them
- You can have ancestries in the game which naturally have certain features that would otherwise be class features. Like say we gave orcs the inherent ability to rage. This way an orc can still be built to match the barbarian character-type without having redundant features that don't add to each other.
You can still have certain predeterminations, like the distinction between arcane and divine magic. Make a player choose how they cast magic, inherently like a sorcerer, through study like a wizard, through art like a bard, dedication or worship like a cleric and so on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize how deeply these go into what the game is to us, and before anyone says that i should look for a different system. I have. But I never found one that did it well enough. I like the depth of pathfinder, and most games that i found which deliver on the open character building and lack of per-day abilities that i crave, usually either lack the depth of gameplay (for example magic is barely distinguished from mundane skill usage) or are so irredeemably overruled that they are more bookkeeping than gameplay. So I thought instead i'd express how i would feel about making these changes to a system i actually like.
|
Classes are part of the DNA of pathfinder, as are Armor Class, Hit Points, leveling, and Vancian Magic. Sure, there are other systems out there that don't, but taking any of those strands of DNA out of the game fundamentally changes the game. If you make that fundamental a change in the game, it ceases to be the game people thought it was, and people leave the game to go find something else. (See D&D 4.0)
Speaking of D&D 4, your first point sounds an awful lot like the "per round, per encounter, per day" structure that D&D4 used. I don't think you're going to find many fans of that here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I'd MUCH rather have points and a menu to choose from than classes that each have their own sub-menus of class specific mechanics. Some of the contortions some players use combining Feats, Traits, and Multiclass combinations to get some specific outcome boggles my mind. Buy off a list common to all and be done with it.
I like the concept of build your own class but I think you would still need pre-built classes anyways for new players.
I think a robust class-building guide directed for GMs or for players to make explicitly with GM approval would be a good future book but there are too many potentially broken combinations to allow it to be the default.
Also Vancian magic doesn't lend itself well to making new classes.
I think you will need to build your own system if you basically want pathfinder with those 2 things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the new Class Feats concept instead of Class Features, maybe there will be a frame that is blank that lets you pick Class Feats to fill in the gaps, letting you make your own?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Niche protection and resource management are so intrinsic to the D&D/Pathfinder style that removing them like that would be more like changing religions than killing sacred cows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a classless, point-based version of Pathfinder would be a great option for a splatbook. :) But that's not going to happen in the core book.
As for per day/rest features, I don't see them going away, but I'd be happier if they were tied to a universal character mechanic like Starfinder's "Resolve" system. So whether you are a Barbarian, Bard or Fighter, you have abilities that spend Resolve, and maybe you regain some of your Resolve when you take a short rest and all of it when you take a long rest.
5E added a short rest mechanic to extend the adventuring day. It ended up assuming 6-8 fights per long rest. For me that's a bit much. I'd like to see something around 4-6. So i'm kinda on board for #1 but I also expect resource management to be a big part of the game.
Unlike most folks apparently, I like working inside a box. Setting, class, and race restrictions within reason are a feature not a bug for me. Classless system? /Not signed
I've played games that are pure ability buy systems with no character classes. Systems with classes are far simpler. The other issue is that if you play to any high level with an ability by, no-character class system, every character starts to look kind of the same, eventually.
I can attest to this with my group's experience in Savage Worlds. Towards the end, everyone was some kind of hybrid spellcaster/melee fighter with the Initiative-improving edges (feats).
Ability-buy systems are notoriously difficult to balance as well.
|
2. Classes
This is the big one. Classes exist to balance different types of characters by moving them along a certain predefined path of traits as they level up. Yet at the same time the game has mechanics such as multiclassing and archetypes so that people can build....
.
..
.
Yeah, I looked seriously at True 20 for a while when it first came out -- pretty good system.
But I don't really want PF2 to be an new version of True 20.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to run very typical dungeon crawling campaigns, but later I shifted toward a less combat-heavy style and it quickly became apparent that some characters could exploit this to generate massive damage output.
Yes, they can, but at the same time, the DM can keep the pressure on and make them regret their short-sighted nova behavior.
Encounter!
*party novas like a dying star*
Bob T. Wizard: Okay, time to sleep!
Jane O'Fighter: What? It was sunrise like.. fifteen minutes ago!
Rita the Ranger: I cast all my spells.
Jane: You only have ONE SPELL.
Rita: that's still all of my spells..
Jane: UGH!
Kerri MacCleric: I used three cantrips, I could sleep too
All: BAD LAZY KERRI! Cantrips aren't expended!
Kerri: *Pout*
Rob von Rogue: It's true. I could keep going, but fine, 15-minute-workday it is.
Jane O'Fighter: Fine, we'll sleep.
DM McDmington: *rolls eyes* Whatever. You set up camp in the dungeon and go to sleep at 6:15 in the morning... when suddenly, the monsters in the very next room, who are also able to make perception checks due to this wonderful new invention called seeing and hearing, come raging in! Roll perception to determine who's surprised, and then.. initiative!
Kerri: My nap is ruined...
Bob: shut up! I'm down to only cantrips! Doomed, DOOMED I SAY!!
Rita: I'm out of spells!
Bob: you only prepare charm animal anyways, so you can have more pets.
Rita: Teehee!
Jane and Rob, who don't have cooldowns, carry most of the fighting. Kerri, who does, but didn't blow them all in the first combat, does too. Rita's cooldown is useless in most situations anyhow, still manages to fill baddies with arrows. Bob T. Wizard, who completely "pwned" the first encounter, now gets to sit at the sideline and miss constantly with acid orb.
Bob: Dog dangit!
Anyways, characters are more about what they can't do than what they can. Buy-your-own-character ends up being bleh in most other systems because balance.
There's actually a good chance that my group will be playing Microlite20 if PF2 turns into a disaster zone. The classes and archetypes are largely just bloat.
and I want the setting to be a dystopian future America where the open roads are filled with desperate people in dangerous cars
I mean I want to play Car Wars
I thought you were going to say Interstate '76 for a moment there >.<
What the OP is describing can basically be done with the Spheres systems. Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might both give lots of packages and options for already existing classes and their own original classes, as well as a couple “Build your own” class options. They are very well done 3pp source books and bring a great balance between casters and martials, and could very well do what you are looking for while still sticking to Pathfinder.
Since there is a precisely 0% chance that either of these suggestions will be incorporated into PF2, I'll just address them from an abstract game design point of view.
1. While I entirely agree that characters blowing through all their per day abilities in a single encounter is a problem, resource management is a core part of what makes combat in an RPG interesting. Per day abilities are a good way of creating interesting decision-making opportunities without tons of rules complexity.
2. I think a hybrid system would be better than completely eliminating classes. Dark Heresy 1E is a good example of this. It has a very broad pool of abilities (grouped into Skills and Talents) which you can buy with experience. Classes (called Careers) don't have any inherent class features, they just provide lists of what you can purchase at what level and for what cost. This allows for a lot more flexibility while reducing the problems of such an open system (namely, that it makes it harder for new players to make characters and easier for min-maxers to find ridiculous combos).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes are part of the DNA of pathfinder, as are Armor Class, Hit Points, leveling, and Vancian Magic. Sure, there are other systems out there that don't, but taking any of those strands of DNA out of the game fundamentally changes the game. If you make that fundamental a change in the game, it ceases to be the game people thought it was, and people leave the game to go find something else. (See D&D 4.0)
Hence why I prefaced with acknowledging just how piping my pipe dream id.
Speaking of D&D 4, your first point sounds an awful lot like the "per round, per encounter, per day" structure that D&D4 used. I don't think you're going to find many fans of that here.
Not at all. DD4's system does have the desired effect, but it's hardly what I had in mind. I certainly don't want all the classes homogenized like that.
I like the concept of build your own class but I think you would still need pre-built classes anyways for new players.
I think a robust class-building guide directed for GMs or for players to make explicitly with GM approval would be a good future book but there are too many potentially broken combinations to allow it to be the default.
Also Vancian magic doesn't lend itself well to making new classes.
It could be overwhelming for new players if too many options are presented off the bat. That's why games that approach character building this way tend to have "archetypes" or similar preconstructed packages available for people who'd prefer to just quickly jump in with a generic character rather than kneeling right into it from the get go.
I think you will need to build your own system if you basically want pathfinder with those 2 things.
I've been tempted.
I want to play Pathfinder 2nd edition
But I want my character to have skills in driving a car, and fixing machines that target missiles
And I want to be able to drive a car that has armor, machine guns, and missile launchers
and I want the setting to be a dystopian future America where the open roads are filled with desperate people in dangerous cars
I mean I want to play Car Wars
My Car Wars doesn't exist as far as I know, so I vent out my unfulfilled dreams here.
2. Classes
This is the big one. Classes exist to balance different types of characters by moving them along a certain predefined path of traits as they level up. Yet at the same time the game has mechanics such as multiclassing and archetypes so that people can build.....
.
.
.
Yeah, I looked seriously at True 20 for a while when it first came out -- pretty good system.But I don't really want PF2 to be an new version of True 20.
I don't think i've seen that before, I'll have a look at it. Thanks.
I used to run very typical dungeon crawling campaigns, but later I shifted toward a less combat-heavy style and it quickly became apparent that some characters could exploit this to generate massive damage output.Yes, they can, but at the same time, the DM can keep the pressure on and make them regret their short-sighted nova behavior.
Encounter!
*party novas like a dying star*
Bob T. Wizard: Okay, time to sleep!
Jane O'Fighter: What? It was sunrise like.. fifteen minutes ago!
Rita the Ranger: I cast all my spells.
Jane: You only have ONE SPELL.
Rita: that's still all of my spells..
Jane: UGH!
Kerri MacCleric: I used three cantrips, I could sleep too
All: BAD LAZY KERRI! Cantrips aren't expended!
Kerri: *Pout*
Rob von Rogue: It's true. I could keep going, but fine, 15-minute-workday it is.
Jane O'Fighter: Fine, we'll sleep.
DM McDmington: *rolls eyes* Whatever. You set up camp in the dungeon and go to sleep at 6:15 in the morning... when suddenly, the monsters in the very next room, who are also able to make perception checks due to this wonderful new invention called seeing and hearing, come raging in! Roll perception to determine who's surprised, and then.. initiative!
Kerri: My nap is ruined...
Bob: shut up! I'm down to only cantrips! Doomed, DOOMED I SAY!!
Rita: I'm out of spells!
Bob: you only prepare charm animal anyways, so you can have more pets.
Rita: Teehee!
Jane and Rob, who don't have cooldowns, carry most of the fighting. Kerri, who does, but didn't blow them all in the first combat, does too. Rita's cooldown is useless in most situations anyhow, still manages to fill baddies with arrows. Bob T. Wizard, who completely "pwned" the first encounter, now gets to sit at the sideline and miss constantly with acid orb.
Bob: Dog dangit!Anyways, characters are more about what they can't do than what they can. Buy-your-own-character ends up being bleh in most other systems because balance.
There's actually a good chance that my...
Thanks for the entertaining read. As I said though, i moved away from the dungeon crawling for a large part of my campaign, and i personally don't like to spam fights in a session so i often construct my adventures so that there is one battle. I especially noticed the problem cropping up, when i went for a monster hunting playstyle, where the party would get a contract to either exterminate a monster that is causign problems or hunt a monster for its unique resources, which did result in little more than one climactic battle. And that's where the whole per day balance fell apart.
I don't want to be forced to pepper in tedious filler battles because the game breaks without them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These sacred cows would make for some wonderfully delicious burgers.
|
|
I think a hybrid system would be better than completely eliminating classes. Dark Heresy 1E is a good example of this. It has a very broad pool of abilities (grouped into Skills and Talents) which you can buy with experience. Classes (called Careers) don't have any inherent class features, they just provide lists of what you can purchase at what level and for what cost. This allows for a lot more flexibility while reducing the problems of such an open system (namely, that it makes it harder for new players to make characters and easier for min-maxers to find ridiculous combos).
My personal idea for a system like this would have characters fall into four or five VERY broad classes: Warrior, Rogue, Priest, Mage, and maybe one or two others. Individual abilities would have different costs for different classes. Spellcasting might only be a single point for mages or priests, but 2 points for rogues, and 3 points for warriors....etc.
I think you will need to build your own system if you basically want pathfinder with those 2 things.I've been tempted.
And I would be willing to provide at least some assistance if you wanted to give it a go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a hybrid system would be better than completely eliminating classes. Dark Heresy 1E is a good example of this. It has a very broad pool of abilities (grouped into Skills and Talents) which you can buy with experience. Classes (called Careers) don't have any inherent class features, they just provide lists of what you can purchase at what level and for what cost. This allows for a lot more flexibility while reducing the problems of such an open system (namely, that it makes it harder for new players to make characters and easier for min-maxers to find ridiculous combos).My personal idea for a system like this would have characters fall into four or five VERY broad classes: Warrior, Rogue, Priest, Mage, and maybe one or two others. Individual abilities would have different costs for different classes. Spellcasting might only be a single point for mages or priests, but 2 points for rogues, and 3 points for warriors....etc.
Green Ronin's True20 system then
http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/
Seriously worth a look. It’s a Pathfinder alternative rules system that honestly does a great job at slaughtering both of those sacred cows. The magic system goes a long way towards not lending towards a 15-minute day, and although there are classes the way the system is set up you customize how your character approaches combat pretty thoroughly. And also there is a build-your-own-caster and a build-your-own-martial option as well. Casters have at-will spells that don’t run out but don’t overshadow martials who also get lots of at-will abilities that don’t run out.
1. While I entirely agree that characters blowing through all their per day abilities in a single encounter is a problem, resource management is a core part of what makes combat in an RPG interesting. Per day abilities are a good way of creating interesting decision-making opportunities without tons of rules complexity.
Resource management can be made to operate on a per-encounter basis as easily, if not more easily, than on a per-day basis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the entertaining read. As I said though, i moved away from the dungeon crawling for a large part of my campaign, and i personally don't like to spam fights in a session so i often construct my adventures so that there is one battle. I especially noticed the problem cropping up, when i went for a monster hunting playstyle, where the party would get a contract to either exterminate a monster that is causign problems or hunt a monster for its unique resources, which did result in little more than one climactic battle. And that's where the whole per day balance fell apart.
I don't want to be forced to pepper in tedious filler battles because the game breaks without them.
Well, you don't have to always do it. The threat that it can happen can encourage players not to nova the instant they see an angry squirrel.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html
I know that in the campaigns I'm playing in, I feel a lot of tension going to bed with nothing left.
Especially since the main DM really likes night ambushes. I'm going to be taking Endurance so i can sleep in my armor..
PS. You're welcome. I had fun writing it, it was very silly ^.^
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is probably wishlisting of the highest order, and I'm almost 99% sure that most if not all of these are going to be an integral part of the new edition just as much as they were before, in part because one of the stated design goals is to keep the game recognizable, which it might not be anymore if these were actually put into practice. But i'd like to express these thoughts anyway. I just want to put the thought out there and why I think they don't benefit the game.
1. Per Day/Rest Features
Abilities that rely on a number of uses per day/rest, including pool mechanics, like grit and magus arcana, set a prerequisite number of encounters per day in order to balance the game. The current system assumes that a party will have about 3 combat encounters each day. This means players have to ration their limited use abilities between these encounters. If you only have one encounter a day, a class that primarily relies on limited use abilities can blow its full potential on that single encounter with extreme prejudice quickly becoming more powerful than any other. Meanwhile, if there are significantly more encounters the same class would become spread extremely thin being barely able to contribute while those who don't have this restriction can just keep going and going.I used to run very typical dungeon crawling campaigns, but later I shifted toward a less combat-heavy style and it quickly became apparent that some characters could exploit this to generate massive damage output.
If we removed the per day restriction it would not only de-gamify some of the mechanics ("What do you mean, you're too exhausted to get angry anymore? You seem perfectly spry to me!"), it would help accomodate for more varied styles of play.
2. Classes
This is the big one. Classes exist to balance different types of characters by moving them along a certain predefined path of traits as they level up. Yet at the same time the game has mechanics such as multiclassing and archetypes so that people can build...
There is already a system that exists for that style of character building.
It's called G.U.R.P.S.
If I want that, that's what I'll play. I like that class system, and if people figure out clever ways to expand their class role beyond it's initial scope, then what is the issue?
GURPS overdoes it with the rules in my opinion. The moment it goes into builds, it completely loses me.
Resource management can be made to operate on a per-encounter basis as easily, if not more easily, than on a per-day basis.
In some way, that's true. Star Wars Saga Edition made considerable use of that since most Force powers were once/encounter. But the issue of daily resource management adds a complexity and challenge that I find encounter powers really can't. With resources managed in a reference frame longer than an encounter (could be a day, could be until an hour's rest, whatever) there's always the tension between using it all now vs holding on to some for emergencies and risking not using it at all. With an encounter power, timing may be a factor within an encounter, but there's really never an issue of using a power vs holding it in case someone jumps us later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And once again, I am reminded that I want an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants and Masterminds . . . Maybe for Pathfinder 3rd Edition?
I want to play Pathfinder 2nd edition
But I want my character to have skills in driving a car, and fixing machines that target missiles
And I want to be able to drive a car that has armor, machine guns, and missile launchers
and I want the setting to be a dystopian future America where the open roads are filled with desperate people in dangerous cars
I mean I want to play Car Wars
Just wait a few years, and you might not need a game system for that . . . .
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classes are part of the DNA of pathfinder, as are Armor Class, Hit Points, leveling, and Vancian Magic. Sure, there are other systems out there that don't, but taking any of those strands of DNA out of the game fundamentally changes the game. If you make that fundamental a change in the game, it ceases to be the game people thought it was, and people leave the game to go find something else. (See D&D 4.0)
Speaking of D&D 4, your first point sounds an awful lot like the "per round, per encounter, per day" structure that D&D4 used. I don't think you're going to find many fans of that here.
I would have to disagree with the Vancian casting. I would like to see spells be remembered instead of having to prepare more than one copy for multiple castings. The Arcanist should have been the way to go for prepared casters across the board.
This is one sacred cow that should have been slain in 3.0
I would like to see spells be remembered instead of having to prepare more than one copy for multiple castings.
The Arcanist should have been the way to go for prepared casters across the board.This is one sacred cow that should have been slain in 3.0
Oh, yes. This. The Arcanist's castings feel more organic as a spellcaster than this bullet-like usage of old.
No wonder 5E did the exact same thing and waved old Vancian byebye going onto the way of the dodo...