Hear our Plea(s)


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I would hope that the racial feats would help the race to feel more like the race sooner rather than later.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Well I've given up on one of these but:

1. I do not like the idea of sectioning off combat styles in the same area as Class Features that are iconic. Archery, Dual Wielding, Thrown Weapons, Two Handed Weapons, and Sword and Board should be accessible without sacrificing Rogue/Paladin abilities to be able to do them. I'm all for creating Class Feats that accentuate those combat styles for that specific class, but not gating them entirely to only classes that have the Class Feats to take them. Metamagic spell manipulation falls into this category of feat as well. It creates repeated rules printing, excessive siloing, stifled concepts, and flavor vs. favor competition.

2. Proficiency, especially in relation to skills, is non-impactful and feels empty. There have been many ways to handle this discussed.

Other than that, I am thoroughly impressed with every iterative patch and as far as base playtest releases go.

If they put some polish and solve the above problems, then I will be raising my kids on this edition! Fingers crossed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Whatever they do, please, please, PLEASE don't let it end up that four 1st level PCs against four goblins takes at least an hour to resolve RAW.

And TPKs.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

In light of this I wanted to create a new thread for all of us to just GET IT OUT, you know, that ONE nagging itching thing that you feel absolutely must be changed, added, or addressed.

To keep things light on the moderation staff, I'd like to propose that discussion be kept to a minimum in regards to debating one another. I'd like to to be a good thread where we can each note our one sticking point with the Rules as they stand now.

Removed a bunch of posts and replies. The premise of this thread is not to debate, argue or provide commentary on other people's "pleas". Take the thread for what it is and if you need to get into a conversation with someone(s) else over what they posted, take it to a different thread or to a PM discussion. If you had a post removed and want your text back, email community at paizo.com.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

10th level spells should be acquired like other spell levels - automatically and at 19th level.


19 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The PC/NPC hard distinction is the deal-breaker for me.

I have played with such rules many times and really dislike them. They make it much harder to make a mental model of the game world and how it works, because everything you might know about PCs is useless in reasoning about NPCs. They interfere with fluid PC/NPC transitions. They generally support a style of play I don't care for, where NPCs aren't people in the same way that PCs are.

Furthermore, in my experience while NPC-specific rules are often touted as a way to reduce complexity, having two sets of rules for very fundamental things like "how does a character die?" tends to lead to serious rules issues down the line, because now every darned thing you add to the system has to work with both sets of rules, and sooner or later something won't. We saw this in _Feng Shui_ where the simplified rules for minor opponents made them weirdly and inexplicably immune to certain abilities, because you simply couldn't apply those abilities to their simplified mechanics. I fear we are already seeing this with Enervate on NPCs vs. PCs, because Enervate is written to work on level-gated abilities and NPCs don't have those. There will be more.

And then the playtest rules compound this by demonstrating that PCs are in fact weirdly handicapped members of their races. With a certain amount of combat skill, an NPC simply gets to do multiple dice of damage with his weapon; an equivalent PC needs a magical crutch. An NPC gets combat manuvers that work all the time; an equivalent PC gets ones that often, if not usually, fail to work. NPC dwarves, I am willing to bet, are born dwarvish; PC dwarves need to painstakingly develop their racial abilities. You need only look at a goblin NPC vs. a first-level goblin PC to start thinking that adventuring is the last resort of the incompetent....

I would much rather do without magic weapons COMPLETELY than have ones only PCs need, while NPCs can succeed with their raw skill.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Two most important things to me:

Make half-orcs and half-elves real races and not a feat tax with what will probably be permanently fewer choices than other races, most acutely for the first quarter of level progression.

Keep LG paladins with a focus on redemption as a valid and sensible option. My 1e LG paladin of Iomedae would hands-down want the "make people rethink their actions" options rather than "need to let my buddy draw attacks before I can do anything". As is, if options stay locked to simplistic alignment interpretations, then YES, the variant paladins ARE taking something away from traditional paladins.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A really good, comprehensive conversion document when the 2E is finally complete. My group will be sticking with 1E, but I want to keep getting the APs and modules; but I'll need to convert them back.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mary Yamato wrote:
You need only look at a goblin NPC vs. a first-level goblin PC to start thinking that adventuring is the last resort of the incompetent.

Delightful phrase. I presume it is based on, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent," from Foundation by Isaac Asimov. Adventuring is violent after all. And it does make summarize the difference between PC and NPC design well.


Injection Spear and Syrgine Spear.

Injection spear, preferably allowing fineese (cause its sticking in a needle not a larger spear head) that allows for using poisons and bombs inside it. Preferably with several doses, and maybe more doses the more potency you have. or some static cost value--such as compound bows.

Syrgine spears being small one handed thrown darts that are as above, but with only one dose.

and Alchemist being innately proficient (and with feat choices-growing in profiency)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

After a lot of thought.

Customisation at level 1.

Background: I loved the idea of skill feats, ancestry feats, class feats, "multiclass feats" and general feats in theory but the current implementation seems a bit flat. At high levels I can see there are more options (and here I am talking about "option slots", as I realise the number of options to install in those slots will go up over time) but the vast majority of my characters never get past level 3, and I now regard level 5 like most people regard level 20.

1st level characters need more differentiation.

Class

At a minimum I'd like to see all classes with a level 1 class feat - even if it is in reality a feat tax style feat.

The fact someone cannot start as a multiclass bothers me. Fiction is full of characters who are an A and a B. These cannot be built in the current system until higher levels

Ancestry

Please give Ancestries more options at 1st!
Especially if you are going to do half-elf and half-orc. I was a huge fan of the idea at the start (it's basically multiclassing for races) but the first implementation was disappointing and the second implementation is worse.

Paizo; The lack of options means you are handicapping your ability to release new races later!

The concept of Heritages as "Ancestry Feats you can't pick up after 1st" sounded great! Magic is always going to be the way to get round this, of course, but it explained a lot. By all means add the heritage combos together to create sub-races ("Oh, Drow have the Darkvision and Natural Magic heritages but High Elves have the Snooty and Natural Magic heritages)

Yes, some of these Heritages are going to be the same (like Darkvision) but I am okay with that.

Incidentally - I have run a very successful high power 1e game where I doubled racial effects at the start - a very simple change that really worked to make race important at the start (the theme I wanted in the game).

Skill and Background

A level 1 skill feat gives characters a thing that there character is better at. I am okay with this being covered by the Background, I guess, as that is really all that is.

Not the issue

Scaling Feats. Note that scaling feats (which on balance I like) will not help with this issue as they don't actually scale until higher levels.

Imbalanced Feats. I'm fine if all feats are not equal (I guess) - though I do think designers should try for feats to be equal within their type and level.

Feat Trees. I like Feat Trees. You can stop people climbing the tree at the start (like humans in 1e) by just making one feat require level 2.

Total Numbers of Feats. Look - if there's math that says a 20th level character can't have more than X feats, fine. Give them more at 1st and slightly slow the gain over the next 19. Especially with Ancestry where it makes sense to front load this! We're all looking up tables or using sheets now, so when we get feats doesn't necessarily need to be able to be described by a simple "Every x level" formula, I think.

N00b characters. If People want characters at 1st to be even weaker, it would be really easy to do a "level 0" optional build. You get Ancestry, Background, Racial HP, and the multiclass feat for your actual class.

Just Start Higher. Sure - in theory GMs could just "start" their games at 3rd with characters below 3rd being trainees. Unless all the APs start doing this people are still going to want to start at level 1, where you are a competent and differentiated professional.

Other ways of customisation. Sure, wizards can have different spells and fighters can wear different armour. A lot of these options can be switched though. My wizard can teach spells to my friends, and your light fighter can wear the tank's full plate.

Signature Skills. I love the change away from signature skills as a way of doing customisation (Please, please don't change it back!) But it's been done now and while it helps it is not enough.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Rules for attended objects (especially items) and attacking them. Seriously, it's a mess.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I am a GM for my group 90% of the time, so my issues are mostly from a campaign running and preparation perspective.

1) I would really like monster stats to be closer to that of PCs, and from the look of the playtest bestiary, they are not. They don't have to be exactly the same, but at least the same calculations for AC, HP, and attack bonuses would be good. I just think it really adds to the immersion. I'm aware that we don't really have proper monster creation rules yet, but this is my concern so far.

2) The check DC table feels too abstract for me. I can't really imagine what a task of a certain level is supposed to mean, unlike with 1E, where I could base the DC on the information I have about the task (lock quality for doors, surface type, for example).

3) Exploration mode rules seem very unnecessary to me. I've always run non-combat and exploration situations as a rules-light and natural process. I didn't even really use the exploration mode rules while running the playtest.

These are my biggest issues, but I do want to say that I really appreciate that 2E makes it much easier for me to run and prepare games.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Enough parity between PCs and monsters that nothing breaks if some one-off vampire becomes a semi-permanent travelling companion (this has happened at least twice).

The ability to take the most useful option instead of the least useless.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sort out 3D.

Sort out 3D.

Sort out 3D.

It's been busted in every d20 game so far, in spite of Fly being a spell available to most parties at even medium levels.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Please. Fix. Assurance.

It is exactly backwards to your stated game design goals. It is a feat that gets weaker as you level up. It peaks out at level 15, and then only gets worse from then on.

I know, I harp on this a lot, but man... if the current version of Assurance is in the final game it will bug me so much. >.>

I feat that a final solution for Assurance will have to be linked to them reconsidering their math, right now I absolutely agree it is a very bad option for most characters.

Something like taking 10 would help, but when I talk to players, they want something to allow them to be more reliable at the skill they invest in (I interpret that as wanting to avoid failures and more likely to get a normal success), the general crit system makes this very complicated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't have many complaints but I suppose my biggest one is keeping item DCs relevant. I always liked the concept of spell-casting items in PF1, a way for non magic users to have limited magic. But the DC always being the lowest possible made them completely useless for debuffs and half useless for attack spells.

In PF2 this is much better because items actually have a fitting DC for their level, comparable to a caster of that level or at least the standard for class DC at that level. And with most spells doing something on even a successful save these items keep doing something even several levels out but it's not quite there. Lower level items still fall way behind and the thing is the PF2 system makes it so they don't need to! Yeah lower level items should be weaker than high level items but not like this. The Resonance system is perfectly made for this! It costs the same daily resorce to activate a level 2 item as it does a level 20 item, so I think it only makes sense for any Resonance-fueled activation to bump an item's DC to a minimum of your class DC. And lower level items are still balanced against higher, as a level 3 item may emulate a level 2 spell but a level 20 item likely emulates a level 8 or 9 spell, the DC drop is a completely unnecessary incentive when the power difference between levels of items is already well present without it.

That said Paizo did hint at a coming system for magic items that grow with you which might solve this, but I still really want to see item DCs never fall off ideally.

(Alchemical items are a little different with poisons and bombs not costing Resonance to use. Store-bought poisons falling out of use makes sense, though it would be cool to have the option to spend resonance to bump that DC. And I think and reagent-based item creation by Alchemist should definitely bump the DC, again it costs the same daily resource whether you make Wasp Venom or Dragon Bile, no need to over-penalize for using the weaker item).

And I know the current Resonance system will likely pass on but honestly I think it only needed a few minor tweaks to work great so my vision of how magic items could work is kinda filtered through that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Edge93 wrote:
And I know the current Resonance system will likely pass on but honestly I think it only needed a few minor tweaks to work great so my vision of how magic items could work is kinda filtered through that.

It makes me happy to know that I'm not the only person here who liked the playtest version of Resonance; I felt so alone in my opinion. :P


MaxAstro wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
And I know the current Resonance system will likely pass on but honestly I think it only needed a few minor tweaks to work great so my vision of how magic items could work is kinda filtered through that.
It makes me happy to know that I'm not the only person here who liked the playtest version of Resonance; I felt so alone in my opinion. :P

Are you talking about the original version that came with the Playtest or the Resonance Test? Almost everyone in my group really disliked the former, but people were ok with the Resonance Test version, I've only heard some complaints about Focus being tied to class abilities and magic items at the same time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
And I know the current Resonance system will likely pass on but honestly I think it only needed a few minor tweaks to work great so my vision of how magic items could work is kinda filtered through that.
It makes me happy to know that I'm not the only person here who liked the playtest version of Resonance; I felt so alone in my opinion. :P

Lol I hear you. XD

I haven't actually looked at The Resonance Test yet (I really should) but from what I have heard it doesn't sound like quite as much what I'd like.

Of course based on what I've heard Resonance is the root of all evil so that doesn't mean anything...

But of course I am curious to see the final system but a tweaked version of Resonance as Houserule is in my head as a backup just in case. I'm sure Paizo will do us well, I just won't know what's best for my table until it comes out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:

I'd like to ask for just one thing: That we intuitively know what type a bonus is, solely based on its source and without having to consult the rules. With a lot of experience, I can do this in PF1 and be correct most of the time. PF2 has less bonus types (good!) so I would expect this to be easier now, and unfortunately the playtest isn't quite there yet.

Directly related to this, can we get rid of the term "conditional bonus"? The fact that some conditions give circumstance penalties/bonuses while others give conditional penalties/bonuses is very confusing.

I cataloged the 42 Basic Conditions on pages 320 to 324 to see how mixed the conditional and circumstance modifiers were. The results are below.

12 Conditional Modifiers
6 Circumstance Modifiers

etc. Thank you, paizo, for making it too hard for me to edit the post I'm quoting to show *all* the text germane to my reply. :-(

Maybe it doesn't matter. Seems to me that "conditional", as Paizo is using it here, means "pertinent to or arising from a condition". "Circumstance" seems to apply when the origin of the bonus or penalty is something other than a condition (e.g. "situational" reasons). So if you get a penalty to Perception because you're asleep, that should be a conditional penalty (you have the "asleep" condition") not a circumstance penalty. Same with flat-footed (a condition), even though the rulebook (page 291) specifically calls that out as possibly being due to being flanked (a circumstance). To me, that doesn't matter. The penalty exists because you're flat-footed. It's a conditional penalty. Doesn't matter what circumstance caused you to be flat-footed.

So I wouldn't get rid of the term "conditional bonus/penalty". I *would* call "circumstance" bonuses or penalties "conditional" rather than "circumstance" if it's the condition that is the origin of the modifier.

If your vision is impaired because it's raining, that's a circumstance penalty. If your vision is impaired because you're blinded, that's a conditional penalty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I would hope that the racial feats would help the race to feel more like the race sooner rather than later.

"Race" is no longer a thing. Paizo has decided the word is politically incorrect and is to be stricken from the language.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I would hope that the racial feats would help the race to feel more like the race sooner rather than later.
"Race" is no longer a thing. Paizo has decided the word is politically incorrect and is to be stricken from the language.

This is incorrect, since the "gaming is for all" section refers to race.

Rather, it would seem that Paizo has decided that 'race' is a word with real-world implications that do not accurately reflect what they were using it for in game, and so have chosen to use what they feel to be a more accurate term.

To me this makes sense, because in a real world sense someone of Chelish descent and someone of Tian-Min descent would be difference races, but previously under game terms they were the same race.

Of course personally my opinion is that the change to "ancestry" had nothing to do with any of that and was just shoe-horned in to make the cheesy "character creation is easy as ABC" line work. :P


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean the thing about "race" is that it's not really precise or accurate. Like changelings are the result of a one-off coupling between a hag and some poor unfortunate soul (who almost certainly met a terrible end), there aren't enough of them anywhere to really be a "race". Triaxians are literally from another planet, so they are a different species not a different race of anything. Ghorans were artificially created via magic and do not reproduce, so no biological groupings really apply here. If you have an in-character reason to talk about Locathahs, saying "the foul smelling fish people" is going to be sufficient, since they are people (and they do smell bad).

Switching to ancestry just shifts the question to: who were your parents, who raised you, and was there anything noteworthy further back in your family tree? Which is a lot smaller in terms of implications. I mean, changeling is an ancestry ("mom was a hag, no... literally") but not a race.


Ed Reppert wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:

I'd like to ask for just one thing: That we intuitively know what type a bonus is, solely based on its source and without having to consult the rules. With a lot of experience, I can do this in PF1 and be correct most of the time. PF2 has less bonus types (good!) so I would expect this to be easier now, and unfortunately the playtest isn't quite there yet.

Directly related to this, can we get rid of the term "conditional bonus"? The fact that some conditions give circumstance penalties/bonuses while others give conditional penalties/bonuses is very confusing.

I cataloged the 42 Basic Conditions on pages 320 to 324 to see how mixed the conditional and circumstance modifiers were. The results are below.

...

etc. Thank you, paizo, for making it too hard for me to edit the post I'm quoting to show *all* the text germane to my reply. :-(

Maybe it doesn't matter. Seems to me that "conditional", as Paizo is using it here, means "pertinent to or arising from a condition". "Circumstance" seems to apply when the origin of the bonus or penalty is something other than a condition (e.g. "situational" reasons)...

Following Sara Marie's advice to take discussions to another thread, I created the thread Circumstance and Conditional.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just hope they give combat maneuvers another pass and improve disarm, give options for grappling (like the staggering/intimidating slam move from Martial Arts Handbook), and create a PF2 dirty tricks maneuver.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My only plea is that the developers release the game that they believe in 100% and is the absolute best system for telling the stories that make Golarion one of the most fun campaign settings to play in: the APs and the Modules. I.E. make sure that any changes to the system fit with design goals for adventure writers and I will be along for the ride.

At this point, I think anyone home brewing content for PF1 has enough monsters and materials to fill their own worlds 100x over if they want to keep going with their own stories set in other campaigns, but my group has completed 1 AP out of 5 started due to the awkward clunkiness of high level play (whoever is GMing inevitably gives up because they feel like they are essentially just having to run a home brew adventure.)


11 people marked this as a favorite.

For me it's Armour, especially heavy Armour.

I know this might be controversial but for me, unarmoured or lightly armoured characters should NEVER be able to equal heavily armoured characters in AC (given the same level of investment).

Instead, the lightly armoured characters should make up the difference elsewhere.

But at the very least, medium & heavy armour shouldn't be activly worse than light/ unarmoured.

They have done so well with all the cool weapon qualities that really make weapons visceral & meaty - let armour be the same, not just a series of punishments for using it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:
Long shot idea here, and something I'll probably try to build myself is sorcerers that don't have spell slots at all, and instead cast using Powers as granted by their bloodline and by feats.

I LOVE this idea! And have actually already implemented it in my more homebrew campaign. We have a blind fighter/sorceress looking to simulate something like Oracle, so what I did was grant them a sort of custom pool. Like with focus points, it was based off of their charisma and expanded based on the number of feats they invested towards its power.

The player games a sort of 'blind sight' within 5 feet x the number of points remaining in their pool. Now, for actually using their pool, they could learn spells as per the sorcerer archtype, but instead of casting them with spell slots, they could expend 1 point of their pool per spell level to cast. This created a cool semi-caster asthetic, but let them cast alot as needed, with a major drawback.

I think some sort of fluid system of casting akin to this, based on powers instead of simply spell slots, would really fit the playstyle and thematic of a sorcerer.


Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:

Two most important things to me:

Make half-orcs and half-elves real races and not a feat tax with what will probably be permanently fewer choices than other races, most acutely for the first quarter of level progression.

Keep LG paladins with a focus on redemption as a valid and sensible option. My 1e LG paladin of Iomedae would hands-down want the "make people rethink their actions" options rather than "need to let my buddy draw attacks before I can do anything". As is, if options stay locked to simplistic alignment interpretations, then YES, the variant paladins ARE taking something away from traditional paladins.

1. Cool name,

2. Agree with your point on races, though I feel the update to ancestries mostly fixes it.
3. I agree that the reaction should have some other effect besides just your allies being attacked. The reaction serves to punish enemies that go after allies, but almost encourages you as the paladin to let your friends take some hits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Only one plea here :

For mounted combat, please let medium creatures with range weapon keep their reach from any square of the creature they are mounting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anathema: I like a lot of the Cleric, Druid, and Barbarian ones. But the Paladin ones... need work. They "feel" right for an abstract concept of a Paladin, but I felt that for a Paladin who works as an adventurer, it needs to be suited to the PF playstyle. First off, the term 'murder' needs to be differentiated from what a Paladin does with her big sharp sword, because I'm assuming that the average dungeoncrawl of slaying orcs and owlbears isn't going to make the Paladin fall. Second, the whole "ignore lower tenets in pursuit of higher tenets" is a good thing which makes the class more flexible, but it also makes the Paladin important in adventure design or choice. A LG Paladin could lie to avoid torturing someone or letting an innocent die, but couldn't if the party was trying to take a shortcut through the bad part of town.

It feels like the Paladin Code should either be ignored altogether by the group, or it should be made flexible enough to allow Paladins to play in an average adventure module, one not designed to provoke them, without falling.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Important thing to me. I want my character to magical with lots of low level, none combat, and weird magic items (like the Tengu jug, the hat of disguise, a magic hut that sets itself up.) I want my characters to live in a magical world, even if they are not wizards... and be able to use their wonderful little magic items without taking away from their combat abilities.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly? My group HATES PF2, or at least the playtest version - even after the updates.

My wife ended up giving me an ultimatum to stop trying the playtest version.

I am more worried about what Paizo will do if PF2 flops as badly as I fear it might than I am in trying to fix it.

As it stands, my group is sticking with PF1, with no intent to move to the new edition.

Which means that I will no longer be buying supplements, adventure paths, or any other PF material from Paizo. (Not a threat - there is just no interest, so no reason to buy.)

Third party publishers may or may not make the move to PF2 - and d20PFSRD had a survey about interest in keeping PF1 releases going instead.

Several releases from my favorite Pathfinder publisher - Frog God - will already be skipping PF, since they still have a large back catalog of PF1 material.

So, I guess my plea is that Paizo keep an eye on the market, and be ready to react to either a positive response, or a negative one. Not to get so locked in to their 'vision' of the game that they end up holding to an anchor on its way down.

I am hoping that I am wrong, but 4e... left me cautious, in this regard.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My plea: Make mounted combat good on more than just the horse. (hope I haven't posted this before)

Liberty's Edge

Paizo, Thank You (I prefer PFPT to PF1/3.x+)

My biggest fixit request is related to others, but not stated quite this way...

DC Math. Decide what "significant" means at 1st level (+2, +3, whichever), use that to differentiate each difficulty category at 1st, keep all categories up with whatver automatic progression you have, and slowly spread to a new "significance" at 20th level (such as +5 or so) between each category. DCs shouldn't need to jump by more than +1 above automatic progression each level.

Desire? - e-publish the results of PFPT errata to a set we can continue to use, and please, slowly add hyperlinks and filterable lists what you provide for players.

I particularly agree with pleas for eliminating Armor as a huge game penalty for those that need it (classes or concepts that can't prioritize Dexterity).

I'll be playing it, so look forward to what you create...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not JUST Vancian casting.

Let wizards and clerics cast that way, it's fun way for some with lots of legacy. But other classes should at differently. That's the main strength of a class system, you can have different mechanics.

Sorcerers for instance, would make perfect sense for a point system, drawing from their inner power, and drawing too much makes them take damage. Bards might be able to cast any spell at-will, but it takes a few turns of singing/talking to their target, encouraging them to talk before fighting. Warlock might need to kill something for their power, tempting them to burn down that orphanage. And all sorts of other magical methods that can happen.

There are plenty of interesting and flavorful options. Vancian should just be one variety.


Mellored wrote:

Not JUST Vancian casting.

Let wizards and clerics cast that way, it's fun way for some with lots of legacy. But other classes should at differently. That's the main strength of a class system, you can have different mechanics.

Sorcerers for instance, would make perfect sense for a point system, drawing from their inner power, and drawing too much makes them take damage. Bards might be able to cast any spell at-will, but it takes a few turns of singing/talking to their target, encouraging them to talk before fighting. Warlock might need to kill something for their power, tempting them to burn down that orphanage. And all sorts of other magical methods that can happen.

There are plenty of interesting and flavorful options. Vancian should just be one variety.

I am confused sorcerers,bards and several others(PF1 classes) are already not Vancian. You probably want to remove the system of slots... But some of those that you proposed might be even more problematic, specially the bard and warlock one.

Outside of that i would love some 'casters' getting power packages instead of spell slots, powers work really well but they need more variety instead of one per feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
Mellored wrote:

Not JUST Vancian casting.

Let wizards and clerics cast that way, it's fun way for some with lots of legacy. But other classes should at differently. That's the main strength of a class system, you can have different mechanics.

Sorcerers for instance, would make perfect sense for a point system, drawing from their inner power, and drawing too much makes them take damage. Bards might be able to cast any spell at-will, but it takes a few turns of singing/talking to their target, encouraging them to talk before fighting. Warlock might need to kill something for their power, tempting them to burn down that orphanage. And all sorts of other magical methods that can happen.

There are plenty of interesting and flavorful options. Vancian should just be one variety.

I am confused sorcerers,bards and several others(PF1 classes) are already not Vancian. You probably want to remove the system of slots... But some of those that you proposed might be even more problematic, specially the bard and warlock one.

Outside of that i would love some 'casters' getting power packages instead of spell slots, powers work really well but they need more variety instead of one per feat.

Slots and points just seem... generic. Sure, they work, but they come off lacking.

There should be more ways for magic works. Not just more effects, but more ways to cast.

Like, you have to take falling damage to cast this, or you can only use shadow magic when your shadow connects with someone else's. Or you need to change stances before you can cast. Or you can only attack creatures who have an even number of letters in their name.

I dunno what exactly, but there should be more variety.

At least we get the alchemists, which is a bit different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mellored wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Mellored wrote:

Not JUST Vancian casting.

Let wizards and clerics cast that way, it's fun way for some with lots of legacy. But other classes should at differently. That's the main strength of a class system, you can have different mechanics.

Sorcerers for instance, would make perfect sense for a point system, drawing from their inner power, and drawing too much makes them take damage. Bards might be able to cast any spell at-will, but it takes a few turns of singing/talking to their target, encouraging them to talk before fighting. Warlock might need to kill something for their power, tempting them to burn down that orphanage. And all sorts of other magical methods that can happen.

There are plenty of interesting and flavorful options. Vancian should just be one variety.

I am confused sorcerers,bards and several others(PF1 classes) are already not Vancian. You probably want to remove the system of slots... But some of those that you proposed might be even more problematic, specially the bard and warlock one.

Outside of that i would love some 'casters' getting power packages instead of spell slots, powers work really well but they need more variety instead of one per feat.

Slots and points just seem... generic. Sure, they work, but they come off lacking.

There should be more ways for magic works. Not just more effects, but more ways to cast.

Like, you have to take falling damage to cast this, or you can only use shadow magic when your shadow connects with someone else's. Or you need to change stances before you can cast. Or you can only attack creatures who have an even number of letters in their name.

I dunno what exactly, but there should be more variety.

At least we get the alchemists, which is a bit different.

I love those ideas but outside of homebrews i doubt we can get something like that, those abilities seem too hard to balance around anything. I mean i just found spheres of power the other day and already feel it's better than vancian in every way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mellored wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Mellored wrote:

Not JUST Vancian casting.

Let wizards and clerics cast that way, it's fun way for some with lots of legacy. But other classes should at differently. That's the main strength of a class system, you can have different mechanics.

Sorcerers for instance, would make perfect sense for a point system, drawing from their inner power, and drawing too much makes them take damage. Bards might be able to cast any spell at-will, but it takes a few turns of singing/talking to their target, encouraging them to talk before fighting. Warlock might need to kill something for their power, tempting them to burn down that orphanage. And all sorts of other magical methods that can happen.

There are plenty of interesting and flavorful options. Vancian should just be one variety.

I am confused sorcerers,bards and several others(PF1 classes) are already not Vancian. You probably want to remove the system of slots... But some of those that you proposed might be even more problematic, specially the bard and warlock one.

Outside of that i would love some 'casters' getting power packages instead of spell slots, powers work really well but they need more variety instead of one per feat.

Slots and points just seem... generic. Sure, they work, but they come off lacking.

There should be more ways for magic works. Not just more effects, but more ways to cast.

Like, you have to take falling damage to cast this, or you can only use shadow magic when your shadow connects with someone else's. Or you need to change stances before you can cast. Or you can only attack creatures who have an even number of letters in their name.

I dunno what exactly, but there should be more variety.

At least we get the alchemists, which is a bit different.

This is the sort of thing I love making with the Spheres of Power books. Water Priests who use pools of water for teleporting and extra dimensional storage or Flesh Mages who grab you and pull you apart like taffey until you are a whole different creature. Orc Rot Shamen who dig an enchanted insect out of their flesh and throw it at you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah those kinds of casting sound cool and all but within 2 sessions of playing it you’re going to be throwing a fit and wanting Vancian casting back because it will be too niche most of the time and you will be jumping through ridiculous hoops to try and put yourself in a situation where you can use it.

There are systems were that kind of magic works but they tend to give characters more wiggle room and you usually still have to supplement your character with other abilities so it’s not useless the 75%+ time you can’t use your magic.

The general adventure setup that D&D/PF uses is more often than not reactionary and with characters on the move. Which isn’t a good spot for that kind of casting. Argue about the current casting system all you want but at least it is reliable.

Edit: an example of this kind of casting that immediately came to mind is Unknown Armies. Magic is powerful but often limited (and often hilarious). Gaining charges for your spells is often difficult and time consuming and short of maybe a Dipsomancer I couldn’t see one being usable in your average PF game. On second thought Epideromancy would work too but only because of the accessibility of healing in PF. I’d rule that they would lose the charges if they are healed. That might even be written into UA. I can’t remember, it’s been awhile.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The one thing that keeps nagging me is a dissonance between the Asleep and Unconscious conditions:

Playtest Rulebook wrote:

Asleep: You can’t act. Furthermore, you have the blinded and flat-footed conditions and take a –4 conditional penalty to AC and Perception. You critically fail all Reflex saves you must attempt. When you gain this condition, you fall prone and drop items you are holding or wielding unless the effect states otherwise or the GM determines you’re in a position in which you wouldn’t. If you take damage while asleep, the condition ends. If you are within an ally’s natural reach, that ally can usually nudge or shake you awake with an Interact action. If there is loud noise going on around you, at the start of your turn you can attempt a Perception check as a free action with a –4 circumstance penalty against the noise’s DC (or the lowest DC if there is more than one noise), waking up if you succeed. For creatures attempting to stay quiet, this is a Stealth DC. Some magical effects make you sleep so deeply that they don’t allow you to attempt this Perception check.

Unconsscious: You’ve been knocked out. You can’t act, and you have the blinded, deafened, and flat-footed conditions, and you take a –4 conditional penalty to AC. When you gain this condition, you fall prone and drop items you are wielding or holding unless the effect states otherwise or the GM determines you’re in a position in which you wouldn’t. You must attempt a recovery saving throw (see page 295) at the start of each of your turns.

So, while asleep you automatically critically fail all Reflex saves, but when you're unconscious (which as arguably worse than asleep), you're still allowed to make Reflex saves as usual with no restrictions whatsoever. That makes no sense.


Zaister wrote:

The one thing that keeps nagging me is a dissonance between the Asleep and Unconscious conditions:

Playtest Rulebook wrote:

Asleep: You can’t act. Furthermore, you have the blinded and flat-footed conditions and take a –4 conditional penalty to AC and Perception. You critically fail all Reflex saves you must attempt. When you gain this condition, you fall prone and drop items you are holding or wielding unless the effect states otherwise or the GM determines you’re in a position in which you wouldn’t. If you take damage while asleep, the condition ends. If you are within an ally’s natural reach, that ally can usually nudge or shake you awake with an Interact action. If there is loud noise going on around you, at the start of your turn you can attempt a Perception check as a free action with a –4 circumstance penalty against the noise’s DC (or the lowest DC if there is more than one noise), waking up if you succeed. For creatures attempting to stay quiet, this is a Stealth DC. Some magical effects make you sleep so deeply that they don’t allow you to attempt this Perception check.

Unconsscious: You’ve been knocked out. You can’t act, and you have the blinded, deafened, and flat-footed conditions, and you take a –4 conditional penalty to AC. When you gain this condition, you fall prone and drop items you are wielding or holding unless the effect states otherwise or the GM determines you’re in a position in which you wouldn’t. You must attempt a recovery saving throw (see page 295) at the start of each of your turns.

So, while asleep you automatically critically fail all Reflex saves, but when you're unconscious (which as arguably worse than asleep), you're still allowed to make Reflex saves as usual with no restrictions whatsoever. That makes no sense.

Oh, and you also don't take a penalty to Perception when unconscious.

FWIW though, from a balance perspective I might be able to understand it, sleep ends if you get hurt but Unconscious doesn't, so unconscious having that weakness is more exploitable. Plus if you are unconscious you are probably Dying, and the devs may not have wanted all AoE effects to automatically increase your dying condition by 2 (Especially given you die at Dying 4.)

Not saying it makes any better sense, just saying there are balance reasons that I understand.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Edge93 wrote:


Oh, and you also don't take a penalty to Perception when unconscious.

That's actually covered, because you are blinded and deafened, which means you automatically critically fail most Perception checks.


Daronil wrote:
A really good, comprehensive conversion document when the 2E is finally complete. My group will be sticking with 1E, but I want to keep getting the APs and modules; but I'll need to convert them back.

That is a great idea!


Oh, didn't notice deafened. Cool.

101 to 150 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Hear our Plea(s) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.