| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would anyone be interested in revised printed books or PDFs for 1e, provided it was a significant revision with lots of our issues addressed?
If they addressed all the ambiguities and rules conflicts without affecting compatibility, then probably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would anyone be interested in revised printed books or PDFs for 1e, provided it was a significant revision with lots of our issues addressed?If they addressed all the ambiguities and rules conflicts without affecting compatibility, then probably.
Grapple rules - for instance - should never have gone from merely complicated in 3.5e to almost requiring a flowchart in PF1. Most of it's in the presentation, being in multiple places in Core, but still... there was an opportunity to make that rule set smooth.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd Revise a few things.
1: Unified terminology - no more weird wording, make it consistent.
2: Remove Feat Taxes, make more feats scale.
3: Clarify "Take 10" and make it explicit, I see far too much variation on this when playing.
4: Clarify Mounted Combat, it's a bit of a mess. (actually, beyond there being so few good mounts in PF2 I was largely happy with it there).
5: More Style feats for classes that aren't monks, makes martias more diverse.
6: consolidate skills. Some skills are practically infinite (profession, craft, etc.) and others don't need to be separate (Arcana and Spellcraft, for example). Would not reduce skill points to go with this.
7: Make lighting rules not a mess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Off the top of my head ...
Collect all related rules elements in one place (e.g., Invisibility rules).
Improve monster defences so that "bad touch" classes/builds are not "automatic wins", particularly at high-level play. Touch AC in general needs a revision.
Improve in general the math of high-level play (character levels 13+).
Produce either a base class or prestige class which is a more faithful representation of the 1e/2e Fighter/Mage concept than the Spellsword and Magus crap that 3.x and PF1 produced. The current Eldritch Knight prestige class is close to satisfactory, but doesn't automatically give reduced arcane spellcasting failure % in while wearing armour (therefore only a Bard or Magus can get any utility out of it currently). The Arcane Armour Training and Arcane Armour Mastery feats don't help either, as they use up a swift action and that rules out any quickened or other swift spells. Something like the Warpriest's swift self-buffing could be a useful option too, particularly as it can off-set reduced BAB and HD size, plus improve defences during combat. I'd prefer full access to Wizard spells, but at a slower rate (two or three caster levels behind a single-class Wizard) to account for the distraction of martial training. And a spontaneous archetype for those who want to ditch the spellbook (with associated penalties).
Resonance is interesting as a concept, and I like the idea of Charisma becoming a more important ability score. Something like that.
Some Pathfinder Unchained options which I liked: Barbarian, Rogue, Summoner, (Monk as an optional version), fractional BAB and saving throws, background skills (but limit Bards to taking at most one Performance skill as a background skill), Lore/Artistry skills, wound thresholds, poison/disease rules, combat stamina and combat tricks (Combat Stamina feat free for Fighters, no other class can take that feat, only bonus Fighter feats give access to the associated combat tricks). Maybe the revised action economy too (we haven't playtested it yet).
Re-balance spells, particularly those from later rulebooks and certain lines of sourcebooks.
Don't allow class features which give one class the option of poaching spells from another class' spell list. What might be "sort of balanced" in the hands of one class might be completely unbalanced in the hands of another class (particularly with certain builds).
Clarify the language of Monk class features, unarmed combat, etc. so that a character will not try to combine a full attack with a greatsword with unarmed strikes. All in a six-second round. :(
Clarify style feats. I'd prefer it if those which have Improved Unarmed Strike as a pre-requisite also specify that the feat can only be used with unarmed combat (and maybe weapons with the Monk quality). The Martial Arts Handbook (Player Companion line) was good at limiting the style feats to certain uses.
Get rid of the Crane Style feat chain, or at least nerf it so that it is no longer the go-to feat chain for stupidly-high AC builds. I'm being faced with ACs in the mid-to-high 40s in some characters, simply because all dodge bonuses stack.
And if it isn't already an option buried in some rulebook/sourcebook, give the Swashbuckler base class the Duellist prestige class' Acrobatic Charge class feature.
Wow, that got long!
If I had my druthers, PF2 would have been more along the lines of Starfinder: keeping the core gameplay of PF1 intact, while streamlining some of the more complicated elements and tinkering a little with the math to avoid extremes. In other words, a true revision as opposed to a whole new game, which is what we're going to get (for better or worse).Pretty much this. I could go into more details, but unless there's an actual chance of that happening, why bother. :p
I think the reason to bother is that the PF2 strategy might not pan out as Paizo expects. If that happens, all of our input might help them formulate a plan B -- which might push them into the direction many of us wished they had gone in the first place.
What about Combat Maneuvers? Rather than letting everybody do all the maneuvers whenever they want ... Wouldn't it be cool if characters had to invest ranks in them like skills or some other type of system?
What if for the spell casting classes, each spell casting class had unique spells that no other class could cast? What if that was the rule, rather than the exception?
Doesn't it seem overly generic that so many classes share so many spells?
Was the gunslinger a mistake? Should it be removed from 1e?No. Opinions vary. Never had problems running for or playing a gunslinger.
The gunslinger and alchemist should be core as well.
I was just asking because I think some people feel the gunslinger shatters the medieval theme in Pathfinder.
So, maybe, gunslinger belongs in another book that expands on that theme to enable play with an old American West type theme or some other era -- instead of including it in a book with classes that only seem to clash with it?
|
Was the gunslinger a mistake? Should it be removed from 1e?No. Opinions vary. Never had problems running for or playing a gunslinger.
The gunslinger and alchemist should be core as well.
I was just asking because I think some people feel the gunslinger shatters the medieval theme in Pathfinder.
Pray tell, how many are "some people" and why do you think that the number of them compared to people who are fine with gunslingers in Golarion warrants a change to a setting?
Wait whats wrong with 40+ AC at the cost of to hit and dmg?
It creates a situation where most of the enemies in the campaign quickly realise they have virtually no chance of significantly hurting the PC, and they might as well all just surrender.
This isn't very exciting.
A GM has to create custom enemies who can hit 40AC, because the high-level NPCs provided by the game usually can't.
|
|
Wait whats wrong with 40+ AC at the cost of to hit and dmg?It creates a situation where most of the enemies in the campaign quickly realise they have virtually no chance of significantly hurting the PC, and they might as well all just surrender.
This isn't very exciting.
A GM has to create custom enemies who can hit 40AC, because the high-level NPCs provided by the game usually can't.
In before the "well just use lots of swarms to challenge that PC just like you should use lots of golems if you think Wizards are too powerful" argument.
Well, swarms (or wizards, or ghosts) would actually work against the high-AC Fighter, while the Wizard would probably just drop the golems into Hungry Pits. But in either case, any PC where the GM has to rewrite the campaign in order to challenge them is a problem PC.
Pray tell, how many are "some people" and why do you think that the number of them compared to people who are fine with gunslingers in Golarion warrants a change to a setting?I think some people feel the gunslinger shatters the medieval theme in Pathfinder.
I don't think anyone knows how many dislike guns in Pathfinder, but I can find plenty of people on the forums who don't, or who play with people who don't.
If one player in five thinks it spoils the fantasy atmosphere, then most groups will contain at least one such person.
And not including Gunslingers as a core class doesn't change the setting any more than leaving out Summoners as a core class does.
|
|
The forums, being populated mostly by people with far higher than average emotional investment in the game and more opinionated, is hardly representative. I have played PF/D&D with over 50 people across my RPG career and not once did I ever hear about guns having no place in fantasy.
But then again, maybe it's because for us Yupreens guns don't carry as much emotional baggage as they do for 'Muricans...
In other news: Paizo made limited access to guns a thing in Golarion and they didn't go bankrupt. So I guess they took the right way to handle that.
As a relatively new player, one of the most frustrating things isn't the complexity but the lack of a cross referencing system for that complexity.
For example, if your character gains or loses a point of Strength, there is no good way to look up all the things that are affected. You just have to know all the rules well enough to mentally go through each rule.
Many online resources fill this void with technology - apps and Excel sheets that will autocalculate these things. If Paizo is okay with the status quo, it's no big deal. But Paizo could fill the void themselves with a few pages of cross-reference: 1. Things you need to change when ability scores change. 2. Things that you can use to change each ability score or skill ranks. Even simple things like lists of different ways to become invisible would be helpful.
This wouldn't reduce the actual complexity of the game (which is arguably positive) but it would reduce the perceived complexity (which seems like a definite negative).
Sort out exactly when you get a Perception check, how ‘active’ the PCs need to be to get one, or whether there is a ‘passive’ system we can adopt that isn’t 10+ your Perception bonus (because then rolling would mean you’d do worse than half the time you relied on your passive score...)
Didn't they already do this in the Core Rulebook? I guess it isn't exact, but it seems good enough.
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
Clean up and use more precise language in the CRB.
Definitely. The worst part of the Core Rulebook is that it inherited any text directly from the 3.5 printing.
Use bulletted and numbered paragraphs in rules texts like the CRB in cases where sequential information is important IE grappling rules.
+1.
Ditch prestige classes from the CRB.
Boo. Some of us like 'em. I just finished running a Pathfinder savant and it's been a blast.
And...most controversially, end the game at level 12 or so, and then move to ‘name level’ system where benefits flatten out (an ‘E12’ system, if you will...).
uwotm8? Some of us like high level play. E12 (or E6, or En) might have been a nice addition to Pathfinder Unchained, though, since there's certainly a large minority of players who enjoy that sort of thing. I guess they figured it wasn't necessary since the concept is already pretty well understood.
Was the gunslinger a mistake? Should it be removed from 1e?No. Opinions vary. Never had problems running for or playing a gunslinger.
The gunslinger and alchemist should be core as well.
I was just asking because I think some people feel the gunslinger shatters the medieval theme in Pathfinder.
Pray tell, how many are "some people" and why do you think that the number of them compared to people who are fine with gunslingers in Golarion warrants a change to a setting?
Just people in my inner circle and sometimes online. I let people play them, but as I said ...
As a relatively new player, one of the most frustrating things isn't the complexity but the lack of a cross referencing system for that complexity.
For example, if your character gains or loses a point of Strength, there is no good way to look up all the things that are affected. You just have to know all the rules well enough to mentally go through each rule.
Many online resources fill this void with technology - apps and Excel sheets that will autocalculate these things. If Paizo is okay with the status quo, it's no big deal. But Paizo could fill the void themselves with a few pages of cross-reference: 1. Things you need to change when ability scores change. 2. Things that you can use to change each ability score or skill ranks. Even simple things like lists of different ways to become invisible would be helpful.
This wouldn't reduce the actual complexity of the game (which is arguably positive) but it would reduce the perceived complexity (which seems like a definite negative).
Yes, I totally agree. Consolidate the rules. Make sure all the material for each major topic is together.
Another example is that you'll find various discussions throughout the Core Rulebook about different classes -- but when you look at the classes, none of the material is even referenced there. You wouldn't even know about it.
If three of your core classes are going to get animal companions, then how to acquire/design and advance animal companions ought to be in the core rulebook.
Was the gunslinger a mistake? Should it be removed from 1e?
The problem for me is they made a combat style full of so many haphazard awkward pit falls and traps that’s it’s unuasable unless you take a particular class, the only quality of which is to facilitate said combat style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the reason to bother is that the PF2 strategy might not pan out as Paizo expects. If that happens, all of our input might help them formulate a plan B -- which might push them into the direction many of us wished they had gone in the first place.
On the one hand, I hope PF2 succeeds - not because I want to play it - but because I wish Paizo and its employees well. Both financially, and artistically... I expect PF2 is the game Jason and the gang want to make and support, not that they're being dragged from PF1 kicking & screaming.
On the other hand, I don't think Plan B is a thing anymore. How long do you try a PF2 experiment? A year? Two years? Initial sales will be excellent. I mean, people who are merely on the fence will buy the first book or two. Core and Bestiary will sell well. But will people play it? It could take a year or two before enough people cancel subscriptions to APs, or don't buy add-on books, before the numbers would show failure.
If that happens, I think it's too late. Recapturing the declining PF1 crowd wouldn't be trivial. Growing the market even harder. Restarting the production chain to develop products for Classic PF would take even more time after the decision is made. All of which time income is declining and talent is moving on.
I believe there is no chance of fallback to PF1.5 because of all of that. More likely you'd see a reassessment and reduction of staff and product output for a newer, leaner reality that doesn't involve the breadth of products we... enjoyed... two... to... three... years... ago.
Oh. That's (probably) why modules and novels and so on went away.
Oh. That's (probably) why so many big-name long-term staffers went away. << Though this might be an illusion, I don't always follow new-hires, so staff might actually be bigger than it was a couple years ago. But even then, it's hard to judge because the market is now fragmented, with SF and PF.
I fear the heyday is behind us, and now it's the Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul.
I think the reason to bother is that the PF2 strategy might not pan out as Paizo expects. If that happens, all of our input might help them formulate a plan B -- which might push them into the direction many of us wished they had gone in the first place.On the one hand, I hope PF2 succeeds - not because I want to play it - but because I wish Paizo and its employees well. Both financially, and artistically... I expect PF2 is the game Jason and the gang want to make and support, not that they're being dragged from PF1 kicking & screaming.
On the other hand, I don't think Plan B is a thing anymore. How long do you try a PF2 experiment? A year? Two years? Initial sales will be excellent. I mean, people who are merely on the fence will buy the first book or two. Core and Bestiary will sell well. But will people play it? It could take a year or two before enough people cancel subscriptions to APs, or don't buy add-on books, before the numbers would show failure.
If that happens, I think it's too late. Recapturing the declining PF1 crowd wouldn't be trivial. Growing the market even harder. Restarting the production chain to develop products for Classic PF would take even more time after the decision is made. All of which time income is declining and talent is moving on.
I believe there is no chance of fallback to PF1.5 because of all of that. More likely you'd see a reassessment and reduction of staff and product output for a newer, leaner reality that doesn't involve the breadth of products we... enjoyed... two... to... three... years... ago.
Oh. That's (probably) why modules and novels and so on went away.
Oh. That's (probably) why so many big-name long-term staffers went away. << Though this might be an illusion, I don't always follow new-hires, so staff might actually be bigger than it was a couple years ago. But even then, it's hard to judge because the market is now fragmented, with SF and PF.
I fear the heyday is...
I agree with the first part. I think you might be over reading the tea leaves with the latter parts though.
I don’t keep records or anything, but it seems to me Paizo have been hiring as people have been leaving. They don’t tend to introduce new staffers on the forums so much any more and long term people tend to get high profile goodbyes, so I think it’s easy to think the workforce is shrinking for that reason alone.
As I understand it, the novels closing down was a licensing issue, not a workforce issue. Presumably sales didn’t grow rapidly enough for Tor (or there were other creative differences). Now Paizo are left shopping around the license to a novels line that used to be selling consistently, rather than being able to point to an ongoing subscription service.
The modules have always been the first to go - even in PF1’s heyday.
All that said, I’d put the chance of Paizo eventually going back to PF1 at about the same as them returning to just being a third party publisher for D&D. (ie approximately zero).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am surprised that no one in thread has mentioned this:
https://www.rpgnow.com/product/238023/Porphyra-Roleplaying-Game
Where Purple Duck Games is apparently attempting to write a v3.9 ... (PF1 being 3.75).
I don't know if it will fit anyone's tastes, but it might be worth checking out; can't beat the current price point.
Interesting in that someone is making an effort. Personally, I've got so much PF1 material that, unless force due to a lack of players, I'm just fine sticking with PF1.
If three of your core classes are going to get animal companions, then how to acquire/design and advance animal companions ought to be in the core rulebook.
Good point. Another area for improvement.
Assassin gets their spells back. CMB/CMD adjusted so they actually work.
That won't really solve the assassin's problems. The assassin has three big problems that hold it back.
The first is consistency; its damage is low even when it's getting sneak attacks, it has medium BAB with no means of raising it so it has trouble hitting in the first place, and the DC's of its abilities are low. This is a character that requires lucky dice rolls just to function, and that's a recipe for frustration. Even if you get over the combat issues, this character's main class feature is dependent on an extreme level of investment in stealth, but the prestige class offers you nothing until HIPS at 8th. It doesn't help you with issues relating to cover, concealment, or unusual senses, which means any prospective assassin needs to heavily focus their build on addressing these issues.
The second issue is that its class features are too limited and tend to come too late. As an example, quiet death appears one level later than a a ninja would get swift action greater invisibility. In addition it automatically fails if your death attack fails, and it stealth breaks stealth so there's nothing from preventing your adversaries from putting two and two together (a strange individual appears at the exact same moment as their friend drops dead... the ability doesn't really help unless there's a crowd of people to blend into). It's not just this ability, either, the assassin has these issues across the board in a variety of its class features.
Finally there's the issue that the assassin just gets too few class features and is very much a one-trick pony. Adding spells would help with this one, giving some versatility to round it out. But it wouldn't help with the other two issues.
Eldritch Knight, like Arcane Trickster, only requires 2nd level spells instead of third.
I'd actually say that both EK and AT should be brought down to requiring 1st level spells. Requiring higher-level spells as a prerequisite forces you to qualify with a majority of your levels in wizard, which restricts the kinds of builds you can use to enter. A wizard 5 can qualify for EK with a 1-level fighter dip, so why shouldn't a fighter 5 be able to qualify for EK with a 1-level wizard dip? This would open up so much space for new concepts. To prevent them from coming online too early you can use BAB or skill ranks.
I believe the right way to do prerequisites for EK would be proficiency with all martial weapons, BAB +3, and ability to cast 1st level arcane spells. AT could be qualified for with 1d6 sneak attack, 1st level spells, and 4 skill ranks in the required skills.
Wait whats wrong with 40+ AC at the cost of to hit and dmg?It creates a situation where most of the enemies in the campaign quickly realise they have virtually no chance of significantly hurting the PC, and they might as well all just surrender.
This isn't very exciting.
A GM has to create custom enemies who can hit 40AC, because the high-level NPCs provided by the game usually can't.
because most monsters provided by the game still can
Don't post a link to one of the most horribly built NPCs ever built and try and pass it off as the standard.
Would you change any of the materials or format of the material?
For example, I used to print my maps and was shocked how big most of the Shattered Star AP were. 6'x6' ... something like that. Made playing at a game store much more difficult.
Also, could support for VTT (virtual tabletop) be better?
Pawns as separate image files? Maps as separate image files?
Now, I'll say that the partnership they have with Lone Wolf Development and the Hero Lab Encounter Library (and Encounter Builder) are a major time saver. So, I have to thank all of them for that.
I am surprised that no one in thread has mentioned this:
https://www.rpgnow.com/product/238023/Porphyra-Roleplaying-Game
Where Purple Duck Games is apparently attempting to write a v3.9 ... (PF1 being 3.75).
I don't know if it will fit anyone's tastes, but it might be worth checking out; can't beat the current price point.
There doesn't seem to be much to talk about, apart from them saying that they want to give it a go and that nothing will happen for a long time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait whats wrong with 40+ AC at the cost of to hit and dmg?It creates a situation where most of the enemies in the campaign quickly realise they have virtually no chance of significantly hurting the PC, and they might as well all just surrender.
This isn't very exciting.
A GM has to create custom enemies who can hit 40AC, because the high-level NPCs provided by the game usually can't.
The 40AC guy has his time to shine, and his time to fail.
Let him feel invincible against melee opponents, who may choose to go around him once they realize they cannot hit him.
If there is any significant diversity in encounters, other players will have their turn to shine when facing opponents that don't care so much about AC.
It's not even about modifying encounters specifically because the the high AC guy. Encounters should always be diverse and pose many different challenges to the party.
Wait whats wrong with 40+ AC at the cost of to hit and dmg?It creates a situation where most of the enemies in the campaign quickly realise they have virtually no chance of significantly hurting the PC, and they might as well all just surrender.
This isn't very exciting.
A GM has to create custom enemies who can hit 40AC, because the high-level NPCs provided by the game usually can't.
because most monsters provided by the game still can
Don't post a link to one of the most horribly built NPCs ever built and try and pass it off as the standard.
Hm. So your examples of CR 17 monsters that can hit an AC40 PC are:
Termagant Kyton
2 slams +25 (1d8+9/19–20 plus 2d6 bleed), 7 tentacles +20 (1d6+4 plus grab)
Slams need a 15 to hit for minor damage, tentacles might get a lucky grab by rolling a natural 20. A trivial threat.
Khala Dragon
3 bites +27 (2d10+10/19–20 plus disease), tail +25 (2d8+10 plus grab)
A bit obscure, but this will land an occasional hit against AC 40. (Also has a breath weapon, so should actually be effective.)
Kaminari Kami
2 slams +30 (2d8+9 plus cacophonous blow)
Yes, finally a decent hit chance! This is a worthwhile opponent, that you will almost certainly never fight in any Paizo adventure. It's from the Jade Regent (the appendices; you don't meet one). The Jade Regent himself, an actual final boss in that campaign, attacks with +24/+19/+14.
Behemoth Golem
Gore +31 (4d8+16), 2 slams +31 (3d6+16)
Also acceptable. Also pretty obscure. Source: Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Lost Kingdoms © 2012
Brass Wyrm Dragon, Ancient Copper Dragon, Old Silver Dragon
OK, but these are all good aligned. Again, not typical adventure villains.
Wendigo
Bite +26 (2d8+9/19–20 plus 4d6 cold and grab), 2 claws +26 (2d6+9/19–20 plus 4d6 cold)
Needs a 14 to hit. It might get lucky, I guess.
Winterwight
bite +30 (2d8+15 plus blightfire), 2 claws +30 (2d6+15 plus blightfire)
Yes, a decent enemy. And it's not even that obscure; it's in Bestiary 2.
Let's compare the CR17 enemies in Bestiary 1, since those are the ones you tend to meet most often:
Ancient Green Dragon
Melee bite +31 (4d6+18/19–20), 2 claws +31 (2d8+12/19–20), 2 wings +29 (2d6+6), tail slap +29 (2d8+18)
Adequate.
Marilith Demon
Melee +1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+8/17–20), 5 +1 longswords +24 (2d6+4/17–20), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab) or 6 slams +22 (1d8+7), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)
Weak.
Ice Linnorm
bite +24 (3d8+14/19–20 plus poison), 2 claws +24 (2d6+14), tail +19 (3d6+7 plus grab)
Weak.
Anyway, the problem isn't that CR17 enemies can't hit AC40 - about half of them can do so adequately. The problem is that you can reach AC40 when you're still fighting CR10 enemies, and they certainly can't. The CR16 monk with a +20/+20/+15/+15/+10/+10/+5 attack routine was just an extreme example.
It's pretty rare that I see a serious argument that PC AC is too hard to bypass at high levels. o_O
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing me, just following through with proposed corrections and implementing changes not proposed but which should be obvious, like clerics with the Rune domain getting arcane mark added to their list of orisons so that they can actually use their instant summons domain spell correctly, or allowing gunslingers to apply weapon-specific feats (Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, etc.) to firearm categories (one-handed, two-handed, siege) instead of individual firearms so they don't become "locked" into their starting battered firearm.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and get rid of the Appraise skill, maybe fold it into something else. Make languages harder to learn. PCs end up learning way too many, ESPECIALLY if you're using the background skill system.
EDIT #2: Make is so that friendly harmless spells targeting characters with inherent spell resistance, like high-enough-level monks, automatically get through, assuming the character allows it.
EDIT #3: Clerics with the Weather domain should get Survival as a class skill (it is used to predict the weather, after all).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm kinda hoping someone "Paizos" Paizo. I don't mean that as a slight - I love Paizo. Paizo is in the business of selling books. But, just as 3.5 wasn't broken, just messy, out of tune, and fragmented, PF1 isn't broken either. It just needs a good cleaning up. I would much rather continue with this framework if someone else picked up the torch and forged ahead while Paizo takes a sharp turn with PF2.
Then rejoice!
I had just read that from upthread. How's it look so far? According to the blurb, it's FAR from finished. Is there even much to see at this point?
|
Then rejoice!I had just read that from upthread. How's it look so far? According to the blurb, it's FAR from finished. Is there even much to see at this point?
They definitely don't have as good production values as Paizo has <_< I've realized it after starting RPG hobby that only few companies actually have budget to focus on making both cover and inside of the books look visually appealing, majority of smaller companies focus mostly on content itself. I mean it makes sense, focusing on art and such is expensive and even paizo doesn't have consistent artstyle, only wizard of the coast seems to have budget for consistent artstyle since they are part of Hasbro.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They definitely don't have as good production values as Paizo has <_< I've realized it after starting RPG hobby that only few companies actually have budget to focus on making both cover and inside of the books look visually appealing, majority of smaller companies focus mostly on content itself. I mean it makes sense, focusing on art and such is expensive and even paizo doesn't have consistent artstyle, only wizard of the coast seems to have budget for consistent artstyle since they are part of Hasbro.Then rejoice!I had just read that from upthread. How's it look so far? According to the blurb, it's FAR from finished. Is there even much to see at this point?
Yeah this is my thought on someone Paizo-ing Paizo. Most potential folks that could pull it off don't seem to have the interest (Hasbro), and those third party folks that seem posed to move in that direction lack the resources and market reach to really take over Paizo's niche (which is also decreasing in size over time) especially since it seems to be an increasingly narrow customer base. A lot of those 3rd party folks have also started supported 5E: That seems to be the route the Kobold Publishing folks are going, and they are one of the few companies that could maybe attempt this successfully.
Pathfinder being a success was the result of a lot of different trends and circumstances coming together that I don't think is easily replicated.
I can think of several things, but since right now I'm pressed for time, I'll go for a few bits of relatively low-hanging fruit:
Rearrange the presentation of class talents so that combinations of class talents actually let you build most of the archetypes without having to have such a huge profusion of them -- this would allow a vast pruning of the archetypes.
Prune prestige classes so that the ones that remain prestige classes have prestige in them, like Hellknights (both types).
Standardize spellcasting progression like Kirthfinder has done so that various combinations of base classes and prestige classes actually work right with respect to spellcasting progression.
Use and expand upon Kirthfinder's idea of each weapon having Simple, Martial, and Exotic proficiency levels (although some weapons have a minimum effective proficiency level greater than Simple) -- even with a Simple weapon like a dagger, getting additional proficiency levels yields additional benefits.
Put healing spells back in Necromancy where they belong.
Put fear spells back into Enchantment where they belong.
{. . .}
Use and expand upon Kirthfinder's idea of
{. . .}
Speaking of which . . . If the Purple Duck thing doesn't make it out of the egg, or even if it does, Kirthfinder is already out of the egg, and although I haven't read all their documents, and I'm not even sure if the set that I linked is the latest version, it is a very good start, even if I don't agree with every single thing in there. Note that they already do some of what I posted about above, like trimming the archetypes . . . and the archetypes are an integral part of each class (including prestige classes) rather than being an afterthought add-on.