If PF1 was revived and revised by Paizo, what would you change?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 301 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

I had an interesting thought I'm going to ask in other threads ...

As a GM who owns 1e Adventure Paths, if Paizo provided free 2e stat blocks for all the creatures used in 1e Adventure Paths, would that:

1. Make it more likely that you'd consider 2e?

2. Make your migrating to 2e a sure thing?

3. Make absolutely no difference to you because you plan to stick with 1e no matter what?


Personally, I'd have to think about it. Providing 2e stat blocks to help me out with all the APs I own would go a long way.

Then, all that's left to me would be to evaluate 2e as it is as of its first publication (not talking about Playtest material).

I did not like some of what I saw in the Playtest -- so hopefully 2e has evolved since. Also, given how much work to run a campaign and how much money I have locked up in 1e -- 2e's pretty much a non-starter without some sort of painless bridge to cross from 1e. I'd rather just stay on 1e -- at least for 5 more years. Maybe, forever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I had an interesting thought I'm going to ask in other threads ...

As a GM who owns 1e Adventure Paths, if Paizo provided free 2e stat blocks for all the creatures used in 1e Adventure Paths, would that:

1. Make it more likely that you'd consider 2e?

2. Make your migrating to 2e a sure thing?

3. Make absolutely no difference to you because you plan to stick with 1e no matter what?

No - don't run APs, don't have problems converting on my own

No - see above

Yes and no. It makes no difference because I don't run APs, and even if I did, I can always convert something myself. I already spend lots of time converting old BECMI modules to P1, so having to do a little work in that regard isn't an issue.
I don't plan on sticking with P1 'no matter what', I plan on sticking with it until something better comes along, and all signs point to P2 being worse. Not as much worse as the PT indicated, perhaps, but it still insists on certain fundamental mechanics that I cannot stomach.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I had an interesting thought I'm going to ask in other threads ...

As a GM who owns 1e Adventure Paths, if Paizo provided free 2e stat blocks for all the creatures used in 1e Adventure Paths, would that:

1. Make it more likely that you'd consider 2e?

2. Make your migrating to 2e a sure thing?

3. Make absolutely no difference to you because you plan to stick with 1e no matter what?

3b. Make absolutely no difference to me because my issue isn't about using my PF1 material in PF2. My issue is with PF2 as was presented in the this-isn't-the-game-we're-making playtest. We're perfectly happy to either play the older APs with the PF1 rules or do the conversion ourselves if the this-is-what-we-should-have-been-having-you-playtest final game turns out to be something we like.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no plans to convert to 2e and the playtest (and subjects discussed within it, especially the sheer amount of "lets kill this sacred cow for no reason") did nothing to change that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:


3. Make absolutely no difference to you because you plan to stick with 1e no matter what?

Well, that's a loaded response :-P

For me it would make no difference, because the primary reason for my hesitancy to convert has nothing to do with monster statblocks.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Combat maneuvers in general, grapple most definitely. Simplification and clarification is needed.

2. Stealth and senses. Stealth rules could use a good scrubbing.

3. Mundane crafting vs magical crafting. Crafting skills need to be more useful, crafting feats less so, and the margin between a purchase and crafted item not so wide.

4. Consolidation of bonus types. There's more than needed, and it leads to stacking issues.

5. Unification of phrasing. There are a lot of effects with similar but not-quite-the-same phrasing. It's an editing pass.

6. Bring back the prestige classes. I love 'em, I miss 'em, I want more decently balanced prestige classes.

7. Reworking some of the classes. Spontaneous casters gain spells at the same levels as prepared casters. Gunslingers (and firearms in general) get a rework. I don't feel a class feature should have a chance of blowing up whenever you use it. I'd remove the misfire chance entirely, and rework guns to target touch ac against light armored foes and regular ac against anything wearing medium or heavy armor. Alchemists could use a little integration with magic and, you know, not killing allies with mis-thrown splash weapons. Some others could get looked over.

8. Changing feats and the approach to feat content in expansion books. Instead of, say, improved disarm as a feat, you'd take a feat that granted you a handful of the improved feats. This is similar to the feat tax stuff so far. But the other thing I would do is set those up as category feats. So when a future book came out with, 'cool new weapon-based cmb thing' you could add it to 'improved weapon cmb' feat by spending a bit of gold on training equipment. Making martial content a bit more comparable to spellcasters and spells.

9. Basic definitions stuff for non-standard races. We all know it'll get weird sooner or later.

10. Rework the balance between weapons and natural attacks. Actually, on that note...

11. Bestiary needs some reworking, more variation of ac types, formatting stuff, and some different categorization. I'd be tempted to also add something like a scalable stat chart and a random list of special abilities split up by cr ranges so you could more easily roll actual unique creatures. *rolls some dice* "Martial, melee, here are the default stats and... this one is going to have an extra +4 to strength, a grab attack with constrict, and once per round it can attempt to stun one target as a free action"

12. I'd tweak carryweight to make it a bit more generous particularly at lower strength scores.

13. Spell effects. Oh, spell effects... *sigh* Consolidating bonus types would help a lot. All of the 'intense calculations required' type spells would get a rewrite. Some effects would be simplified, I'd DEFINITELY add in some greater magic missiles and magic missile storms, consolidate some of them as appropriate, super rework 'summoning' spells to make them simpler to use without a ton of cross referencing, and so on.

14 Magic items, and magic item crafting would get a rework. I'd like to see how a module system would work instead of a formula list for crafting, but it'd eat up more space and might not be any better. Might be nice to simplify the types a bit and have 'special ability' modules that could be added to 'statistics' items. Like, for example, you have a +4 str belt. You could add one special ability module to that, whether it's the dastardly 3 times a day dimension door, the spiderclimb ability, or the ability to force an enemy to reroll a crit once a day. This is kind of like the automatic progression, but not quite as big of a difference.

Anyways, it sounds like a lot of significant changes, but it'd still feel like pathfinder at the end.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Magicdealer wrote:
1. Combat maneuvers in general.

Would have bought, gladly.

Quote:
2. Stealth and senses.

Would have bought.

Quote:
3. Mundane crafting vs magical crafting.

Would have bought.

Quote:
4. Consolidation of bonus types.

Would have boycotted. Stacking is one of the most important characteristics of PF1. It enables teamwork. The party works together to get a thing done, and because they each contribute different bonus types, the success rate moves from "might possibly work" to "almost definitely will work". Personally, I prefer a system that encourages a party that (can) all work together that way over any system that expects each member to just etch away at hit points however they see fit. But emphasis on "personally". This would have been a deal-breaker for me.

Quote:
5. Unification of phrasing.

Would have bought.

Quote:
6. Bring back the prestige classes.

Couldn't care less, but would have been happy for you to be happy.

Quote:
7. Reworking some of the classes.

Would have bought. Everything Unchained.

Quote:
8. Changing feats.

Would have bought.

Quote:
9. Basic definitions stuff for non-standard races.

Not sure what's meant here.

Quote:
10. Rework the balance between weapons and natural attacks.

Would have bought rebalancing in general.

Quote:
11. Bestiary needs some reworking.

Would have bought.

Quote:
12. I'd tweak carryweight.

Would have bought.

Quote:
13. Spell effects.

Depending on what's meant, would have bought. Some of the PF2 changes to move conditions from their source attribute to the end-effect is nice. As long as there are a bunch of (stackable) different ways to impede a foe, I'm okay with simplifying from "X Dex penalty" to "X penalty to AC & Reflex".

Quote:
14 Magic items.

Might have bought, depending on details.

Quote:
Anyways, it sounds like a lot of significant changes, but it'd still feel like pathfinder at the end.

Precisely. Adjusting some of the pain points would have remained the same game. What was presented in the playtest was - in everything but name - a completely different game. And to clarify, the various editions of D&D are also - in my opinion - completely different games. Pathfinder and D&D 3rd are - despite the name difference - the same game, which tells us the rules and structure are what matters, not the name, and not the inclusion of classic races, classes, spell names or feat names.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I'm talking about reducing bonus types, not removing them entirely. Stacking would still be a thing, but I would like to make it somewhat simpler to remember. Profane and holy? That's divine now. Resistance is gone and that type is wrapped up into another category. I'm thinking inherent. I'd also want to move competence to inherent and remove competence as a type. Racial bonuses are now untyped bonuses. (and reincarnation would already be getting a rework). This would be happening in conjection with the other reworks to make sure none of the standard things would be unduly effected. The list is just longer than it needs to be to do what it needs to do. There's space to consolidate without significantly altering the stacking game. Still plenty of bonus types to stack, but more trim of a list.

For the non-standard races stuff, I'm talking about magic item slots, how many limbs can be used for weapons, twf with greatswords, wielding two longbows in four arms... basically standardizing the mechanics so they apply equally to unusual and monstrous races. This doesn't prevent a race from bringing along an explicit ability, but would remove some questions that pop up when you start adding extra arms, tentacles, or legs to your character.


Looking at Paizo's website and the ad for pre-ordering PF2 ...

I still feel very strongly that Paizo is missing a major opportunity if they stop making new PF1 APs and modules.

Appealing to both PF1 and PF2 markets, I think, would result in a building synergy -- especially if they STOP making PF1 rule books.

Yes, that's right! Churning out rule book after rule book seems to be the major complaint behind a need to do better editing.


Also, I have to say that doing all the PF2 artwork in exactly the same style for PF2 as PF1 -- please forgive the expression -- brings strongly to mind the unfortunate expression "putting lipstick on a pig".

If PF1 is in so much need of change, why make the artwork and iconic characters so similar?

Why have the same iconic characters at all?

I love PF1, so I find this all really odd. Not to say I can't also love PF2, if the right changes were made by evaluating the forums and playtest.

My point is that I'm afraid it's probably an error to not make PF2 stand out more.


I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with wanting to hire the same artist or using the same iconic characters. But I do think it would have been beneficial to have a distinctive look for each version.

If people are trying to buy the books in a store, they are likely to get confused about what version they are buying for, and end up disappointed they bought a “Pathfinder” book that wasn’t for their game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Also, I have to say that doing all the PF2 artwork in exactly the same style for PF2 as PF1 -- please forgive the expression -- brings strongly to mind the unfortunate expression "putting lipstick on a pig".

If PF1 is in so much need of change, why make the artwork and iconic characters so similar?

Why have the same iconic characters at all?

The art actually has changed a bit, though it's subtle. As for the iconic characters, why should they change them? There hasn't exactly been a flood of threads clamoring for their retirement.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I still feel very strongly that Paizo is missing a major opportunity if they stop making new PF1 APs and modules.

That's fine. But it's based on your feeling, not on Paizo's knowledge of the actual facts behind the market. We (by "we" I mean "you and other people, myself included") have been down this discussion several times now and you have yet to offer any fact-based reasoning why Paizo's approach isn't the correct one for them as a business. "But I want PF1" doesn't count. And I'm someone who wants more PF1.

Quote:
Appealing to both PF1 and PF2 markets, I think, would result in a building synergy -- especially if they STOP making PF1 rule books.

Nope. That's called market fragmentation. Let's cover this again: there isn't enough of a PF1 market today to justify making more PF1. Once PF2 comes online, if even one person shifts to that system, the market for PF1 shrinks. There's no way that PF2 will draw in PF1 players in any meaningful number.

Quote:
Yes, that's right! Churning out rule book after rule book seems to be the major complaint behind a need to do better editing.

No. That's not the major complaint. The major complaint seems to be "there's room for improvement, so improve", be it with regards to ease of learning the system or high-level play or how long turns take to run. Those people wanting PF2 have diverse specific things they want changed, but "there's too many products to chose from" isn't the main one. Regardless, even if this were true, the "too many products to chose from" is already an established fact, and more PF1 adventures wouldn't un-publish already existing "too many" rulebooks.

Quote:
If PF1 is in so much need of change, why make the artwork and iconic characters so similar?

Artwork is almost never cited as a cause for edition change here. They're just taking this opportunity to lightly update some things, much like a company realizing they're out of business cards and deciding that the next batch will use a slightly different shade of blue. It's not a decision-driver.

Quote:
I love PF1, so I find this all really odd. Not to say I can't also love PF2, if the right changes were made by evaluating the forums and playtest.

Okay. Come back in five months and let us know. Because - as has been said - all of these ships have already set sail.

Quote:
My point is that I'm afraid it's probably an error to not make PF2 stand out more.

Again, the artwork has never been a meaningful issue.

I get it. You're passionate. You're frustrated. You want to DO something with that negative energy. But it's fruitless. It's counter-productive. Just... chillax, man.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or even better, get in those 1E games you want. I know I am!


blahpers wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Also, I have to say that doing all the PF2 artwork in exactly the same style for PF2 as PF1 -- please forgive the expression -- brings strongly to mind the unfortunate expression "putting lipstick on a pig".

If PF1 is in so much need of change, why make the artwork and iconic characters so similar?

Why have the same iconic characters at all?

The art actually has changed a bit, though it's subtle. As for the iconic characters, why should they change them? There hasn't exactly been a flood of threads clamoring for their retirement.

To, as I said, make PF2 stand apart from PF1. Why make it different and, then, make it look the same. The point was to be different.


Anguish wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I still feel very strongly that Paizo is missing a major opportunity if they stop making new PF1 APs and modules.

That's fine. But it's based on your feeling, not on Paizo's knowledge of the actual facts behind the market. We (by "we" I mean "you and other people, myself included") have been down this discussion several times now and you have yet to offer any fact-based reasoning why Paizo's approach isn't the correct one for them as a business. "But I want PF1" doesn't count. And I'm someone who wants more PF1.

Quote:
Appealing to both PF1 and PF2 markets, I think, would result in a building synergy -- especially if they STOP making PF1 rule books.

Nope. That's called market fragmentation. Let's cover this again: there isn't enough of a PF1 market today to justify making more PF1. Once PF2 comes online, if even one person shifts to that system, the market for PF1 shrinks. There's no way that PF2 will draw in PF1 players in any meaningful number.

Quote:
Yes, that's right! Churning out rule book after rule book seems to be the major complaint behind a need to do better editing.

No. That's not the major complaint. The major complaint seems to be "there's room for improvement, so improve", be it with regards to ease of learning the system or high-level play or how long turns take to run. Those people wanting PF2 have diverse specific things they want changed, but "there's too many products to chose from" isn't the main one. Regardless, even if this were true, the "too many products to chose from" is already an established fact, and more PF1 adventures wouldn't un-publish already existing "too many" rulebooks.

Quote:
If PF1 is in so much need of change, why make the artwork and iconic characters so similar?
Artwork is almost never cited as a cause for edition change here. They're just taking this opportunity to lightly update some things, much like a company realizing they're out of business...

Over 40,000 bundles of $500+ of PDFs of PFRPG books sold recently in the past month.

My friends and I "feel" this way -- that PF1 APs and modules should continue to be developed to support those of us who've put significant money into PF1 products. We feel that by announcing the stoppage of PF1 development that it will have a premature, downward effect on the PF1 market and community.

I think people hide behind this "proof" thing, while pushing their own assumptions or hopes without any evidence of their own.

Obviously, Paizo has decided to go all in with PF2 and discontinue investing in PF1 development -- it is a fact that some people I know are offended by that. They've bought PF1 stuff -- books, Hero Lab, etc. Obviously, there are those of us that "believe" that whatever data Paizo has looked at has "potentially" been misinterpretted. Just offering my point of view based on what I know. We're allowed to do that -- and all of it can be ignored.

If I feel that way, there may be others. People might change their opinion over time -- either way. I'm just saying to Paizo ... think carefully about good will.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yes, it already has had a downward effect on PF1. It has also had an upward effect on PF2. Time will tell if it was a good decision or not. The question that needs to be answered is how much of those 40k of bundles actually made Paizo money back. Probably some, but it's not a sustainable thing. Good will doesn't do any good if money isn't flowing in.


Has any RPG publisher ever kept publishing an 'obsolete' edition at the same time as a new one?
The closest I can think of is TSR when they had B/X-BECMI and AD&D, but that was more like branching lines of development, and it didn't work out for them economically.

Anyway, converting adventures from one system to another is pretty easy* so publishing ones for multiple systems shouldn't be necessary. Even if you stick to P1, if you want more APs, I can't imagine that adapting P2 to P1 can be a problem.

*as long as you know the target system pretty well


random extra thoughts:

Honestly if they did it again. I'd want Occultist and its archetype Talisman Crafter. But the spell list needs stablizing heavily. and in general the occult spell lists need some sort of connection so they can acquire updates the same as the rest.

I would also want them to embrace technology more. Just becausue magic exists tech doesn't? very odd to me personally. I don't mena like make it all steam punk.
but a few character classes or item outlines would make sense.

Or just get the Machinesmith 3rd party and adopt its outline~ or FFd20's chemist


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Also, I have to say that doing all the PF2 artwork in exactly the same style for PF2 as PF1 -- please forgive the expression -- brings strongly to mind the unfortunate expression "putting lipstick on a pig".

If PF1 is in so much need of change, why make the artwork and iconic characters so similar?

Why have the same iconic characters at all?

The art actually has changed a bit, though it's subtle. As for the iconic characters, why should they change them? There hasn't exactly been a flood of threads clamoring for their retirement.
To, as I said, make PF2 stand apart from PF1. Why make it different and, then, make it look the same. The point was to be different.

Their aim is to make it an evolution though - different, but still similar. The genre of stories they plan to tell is the same, the setting is the same, the personalities and plot points will be a continuum (albeit progressed to account for the last ten years, but still when PF2 becomes the new way of progressing those plots, the NPCs will wake up in the same dramas, even if how that is represented mechanically is a little different).

They are targeting current PF1 players as a significant pool of potential early PF2 adopters. By using the same iconics and similar look, those of us who like PF1 but aren’t following along too closely online are more likely to pick up a PF2 Rulebook than if it looked totally different.

Many lapsed PF1 players are also probably unaware that a new edition is on the way. This is a good way of catching their eye: “It’s a new game, but all your old favourites are here. Why not take a fresh look? It’s a good time to join in again!”


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yes, it already has had a downward effect on PF1. It has also had an upward effect on PF2. Time will tell if it was a good decision or not. The question that needs to be answered is how much of those 40k of bundles actually made Paizo money back. Probably some, but it's not a sustainable thing. Good will doesn't do any good if money isn't flowing in.

Yes, that's true.

Personally, I've made peace with Paizo discontinuing PF1 development. There's a huge amount material available in the existing APs -- though I'm not clear about whether that's true for modules. I like to insert modules into my APs.

However, there's some things I've noticed with the people around me who play Pathfinder.

There's no excitement about PF2. Actually, we don't even talk about it, mostly. I don't really know how most of them feel, but it's definitely not excitement. At least one GM feels it's a dumbing down of PF1 (like, as he says, 5e is a dumbing down) -- I can't really say whether it is or isn't. I've seen some innovation but also awkwardness in PF2.

A player I play with sees stopping PF1 development and PF2 as the end of PF1. There's no excitement there when he says that. Kind of like we're all going to die someday. I hate to say that, but that's what it feels like.

Gives me quite a degree of reservation on the phase out strategy for PF1. The hair kind of raises on my back as if we might be walking off a cliff.

Is anyone out there really seeing any PF2 excitement in the real world in the players you play with?

When it comes out, I will probably buy the PDF for the Core Rulesbook and Bestiary -- but if, after looking at it, I feel that this is just a pointless conversion to a new system without real value add or if I don't like the more central of the core rules, I'll not go any further with PF2. I'll skip it, and probably stay entirely with PF1 as long as I can find players for my group.

Regardless, I think I'll always be doing PF1 campaigns just because I've got so much material. Then, the remain question for me is whether I'll have enough time remaining to play PF2?

I think, ultimately, it will be either or. Either PF2 is so much better that I'll adapt the PF1 material I have to it or I'll forget it and stay with PF1.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Also, I have to say that doing all the PF2 artwork in exactly the same style for PF2 as PF1 -- please forgive the expression -- brings strongly to mind the unfortunate expression "putting lipstick on a pig".

If PF1 is in so much need of change, why make the artwork and iconic characters so similar?

Why have the same iconic characters at all?

The art actually has changed a bit, though it's subtle. As for the iconic characters, why should they change them? There hasn't exactly been a flood of threads clamoring for their retirement.
To, as I said, make PF2 stand apart from PF1. Why make it different and, then, make it look the same. The point was to be different.

Their aim is to make it an evolution though - different, but still similar. The genre of stories they plan to tell is the same, the setting is the same, the personalities and plot points will be a continuum (albeit progressed to account for the last ten years, but still when PF2 becomes the new way of progressing those plots, the NPCs will wake up in the same dramas, even if how that is represented mechanically is a little different).

They are targeting current PF1 players as a significant pool of potential early PF2 adopters. By using the same iconics and similar look, those of us who like PF1 but aren’t following along too closely online are more likely to pick up a PF2 Rulebook than if it looked totally different.

Many lapsed PF1 players are also probably unaware that a new edition is on the way. This is a good way of catching their eye: “It’s a new game, but all your old favourites are here. Why not take a fresh look? It’s a good time to join in again!”

Ok, yes, I can see that. Good thoughts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Is anyone out there really seeing any PF2 excitement in the real world in the players you play with?

My group plays lots and lots of systems, so we don't have any real loyalty nor do we get particularly excited about any new ruleset - we are much more likely to get jazzed over an adventure path or setting book we've been waiting for.

In terms of PF2 though, everyone (without exception) is looking forward to the new action economy. They weren't really aware of it, but my group had given up on pathfinder and a big part of it was keeping track of swift/immediate/full-round/etcetera actions. They are still ambivalent about the myriad of bonuses (that's the other thing that everyone I play with generally sighs about when I suggest pathfinder).

So they're kind of excited, in that they're willing to play Pathfinder again.

FWIW, I plan on importing the three-action system to my 0E/1E games (that's my preferred system, but I really think PF2's innovation in this area is something worth importing). I also really like the rethinking of experience points behind the 1000xp per level approach. The experience points get more valuable, rather than needing to amass more of a constant value xp. It's a little thing, but I think stuff like that is much more elegant - stuff like that excites me much more than "Wow! I can play a goblin alchemist using just the core book!"


Steve Geddes wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Is anyone out there really seeing any PF2 excitement in the real world in the players you play with?

My group plays lots and lots of systems, so we don't have any real loyalty nor do we get particularly excited about any new ruleset - we are much more likely to get jazzed over an adventure path or setting book we've been waiting for.

In terms of PF2 though, everyone (without exception) is looking forward to the new action economy. They weren't really aware of it, but my group had given up on pathfinder and a big part of it was keeping track of swift/immediate/full-round/etcetera actions. They are still ambivalent about the myriad of bonuses (that's the other thing that everyone I play with generally sighs about when I suggest pathfinder).

So they're kind of excited, in that they're willing to play Pathfinder again.

FWIW, I plan on importing the three-action system to my 0E/1E games (that's my preferred system, but I really think PF2's innovation in this area is something worth importing). I also really like the rethinking of experience points behind the 1000xp per level approach. The experience points get more valuable, rather than needing to amass more of a constant value xp. It's a little thing, but I think stuff like that is much more elegant - stuff like that excites me much more than "Wow! I can play a goblin alchemist using just the core book!"

Ok. That's good to hear. The action economy in PF1 doesn't bother me, but the myriad of bonuses thing is just killing me. It's sort of easier with our VTT (MapTool) because I can add all that to the summary sheet for their characters -- I just need to figure out a faster way to do it and write the macros.

I have to admit that the 5 month wait for the PF2 release is driving me crazy. I can't wait to see the final version.

A problem I have, though, is that I use a tool called hl2mt.exe to import Hero Lab POR files and make MapTool tokens.

People aren't actively creating tools like that. I'm afraid I won't be able to use it with PF2. For me to do it maually will be about 20 minutes per NPC.


I don't know if I said it before, but ...

Make player versions of every map in the modules. Great job with the APs!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think more material is needed in the Core Rulebook to teach players how to role play and the value it adds to the game. I'm running into a lot of players that don't understand it.

Also, I think some material, again, in the Core Rulebook that teaches players how to "adventure" might be useful. I'm finding players who kind of have a food service truck kind of mentality. All the encounters they want to go to them ... Don't really pursue anything on their own. Don't take risks. Don't seem inclined to do much problem solving. Don't leave the beaten path. Resist pursuing subplots.


Another area that I think needs some help is the campaign setting. I think mixing, for example, gun slingers and the more fantasy realm classes shatters the illusion.

Likewise, there's lots of other classes that don't seem to go together.

I applaud the flexibility of the Pathfinder game system, though, but it seems like more guidence would help about what is recommended to go together.

Development of things like Old West type campaigns should also be encouraged.

Perhaps, the topic really should fall under something called "campaign realms". Advice should be given about not mixing realms, unless there's a special purpose.

The "realm(s)" to which each class belongs should indicated.

Then, GMs could declare which "realm" their campaign is intended for.

Races would also fall under particular realms.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I don't know if I said it before, but ...

Make player versions of every map in the modules. Great job with the APs!

That would be very hard to do in print, because what the players can see changes rapidly over time.


The "realms" your are talking about is effectively just restricting things by books. As I recall, almost every pathfinder book had either a theme or a region, and it's up to the GM to determine what's allowed.

There is also the problem of lore, in which everything (unless they choose to change it), is part of the same universe, dimension, and/or plane. So creating an artificial "realm" tag could create problems with how the lore is presented.

Also how is gunslinger the class breaking the fantasy classes when there are worse offenders? *looks at psychic and vanilla fighter*

I wont deny better guidance on what classes are better for a campaign (player handbooks already have recommended classes, traits and feat). But, it should not be predicated on tropes or default settings (aka fantasy vs old west vs sci-fi), but on the specific setting of the campaign.

* side note: A story can have multiple genres, and genres themselves overlap a lot if you ignore the tropes (not all fantasy has to be medieval and not all sci-fi has to be set in the future).


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I think more material is needed in the Core Rulebook to teach players how to role play and the value it adds to the game. I'm running into a lot of players that don't understand it.

Also, I think some material, again, in the Core Rulebook that teaches players how to "adventure" might be useful. I'm finding players who kind of have a food service truck kind of mentality. All the encounters they want to go to them ... Don't really pursue anything on their own. Don't take risks. Don't seem inclined to do much problem solving. Don't leave the beaten path. Resist pursuing subplots.

This is great advice even for New 'n' Pathy!. Roleplaying is what it's all about, after all. A bit more coverage for the RP part of the RPG would be worth a bit less rules coverage.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I don't know if I said it before, but ...

Make player versions of every map in the modules. Great job with the APs!

That would be very hard to do in print, because what the players can see changes rapidly over time.

I think you misunderstood. The player version of a map is one without all the tags for room numbers, secret doors, traps, etc.


Another improvement would be to include artwork for all the encounters listed in the APs and modules.

Too many times are we finding "custom" NPCs but no artwork. Today, I was trying to setup my VTT for an NPC that was a warrior and another that was sorcerer/rogue or something.

The NPC Codex I have just does have enough artwork for those types. I'm already using the only warrior that fits my campaign.

So, today, I had to spend a lot of time shopping for 3rd party artwork to fill-in all the gaps left by my Paizo created module I'm inserting into a AP I am currently running. This is also a common problem with the Bestiaries.

Honestly, I'm also inserting modules because my Paizo created AP has all these subplot suggestions -- but no material to go with them.

Seems like a great opportunity to develop modules to better fill out that subplot and reference them in the AP (as an upsale opportunity).

Biggy Fries with that? :)

I have the same issues whether using VTT or regular tabletop gaming.


Temperans wrote:

The "realms" your are talking about is effectively just restricting things by books. As I recall, almost every pathfinder book had either a theme or a region, and it's up to the GM to determine what's allowed.

There is also the problem of lore, in which everything (unless they choose to change it), is part of the same universe, dimension, and/or plane. So creating an artificial "realm" tag could create problems with how the lore is presented.

Also how is gunslinger the class breaking the fantasy classes when there are worse offenders? *looks at psychic and vanilla fighter*

I wont deny better guidance on what classes are better for a campaign (player handbooks already have recommended classes, traits and feat). But, it should not be predicated on tropes or default settings (aka fantasy vs old west vs sci-fi), but on the specific setting of the campaign.

* side note: A story can have multiple genres, and genres themselves overlap a lot if you ignore the tropes (not all fantasy has to be medieval and not all sci-fi has to be set in the future).

Some classes might fit multiple realms. AD&D 1e started basically in a "medieval" realm (or time period). The gunslinger just doesn't fit that time period well -- at least the eariest part of that period. And, there's all sorts of options with gunslinger.

I use Earth as a model when I think about Golarion. Doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened on Golarion differently.

It's just a thought I had ... Try to apply a label to the classes to make it much easier for GMs to include or exclude the classes they feel work best for their campaign.

Not sure what to do about all the 3rd party classes. Maybe to be Pathfinder Compatible means they'd have to adopt the same labeling system.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Another improvement would be to include artwork for all the encounters listed in the APs and modules.

It's worth noting that art is one of the most expensive parts, if not the most expensive part, of these products. That many added art pieces, plus the additional page space to accommodate them, would necessitate drastic and untenable price increases.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Another area that I think needs some help is the campaign setting. I think mixing, for example, gun slingers and the more fantasy realm classes shatters the illusion.

Likewise, there's lots of other classes that don't seem to go together.

I applaud the flexibility of the Pathfinder game system, though, but it seems like more guidence would help about what is recommended to go together.

Development of things like Old West type campaigns should also be encouraged.

Perhaps, the topic really should fall under something called "campaign realms". Advice should be given about not mixing realms, unless there's a special purpose.

The "realm(s)" to which each class belongs should indicated.

Then, GMs could declare which "realm" their campaign is intended for.

Races would also fall under particular realms.

I think they are sort of doing the "realms" approach, if perhaps not that fine. Certainly the Lost Omens campaign setting book is "grouping" sets of regions/nations together, and it kind of sounds like future books might build upon that. Granted, I am sure Numeria will be jammed into one broader region with it's neighbors, the same as Alkenstar, but it is a step in that direction


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I don't know if I said it before, but ...

Make player versions of every map in the modules. Great job with the APs!

That would be very hard to do in print, because what the players can see changes rapidly over time.

I think you misunderstood. The player version of a map is one without all the tags for room numbers, secret doors, traps, etc.

The PDFs already have this. Really those maps just need to be made available online without having to own the pdf versions, for those who only own the paper.


Melkiador wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I don't know if I said it before, but ...

Make player versions of every map in the modules. Great job with the APs!

That would be very hard to do in print, because what the players can see changes rapidly over time.

I think you misunderstood. The player version of a map is one without all the tags for room numbers, secret doors, traps, etc.
The PDFs already have this. Really those maps just need to be made available online without having to own the pdf versions, for those who only own the paper.

They have it for APs, but not modules (at least in general).


Kalindlara wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Another improvement would be to include artwork for all the encounters listed in the APs and modules.
It's worth noting that art is one of the most expensive parts, if not the most expensive part, of these products. That many added art pieces, plus the additional page space to accommodate them, would necessitate drastic and untenable price increases.

Do you work at Paizo? How do you know that? How many added art pieces? To me, I think it's around 25%.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about copying artwork from referenced resources that already have the artwork -- I'm talking about situations where the artwork just doesn't exist at all for an encounter being called out by the AP or module. Sort of turns the game into a puppet show.

The art is what moves the product. Without it, we don't have the minis or the maps to run the games. It's a lot of what we pay for -- plus a good storyline.

Most of the players I've run into use the d20PFSRD website, and, as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to have any artwork (or very little).

A reason I buy Paizo material is because I need the artwork. If I can't get it or I have to buy it from another source, may as well use the websites for free.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Another improvement would be to include artwork for all the encounters listed in the APs and modules.
It's worth noting that art is one of the most expensive parts, if not the most expensive part, of these products. That many added art pieces, plus the additional page space to accommodate them, would necessitate drastic and untenable price increases.

Do you work a Paizo? How do you know that? How many added art pieces? To me, I think it's around 25%.

The art is what moves the product. Without it, we don't have the minis or the maps to run the games. It's a lot of what we pay for -- plus a good storyline.

Most of the players I've run into use the d20PFSRD website, and, as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to have any artwork (or very little).

A reason I buy Paizo material is because I need the artwork. If I can't get it or I have to buy it from another source, may as well use the websites for free.

Kali is right, art is the single most expensive part of RPG publishing. She has done freelance work in the industry, I have advised companies in the industry, we've both seen budgets and talked to management of RPG companies. You can take that or wait until some 3PP publisher or Paizo person pops in and says the same.

Frankly, if you have no idea about how the industry works, it makes all the "how can Paizo expand their business" discussion of yours sound more like "how can I get Paizo to do what I want them to do".


Gorbacz wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Another improvement would be to include artwork for all the encounters listed in the APs and modules.
It's worth noting that art is one of the most expensive parts, if not the most expensive part, of these products. That many added art pieces, plus the additional page space to accommodate them, would necessitate drastic and untenable price increases.

Do you work a Paizo? How do you know that? How many added art pieces? To me, I think it's around 25%.

The art is what moves the product. Without it, we don't have the minis or the maps to run the games. It's a lot of what we pay for -- plus a good storyline.

Most of the players I've run into use the d20PFSRD website, and, as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to have any artwork (or very little).

A reason I buy Paizo material is because I need the artwork. If I can't get it or I have to buy it from another source, may as well use the websites for free.

Kali is right, art is the single most expensive part of RPG publishing. She has done freelance work in the industry, I have advised companies in the industry, we've both seen budgets and talked to management of RPG companies. You can take that or wait until some 3PP publisher or Paizo person pops in and says the same.

Frankly, if you have no idea about how the industry works, it makes all the "how can Paizo expand their business" discussion of yours sound more like "how can I get Paizo to do what I want them to do".

That's the whole point, isn't it. I'm providing feedback about what helps me out as a customer ... what I'm looking for. I'd be willing to spend more for complete material. I am anyway by purchasing material to fill-in the holes.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

But if they chase the 100 people that will do like you do over the 1000 people that won't, they are still going to lose money.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
But if they chase the 100 people that will do like you do over the 1000 people that won't, they are still going to lose money.

It's just a suggestion. Why not let Paizo figure out if they can do it or not?

If they can, then I get more of what I want and I'll spend 25% more to get it.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'm fairly certain that Paizo has already looked at that idea and come to a decision on its viability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Scalable feats instead of having to pick 3-4 feats. For instance, TWF grants you Improved and Greater TWF as you level up.

2) Make Knowledge checks more useful. It was nice to get a Knowledge chart for monsters.

3) Make Perception a class skill for every single class. I get that you get a class bonus instead of having to spend 2 points for 1, but please stop justifying that your guard (Fighter) doesn't need Perception...

4) Scalable magic items. Ok, true, Pathfinder Unchained had that alternate rule, but that should have been made into a mainstream rule. Unchained classes got more exposure than any other Unchained rule...

5) Make any 1st-level abilities at-will usage. Someone's gonna have to explain me why a Domain's or School's most basic abilities aren't at-will. The Kineticist's Kinetic Blast is at-will, so why not those?

6) Make the Fighter unique, because there are a LOT of problems with it:
- Bravery is too weak; make it +1 / 2 levels, especially for a specific effect that requires a Will save... and that the Fighter doesn't excel at.

- Weapon Training is useless, because you will never use 4 different types of weapons. You have your melee weapon (one type) and your ranged weapon (one type), that's it.

- It lacks a fighting style. Every archetype could be layered on top of the base class without trading and the Fighter would be fine. Weapon Training should be replaced with fighting styles, where the Fighter gets abilities and weapon mastery feats.

- It lacks a key special ability. Barbarians have Rage, Cavaliers and Samurais have Challenges, Ranger and Hunter have spells, fighting styles and companions, Brwalers and Monks have fighting styles, etc. What does the Fighter have? Nothing. If you want to make a BBEG, you cannot purposefully pick the Fighter, not even for the evil general of the opposing army, as the Cavalier or Samurai would be better.

- A good example of a key ability would be a "focus strike", where you deal your weapon damage / level + modifier, one time / 5 levels.

- Another example would be that the Figther gets to choose one Critical feat for free every 4 levels.

7) Make the Monk less stat-intensive... and make its speed enhancement useufl or give it a ability to trade said speed for power when it cannot run back and forth.

8) Dwarves still don't have the warhammer or heavy pick equivalent of a Waraxe (exotic, 1d10).

9) Orcs don't have racial two-handed axes and swords.

10) Halflings don't have many melee racial weapons.

11) Prestige classes should be turned into archetypes. I'd rather be able to progress in a base class than be halted.

12) Multiclassing should be progressing your base classes equally or to some degree. If your a Fighter 10/Wizard 10, you either have your abilities scaled to Fighter 15th or Wizard 15th, not being flat out halted at 10th.


Those are some good ideas JiCi.

However, regarding multiclassing, you are practically defining gestalt rules. And it would certainly be a power up for classes. Instead, how about multiclassing uses the XP cost for the new lv, not for the highest lv; and only 1 lv up per session? I know it's more complex, but it makes it so players can have multiclass at high lv without using all the XP for just a lv1 dip.

For example: Let's say you are a lv4 Fighter and have 4k XP, you need say 5k XP to level up. Multiclassing to say lv1 Rogue could cost only 1k XP, leaving you with 3k XP remaining to get lv2 Rogue. When the party has reached 5k XP, they would be effective lv4, while you are effective lv5.

******************
Prestige classes being archetypes is kind of weird since it implies you are trading you abilities away anyways (also how would archetype stacking work?). How about just giving them all the Aligned Class feature? That would make PRC more prestigious while keeping the their rules seperate from any 1 class (unless it's a pre-req or part of a theme/story).


I think mostly just some minor clarification and clean up work is all that is really required. Some class/race re-balancing as well. One major change I would make is just outright removal of prestige classes in favor of straight archetypes and base classes.

However, sometimes I think of going a bit farther. I've personally experimented with the idea of rolling a d30 instead of a d20 and even 7 instead of 6 ability scores. Dividing dexterity into two ability scores accuracy and nimbleness.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Another improvement would be to include artwork for all the encounters listed in the APs and modules.
It's worth noting that art is one of the most expensive parts, if not the most expensive part, of these products. That many added art pieces, plus the additional page space to accommodate them, would necessitate drastic and untenable price increases.

Do you work a Paizo? How do you know that? How many added art pieces? To me, I think it's around 25%.

The art is what moves the product. Without it, we don't have the minis or the maps to run the games. It's a lot of what we pay for -- plus a good storyline.

Most of the players I've run into use the d20PFSRD website, and, as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to have any artwork (or very little).

A reason I buy Paizo material is because I need the artwork. If I can't get it or I have to buy it from another source, may as well use the websites for free.

Kali is right, art is the single most expensive part of RPG publishing. She has done freelance work in the industry, I have advised companies in the industry, we've both seen budgets and talked to management of RPG companies. You can take that or wait until some 3PP publisher or Paizo person pops in and says the same.

Frankly, if you have no idea about how the industry works, it makes all the "how can Paizo expand their business" discussion of yours sound more like "how can I get Paizo to do what I want them to do".

That's the whole point, isn't it. I'm providing feedback about what helps me out as a customer ... what I'm looking for. I'd be willing to spend more for complete material. I am anyway by purchasing material to fill-in the holes.

OK, I'll bite.

If you're looking for credentials or basis for knowledge, here are mine: I've been working professionally in RPGs since 2002 (and playing and writing my own stuff since 1981). I've written over 70 products for Paizo over the years, freelanced for 5 years with Wizards of the Coast, done projects with Kobold Press, Rite Publishing, and others, in addition to publishing around 500 products on my own through Legendary Games for Pathfinder, 5E, Savage Worlds, and more. Having worn all the hats as author, developer, editor, publisher, art director, all the way down to packing and shipping, I can tell you this with absolute certainty:

Art.
Is.
Really.
Expensive.

This is not a knock on artists. They're talented people and need to pay their bills too. There are a lot of mouths to feed on any project. But of them all, art is the most expensive part. How expensive? So much so that it is literally impossible to publish an adventure and make a profit with custom-created illustrations for every encounter, especially given the expectations of the RPG market today, which include full color, glossy paper, etc.

In the early days of RPGs, it was barely possible for a *few* adventures to have illustration books that covered a lot of those encounters. Tomb of Horrors, Lost Shrine of Tamoachan, Ghost Tower of Inverness, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, maybe a handful of others. But even those, in addition to being black and white line art, in an age when RPG artists made far less than they do now (even accounting for inflation), DID NOT cover every encounter even in those slim adventures, not by a long shot.

It never has been done in the history of gaming because it cannot *be* done.

It'd be neat to do, but there's a reason everyone doesn't do it. Game publishers are also gamers and we like to make nice things that we'd like to use in play too. But we also have bills to pay.

Part of the issue, as mentioned above, is not just the cost of the art itself, but also because of the inflation of page count required to accommodate the new art pieces (for art of an encounter to be useful in the way you describe, it needs to show the scene and background, not just a headshot of one creature), so you're talking approximately half-page action scenes for every encounter. More pages = more money, and there is a surprisingly steep point of diminishing returns when it comes to how much people are willing to pay for adventures (which themselves are the most volatile of RPG products in terms of their hit-and-miss sales numbers). Every extra page is something the publisher has to pay for, but historical data say that every extra page is not something that customers are willing to pay for.

THAT SAID...

One thing D&D 4th Edition tried was having standalone mini-maps in their "Delve" format of adventure writing. Instead of one big map, each encounter area had its own section map. In terms of functional use in an adventure, you might be better off asking for sectional map presentation, so you could get more detail in your maps.

Then again, that adventure format didn't work particularly well for 4th Ed publishing (it led to a fair amount of white space in adventures) or for customers (who didn't seem to really like the format all that much).

Still, it's a potential middle ground that might be more accessible than more action scene artwork.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I don't know if I said it before, but ...

Make player versions of every map in the modules. Great job with the APs!

That would be very hard to do in print, because what the players can see changes rapidly over time.

I think you misunderstood. The player version of a map is one without all the tags for room numbers, secret doors, traps, etc.
The PDFs already have this. Really those maps just need to be made available online without having to own the pdf versions, for those who only own the paper.
They have it for APs, but not modules (at least in general).

If you're talking about maps for encounters, you can get an untagged version (without letters, numbers, etc.) from the PDF using Acrobat Reader. Just select, copy image, and drop it into some sort of graphics editor to save it. (I'm enough of a Luddite I'm still using Paint.)


Temperans wrote:
Those are some good ideas JiCi.

Thank you :)

Temperans wrote:
However, regarding multiclassing, you are practically defining gestalt rules. And it would certainly be a power up for classes. Instead, how about multiclassing uses the XP cost for the new lv, not for the highest lv; and only 1 lv up per session? I know it's more complex, but it makes it so players can have multiclass at high lv without using all the XP for just a lv1 dip.

A 20th-level Magus is going to be better than a Fighter 10/Sorcerer 10, because none of its abilities stop scaling.

If you multiclass, you stop progressing. It's logical, yes, but it's not practical, as several, if not all class features are based on your class levels, not character levels. If a class would have received a feature upgrade at 11th level, but you pick a second class instead, you're not getting that upgrade. The abilities that you received stop getting stronger if you change classes, limiting your options.

Temperans wrote:
Prestige classes being archetypes is kind of weird since it implies you are trading you abilities away anyways (also how would archetype stacking work?). How about just giving them all the Aligned Class feature? That would make PRC more prestigious while keeping the their rules seperate from any 1 class (unless it's a pre-req or part of a theme/story).

Prestige classes have the same problems with multiclassing: they often halt your base class' progress. They also have some of the most ridiculous requirements that barely pay off. Finally, you're already "specialized" when you're picking an archetype; you don't need a PrC, IMO.

A few examples:
Battle Herald (cavalier)
Arcane Trickster (magus)
Assassin (rogue)
Loremaster (wizard)
Holy Vindicator (cleric)
Nature Warden (ranger)
Horizon Walker (ranger)

101 to 150 of 301 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / If PF1 was revived and revised by Paizo, what would you change? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.