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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 301 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

I understand that most prestige classes suffer from the same problem as multiclassing and the base class being unable to advance. However, prestige classes have a lot more abilities packed into those 10 lvs then most classes have in 20. So making them archetypes has the problem of either losing all the base abilities (why not just make them alt. classes, EX ninja) or they are the only choice when not taking another archetype (since PRCs give much more then a base class).

Its also why I suggested making them all have the Aligned Class feature of some type. Aligned Class makes it so you progress the base class at some X rate, typically PRC lv - 1 in PF1 (EX: Evangelist and Winter Witch). This is basically the same as your suggestion of simultaneous progression for multiclassing.

**********************
I know that that's the problem with traditional multiclass, specially with casters. After thinking it over, your progression is quite good.

I will admit to miss reading it as Fighter 10/ Wizard 10 at lv 10/15.


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

I'll agree to that wholeheartedly.

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

The Recall Intrigues table (from the Spymaster's Handbook) is a start, but needs to be fleshed out and tidied up a bit more. I would also recommend tidying up some other aspects of the Knowledge skills -- for instance, the uses of Knoeledge (Local) very often DON'T actually make use of your knowledge of the local area, while Knowledge (Geography) mostly gets left out in the cold.

JiCi wrote:
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...

I would argue that Fighters should get it as a class skill, but not everybody. Certainly not the absent-minded professor Wizard type.

JiCi wrote:
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...

. . . But even with that, Unchained Monk didn't get any official conversions of existing Monk archetypes, other than getting Qinggong built into the basic class description.

With respect to scalable magic items, I'd like to see a blend of built-in magic and character-level-dependent scaling. Right now we mostly seem to have either all one or all the other, with the notable exception of Staves (which, however, are enough of a pain to use that almost nobody does, as far as I can tell).

JiCi wrote:
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?

Good point. On the other hand, having followed part of an Ironfang Invasion PbP campaign having a Kineticist who accidentally one-shotted a Dragon that was at least Adult, I would argue that Kineticists are just overpowered.

JiCi wrote:

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.

Fighter -- as a trained martial -- should get a good Will Save in the first place.

JiCi wrote:
- 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.

Weapon training used to be not so useful (unless you needed every last nickel and dime of bonus), but with the release of the Weapon Master's Handbook, it has become the Fighter's best class feature. Several of the Advanced Weapon Training options are awesome, hurt mainly by the fact that you aren't allowed to take them very often. Even with this limitation, depending upon how many weapon groups you want, you can replace all of the Weapon Training instances after the one gained at 5th level with Advanced Weapon Training, or you can let these build up in the old way and use the Advanced Weapon Training feat to get Advanced Weapon Training. With respect to how many weapon groups you might want, I could see a versatile Fighter needing a weapon group (for instance, Heavy Blades) for primary melee, another weapon group (usually Bows) for ranged combat, and yet another weapon group (probably Close) for situations like being Grappled. So that's at least 3 weapon groups.

JiCi wrote:
- 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.

I would agree to condensing a LOT of archetypes into class talents and specialization path options. (This goes for other classes as well, not just Fighter.) With respect to fighting style in particular -- why not have Fighter share Combat Style with Ranger?

JiCi wrote:
- 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.

Pathfinder Unchained introduced Stamina as something potentially for all characters to have, but for Fighters to be better at. This should be fleshed out more and balanced (right now, most Stamina abilities have a ridiculously expensive Stamina Point cost).

As for making a Fighter BBEG, Cartmanbeck's Guide to the Iron Caster might show a way . . . .

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

That's what old-style Weapon Training did, although I wouldn't mind making Swashbuckler a Fighter Combat Style, which would bring in Precise Strike and Panache as options.

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

Make this one of the Fighter Combat Styles.

JiCi wrote:
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.

Giving back a good Will Save to the Unchained Monk (and converting the pre-Unchained archetypes) would go a substantial way towards this.

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

Yeah, that one is a bit of a head-scratcher . . . .

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

Butchering Axe. Just add "Orc" to the name to fix it the rest of the way.

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

Same problem for Gnomes.

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

This is partly true, but also some archetypes and even whole classes should be turned into prestige classes. Prestige classes should be classes that have Prestige -- leave the generic multiclassing options, like Arcane Trickster and Arcane Archer, for archetypes or hybrid classes, and reserve prestige classes for concepts that involve having a special place in an organization, like Inquisitors and Paladinoids (I guess 2nd Edition calls them Champions now -- actually not a bad idea), using Hellknights (both types) as a guide.

JiCi wrote:
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.

Kirthfinder actually has an idea like this -- although I need to study it more to be sure I know just how it works, the basic idea is that with a bit of investment, you can be a Fighter, dip Wizard, and use a feat or talent (I forgot which) to progress your spellcasting slowly with your Fighter levels.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
With respect to scalable magic items, I'd like to see a blend of built-in magic and character-level-dependent scaling. Right now we mostly seem to have either all one or all the other, with the notable exception of Staves (which, however, are enough of a pain to use that almost nobody does, as far as I can tell).

Staves require the user to have the spell or a Use Magic Device check, and take forever to charge back. You need a spell to charge, but it'a always 1 charge per spell, regardless of the spell's level. A 5th-level spell should restock 5 charges.

Magic items in general have a fixed value, such as damage, bonuses and DCs. There's no way to attune them to a character to make them more or less powerful.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Weapon training used to be not so useful (unless you needed every last nickel and dime of bonus), but with the release of the Weapon Master's Handbook, it has become the Fighter's best class feature. Several of the Advanced Weapon Training options are awesome, hurt mainly by the fact that you aren't allowed to take them very often. Even with this limitation, depending upon how many weapon groups you want, you can replace all of the Weapon Training instances after the one gained at 5th level with Advanced Weapon Training, or you can let these build up in the old way and use the Advanced Weapon Training feat to get Advanced Weapon Training. With respect to how many weapon groups you might want, I could see a versatile Fighter needing a weapon group (for instance, Heavy Blades) for primary melee, another weapon group (usually Bows) for ranged combat, and yet another weapon group (probably Close) for situations like being Grappled. So that's at least 3 weapon groups.

I didn't know that. That is a good alternative. I thought they were feats, at first.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Good point. On the other hand, having followed part of an Ironfang Invasion PbP campaign having a Kineticist who accidentally one-shotted a Dragon that was at least Adult, I would argue that Kineticists are just overpowered.

If it was a composite blast that scored a critical, it's an happy accident :P

The Kineticist itself is fine to me. It's like the Warlock back in D&D 3.5, which had an at-will blast, with invocations to shape it.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
As for making a Fighter BBEG, Cartmanbeck's Guide to the Iron Caster might show a way . . .

I feel like it's more about its purpose than its abilities. What can a Fighter do best? Using weapons... that's it... You can have a gladiator champion, but that's all I can think of.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Butchering Axe. Just add "Orc" to the name to fix it the rest of the way.

Considering that the weapon's description explicitly says that it was forged by orcs, I question the design choice of not making it a racial weapon.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Same problem for Gnomes.

Actually, gnomes got a lot more racial weapons than halflings. It's not pretty surprising.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
This is partly true, but also some archetypes and even whole classes should be turned into prestige classes. Prestige classes should be classes that have Prestige -- leave the generic multiclassing options, like Arcane Trickster and Arcane Archer, for archetypes or hybrid classes, and reserve prestige classes for concepts that involve having a special place in an organization, like Inquisitors and Paladinoids (I guess 2nd Edition calls them Champions now -- actually not a bad idea), using Hellknights (both types) as a guide.

I could live with that, but then again, just added an archetype that starts to give alternate abilities at 10th level if you join an organisation.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Kirthfinder actually has an idea like this -- although I need to study it more to be sure I know just how it works, the basic idea is that with a bit of investment, you can be a Fighter, dip Wizard, and use a feat or talent (I forgot which) to progress your spellcasting slowly with your Fighter levels.

As I stated many class features are dependant on class levels, not overall character levels. If your early class features would keep on getting better regardless of your path, that would make multiclassing less penalizing.


So, just to be clear ... I think Paizo's artwork is many times better than what I've seen for WotC.

As a customer, I am saying that, to make my adventures work with Paizo APs and modules, I need the artwork for all those NPCs my PCs are going to encounter -- or the work is incomplete.

If Paizo can't fix that problem, then it remains broken ... and it is broken.

So, more, more, more ...

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
So, just to be clear ... I think Paizo's artwork is many times better than what I've seen for WotC.

Quality is always in the eye of the beholder, but I'm with you in terms of personal taste. I'm not really a fan of the art style that 5E uses and prefer Pathfinder's art style. I've heard some people say the opposite, but everybody likes what they like.

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

As a customer, I am saying that, to make my adventures work with Paizo APs and modules, I need the artwork for all those NPCs my PCs are going to encounter -- or the work is incomplete.

If Paizo can't fix that problem, then it remains broken ... and it is broken.

So, more, more, more ...

To the extent that this is a problem or something broken in RPG products, it's not a Paizo problem or broken-ness. It's an economic reality of RPG publishing that is universal to all RPG publishers.

Paizo doesn't make art for all NPCs and all encounters in adventures.
Neither does WotC.
Neither does Legendary Games.
Neither does Monte Cook Games
Neither does Green Ronin.
Neither does Kobold Press.
Neither does Frog God Games.
Neither do any of a hundred other 3PP creating games now.
Neither did TSR, Judges Guild, Role Aids, Iron Crown Enterprises, Steve Jackson Games, Games Workshop, Palladium, or any of the hundreds more past RPG companies who have made RPG adventures since the 1970s.

A small handful of early TSR adventures tried the black and white artbook model (as mentioned in my previous post), which showed a lot more locations and characters than usual, but even they did not include art for EVERY encounter and EVERY NPC.

They/we don't do it because it's not economically viable to do it, both in terms of up-front creation cost and ongoing production cost.

I'm not saying you're not entitled to your desire to always want more art. Everybody can want whatever they want.

I am saying that your evaluation of "art for every NPC and every encounter" as a qualifying threshold for a product being broken is:

1. Far outside the bounds of past and present RPG design and production standards and practices throughout the entire history of the industry.
2. A judgment that applies to literally every RPG adventure ever produced being considered "incomplete" and "broken" by this qualification.
3. Affixing blame to Paizo specifically for something that is representative of the entire industry.
4. A standard that will not ever be satisfied barring a quantum change in the economic structure of the industry.

I can assure you Paizo and other RPG companies are being neither malicious nor negligent in not providing artwork for every character and every encounter. They can't profitably do what you want them to do. How you feel about that information is up to you.


About sound effects or background music ... Siren Scape (spell?) has some nice stuff but I don't use it because it's too fine grained ... too specific. Like the sound of a fireball or of a specific encounter (including all the melee combat).

What I need is some good general background music to set the mood.

What would be interesting is if there was an option to buy the background music or sound effects for the APs. Just something that would set the mood as, for example, the party goes through the Science level of a spacecraft in Iron Gods, Part 2.

Really, it seems like we're talking about maybe an average of 4 to 6 sound tracks per each part (book) of an AP.

A bonus would be to have sound effects for each special event.

Just a thought. No idea about feasibility. It's a new part of the market that might be grown and cultivated over time.


Jason Nelson wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
So, just to be clear ... I think Paizo's artwork is many times better than what I've seen for WotC.

Quality is always in the eye of the beholder, but I'm with you in terms of personal taste. I'm not really a fan of the art style that 5E uses and prefer Pathfinder's art style. I've heard some people say the opposite, but everybody likes what they like.

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

As a customer, I am saying that, to make my adventures work with Paizo APs and modules, I need the artwork for all those NPCs my PCs are going to encounter -- or the work is incomplete.

If Paizo can't fix that problem, then it remains broken ... and it is broken.

So, more, more, more ...

To the extent that this is a problem or something broken in RPG products, it's not a Paizo problem or broken-ness. It's an economic reality of RPG publishing that is universal to all RPG publishers.

Paizo doesn't make art for all NPCs and all encounters in adventures.
Neither does WotC.
Neither does Legendary Games.
Neither does Monte Cook Games
Neither does Green Ronin.
Neither does Kobold Press.
Neither does Frog God Games.
Neither do any of a hundred other 3PP creating games now.
Neither did TSR, Judges Guild, Role Aids, Iron Crown Enterprises, Steve Jackson Games, Games Workshop, Palladium, or any of the hundreds more past RPG companies who have made RPG adventures since the 1970s.

A small handful of early TSR adventures tried the black and white artbook model (as mentioned in my previous post), which showed a lot more locations and characters than usual, but even they did not include art for EVERY encounter and EVERY NPC.

They/we don't do it because it's not economically viable to do it, both in terms of up-front creation cost and ongoing production cost.

I'm not saying you're not entitled to your desire to always want more art. Everybody can want whatever they want.

I am saying that your evaluation of "art for every NPC and every...

All true, but to run a game ... I've got to have the artwork for that NPC from somewhere -- whether I'm doing traditional tabletop or VTT.

If I have to go out and fill-in a hole for something I bought, I'd say it's incomplete.


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

Whatever happened to imagination?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Whatever happened to imagination?

I'm afraid I don't recognize this "imagination". Could you provide a full-color illustration?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Whoa, anybody plays this game in some theatre of mind way and doesn't show players illustrations of everything they see? Is that even possible?


That is what descriptions are for, there is no "need" to have an illustration of everything.


Zaister wrote:
Whatever happened to imagination?

For those of you who Mind Theater your games, you don't need any of the NPC illustrations -- just their descriptions. Therefore, if you're buying the material with the art -- you are probably paying too much according to what at least 3 other people pointed out.

Everyone I know is doing tabletop, and we have to have it in one form or another to have a good game.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed, you can’t please everybody all of the time, but you can please some.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Regarding art, they could do several thumbnail black and white headshots on a single page. Dragon magazine use to do this all the time. But it's a different style than the full-colour, posed art that Paizo uses as part of its brand.


Jhaeman wrote:
Regarding art, they could do several thumbnail black and white headshots on a single page. Dragon magazine use to do this all the time. But it's a different style than the full-colour, posed art that Paizo uses as part of its brand.

Yes, absolutely. Anything would do for those less important NPCs that today have no art at all. It's much better to have something no matter how basic. Otherwise, GMs have to do a painful search online to find material that's close to but not exactly what we need.

So, with a little creativity and customer input, we can probably fix this thing. That's probably true for other issues, too, so I hope Paizo kicks things around a bit before giving up easily.


I'd like to see Paizo do more bundling, with the bundle coming as a discount. So, I liked buying the Crimson Throne AP books as a bundle, and I'd would like to see that continue.

At one time, I probably would have been interested in AP books plus accessories bundles (including things like pawns, etc.) when I was doing traditional tabletop -- and I was using PDFs and printing maps and pawns.

Now that I am doing everything VTT, the accessories would have to apply to that -- but, now, I get all my pawns via Hero Lab data sets, for example, so a PDF for the pawns is not as attractive. Maybe additional maps, images, etc.

Maybe bundles should apply equally well to traditional tabletop and VTT?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber

Vic Wertz on discount bundles:

Vic Wertz wrote:

The plan you propose would essentially take the same benefits that monthly subscribers get and give them to people who drop in every six months and buy six months worth of product. But frankly, even though the credit card processing costs are higher, we'd rather get $13 a month for six months than $78 every six months; predictable monthly income, and predictable print run sizing, are the entire point of our subscription business.

Also, we want to make sure that the best time to subscribe is always "the sooner, the better". What you're proposing effectively provides retroactive subscriber benefits, and changes the best time to subscribe to "whenever."

Finally, note that the Pathfinder Advantage *does* provide a 15% discount on Paizo books and PDFs (and a lot more) so current AP subscribers *do* actually get a better deal on picking up older products... it's just not as good a deal as if you had subscribed while those products were current.

This was written in 2012, and clearly some things have changed. Paizo has offered bundles recently, undoubtedly to clear out PF1 material from the warehouse to make space for PF2. I wouldn't expect that to be done for new material, however, for the reasons Vic mentions: It changes the equation to "I'll get a better deal if I wait and don't buy now" from "I'll get a better deal if I buy now and don't wait."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Whatever happened to imagination?
For those of you who Mind Theater your games, you don't need any of the NPC illustrations -- just their descriptions. Therefore, if you're buying the material with the art -- you are probably paying too much according to what at least 3 other people pointed out.

It really isn't an either-or situation. Having a few illustrations gives a player a reference point for imagining other situations that aren't illustrated. Decades of iterating on the most cost-effective ratio of illustrations to text has resulted in the current sweet spot.

But no matter how many illustrations there are, at some point the imagination has to fill in the gaps. All of these games are "theater of the mind" in the end. That's not a weakness of the format--it's the format's primary strength.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

(Just a side note)

Having more images that are the sole representation just makes it more and more like a computer game, as opposed to a table top game.

So yeah imagination is the primary strength of the format.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Also, image search is a thing. I regularly make custom, paper minis for games that I run, and I never have too much trouble finding the images I need for these.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts that appeared to just be a misunderstanding, just to clear up the thread.


Temperans wrote:

(Just a side note)

Having more images that are the sole representation just makes it more and more like a computer game, as opposed to a table top game.

So yeah imagination is the primary strength of the format.

Not really. Groups I've played with had hand drawn maps with stand-in minis to "represent" the NPCs we were engaging.

When I started printing maps in full color and putting on the maps exact representations of the NPCs they were interacting with, I have never seen a group have more fun -- especially when I used some background music to set the mood.

All that is now much easier with VTT, so I'm doing the same on steroids -- now with FoW, lighting effects, etc.


One of my pet peeves: magic item creation and market availability.

In General: You must have CL equal to or greater than the item you are creating. No more having level 3 casters with lots of assistants creating CL 17 items. CL from all classes would add together for this purpose. Master Craftsmen might get a larger CL boost from enchanted tools.

For items with multiple versions of an increasing power: Caster Level of the item scales with ability. So a +1 cloak of resistance can be made by a level 3 caster, but you need to be a CL 15 to make a +5 cloak of resistance. Metamagic Rods would need a formula to balance out tier and bonus, so that a Minor Rod of Mercy could be made at CL 3, but a Minor Rod of Quicken would be CL 11.

Feats, Items and Rituals that let you add CL just to create items. Something like adding a CL bonus to Cooperative Crafting, allowing extra gold to be expended to raise the CL if the entire enchantment is done at the location of the ritual, and special enchanting tools.

Alter Market Availability to take into account CL of items as well. Items above CL 12 generally aren't available on the market. That might change to 15 if the entire system of rituals and items exist, with quite a few items having CL above 20. Though a lot of items would also get reduced CL. Especially scaling items.

And a set of research rules for players that want to create custom magic items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and change up the item creation feats. Maybe make them based on crafting skills instead of their current system. Craft: Wonderous Item is way too big. Craft Rod is way too small. Any craft based on making a spell directly into an item is fine. Craft Staff is way too arbitrary. Need actual rules on how to make your own staff without blowing up the game economy. Or basically rules that explain why Staves can't have 3 good spells and instead need 1 good spell + 3 crappy spells. And why the good spells all take multiple charges.

I honestly like basing all the creation feats on crafting skills. Now you list with each item what skills can be used to create it. Wands/Staff/Rod all are Jeweler, sculpture, woodworking. Armor is Blacksmithing for metal, Tailoring or Tanning for Leather based. Carpentry for the odd Wood based. Alchemy would naturally lead to potions, elixirs and phiflers plus a lot of liquid producing items. Jeweler and Sculpting would be the kings of magic item creation, but they wouldn't produce everything.


Meirril wrote:
Oh, and change up the item creation feats. Maybe make them based on crafting skills instead of their current system. Craft: Wonderous Item is way too big. Craft Rod is way too small. Any craft based on making a spell directly into an item is fine. Craft Staff is way too arbitrary. Need actual rules on how to make your own staff without blowing up the game economy. Or basically rules that explain why Staves can't have 3 good spells and instead need 1 good spell + 3 crappy spells. And why the good spells all take multiple charges.

I think that Magic Item creation has too many feats. There are 8 in total, which is more than half the feats your average character will gain over 20 levels.

Having more item creation feats doesn't make you a better crafter; it merely expands the type of items you can make. You are still crafting magic items at a base rate of 1000 gp per day.

I think Craft Staff works just fine. It allows for a magic items to be able to cast multiple spells, and allow them to use the same power source. It also has ways to reduce costs by requiring some spells to use multiple charges.

Or did I read your comments wrong? Do you want staves to be restricted to have 1 good spell + 3 bad one?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Two peeves I have with magic item creation:

1. Ridiculous crafting times for higher-level items: At higher levels, it can months to craft a single item, while high-level play often has LESS time than low-level play (big bad is THIS close to achieving his or her goals)

2. The hoops a non-caster has to jump through to craft magical items (and still have an inferior selection): A caster with Craft Wondrous Items and Spellcraft can make a huge variety of items, but a non-caster needs two feats, in addition to the relevant crafting skill, to make a far narrower set of items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it is a problem that casters only need spell craft to make items (generally). Persoanlly I would have 2 checks: 1 to make/prep the item aka Craft (); and, 1 to add the magic aka Spellcraft.

There are way more 8 item creation feats in PF1, I counted 28.

The problem with having really complicated rules for crafting is that, it makes thing less usable, while also using up more pages.

Time wise, I always found it weird that mundane crafting takes so long (time taken is based on silver). Meanhile, magic item crafting takes considerably shorter, since it's based on 1k gp. Ex: a 40k magic item take ~40 days; Full Plate (1.5k gp) takes a maximum of 41 weeks.


Another area that needs improvement is random treasure generation. The whole process is very cumbersome. It should be light weight enough that GMs could do it on the fly in-game.

One simplification would be to have all the tables listed in one section.

I think things like wands were the hardest because you kind of have to develop your own system to randomly determine upon which spell the wand is based.

My system was to count the available spells and keep rolling a d100 until a valid spell was selected.

There are Android apps that have automated this. Maybe that's the best answer?

I still think with enough thought that simplication might be possible. I don't remember it being nearly this hard with D&D 1e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, I'd love to have all the things like spells, feats, traits, races, classes, various rules, etc. listed in a single book.

If that's too big (and it will be), then break it up by category but keep everything in a category (like spells) in a single book.

I'm forced to go to the d20pfsrd website to search for things -- when I'd rather just use the PDF for a book. You can highlight PDFs but not a website.

I have all the books in PDF. Consolidation is highly desired. If done right, I'd buy consolidated books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Prime candidates for classes needing their own whole consolidated books: Fighter (especially), Bard (almost as especially, due to the sheer mass of archetypes), and Sorcerer (the organization of Bloodlines is just awful when you include the Wildblooded ones).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With all of the Campaign Supplement and Player Companion books that have been published I would like to see everything put into combined volumes every once in a while to consolidate everything.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I'm forced to go to the d20pfsrd website to search for things ...

The various websites that compile the rules are a fantastic resource, provided to the community for free.

It's a shame you feel "forced" to rely on so much hard work that has been done by other people.


amethal wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I'm forced to go to the d20pfsrd website to search for things ...

The various websites that compile the rules are a fantastic resource, provided to the community for free.

It's a shame you feel "forced" to rely on so much hard work that has been done by other people.

This. I wish I had the entire set of AD&D 2E resources available at the touch of a phone when I was playing Back In The Day™. I still prefer books when learning the rule set as a whole, but they're pretty heavy to lug around everywhere just for reference.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:


For those of you who Mind Theater your games, you don't need any of the NPC illustrations -- just their descriptions. Therefore, if you're buying the material with the art -- you are probably paying too much according to what at least 3 other people pointed out.

Everyone I know is doing tabletop, and we have to have it in one form or another to have a good game.

This is kind of excluding the middle ground of those of us who play with visuals for the tactical layout only, for which a small whiteboard, some pawns and spare dice suffice. (One of the things I like about not being an undergrad any more is not playing in contexts where bottlecaps were the primary representations, so there was a direct linear relation between how late in a session it was and how many entities you could represent via how much people had had to drink.)



  • Updated rules for grappling.
  • Removal of the 'attack action' and vital strike
  • Reduction of number of attacks possible through level up to 3 with a single weapon and 5 with two weapon fighting
  • Using standard action is a full attack
  • 17-20 are auto hit
  • Update/revised rules for mounted combat
  • Reduction of many feats into one - although I'd keep power attack - it would be baked into all str based melee kits - thus making the caster pay for it but not having it be a feat tax as an example.
  • (controversial) addition of rarity system with items rare+ unavailable to buy/craft (or craft-able only with GM approval) and some item types being impossible to sell - giving the ability to give cooler loot at low levels that doesn't break the game.
  • I'd do the same thing with spells - and then I'd make all the skill replacement spells rare. Perhaps making it so you can only select a rare spell as an auto-learn if it's from your school of magic (or 1 from any list if you are a universalist - making that choice matter again).
  • Re-work spell saves - with the end goal being spells that are more powerful - but perhaps require multiple saves, with each save having some 'bad effect' (example: power word stun - now works on any creature, any hit points, but requires a fort and will save - if they fail fort they are staggard, if they fail will they are blinded, if they fail both they are stunned).

Anyway those are my 'off the top' ideas.


I would like to revise the action system to a modest extent so that you can move in fractional Move actions (although actually splitting a move to before and after an attack would still require a feat to unlock), so that for each attack enabled by your Base Attack Bonus or by abilities (such as Two-Weapon Fighting) that give extra attacks, you can forego part of a move to make time for the extra attack, so at BAB >5, you can take 2/3 of a move and get both of your attacks, and at BAB >10, you can take 1/2 of a move and get all 3 attacks, and so on.

Also, Vital Strike would no longer be a feat chain, but just something that you do if you focus everything into 1 attack. However, I would make it have finer granularity than it currently does. In other words, everybody would have access to a chart based upon Base Attack Bonus that has columns like the single column that the Monk class table has for unarmed strike damage scaling with level; the schtick of martial artists like Monks would be that they could simultaneously Flurry and Vital Strike when using their favored weapon (normally Unarmed Strike).


Are there too many rules in PF1?

I ask because I used to play AD&D (D&D 1e) a long time ago. While everything was left to the GM's discretion, there was effort to define a comprehensive rule system.

The one thing D&D 1e didn't have that I think made things more fun was knowledge checks. Players were expected to discover, use intuition, and role play, instead.

Would PF1 be improved if we did away with knowledge checks?

Are there any other rules that should be dropped? Or at least considered for dropping?

I say that because there were also times in D&D 1e where the story progressed too slowly because the party wasn't doing the right thing to learn what it needed to know.

So, removing knowledge checks might also have consequences -- but with a crafty GM seems like it could still work out?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Knowing the enemy is the biggest determinant of difficulty in the game. Being unaware of enemy capabilities leads to wasted turns doing ineffectual things. Against a dangerous enemy, this leads to character deaths. So it's up to you how you want to handle that. I've seen plenty of times when bad rolls prevented characters from learning vital weaknesses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel that conceptually knowledge checks are very important, for the simple fact it shows how a character doesn't know everything all the time. And, it helps distinguish between: Smart and Studied/Learned.

It however has the game problem of knowledge being either super important or super unimportant. Combined with the problem of DCs being a weird abstraction, and the scope being very wide: Ex: Knowledge arcana, history, local, and nobility can practically get you info on any thing, if the GM isn't careful.

Removing or reducing knowledge checks is definetly one way to reduce rule complexity and make knowledge more usable. But, it has the problem of being too flexible. Either expanding the problems listed before or making knowledge useless.

In the other hand (devil's advocate for a sec), adding more knowledge rules makes things more complex and realistic. It does have the problem of being too strict. Making knowledge less usable or too bothersome to even try learning.


Anything can work with a crafty GM. Whether it will with any GM is another story. If your mind works differently to the GMs or if you start from a different set of assumptions about the world then it can be very difficult to find the sort of out-of-combat info you're talking about. It's not that knowledge checks are the best solution, it's just that eliminating them comes with more costs than I think you realise Mark.

In-combat knowledge checks could definitely do with refinement or simplification.


Edward the Necromancer wrote:
With all of the Campaign Supplement and Player Companion books that have been published I would like to see everything put into combined volumes every once in a while to consolidate everything.

That would be great :)

I wonder why they haven't compiled APs into single books, aside from Runelords. I get that APs are sold similar to a subscription service, but at some point, they could merge all booklets into a single book for easier use.

At best, they could offer PDF-only products, but it would be a good thing to get multiple APs in one single place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
JiCi wrote:
I wonder why they haven't compiled APs into single books, aside from Runelords. I get that APs are sold similar to a subscription service, but at some point, they could merge all booklets into a single book for easier use.

FWIW, Curse of the Crimson Throne has also been compiled and there’s a current crowdfunding campaign to compile and expand Kingmaker (for second edition). They’ve spoken about the paucity of AP compilations from time to time, over the years. There’s two main reasons I can recall:

First is that they’re an enormous amount of work. Granted they could ameliorate this by just strictly compiling them, rather than developing them more, but that isn’t really their style.

The more significant is the impact it would have on sales of the current AP. This is their key product and anything which puts sales of the most recent AP at risk is something they’re always very careful about.

Consider a newcomer to pathfinder - if there were several past APs that’d been compiled, it would probably be a far more attractive entry point than the current one. It’s been redeveloped after community feedback, it’s all in one book, there are various accessories available and it’s cheaper than six individual books.

Similarly, there will be some subscribers who have a large backlog of APs for whom compilations would be preferred. If they became expected and semi-regular some of them would drop their subscriptions.

Long story short, creating the expectation that APs will often get compiled and updated would depress sales of their key source of month by month revenue. Fewer sales means smaller print runs which in turn means higher costs and therefore less profit.

It MIGHT be that compilations bring in more profit than they lose, but it’s a massive risk to take. Paizo are understandably conservative with their flagship product. The potential downside is at the “forced to fire people” end of the scale. The upside just isn’t worth the risk.


This thread makes me wonder if my idea, which I presented last year, of stripping all of the classes done to their bare bones and giving each class 2 archetypes advancing in a even level odd level fashion would be well received or not.

Honestly if we discuss changes that seem necessary vs. things we like to keep, for example I would like to keep BAB, a point based skill system, and each class having a distinct resource like rage, chi, smite etc. We maybe able to create our own version of pathfinder 2e. Almost everything paizo creates is open licence so it's usable. It would be a slow project for most of us a part-time endeavor, but why not.

Anyway, for the action system I did have an idea awhile ago about dividing actions (except spell-casting) into 4 distinct and different actions. Attack action, defense action (borrowed form P2), move action & utility action. here is the kicker all of these actions are partial actions and you choose one to become a full action, which means a full attack is the standard multiple attack chart while everything else increases to double it's effectiveness. Like in the case of defense, a higher defense bonus, and move would be you move twice as far. A utility action covers swift and immediate actions and could be used for meta-magic and other feats as well. As for spell-casting (and spell-like abilities), they would always be considered a full action and would replace the attack and defense actions.

Oh well, it's our game at this point. Paizo isn't directly supporting it so the possibilities are open.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Either: make natural attacks into iteratives, or make a creature only allowed to have one natural attack that is primary.

Instead of creatures gaining natural armor as HD increases, give them a mix of natural and deflection, so that touch ACs scale. Lower the number of spells that require both a touch attack and a save.

Reflex, Fortitude, Will saves stay more in line with each other so the discrepancy isn't "auto-fail" vs "auto-pass" at higher levels.

Funnily enough, this was all done in PF2 (the results of not the method)!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Grappling rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^Yes, but while we're at it, make Succubi better at it.

151 to 200 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.