| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, it appears that quite soon after the release of the first mandatory products (core rulebook, 1st installment of Age of Ashes, Bestiary, Lost Omens, probably Druma etc) Paizo will release a book containing 1) a wealth of optional rules for 2e and 2) how most/the major game mechanics work and how each of us can design new ways to modify them ourselves. Essentially an equivalent of Unchained, but much sooner than in 1e, perhaps as soon as they can.
With that said, it would be interesting to know what each of us particularly anticipates using this material for: which alternatives we would like to have some support to implement, which rules we would like to change given the chance, which optional rules we'd like to see already spelled out if that's actually something we'll get (I think the most popular options will be delineated without the need to homebrew anything, but I could be wrong and the book could be fodder for designing your own alternatives and addictions in its entirety, not 100% sure on this).
It might also help the staff at Paizo and particularly Mark & the gang to introduce rules and content that just barely didn't make it into the core rules: they've had all the feedback from the playtest and at this point know quite well what most vocal minorities would have opted for even if in the end they chose to go with the majority's preferences for core, but there might still be outliers, and anyways it would hopefully still be a way to make your voice heard.
Of course we don't yet know everything about 2e, so we can only propose alternatives to what we know or suspect we'll find in the core rules, but I still think this could be a fruitful exercise.
At the very least, think of it this way: by discussing different views you might come upon some neat ideas! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've already got confirmation about rules scaling up and down the number of feats you get, so that should be fun.
I'd like to see optional rules for moving the majority of weapon damage to the player rather than the weapon, leaving magic for utility stuff like damage types, bypassing resistance, making ranged attacks with a sword, etc.
An optional rule that implements the Starfinder Stamina and HP system would be rad as heck.
A classless system would be neat, relegating all class features to feats as well, and letting everyone build their characters freeform.
I'm happy to hear this and hope that official endorsement of optional rules, and options for custom-created classes and new/adjusted Feats, will result in a feature where-by GMs can share alternative configurations with their players in Hero Lab.
In order to support home-brew games, I can see house rules related to:
Spell Durations
Bounded Accuracy and/or Alternatives to +1/Level
Magic Item Damage
Class Weapon/Armor Proficiencies
Weapon and Armor Definitions
Alternative Skill Lists
Modified Skill DCs and Trimming Skill TEML into TM
Damage and Healing
Alternative Background System
Weight instead of Bulk, which I suppose means alternative equipment lists
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Delineation of which parts of the rules are there for Golarion's sake, and ways to get away from them.
Not that I don't like Golarion, but I liked the setting-neutral nature of the PF1 rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arcanist-style spellcasting, exclusive NPC classes for all playable ancestries...
That's what I can think up as of now.
An optional rule that implements the Starfinder Stamina and HP system would be rad as heck.
Mmmh! How does that work? Makes it more "realistic" by any chance?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An optional rule that implements the Starfinder Stamina and HP system would be rad as heck.Mmmh! How does that work? Makes it more "realistic" by any chance?
Not more realistic, but makes gameplay very smooth. You don't have to roll the dice on medicine checks as much, and parties without healers or people with training in medicine are more viable, and pushing on through a full day is much more common.
I just personally love the way it plays out in Starfinder.
The way Resolve acts as the death counter is also easy to track and is a bit easier to conceptualize than different "levels" of dying.
You don't have to roll the dice on medicine checks as much, and parties without healers or people with training in medicine are more viable, and pushing on through a full day is much more common.
That's good stuff!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to roll the dice on medicine checks as much, and parties without healers or people with training in medicine are more viable, and pushing on through a full day is much more common.That's good stuff!
If you ever read Ultimate Combat's "Wounds and Vigor" rules, it's a much cleaner version of that. Basically you get class amount + Con in Stamina, which damage gets taken out of first, and then Health, which is class amount + race. Once Health hits 0, you are dying, you can short rest to restore ALL Stamina (but no health, unless you have a Mystic [Cleric] around), so it makes short skirmishes a lot nicer than long slogging dungeon crawls. I would LOVE a Stamina/Health system, as I think Treat Wounds would work much nicer in that system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you ever read Ultimate Combat's "Wounds and Vigor" rules, it's a much cleaner version of that. Basically you get class amount + Con in Stamina, which damage gets taken out of first, and then Health, which is class amount + race. Once Health hits 0, you are dying, you can short rest to restore ALL Stamina (but no health, unless you have a Mystic [Cleric] around), so it makes short skirmishes a lot nicer than long slogging dungeon crawls. I would LOVE a Stamina/Health system, as I think Treat Wounds would work much nicer in that system.
It's an interesting system. I would...
Wait, okay, my turn to say what I might change with the options book handy:
1) kick alignment out. The option was presented in Unchained too.
2) change the critical effects of weapons in general
3) maybe leave hps unaltered, but add a Con/Size-derived threshold for impairing wounds.
4) make spears' and polearms' reach more important/powerful. Maybe add bonuses to all weapons longer than an arming sword and penalties to all shorter, not sure
5) make plate more powerful against cutting attacks perhaps
6)... no, I think I'm done.
Essentially, I don't much like alignment in general, and as much as I like classic D&D combat (and PF Playtest too!) I also like combat that adheres a bit more to at least cinematic verisimilitude.
Oh, I came up with 6.
6) Experimentally, nix all skills and use classes instead. Which means your class gives you a bonus on anything it pertains to, and nothing it doesn't. Background too. Not high as a priority though, for sure.
And 7) Maybe rebuild some classes/archetypes and ancestries I feel I need from 1e. At least for use until the official ones come out.
Anyways these are just possibilities, I could very well leave everything unaltered. Also, we really need to check how the new edition works out for us, I'm noticing - it's hard to say what we'll do without some substantial hints!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the thing about optional rules? Unless it's something that requires math or some tricky interactions with the rest of the rules, I can just do it myself.
Like "Arcanist Casting", "AoOs for all", "No Alignment", "Arcanist Casting", "Starfinder Stamina", "More/less feats", etc seem pretty easy to implement without a book telling me how.
Guidelines to indicate that GMs should feel free to do these sorts of things are great, but I'm not sure I want a lot of book space devoted to it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the thing about optional rules? Unless it's something that requires math or some tricky interactions with the rest of the rules, I can just do it myself.
Like "Arcanist Casting", "AoOs for all", "No Alignment", "Arcanist Casting", "Starfinder Stamina", "More/less feats", etc seem pretty easy to implement without a book telling me how.
Guidelines to indicate that GMs should feel free to do these sorts of things are great, but I'm not sure I want a lot of book space devoted to it.
You forget the most important part (for me): Optional systems built into Hero Lab, since they're official!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the thing about optional rules? Unless it's something that requires math or some tricky interactions with the rest of the rules, I can just do it myself.
Like "Arcanist Casting", "AoOs for all", "No Alignment", "Arcanist Casting", "Starfinder Stamina", "More/less feats", etc seem pretty easy to implement without a book telling me how.
Guidelines to indicate that GMs should feel free to do these sorts of things are great, but I'm not sure I want a lot of book space devoted to it.
Oh sure, and ultimately, the product referred to here has to do enough heavy lifting in a variety of important ways that we can't devote tons of page space to any individual component; there will have to be some that we leave to you guys to implement yourselves, using the more general tools from the book to help you. But sometimes, the permission/idea to do something can be really valuable. My prof used to describe it by saying that often the best ideas seem obvious in hindsight. Even for some of those, you are an experienced community member here and have thought a lot about them and read threads about them, but to many, the idea might not occur to them otherwise, or they'll be more likely to use it if it's an official Paizo suggested variant. To use an example from D&D 3.5, gestalt was dirt simple to implement on your own, even a novice group could do it correctly without a book, but I doubt it would have been as prevalent as it was if it wasn't in Unearthed Arcana.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh sure, and ultimately, the product referred to here has to do enough heavy lifting in a variety of important ways that we can't devote tons of page space to any individual component; there will have to be some that we leave to you guys to implement yourselves, using the more general tools from the book to help you. But sometimes, the permission/idea to do something can be really valuable. My prof used to describe it by saying that often the best ideas seem obvious in hindsight. Even for some of those, you are an experienced community member here and have thought a lot about them and read threads about them, but to many, the idea might not occur to them otherwise, or they'll be more likely to use it if it's an official Paizo suggested variant. To use an example from D&D 3.5, gestalt was dirt simple to implement on your own, even a novice group could do it correctly without a book, but I doubt it would have been as prevalent as it was if it wasn't in Unearthed Arcana.
Completely agree, and also, PossibleCabbage, I reckon you have a lot of experience with PF - I have less, so even for alignment some help telling me how to handle spells and effects involving it would be pretty great. And that's just the easiest change you mentioned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) kick alignment out. The option was presented in Unchained too.
I've been wondering how 2e is going to handle non-core stuff that would be essentially reprints of 1e material. This is a great example. Are there any changes to make to the Unchained alignment material to make it fit 2e better? If not, how much will it annoy customers to spend money buying pages they already have? OTOH, how much would omitting it hurt newcomers?
1) kick alignment out. The option was presented in Unchained too.I've been wondering how 2e is going to handle non-core stuff that would be essentially reprints of 1e material. This is a great example. Are there any changes to make to the Unchained alignment material to make it fit 2e better? If not, how much will it annoy customers to spend money buying pages they already have? OTOH, how much would omitting it hurt newcomers?
Good questions. The book must strike a balance, that's for sure. But I think it'll mostly be new stuff we didn't even dream of seeing in Unchained.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see an advantages/disadvantages system where you could do something like my character has only one eye, so he has a -2 to perception checks based on seeing. His empty eye socket unnerves people so that they are anxious to be rid of him. He gets a +2 to Diplomacy attempts involving haggling.
Things like this are kind of problematic in that they treat real life disabilities like a mechanical carrot. That's why I really dislike rules that mechanically incentivize disability. If you want to have a blind character, cool. Let's RP that. I don't think it should give a bonus.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see a discussion of where the developers think the game is so tightly balanced such that fiddling with it might make a bigger impact on the game than you'd expect.
I only have one example right now but I was playing around with making some custom weapons and noticed that the devs seem to have very deliberately avoided making a one handed d8 finesse or agile weapon. If the devs think that having such a weapon exist would unbalance dex vs str it would be good to have their thinking laid out as a guideline for weapon creation.
Stuff like that, kind of a what to avoid when homebrewing section.
And of course automatic bonus progression which is really just them quantifying what the base equipment expectations in the monster creation math is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see Optional Rules for the following printed 1st party:
1) Social Initiative and Encounter rules that dive deeper than a simple Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate/Sense Motive Check. Something formalized with math behind it to "roll out" a social encounter mechanically and establish a benchmark for non-combat encounters to work upon.
2) Custom Ancestry Rules and Formulas set out with explicit guidelines for player characters.
3) Reward systems for players who wish to use Downtime checks to work on things OTHER than making money such as community work, priestly duties, volunteering, blackmail/racketeering etc.
4) Mythic Feats & Tiers starting as soon as level 2 (NOT Level 1).
5) Rules for running a business such as a blacksmith, baker, or dinosaur rancher.
6) Rules to effectively eliminate the need to track gp in general. With Item Levels in play now I am having a hard time seeing why we need to even worry about Wealth By Level when instead we could easily focus instead on disbursing appropriate level equipment and hand-waving the gp expense for a bunch of stuff.
7) A book FULL of Rituals that casters and non-casters alike can participate in and organize. (I'm talking about a book with 6-14 pages of Rules and intro stuff up front and another 40+ pages dedicated to JUST the rituals and related Feats/Ancestries/Archetypes.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So here's an optional rule I would like to see: bring back traits.
Ancestry, Background, and Class for the coarse definition of a character, but sometimes you want those fine, weird details to be things with a mechanical weight behind them. Like being an elf rogue was an urchin gives you some idea of a character, but an elf rogue who was an urchin in Katapesh vs. one from Varisia or and who was trained in the church of Norgorber vs. "by the Scarzni" puts a very different spin on the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. While I want this one to be in the CRB, as long as we get an integrated Starfinder-style stamina/HP system (as opposed to UltCombat's Wounds/Vitality), I'll be happy.
2. Rules that illustrate how to adjust the "levers and dials" to tailor PF2 as desired. I want to be able to run a PF2 Dark Fantasy game with Paizo-approved guidelines rather than house rules. Such a section/chapter could be applied towards Mythic as well by altering things in the other direction.
3. Expanded downtime mechanics & rewards. More ways to integrate the PCs into the world beyond money & magic items. Factions, businesses, temples, knightly orders, etc. While I liked Kingdom Building in concept, I want to have stuff that ties characters deeper into the world/campaign and appeals to all characters at all levels (for those who want it).
4. Meatier building & castle construction rules.
5. Options for non-Vancian PF2.
6. A return & refinement of some of the Ultimate Intrigue concepts such as Heists and Social Combat.
Oh sure, and ultimately, the product referred to here has to do enough heavy lifting in a variety of important ways that we can't devote tons of page space to any individual component; there will have to be some that we leave to you guys to implement yourselves, ...
Would it be possible to just have more than one "options" book? i.e. More than 1-Unchained! style book? Unchained is one of my favorite books from PF1 and struck a good balance of options. Conversely, I felt like optional systems from Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic were not playtested at all and as a result weren't truly viable optional subsystems.
Rather than have one Options book have to do everything, can't we get more trips to the Well of Optional subsystems/mechanics?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I’m REALLY looking for is the monster creation rules. I can fudge the rest, but getting the math on that would be very useful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want them to release those elemental spell critical they through around in development. Basically special critical based on the damage type. Hell, you could apply that to physical weapons, too.
The only thing I’m REALLY looking for is the monster creation rules. I can fudge the rest, but getting the math on that would be very useful.
Absolutely this! I keep forgetting they won't be in the Bestiary at launch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something to do away with nat 1 crit fails for skills in some fashion. I’ll homebrew it, but it’d be nice to have a balanced option. (With hitting trained in a skill being so important, I might set up something where expert means it just causes failure for a skill, and master causes it to be treated normally.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see a guide for updating the Pathfinder 1st APs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see a guide for updating the Pathfinder 1st APs.
Me too, but there won't be room to update them all (and probably not even one) - I think it will be superlative if there'll be enough material to do it ourselves.
Also, there'll be a slew of new APs! We'll need to run games 24/7 to catch up... at least I will.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To start with, they already have seemed to indicate they are going to have optional rules for scaling how many feats you get [pretty sure they said as much], so people can adjust that to reflect their preferred play. I imagine this can include options to open up more Racial feats early on, but will likely and hopefully include options to up how often you get, class, general or skill feats as well.
First: Option to make multi-classing archetypes available at 1st level, and all classes having at least one class feat at first level. [to be able to pay for a dedication then] I see a potential option to have dedication feats potentially have some portion of their benefit that one only gets after getting to 2nd level, if they buy it earlier. I felt a little bit of loss at how difficult creating someone who actually makes a major life choice change reflected by change in class, but when I thought suddenly the multiclass archetype dedication would actually allow someone to start at first level as a fighter/wizard multiclass or rogue/fighter, I was exited. I was really disappointed that they seemingly arbitrarily forced multiclass archetypes to be 2nd level feats. I'm guessing they were concerned about balance for 1st level characters getting core pieces from two classes perhaps, but I'd think there would be easy ways of dealing with that and make a good optional rule, and they could explain any concerns they might have with enabling it.
Second: Rules to insure that fighters using non-magical weapons can keep up in damage with level appropriate monsters that are using similar manufactured weapons. What I am wanting is ABSOLUTELY not Automatic Bonus Progression. Magical items need to be able to remain magical, and better than mundane items, and not just because they do something really different. Some magical swords need to just be 'better', 'sharper' swords that hurt more as they cut through their enemies easier. Monsters using manufactured weapons didn't do extra dice of damage at the same rate of advance like every instance of the 'expected' bonus seen for magic items expected in tables I saw, so I see the distinct ability to have a well skilled martial be able to do extra damage, not too much unlike wielding a magic weapon, even if weaker than expected at that level. Again, I don't want to remove the power of magical weapons, and that individual should do more damage when they are wielding a magical weapon that would frequently be owned by someone at that level.
Third: Options for making mundane healing range from easier to rarer/slower, to help people shift the style to what they like. There should be options where healing even a first level character who is badly hurt will take more than a week, even if treated by a professional. It could even discuss ways to alter access/availability to magical healing to help define the play style. A stamina like system, similar to Starfinder has already been brewing in my mind, drawing a line in the sand between easy to heal/recover damage, and damage that is fundamentally more substantial and requires time or magic to really heal. The idea makes combat situations seem more meaningful to me at least in my mind, without leaving the potential for someone being knocked around a good bit but being able to shake it off after a short time relatively easily, as long as it didn't pass a certain threshold.
Fourth: Option to make two weapon fighting make more sense. At present, without a feat to grant you a combined attack, it makes no sense to fight with two daggers, vs. one dagger. If you are holding two daggers, and make an attack with one, there is absolutely no benefit from attacking using the other dagger for your second normal attack, even though it is a fresh hand that hasn't attempted an attack yet. At least in my mind, attacking with the same dagger a second time should be say a -1 to hit compared to attacking with a fresh hand with a fresh weapon that round.
Fifth: Options to enable replacing Vancian mechanics with a more Arcanist style, which leaves 'spontaneous' spellcasters a niche to be less powerful in some ways, but more in others. There might be more than one option. One option might replace Vancian. An alternate might simply allow casters a choice at creation, to use the Vancian system or the Arcanist method with rules indicting how to handle feat that modify standard behaviors.
Sixth: Home and Business Building and Downtime Capital Financing and Development rules. This can easily grown into Settlement and Kingdom/Government Building. Honestly, this particular one seems to be something that would probably be all potentially packaged together, perhaps less of an optional rules, as a set of new and/or replacement systems for handling these aspects of the game if they are going to be more prominent parts of your campaign. I love some of the base shift of the economics of the game as we saw in the playtest, and sounds like the core rulebook will be very similar. I think that it should make crafting and profession options much more balanced and usable, allowing a more viable interaction between the players and the local economy. I think this will leave the door open for lots of optional/additional rules that could be really run to implement, for players interested in that aspect of the story.
Seventh: Way to use Bell Curve rolls to make rolls be more centered, be it the old 3d6 or maybe some other combination that would get you closer to the breadth of results between 1-20. I imagine it would certainly impact how much higher/lower you would have to get to get a critical, as rolls should generally be less swingy than a single die is.
Eighth: Armor granting DR as option. Pretty simple concept. Might have definite impact on game balance however.
Ninth: Options for playing Ogre's, and other more extravagant ancestries, such as ones that fly. Preferably without feeling like other choices are no longer viable choices.
Tenth: I would also like to see something like 1st edition pathfinder traits(someone else mentioned this). Weaker but story/background based abilities, that you have more than one of to start with. I see how backgrounds fill this in a way. But they aren't as flexible. I'd be good with them typically providing a small Circumstantial bonus (which could easily get subsumed by other bonuses due to spells or such in the future) They don't have to be powerful, potentially even becoming insignificant at high levels, but helping to give you some occasional bonuses at early levels and helping you in fleshing out your character background.
Eleventh: Ways to scale your adventures up a bit, as some have talked about, offering a Mythic playstyle. [probably boosting availability of higher ranks of skills in certain skill domains based on class or path]
Twelfth: Really, I think it is sort of a no-brainer that would almost assuredly exist, will be adjusting the +/level scale for people who want to, and how one would do so. I imagine some may want tone advancement of numbers down just a bit and drop to perhaps +1/2 per level and I see it being relatively easy to do, but may involve some hints on how to round, and how to make sure that as you advance, you don't have dead levels. [i'm guessing round certain things up, while others down, is my first stab at the thought] I've also for instance contemplated options to 'level out' some of the jumpiness of the differences between different ranks of skills and abilities (UTEML) always end up being giant jumps of +3 each time they come out. They for instance always occur when you level up, so they jump by 3 [+2 rank +1 for level] not just 2. I'm inclined to make a Newly trained/Newly expert/Newly master/Newly legendary] and have your first level being at a rank, you don't get your full +1 until you level up again or potentially purchase a feat that has that particular rank as a requirement. They might include such an option, if others might want to level out some of that jumpiness too.
Other supper simple suggestions will, as example, just be suggestions, saying. Have a campaign where everyone gets a bonus Archetype (like perhaps Pirate) at the start, which they can complete as they like, and doesn't stop them from pursuing a different archetype. Class based Archetypes are already defined in the game, even though we haven't seen any examples of them. So I don't really consider that a full force of optional rule, for instance, but it is something I look forward to. As was mentioned, things that are officially blessed as workable practices will probably be more accepted at various tables, and handled a little more consistently.
Lastly: It wasn't very popular, but I see how Resonance was intended to keep people from buying cheap consumables in mass amounts and use it to boost their effective challenge rating above proper design range for their level. Options for potential means of implementing Resonance or something similar seem like something some people would get real use out of. Lots of people may hate it, but I'm sure some would use it if it was effective. I'm not sure I'd be willing to use it, at least without my own tweaks, honestly. But I think some form of resonance may be worth existing as a optional rule in such a future book.
I'd like to see optional rules for moving the majority of weapon damage to the player rather than the weapon, leaving magic for utility stuff like damage types, bypassing resistance, making ranged attacks with a sword, etc.
I thought it was said this was likely to happen instead of magic being the primary source for damage it would be proficiency. If not I would certainly like this as well.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought it was said this was likely to happen instead of magic being the primary source for damage it would be proficiency. If not I would certainly like this as well.
I'd like to see optional rules for moving the majority of weapon damage to the player rather than the weapon, leaving magic for utility stuff like damage types, bypassing resistance, making ranged attacks with a sword, etc.
Evidence suggests it's a mix of inherent stuff and magic weapons. Magic weapons clearly still add dice, but we might cap out at +3 Weapons and get two extra dice from level or something like that.
The details are still a mystery, but they have said that more damage is inherent and less is from items than was true in the playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of good suggestions here. However, there is one thing I desperately need!
Vehicle Combat Rules!
My players are prone to hijacking any & every vehicle that they can!
More grittiness. I want a group of orcs to be a challenge for a higher level group.
First: Option to make multi-classing archetypes available at 1st level, and all classes having at least one class feat at first level. [to be able to pay for a dedication then] I see a potential option to have dedication feats potentially have some portion of their benefit that one only gets after getting to 2nd level, if they buy it earlier. I felt a little bit of loss at how difficult creating someone who actually makes a major life choice change reflected by change in class, but when I thought suddenly the multiclass archetype dedication would actually allow someone to start at first level as a fighter/wizard multiclass or rogue/fighter, I was exited. I was really disappointed that they seemingly arbitrarily forced multiclass archetypes to be 2nd level feats. I'm guessing they were concerned about balance for 1st level characters getting core pieces from two classes perhaps, but I'd think there would be easy ways of dealing with that and make a good optional rule, and they could explain any concerns they might have with enabling it.
FOr some reason, this paragraphed reminded me of the Apprentice Level character variant in the 3.0 DMG, which was basically a set of half level classes you could take in order to multiclass right at 1st level. It wasn't brought forward to the 3.5 DMG, but the concept could be revisited.
Second: Rules to insure that fighters using non-magical weapons can keep up in damage with level appropriate monsters that are using similar manufactured weapons. What I am wanting is ABSOLUTELY not Automatic Bonus Progression. Magical items need to be able to remain magical, and better than mundane items, and not just because they do something really different. Some magical swords need to just be 'better', 'sharper' swords that hurt more as they cut through their enemies easier.
I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for here. It sounds like you want martials to be able to be fully as powerful with or without basic magical weapons, but also you want basic magical weapons. Would overlapping bonuses work, where you take the higher of your innate damage or the weapon's damage, but not both?
More grittiness. I want a group of orcs to be a challenge for a higher level group.
That shouldn't be too difficult. Either cut the +level bonus or boost the level of those orcs. I expect both will be forthcoming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More grittiness. I want a group of orcs to be a challenge for a higher level group.
This is such an interesting refrain on these boards, that is really confounding to me.
Is the idea of more different kinds of orcs, through something like templates, (similar to orcs having class levels, but perhaps easier to design on the fly for GMs), not a much better solution for this? Does a level 1-20 AP where the exact same villains are thrown at the PCs for 3 or 4 books out of 6 really sound like the most fun adventure to play through.
"Oh look, more orcs! Lets use the exact same tactics we used the last 20 battles again, because we know their stats, good and bad saves, and everything else that they might possibly try to do."
I feel like this desire "high level characters should be killable by low-level characters" is much more about creating story arcs that only really work in fiction. In RPGs those scenes almost always have to happen with some kind of heavy handed plot armor to force the intended result as far as the Queen living or being assassinated in front of the PCs without the PCs getting murdered. I love gritty gaming too, but it is only really fun in a system where characters can be built very quickly without too much emotional attachment so that when they die every 5th or 6th encounter, it is not a massive production or emotional drain.
Aren't "Orcs with 20 class levels" a threat to any group?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be preferable indeed to have the pcs face proportionally more powerful orcs as they level up. Base monster at level 1, then low level barbarians, then also sorcerers, rangers, clerics, higher and higher level - as the pcs grow in power, so do the foes sent against them. And they also change - not only in class, but also in strategy, mounts, magic items, etc.
It's not that a group of orcs isn't a challenge for a higher level group, it's that a group of basic orcs isn't. Not all orcs are as unskilled as the typical "1st level warrior" bestiary fare (thank the gods).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see a guide for updating the Pathfinder 1st APs.Me too, but there won't be room to update them all (and probably not even one) - I think it will be superlative if there'll be enough material to do it ourselves.
Converting Campaign Traits to Campaign Specific Backgrounds would be the interesting part.
And, until the monster creation rules are published, there will be a limit on converting some adventures.
Also, there'll be a slew of new APs! We'll need to run games 24/7 to catch up... at least I will.
Me also. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see a guide for updating the Pathfinder 1st APs.Me too, but there won't be room to update them all (and probably not even one) - I think it will be superlative if there'll be enough material to do it ourselves.Converting Campaign Traits to Campaign Specific Backgrounds would be the interesting part.
And, until the monster creation rules are published, there will be a limit on converting some adventures.
Absolutely! But monster creation rules are forthcoming anyway, I don't know if in this product or perhaps in the bestiary? Anyways sure, it's something we'll absolutely need.
As for the campaign traits, I would actually prefer backgrounds to stay backgrounds, and also have something like suggestions on how to build feats or mini-feats replicating traits-sized advantages that we can incorporate into characters with as little change as possible. It's not something I personally will definitely need, but it has come up enough times that I think it would be important.
Changing subject, but also talking more about things that have come up a lot: I noticed in my previous comment I went contrary the spirit of this thread to express what people want to see in the 2e "Unchained". A lot of people want more gritty combat and related mechanics, and for monsters and enemies in general to not be completely outclassed as soon as the PCs reach the appropriate level, similarly to what the effects of bounded accuracy give in 5e, and while this is another option I don't necessarily need, personally, it was rash of me to kinda dismiss it (I wasn't really thinking, Garydee, sorry).
Sooo, yes, of course, it could be a good thing to facilitate a way to keep low level enemies relevant for those who want it. For instance halving level bonuses, or even removing them completely if we're being hardcore. I'm sure if the final product has suggestions about it they will be better than just me spitballing here (and they will be official options, which always have more traction).
|
|
Aren't "Orcs with 20 class levels" a threat to any group?
Yes they are, but from what I can tell NPCs in general will never HAVE Class Levels, instead they're going to follow their own unique build rules, probably something like was done with Starfinder where you can apply templates and abilities to the creature you're making based on the total CR you're shooting for.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't "Orcs with 20 class levels" a threat to any group?Yes they are, but from what I can tell NPCs in general will never HAVE Class Levels, instead they're going to follow their own unique build rules, probably something like was done with Starfinder where you can apply templates and abilities to the creature you're making based on the total CR you're shooting for.
We were told from very early in the playtest that you can build whatever NPCs you want using PC creation rules, it's just that this takes longer so the rank and file need not receive this treatment.
So "standard orcs" are like you describe more or less, but "specific orcs" are not. Specific orcs are more interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be preferable indeed to have the pcs face proportionally more powerful orcs as they level up. Base monster at level 1, then low level barbarians, then also sorcerers, rangers, clerics, higher and higher level - as the pcs grow in power, so do the foes sent against them. And they also change - not only in class, but also in strategy, mounts, magic items, etc.
It's not that a group of orcs isn't a challenge for a higher level group, it's that a group of basic orcs isn't. Not all orcs are as unskilled as the typical "1st level warrior" bestiary fare (thank the gods).
In Pathfinder 1, Troops were a good solution to this, since you could use them to run much larger groups of generic opponents and still keep them a threat at higher levels. I really hope these come, preferably sooner than later.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't "Orcs with 20 class levels" a threat to any group?Yes they are, but from what I can tell NPCs in general will never HAVE Class Levels, instead they're going to follow their own unique build rules, probably something like was done with Starfinder where you can apply templates and abilities to the creature you're making based on the total CR you're shooting for.We were told from very early in the playtest that you can build whatever NPCs you want using PC creation rules, it's just that this takes longer so the rank and file need not receive this treatment.
So "standard orcs" are like you describe more or less, but "specific orcs" are not. Specific orcs are more interesting.
You're both correct. Until we get an Orc Ancestry, we'll need to use the monster building rules to make Orcs, but once we get one we can use the PC rules. Of course, when we'll get the Orc Ancestry is a bit of a mystery (though you can probably fake it with the Half Orc stuff if you want).
|
In Pathfinder 1, Troops were a good solution to this, since you could use them to run much larger groups of generic opponents and still keep them a threat at higher levels. I really hope these come, preferably sooner than later.It would be preferable indeed to have the pcs face proportionally more powerful orcs as they level up. Base monster at level 1, then low level barbarians, then also sorcerers, rangers, clerics, higher and higher level - as the pcs grow in power, so do the foes sent against them. And they also change - not only in class, but also in strategy, mounts, magic items, etc.
It's not that a group of orcs isn't a challenge for a higher level group, it's that a group of basic orcs isn't. Not all orcs are as unskilled as the typical "1st level warrior" bestiary fare (thank the gods).
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the troop rules were there from the start. It’s also a great solution for necromacians that want to have hordes of undead in their command.
Until we get an Orc Ancestry, we'll need to use the monster building rules to make Orcs, but once we get one we can use the PC rules. Of course, when we'll get the Orc Ancestry is a bit of a mystery (though you can probably fake it with the Half Orc stuff if you want).
I suspect we will get an Orc Ancestry in the first bestiary. Unless things have change a lot from the playtest, one of the benefits of being a half-elf/half-orc is that you can select human ancestry feats or elf/orc ancestry feats with the same slots. So the playtest rulebook had orc feats in it (and I would imagine the core rules might as well).
Once we have some orc feats, the rest of the ancestry is pretty easy to cobble together- just need stat adjustments and a heritage or two and you can build any number of NPC orc baddies.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect we will get an Orc Ancestry in the first bestiary.
They have very explicitly stated that the Bestiary will contain no Ancestries of any sort. It is monster stats only.
Unless things have change a lot from the playtest, one of the benefits of being a half-elf/half-orc is that you can select human ancestry feats or elf/orc ancestry feats with the same slots. So the playtest rulebook had orc feats in it (and I would imagine the core rules might as well).
This is what I meant when I said you could fake it with the Half Orc stuff.
Once we have some orc feats, the rest of the ancestry is pretty easy to cobble together- just need stat adjustments and a heritage or two and you can build any number of NPC orc baddies.
The Heritages are actually the sticky bit here, since we'll have little to base them on (beyond, I guess, stealing some from other Ancestries). The stat mods are indeed very doable, of course.
But my point was not that you couldn't cobble something together, it was that it would not be official and that such cobbling would be necessary.
More grittiness. I want a group of orcs to be a challenge for a higher level group.This is such an interesting refrain on these boards, that is really confounding to me.
Is the idea of more different kinds of orcs, through something like templates, (similar to orcs having class levels, but perhaps easier to design on the fly for GMs), not a much better solution for this? Does a level 1-20 AP where the exact same villains are thrown at the PCs for 3 or 4 books out of 6 really sound like the most fun adventure to play through.
"Oh look, more orcs! Lets use the exact same tactics we used the last 20 battles again, because we know their stats, good and bad saves, and everything else that they might possibly try to do."
I find 'different kinds of orcs' to break verisimilitude somewhat.
"You have encountered four orcs. One of them throws a javelin at you. A 38 hits, right? You take 67 damage.""How much?"
"At level 1 you were fighting level 1 orcs. At level 20 you're fighting level 20 orc elites. There are probably still level 1 orcs in the world, but you'll never meet them."
"Great, another treadmill."
Being able to fight common orcs at high level doesn't require that you fight the same enemies constantly. If anything, the opposite: it allows more varied encounters at high level, since low-level monsters remain valid for encounter-building.
"You have encountered 20 orcs, an orc shaman, the orc chief, and a demon, doubtless servants of the blue dragon you're searching for."
"Orcs! Let's use entirely different tactics from what we used when we last met them six levels ago, because we're far more capable than we were back then."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I humbly suggest if people want to discuss grittiness, monsters staying relevant at higher levels, leveled up orcs, treadmills, the use of same or different tactics etc etc they start another thread. This one should be reserved to what optional rules and building blocks 2e prospective players would like to see in the product dedicated to those subjects, not bickering about the merits and flaws of different mechanics and play experiences.
Thank you for understanding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see a guide for updating the Pathfinder 1st APs.Me too, but there won't be room to update them all (and probably not even one) - I think it will be superlative if there'll be enough material to do it ourselves.Converting Campaign Traits to Campaign Specific Backgrounds would be the interesting part.
And, until the monster creation rules are published, there will be a limit on converting some adventures.
Also, there'll be a slew of new APs! We'll need to run games 24/7 to catch up... at least I will.Me also. :)
The Campaign specific backgrounds is a kind of neat idea. However, it also takes over a specific aspect of player creation over completely from the core book. Thus if you choose to take a campaign/adventure path background, you can't create your character with any of the one's in the Core book, or Setting Book background. You are locked out of the normal choices if you want to integrate your character that way.
That was a big strong point of campaign traits. You typically had 2 traits, so giving up one, to take a campaign specific one, did not prevent you from choosing at least one of the non-campaign traits.
You know, if you had some half-feats, and had some campaign ones, that gave you tie-ins. If you don't pick a Campaign background, you can pick a Campaign half-feat. If you pick a Campaign background, you can choose to have a Background, or Racial half-feat. If calling them half-feats is too cumbersome, there could be a name, obviously not trait, as it is used. Perhaps perk?