Stuff That You Wish Paizo Had Done For Pathfinder 1E?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,185 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Strike a better balance between ranged combat and melee combat, and between mounted combat and dismounted combat. A mounted archer can take a Full Attack action while their mounted takes a Move action (or two Move actions, or even the Run action) without investing in a single feat. A mounted melee combatant can take a Full Attack action in conjunction with a single Move action by their mount only after reaching 14th level and investing in three feats. A dismounted Fighter can only do the same after reaching 11th level in a couple of Archetypes—but must forgo the attack at their highest bonus.

2. Re-design core concepts of ranged combat. Rather than feats that add attacks, archers and crossbowmen should have benefited either from the firearms rules regarding targeting Touch AC and/or mechanics that focused on Vital Strike.

3. Re-consider spell list design philosophy. The omission of certain spells from certain spell lists can be glaring, and is even more odd given how easy any of the spell research rules systems provided make it to fix this. E.g., Magi should be plundering the Wizard spell list by way of research and Spell Blending to add the versatility they lack, not to get spells that help them hit harder—spells they should have had already.

4. Re-work the Feint and Sneak Attack mechanics so that they’re not joined at the hip. Feint should be a Move action by default, made Swift through feat investment, but has been overly restricted in an effort to mitigate Sneak Attack.

5. Take a more coherent and unified approach to Style feats. As it stands, too many of them seem like an exercise at combining game mechanics than an actual fighting style… or simply feel underwhelming.


Personally I would have done sneak attack differently...basically I would give them up to 5d6 that they can get at any time they hit and when they would normally get a sneak attack they would roll double the dice. I mean since Swashbucklers get precision damage at any time then why not Rogues.


I would have gone a different route altogether. Make flanking, attacking from one of the three squares behind a creature the trigger, or attacking from concealment/stealth the trigger for sneak attack. Expand on (or make more available) mechanics such as those in Equipment Trick (cloak), in terms of utilizing stealth or creating concealment while in melee combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would have reworked the Lycanthrope template as follow:

Size: In hybrid form, the lycanthrope has the base creature's size.
Speed: In hybrid from, the lycanthrope uses the base animal's speed, up to the base creature's maximum land speed.

That might sound weird, but right now, a lycanthrope basically has little reason to use the animal form, when the hybrid form has the size, speed, strength and weapon usage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, PF did go a bit too far in nerfing certain things to make them 'balanced'.


Bjorn Royrvik, I can think of examples for me, but list the ones that you disliked most?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lycanthropes
The current template is basically useless. I know 3.5 lycanthropes could be a bit powerful, but that's basically the problem of hybrid forms. Just halve the ability score bonuses in hybrid form and you've solved most of the issue.

Combat maneuver feats
You shouldn't need three of them to do what one feat should do, though you might want to spread the benefits out over a couple levels. E.g. BAB +1 = no AoO, BAB +4 = +2 to roll, BAB +8 = +4 to roll.

Save or Die
Save or Take Damage is not Save or Die. SoD should be SoD.

Baleful Polymorph
Too messy and problematic when you just want to turn your opponent into a chicken. I understand the changes made to Polymorph Self, but Polymorph Other doesn't need to be this complicated. Just smack players trying to abuse it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I think anyone should be able to do combat maneuvers without provoking as long as they have a BAB of at least +1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
Personally I think anyone should be able to do combat maneuvers without provoking as long as they have a BAB of at least +1.

That's what I've been doing (with the exception of grappling) and it's worked really well.


Yeah, because right now, it's always ricky to use a maneuver. You trigger an AoO when using it, and can get countered if you miss. I double-checked the feats and NONE of them makes you immune to counter, like there's nothing that save you from being tripped or disarmed.

It also doesn't help that some Improved feats have some steep requirements like Combat Expertise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Warped Savant, except grappling?

Combat Expertise and Power Attack should be combat options, not feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah; grappling has been used too often to shut down combatants and in a fight where one side has larger numbers grappling makes a fight really boring so I kept Unarmed Attack as a prerequisite to not provoke an AoO when attempting a grapple.


Do you mean improved unarmed strike as a prerequisite? If so that makes sense to me.


Right, yeah.... that's the one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spell heightening... It currently works alright with spontaneous casters, but if you prepare spells, you're screwed...

Why can't spells just "level up" normally WITHOUT costing a higher spell slot again? I'd have gladly taken more time to cast than spending a slot and "hoping" that I didn't use it instead of a useful spell...

I mean, in 99% of RPGs, your spells get better as you level up :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

Spell heightening... It currently works alright with spontaneous casters, but if you prepare spells, you're screwed...

Why can't spells just "level up" normally WITHOUT costing a higher spell slot again? I'd have gladly taken more time to cast than spending a slot and "hoping" that I didn't use it instead of a useful spell...

I mean, in 99% of RPGs, your spells get better as you level up :P

Because if PF1 spells would auto-heighten, casters would be even more OP than they are currently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
JiCi wrote:

Spell heightening... It currently works alright with spontaneous casters, but if you prepare spells, you're screwed...

Why can't spells just "level up" normally WITHOUT costing a higher spell slot again? I'd have gladly taken more time to cast than spending a slot and "hoping" that I didn't use it instead of a useful spell...

I mean, in 99% of RPGs, your spells get better as you level up :P

Because if PF1 spells would auto-heighten, casters would be even more OP than they are currently.

I'll gladly take 1 extra casting round/1 extra heightened level than spending a spell slot...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hear they fixed that problem in 2E.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Spell heightening... It currently works alright with spontaneous casters, but if you prepare spells, you're screwed...

Spontaneous casters are the ones who are impaired with Metamagic including Heighten Spell -- the action economy gets considerably worse unless they have some special ability to overcome this. Of course, situationally it can sometimes work out okay, but you have to make real sure you don't need to move.

JiCi wrote:

Why can't spells just "level up" normally WITHOUT costing a higher spell slot again? I'd have gladly taken more time to cast than spending a slot and "hoping" that I didn't use it instead of a useful spell...

I mean, in 99% of RPGs, your spells get better as you level up :P

Many spells do level up to a point without costing a higher spell slot -- their duration and/or damage increases for several levels (although sometimes with weird progression) after you first become able to cast them. Pathfinder 2nd Edition actually got rid of this, and now you have to cast them as higher level spells (with more limited spell slots) to get ANY more effect, although at least they made Heighten Spell be just something you do instead of a Metamagic Feat, and it no longer impairs the action economy of spontaneous casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A spontaneous caster can use a higher level slot to cast a spell but as far as i know it has no other effect. Would be nice to at least use the higher spell slot save DC. To this day I have never used Heightened spell metamagic feat. Metamagic feats I like are quicken, maximize, empower, and silent/still(and psychic versions).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^Heighten Spell is the prerequisite for a very few things (one of the Magic Tricks for Floating Disk comes to mind, the one that increases its capacity(*)), and it could be uniquely useful for punching through Globes of Invulnerability (both versions), but Persistent Spell (+2 cost) is (with the exception of a couple of really extreme corner cases) always better for increasing effective Save DC than 2 levels of Heighten Spell(**).

(*)Also oddly one of the Magic Tricks for Obscuring Mist, but unlike the above-mentioned example, that one doesn't actually seem to use Heighten Spell.

(**)However, you can't stack levels of Persistent Spell, whereas you can stack levels of Heighten Spell; but if you have both feats, it is better to start with Persistent Spell and then put levels of Heighten Spell on top of it, unless you first have to punch through a Globe of Invulnerability.

In either case, spontaneous casters' action economy suffers (unless they have some special workaround ability) while prepared casters' action economy doesn't suffer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
In either case, spontaneous casters' action economy suffers (unless they have some special workaround ability) while prepared casters' action economy doesn't suffer.

The main advantage is that you can change your spells on the fly as a spontaneous caster, not as a prepared one. If you prepared a Heightened Fireball instead of a Teleport, you're screwed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really wish all casters(9th, 6th, and even 4th) got a lot more 1st level, 2nd level, and maybe 3rd level spell slots. I wish you got to add your casting stat mod to spell damage(including cantrips). Also wish cantrips did more damage, I would say 2 steps higher(ray of frost 1d6, disrupt undead 1d10, etc.).


I agree with some catrips needing more power. You're better off shooting things with your crossbow than casting those spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking crossbows, if guns are touch attacks at close range then at least heavy crossbows should be as well.


Dragon78 wrote:
I really wish all casters(9th, 6th, and even 4th) got a lot more 1st level, 2nd level, and maybe 3rd level spell slots. I wish you got to add your casting stat mod to spell damage(including cantrips). Also wish cantrips did more damage, I would say 2 steps higher(ray of frost 1d6, disrupt undead 1d10, etc.).

With regard to more spell slots: I agree -- the number of spells flatlines after reaching a certain number (often fairly quickly), both in 1st Edition and even more so in 2nd Edition. You'd think somebody would get better at casting lower level spells as they leveled up (at least 1st Edition lets you get some more oomph out of some spells, up to a certain point -- 2nd Edition doesn't even let you do that, although I might have missed a couple of exceptions). What I'd like to see is lower level spell slots gradually increasing in number as you level up, ever more gradually at higher levels, but never stopping completely. AD&D 1st Edition had that vibe but did the increases in a really uneven way.

With regard to Cantrips: I partially agree, but I would say that unlike 2nd Edition where they auto-Heighten, you should have to put them in higher level spell slots to get the higher effects (after allowing for a small amount of auto-leveling up the way 1st Edition allows for a lot of non-Cantrip spells). They would still be recastable in the higher level spell slots, but you would have to be judicious about which ones to prepare that way. (Would have to figure out how to make this apply to spontaneous casters, but maybe the best thing to do is say they use one of the selected level of spell slot to empower the Cantrip for the day.)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really wish they'd worked more on the Mythic side of things. I know there were a lot of complaints around it, but I really enjoyed many aspects of it and wished there had been additional adventures and options published for it.


Dragon78 wrote:
Speaking crossbows, if guns are touch attacks at close range then at least heavy crossbows should be as well.

Why? What would be the effective difference between, say, a heavy crossbow and a rifle, then?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zahariel wrote:
I really wish they'd worked more on the Mythic side of things. I know there were a lot of complaints around it, but I really enjoyed many aspects of it and wished there had been additional adventures and options published for it.

Yeah... same with other new systems they introduced, like word magic. The only alternate rules they ever expanded were the unchained classes.

Starfinder seems to be slowly running into that problem. For instance, we haven't gotten new mech support since Tech Revolution... I'm sorry, but why wouldn't they expand on giant robots :P ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are plenty of optional rules and other ideas/options that never got expanded. I am sure sales and other factors have to do with it but still...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
There are plenty of optional rules and other ideas/options that never got expanded. I am sure sales and other factors have to do with it but still...

Wouldn't adding bits and pieces in later would incentive players to purchase previous books though?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe, depends on what bits and pieces where based on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andostre wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Speaking crossbows, if guns are touch attacks at close range then at least heavy crossbows should be as well.
Why? What would be the effective difference between, say, a heavy crossbow and a rifle, then?

Fortunately, we don't have to guess:

{. . .}

Range and Penetration: Armor, whether manufactured or natural, provides little protection against the force of a bullet at short range.

Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target's touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment. Unlike other projectile weapons, early firearms have a maximum range of five range increments.

Advanced Firearms: Advanced firearms resolve their attacks against touch AC when the target is within the first five range increments, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full-range increment. Advanced firearms have a maximum range of 10 range increments.
{. . .}

Note that normally firearms get a free range increment (5 of them for advanced firearms) that resolve as Ranged Touch Attacks without needing the use of any of the deeds below. Crossbows normally do not get this.

Gunslinger Deeds: 1st-level Deeds: Deadeye wrote:
At 1st level, the gunslinger can resolve an attack against touch AC instead of normal AC when firing beyond her firearm's first range increment. Performing this deed costs 1 grit point per range increment beyond the first. The gunslinger still takes the –2 penalty on attack rolls for each range increment beyond the first when she performs this deed.

That uses a rifle (or more commonly, a predecessor to the rifle) or another firearm. Note that it extends the existing range of Ranged Touch Attack.

Bolt Ace Gunslinger: Sharp Shoot wrote:
At 1st level, a bolt ace can resolve an attack against touch AC instead of normal AC when firing a crossbow at a target within its first range increment. Performing this deed costs 1 grit point. This deed's cost cannot be reduced by any ability or effect that reduces the amount of grit points a deed costs (such as Signature Deed). This deed replaces deadeye.

This uses a Crossbow. Note that it is needed to give you a Ranged Touch Attack at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sucks that it costs the Bolt Ace a grit point to use that ability.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Andostre wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Speaking crossbows, if guns are touch attacks at close range then at least heavy crossbows should be as well.
Why? What would be the effective difference between, say, a heavy crossbow and a rifle, then?

Fortunately, we don't have to guess:

{. . .}

Range and Penetration: Armor, whether manufactured or natural, provides little protection against the force of a bullet at short range.

Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target's touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment. Unlike other projectile weapons, early firearms have a maximum range of five range increments.

Advanced Firearms: Advanced firearms resolve their attacks against touch AC when the target is within the first five range increments, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full-range increment. Advanced firearms have a maximum range of 10 range increments.
{. . .}

Note that normally firearms get a free range increment (5 of them for advanced firearms) that resolve as Ranged Touch Attacks without needing the use of any of the deeds below. Crossbows normally do not get this.

Gunslinger Deeds: 1st-level Deeds: Deadeye wrote:
At 1st level, the gunslinger can resolve an attack against touch AC instead of normal AC when firing beyond her firearm's first range increment. Performing this deed costs 1 grit
...

I believe the point is: If a crossbow were given the major advantage of firearms without any of the drawbacks (like misfire), why would anyone ever use a Rifle?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

^Indeed, they at least made an honest attempt to balance Firearms with Crossbows. Whether they succeeded is another matter . . . .


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I still think crossbows lack especially when compared to bows.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I may have posted this before, but I wish we'd had a yearly 'best of'.

A hardback with Paizo choices for best 3pp. Whether tweaked or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
I still think crossbows lack especially when compared to bows.

Crossbows are simple weapons usable by anyone. If they gain the attributes of bows or rifles, what's the point of using bows or rifles then?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another thing I wish we'd more detail on.

Book of instruments. Yes we have the generic instrument, but in Pathfinder the flute weighs as much as the lute. And the spoons weigh as much as a drum set. More details on bards, bardic music, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^Could be worse. In Pathfinder 2nd Edition they would probably also have the same volume, if I could find them at all . . . actually found Musical Instrument and Musical Instrument (Heavy), so you are now allowed to represent a string bass as being 16 times as heavy and voluminous as most other hand-held instruments, so maybe a step up there. But no support for the granularity needed for a cello . . .

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

But no support for the granularity needed for a cello . . .

There's always room for cello!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

But no support for the granularity needed for a cello . . .

There's always room for cello!

It's true, this guitar has no pick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A feat that gives anyone 1-2 at will cantrip(s) would be cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really wish we got an Extra Ki Power feat for Unchained Monks.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
I really wish we got an Extra Ki Power feat for Unchained Monks.

I feel your pain, it took Legendary Games to get an extra vigilante talent feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I read in something on these boards that supposedly originally came from a developer that after a certain point they decided to quit offering Extra {Talent} feats because the Talents were often so much better than feats, but they didn't go back and remove the Extra {Talent} feats that already existed.

I think a better approach would have been to let you use the Extra {Talent} feat once, plus one extra time for every 10 levels beyond 1st.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Extra" feats are not that strong, feats I think are strong are some meta-magic feats, item creation feats, and especially the leadership feat.

So is there a Extra Ki Power feat from 3rd party?

Grand Lodge

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

Some extra feats are strong, some are not. It depends entirely on what that extra pool is.

If it is almost always better to get an extra whatever instead of a normal feat, the extra feat is strong.

If a normal feat is almost always better than the extra whatever, then the extra feat is weak.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also would have been nice if the Weapon Focus feat was for weapon groups.

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,185 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Stuff That You Wish Paizo Had Done For Pathfinder 1E? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.