I would have liked a feat and/or class ability that lets you add your casting stat mod to damage and healing for spells, spell powers, and supernatural abilities.
For those clamouring for more VMC support:
Nice. Is this one of your creations? How much has it been playtested?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice. Is this one of your creations? How much has it been playtested?For those clamouring for more VMC support:
It's collected from a few sources. Genius Guide to Variant Multiclassing Rules being one of them.
I'm using it in my current, heavily houseruled Pathfinder Skull & Shackles campaign.
But I'm of the opinion that Variant Multiclassing should be roughly like taking roughly 1/2 to 2/3rds of another class.
A) Because you're taking precious feat slots.
B) So the abilities you gain are relevant.
I allow free VMC for my players, because it doesn't give the raw numerical boosts of Gestalt, and lets players express their character a little more uniquely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you summarize how 2nd Edition handles it?I would have loved to see a re-balancing of the Variant Multiclass Rules. Some of the classes are fine, some are useless.Hear, hear. Also add VMC for classes (quite a lot of them) that came out after VMC. Actually, backporting 2nd Edition multiclass archetypes to 1st Edition would be a good way to go (2nd Edition isn't ALL bad -- it just lost a lot of flavor and options of 1st Edition, but it still has some stuff worth adopting).They basically took the D&D4e approach: You generally have to spend one of your class feats to get a baseline ability or two, and then can spend future class feats on feats from the other class.
Unlike PF1e VMC, you don't have to take all the features of the second class, but when you do take a feature, you are losing actual abilities from your primary class rather than a generic feat slot.
(Sorry it took me so long to get back here.) Basically this. If you don't get a Free Archetype, you end up REALLY hurting your primary class. And while you don't sacrifice General Feats in 2nd Edition (unlike in 1st Edition), 2nd Edition is really stingy on General Feats to start with (yes, the interleaved progression of Ancestry Feats and the separate progression of Skill Feats helps, but for General Feats, it's sort of like you had to sacrifice for VMC even when not doing VMC -- that's one of the things that rubs me the wrong way about 2nd Edition (1st Edition was less restrictive).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you summarize how 2nd Edition handles it?I would have loved to see a re-balancing of the Variant Multiclass Rules. Some of the classes are fine, some are useless.Hear, hear. Also add VMC for classes (quite a lot of them) that came out after VMC. Actually, backporting 2nd Edition multiclass archetypes to 1st Edition would be a good way to go (2nd Edition isn't ALL bad -- it just lost a lot of flavor and options of 1st Edition, but it still has some stuff worth adopting).They basically took the D&D4e approach: You generally have to spend one of your class feats to get a baseline ability or two, and then can spend future class feats on feats from the other class.
Unlike PF1e VMC, you don't have to take all the features of the second class, but when you do take a feature, you are losing actual abilities from your primary class rather than a generic feat slot.
(Sorry it took me so long to get back here.) Basically this. If you don't get a Free Archetype, you end up REALLY hurting your primary class. And while you don't sacrifice General Feats in 2nd Edition (unlike in 1st Edition), 2nd Edition is really stingy on General Feats to start with (yes, the interleaved progression of Ancestry Feats and the separate progression of Skill Feats helps, but for General Feats, it's sort of like you had to sacrifice for VMC even when not doing VMC -- that's one of the things that rubs me the wrong way about 2nd Edition (1st Edition was less restrictive).
One of the oddities of PF2e's Archetype system is the pain of multiclassing can vary greatly: Some classes (like my Thief Rogue) find it very painful to sacrifice class feats (I archetyped into Cleric at 2nd level but never took another Cleric feat), while others (like our party Cleric) don't mind losing these feats at all (Our cleric was on his second archetype at 9th level, but underwent a rebuild when the first big group of non-class archetypes came out and I don't recall how many he ended up with)...
^I am only in between Initiate and Trained in Pathfinder 2nd Edition (way behind where I am with Pathfinder 1st Edition), but I am going to hazard a guess that 2nd Edition Summoner is another class that will be especially hurt by taking an archetype unless it is something that especially synergizes with their regular class abilities (and off the top of my head I can't think of an example).
This reminds of a major difference between 2nd Edition Multiclass Archetypes and 1st Edition VMC: 2nd Edition Multiclass Archetypes eat class feats, which are the equivalent of 1st Edition class talents (which were never systematically named as such, but the concept is largely valid); while 1st Edition VMC eats General Feats. Of course, some classes and some builds in 1st Edition need to lean a lot more on General Feats than others.
I should also mention that Pathfinder 2nd Edition Multiclass Archetypes cut your levels in half for the purpose of figuring out what secondary class feats you can get, so this is also sort of along the lines of Pathfinder 1st Edition VMC, but more evenly applied: Some 1st Edition VMC options only slightly penalize you in levels for the VMC class stuff, while some penalize you by 6 levels (like Oracle and Cleric) and then spend some of the feats you sacrificed just to reduce the penalty (again like Oracle and Cleric), and some get you stuck at a low level (Witch, the second-worst VMC in Pathfinder 1st Edition, only saved from worst by not being VMC Gunslinger).
That you got a trait at level 2 and every even level after that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That you got a trait at level 2 and every even level after that.
I see what you are saying, but that really goes against the original concept of what traits were. Traits were supposed to be part of your background. Some extra flavor to help flesh out your character. Unfortunately, that original idea was largely ignored by the player base, and traits became just another way of optimizing your character.
^Part of the problem is that traits were supposed to be sort of like additional half-feats that you got at first level (with the Campaign Traits being purposely more powerful), but ended up being REALLY uneven (including the Campaign Traits). Good idea, but needed some serious cleanup in the actual implementation.
Getting a feat at odd levels and a trait at even levels isn't as crazy as getting feats every level.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monte Cook has that in The Book of Experimental Might. Never got to use it in a game, but there's a lot of interesting ideas there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really surprised we never got a simple option to make a weapon count as a monk weapon. It might would need some sort of limitations, but making a longsword count as a monk weapon for the cost of a feat seems pretty fair. And it's not like there aren't monks that use various types of non-monk weapon in real life and popular fiction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That you got a trait at level 2 and every even level after that.I see what you are saying, but that really goes against the original concept of what traits were. Traits were supposed to be part of your background. Some extra flavor to help flesh out your character. Unfortunately, that original idea was largely ignored by the player base, and traits became just another way of optimizing your character.
^Part of the problem is that traits were supposed to be sort of like additional half-feats that you got at first level (with the Campaign Traits being purposely more powerful), but ended up being REALLY uneven (including the Campaign Traits). Good idea, but needed some serious cleanup in the actual implementation.
Man, I got some opinions on traits. I've written more than one rambling, poorly-worded forum post about the problems with traits, but I think the relevant part to this conversation is to point out that traits were intended to reward players for adding roleplay depth with a mechanical benefit, however it usually works the other way around. Players choose a mechanical benefit, and then they are saddled with a roleplay element that they often ignore.
But if the players took traits seriously, or if GMs had a way to enforce the roleplay aspect of traits, I can't imagine the mess that choosing a trait every other level would make of your character.
"What, you were bullied in your past? Did this happen since we got back from that dungeon last week?"
"Oh, you just now learned that your parents were rich? Looks like that inheritance is a drop in the bucket compared to the haul we brought back from the Underdark, eh?"
I'm really surprised we never got a simple option to make a weapon count as a monk weapon. It might would need some sort of limitations, but making a longsword count as a monk weapon for the cost of a feat seems pretty fair. And it's not like there aren't monks that use various types of non-monk weapon in real life and popular fiction.
Blackpowder monks!
Most of traits I pick are for getting a skill to become a class skill. I wish they gave you the option to pick 2-5 class skills added to your list of class skills at 1st level.
I'm really surprised we never got a simple option to make a weapon count as a monk weapon. It might would need some sort of limitations, but making a longsword count as a monk weapon for the cost of a feat seems pretty fair. And it's not like there aren't monks that use various types of non-monk weapon in real life and popular fiction.Blackpowder monks!
Gun fu!
I thought on it some and I think it'd be safer as a feat chain. Each feat lets you use a proficiency of weapons as monk weapons: simple->martial->exotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That you got a trait at level 2 and every even level after that.I see what you are saying, but that really goes against the original concept of what traits were. Traits were supposed to be part of your background. Some extra flavor to help flesh out your character. Unfortunately, that original idea was largely ignored by the player base, and traits became just another way of optimizing your character.^Part of the problem is that traits were supposed to be sort of like additional half-feats that you got at first level (with the Campaign Traits being purposely more powerful), but ended up being REALLY uneven (including the Campaign Traits). Good idea, but needed some serious cleanup in the actual implementation.
Man, I got some opinions on traits. I've written more than one rambling, poorly-worded forum post about the problems with traits, but I think the relevant part to this conversation is to point out that traits were intended to reward players for adding roleplay depth with a mechanical benefit, however it usually works the other way around. Players choose a mechanical benefit, and then they are saddled with a roleplay element that they often ignore.
But if the players took traits seriously, or if GMs had a way to enforce the roleplay aspect of traits, I can't imagine the mess that choosing a trait every other level would make of your character.
"What, you were bullied in your past? Did this happen since we got back from that dungeon last week?"
"Oh, you just now learned that your parents were rich? Looks like that inheritance is a drop in the bucket compared to the haul we brought back from the Underdark, eh?"
"How come all the Paladins I have met were abandoned as infants and raised by Fey?"
"How come all the Wizards I have met had Wayang tutors when they were growing up?"
It would be cool if every character(regardless of race) got 1 free weapon prof. at level one.
It would be cool if every character(regardless of race) got 1 free weapon prof. at level one.I like that one. Maybe I'd use it to give my wizard elf prof with the elven curve blade. ;p
It's a fun idea, but it sounds like almost no one would ever use anything other than an exotic weapon. So, it shouldn't be a default rule, but it really would be a fun variant rule.
That depends on the player, I know plenty that would more then likely pick a martial weapon unless they are already prof. with martial weapons.
What about having ranks of weapon proficiency, and more proficiency with a weapon gives additional benefits, and some weapons have a minimum proficiency that is greater than Simple? Kirthfinder had a prototype version of this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More support for every archetype.
Like Mindwyrm Mesmerist deserves support for its breath like the feat make s it have a secondary effect after dealing dam. Maybe fire choice sets them on fire. Cold entangles. Electric dazzles or deafens. Or something
And maybea breath feat for +3 or 4 uses (it is limited pretty badly to just Cha uses normally)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of archetypes that could have used a complete redo. Also some for the unchained versions as well.
I'm really surprised we never got a simple option to make a weapon count as a monk weapon. It might would need some sort of limitations, but making a longsword count as a monk weapon for the cost of a feat seems pretty fair. And it's not like there aren't monks that use various types of non-monk weapon in real life and popular fiction.Blackpowder monks!Gun fu!
I thought on it some and I think it'd be safer as a feat chain. Each feat lets you use a proficiency of weapons as monk weapons: simple->martial->exotic.
The movie equilibrium it's a good representation of the gun fu
For me I see that the daily use of spell it's a limit for spell casters in comparison to other classes like fighters or rogue, if there is a way for spell casters to restore some of they spell per day it will be more fun
One thing Paizo really didn't expand too much on was Legendary Spirits. They're the pokemon-like collectable power sets that the medium can collect by going on quests. We got a few from an adventure, some baddies, and a few historically significant dudes floating around, but we could've gotten loads more. If we could've gotten the harrow legends or a few more sets of funky odd-balls from old golarion lore, I think that class would've felt *complete*.
It would be nice for my Unchained Monk(Scaled Fist) to have prof. with composite long bow.
I wish humans got a +2 bonus to any two stats they want and the other races got +2 to set stats with no penalty. Though with races that have set racial mods they could take a -2 penalty on any one stat to get a +2 to another. So for example a dwarf could have a +2Con +2Wis, +2Str +2Con +2Wis -2Cha, or +2Con +2Int +2Wis -2Dex, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would it take to make Pathfinder compatible with the ORC license? I'm still kind of surprised no one has picked up the reins with an updated version of the rules. I know a few groups were working on it but I haven't seen anything get close to release yet.
^Put my vote in for that as well. In particular, has anybody been doing anything recently with Kirthfinder or Purple Duck's offering (Porphyra RPG)(*)?
(*)Although according to a Google search I just did, Purple Duck Games seems to have been sucked into some sort of Gap.
That's an interesting idea. There would be a nice parallel with that, also. PF enhanced 3.5 when Paizo went separate ways from WotC, so someone new enhancing PF1E when Paizo stops working on it would be fun to see.
has anybody been doing anything recently with Kirthfinder
I know Kirth Gersen (although we haven't talked regularly since before the pandemic, which I should rectify), but I don't think he'd shown any interest in trying to monetize Kirthfinder. My understanding is that he wouldn't need the license, then.
or Purple Duck's offering (Porphyra RPG)(*)?
(*)Although according to a Google search I just did, Purple Duck Games seems to have been sucked into some sort of Gap.
Not terribly familiar with this one. Is there any major mechanical change, or is it just slight changes due to the game's campaign world?
^I'm not familiar with it either -- I have only heard of its existence, and now it seems to be lost in our own local Gap.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well if Paizo did a lot more things that people kept asking them to do then there wouldn't have been so much need for third party stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ability to pick 4 additional class skills would have been nice.
^ . . . And 2 additional skill ranks per level for those who are not INT-based casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the ability to get free ranks in 1 or 2 skills that are very much part of the class would have been nice as well.
examples
Alchemist-Craft(Alchemy)
Cleric-Knowledge(Religion), Spellcraft
Monk-Acrobatics
Sorcerer-Bloodline skill, Spellcraft
Background skills gives you some more skill points but it doesn't let you choose more skills as class skills.....though using them together would be interesting.
Yes, I know how the background skills optional rule works.
To be honest there are not that many readers for this section left and most of them have been here for a while. But at least Pathfinder 1e has some fans left after all this time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's one I wish they had done, inspired by Blademaster's Mirror Image from WarCraft III: A spell of Shadow Conjuration (also available to higher-level Magi) that would make copies of yourself. Unlike D&D/Pathfinder Mirror Image, which is a Figment, these could flank, and they wouldn't pop on just 1 hit (unless it was a really big hit).
You mean like a "shadow image" or "shadow clone" type spell?
^Sort of a hybrid between Mirror Image and Shadow Conjuration (and eventually its Greater version) as used to Summon Monsters, except instead of summoning 1 or more monsters, you summon 1 or more shadow-illusory copies of yourself (with the same initial location-perception-scrambling effect as Mirror Image).