| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would personally like to see a fix to firearms and the gunslinger specifically. The touch AC mechanic was a good idea, but it breaks down hard at higher levels. I've considered assigning a armor piercing value instead of merely hitting touch AC.
I've considered assigning a armor piercing value instead of merely hitting touch AC.Legendary Games actually made some. I think they're in "Arcforge: Technology Expanded".
I'll need to check that out!
Also, to be clear:
Taking concepts from other systems is well within the parameters of this thread. Lots of games have good ideas. I just wanted to stay away from copyrighted content as much as possible, but that's clearly a lost cause :)
Debating which of those systems are better or whether a PF1.5e type game is warranted is not.
For the record, I really like PF2e and they have a lot of good ideas. Tip of the iceberg, but I've started calling races ancestries in all my games.
We may need a real lawyer to advise us, but this is the open game document I was thinking of.
http://legacy.aonprd.com/openGameLicense.html
I don't know if material from 3rd party publishers automatically falls under this document too.
We may need a real lawyer to advise us, but this is the open game document I was thinking of.
http://legacy.aonprd.com/openGameLicense.htmlI don't know if material from 3rd party publishers automatically falls under this document too.
As also a non-lawyer, I can't give any legal advice but I'd assume that most products that aren't specifically under OGL aren't. Therefore 3pp materials retain their own copyrights, which makes sense because 3pp publishers want to make money. :P
As also a non-lawyer, I can't give any legal advice but I'd assume that most products that aren't specifically under OGL aren't. Therefore 3pp materials retain their own copyrights, which makes sense because 3pp publishers want to make money. :PWe may need a real lawyer to advise us, but this is the open game document I was thinking of.
http://legacy.aonprd.com/openGameLicense.htmlI don't know if material from 3rd party publishers automatically falls under this document too.
IIRC there was something in the OGL that let wizards nom rules and mechanics they decided they wanted from OGL too, but its not necessarily an "everyone" thing
The problem with charging everyone for the same thing for the sake of ensuring balance, is that you scoot closer and closer to abilities being identical but with different fluff. That said, if we create something like gloves that imbue any ranged attack with ranged weapon enhancements, we'd stitch up throwing weapons and the missing kineticist item pretty nicely.What I don't trust is giving out points (in this case in the form of "gold pieces") and then not having some kind of hard limit to how much of them you can have spent at any one time while at the same time having hard limits on the acquisition of features like skills and feats.
I haven't ran into trouble with this myself, what's the resulting problem?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Almost all of the mechanics are open content under the OGL. It's only named IP that isn't open, such as using the Porphyria name or Rappan Athuk.
That's the cool thing about the OGL. Anyone can make content, but the mechanics, once made, are free to all.
Tell us your thoughts on the Automatic Bonus Progression. We want to know.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell us your thoughts on the Automatic Bonus Progression. We want to know.
I voted, hurray!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell us your thoughts on the Automatic Bonus Progression. We want to know.
I feel you should have another option of "They are a good start, but need a lot of work.' We've already covered some of the issues that need to be addressed in this thread.
Really, a lot of the options in Unchained could use some more serious reconsideration. Variant Multiclass is very interesting, but the class choices are not well balanced against each other.
Agreed, ABP is a good patch for the game, but just a good patch. It'd make more sense to adjust threats to assume those bonuses weren't needed, but that's a fair bit more labor intensive. However, since there are quite a few fans of items with numerical bonuses out there, ABP is probably the best way to keep the game's flexibilty; allowing it to work with both groups.
So maybe it's a great toggle?
I feel you should have another option of "They are a good start, but need a lot of work.' We've already covered some of the issues that need to be addressed in this thread.
I just assume that that is the case. Tweeking, it definitely needs. But I'm more wondering if something along these lines is more or less being considered core.
Really, a lot of the options in Unchained could use some more serious reconsideration. Variant Multiclass is very interesting, but the class choices are not well balanced against each other.
Oh sure. I'm just looking at this one aspect at the moment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, ABP is a good patch for the game, but just a good patch. It'd make more sense to adjust threats to assume those bonuses weren't needed, but that's a fair bit more labor intensive. However, since there are quite a few fans of items with numerical bonuses out there, ABP is probably the best way to keep the game's flexibilty; allowing it to work with both groups.
We'll, it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is back compatibility, then no, it doesn't make more sense. If you rewrite the basic math of the game, then you lose the ability to use every bestiary, AP, stand alone module, player supplement, existing 3rd party book, etc. However, adding a patch that still allows all those books, but only requires you to reduce the loot some, that's not bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think basically the game needs to be streamlined and simplified in a lot of areas, some things need to be sorted out, but the game also needs to be more open in other ways.
- There should be more options that aren't locked away in feat trees. For example, combat options like a lesser version of Power Attack.
- Action types need to be relatively balanced among classes. One of the big things for some classes is that they never get anything useful for their swift actions, for example.
- There should be fewer categories of modifiers, and modifiers from spells and such should be designed in such a way as to either last for a while or to be strong but very short-term. Overall, there needs to be a smaller gap between what an unbuffed group is capable of and one that is buffed to the teeth.
- There should be fewer resources and uses per day to track. Give classes point-based pools for greater flexibility (but probably fewer overall uses).
- The feat trees should be pruned and streamlined. Don't need dozens of different feats that just give increasing bonuses to the same thing or fighting style. That just locks characters in to be one-trick ponies.
- Spells should just have a static effect, not have tons of variables scale by caster level. And variables should be meaningful on typical game scales. Have them scale by spell level instead, and make the basic metamagic effects available just by increasing the spell level, while the metamagic feats provide something else. A lot of individual spells need additional tweaking either for balance or to not be dull.
- Get rid of piddly stuff like traits and maybe favored class bonuses.
- Get rid of a lot of the circumstantial stuff like +1 to hit vs goblins on a moonlit night while riding a walrus and wielding a torch in your off hand.
- Martial classes need more options at higher levels. They need flexibility, and done in a way that doesn't involve getting locked down spending most of their feats on a single weapon. Something similar to the stamina system would be a good start.
- Archetypes should be a standard feature, and ideally implemented in a way that causes less bloat. There should be some thinking done as to what goes in the archetype box, and what goes in the feat box.
In short, you'd need to make a new game entirely without a pretence at backwards compatibility. I don't totally disagree but it's a hard place to start from in terms of making the game, in not being able to easily use other material (as Dale points out just above), and in finding the people who agree with you on the exact changes required to the extent that they'll use your rules.
You'd need to make a team to write the rules (just one person results in an interesting but limited or flawed product as you can see in many minor RPGs e.g. Shadow of the Demon Lord by Schwalb), and form a community to use it and spread interest in it. It might be possible but it's a massive investment of time and energy.
Or you could write up a few house rules for your favourite game and call it a day, whether that's PF1 or something else, as many others have done.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would personally like to see a fix to firearms and the gunslinger specifically. The touch AC mechanic was a good idea, but it breaks down hard at higher levels. I've considered assigning a armor piercing value instead of merely hitting touch AC.
I think the gunslinger was “ok”, but firearms could use a do-over, which would lead to the gunslinger needing an update.
I don’t really like the touch AC mechanic either. But I’m not sure what to do with it. Early firearms were more about ease of use than some special ability to ignore armor, which is pretty much the opposite of what we have in Pathfinder. I don’t mind misfire existing as that was an issue, though maybe not as often as the current misfire rates represent. But I’m not sure what to give to balance out such a big nuisance. And I don’t like the idea of a reliable magic weapon tax, but don’t see a way around that either.
Ultimately, I don’t know if gunslinger should have been a class in the first place. We don’t have an “archer” or “swordsman“ class, so why a gunslinger? It might be better to have guns without gunslingers and allow other classes to fill the void with feats and talents to fill in the gaps.
We have “archer” archetypes, but then we have archetypes for gun users too. Archer isn’t its own class and I don’t think gunslinger should be either.
I'm all for giving martials nice things, but touch AC is totally a major exception.
Touch AC exists so that wizards can hit the broadside of a barn. Sometimes.
Hence, guns need to be fixed. The way I see it, there are three options.
-guns target normal AC, but no misfire nonsense. A SAD ranged weapon is already extremely powerful.
-buff touch AC options. IMO, shield bonuses should already be added to Touch. Enchantment options to armor to get touch bonuses, OR all armors work like fortress plate.
-Lastly, is an idea given by Meiril in a previous thread.. The basic idea is that guns target normal AC, but users can sacrifice iterative attacks in a full attack action to target touch AC, if no cover or concealment. Unlike the previous suggestion, I would not require you to take a feat to do this: Maybe attach it to Precise Shot?
EDIT: Another good alternative to a less harsh misfire chance mechanic is that when a gun misfires, the action needed to load it increases by one step until it is loaded. This kind of misfire also translates easier into more modern weaponry, since flavor-wise it is more of a loss of rhythm while firing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for giving martials nice things, but touch AC is totally a major exception.
Touch AC exists so that wizards can hit the broadside of a barn. Sometimes.
Hence, guns need to be fixed. The way I see it, there are three options.
-guns target normal AC, but no misfire nonsense. A SAD ranged weapon is already extremely powerful.
-buff touch AC options. IMO, shield bonuses should already be added to Touch. Enchantment options to armor to get touch bonuses, OR all armors work like fortress plate.
-Lastly, is an idea given by Meiril in a previous thread.. The basic idea is that guns target normal AC, but users can sacrifice iterative attacks in a full attack action to target touch AC, if no cover or concealment. Unlike the previous suggestion, I would not require you to take a feat to do this: Maybe attach it to Precise Shot?
I'm for reworking gunslinger completely into an artificer class that encompasses the bolt ace as well as the firearms and gains more narrative utility via devices.
As for the touch ac thing, i kind of like the idea of restricting it to when you only make 1 attack, but I like a wording thats more like sacrifice your move action to target touch AC, so that you get a little synergy with the vital strike feats, and it should perhaps be a function of the class rather than the weapon.
Would that artificer class be full BAB, out of curiosity?
|
I'm all for giving martials nice things, but touch AC is totally a major exception.
Touch AC exists so that wizards can hit the broadside of a barn. Sometimes.
Hence, guns need to be fixed. The way I see it, there are three options.
-guns target normal AC, but no misfire nonsense. A SAD ranged weapon is already extremely powerful.
-buff touch AC options. IMO, shield bonuses should already be added to Touch. Enchantment options to armor to get touch bonuses, OR all armors work like fortress plate.
-Lastly, is an idea given by Meiril in a previous thread.. The basic idea is that guns target normal AC, but users can sacrifice iterative attacks in a full attack action to target touch AC, if no cover or concealment. Unlike the previous suggestion, I would not require you to take a feat to do this: Maybe attach it to Precise Shot?
EDIT: Another good alternative to a less harsh misfire chance mechanic is that when a gun misfires, the action needed to load it increases by one step until it is loaded. This kind of misfire also translates easier into more modern weaponry, since flavor-wise it is more of a loss of rhythm while firing.
Option four: get rid of touch AC. Casters target regular AC with a full BAB + casting stat + spell level roll, ditto for guns. All guns are is a glorified crossbow with higher crit value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would that artificer class be full BAB, out of curiosity?
I mean, negotiable, i feel like its hard to decide where levels of balance for raw numbers like full or 3/4 bab requires an actual class, played in actual playtesting and games to decide on that. I'm skeptical of any class that relies on weapon attacks that doesn't have significant self buffs being 3/4 bab. I'd rather see a davinci style inventor addressing the martials and narrative challenge than someone who makes magic power armor and a xbow that shoots through schools though.
I kind of like the idea of a martial class that rewards int as a secondary stat for more than one ability or as a feat prereq.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard having the same BAB as a fighter just feels bad. A bookish wizard shouldn’t be as good at a random weapon as the battle hardened fighter. I’m not opposed to the casting stat applying to the spells’s attack instead of strength/dexterity though.
Option four: get rid of touch AC. Casters target regular AC with a full BAB + casting stat + spell level roll, ditto for guns. All guns are is a glorified crossbow with higher crit value.
If we do that, why even bother to have guns at all? Why not remove damage types, critical modifiers, and different damage dice? :P
In seriousness, you bring up a good point- touch AC just doesn't work like it should especially at higher levels. Something close to EAC and KAC in Starfinder would work better in my mind.
On the other hand, spells that require both a ranged attack and offer a save need to be reexamined.
|
|
A wizard having the same BAB as a fighter just feels bad. A bookish wizard shouldn’t be as good at a random weapon as the battle hardened fighter. I’m not opposed to the casting stat applying to the spells’s attack instead of strength/dexterity though.
Depending on high you want the numbers to go the Wizard won’t have the Strength/Dexterity bonus plus the class/feat boosters, so the Wizard definitely wouldn’t be as good as the Fighter still.
Splitting Melee, Ranged, and Spells into three different attacks/progressions would be another way but perhaps too complicated and unnecessary.
|
|
Option four: get rid of touch AC. Casters target regular AC with a full BAB + casting stat + spell level roll, ditto for guns. All guns are is a glorified crossbow with higher crit value.If we do that, why even bother to have guns at all? Why not remove damage types, critical modifiers, and different damage dice? :P
Why bother having the dozens and dozens of melee weapons?
It’s about aesthetics more than effectiveness.
Would that artificer class be full BAB, out of curiosity?I mean, negotiable, i feel like its hard to decide where levels of balance for raw numbers like full or 3/4 bab requires an actual class, played in actual playtesting and games to decide on that. I'm skeptical of any class that relies on weapon attacks that doesn't have significant self buffs being 3/4 bab. I'd rather see a davinci style inventor addressing the martials and narrative challenge than someone who makes magic power armor and a xbow that shoots through schools though.
I kind of like the idea of a martial class that rewards int as a secondary stat for more than one ability or as a feat prereq.
My rule of thumb from what I've seen is that depending on your bab as well as if you are swinging with your best stat vs normal AC:
Full BAB +1 Scaling Accuracy Booster
3/4 BAB +2 Scaling Accuracy Booster
1/2 BAB +3 Scaling Accuracy Booster
Functioning Examples would be
Barbarian
Inquisitor(Divine Favor + Judgement)
Wizard(Transformation + Some shape spell)
Optimization, static modifiers and debuffers can help lower the bar as well but that's the rule of thumb I go by. A big reason why the Vanilla Rogue struggles all the time in combat is the lack of any accuracy booster. Unchained helped a bit with debilitating injury but still can have a hard time.
Would that artificer class be full BAB, out of curiosity?I mean, negotiable, i feel like its hard to decide where levels of balance for raw numbers like full or 3/4 bab requires an actual class, played in actual playtesting and games to decide on that. I'm skeptical of any class that relies on weapon attacks that doesn't have significant self buffs being 3/4 bab. I'd rather see a davinci style inventor addressing the martials and narrative challenge than someone who makes magic power armor and a xbow that shoots through schools though.
I kind of like the idea of a martial class that rewards int as a secondary stat for more than one ability or as a feat prereq.
My rule of thumb from what I've seen is that depending on your bab as well as if you are swinging with your best stat vs normal AC:
Full BAB +1 Scaling Accuracy Booster
3/4 BAB +2 Scaling Accuracy Booster
1/2 BAB +3 Scaling Accuracy BoosterFunctioning Examples would be
Barbarian
Inquisitor(Divine Favor + Judgement)
Wizard(Transformation + Some shape spell)Optimization, static modifiers and debuffers can help lower the bar as well but that's the rule of thumb I go by. A big reason why the Vanilla Rogue struggles all the time in combat is the lack of any accuracy booster. Unchained helped a bit with debilitating injury but still can have a hard time.
My vision of them is a full BAB class that actually benefits more from being a reliable single large hit each round, and then gets utility from gadgets like a lock picker, or a grapple gun that reels you in, or a hand pedaled ornithopter to grant flight. Basically just addressing martial utility with gadgetry options with the basic principles of the kineticist wild talent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Option four: get rid of touch AC. Casters target regular AC with a full BAB + casting stat + spell level roll, ditto for guns. All guns are is a glorified crossbow with higher crit value.If we do that, why even bother to have guns at all? Why not remove damage types, critical modifiers, and different damage dice? :PWhy bother having the dozens and dozens of melee weapons?
It’s about aesthetics more than effectiveness.
Some of us like our needlessly complex and overly specific rulesets? :)
Personally I enjoy finding new and weird weapons and fighting styles, especially those that either mimic historical ones or really add flavor to the setting.
The gunslinger seemed like it was made as a way to introduce firearms and included what looks like the predecessor to stamina rules in the grit mechanic. The very brief time I played with them, the class seemed more like a test bed than a class.
I think turning guns into weapons that are simply faster to fire the more skilled you are with them is the way to go. Follow the pattern of those exotic weapons that work as martial weapons if you don't have exotic proficiency, but have it scale from simple to exotic.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, i'm seeing a lot of things that are all about game balance above all, for example, "All guns are is a glorified crossbow with higher crit value."
I'm going to link a POST I wrote for the PF 2 playtest.
To my mind, the objective is FUN, and I am in no way certain that balance above all leads to that. Some of the funnest games I have ever played have been ridiculously unbalanced; anybody ever Paranoia? Yellow Clearance Black Box Blues?
Balance is important because it allowseveryone to have fun.
"Oh, you chose [build] cause you thought it was cool? You chose wrong, stand in the corner while the rest of play" aka other characters run circles around your character and you don't really get to contribute because you went with something you liked rather than straight power is not fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun is more subjective while balance is more objective. One person’s fun is another person’s boring and vice versa. But you can often use numbers to show that option “A” is more impactful than option “B” for most situations.
I think all we could hope for is creating a game that emulates 3.x, while replacing/tweaking all of the bits of it that are most contentious. And then you just have to hope that people find the end result to be fun.
You know, i'm seeing a lot of things that are all about game balance above all, for example, "All guns are is a glorified crossbow with higher crit value."
I'm going to link a POST I wrote for the PF 2 playtest.
To my mind, the objective is FUN, and I am in no way certain that balance above all leads to that. Some of the funnest games I have ever played have been ridiculously unbalanced; anybody ever Paranoia? Yellow Clearance Black Box Blues?
Balance is important because it allowseveryone to have fun.
"Oh, you chose [build] cause you thought it was cool? You chose wrong, stand in the corner while the rest of play" aka other characters run circles around your character and you don't really get to contribute because you went with something you liked rather than straight power is not fun.
In those situations, I allow players to respec their character if they like. If not, I try to help the player with the less optimized PC find a way to be involved. Not all PCs are combat specialists though, which is fine.