|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should the party ever run into an encounter where they can't overcome DR?It’s a very rare party and encounter where this is an issue. Monsters with DR can usually be beaten by just doing more damage than they have DR. Or just use energy damage instead of physical damage.
I suppose we could just have an extra hitpoint mechanic and throw DR away. But I don’t see the point in DR existing if we are just going to make it super easy and convenient for everyone to ignore it.
My point exactly! Thank you.
How about this change? DR gives a creature that number of resistance points per hit die it possesses. Any physical damage taken is subtracted from the resistance points, before being removed from hit points. If a weapon is of the right kind for the DR, it bypasses the resistance points and damages the hit points as normal. Resistance points recover at the same rate as hit points.
I feel this would take care of most of the problems with DR. And since it’s less absolute, I think we can remove the bit about high enhancement bonuses overcoming the DR.
Should the party ever run into an encounter where they can't overcome DR?
I think it works as a good check against players who stack a bunch of natural weapon attacks. Without DR they would start to outperform other options by a significant margin their entire career. I guess you could reign in natural attacks instead.
You could flip DR so that it was a per hit cap so that players always made some progress and the special material was only needed for people with one big attack. It would probably be easier to convert if DR values were set equal to a threshold level rather than modifying all monsters HP individually. It has sort of a "metal slime" feel to it, but that's easier to work with and gives you some interesting monster options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a couple of reasons for DR. One is that it makes some monsters too much for a village to handle, they have to get the adventurers in rather than just getting a few more militia from the next village. The other is that certain monsters being vulnerable to silver or cold iron or blessed weapons or whatever is thematic.
The first, DR/magic or similar, doesn't really need to change. DR/silver (etc.) could easily be changed to vulnerability to silver, or Melk's resistance points or whatever, so long as there's some appearance that it might matter.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm against DR being anything but a pain in the ass for players to overcome. Its why it exists.
DR/silver (etc.) could easily be changed to vulnerability to silver
I like that idea. As opposed to the other options, it'd mean packing the proper weapon means your martial will be more effective rather than just not suck.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My ideal PF1.5 would still be very similar to PF1e. I would use a scalpel rather than a machete to make the changes I want. Most of the mechanics would stay exactly as they are in PF1e. I would do some slight tweaking to martial and casting classes to keep their power levels more evenly balanced. There would be a short bestiary in the corebook so the entire game came in one volume. I would remove alignment restrictions for Clerics and emphasize obedience to the rules of their God instead. Archetypes would be put in the corebook to allow even more customization. Oracle would be a core class instead of Alchemist and Tengu would become a core race instead of Goblins. So I guess that would make it more of a PF1.25.
My ideal PF1.5 would still be very similar to PF1e. I would use a scalpel rather than a machete to make the changes I want. Most of the mechanics would stay exactly as they are in PF1e. I would do some slight tweaking to martial and casting classes to keep their power levels more evenly balanced. There would be a short bestiary in the corebook so the entire game came in one volume. I would remove alignment restrictions for Clerics and emphasize obedience to the rules of their God instead. Archetypes would be put in the corebook to allow even more customization. Oracle would be a core class instead of Alchemist and Tengu would become a core race instead of Goblins. So I guess that would make it more of a PF1.25.Based on that desciption, I'd suggest that the changes are in the same ballpark as the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 or 3.5 to PF1, so I'd say PF1.5 is still appropriate. Two questions:
Can you go into a bit more detail about how you envisage rebalancing vasters and martials?
Are you are cutting anything to add a bestiary and archetypes to the (already huge) core rulebook?
_
glass.
As for casters and martials, without going into overly detailed specifics about a hypothetical edition that will only ever exist in my imagination, I would make some martial abilities available at lower levels and some spells available only at higher levels.
I would not cut anything from the corebook to add a bestiary and archetypes. The bestiary would be similar to what is found in the beginner box, and archetypes would be limited to four per class. A good bit of extra material, but not absurd.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a “book” should probably be dropped entirely. PF1 suffered too much from issues of spacing and formatting. We’re living in the future. The rules should be all digital.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bloat's a problem even on the net. People have to read and understand the rules after all. Some things can bloat without much consequences - monster lists, maybe unimportant stuff like traits - but after just being a part of reviewing all of PFs archetypes I can say there are too many and a revised edition has to cut them down in number.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on if 1.5 is going to be more of a community project or an actual business. A community project is much more likely to become reality. If it’s an actual business, then they’d legally be better off not to be taking part in this discussion, for copyright concerns.
They? Who's that you're addressing or replying to?
“They” as in a person or group of people seeking to make a 1.5 as a business model.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on if 1.5 is going to be more of a community project or an actual business. A community project is much more likely to become reality. If it’s an actual business, then they’d legally be better off not to be taking part in this discussion, for copyright concerns.
I was under the impression that this was all hypothetical. Just a bunch of fans musing about what could have been and sharing ideas for houserules. An actual PF1.5 essentially already exists as the Porphyra RPG if anyone here is truly interested in playing a slight update of PF1e that remains decently compatible with 3.5 D&D. While it would be fun to sit down and help the community create a better version of PF1e, I want to focus on my own projects instead of just improving on a game I consider great as is.
My DR preferences:
(1) Keep DR/Silver for things like werewolves. That's too iconic to throw away.
(2) Simplify. Remove 'Cold Iron' as a concept. If a creature is vulnerable to iron, a regular sword will work.
(3) There shouldn't be too many creatures with DR that is really hard to overcome. 'DR/Magic Or Silver' for devils. 'DR/Adamantine Or Bludgeoning' for a Stone Golem. If a PC wants to rely on a single weapon, that should occasionally cause problems, but not so often everyone feels forced to carry three different magic weapons around.
(4) Make DR be 'half damage' instead of subtracting a fixed number. That way it's an equal problem for all martials. In PF1 a two-handed-weapon fighter could just ignore DR by out-damaging it, while a two-weapon fighter could be rendered useless.
On the other hand, this isn't something so broken that it needs fixing if we wanted to make a backwards-compatible game.
I'd actually quite like a backwards-compatible Pathfinder where high-level PCs have a few more hit points, a bit less damage output, and some restrictions on what spells do, to make it harder to teleport past the adventure or defeat the enemy boss in one round.
And fewer feat-taxes.
And more skill points for Fighters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to have
1) Revised action economy + swift action
2) Automatic bonus progression
3) Background skills
4) Spellcasters can use higher-level spells from casting ability stat on lower l level spells. 1/2 max spell they can cast rounded down minimum 1.
5) Scaling cantrips. 1dX damage for every spell level you can use.
6) Classes balanced around 6 level spell caster casters.
7) Rebalance the spell lists. Nerf some of the more power full spells.
8) Remove feat taxes
9) all classes should have something they can do in and outside of combat.
10) classes should have some class features they need to pick. rogue talents, revelations, and so on.
Extras
1) Support for words of power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
to make it harder to teleport past the adventure or defeat the enemy boss in one round.
Counter-intuitively I think the solution to that problem is actually a spellcasting buff. I feel that once you're in the level 10+ range you should be able to trivialize overland travel through the material plane, and the current version of Teleport is about right for this purpose. Teleportation is a useful narrative device for when the scope of the adventure starts to broaden and you don't want your heroes wasting weeks or months traveling from point A to point B, and I wouldn't want it any weaker than it is. If you know where you're going, you should be able to pop over there.
The problem is the lack of level-appropriate countermeasures when it comes to using teleportation to infiltrate a villain's stronghold. If you were to buff some niche defensive spells to include anti-teleportation utility (just off the top of my head, Cursed Terrain would work perfectly in this context) that would put a stop to this kind of behavior. If anti-teleportation magic was a dime a dozen such that even a mid-level NPC underling Wizard could ward a fortress it would be foolhardy to teleport directly into a high-level villain's domain.
Even easier would be to divorce "place you can see" from "oh, and you can throw your vision anywhere" aka scry. That way all Big Bads have to do to keep you from just popping into their throne rooms is to make sure there are no sight-lines inside.
This would be a possible nerf, although the one thing that gives me pause is that it probably wouldn't help on its own. The problem is that short range teleportation effects such as Dimension Door usually don't require line of sight or having seen your destination at any point in the past. You just need to be able to specify the direction and distance you want to travel. So long as you can use Teleport to get into Dimension Door range and there are no other protections then you're still in.
I'm also a big fan of making defensive spells much more accessible in order to deal with certain spells being unstoppable.
However, you could go further and allow saving throws whenever someone attempts to teleport near another creature.
For example: You could set it so beating their save by 10 puts you adjacent to the target, 5 puts you outside 30 feet, meeting their DC puts you outside of 100 feet, and so on. You would have a decent check built in without needing to change much other than decreasing your DC requirements, or removing the check entirely, for spells that are meant to close distance.
Stopping teleport is as easy as "in my campaign lead powder in the mortar stops teleportation into or out of a building"
Boy, let me tell ya that can cut the NPCs just as bad as the PCs. XD
thats fine, npcs have story influence pcs don't necessarily get
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stopping teleport is as easy as "in my campaign lead powder in the mortar stops teleportation into or out of a building"
That, or something related to the limits on what Detect ___ spells can penetrate. There's got to be a reason that people build dungeons after all and "enough rock and you can't teleport thru it" might be a start.
The things I want most are usually corner cases-
One that comes to the top of the mind is the Drake system from Legacy of Dragons. I understand why it's so underpowered, but ultimately I want a way to play a Drake/Dragon rider and this system/archetypes just missed by being TOO restrictive and starting the Drake TOO small, and giving TOO few Drake powers to ever get it to do what the archetypes were supposed to portray.
So ultimately, we ended up with a rules system and a handful of archetypes that are basically just unplayable instead of anything cool.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One that comes to the top of the mind is the Drake system from Legacy of Dragons.
I'm surprised we haven't gotten more "unchained' versions of things. This wouldn't necessarily be a "1.5" thing, but just some tweaks to pre-existing options. But yeah, I'd like a community "unchained" version of drakes.
I'd also like a community unchained version of the synthesist. It's such a cool idea and can allow you to play so many characters from fiction, but the version we have is too powerful in a few places. Mostly, we need a version that doesn't do the temporary hit points and limits the effectiveness of multi-attack builds. And we have to get rid of stat replacement. Pathfinder got rid of that mess for polymorph just to turn around and give it to the synthesist. The synthesist should use polymorph style rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it’s an actual business, then they’d legally be better off not to be taking part in this discussion, for copyright concerns.
You're getting into the idea of someone claiming, "You stole my idea." Ideas are free. Ideas are everywhere. Ideas are not copyrightable. Plagerism is an issue. No one in this discussion is writing a revised fighter class, but saying, what if the fighter did this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed a bit of discussion on the fighter class on how it needs to change. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see.
Vote in the poll and leave a comment at the link.
I noticed a bit of discussion on the fighter class on how it needs to change. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see.
Vote in the poll and leave a comment at the link.
I'd give fighters a bunch more skill points (6+/level?), and expand on the Advanced Weapons/Advanced Armor tricks from Weapon Master's Handbook, and also give all fighters access to (and expand on) the stamina tricks system.
Marking for interest. I didn't see this in a search of this thread, so I'll throw in a word for Kirthfinder -- seems that it would need some updating, but on the other hand, I don't know if the link I gave goes to the latest version; anyway, it has some good ideas.
I noticed a bit of discussion on the fighter class on how it needs to change. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see.
Vote in the poll and leave a comment at the link.
It's interesting how there's little agreement here. Personally I'd have put up a slate something like this:
Fighters need
[ ] More skill points per level and/or more class skills
[ ] Better saving throws and/or Bravery applies to all will saves
[ ] Advanced Weapon Training / Advanced Armor Training formally included in the base class
[ ] Stamina system (or something similar) included in the base class
[ ] More unique options for combat feats and/or advanced weapon/armor training
[ ] Better / cheaper magical items for martial characters
[ ] Better options to specialize in multiple combat styles
[ ] More class features in general
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this isn't helpful and I'm not trying to insult people's opinion either, but most of the ideas presented (about a theoretical pathfinder 1.5) feel off to me. Like maybe they sound good to the poster, but they lose much of the feel of pathfinder 1e. In my opinion I would want to keep that feel, and one of the most important things to me is to keep the options (bloat if you will). For me no consolidated skill list, no parring down of archetypes, no losing 7-9 level spells, nothing like that. Plus I admit for better or worse I didn't like pathfinder unchained (so nothing from that book).
I would do minor changes to the action system, to incorporate a kind of half move, instead of saying you can move 5' or move 30'. I'd add a third option of moving 15' while still full attacking.
I would increase the number of skill points to 4 minimum per class.
I would keep most feats intact (some would be changed) mostly just lower or eliminate the prerequisites (cutting the feat trees to at most 3 feats).
I would overhaul combat maneuvers to make them more functional.
I'd re-balance the classes, for some reason I want to add the 3.5 samurai ability staredown (the one from complete warrior) to the fighter class. Oh, and mass and improved staredown too.
But my craziest Idea, which I've mentioned before, is eliminating prestige classes and dividing each base class into your choice of two archetypes. Every class would be bare-bones, but they would gain archetype abilities without losing any class features. The archetypes would work on a even/odd level basis (the first archetype would give you a new ability every odd level, the second one every even level.) The class feat system in pathfinder 2e felt to convoluted, this just feels better more inline with 1e rules.
Admittedly, I might not be the best one to create a pathfinder 1.5, but hey it's all of this is just my opinion anyway.
I noticed a bit of discussion on the fighter class on how it needs to change. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see.
Vote in the poll and leave a comment at the link.
Can't see the poll at all. Do I need to log in with either twitter or facebook?
Can't see the poll at all. Do I need to log in with either twitter or facebook?I noticed a bit of discussion on the fighter class on how it needs to change. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see.
Vote in the poll and leave a comment at the link.
I wasn't required to, might be a browser issue.
I noticed a bit of discussion on the fighter class on how it needs to change. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see.
Vote in the poll and leave a comment at the link.
It's interesting how there's little agreement here. Personally I'd have put up a slate something like this:
Fighters need
[ ] More skill points per level and/or more class skills
[ ] Better saving throws and/or Bravery applies to all will saves
[ ] Advanced Weapon Training / Advanced Armor Training formally included in the base class
[ ] Stamina system (or something similar) included in the base class
[ ] More unique options for combat feats and/or advanced weapon/armor training
[ ] Better / cheaper magical items for martial characters
[ ] Better options to specialize in multiple combat styles
[ ] More class features in general
When you're on the design end of things, you usually want advice about goals rather than execution. That way you don't have to untangle what problem is being addressed by mechanical suggestions.
For example, if everyone wants more skills for fighters some may feel that more skills are needed to differentiate them from one another, others for stronger theme reinforcement, some may feel like their skills are spoken for due to mandatory skills, and so on and so forth. If the majority of players thought fighters needed more skills for only one of those reasons, then you'd want the chance to look at that one reason to see if there was a better solution.
This is also a good way to work with players toward homebrew solutions. If you take mechanical suggestions from them, you're going to be looking at their problem biased by their solution.
It's a pretty familiar problem for anyone who does contract work. Being told what the job is is great, being told how to do it is rarely useful.
In this case I do feel like the "Fighters need to be effective no matter what weapon they have (or even no weapon at all)" may be too vague. If you feel like weapons should be chosen for a purpose, but classes shouldn't be stuck with specific weapon selections, then you'd have the same answer as someone with the opposite position.
I noticed a bit of discussion on the fighter class on how it needs to change. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see.
Vote in the poll and leave a comment at the link.
It's interesting how there's little agreement here. Personally I'd have put up a slate something like this:
Fighters need
[ ] More skill points per level and/or more class skills
[ ] Better saving throws and/or Bravery applies to all will saves
[ ] Advanced Weapon Training / Advanced Armor Training formally included in the base class
[ ] Stamina system (or something similar) included in the base class
[ ] More unique options for combat feats and/or advanced weapon/armor training
[ ] Better / cheaper magical items for martial characters
[ ] Better options to specialize in multiple combat styles
[ ] More class features in general
I dunno, 89.8% so far believe there needs to be a change and 30% of that believes it should be a change in how they interact with the world outside of combat. You can breakdown what individual changes need to be made and some changes overlap with others.
Also I think some people might not have known they could vote for multiple changes(I did vote for several things personally).
Remove feat taxes
I've heard this one many, many times. Breaking it out into its own discussion.
Can't see the poll at all. Do I need to log in with either twitter or facebook?I noticed a bit of discussion on the fighter class on how it needs to change. I would like to know specifically what you would like to see.
Vote in the poll and leave a comment at the link.
Browser setting issue. I'm not experienced to know which setting it is but I have seen this issue before.
Question: Removing the attack of opportunity before combat maneuvers, good idea/bad idea? Seems to me more people would use them if they weren't impossible without the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question: Removing the attack of opportunity before combat maneuvers, good idea/bad idea? Seems to me more people would use them if they weren't impossible without the feat.
Eh, remove the attack of opportunity for all of them with one feat.