"Decision paralysis" is a good thing to me, it means there are a lot more interesting options instead of the same crap over and over again.
Glass, I agree, mental stat increasing items are weird, both in flavor and in mechanics, especially in the case of the Int based ones.
Better base stats and stat increases by level would make stat increasing items not really needed. We need magic weapons and magic armor(at least most classes). You could easily survive a campaign/AP without cloaks of resistance especially if you have good stats. Mental stat boosting items are especially not needed, just give magic items that increase caster level, spell DCs, spell damage, spell penetration, etc. If you got a AC bonus based on half your level, then you wouldn't need amulets of natural armor and rings of protection. Also without those items you still benefit from spells that grants those bonuses such as barkskin, bull strength, protection from evil, resistance, etc..
Magic shop restriction doesn't bother me, such shops should be more for potions, scrolls, spell components, and minor magic items.
If you want rings of protection just make them a +2 deflection bonus to AC, +2 resistance bonus to saves, and a random benefit like feather fall, energy resistance, endure elements, water breathing, sustenance, etc.
More customizable magic items and maybe more random generators for random magical traits/properties/abilities for magic items in general.
Maybe one optional rule is that all magic cloaks grant at least a +1 resistance bonus to saves.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The math requires +stat items, as it must or they rapidly become game-breakers. It also makes logical sense that such items would exist in-world. The notion that they would not, when magic does everything else, is nuts. Players are going to want them and in a game built around killing things and taking their stuff to advance, that's possibly the ideal way for them to come by such items. Yet, the slot congestion is real and means PCs pass up items that might be fun because they're occupying a mission-critical slot.The great thing about magic is that it works exactly how the designers decide it works. There is no real magic to compare it with, so they completely free reign to make magic do (or not do) whatever they feel woud be good for the game. If backward compatibility were not a concern (admittedly that is a big "if"), there would be nothing "nuts" about not having stat-boosting items.
When you think about it, mental stat boosting items in particular are pretty weird. Putting on a headband that literally changes the way you think. If somebody offered me a +6 headband in real life, I would think long and hard before putting it on, regardless of how useful it would be.
OTOH, backwords compatibility is a priority, so stat boosters have to stay in. And you are absolutely right that if they are in, they have to be assumed in the mathematics of the game (because you cannot "not assume" something like that - you either assume its presence or its absence).
Regarding slots, I definitely think they should be liberalised a bit. 3.5 had cloaks of charisma and periapts of wisdom (and a ring of charisma in one Dungeon APs). OTOH, boots of intellect seems a bit odd. The important thing to my mind is that they key bonuses are available in 2, 3, or 4 slots rather than just one.
_
glass.
Sure, the developers can just say "that's how it works now". But the players who are the customers will say "if magic can do x why can't it do y". The reason "just because we said so" or "we don't like how it affect the math" aren't particularly satisfying for many of us.
Will you be including Stamina Combat Tricks from Unchained?
I've found those rules a real boon to the fighter class, even if it just applies to their bonus feats. This little oomph out of combat feats that other classes just don't get.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a very concrete suggestion. Every class should have 2 good saves. Less concrete, let the player pick them at 1st level. Or one could be assigned (Fighters get Fort, Rogues get Reflex, full casters get Will, now pick your other one).
Will Corefinder be using the old combat system or will it go the 3 action system?Still being debated.
If there's an elegant way to go 3-action, I'd be interested. Our groups are comfortable with swifts and immediates as-is, but there are just some classes that use them heavily and some that don't, making them kind of lose out. I'm not a fan of every rinky-dink thing you try to do being an action (like changing grip on a weapon), but I'm sure there's a way to do this.
Is there a release date?Not yet. Best guess: sometime next year.
Sounds good. Count me in.
Mid.I'm a big fan of a Corefinder concept, but it comes down to what degree you are looking to modify the game
Are we talking a small, mid or large overhaul?
That sounds reasonable. A small update wouldn't be worth investing in. A large overhaul would have a high chance of changing too many things any one group might want unchanged. Moderate change is probably wise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Revamp Bloodrager and Skald to get Rage working the same as unBarbarian. Make anger management easier on everyone.
Make Slayers and other classes with sneak attack dice work more like unRogue. Just not as well, they already get other stuff.
Make the best Favored Class Bonus available to any race. Throw another junky one out there for masochistic players.
If a spontaneous caster gains a spell of a certain level, they should get it as soon as they can cast that level of spell.
Domain spells should always be treated as if they are on the list of available spells.
Domain spells already on a caster's list should be replaced (if they come early, maybe keep them).
I am working on how to simplify Traits that affect skills. I think this would cover most of them:
x is a class skill. You get a +1 bonus.
x and y, which are governed by the same attribute, are class skills.
You can use skill x with a different mental attribute.
You can use skill y with a different physical attribute.
Can we put all the conjuration(healing) and inflict/harm spells on the necromancy spell list.
Don't change the stats but change elementals to an actual elemental type instead of outsider with elemental subtype.
If all skills were class skills then you really wouldn't need traits.
If you got max HP and better stats you wouldn't need favored class bonuses...except the really powerful stuff like extra spells known and bonus feats/extra class features. But those could be done through some kind of optional boon system.
Eliminate all feats that only apply to one weapon. Maybe make an exception for the whip, but I think even that should be doable. Eliminate all PRCs based upon the use of a single weapon.
And, perhaps just eliminate the devs pet weapons that gave rise to such PRCs. Sawtooth Sabre? That is a scimitar. Aldorian dueling sword? We call that a rapier. Starknife? Not a thing. Here, try a dagger.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That seems a lil hostile for no real gain, instead a loss actually.
Sawtooth Sabre helps with 2wf, Aldori is finessable and you can 2hand it for increased damage, and a Starknife has higher damage, crit, and thrown range than a dagger (I'm not even sure why that one was compared).
Feats focused on a specific weapon or weapon group would be cool if they actually granted interesting abilities/skills/techniques with those weapons.
One of the few things I liked from 2E was that magic weapons got a damage dice increase based on their enhancement bonus. Though to make that balanced would take a bid overhaul of the system with changes to weapon base damage and damage bonuses from classes and feats. So I don't see that one being practical for a backwards compatible alternate rules.
One additional spell known per spell level from 1st to 9th for all spontaneous casting classes would go a long way and make the extra spell known favored class bonus not needed.
All classes getting 2 extra skill points per level would make a big difference though just using the optional rule were you get free ranks in 2-4 skills that are craft, knowledge, perform, and/or profession would be cool.
Versatile performance(Bard) should have just gave you free ranks in various performs skills, that would have freed you up to take other skills and not use that wonky mechanic they gave you.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the questions we're currently pondering is where and how magic item creation should come into play.
The current thinking is that the basic set of Corefinder Fantasy will include only the ability to make alchemical items, potions, and scrolls, possibly consumable magic/alchemical things like powders, dusts, ointments, and the like. Wands are a bit of a special case and we're working on something a bit different for them than just magical batteries.
For creating permanent magic items, we'd rather have a more robust system, and I don't think there's likely to be room to fit in what we'd like to do. It also would help move tailored item creation into Corefinder Advanced Fantasy as an optional rule rather than something that is integrated into the essential fabric of Corefinder gameplay.
Thoughts?
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Is Corefinder Fantasy what was previously called Corefinder and Corefinder Advanced Fantasy what was previously called Newfinder? Or is Corefinder Advanced Fantasy more like a 2dn hardcover, more along the lines of Gamemastery Guide and/or Advanced Player's Guide?
As for the question on magic items, I've long felt that crafting permanent items has been too easy and would love to see a shift to make using what you find and not having the "perfect" set of equipment more common. In addition, the current crafting rules make it too easy for PCs to effectively double their wealth rather than buy at market value. With some parties having lots of crafting capability and others having next to none, this makes balancing the game harder since at any given level, two different parties can have very different amounts wealth and therefore power.
I'd love to have crafting permanent items be less about getting more for your money and more about getting specific items you can't otherwise find or buy, and also have some element of risk, and not be an auto-success on a skill check. That being said, success/failure shouldn't be a binary state, but have room for partial successes, critical successes, and critical failures which can result in cursed items, flawed items, quirks, and extra unexpected abilities.
That, combined with a re-examination of some of the magic items costing/pricing rules would be great. For permanent or unlimited use items, I'd like to see mMore pricing based on the effects granted rather than based on spell level would go a long way to fix some of the abusable elements of crafting.
If permanent magic items also had saving throws which scaled more like a cast spell does, that would also go a long way to making them far more useful for items which aren't just static bonuses.
If all of the enhanced crafting rules were in a separate book, then that would be worth it to not have in the main book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That seems a lil hostile for no real gain, instead a loss actually.
Sawtooth Sabre helps with 2wf, Aldori is finessable and you can 2hand it for increased damage, and a Starknife has higher damage, crit, and thrown range than a dagger (I'm not even sure why that one was compared).
Not trying to be hostile. What would be gained would be some simplicity. Why not just give those feats to someone using scimitars or rapiers? (Please don't tell me to feel free to house-rule it that way, this is about refining existing rules)
Starknife was included with the other two made-up weapons because there is no good reason for any of them. As I stated, scimitars and rapiers are fine weapons on their own merits. There is no need for otherwise identical weapons that eclipse them. Starknives are just some developers pet idea with no other valid basis for inclusion in the game. Especially if someone is looking to make a "core" version of the game.
Potions/scrolls/alchemical items vs. permanent items (with wands to be reworked) is a reasonable place to put a split, but what about non-permanent other items? Elixirs, a necklace of fireballs, and the jingasa of the fortunate soldier could all fit in the grey area.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That seems a lil hostile for no real gain, instead a loss actually.
Sawtooth Sabre helps with 2wf, Aldori is finessable and you can 2hand it for increased damage, and a Starknife has higher damage, crit, and thrown range than a dagger (I'm not even sure why that one was compared).
Not trying to be hostile. What would be gained would be some simplicity. Why not just give those feats to someone using scimitars or rapiers? (Please don't tell me to feel free to house-rule it that way, this is about refining existing rules)
Starknife was included with the other two made-up weapons because there is no good reason for any of them. As I stated, scimitars and rapiers are fine weapons on their own merits. There is no need for otherwise identical weapons that eclipse them. Starknives are just some developers pet idea with no other valid basis for inclusion in the game. Especially if someone is looking to make a "core" version of the game.
” Starknives are just some developers pet idea with no other valid basis for inclusion in the game.”
The insults are unnecessary.
And I just brought up the valid reasons for them, also this is a fantasy game, the weapons don’t have to match real world weapons. Mantis and Aldori are Exotic/Advanced so it’s not everyone that can immediately pick them up like you can rapier and scimitar. Having multiple weapons is a good thing, rather than absolutely everyone using a scimitar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thoughts?
The following feedback specific to my various groups and conversations we've had.
We absolutely use Ye Randome Magic Shoppe because we all feel players should have access to build the characters they want to build. Very little treasure dropped in a published adventure gets used as-is because it's almost never what the player wants of envisions. Axes are nice, unless you've gone and 3D printed and hand-painted a mini of your character using swords.
We also hand-wave crafting times because we don't like to have characters sit around for weeks on end while their armor is being upgraded.
We also also allow stacking. A cloak of resistance +3 merged with some other cloak ability is very common, with the more expensive thing at 1.5x price.
That said, crafting comes up in about 50% of our campaigns. Crafting mundane/alchemical items never, ever, does outside of alchemists. Ever. Crafting magic consumables is very, very rare because the DCs and caster levels make most (but not all) next to useless at mid/high level. Instead, when a character does take crafting feats, it's generally Craft Wondrous, and it's to make unique/signature items. For instance I had a crafter who literally had one magic item to her name, but it had something like seven specific abilities on it. Pricey but it was named after her, because it was hers*.
The crafting system as written in PF1 is pretty reasonable. The costs involved - for us - are reasonable. The times to craft things... have been the one thing we've messed with repeatedly. Sorry, but in normal adventures, crafting for more than a few days impacts the plots that are inevitably going on. One day per 1,000gp gets silly when you start earning 50,000gp a level.
Honestly, I'd like to see crafting open to all characters, without feat requirements. Let fighters conduct rituals to empower their equipment. Maybe work things so personally-imbued items only work for their owner. Maybe adjust wealth-by-level so characters get inherent budget to do this. Reduce times required to something that doesn't impact typical plots (with option for those people who play decade-long campaigns and still only get to 7th level). Adjust consumables so that if you're seriously disposing of a chunk of wealth, it's not some CL3 3-minute scroll of invisibility. Yes, you can craft at higher CL, but you can't fix crappy DCs.
I'd be happy to expand upon the specifics in that last paragraph and the thought processes behind them if you want. Just let me know where would be most appropriate if you do.
*Disclosure: she's an akashic character, so her class abilities involve shaping veils, which means she could create short-term items more or less at-will, and those rounded out that which her headband permanent item didn't handle. Akasha is easily the most fun add-on ruleset for PF1, I'd say.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is Corefinder Fantasy what was previously called Corefinder and Corefinder Advanced Fantasy what was previously called Newfinder? Or is Corefinder Advanced Fantasy more like a 2dn hardcover, more along the lines of Gamemastery Guide and/or Advanced Player's Guide?
The latter. There's just WAY TOO MUCH stuff even in the fantasy genre to fit all into one book, and given that it is likely to be the most popular genre setting for Corefinder, I imagine chances are pretty good that we'll end up doing a Fantasy expansion.
So it would be more like this:
Corefinder Basic (level 1-10, baseline system structure, graftable onto any genre - so only humans and real-world creatures and hazards, no magic)
Corefinder Fantasy (expands Basic classes up to 20th level and introduces core magic classes, spells, rituals, magic items, other dimensions/planes, fantasy monsters and tropes) - most of the basic concepts you have in the PFRPG core rulebook plus some new things
Corefinder Advanced Fantasy (or Fantasy Handbook II or whatever similar name we decide) - expanded magic concepts, systems, classes, items, and things from the vast panoply of other PFRPG books
As for the question on magic items, I've long felt that crafting permanent items has been too easy and would love to see a shift to make using what you find and not having the "perfect" set of equipment more common. In addition, the current crafting rules make it too easy for PCs to effectively double their wealth rather than buy at market value. With some parties having lots of crafting capability and others having next to none, this makes balancing the game harder since at any given level, two different parties can have very different amounts wealth and therefore power.
I'd love to have crafting permanent items be less about getting more for your money and more about getting specific items you can't otherwise find or buy, and also have some element of risk, and not be an auto-success on a skill check. That being said, success/failure shouldn't be a binary state, but have room for partial successes, critical successes, and critical failures which can result in cursed items, flawed items, quirks, and extra unexpected abilities.
That, combined with a re-examination of some of the magic items costing/pricing rules would be great. For permanent or unlimited use items, I'd like to see more pricing based on the effects granted rather than based on spell level would go a long way to fix some of the abusable elements of crafting.
If permanent magic items also had saving throws which scaled more like a cast spell does, that would also go a long way to making them far more useful for items which aren't just static bonuses.
If all of the enhanced crafting rules were in a separate book, then that would be worth it to not have in the main book.
That's pretty much the direction that we are thinking.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Potions/scrolls/alchemical items vs. permanent items (with wands to be reworked) is a reasonable place to put a split, but what about non-permanent other items? Elixirs, a necklace of fireballs, and the jingasa of the fortunate soldier could all fit in the grey area.
I'm thinking that all of the "alchemical"-flavored things should probably live in one category - dusts, elixirs, powders, ointments, glues, solvents, and all the stuff like that.
Tangible items, even those with a limited lifetime of uses (it does X, but once it does Y it's destroyed - many figurines of wondrous power fit this category too, or talisman of pure good/ultimate evil, ioun stones of spell absorption), are in my way of thinking conceptually distinct from stuff in the potion/scroll family, so I think I'd still bin them in the "permanent" item group in spite of their limitations.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose you could change wands to permanent magic items, but limit their use per day similar to the metamagic rods. Will probably require a rework of their pricing though.
Magic item pricing in general will be getting attention for a lot of things.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Thoughts?The following feedback specific to my various groups and conversations we've had.
We absolutely use Ye Randome Magic Shoppe because we all feel players should have access to build the characters they want to build. Very little treasure dropped in a published adventure gets used as-is because it's almost never what the player wants of envisions. Axes are nice, unless you've gone and 3D printed and hand-painted a mini of your character using swords.
We also hand-wave crafting times because we don't like to have characters sit around for weeks on end while their armor is being upgraded.
We also also allow stacking. A cloak of resistance +3 merged with some other cloak ability is very common, with the more expensive thing at 1.5x price.
That said, crafting comes up in about 50% of our campaigns. Crafting mundane/alchemical items never, ever, does outside of alchemists. Ever. Crafting magic consumables is very, very rare because the DCs and caster levels make most (but not all) next to useless at mid/high level. Instead, when a character does take crafting feats, it's generally Craft Wondrous, and it's to make unique/signature items. For instance I had a crafter who literally had one magic item to her name, but it had something like seven specific abilities on it. Pricey but it was named after her, because it was hers*.
The crafting system as written in PF1 is pretty reasonable. The costs involved - for us - are reasonable. The times to craft things... have been the one thing we've messed with repeatedly. Sorry, but in normal adventures, crafting for more than a few days impacts the plots that are inevitably going on. One day per 1,000gp gets silly when you start earning 50,000gp a level.
Honestly, I'd like to see crafting open to all characters, without feat requirements. Let fighters conduct rituals to empower their equipment. Maybe work things so personally-imbued items only work for their owner....
Feel free to pop into our Discord channel at the link below:
https://discord.gg/yXXxhv
Discord links are only valid for 24 hours, so if it expires let me know and I can create another. The link is valid for multiple uses, so anyone else who wants to come on over is welcome to do so with the same link!
Feel free to pop into our Discord channel at the link
Done. I've worked with Slack for this purpose in the past and that worked okay for topic separation, and Teams for business purposes. Not sure how Discord works as I appear to have just walked into a massive wall of stream-of-consciousness history, but I'll try to learn the flow.
Thank you.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I have mixed feelings on multiple core rulebooks. One one hand, I don't want to have to buy a lot of books to play a game. But on the other hand, the magic item system didn't evolve much under 2 generations (DND 3.X and Pathfinder). It was introduced once, with it only being slightly revised when Pathfinder came to be. I am a little curious as to what might be done if the core rules are given multiple books to grow in.
I wasn't clear if Corefinder Fantasy was a superset of Corefinder Basic. I assumed it was, and if you had Corefinder Fantasy, you wouldn't need Corefinder Basic, but if you wanted to do something non-fantasy, you could use the Basic version to do that, and add on other things.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having to buy 3 books to replace the one core rulebook I use now would be a deal breaker for me.
You might consider how the "we'll make players buy more books for the same amount of content" worked out for White Wolf with New World of Darkness.
It would be three likely smaller books for the same amount of content as you'd be getting in the Core Rulebook + APG + Ultimate Magic + Ultimate Combat.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have mixed feelings on multiple core rulebooks. One one hand, I don't want to have to buy a lot of books to play a game. But on the other hand, the magic item system didn't evolve much under 2 generations (DND 3.X and Pathfinder). It was introduced once, with it only being slightly revised when Pathfinder came to be. I am a little curious as to what might be done if the core rules are given multiple books to grow in.I wasn't clear if Corefinder Fantasy was a superset of Corefinder Basic. I assumed it was, and if you had Corefinder Fantasy, you wouldn't need Corefinder Basic, but if you wanted to do something non-fantasy, you could use the Basic version to do that, and add on other things.
The current working idea is that Corefinder Basic is the generic root system that forms the trunk of the tree, with common assumptions for all genres, about 6 chapters of material.
If you were playing a fantasy campaign, you'd use Corefinder Basic + Corefinder Fantasy (and if you wanted lots more expansions a la the APG/UM/UC/Occult/etc., you'd add Corefinder Advanced Fantasy).
If you were playing a sci-fi campaign, you'd use Corefinder Basic + Corefinder Space
If you were playing a horror campaign, you'd use Corefinder Basic + Corefinder Horror
Supers = Corefinder Basic + Corefinder Supers
and so on.
Given the fact that for many people all they're looking for is a replacement for their base PFRPG fantasy game, we also are considering making a combined book available that is basically the first 6 chapters of CF Basic and the last 6 chapters CF Fantasy as an all-in-one version.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To add to what Jason is saying, the idea here is to allow for a piecemeal system that allows you to only buy what you need rather than forcing in other stuff where it's not needed. This also gives us a lot more focus on what we need to do in each book, which is super helpful.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
+1 to the combined book for Fantasy.
What would the basic book have in terms of classes? If it doesn't come with the fantasy genre built in, I'm assuming it wouldn't have wizards, clerics, etc. Would it be essentially like a RPG designed to play non-magic historic settings, with fighter, rogue, barbarian (minus supernatural abilities)?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
+1 to the combined book for Fantasy.
We also could do both:
1. A standalone CF Basic for those who want it.2. A combined Basic+Fantasy book.
What would the basic book have in terms of classes? If it doesn't come with the fantasy genre built in, I'm assuming it wouldn't have wizards, clerics, etc. Would it be essentially like a RPG designed to play non-magic historic settings, with fighter, rogue, barbarian (minus supernatural abilities)?
The CF Basic 10-level classes at the moment are (final names pending):
Rogue
Ranger
Expert
Leader
Fighter (two versions - one specializing in stabbing, one in combat teamwork and leadership)
Essentially Fighter and Leader are kind of three concepts that may end up as somewhere between 1 and 3 classes in the end.
|
In this day and age, perhaps the class name Ranger is a bit misleading. I have had a lot of discussions with people who came from MMO's and wanted to play Ranger class, but what they really wanted was to play a guy with a crossbow, not a nature-lover or hunter or whatever, so I'd suggest some other name, such as Wildlander or Wanderer. You should check out Spell-less Ranger by Kobold Press. It's very versatile approach to the class and can easily be adapted to all Pf 1e classes. Owen K. C. Stephens has done a great job with his talented classes, so that may be an inspiration?
Apropos perishables, in my games I rolled Brew Potion (and oils, powders etc.) into Alchemy skill and Scribe Scroll into Spellcraft. All other traditional Craft Item feats (Weapon, Armorm, Ring etc.) I've rolled into Imbue Item feat, with prereqs being knowledge of relevant skill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Tracker" might be a good name for the ranger class. But I don't really know if I find renaming core classes to be a worthwhile idea
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the main target group of this product (line) are players and GMs who want to stick with Pathfinder 1E. They gain little from renaming a central class, but would become quite irritated.
Rangers can choose a crossbow combat style, it's just not in CRB. Though I agree that the nature theme might be unwanted baggage for some players. So slayer might be better, or fighter - but for the latter I'd strongly advise to pick up some extra tricks to avoid drowning in full-attack boredom...
Speaking of crossbows, personally I think at least the heavy crossbow should be a touch attack at close range just like guns. Also make the lighter ones easier to use.
I'm curious to how cantrips will be handled. Will cantrips be handled like in Pathfinder or will Corefinder Fantasy have cantrips that scale by level like in PF2e or 5e?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious to how cantrips will be handled. Will cantrips be handled like in Pathfinder or will Corefinder Fantasy have cantrips that scale by level like in PF2e or 5e?
Let me tell you that cantrips have been getting discussed, and while we have nothing concrete at the moment, we are aware of the value of scaling cantrips.
The Spanish version of PF calls the Ranger "Explorer". It might be the word you are looking for your class.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Spanish version of PF calls the Ranger "Explorer". It might be the word you are looking for your class.
While a cool name, we've found that people are very attached to names, so changing names probably won't happen.
We are keeping track of trends though in the game to see which ideas and classes to focus on. For example, y'all love alchemists.
Personally, I'd like to see some of the base classes done by third-party publishers adopted or their design philosophy included as part of the new base class because the result was a much more robust or meaningful core class to play all the way to 20th level.
For example, the unchained bard by Everyman Gaming, the Legendary Rogue or Legendary Cavalier by Legendary Games, and so forth. The 3rd party publisher's re-design of those core classes made them much more versatile as a whole so that you really did not need to branch out that often into prestige classes, archetypes, or even other classes to fulfill a particular theme/niche for your character.
For me, at least, so far I have adopted the following 3rd party publishers' redesigns for a core class after examining said class at great length:
Legendary Barbarian (with a few tweaks for some of the archetypes)
Unchained Bard
Legendary Cavalier
Legendary Fighter and Unchained Fighter (both are valid in my opinion, but I tend to use the Unchained Fighter more often for fighter builds meant for solo gameplay or for campaigns/party compositions where magical healing is not a common replenishable resource)
Legendary Rogue
Legendary Samurai
Legendary Swashbuckler
Although I would love to see the Legendary Commander added too, ;).
Wishful thinking aside, I wonder how Corefinder will tackle one of the most notorious feats since 3.0 Dungeons and Dragons: Leadership. Honestly, this feat causes a lot of...friction for many people (the various threads about Leadership is rife with myriad salvos fired from the different camps).
Looking forward to Corefinder! :)
Cheers!
CB
Another thing I would like in Corefinder is the clarification on identifying magical potions: is it a Perception check DC 15 + potion's caster level (as described in the Perception skill's chart) or DC 15 + potion's spell level (as described in Potions section in the Magic Items chapter)?
It is one of those really small areas (and largely inconsequential due to use of detect magic and the like) of Pathfinder that got glossed over or skipped by Paizo for errata in the newer printing editions of the Core Rulebook. ;)
Cheers!
CB
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just make sure alchemical options remain valid choices later in levels past say 5 where they become almost savable by everything.The Spanish version of PF calls the Ranger "Explorer". It might be the word you are looking for your class.While a cool name, we've found that people are very attached to names, so changing names probably won't happen.
We are keeping track of trends though in the game to see which ideas and classes to focus on. For example, y'all love alchemists.
Imagine a world where everything from acid flasks to tanglefoot bags to magic items that currently have fixed saves were based on the user, not some random number that means they're useless as soon as you can afford two of them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
After looking at this whole Discord thing I’ve come to the conclusion that it was made for “Chaotic-alignment” humans in mind as I cant tell what the blazes are going on!
But anyways I guess I’ll give what I might like to see in this ‘refinement’ process.
Spell Levels and Spell DC’s are the most important factors for Full Spellcasters, while lesser Spellcasters are more interested in having their spells LAST. Make Caster Level for the purpose of Duration and other effects be based on Character Level, this will allow the those of limited magic to still get the milage for their more ‘basic’ spells without stepping on the toes of Full Spellcasters (who will more likely care about the Higher-Level spells with more powerful effects).
Remove Partial Spellcasting (0-4) from the class design, this will free up the issues of both Players not wanting to have it if they don’t want it…and Designers wont have to agonize over the effects that Partial Spellcasting has over the overall Class, allowing them to focus on the known variables of the Class. Iconic Spells like the Paladin’s “Holy Sword” can be moved into the realm of actual Class Features (perhaps using Smite or Mercy uses to activate).
General Archetypes, both as Archetypes that are broad enough in and off themselves that anyone can reasonably apply for them; and in the sense that instead of costing Class Features they use the General Feats gained at Level 1 and there after. For flexibility sake you would be able to enter and exist these Archetypes whenever you wish (whether at Level one or at the Last General Feat gained through Level).
Move Partial Spellcasting to General Archetype based on three different types (each counting as a separate Archetype and ALL of them based on Charisma): Arcane, Divine, and Druidic. Divine casting needs a Patron that must within Alignment restrictions, and Druidic must be some form of Neutral. In addition to being able to cast Spells the option to pick up limited options from other Spellcasting Classes (EX: “Familiars” for Arcane, “Domains” for Divine, “Shape-changing” for Druidic).
Move Favored Terrain to Level 1 for the Ranger and double-down on the nature of these abilities. Got Favored Enemy (Dragon) in addition to the normal abilities granted by the Class Feature currently, you also get a bonus to resist Fear Effects (and Intimidation); take Favored Terrain (Swamp) and you also get a bonus to resist the effects of Poison and Disease. Make it so that the further a person ‘pursues’ those specializations the more abilities they gain from (EX: A hardcore Dragon-slayer may get a possibly Fire, Acid, Cold, and Electricity Resistance of 30 as a ‘Capstone’ ).
And that’s it for now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that they should get rid of 4th level casting but make it optional. Give us different abilities we can choose instead of the casting ability without needing archetypes.