[Legendary Games] Corefinder


Product Discussion

151 to 200 of 642 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem of making it optional for a Class though is that the weight of the mechanic is too heavy to balance.

What would be "proper compensation" for NOT choosing Partial Spellcasting for a Class?

Considering what you get for Spellcasting (limited though it may be), what can you possibly GIVE to balance the books against other options. There really isn't concrete trade-off here that can be simple to implement, nothing quite measures up to the ability to call upon spells of utility or combat on demand.

...well not without high-jacking the main Class Features of other classes.

Silver Crusade

Trading out spellcasting is always a difficult issue because spellcasting is the most versatile class feature in the game, even when heavily limited. Most classes that trade it out do not give something that others would be considered worth it without trading it out for another subsystem.


Class features I would be fine with getting as a replacement for 4th level spell casting.

-Animal(vermin, plant, etc.) companion(or stronger/improved version if they already have an animal companion).
-Evasion plus improved evasion.
-Uncanny dodge plus improved uncanny dodge.
-Built in enhancement bonus(+1 at 4th and additional +1 every 3-4 levels after that, max +5) to any weapon you wield, unarmed strike, and all natural attacks you have.
-Special defenses like energy resistance, immunities, DR, SR, etc.
-Special attacks like breath weapon, kinetic blast, gaze attack, web, etc.
-Monk like AC with dodge bonuses at 4th and every 4 levels after.
-Monk unarmed strike damage.
-Shifter claws maybe with some added bonus.
-Bonus combat feats at 4th and every 4 levels after that.
-Limited shapeshifting like wild shape with 3 or so specific forms or changeshape with 1-2 minor forms, etc.
-Ability to enhance one weapon with enhancement bonus and magical properties.
-Channel(positive energy or negative energy) full cleric level.
-Lay on Hands full Paladin level.
-Psychic ability like limited telepathy, limited telekinesis, psychometry, etc.
-Keen Senses(darkvision, low-light vision, and scent) that stacks if you already have one or more of them. For example existing darkvision increases by +30, low-light vision becomes superior low-light vision and scent become keen scent.


N. Jolly wrote:
Trading out spellcasting is always a difficult issue because spellcasting is the most versatile class feature in the game, even when heavily limited. Most classes that trade it out do not give something that others would be considered worth it without trading it out for another subsystem.

Exactly, if you have it you either dont want to get rid of it (because of just how useful it can be) or want to trade it out but end up with much less than you started with (which throws the Class's internal balance off massively).

Moving it to a Universal Archetype makes so that anyone that 'wants' it all pay the same price from the same limited resource pool. This makes it much easier for the devs to figure out how much they want it cost in terms of Character Investment.

Dragon78 wrote:


Stuff

The problem is that none of those are equal in an of themselves to what's being traded, the only way to make it even remotely fair would be to give several of those...at which point it becomes a question of if the trade-off makes them 'better' than the Classes that didn't have Spellcasting to trade off.

Giving too little makes the Class under-powered (which is bad), but giving them too much may make the Class far superior to the other Classes in it's category (Skill-Monkey, Marital, etc.)


Any chance we could see bounded accuracy in Newfinder?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garydee wrote:
Any chance we could see bounded accuracy in Newfinder?

Respectfully, I'd only want to see that as an optional rule. Bounded accuracy already exists in a few games.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Garydee wrote:
Any chance we could see bounded accuracy in Newfinder?

At this point, Newfinder is completely up in the air as to what we have planned, so there is a chance, but really it's as much a chance as anything else.


Also it would be nice for a bit of a revision of the current Character Creation rules, 2nd Edition had the right idea to add more to the experience (pity it failed in execution).

My idea for that would be to make it a sort of Questionnaire or “Story Progression” based on the questions that Players and GM’s may ask. With each question having multiple answers, with multiple additional choices for each one.

So something like:

The Prequel (Ability Scores)
What Are You? (Race)
Where Did You Come From? (Origins)
What Where You Doing? (Background)
How Are You Doing It? (Class)
Why Are You Here? (Drive)

The first two being the well known starting points to every Character, roll or buy up your Ability Scores and pick which Race you want to play as. Then afterwords (as part of the newer element) you pick where the Character came from: whether its a general thing like “Elven Village” or something more specific like “Chelix”.

Afterword you pick the Characters Background to show what they doing prior to abandoning all common sense and becoming an adventurer (if they weren’t like that by default), so things like “Nobility” or “Soldier” or “Blacksmith”. Then you pick your Class and give your character a Drive (which has no mechanical effect) that helps both the Player and GM remember important details like “why are here!”

Whether it be something sort and to the point like “I’m here to slay goblins.” or a short story about “crime and vengeance”

…or something as cheeky as “Has Sword, Will Travel”.


Wow, has been quit here for while, anyone still here?


Dragon78 wrote:
Wow, has been quit here for while, anyone still here?

I've got this thread flagged. I'm just not a mechanics person.


Dragon78 wrote:
Wow, has been quit here for while, anyone still here?

I have been keeping an eye on this. I am also contemplating doing a round up post, but I don't know when I will get the time.

Some more input and responses from the OP would be useful at this juncture.


One thing I do want to say:

Make "clerics of philosophies", i.e. can worship an abstract concept, a thing again. Pathfinder took that away, and while anyone can put it back with no fuss it would be nice for it to be official.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

One thing I do want to say:

Make "clerics of philosophies", i.e. can worship an abstract concept, a thing again. Pathfinder took that away, and while anyone can put it back with no fuss it would be nice for it to be official.

I essentially do this anyway by allowing divine casters to choose any domains that they want, as long as they don't conflict with the character's alignment or with each other. That solves most of the mechanical issues that might arise.


Ghostwheel wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

One thing I do want to say:

Make "clerics of philosophies", i.e. can worship an abstract concept, a thing again. Pathfinder took that away, and while anyone can put it back with no fuss it would be nice for it to be official.

I essentially do this anyway by allowing divine casters to choose any domains that they want, as long as they don't conflict with the character's alignment or with each other. That solves most of the mechanical issues that might arise.

I have read complaints that doing that opens up "abuse" in the form of not forcing clerics to sometimes choose less-optimal domains. (Which is more a problem of domain balance, in my opinion.)

Of course, in that case the GM can just make a list of domains to go with the abstract concept.


Possible new topic: Domain Balance. (But I don't think it fits here)


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

One thing I do want to say:

Make "clerics of philosophies", i.e. can worship an abstract concept, a thing again. Pathfinder took that away, and while anyone can put it back with no fuss it would be nice for it to be official.

Pathfinder didn't, as the CRB allows it. Golarion doesn't allow clerics of philosophies, along with the Realms.


KahnyaGnorc wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

One thing I do want to say:

Make "clerics of philosophies", i.e. can worship an abstract concept, a thing again. Pathfinder took that away, and while anyone can put it back with no fuss it would be nice for it to be official.

Pathfinder didn't, as the CRB allows it. Golarion doesn't allow clerics of philosophies, along with the Realms.

Then I withdraw my request.


Quote:
It will present genre-free core for the rules that can be adapted to any genre, PLUS a Corefinder Fantasy module that incorporates magic, magic items, and all the trappings of a traditional PF/D&D-style game

You talk a big game, but you already have me cautiously optimistic.

So... Eberron. It's already my favorite campaign setting because it bucks the trend of Medieval stasis. But the other reason I love it so much is that it makes everything grayer. Clerics can be of any alignment, orcs and goblinoids are necessarily evil, that sort of thing. And while the original 3e Eberron actually didn't loosen paladin alignment, I'm also a fan of non-LG paladins. In my opinion, classes should be looser collections of abilities, rather than things that dictate your personality. It's actually my biggest issues with 5e, that it feels like classes are so narrowly defined.

PF 2e being Golarion-infused isn't my least favorite thing about it. (That would be how ancestry feats highlighted the fact that cultural diversity is treated as uniquely human, making the essentialism worse, despite not calling it "race") But it's certainly the most "ugh" thing about it. See, for example, in 1e how PC necromancers never got any love, because necromancy is evil. My concern is that there won't be many generic options, so hearing genericness as a design goal is enticing.

Also, two requests for fixing things that never made sense in 3.PF:


  • If you're mindless or have 1-2 Int, you're TN. It's implicitly the rule with animals, vermin, and constructs, so mindless undead are an odd exception. (And there is precedent. They were TN in AD&D)
  • Mindlessness and immunity to mind-affecting are the same thing. Vampires, for example, clearly have minds, but they're immune to mind-affecting as if they don't


What domains do you consider OP?


So is this project dead in the water or what?

Grand Lodge

I'm definitely hoping for some spell fixes. Having recently really looked at spells like instant armor and how garbage it is RAW, I'm definitely looking forward to seeing some hard revisions. I know the people on this project will take this very seriously and fix the obvious issues.


Dragon78 wrote:
So is this project dead in the water or what?

Note: I am not affiliated with Legendary Games in any way.

Short answer: no.

Long answer: still no, but temper your expectations. There's plenty of public-facing activity on the Discord server that was posted earlier in this thread. There have been many interesting discussions among the community about various features and wishes, as well as how change could/should happen. LG is active there, participating in the discussion and certainly lurking and listening. Their main design activity isn't public-facing though. So... don't expect lots of activity here, because this isn't where things are happening. And don't expect much official news until there's something to announce. This is work-in-progress. My gut feeling is that we're looking at a year or more before this could come to print.


I expect more as I think we will get some playtest time in there too.


Anguish wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
So is this project dead in the water or what?

Note: I am not affiliated with Legendary Games in any way.

Short answer: no.

Long answer: still no, but temper your expectations. There's plenty of public-facing activity on the Discord server that was posted earlier in this thread. There have been many interesting discussions among the community about various features and wishes, as well as how change could/should happen. LG is active there, participating in the discussion and certainly lurking and listening. Their main design activity isn't public-facing though. So... don't expect lots of activity here, because this isn't where things are happening. And don't expect much official news until there's something to announce. This is work-in-progress. My gut feeling is that we're looking at a year or more before this could come to print.

Official answer: Anguish is 100% correct.

My own input: The Discord is certainly the place we're getting the most interaction and feedback with the public about things, and is absolutely the right place to come and present your thoughts and opinions. While I can't speak for everyone on Team Legendary, I am making a point of reading everything on the Corefinder discussions (both the public ones and the team's internal communications). While I can't promise that your pet thought or idea will happen, I can promise that it has been read and considered.

Regarding tempering expectations: We're very passionate about this project, and we want to do the best job we can, the best way we can, and refine the 3.x/PF1 d20 system to be the best it can be to tell any kind of story. We can't respond to everyone, and things are still subject to a lot of change. When we have solid information, we will shout it from the rooftops. We're all fans of Pathfinder, and we want to create a game that we want to play. We're not going to rush this. We are going to do it the best we can.


Yes, MOAR input is needed. It seems to have devolved to about the same six or seven folks (not on the legendary team) tossing their ideas around...get over there and let your ideas be known!

Hey LG, can we get a current link/invite to the discord?


Thedmstrikes wrote:
Yes, MOAR input is needed. It seems to have devolved to about the same six or seven folks (not on the legendary team) tossing their ideas around...get over there and let your ideas be known!

I think that's always the way with these things: only some people have whatever it takes to stick with it.

It can also be off-putting if you're used to the forum format where you make your own thread if you want to talk about only the things you care about. EDIT: Also just the idea that it's already a long thread when I have no interest in reading through the whole thing.


Invite links only last for 1 day, but here's one for today.


I'd also like to say that if anyone feels put off by the format of Discord but still wants to let their thoughts be known, you are more than welcome to PM me here, but this is my author account on this site, not the one I use for day-to-day Pathfinder forum-going, and I don't check it particularly frequently. If you do send me a PM, let me know in this thread and I'll see it much faster.

Grand Lodge

At this late in the stage, I don't know that I could add any insightful input to the upcoming revised edition. I'm sure whatever I'd have to say has already been said.


Do not be so sure K V. The work on Corefinder is still in the early stages. Just drop an idea and see what sticks...or do it here, as you can see the LG team is still checking it too.

Grand Lodge

Guess it depends how much is getting revised. If it’s just the Core Rulebook and it’s having traits added in, There’s not much to cover.

I guess my main issue is coup de grace. It makes no sense as-written. If you have 1600 hp, but suffer a crit and don’t have the best Fort save, you’re dead. That’s it. There should be a buffer that lowers the Fort save based on your current hp. Maybe reduce it by 1 for every 5-10 hp you have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kevin_video wrote:
I guess my main issue is coup de grace. It makes no sense as-written. If you have 1600 hp, but suffer a crit and don’t have the best Fort save, you’re dead. That’s it. There should be a buffer that lowers the Fort save based on your current hp. Maybe reduce it by 1 for every 5-10 hp you have.

See, that's the sort of thing someone will just randomly say in the Discord channel, and then people will start discussing it.

On the one hand, I dislike using Discord (a chat program) for this because it makes long-term archival and reference impractical. There's no separation of different CF-related topics as you'd get in forum thread topics. But on the other hand there's an immediacy as a group real-time discusses the topic of the moment. There's more rapid closure. So... mixed feelings.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

My distaste for Discord is more the wave after wave of texts, and coming back an hour later to find out that there’s been 15,000 posts on 20 different posts on just one channel. I’ve muted most channels, and even channels I still follow have sections muted. It’s just too much.


kevin_video wrote:
My distaste for Discord is more the wave after wave of texts, and coming back an hour later to find out that there’s been 15,000 posts on 20 different posts on just one channel. I’ve muted most channels, and even channels I still follow have sections muted. It’s just too much.

You... are absolutely not wrong. I'm sticking it out because I want to be involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kevin_video wrote:
My distaste for Discord is more the wave after wave of texts, and coming back an hour later to find out that there’s been 15,000 posts on 20 different posts on just one channel. I’ve muted most channels, and even channels I still follow have sections muted. It’s just too much.

I've got to agree: too much information. I can briefly duck in and out, but there's stuff I'm not going to go back and read.


kevin_video wrote:


I guess my main issue is coup de grace. It makes no sense as-written. If you have 1600 hp, but suffer a crit and don’t have the best Fort save, you’re dead. That’s it. There should be a buffer that lowers the Fort save based on your current hp. Maybe reduce it by 1 for every 5-10 hp you have.

Are you talking about P1 CDG?

Assuming you are:
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. It's being able to easily kill nearly helpless opponents. You have someone hogtied and stick a sword into their brain, chances are quite high they die. CdG rules are there so you don't have to spend several rounds making minced meat out of people that are unable to defend themselves in order to kill them, yet have there be a bit more of a chance than a simple fiat death from the GM.

Your proposed fix may or may not work, depending on what sort of damage people can do in your game. In P1, such a rule would do anything from make CDG something you only fail on a nat 1 to being useless, depending on build. A wizard with a knife and a Str of 6 is going to have a hard time killing anyone as it is, but you get the Barbarian who does 150 easy on a crit and it still takes a nat 20 to survive, even if you have 300 hp and a +30 bonus to your Fort save on top of the +60 bonus you could get from this potential fix.
Now if you have 1600 hp it gets a bit more useful, but there aren't a lot of creatures with that much, and fewer opportunities to CDG them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your hit points not only cover your toughness, but also your ability to turn a deadly hit into a grazing one (a high-level character has a lot of experience in not dying). Being helpless removes that ability.

Grand Lodge

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Are you talking about P1 CDG?

Your proposed fix may or may not work

Yes, I am. And it does work. It’s been a house rule that the group I was in has been using for 15 years. The rule was every 5 hp gave a -1 to the proposed DC.

Nothing sucks more than having you level 20 fighter with 18 Con, Toughness, and damage reduction, getting killed by a faerie’s toothpick sized sword because you rolled less than a 10 on the die and 10 or better was all you needed. The house rule has saved a number of PCs over the years.

If you want realism, D&D isn’t it. Or, use the E6 system for D&D and keep people from going beyond 6th level. That way a stab to the head will likely kill them.

KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Your hit points not only cover your toughness, but also your ability to turn a deadly hit into a grazing one (a high-level character has a lot of experience in not dying). Being helpless removes that ability.

So whenever your character goes to sleep, you lose 90% of your toughness and therefore also hp. Okay. Good thing the spell Keep Watch exists.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I'd like to see change is traps. While the skill system as a whole I'm assuming will have the math change some so finding and disarming traps isn't trivial at mid-high level, I'd like to see disarming traps be harder than finding them. It's boring to me to have 1 skill check to find a trap and another one to disarm it and be done. Having found a trap with a skill check, but not be able to easily disarm it opens up a lot more creative options on how to deal with, avoid, or otherwise disable a trap than a single boring skill check.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I completely understand the issue with trying to keep up with the conversations. I clocked one day at over 1000 posts while I was away at work, and they were still going at it. I never recovered from trying to catch up after that. There are also several distractions in discussion which I have had to gloss over too. I will freely admit, that there is an effort to curb those into the proper channels, but sometimes the devs get on their soapbox too and you gotta ride it out. I will also freely admit, I thought it was a bit weird when the board was in its infancy, but I see why now. At least some folks are trying to self police it too, just does not always work.

Perhaps, when they get serious about feedback for some changes they can create specific channels for discussing those things before it goes to testing? Maybe that is just overkill. I really wanted to be a part of this because I agree PF needs a fix (hell, I started writing my own too), but I am not sure I agree with some of the direction they are leaning at taking. Not all, but some.

Anyway, K V, you got any more issues to look at (happy to bring them up on your behalf)? CDG does not come up enough in any of my games, so I do not have much of an opinion on it as is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
One thing I'd like to see change is traps. While the skill system as a whole I'm assuming will have the math change some so finding and disarming traps isn't trivial at mid-high level, I'd like to see disarming traps be harder than finding them. It's boring to me to have 1 skill check to find a trap and another one to disarm it and be done. Having found a trap with a skill check, but not be able to easily disarm it opens up a lot more creative options on how to deal with, avoid, or otherwise disable a trap than a single boring skill check.

I agree, traps needs something. It seems like the whole system was wrote as if only for the trap monkey in the party as opposed to everyone. So, either you have an optimized trap finder and they are almost trivial, or someone with a lot of HP to walk in front and trap find the "hard" way.

Can you drop in and start that conversation? See what the others come up with?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thedmstrikes wrote:
Anyway, K V, you got any more issues to look at (happy to bring them up on your behalf)? CDG does not come up enough in any of my games, so I do not have much of an opinion on it as is.

Truth be told, a lot of the issues I had got fixed when Purple Duck Games made their Pathfinder 1.5 Porphyra RPG. Not everything was fixed, but a decent amount. I'd tell the devs to look at their book and implement a lot of those fixes. Outside of that though:

1) Ability scores for PCs shouldn't go higher than 24. It's ridiculous that a human wizard could end up with a 44 Intelligence by level 20. That said, the current saving throws are dumb too. Most creatures aren't even remotely phased by a wand that's DC 11 or a 9th level spell that's Fortitude 23. Needs to be a better balance.
2) Backgrounds should be a basic. Adamant Entertainment did a great job of making those. Again, just needs to be balanced better. Starfinder’s isn’t bad.
3) Don't allow stats to go lower than 8 for point buy. Also, something similar to 5e and Stafinder's Ability Score Improvement where you get two +1 bumps. Maybe less PCs will have a 6 or 7 in their lowest stat (ie's usually Int or Cha) for 20 levels. Have it be a larger boost (ie. +2) to a non-key stat if it's below 10. A lot of players love that about Starfinder.
4) Even out Armor Class. A dragon with a 62, or a PC with 32 by level 5 is absolutely stupid.
5) The 3.5 Concentration skill should come back.
6) Make animal companions and mounts relevant again. Anything that requires climbing up a cliff or ladder, or anything needing hands and opposable thumbs essentially makes it impossible for your standard animal companion. Then you have dungeon delves that basically make you leave large sized companions outside for an undetermined amount of time.
7) Make Darkvision much the same as 5e's version.
8) Dex to damage should not be feared and only available by taking certain class dips (ie. unchained rogue) and feat trees.
9) Boost the classes and drop the required wealth for PCs. There's no need to have 880k wealth when 3.5's 760k was perfectly fine.
10) Give clerics, wizards, witches, and all the other classes that didn't get one, a proper Capstone ability at level 20.
11) Add Passive Perception/Sense Motive.
12) Fix CMB/CMD.
13) Give adamantine the same break down as mithral. It should per pound, not per item. It makes no sense that a dagger and a greatsword both cost +3000 gp.
14) Make it more difficult to multiclass.
15) Note minimum hp in brackets (similar to PFS). Example: 1d10 (or 6) + your Constitution modifier per fighter level after 1st.
16) Change element resistances and damage reduction so PCs don't feel completely useless when they do 19 damage and the GM goes, "Sorry, they have DR 20" or "Okay, -15 for DR." Add that to the impossible AC, and you wonder why you're even bothering to play.
17) Fix Iterative Attacks, especially with regards to multiclassing. You get to a point that you don't even bother rolling your last attack because it's just a "Hail Mary" shot.
18) Get rid of "feet" and just use "spaces". Most groups houserule 5 ft squares anyhow, and just skip the whole "10 ft" every second square.
19) Going below 0 should have more of a buffer. Maybe not go quite to 5e's extent, but most PCs average 12-14 Con.
20) Fix the 15 minute adventuring day. Maybe a resting mechanic. This way PCs aren't buying 3000 cure light wounds wands to use outside of battle, or using up the cleric's channels and cure spells before they can continue.
21) Give all prepared spellcasting classes the ability to spontaneously cast like the arcanist.
22) Boost the feats and give them more substance. Check out the Reforged Feats series from Total Party Kill.
23) Look at how hp and stamina work in Starfinder. The stamina especially is a pretty good mechanic. As is the AC. Maybe use something similar for spell attacks instead of Spell Resistance (which is a terrible mechanic in itself).
24) Lose Spell Resistance.
25) Boost the kobold. The poor, poor almost unplayable kobold.
26) Come with a mechanic that lets you play more “powerful” races. I hate that humans can’t play alongside aasimars and tieflings because “they’re not 10 race points, and therefore too powerful.” Darkness and Daylight 1/day don’t Make you omnipotent. I’ve seen GMs ban dwarves because they’re 11 RP. Give a break! Something better than the 3.5 Level Adjustment system though.
27) Races with ability score penalties are terrible. Especially multiple or excessive penalties.
28) Boost monster hp at higher levels. I’ve seen cavaliers and archer builds that average 180-300 damage a round.

I have other issues that I'd like to see fixed, but as I said above, PDG fixed a lot of them and their book should be perused. I'd even suggest the original 3.75 game, Trailblazer, which fixed a lot of issues that Pathfinder 1e ignored or didn't realize was a problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1)Stats should be higher then 24(30 max).
2)????
3)I have no problem with this.
4)Never had these problems.
5)God No!!!
6)I agree.
7)It's fine the way it is.
8)I agree.
9)I agree, better built in stats, class abilities, etc. would be better.
10)I agree.
11)God No!!!
12)I would say get rid of CMD and just use AC.
13)I agree.
14)While I don't care about multi-classing, I know a lot people who do, so "no".
15)Max HP per level up, no more rolling or using average.
16)DR is fine but resistance has half damage would be nice.
17)I am fine with that but get rid of full attack action and make it where you can movie and get all your attacks.
18)I am fine with "feet".
19)better stats would make survival better in general.
20)healing effects/items should be maximized, fast healing shouldn't be feared as a class/race ability.
21)God No!!! unless you give spontaneous casters something really good.
22)I prefer to get rid of crazy feat requirements and to many feats required for other feats.
23)No!!!
24)No!!! but make it that spell resistance doesn't apply to (most if not all)damage dealing spells.
25)+2Dex +2Cha -2Str otherwise they are fine as a playable race.
26)I agree.
27)????
28)If the creatures AC is high enough or better yet is immune to the weapon damage type then there will not be as much issues. Also think that some of those builds are useless under certain environment effects. example if there is strong winds, no arrows(bullets, javelins, etc.), if you can't charge, no charging bonuses, etc.


Dragon78 wrote:
22)I prefer to get rid of crazy feat requirements and to many feats required for other feats.

Feat "trees" should be no more than three high, and branches should only be single feats. (Which does mean that if a feat branches off the third level of the tree you've gone four feats deep, but those should be extreme examples.)

Grand Lodge

Dragon78 wrote:

2)????

5)God No!!!
11)God No!!!
14)While I don't care about multi-classing, I know a lot people who do, so "no".
16)DR is fine but resistance has half damage would be nice.
18)I am fine with "feet".
21)God No!!! unless you give spontaneous casters something really good.
22)I prefer to get rid of crazy feat requirements and to many feats required for other feats.
23)No!!!
24)No!!! but make it that spell resistance doesn't apply to (most if not all)damage dealing spells.
25)+2Dex +2Cha -2Str otherwise they are fine as a playable race.
27)????
28)If the creatures AC is high enough or better yet is immune to the weapon damage type then there will not be as much issues. Also think that some of those builds are useless under certain environment effects. example if there is strong winds, no arrows(bullets, javelins, etc.), if you can't charge, no charging bonuses, etc.

You like saying "no" a lot.

2) These are the 3PP backgrounds. In Starfinder, they have Themes. The backgrounds aren't all that balanced with one another, where some have a feat and others don't, but give you more starting wealth. I'd swap out the bonus feat and give them all a +1 bonus to a stat instead.
5) As someone who doesn't care about multiclassing, especially multiclassing as a spellcaster, this is a huge yes. They're already merging a lot of the skills, like Athletics. To get into some PrC, you need to take non-spellcasting classes, and that hinders your concentration. At the very least, you'd want to have it so that multiclassing classes give you 1/2 their HD towards concentration. A fighter 5/wizard 1/eldritch knight 10 has a base concentration of +11, but a wizard 16 has concentration +16. When you have to roll DC 15 + damage or DC 15 + double spell level, that +5 difference means a LOT. Having a skill like back in 3.5 where you could dump points could help immensely.
11) It makes things infinitely easier and doesn't put your players on edge because you suddenly ask for a roll.
14) You don't understand why I bring it up. 5e requiring a minimum of 13 isn't that large of an ask, and it'll hamper a lot of power builds. You can't even begin to fathom the number of builds I've seen in my time where the player is gleefully giving me double birds while they destroy the game world because they can take class levels with their stat being a 7 because there's minimum, and they don't care about not getting spells. They just wanted those 1-level dips.
16) DR 20 is fine, but resistance 10 and 20 is somehow the bane of all existence and should be halved? That makes no sense. Some PCs don't power build and should be allowed to have fun as well.
18) As long as they get rid of the 10 ft. every two diagonal squares, it's fine.
21) GOD YES!!!! I'm not against spontaneous casters getting something, or prepared casters being a little slower for spell scaling, like the arcanist, but this goes right up there with the 15-minute adventuring day. Having to prepare 2-5 versions of the same spell when you could have had another 2-5 spells loaded instead, makes a world of difference.
22) I'm fine with that. Precise Shot is a necessary staple of every archer build, but unless you're a human, you're not getting that feat until level 3 (unless you're a slayer, ranger, or fighter).
23) At least consider it.
24) YES!!! Pathfinder 1e doesn't have 3.5 spells like Assay Spell Resistance, which became super important back in the day. Even Spell Penetration is laughable as a feat, which could be one of the feats that get a massive boost. And not having it apply to most damaging spells? Then what's the point of SR? So you can't heal? Would sure suck for that monk or drow PC if the cleric has to make an SR check while they're taking an insane amount of damage. Too bad for them I guess, but it sure is great that the BBEG archwizard is able to slam them with maximized magic missile and scorching ray. At the very least, lower it from 6+ and 11+CR to 2+ and 5+. But then again, just get rid of it.
25) That at least makes a kobold in the same scale as a half-orc, so that helps.
27) Some races have a -2 or -4 to a fair number of stats and it's unnecessary. Why give a creature +4 Str, and -2 Int, Wis, Cha like the orc? Or the duergar's -4 Cha. Or the goblin's -2 Str and -2 Cha.
28) Make monsters immune to damage? We have that with swarms. Or high AC? Dragons have that. Unless you're a gunslinger, then you're laughing all the way to the bank. Most cavaliers have the ability to have their mount fly, so they can always charge. And Ride-by Attack negates AoO from larger opponents. Spells like Abundant Ammunition help against running out of ammo, and unless there's a hurricane is 5 feet in front of them and the opponent is a mile away, most archer builds don't care about such things.


kevin_video wrote:
*stuff*

I was about to write up a hellaciously long post about CDG and realism and your other proposed fixes to the game, but I think the gist of it would be:

D&D isn't meant to be realistic in all aspects but that doesn't mean you can't kill helpless creatures easily.

I mostly agree with you on 7 and 11. I'd like to bring back infravision, but getting rid of range limits on DV is a decent compromise.
I've rolled Perception and SM and sometimes Will saves for players for years, and often take care of this during session prep. If I roll against a passive DC or if i make two rolls doesn't matter. Passive stats isn't the real answer, the answer is letting the DM do the rolling.

I agree with you that there are numerous things that need to be fixed, like CMB/CMD, but looking at your other suggestions I can only assume that we'd wildly disagree on the exact fix.

As for the rest of it, I think we can just say it's a good thing we don't play in each other's games.

Grand Lodge

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

D&D isn't meant to be realistic in all aspects but that doesn't mean you can't kill helpless creatures easily.

I've rolled Perception and SM and sometimes Will saves for players for years, and often take care of this during session prep. If I roll against a passive DC or if i make two rolls doesn't matter. Passive stats isn't the real answer, the answer is letting the DM do the rolling.

I agree with you that there are numerous things that need to be fixed, like CMB/CMD, but looking at your other suggestions I can only assume that we'd wildly disagree on the exact fix.

As for the rest of it, I think we can just say it's a good thing we don't play in each other's games.

I have no issue with helpless creatures being killed easily if they’re weaker, or if the narrative dictates it. But I’ve seen a barbarian with DR roll a natural 1 against an invisible fairy and instantly die while they were having supper, despite having 310 hp. We had just thought it was the rogue playing a trick and doing something to the food.

A lot of players don’t trust the DM to do the rolling, and prefer to roll their own dice.

Sean Reynolds and I have gone back and forth on CMB/CMD, and he absolutely hates it as much as I do. We even designed a magic item together to help combat it for smaller PCs because they really have it bad.

I have no idea what your games are like, but you’re being very assuming about mine. That said, my Pathfinder experience mostly comes from running lots of PFS. Like, 100-150 games a year. There’s not much in the way of home games in my small city, aside of a few groups that do 5e, Harn World, and AD&D. Most people here only game once a year at our annual convention.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kevin_video wrote:
I have no issue with helpless creatures being killed easily if they’re weaker, or if the narrative dictates it. But I’ve seen a barbarian with DR roll a natural 1 against an invisible fairy and instantly die while they were having supper, despite having 310 hp. We had just thought it was the rogue playing a trick and doing something to the food.

Wait, what?

If the barbarian is having supper, they're conscious and active. The fairy being invisible doesn't make the barbarian helpless. Coup de grace doesn't apply in this situation.

CDG requires helplessness, and a full-round action. It simulates a theoretical fairy very carefully lining up a knitting needle and suddenly shoving it firmly up the barbarian's nostril, straight into the brain. That requires the barbarian to be paralyzed or unconscious... not moving, not defending, just a passive chunk of meat.

Further the scenario you describe is a natural one. Almost any other number on the rolled die would've succeeded at the save versus the critical hit damage a fairy can do. You could fix that by adding a single-line clause excepting CDG for the usual 1-is-an-auto-failed-save rule.

Shadow Lodge

kevin_video wrote:
You like saying "no" a lot.

This is why I'm just waiting and watching what Legendary Games comes up with. They don't need my conflicting opinions in the mix either.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
One thing I'd like to see change is traps.

I am of the opinion that traps are fundamentally flawed. You're looking at a cool scenario that - best case scenario - the players don't get to see. As such, I think traps should be completely redesigned so they can't be fully mitigated. Successful "disarm" or "bypass" means they have a reduced effect. Where that isn't practical, they should just happen.

Imagine there was a rule that if players rolled their Knowledge check really well, combats are just automatically resolved in their favor. Monsters and NPCs don't go, don't do anything, don't actually show of their abilities. Lame. That's how traps work.

151 to 200 of 642 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / [Legendary Games] Corefinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.