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.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?
I tried the discord server for this, and like my previous attempts to try discord, didn't at all like the experience. I'll stick to my preferred Luddite email and message board communications. I'm confident that if LG is following 1000 discord messages a day, they can follow 5-10 message board posts a day as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tried the discord server for this, and like my previous attempts to try discord, didn't at all like the experience. I'll stick to my preferred Luddite email and message board communications. I'm confident that if LG is following 1000 discord messages a day, they can follow 5-10 message board posts a day as well.
Yeah, we can.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
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.
Overall, I agree with this, though I think many traps should have a way to disarm or bypass, but with a much harder check. Magical traps should be able to be addressed with spellcraft by casters, and rogues trapfinding let them use disable device to do so, but the DCs should be hard enough that a reasonably optimized character should have a 50% chance or so max, and a chance of setting it off when they try. Then let all the other ways of dealing with them come into play, acrobatics checks to jump over pits, moving heavy objects in the way of an arrow trap to block it, dispel magic, or specific countering magic (i.e. cast a 3rd level or higher fire spell on a cold blast trap to neutralize it, alchemical consumables to disrupt the mechanisms of a trap, telekinesis to spring it from a distance, or just old fashioned roll well on your saving throw, etc. Finding a trap should also give anyone with knowledge it exists a bonus to their AC or save against that trap, so even if you can't disarm it, there's value in finding it.
|
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.
In our case, the DM used the dictionary definition for "helpless" at the time, and we kind of had to accept it, but the barbarian player rage quit that night.
I'd definitely be down for a "natural 1 doesn't count on a CDG", much like skill and ability checks. That said, had we been sleeping, it would have been just as bad because no matter what, this scenario was going to play out.
|
|
I guess about the only other thing I could add to my list is, make it so that a PC can have any magic item. Not gonna lie, most PCs I've made or played alongside do not wear any kind of cloak or ring beyond a cloak of resistance and a ring of protection because they're so desperately sought after. More so the cloak because there's nothing else that'll boost their saves. The nice thing about 3.5 was they had vests of resistance and cloaks of comfort (endure elements aura plus resistance bonus).
EDIT: Also, scaling items should be more of a thing. Too many characters toss out weapons and armor the very second they come across something newer, shinier, and already has other bonuses on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traps IMO work as puzzles or alarms. Puzzles meaning the players need to reason out how to deal with them, and a disable device check doesn't come into play until then if at all. Alarms can be dealt with just by skills, sure. Traps as a hit point tax can go.
I'm with kevin_video's barbarian-playing friend, but not with kevin_video's fix. A new edition should make the PF defintion of helpless more obvious perhaps. Wrapping the PCs in layers of plot armour while asleep, not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am fine with traps being just the way they are...now haunts on the other hand.
|
|
6. This has also come up, but it has been more about irrelevant combat choices or survivability or low level power hogs or who gets them, but I think this is the first time I have heard this argument (could be wrong though, just do not remember). TLDR, it is on the list of changes being eyed.
7. This seems new to me also, could be wrong, but I do not know 5Es version to form an opinion with or against you.
8. I am opposed to the use of other ability modifiers for damage (it promotes everyone trying to be a fighter without being the fighter and we all know where that leads); DEX in particular is the defense stat and giving both offense and defense wrapped in the same ability is just well, why have different abilities at all? To be fair, I seem to be the minority on this, so you are in good company.
9. I am unsure where you are gong with this, but wealth by level has been discussed and I think the devs have some idea of what they want to do. I casually disregard the idea myself.
14. I think you may be in the minority on this as I have heard more of the opposite. There has been a movement advocating for both more and less good stuff at the lower levels to (more) give a better suite of ability at the lower levels and (less) to prevent munchkinism via multiclassing.
15. I always thought that was the average number provided for you if you did not want to use dice. This may need to be brought up cause first I have heard of the request.
23. This was talked about a bunch as was encumbrance and bulk; seems to be an uneven split on the ideas for and against change.
24. I disagree and I think there was a little conversation about this idea or a fix for it to make it better, but not many advocate for its removal. Seems integral to too many high level monsters as a "thing" they need to defend with.
25. I think you are in the minority here. I think the fix has always been give em class abilities if you need to beef them up. But, some advocate for a same same build concept for both PCs and monsters. I think there needs to be a break between monsters and PCs.
27. I am not sure I follow on this. Different races with boosts would be inherently better than humans, without the requisite reduction too. Who would ever play humans if that is the case, most do not anyway cause they feel the need to start with something that has darkvision instead.
These responses are getting longer so I'm going to cut it.
7) Pathfinder 1e: Darkvision - ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness.
5e: Darkvision - can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light.
The issue is that low-light vision lets you see in dim light, but not darkness, so RAW, anyone with darkvision can only see as well as a human can unless it's pitch black. That shouldn't be the case. If you can see in the dark, then you can see in the dark. Anyone who runs it differently, that's fine, but not everyone does what you do and there's some nasty GMs out there.
8) I'm guessing you don't play too many rogues or have done much fencing IRL. Not too many rogues are Strength-based, and foils aren't swung with brute strength. The issue with 3.5 and Pathfinder is all the MAD classes. Unless you find a way for monks to do Dex to damage, you need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. Unless you roll well, or are even allowed to roll, chances are extremely low. A single feat, is fine. Just not a feat tree that lets you take a scimitar and use it as a piercing weapon.
9) Where I'm going with this is, 880k wealth is excessive. Most PCs can't even spend that. It's also a lot of pressure to have on GMs to make sure that much treasure is always on hand, otherwise you mess up CR. Not to mention all the cheapskate GMs that don't want to give any treasure. 3.5 only needed 760k for wealth and that was fine. You could boost class abilities (spontaneous casting, Fighter with a Will save and Combat Stamina as a bonus feat, Cleric with more than just channel energy, etc), and that would help offset the need for wealth. 5e and Trailblazer essentially threw out wealth and gave the classes the boost they needed so lower wealth wouldn't be an issue.
14) If I'm in the minority, then I will get the rest of the minority to speak louder because it is most certainly the majority here. Munkinism builds don't need certain stats, and you seeing 20 point builds with variant humans (+2 to two stats) that are 20/14/18/7/7/7 taking dips into hunter, warpriest, etc because "you don't need Wisdom and I don't care about spells" is maddening. I'm definitely there with the people who want Evasion, Divine Grace, and other class abilities to be higher than level 2.
15) As per the Core Rulebook, there is no minimum. Only PFS has one. You're to roll your stats. Some GMs can't be bothered and just give you half rounded down because "That's all monsters get."
23) I'm okay with encumbrance being an Option rule only. Some people still like it. I'm not one of them. The 6 Strength gnome wizard definitely appreciates it being removed.
24) Back in 3.5, I had less of an issue with Spell Resistance because it was 5+ and 10+, and you had spells like the 4th level swift action spell, Assay Spell Resistance which gave you a +10 to bypass SR for X rounds. Bring back that spell and people will be less unhappy. However, if you multiclass, like say a wizard/cleric/mystic theurge, you're probably never going to bypass that creature's SR without such a spell existing. Heck, any PrC has you lose 1-4 levels of casting, so you're down that much. Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration aren't enough to help with that either. Maybe if you're a full elf and take those feats, the +6 will be of benefit, but you better also be a full caster. Maybe bring back feats like Practiced Spellcaster to give back the missing caster levels up to +4. Beat sticks don't care about SR, but casters definitely do. If not a removal, then at least lower it somewhat.
25) If I'm in the minority, then more people need to speak up on that Discord and here. Kobolds are a terrible race in Pathfinder and 5e. In 3.5 they became magically better thanks to the dragonborn ritual and the Dragonwrought feat that everyone used to get +3 Int, +3 Wis, +3 Cha at 1st level. Pathfinder currently has them a 5 RP race (grippli could use a boost too in that regard). Playing one, you always count as a level lower than the rest of your party because of their weakness. They're also the only race with -4 Strength. That's sad. 4e at least gave them some respect. And I know I'm not the only one. There are various channels on YouTube that talk about this, including NerdImmersion, who, got his version of the swole kobold printed by Kobold Press. I don't disagree that there should be some kind of break between monsters and PCs, but any official playable race is a potential PC. I mean, if goblins can be an official race in PF 2e, and there be five solids modules for them, and one pretty amazing PFS scenario for kobolds, then kobolds can get some Corefinder love too.
27) Who would play a human? Most people, if not everyone. Quote most of the 30 PFS players here: "Human is the superior race." That bonus feat is everything to them. Archers get Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot without needing to be a fighter. Melee combatants can take Power Attack and Cleave at 1st level, again without being a fighter. Some go variant human to ditch the feat for the two +2 to any stats of their choosing. Darkvision means so little to them because it's almost never relevant. Get a wand of darkvision or potions. A lot of humans take Catch Off-Guard or Torch Fighter so they can use a torch as a weapon. And a 1 level dip into practically any spell casting class gets you the light cantrip at-will. Compare that to say, the orc. +4 Str, -2 to mental stats, darkvision 60 ft but light sensitivity, weapon familiarity, and ferocity. One dip into Unbreakable fighter and I get most of the weapons and the ferocity, and I still get my bonus feat.
And I get that my responses would cause eye rolling and sarcastic quotes like "I sure bet he's a lot of fun at parties", but these are actual issues that we've had problems here with in the prairie provinces, not just my little city. They've been discussed at length during conventions, and why so many people left Pathfinder to go to other systems, whether new or old. I'd very much like to see Corefinder bring those players back.
I am not sure scaling items are going to solve the discard magic item problem. If I had an item that gains more power over time, then I have no need for other similar items that do not scale that I find and I am still discarding them. Perhaps I am looking at this the wrong way?
A scaling item might actually stick around for the entirety of the game. I've seen all too many people who either toss away an item for a new shiny, or they have a golf bag of weapons because they keep everything for themselves. Scaling items also help offset wealth issues. If a particular game is has a wealth dedicated to the front line fighters, and everything is weapons and armor, all the casters suddenly have to do without. Or vice versa. That's not saying it's an immediate fix, but I definitely like the idea of a story item, and they're nice to see in modules and adventure paths.
I'll add more more fix I'd like to see, and this is something that other editions and systems do now, and even 3PP Pathfinder 1e PrC or feats do, should they be allowed in a home game.
29) Wands being allowed to use numerous charges to increase the caster level of the spell. For those of you who want to keep Spell Resistance, this would make wands still relevant at higher levels.
8) I'm guessing you don't play too many rogues or have done much fencing IRL. Not too many rogues are Strength-based, and foils aren't swung with brute strength. The issue with 3.5 and Pathfinder is all the MAD classes. Unless you find a way for monks to do Dex to damage, you need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. Unless you roll well, or are even allowed to roll, chances are extremely low. A single feat, is fine. Just not a feat tree that lets you take a scimitar and use it as a piercing weapon.
You fence by dealing touch attacks. Not penetrating parts of armor, padding and flesh to deal damage. If you want RL argument.
My problem with Dex to damage is too many things tied to Dex (it's not called God stat for nothing), and Strength not having anything to do (PF2 did some right there, having Str ignore armor encumbrance, and defaulting initiative to Wis (perception)). I wouldn't mind Dex to damage if we had Str to AC feat, too.
|
|
So because a rule was used entirely incorrectly the actual rule is wrong and needs changing?
I didn't say that. I'm saying that a lot of us at local gaming conventions has discussed how easy it is to just sneak into a camp with invisibility, Skill Focus (Stealth), max ranks in Stealth, levels in assassin and rogue, sit there, and just TPK party after party after party, all the while giving double birds because of how helpless they are. Yeah, it looks cool in movies and TV, and low level mooks should be taken out easily, but PCs are a different brand of hero that shouldn't die just because they decided to sleep in the inn instead of taking watch in the middle of the forest.
All I'm saying, is it would nice to have a slight bit more balance. That's it.To the former, I have a hard time seeing why people would play with GMs they can't trust. Trusting players is important, but trusting GMs vital for a good game. Sure, they can make mistakes but if you can't trust them to do their best to be fair and try to make the game fun for everyone, what is the point?
To the latter, I don't see how passive Perception/SM changes anything. In either case, the GM is rolling the dice. I can understand wanting to roll dice for most things, but there is a limit to what players should roll.
Because that's all you have. To be blunt, we've banned GMs because of how bad they can get. And there are numerous horror stories of home games that used to exist. Since the pandemic, most of us, haven't missed gaming. At all. But that's a different story.
Passive Perception and Sense Motive/Insight just lets the GM tell the player that their PC notices something, and streamlines things.I'm fine with Small creatures having a hard time bull rushing Colossal ones.
I'm fine with that too. It just sucks being on the receiving end of it. You're a small wizard? Enjoying your CMD meaning absolutely nothing unless you took Defensive Combat Training, and even that's not likely going to save you.
I definitely understand the AoO being annoying for making CMB checks, but most PCs that do also have all the other feats so they can trip, AoO the trip, stomp during the trip, have the party make AoO on the tripped creature, then make another attack on the trip creature because the party attacked the tripped creature. The Brute Stomp and Vicious Stomp feat tree is almost unparalleled.I'm merely extrapolating from your list of things you want to change. You seem to have serious issues with stuff I'm fine with or like, and playing with people with incompatible wishes for a game is usually unpleasant. I do sympathize with your lack of home games - being stuck with only society play sounds terrible.
A lot of my list isn't just my list. They're the list a lot of us at the local gaming convention have brought up that we'd like to see changed, or enjoy in other systems, and they're why a lot of the people left Pathfinder/PFS to go to Starfinder, PF 2e, 5e, or entirely different systems altogether. A lot have even gone back to AD&D. Even local elementary schools were teaching 5e and Pathfinder 1e, and the students all preferred 5e. The list isn't off the top of my head. It's a Google Doc that's been slowly added to for the past 6 years. We stopped adding to it last year when PF 2e came out. Why complain about a dead system when other systems made them happier? I just want our issues brought up. Maybe once Corefinder comes out, some will come back to try give it a shot. Maybe they won't.
|
|
My problem with Dex to damage is too many things tied to Dex (it's not called God stat for nothing), and Strength not having anything to do (PF2 did some right there, having Str ignore armor encumbrance, and defaulting initiative to Wis (perception)). I wouldn't mind Dex to damage if we had Str to AC feat, too.
I'm fine with Str doing something like being allowed to be used for initiative. There was a series of 3PP feats like Muscle Reaction which added Str to initiative checks, or Battlefield Intuition which used Wis, or Presence of Mind which used Int. These stacked with Dex and Improved Initiative. All feats were done by the unfortunately defunct company, 4Winds Fantasy Gaming.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with Dex to damage is too many things tied to Dex (it's not called God stat for nothing), and Strength not having anything to do (PF2 did some right there, having Str ignore armor encumbrance, and defaulting initiative to Wis (perception)). I wouldn't mind Dex to damage if we had Str to AC feat, too.I'm fine with Str doing something like being allowed to be used for initiative. There was a series of 3PP feats like Muscle Reaction which added Str to initiative checks, or Battlefield Intuition which used Wis, or Presence of Mind which used Int. These stacked with Dex and Improved Initiative. All feats were done by the unfortunately defunct company, 4Winds Fantasy Gaming.
Adding as a bonus to Dex only exacerbates problems. Half of your complaints/wants for fixes would be unnecessary if they cleaned up the math. I don't want PF2 stuffled math, but cleaning up bonuses (less bonus types, assigning a bonus type to untyped bonus stuff), not having a ton of stackable stuff would go a long way in making a game less a chore.
I have faith in that because as it seems Corefinder won't be a monthly printing of character options (which would eventually cause problems for any system like it did for 3.x and then PF1. It killed PF2 for me in start because skill feats are envisioned as something to be printed with every publication, no matter how stupid they are).
|
|
Adding as a bonus to Dex only exacerbates problems. Half of your complaints/wants for fixes would be unnecessary if they cleaned up the math. I don't want PF2 stuffled math, but cleaning up bonuses (less bonus types, assigning a bonus type to untyped bonus stuff), not having a ton of stackable stuff would go a long way in making a game less a chore.
I agree that it would. Just letting you know how those feats worked. Being allowed to choose just one would be nice.
I also agree that having insight, morale, luck, competence, circumstance, sacred/profane, enhancement, and untyped bonuses are definitely a pain to keep track of. I think we'd still need a couple though because untyped just stacks with itself, which has quickly become an issue in 5e. But you needed that kind of thing with the old system to be able to hit the massive AC most BBEG's had. It'd be nice if Corefinder got rid of that need.I'll also add that I'm hoping the whole: 1 round, 1 round/level, 1 minute/level, 1 round/2 levels, etc, goes away. That's also some unnecessary tracking.
I would prefer Con to AC over Str.
If you have a problem with Dex to damage, just increase starting stats and stat growth. Get rid of all stat increasing magic items except Str based ones or increase max Str allowed compared to other stats. So in the long run Str based will do more damage. Also if anyone with a Str 13 can do power attack without feat cost then that would be good as well.
Personally starting stats should be 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18. Then adding level bonuses of +2 to one stat at 1st and at 4th(and every 4 levels after) get a +2 to three stats. Stats maxing out at 30. No stat increasing items.
Would love to get rid of amulets of natural armor and rings of protection and just add half your character level to AC(base, touch, and flat footed) and CMD if you are stilling using that.
Would love the optional rule that you can use one of two stats for saves, whichever is currently higher. Con or Str for Fort, Dex or Int for Ref, and Wis or Cha for Will saves.
I'm saying that a lot of us at local gaming conventions has discussed how easy it is to just sneak into a camp with invisibility, Skill Focus (Stealth), max ranks in Stealth, levels in assassin and rogue, sit there, and just TPK party after party after party, all the while giving double birds because of how helpless they are. Yeah, it looks cool in movies and TV, and low level mooks should be taken out easily, but PCs are a different brand of hero that shouldn't die just because they decided to sleep in the inn instead of taking watch in the middle of the forest.
All I'm saying, is it would nice to have a slight bit more balance. That's it.
I absolutely don't want to give the impression I'm invalidating your table experiences. They're real, and they influence you. Got it.
That said, you're describing (another) bad GM situation. A GM who sets invisible assassins on 1st to 3rd level parties to TPK them in the night is a huge, huge problem. At 4th, an alarm spell will last an entire 8-hour rest, so I can give said bad GM the benefit of the doubt that they're encouraging you to learn and use the book. Still a nasty GM, but one that can be mitigated.
The biggest takeaway I see here is the illumination that the rule can be abused by abusive GMs. That should be considered, and I'd support you in that. I've read a lot of threads on CDG over the years and most of us shy away from pushing for it. Most GMs who manage a hold person or some other paralysis effect on a PC try to give a round or more of time for the PCs to react and rally around their comrade. It's generally frowned on to do a one-two punch with two monsters in initiative to paralyze-then-CDG, for instance. But that's us, being civilized. I grant that you may have had barbarian GMs in the past. And I saw what you did there with the player who rage-quit. <Grin>
|
|
This is more of a Bestiary design issue, but I remember Sean Reynolds really hating this change from 3.5 during his time writing the Giantslayer AP. Give all giants the same Weapon Familiarity ability that elves, dwarves, and orcs do. Most, if not all, giants have to sacrifice one of their feats for a Martial or Exotic Weapon Proficiency. Easily fixable.
As for magic items boosting stats, I wouldn’t be against ones that just gave you a flat number. Having a +2 Boost to a stat isn’t all that great.
Thinking back, I remember another d20 system that had you add your Con to saves, and you made Fort saves against excessive damage (anything equal to or greater half your hp). That was interesting.
|
|
At the very least, in the spells section do what you can to shorten it. Don't have multiple entries for what a obviously the same spell pumped up. If two or more spells are only slightly different just have one entry with a "you can adjust this bit, but it will count as a separate spell".
Do the same thing with feat and equipment (especially weapons).
The more consolidated things are, the more content will fit inside.
Going on that, I wouldn't mind spells being upcast. Instead of needing to prepared summon monster at every level, just have the level 1 version and allow it to take higher slots to summon better creatures. This would also reduce the need for resist energy vs. communal resist energy or other communal spells. It can just have a notation at the end that says "if using a level X slot, this functions as normal, but affects Y people touched with new Z time limit."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish all martial classes got 6+Int mod skill points, casters got 4+Int mod, and skill monkeys got 8-10+Int mod. Kinetcist would get 6+Int mod skill points.
Clerics should be able to spontaneously cast their domain spells.
I could see a class feature/feat that would let prepared casters spontaneously cast spells like monster summoning, any level version, maybe even if they don't have the spell in their spell book.
What do you mean cast the same way? That could be taken to mean different things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I just wish every class cast the same way.
But I know I'm going to get overruled on that.
Every opinion counts. Me... I don't want to see more same. Variety is the spice of life, and at our table, prepared, spontaneous, psionic power points, akashic veils... all allowed.
Does it have to be archetypes, we could just have an optional rule that lets you change it, no need to alter any other aspects of the class.
|
|
I really wish all martial classes got 6+Int mod skill points, casters got 4+Int mod, and skill monkeys got 8-10+Int mod. Kinetcist would get 6+Int mod skill points.
Definitely not against that, but it likely won't happen to that degree. With them consolidating skills, a rogue with 8+Int skill ranks might actually have too many ranks with not enough skills. Just depends on how far they take it. As long as we have at least 15 skills to play with, we should be fine.
I didn't mention it before because my initial statement was for those behind Corefinder to have a brief look at the Purple Duck Games Porphyra RPG (ie. Pathfinder 1.5e), but a few classes got a boost with skill ranks.
Cleric has bonus feats, a Capstone, and 4+Int skills.
Fighter has a Will save, Combat Stamina a bonus feat at 1st level, and 4+Int skills.
Unchained Rogue became the base rogue class.
In addition, the Paladin became Champion and is no longer hampered with alignment.
Variety is the spice of life, and at our table, prepared, spontaneous, psionic power points, akashic veils... all allowed.
I kind of miss spell points from 3.5, which was basically the equivalent to power points. Psionic classes would be nice to have back.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I get the basic idea of traps is a bunch of rolls currently. Many on the discord agree and want something less "boring" than a handful of dice rolls. Honestly though, that level of interaction requires a lot of improvisation on the part of the DM because it is not codified beyond, maybe, the type of trap employed (outside of magic traps which happen to just be spells). This can create consistency problems if the DM does not keep real good notes. "but DM, I already disarmed a trap just like this two years ago at the beginning of the campaign, why did it not work this time?" "Well, you only have to remember things that impact your PC, I got to keep track of you, all the others, and the bad guys. Sooner or later I am bound to miss something." Maybe a bit extreme, but I hope it conveys my point without over explaining.Overall, I agree with this, though I think many traps should have a way to disarm or bypass, but with a much harder check. Magical traps should be able to be addressed with spellcraft by casters, and rogues trapfinding let them use disable device to do so, but the DCs should be hard enough that a reasonably optimized character should have a 50% chance or so max, and a chance of setting it off when they try. Then let all the other ways of dealing with them come into play, acrobatics checks to jump over pits, moving heavy objects in the way of an arrow trap to block it, dispel magic, or specific countering magic (i.e. cast a 3rd level or higher fire spell on a cold blast trap to neutralize it, alchemical consumables to disrupt the mechanisms of a trap, telekinesis to spring it from a distance, or just old fashioned roll well on your saving throw, etc. Finding a trap should also give anyone with knowledge it exists a bonus to their AC or save against that trap, so even if you can't disarm it, there's value in finding it.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.
Except it doesn't have to be done through improvisation at all. If you design traps to explicitly state things like "this cold blast trap can be disabled by casting a 3rd level or higher spell with the fire descriptor on it" and each trap has 2-3 such options built in, that covers a lot. Then other things simply leverage other rule systems, such as acrobatics/jumping rules to jump over pits, cover and complete cover for placing obstacles in the way of traps that make attack rolls, etc.
Sure you will still have cases of a specific badly built trap that omits things as disable options which it shouldn't, but that's a problem which exists with any system when individually badly designed monsters, spells, feats, etc. exist.
|
|
I also cut these because the system does not give enough on the quote.
Stuff:8. This is a hill I am prepared to die on. Giving one stat so much influence over combat makes so more things irrelevant due to its ability to consolidate instead of spreading resources. In this case, armor and strength become unneeded as long as dex to damage exists, period. Even fighters can benefit so much more from this trade off, not just rogues. This is strictly a balance issue, forget realism, it takes things away from the game because of all of what it does do. As a fix to other game issues, it backfires.
14. I am confused by your idea to make this more difficult, then you defend multiclassing as something that should be done in other arguments. You have given a very specific example, and I must point out that in a game with so many choices and material, people are going to find a way to abuse the system. I think the core of what they are attempting to do with this update of the system is more removing the way in which people can execute the abuse instead of broad strokes to eliminate or make more difficult said options. that does not mean that a few things cannot be resolved without said broad stroke, but if we could focus on smaller changes that address the specific abuses that is the end goal. I am sure the LG team will correct me if I am wrong.
15. I have become confused again, is this issue over hit points or damage dice? I thought it was damage dice.
25. Here is another place I misunderstood. I thought we were talking about Kobolds as monsters no PCs. Totally my fault on this one. That said, monster races are difficult because in my experience (and I have a lot, but it is distinctly different from yours), players want to play monster PCs for either mechanical advantage or cool factor, which is fine by itself, but they neglect the RP part when it comes to the enmity said race encounters at every "civilized" turn. It is a PITA for the DM. That is all beside the point because Corefinder will not explore much in monster PCs at this stage. Perhaps in a later book though, at least according to what I gather from the Discord.
27. Two things, remember not everyone has system mastery and they still see the surface for its options and races which provide darkvision because the bad guys cannot always see them coming, is a big deal (again this leads back to our differing experiences, you have a core group over long period, I have many groups of mostly beginners over short periods). Back to the issue at hand, when I decide on a non human race for a PC, I understand that there is an advantage compensated for by a disadvantage to "offset" the race as a distinctly better choice. If I remove the disadvantage, then the race becomes a distinctly better choice. Forget everything else, the response is only about the removal of the disadvantage from stat adjustment.
I also am not trying to be antagonistic here, even if it doesn't come across that way. It's hard to read tone in text. It's all a matter of how your day went and how you read into things.
Quick deep dive because I want to understand. Let's say everyone has 26 Dex (+8 Mod) from max Dex rolls plus racial bonus plus +6 Dex item. (This example comes from a PFS character I've seen: sylph unchained rogue 5/fighter 2/swashbuckler 1/duelist 5) They have +8 to hit and damage and their AC is 22 with a shield and +1 padded armor (because nothing else works for them). That's not that different from the PC with Dex 13 wearing +1 plate with a shield, which is AC 23? No check penalty, but if it's a fighter, it's not that big of a deal, and if the 26 Dex is caught flat-footed, their AC plummets. Unless you've got Uncanny Dodge, of course.
14) More difficult, but not impossible. I've been playing since AD&D 2nd, so I'm not saying I want the paladin to need 12 Str, 13 Wis, and 17 Cha before multiclassing in either direction, but 5e does well enough just asking for a 13. I like multiclassing for the purposes of getting into a Prestige Class. I have nothing against those who want to be a fighter/cleric, fighter/rogue, or any other combination, but asking for a 13 in a stat isn't game breaking. Granted, unlike 5e, we still have races with penalties to their stats, so maybe just an 11 is plenty. At the very least, it stops munchkins who purposely only have 5's and 7's in stats. Again, something Starinder and PF 2e got rid of by not allowing stats to go below 10 before racial penalties.
15) Not sure where you got damage die from, but, yes, I was referring to character class hit die. Having it spelled out that the barbarian is "1d12 (or 7) + your Constitution modifier per barbarian level after 1st." goes a LONG way.
25) I definitely play other races for the cool factor. Tieflings are my go-to if they're allowed. I'm already human. I don't want to play me. I'd rather play the me from the Plane of Water or a layer of Hell. If players are "forgetting" to be civilized with their "monster" race, that's a "them" problem, and I've certainly experienced that. Just doing whatever they want while laughing it up and flipping everyone off at the table until they're kicked out, and they're throwing violent tantrums because no one wants to play with them anymore (and sometimes bans from locations and police intervention is required).
27) "System mastery" isn't really the issue. Almost every GM I've talked with will give a new player a human fighter as their first character. No darkvision, no complications, super vanilla. Sometimes even pre-rolled for them. I, myself, was given an elf fighter pre-rolled because the story required the elf part, otherwise it would have been human. And a lot of newer players, thanks to Critical Role, just want to RP a character with a cool backstory, regardless of race, and I'm 100% all for that. I envy them that.
That said, most races with darkvision, have no real disadvantage save for some with light sensitivity or blindness. And I'm fine with a reasonable penalty to stats. Some GMs have fixed the aasimar (and Purple Duck Games as well) by giving them a -2 Con, just like elves, dhampirs, and sylphs. That's a much larger penalty than say -2 Cha for a dwarf or -2 Str for most Small-sized races. And even some races have less than 9 race points because one racial ability they can give up for another might be more "expensive". Half-orcs (8 RP) can lose their 2 RP orc ferocity for their 4 RP sacred tattoo +1 luck bonus to all saves. That's something much more exploitable than the halfing's +1 racial bonus to saves if you know the right spells to take (ie. can double all luck bonuses). Or any of the elemental races can lose their affinity bonus on spellcasting to fast heal in their element (a 1 RP to 3 RP difference). But kobolds are different. They're 5 RP, and if you swap out their racial abilities, you can end up with a 2 RP race. It goes DOWN. And they have -4 Str, -2 Con. As was proposed above, make the -4 into -2, and give them +2 Cha like in 4e and 5e, and that immediately makes them playable. Minor fix that goes a long way, and they're still within the 6-8 RP range for monster races.
I definitely understand your concern with power creep. It's very real, but every system that's out long enough will have that. This is why playtesting is going to be so important. Especially with veteran players who know the system inside and out. There's a reason why Pathfinder 1e needs to be fixed, but there's also a good reason why so many 3.5 players refused to come on board. PF 1e was harder to exploit than 3.5, and they couldn't stand that.
Another proposal I have, and PDG did this as well, 31) have all cleric abilities be based on their Wisdom. No more using Charisma for channels and all that.
|
|
Chatting with a friend, and a few of more points were brought up.
32) Multiclassing spellcasters shouldn’t cost you spell slots unless you’re going with a class like paladin or ranger. A cleric 5/wizard 5/mystic theurge 10 should still be allowed 9th level spell casting. Maybe not the spells themselves, minus a wizard learning them from a scroll and copying it into their book. 5e definitely fixed this, but at the same time they gave spellcasters the ability to up-cast.
33) Separate stat boosting items. Don’t make them all belts and headbands.
34) Make it easier for martial characters to be effective in combat instead of them always needing a golf bag of weapons for every different kind of variety of enemy. It gets very expensive, very fast.
35) Creatures and classes that do “magic damage” with their natural attacks or unarmed strikes “for the purposes of bypassing DR” should also be able to damage incorporeal undead like a magic weapon.
|
|
Would there be any reason not to take MT then, power-wise?
Fix feats.
The problems are basically three:
1) useless feats
Ignoring the handful of feats that are so good they are practically required (its own issue to be sure), there are so many nearly useless feats that barely even look good for a specific concept, let alone general use. 5e really did well here, since basically all feats are fun and useful and powerful on their own.
So many feats, core as well as in splats, need to be improved or combined with others to become worthwhile. Things like Endurance Mobility which are occasionally useful on their own but are mostly ignored except as prereqs.2) Feat taxes
Too many feats have stiff feat taxes. You have to pick up a bunch of feats for minor increases in ability or to get to something good. Good things costing something is one thing but too many feats that might be fine with one or two prereq feats have 3 or 4, and many of those prereqs are pretty useless on their own. Why do the combat maneuver feats need Combat Expertise? Why can't Mobility be folded into Dodge?
(a related issue is many feats generally having too stiff non-feat prereqs; why does Combat Expertise need Intelligence?)3) Feat gating
Towards the end of P1 there were too many actions that could (and to my mind should) have been covered by skill checks that were suddenly restricted to a specific feat. Things like Clinging Climber. If you spend all your time climbing, then this could be neat, but is there any reason this sort of thing couldn't be handled with a Climb check?
No, no real reason not to other than you won't get 8th or 9th level spells. I've seen arguments that Prestige Classes should be removed entirely, and like 5e, make them archetypes/subclasses. Others have said to go the same route as Kobold Press and Purple Duck Games, and make them their own base class.
Fixing feats is definitely high up on the list, and been noted here as something that they are looking at because everyone has an issue with them.
1) Regarding useless feat, myself, I hate Simple Weapon Proficiency and Martial Weapon Proficiency, for the simple reason you only get 1 weapon for feat. That's absolutely stupid. At least give them four weapons, or even an entire weapon group. Heck, for Simple Weapon, just give them ALL the weapons. They're simple. If a 1-level dip to fighter can suddenly make a wizard proficient with all weapons, armor, and shields, surely a basic feat can do even 20% of that. Same thing for Weapon Focus and Improved Critical, and all those. There's too many feat sinks. Weapon groups. So much easier.
Adding to that, the magic item creation feats should be bundled. At least let a player get two at a time.
I'd always want to see feats like Iron Will and Improved Iron Will combined as well.
2) There are a lot of feat taxes. Some feats even require that you have five lead-up feats plus skill ranks and a higher BAB. That can get a bit ridiculous. You might as say "Are you a fighter? No? Then too bad, no feat for you." That's different than say feats which specifically require Fighter levels. That's fine. They should be special in some way.
Purple Duck Games did get rid of this by merging all of the feats, and having secondary conditions kick in after you met a prerequisite. Something you could strive towards. Like, Improved Trip. You gained Greater Trip automatically if you had Combat Expertise, BAB +6, and Int 13. Spell Focus, Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense, Vital Strike, and others, all got the same treatment.
3) I can see where some feats should just be added to the skill check, but I also see some feats just being a trait as well. Clinging Climber is an example I can see for either argument. As for why it's not a simple Climb check, I'd bank that it's because it was in the final printed book, and they didn't want to add another errata when they were dropping the system.
|
|
Simple Weapon Proficiency feat already lets you use all simple weapons.
Martial WP is the one that only lets you take one at a time.
(Also the issue of Exotic WP, but that's likely more due to many exotic weapons not being powerful enough for that barrier.)
You're right. Even the 3.5 version was that way. Not sure why I thought otherwise. Maybe because of the other two being so singular. Still think the others should give you 4 weapons of your choice or an entire weapon group.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Something I'd like to see change and/or revert to earlier rules is enhancement bonuses bypassing DR aside from magic. While I get that some players don't like the golf bag of weapons, for me, the whole point of DR is to actually reduce the damage done to a creature and require special tactics to over come it, not to simply be a minor inconvenience for summoned monsters and low level characters since the PCs will always have a weapon of high enough enhancement bonus to overcome. The current system also makes a straight +X even better than it is just from the math impact, and reduces the value of all other weapon special abilities, since they have to be take at the expense of being able to bypass silver, alignment, etc.
Having a requirement for actually having the material or alignment to bypass DR means that players can't simply attack with their primary weapon all of the time, and will either have to switch to a backup weapon, use spells like align weapon, items like silversheen (or alchemical blanches, etc), use power attack, bardic inspire courage or other ways to simply power through the DR with more damage, or even defeat the foes with non-damaging tactics, such as banishing demons, grappling then drowning, etc.
I actually like enhancement bonuses bypassing some types of DR. Not that I see too many people in the group with a weapon of an actual enhancement of +3 or higher. More often then not the magic weapons will have multiple properties especially bane, holy, and extra energy damage ones.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Another thing I remembered I'd like to see is a tweak to the advanced template. I'd prefer to have it also add +2 to caster level, impacting both caster level checks, etc. and caster level dependent affects of spell like abilities like # of dice damage, etc. And if the creature has innate spell casting, like some outsiders, or dryads, they should have their caster level increased as well, along with spells known and per day.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like enhancement bonuses to weapons bypassing DR. However, as good as that one weapon is, you still have things like DR/—, DR/slashing, DR/bludgeoning, and DR/piercing. I’d want to see DR/magic changed to something else, or not go any higher than 10 unless something else was added to it. Seeing DR 30/magic on an ancient great wyrm is laughable. Like, who at level 5 and higher isn’t going to have a magic weapon, let alone at level 18? That’s pointless.
And it’s not so much that you want to sell weapons you find along the way, but rather it’s expensive to have every weapon. Not to mention, having a +5 sword is kind of pointless. Why would I pay 50k gold for +5 to hit and damage when I could instead make it holy/unholy, flaming, frost, shocking, corrosive, etc, and deal upwards of an extra +5d6 damage plus bypass certain good/evil DR? Granted, some of that won’t do well against certain outsiders, but against the vast majority of monsters, you’re going to absolutely wreck them. And I’ve certainly seen that with PCs using the amulet of mighty fists. You don’t even need the +1 like you do weapons. Just make it flaming or frost and skip the initial +1.
And if we’re talking blanches, lets make that better. Given the cost and the action economy to put it on (including fire to melt it), the fact that it’s a single use is garbage.
Speaking of one use, can we fix poisons? They’re ridiculously expensive and do absolutely jack at mid to higher levels. I’d much rather poison do poison damage, save for half.