Personally I think all magic weapons, armor , and shields should just have one magic property to start with. It's enhancement bonus(along with any other abilities/properties) would be based on the user's level except artifacts that are always maxed out at least 20th level.
I would like poison to be a damage type.
A DR30/magic is laughable as a mid to high level player but not so much to the poor villagers attacked by and armies sent to fight such creatures. Also it is a pain if the monster also has an ability to destroy, disarm, steal, nullify, etc. the players magic weapon(s).
Weapon blanches work just fine in their intended use case - on ammunition. And DR OMG/magic is just saying that your great wyrm absolutely cannot be taken out by mundane city guards with bows or crossbows or even ballistae. Which is necessary if you want to have dragons which can pillage towns on the top end. D&D 5e's dragons can't ever take on towns which is a clear mistake.
Poison needs a re-do, sure. And doing HP damage (even if there's a delay, or damage over time) allows for synergy with stabbing, which is the way it should be IMO.
|
So a friend said I needed to retract my statement on dragons and their DR/magic because I’ve obviously had a GM who hasn’t run one properly. It was pointed out that a lot of older dragons have the antimagic field spell, so anything magic is useless once it gets past the barrier.
Okay, that’s fair. However. Instead of it being a sorcerer spell that they have to take, making it a spell-like ability could be the answer. Maybe younger dragons have it 1/day, but older ones have it 3/day. I wouldn’t go so far as to make it at-will or constant though.
|
|
Weapon blanches work just fine in their intended use case - on ammunition.
Hmm. And 10 pieces, at that. I’d drop the drip for the cold iron blanch. Cold iron doubles the cost of a weapon. So 20 arrows cost 2 gp. Cold iron blanch is 20 gp by itself. That’s 2 gp per arrow. The silver and adamantine blanches are fine at 5 gp and 100 gp, respectfully.
|
|
Something else that got brought up, was getting rid of the “command” to activate your weapon to be flaming, corrosive, or frost. The first line says, upon command. So it’s a standard action to activate. Considering warpriest’s can do it as a swift action, that’s not great. As well, RAW, a regular weapon with numerous +1 elemental abilities might need multiple commands to activate each one individually. Again, a warpriest can do it as a swift action. Also to note, a paladin is a standard action to activate them all. Theirs could be a swift action, but there’s lasts longer, so maybe a move action.
The notion that it could be a standard or move action to deactivate was fine. This way you wouldn’t be using flame on an iron golem when you didn’t want to.
And I definitely remember the 3.0 DR system. That got nasty real fast. Iron golems with DR 50/+1? Or fiends with DR 30/+3? I’d rather not go back to that.
As long as incorporeal doesn’t do that terrible 50% miss chance again, I’m at least open to the idea of DR changes. Still, a +3 weapon counting as cold iron or silver, or +4 for adamantine, but only for the sake of DR and not hardness, doesn’t seem that bad. The +5 for alignment is great when you don’t have a way to bypass DR/chaotic because your lawful cleric isn’t able to cast chaos based spells. There’s no blanches for that.
I guess the other thing I can bring up since I kind of already did is hardness on animated objects. Just give them DR instead. This way spells and feats like Clustered Shots can work. Hardness has clunky rules anyways, especially when it comes to the argument of the hardness of an inanimate object versus an animated object, and how spells work against them (ie. half damage vs quarter damage, etc).
Would anyone mind if low casters got 5th level magic and mid casters got 7th level magic?
Would anyone mind if low casters got 5th level magic and mid casters got 7th level magic?
I don't think that is a matter of anyone "minding". Would full casters go to 10? If so, 5 and 7 are probably a good balance. Otherwise I am unsure of the point.
I agree, I think they should get cantrips at 1st level.
|
|
So I saw on Facebook, someone had posted what rules other GMs used in their Pathfinder 1e games, and a lot of people were saying that they used most of the Unchained rules, especially when it came to the classes, the skills, skill unlocks, disease/poisons, iterative attacks, and wound levels. The classes and skill unlocks I know very well as I've seen numerous unchained rogues in PFS, but I hadn't really looked at the others.
I have to say, I'm not against the Consolidated Skills, but I wouldn't have gone the route they did for Spellcraft, Survival, and Nature, nor would I have removed Appraise, Craft, Knowledge (engineering), and Profession. If anything, I'd have probably merged Craft and Knowledge (engineering) into one skill: Engineering. Spellcraft I'd rename Arcana, Survival and Heal would stay separate, and Nature wouldn't include Handle Animal. I'd keep that a separate skill. Also, I like how Purple Duck Games and 5e have Handle Animal be Wisdom-based, not Charisma, which makes sense since they're both Wisdom classes and deal with animals regularly.
Other than that, I'm okay with the other skills being condensed. I especially like Acrobatics (jump) being Strength-based again, and being part of Athletics, which is should be. Back in 3.5 the Tumble skill was Dex-based, and with this, it is once again.
I do like the alternate Unchained Craft and Profession rules. That'd be nice to see in Corefinder. Same with the Signature Skill feat for skill unlocks.
I don't mind the Disabled aspect of the Wound Thresholds. Instead of going unconscious at 0 hp, you go down at -5, but are disabled between 0 and -4 hp. I don't hate the feats associated, but if those rules were implemented, I'd probably add in the Twist The Knife feat as a bonus feat for all monsters. Make it like the 4e rules for when they were Bloodied. The updated version of Endurance is neat, if you use those rules. Nice little add-on.
And looking at the Disease/Poison rules, I now know where Purple Duck Games got their changes from. They've implemented those rules into their core book. They know use "tracks" instead of just attacking your physical and mental stats. Because of that, poisons have a significantly lower cost because it's not ability damage any more. For example, black lotus extract only costs 720 gp instead of 4500. Much more affordable.
It's also not always an instant cure any more either, you heal each track. The lower the track, the more time and resources that need to be used. That's nice though. It gives you options if you don't immediately have the spell loaded that day, and gives the healer's kit relevance again.
Speaking of Purple Duck, another skill they brought back was the Autohypnosis skill from 3.5, and it's actually a decent skill that other classes can take, not just psionic ones.
They also changed traps. Instead of how Paizo did it, PDG has a revised version that's very similar to that of the monster creation CR system, and they have "trap points", much like animated objects have construction points. For example, a CR 12 trap does one of three effects: 12d8, poison level 11, or spell level 5; attack bonus +15, DC 21, and needs a skill check of 30 to bypass. As well, it has 5 trap points to play around with. There's also rules for increasing and decreasing values 1 for 1 so that one aspect is more powerful than the power, such as lowering the attack bonus to 1) increase the save DC, 2) increase damage dealt, or 3) increase the skill check.
Beyond that, they also changed the wealth table back to something similar from 3.5e, and at 20th level PCs have 775k. As like with standard PF 1e, they have a Slow/Medium/Fast table that breaks down wealth per level per encounter.
|
|
I agree that power creep can be a thing, but if you have no magic items, or less powerful ones, that balance comes back. And that's definitely something I'm pushing for. I know other people are definitely against that because 3.X has always been about high magic, now low magic. I get it, but something's gotta give, and it should be the wealth system. It doesn't make sense that wizards aren't in charge all around the world considering they're getting paid hundreds of millions of gold a day to make items that'll take them no more than 1-2 weeks. Heck, most of the PCs could choose to never adventure again and just run magic shops. Even blacksmiths can't hold a candle to a wizard with fabricate. 3.X wealth is broken and wrecks the economy of every game world. Lower the wealth, increase the classes to balance it out. Minor tweaks is all they need.
I definitely don't consider adding more skills to be something in the realm of power creep or PC boosting. We can always add old skills back. Linguistics can definitely be it's own skill, as that's what lets us have additional languages. I've never been a fan of Search, Spot, and Listen being combined, so remove Search and rename it Investigation, or Scutiny, as Purple Duck Games called it, and maybe bring back Use Rope. Before it was a CMB check, but if we get rid of that, we won't have the option any more. I know some people are like "If you tie a rope, it just happens." Fine, but the original skill check was so you had a DC against Escape Artist.
I can see why the Unchained Consolidated Skills isn't that great, if only because there's now 12 skills, but we certainly don't need 36, especially when you consider Craft, Perform, and Profession all have their own sub choices. Even just to knock it down to 20 or even 25.
One change I would definitely push for is Intimidate being (Str/Cha) instead of just (Cha). Also, for fear effects to be based on Con or Cha, depending on the creature. Something with a fear aura and a 30 Con but a 13 Cha isn't nearly as terrifying as it should be.
|
|
Maybe I am just having a crap day and do not realize it
You probably are just having a bad day. I'd like to think that no one here is purposely trying to make every Corefinder character into One-Punch Man or Superman. I'm certainly not. Honestly, it'd be easier to just abandon Pathfinder 1e and go back to 3.5 because the CoDzilla and Pun-Pun builds are just your standard Tuesday for that system.
Another option could be a complete consolidation of the skills, and no longer have a number of skill ranks plus Intelligence. Just skill ranks. I don't like 5e's version where you choose only a couple of skills at 1st level, and then those are your skills for the rest of the game, unless you take skill feats like Skilled, or multiclass into rogue or bard to gain +1 skill, and then those specific skills go up with your proficiency modifier. If my character is incredibly good at deception and bluffing their way out of situations because they're a pathological liar, but is now actively working on trying to better themself by trying to be truthful and diplomatic instead, it'd be nice to show that progress by increasing that particular skill with a rank. Or maybe I rolled garbage Charisma and I'd like my character to at least talk during a social function and put in enough ranks to show I've learned manners and my character is civilized. That's the nice thing about the 3.X system, and I'd love to keep that.
Starfinder consolidated some of their skills, and you still see classes with 8+Int mod for 20 skills. Pathfinder 2e consolidated all of their skills and still had 17, but their skill system is similar to 5e's, just with more skills allocated due to the Intelligence modifier.
|
|
This got brought up on Facebook and I wanted to share it here:
Our table adapted Gang Up from Savage Worlds. Instead of flanking requiring being on opposite sides of the enemy to get a +2, we give a +1 for everyone in melee (regardless of location) beyond you’re own character; max bonus +5.
So if 6 party members all beat down one enemy, they’re getting a +5. This also works for enemy NPC’s, so those 1/3 CR goblins can still be a threat through numbers.
This seems similar to the Pack Tactics ability that kobolds and other creatures have in PF 1e and 5e. Definitely helps bypass some PCs will crazy AC.
Another “fix” suggested was for fighters. In addition to giving them Combat Stamina (Unchained) at 1st level, have their armor training and armor mastery add +1 AC across the board (base AC, touch, flat-footed).
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I want to discuss monster design. There's definitely some problems with it in Pathfinder, but I feel the solution in Starfinder/PF2 may fix them, but replace them with other issues. The biggest problem is that a monster's type determines too much about its statistics and numeric calculations. This means that for creature types which have lower BAB/HD, they're forced to be extremely high HD to compensate at an appropriate CR. To address this, and some of the issues which crop up with alternate solutions, I propose something like this. (note, this isn't a fully fleshed out proposal, I haven't done the math behind it, nor written it up to address ever corner case, its merely a framework for discussion).
1) Split out BAB, HD, Saving throw bonuses and skill points from the creature type. Instead, use the creature's role to determine these things. The concept of a creature's role already exists (Bestiary p. 297), but doesn't have any mechanical impact, it's purely conceptual. If instead, role acted like a monster's "class" we could have something like:
Combat monsters have d10 HD, +1 BAB/HD, Good Fort saves, skill points 4 + Int modifier, and abilities like bonus combat feats. Has few if any SLAs.
Skill monsters have d8 HD, +3/4 BAB/HD, Good Reflex saves, skill points 6 + Int modifier, and a abilities such as sneak attack, poison use, ranged attacks, and other skirmisher/ambusher abilities. Has a limited amount of SLAs.
Spell monsters have d6 HD, +1/2 BAB/HD, Good Will saves, skill points 2+ Int modifier, caster level equal to their HD and either cast as a 9-level spell caster or a large amount of SLAs
A system like this would allow your default stock version of a monster to have it's typical role, but would make it easier to create non-standard versions without giving them full class levels, so you could have your typical ogre be a combat role, but easily make a spell role ogre to be a shaman for example. You could even have each role grant built in bonuses to ability scores, to further ease swapping a role out for a non-standard version, such as Combat roles get +4 Str, Skill monsters get +4 Dex, and Spell role monsters get +4 to an appropriate mental ability score depending on spell list used.
Dragons and outsiders could be given a special ability to have multiple roles to better simulate that they often are strong in both combat and in spell use, and have such double role monsters have +1 or +2 CR depending on HD.
2) Monsters should continue to use the same rules as characters. Creating a system which doesn't do this makes for multiple hard to adjudicate problems, such as:
why can the bugbear strangler strangle better than my strangler build monk or rogue, or simply use very different rules?
How do we handle monsters as allies (whether through diplomacy, charm/dominate magic, summoning, etc.) when we then use PC abilities to buff and those abilities don't work (or work well) with the monster's different rules, or the PCs give it equipment to enhance it.
3) Monsters should not by default only have a few CR appropriate SLAs to "simplify" their stat blocks. Sure, maybe a CR10 monster would never use sleep against PCs, but might use it to sneak past guards in town without raising an alarm, etc. Often these lower level abilities also can fill the gap in combat if the PCs somehow stymie its normal tactics. This can also be addressed by having monsters with many SLAs be designed with the spell role to account for the many SLAs, which monsters with only a few having either the combat or skill role.
4) some merging and revising to the actual monster types would be needed, both related to how roles work, and just for general improvement (making vermin a subtype of animal, and merging magical beast and monstrous humanoid, for example),
|
|
For the most part, a lot of this was fixed when the Unchained book came out. While I prefer the original method of building from scratch as per the Bestiary, a lot of 3PP use the Unchained method as it's just easier and faster for them.
Beyond that, I'd like to see constructs get actual hp. Or have the bonus HP be boosted significantly based on their size. Mentioning too high a BAB is definitely what a construct has an issue with. Super high BAB and modifiers, but garbage hp. Literal tempered glass cannons that'll probably destroy you before you destroy it though.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
For the most part, a lot of this was fixed when the Unchained book came out. While I prefer the original method of building from scratch as per the Bestiary, a lot of 3PP use the Unchained method as it's just easier and faster for them.
Beyond that, I'd like to see constructs get actual hp. Or have the bonus HP be boosted significantly based on their size. Mentioning too high a BAB is definitely what a construct has an issue with. Super high BAB and modifiers, but garbage hp. Literal tempered glass cannons that'll probably destroy you before you destroy it though.
While I know a lot of 3PP like unchained method, I personally can't stand it, and don't think it addresses all of the issues. I don't think a unchained class template makes a monster feel like it's from that class, especially from spellcasters where it grants a few magic abilities rather than something on par with an equivalent level caster. The concept from it might be fine, but not the execution.
|
Beyond that, I'd like to see constructs get actual hp. Or have the bonus HP be boosted significantly based on their size.
All creatures, including Constructs and Undead, just having a Con score would be one way to address that. Flavor 'Con' as durability and not 'life-force' and it's easier to grok a golem or vampire as having a Con score. Even my car has systems that can be disrupted and 'vital areas' that can be damaged to cause it significant dysfunction.
Those creature types can still be immune to poison, disease or hunger/suffocation/aging type stuff, but have all the bonus hit points of a Con score (and not have to use some sort of 'use Cha instead!' workaround that results in all sorts of unfriendly loner undead mysteriously having ruler-of-country/celebrity-level Cha scores).
|
|
Beyond that, I'd like to see constructs get actual hp. Or have the bonus HP be boosted significantly based on their size.All creatures, including Constructs and Undead, just having a Con score would be one way to address that. Flavor 'Con' as durability and not 'life-force' and it's easier to grok a golem or vampire as having a Con score. Even my car has systems that can be disrupted and 'vital areas' that can be damaged to cause it significant dysfunction.
Those creature types can still be immune to poison, disease or hunger/suffocation/aging type stuff, but have all the bonus hit points of a Con score (and not have to use some sort of 'use Cha instead!' workaround that results in all sorts of unfriendly loner undead mysteriously having ruler-of-country/celebrity-level Cha scores).
Yeah, I found that 5e adding Con back to both creature types made it infinitely more easier. Especially when you have creatures like the dracolich. You just can't compensate for that kind of thing with Charisma on a dragon. Oh, you had 30 Con for all those hit points? Well, enjoy your new 22 Cha and 4 less hp per hit die. Like, what? I'd even be fine with all undead and constructs getting the Toughness feat as a base, and undead going back to their d12 HD instead of d8. Nothing wrong with constructs getting d12 too. Something's definitely gotta give, that's for sure.
|
|
I don’t know if this has already been discussed, but it got brought on Facebook. Ranged Rogues should be allowed beyond the “sneak attack works up to 30 ft away”. Basically speaking, it was noted that 4Winds created a feat that lets you flank 30 ft away for the flanking bonus and qualify for sneak attack, but you need BAB +10. That’s way too high for a rogue to wait and qualify for. It should be like in 5e where as long as the target is engaged with an ally they can get sneak attack. Even if it’s a specific rogue talent that requires Precise Shot. Of course this would also need to be added to the list of talents slayers can access too.
|
|
One thing I believe is not a good solution is to tie monster advancement/build with player/class compatibility. If that is not clear, monster builds should be different from player builds because they will have vastly different abilities than player characters will. That is part of their challenge. While there are a few monsters that will mimic player character abilities (mostly humanoids), they will be the exception, not the rule. As such, I would propose a different solution (bear in mind I lost interest early into reading unchained, so if it is at all similar I am unaware) where monster builds are predicated on a group of abilities that fit the goal of the monster. The abilities themselves would dictate the CR. This again is an unfleshed idea, but one which could be worked through once the groundwork of abilities are codified in relation to CR. That said, I am sure many believe this alone will not be enough because some abilities are compounded when grouped together or with other similar/supporting abilities. So, when certain combinations are involved, it will increase CR again.
I think the solution for sneak attack and ranged is not to find a way to give SA to ranged users, but to create another ability/method more in tune with ranged combat. D&D 3 called it sniping or some such (I am sure someone will correct me on that), but as long as it does not stack with SA. In my opinion, rogues are fine as is for their role, the only problem is folks want them to do their role and that of a fighter too.
I'd be fine with monsters essentially having those class templates. Just better fleshed out. The initial ones for the Core classes are fine, but they lack something. Namely a Con bonus. The Rogue Genius Games continuation to that concept, but for the APG, ACG, and Occult books, vastly improved on the original idea. You have 14+ HD and want to be a wizard? Cool. You're +3 CR and have X level spells.
As for being a sniper, that's fine if you want to take the -20 Stealth penalty and -10 with a talent/feat, but that only lets you attack once per round. The reason why people make into fighter types is because they get upwards of three attacks and can only get their SA if they go into melee and flank. Most rogues can't use reach weapons with finesse unless they take a specific elven spear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I got tired of trying to go to their site to talk about this. I really don't like how it is set up, wish it was more like this one.
I do have some problems with monster design.
-Base stats(HD/BA) should not be based on type. Monster grouped into categories like martial, skill, magic, psychic, divine, etc. would be interesting.
-Elementals should be it's own creature type.
-Vermin should be a subtype of animal.
-Constructs and Undead should have a Con score.
-Outsider type should no longer exist, use celestial, fiend, aeon, protean, etc. as creature type.
-Couatls should be dragons.
-Centaurs, hags, trolls, willow wisp, and yuki-onna should be fey.
-Nagas should be magical beast.
-Monstrous humanoid only exists for a martial version of humanoid, so not really needed. Though maybe interesting as a subtype.
-Would love a spirit subtype.
|
|
General Feats that give you bonuses to you skill checks, should make at least one of those skills into class skills. For example, Street Smarts gives you “+2 bonus on Knowledge (local) and Sense Motive checks, and Knowledge (local) is always a class skill for you. If you have 10 or more ranks in one of these skills, the bonus increases to +4 for that skill. The bonus on Sense Motive checks doesn’t stack with Alertness.“
That should be the norm for all of them, including Skill Focus. For Alertness, make it Perception.
The feats won’t always be highly sought after, especially for classes that already have access to practically every skill, but it’ll give other classes access to skills they’d never see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not all animals are "beast", never liked the category of beast, unless "magical" is added.
I am fine with giants being humanoid especially when type no longer determines base stats.
Monstrous humanoids should just be humanoid(medusa and minotaurs) though some former monstrous humanoids might be better as magical beast.
"Monstrosities" sound like aliens or artificial creatures like aberrations or constructs.
|
|
I’ll add to that.
Giants should be their own type, like they used to be.
Magical beasts and monstrous humanoids should be a single type: monstrosities.
Animals and vermin should be one type: beasts.The names can be workshopped, but they’re OGL so there’s no worries about copyright.
I do prefer less types, so merging Vermin into a subset of animals (and getting rid of the Int nonability, because spiders have a friggin Craft skill, as do ants and paper wasps, which is Int-based, and they have the ability to Intimidate, a social skill, etc. It's just silly for bees, creatures that *can do math* to have no Int score...).
Ahem, tangent took over. I'm sane again.
Anywho, less types is cool, so I actually like that elementals are now folded into outsiders, and giants into humanoids, and wouldn't mind taking it a step further and folding fey into outsiders (some with the native subtype, but First World-ers being extraplanar, as appropriate).
Magical Beasts and Monstrous Humanoids being folded together, not so sure on that. I think I'd keep those seperate.
So, clearly, I'm not to be trusted, as I just contradicted myself. :)
I still remember the confusion and discussions while playing that caused the creature type changes that Pathfinder made with respect to D&D3. To the extend that more than 10 years from then some of those discussions and doubts still arise at some veteran tables.
If this is an effort to hold the torch and continue the D&D3-Pathfinder line, I would say, the less changes to creature types, the best.
Now if this effort to update the game is more in line with what Pathfinder 2e did, to obtain a new game full of new ideas, just change as much as you like.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Magical Beasts and Monstrous Humanoids being folded together, not so sure on that. I think I'd keep those seperate.
On this point specifically, for me, Monstrous Humanoid is the creature type I have a problem with. I think the line between it and humanoid and it and magical beasts are thin enough it should be in one or another, and don't care which. In many ways, thematically, they fit best with humanoids, since they have more developed cultures and social structures, but then they break the implied rule that humanoids = bipeds for creatures like centaurs for example. For me though, a bugbear is pretty monstrous, and if it's a humanoid, so should pretty much all creatures in the monstrous humanoid type.
|
|
On this point specifically, for me, Monstrous Humanoid is the creature type I have a problem with. I think the line between it and humanoid and it and magical beasts are thin enough it should be in one or another, and don't care which. In many ways, thematically, they fit best with humanoids, since they have more developed cultures and social structures, but then they break the implied rule that humanoids = bipeds for creatures like centaurs for example. For me though, a bugbear is pretty monstrous, and if it's a humanoid, so should pretty much all creatures in the monstrous humanoid type.
Magical Beasts and Monstrous Humanoids being folded together, not so sure on that. I think I'd keep those seperate.
Yeah, but you can argue that for any creature. In 5e, they changed the devourer to a fiend instead of an undead. You could argue that some monstrous humanoids should be aberrations. It's a thin line regardless.
If you're weakening the influence of creature types on the stats - mentioned above, and a good idea IMO - then making significant changes to the categorisation seems unnecessary.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
If you're weakening the influence of creature types on the stats - mentioned above, and a good idea IMO - then making significant changes to the categorisation seems unnecessary.
To an extent, in terms of building the monsters stat blocks and designing them, yes. But in terms of things like favored enemies, bane weapons, and the various beast/elemental/plant/etc. shape/form spells, no.
I'd go a step back and question the concept of creature types. Then I'd notice that it has its purposes:
1) Help to understand a new creature. A type sharpens your initial idea what this creature is.
2) Add a fitting package of traits without having to spell them out. If it's undead, it's immune to most Fortitude stuff, period. No need to have that in the stat block yet another time.
3) Divide the encountered creatures into chunks of (very, very roughly) same size. This way decisions about favored enemy or bane are interesting, in theory.
Then I'd evaluate potential types (from PF1, other sources or my own imagination) by these 3 points. For example, undead are IMO good at 1), excellent at 2) and solid at 3). On the other hand, aberrations are IMO bad at 1), solid at 2) and solid at 3) - this type needs some work or to be removed.
I'd stick with the human-centric categories ("humans", "humanoids", maybe even "monstrous humanoids") - after all, that's what human players understand best. No need to dive into biological classifications too much, where humans are just one of countless animal types.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giants should be their own type, like they used to be.
It always bothered me in 3e that statblocks for things like Ogres would say thing like "Large Giant", when they were the smallest kinds of giants. I am aware it is an aesthetic thing and I may be the only one bothered by it, but I considered the "Large Humanoid (Giant)" a great improvement for that alone.
_
glass.
Could always go 5e’s route and take things back to AD&D, and make all the standard giants huge size again. Ogres being large while fire and frost giants are huge would make more sense.
|
|
In 5e, they changed the devourer to a fiend instead of an undead. You could argue that some monstrous humanoids should be aberrations. It's a thin line regardless.Actually the devourer wasn't undead when it was first introduced. Making them undead in 3.x was a puzzling move, tbh. They aren't fiends either, so good job in unundeading it but minus several points for making them fiends.
Yeah, I’m not sure who made the call in 3.0, but they should have been outsider (extraplanar), but probably went undead because it was easier to explain the level drain, even though the succubus, an outsider, has a similar ability. I guess in 5e they could have gone monstrosity, but fiend due to its planar/outsiderness. They only have so many favored enemy categories.
|
|
On this point specifically, for me, Monstrous Humanoid is the creature type I have a problem with.
It is kind of specious at times, seeming like any humanoid with an innate supernatural or spell-like ability automatically becomes a monstrous humanoid, which begs the question of why aasimar or gnomes aren't 'monstrous humanoids.'
I would not terribly care if monstrous humanoid died a quiet death, and just some humanoids are more or less 'monstrous' like minotaurs or whatever. (Even the word 'humanoid' is a bit squiffy, since some creatures, like centaurs, aren't really humanoid, but are more 'people' than 'monster' and as suitable for PCs in some outdoorsy games as elves and halflings).
I still remember the confusion and discussions while playing that caused the creature type changes that Pathfinder made with respect to D&D3. To the extend that more than 10 years from then some of those discussions and doubts still arise at some veteran tables.
If this is an effort to hold the torch and continue the D&D3-Pathfinder line, I would say, the less changes to creature types, the best.
Now if this effort to update the game is more in line with what Pathfinder 2e did, to obtain a new game full of new ideas, just change as much as you like.
Ahhh yes, the reason why I ventured into the paizo boards for the first time ever.
Anyways, having given myself a crash course into the Social Combat rules for War for the Crown(and enjoying them a great deal), I find myself desiring a similar set of rules built for Traps. That way multiple people are interacting with said trap, mitigating it, or assisting in disabling/bypassing it.
|
|
I want to put in for a fixing update to the eldritch knight PrC. In addition, I would like to say that I'd love to see prestige classes stay. I know some have turned turned the prestige classes into base classes, and that's fine, but I'd rather they stick around and be something you can achieve.
Since you can't get favored skill or hit points, they should be a bit stronger than your standard classes. Most of them are. I've seen some people argue that the eldritch knight is super OP, but at the same time, these people also admit that's only because they've found ways to break the PrC using very specific optional rules. Take those out though, and it's not even close to being OP.
Back in 3.5, Complete Warrior released a PrC called the Spellsword. It was like the eldritch knight except it had a Will save, ignored 30% arcane spell failure, and could channel spells into their melee weapon 5/day (at 10th you could channel two spells at once), not unlike the arcane archer's ability. This was in addition to the bonus feat it got. Yes, it had four less "+1 spellcasting level" boosts, but back in those days the arcane archer didn't even gain additional caster levels.
For a fix, I'd ask that at 1st level, diverse training make you count as "effective fighter levels" for feat prereqs, but also stack with your bonded object/familiar if you have one. In addition, starting at 2nd level and every two levels afterwards up to 10th, that the eldritch knight ignore 5% of arcane spell failure. This would allow you to ignore a total of 25%. That's not a whole lot. There's still lots of armor with 40% spell failure, so the character would almost always have to get mithral to make the most use of it. The main reason I ask for that is because of the 10th level ability, Spell Critical. It's a swift action, same as the Arcane Armor Training feats. You can't use both.
------------
Regarding magic items, can the caster's shield and greater caster's shield, in the Corefinder update, NOT have arcane spell failure. The item makes a point of letting you know it has 5% failure. It's a light wooden shield. It's always had that. Not sure why it needs to be brought up. Maybe because it's a CASTER shield and shouldn't have any to begin with.
Just a thought.