| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- A follow-up feat for Expanded Spellstrike that denies the target a possible Saving Throw when hit.
- Medium and Mesmerist "minds" for the Psychic
- Bloodrager instinct for the Barbarian
- Ninja racket for the Rogue
- Samurai archetype
- Focus "spells" for the Fighter, obtained via Fighter feats, reflecting powerful signature moves
- A "spellcasting" research field for the Alchemist, with mutagens and bombos mimicking spells
- Wieldable weapon or wearable armor Eidolons for the Summoner
- Feats that expand a Thaumaturge's implements with extra stuff, such as wand gaining Acid, Sonic or Mental damage.
I'll reiterate how those are my most wanted features.
A Magus with Expanded Spellstrike is good, but a second feat that doesn't let your target save against the spell used with Expanded Spellstrike would be more useful.
For the Fighter's "Focus Spells", just give it a Spell, once per day, as a Strike that deals my weapon's die x my level = your BBEG is now struggling to keep its limbs from falling off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NGL I would really like to see 'signature moves' as an idea.
Feel like Paizo's dabbled in the idea with inventor abilities and a handful of barbarian or other class feats, but has been kind of hesitant to commit to the idea of letting people buy new attacks with feats.
Kineticists are breaking this barrier by being all about that and I hope maybe Paizo is willing to go back and give some existing classes a little bit of that energy.
... magical alchemist options sound neat too. I know Paizo has worked hard to separate the lore but I still find myself really wishing my alchemists were better at crafting potions, there are a lot of neat ones that feel fitting.
I also want more 'useless' alchemical items. Give me like, alchemical perfumes and hair dyes and spray paint and alchemical equivalents to ration tonics and just all sorts of other things that aren't clearly useful in a traditional sense but weird and dumb and neat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll reiterate how those are my most wanted features.
A Magus with Expanded Spellstrike is good, but a second feat that doesn't let your target save against the spell used with Expanded Spellstrike would be more useful.
For the Fighter's "Focus Spells", just give it a Spell, once per day, as a Strike that deals my weapon's die x my level = your BBEG is now struggling to keep its limbs from falling off.
A good rule of thumb is to consider how players would feel having those same powers used against themselves. After all, levels represent power as much for NPCs as for PCs.
I, and I'll reckon a majority of players, would loathe autofail on a spell effect because some flanking minion Magus cast True Strike. That's even if one excludes spells with Incapacitation.
Ditto for the 1/day, which favors NPCs with greatswords and no second combat to worry about.
Which is to say, be careful what you wish for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something psychic started and kineticist is sort of touching on are non x/times per day, or focus point resources (obviously psychic has a lot of expendables but their strong cantrips and unleash psyche have no resource used except for cooldown/actions/drawbacks). I would love more mechanics like those, things like cooldowns, gaining points of some kind, or even toggle based stuff like panache. Starfinder does these sorts of classes really well with solarian, vanguard and now evolutionist.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's not how Paizo likes to do things but I really want a way to make Int based medicine a thing.
Int is kind of a crusty stat already and it bugs me to no end that academic doctor is just not something Paizo thinks should exist.
Plus like... Alchemists? Investigators? It feels like they should be good at anatomy and stuff like that.
... magical alchemist options sound neat too. I know Paizo has worked hard to separate the lore but I still find myself really wishing my alchemists were better at crafting potions, there are a lot of neat ones that feel fitting.
I love the Esoterica feats on the Thaumaturge, and think they could be reworked as research field abilities on a class archetype for the Alchemist. I have the bare bones of one; I think I'll try to finish it up this year so I can plug in items that get released with the Treasure Trove.
Talismans, Potions, Feather Tokens, and Magical Snares all seem like they could be quickly made into research fields (2 of these already having archetypes that provide the needed framework), and I'm eager to see what other options might present themselves in a few months. Temporary Wands, Staves, Fulus, and Spellhearts might be more difficult
Although scrolls do present a problem, as the archetypes don't work quite the same for them as other consumables. But I also noticed that Bound casting MC archetypes have a lot of similarities to how temporary scroll feats work, so a Sc/Roll caster seems pretty possible. Narratively, it works well with how bound casting works; your magic is limited to a hard number of scrolls you can create in a given day, but the power of those scrolls increases with experience.
I'll reiterate how those are my most wanted features.
A Magus with Expanded Spellstrike is good, but a second feat that doesn't let your target save against the spell used with Expanded Spellstrike would be more useful.
For the Fighter's "Focus Spells", just give it a Spell, once per day, as a Strike that deals my weapon's die x my level = your BBEG is now struggling to keep its limbs from falling off.
A good rule of thumb is to consider how players would feel having those same powers used against themselves. After all, levels represent power as much for NPCs as for PCs.
I, and I'll reckon a majority of players, would loathe autofail on a spell effect because some flanking minion Magus cast True Strike. That's even if one excludes spells with Incapacitation.
Ditto for the 1/day, which favors NPCs with greatswords and no second combat to worry about.Which is to say, be careful what you wish for.
It's not a bad thing to make some effects extra nasty so that players take steps to avoid them.
In systems where high effect abilities are present on both sides, it calls for a different sort of approach to combat. There are systems where combat is to be avoided unless you are the initiator and have a sufficient advantage to route the enemy with minimal risk to oneself. In such systems, you treat combat as war and are encouraged to use dirty tricks. An equal CR foe, much less one several notches higher in threat than yourself, should be weakened, avoided, negotiated with, tricked, or otherwise placed at a severe disadvantage before the violence starts. It doesn't tend to lend to grand fantasy and heroic ideals of chivalrous combat.
One probably doesn't picture their champion as the sort who would harry a target for days; denying them sleep, cutting them off from access to forage and water, etc to make the fight easier but in a realistic setting this is how one fights. I wouldn't mind if Paizo put forth some effort to give more support to this style of play but I also won't hold my breath for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Related to the post above, my biggest want for Pathfinder is support for styles of play outside of the game's initial scope. For all their balance issues and rules clumsiness older editions tended to be better about supporting multiple modes of play. I would like to see products designed to help a play group tune the base game to different settings.
I'd enjoy a Blood and Iron book that nudges the game towards a combat-as-war style with official rules tweaks and GM advice for getting existing content to fit such a style. Or a book that makes wilder changes such as a full book dedicated to how one might approach making the game classless while maintaining a reasonable - if inevitably looser - balance. Or even a book that explains how the Paizo team envisions the system working and why certain design choices have been made so that house rule material can be made with greater homogeneity to the base rules and so tweaks can be made to revise design choices that a play group who otherwise likes the system takes issue with.
Related to the post above, my biggest want for Pathfinder is support for styles of play outside of the game's initial scope.
Is this a request for more variant rules?
Related to the post above, my biggest want for Pathfinder is support for styles of play outside of the game's initial scope. For all their balance issues and rules clumsiness older editions tended to be better about supporting multiple modes of play. I would like to see products designed to help a play group tune the base game to different settings.
Does "outside of the game's initial scope mean Epic Tier or nonviolent political drama? How far beyond "kick down the door and murder things on a square grid with d20 combat" are we talking here?
From another thread it sounds like they want options for hyper lethal combat where part of the experience is about avoiding direct battles or setting up ambushes or traps, ala something like Dark Heresy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's not how Paizo likes to do things but I really want a way to make Int based medicine a thing.
Int is kind of a crusty stat already and it bugs me to no end that academic doctor is just not something Paizo thinks should exist.
Plus like... Alchemists? Investigators? It feels like they should be good at anatomy and stuff like that.
I've rallied against Wisdom as a bizarre umbrella stat longer than most of my friends have played tabletop; it's so strange that it's not only a Franken-hybrid of perception, piety, and willpower, but also arbitrarily covers certain fields of knowledge that are deemed to be "folksy." It's pretty insulting to say that those who understand medicine and nature aren't using their Intelligence!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Related to the post above, my biggest want for Pathfinder is support for styles of play outside of the game's initial scope.Is this a request for more variant rules?
Yes.
I'd love an Unearthed Arcana or Heroes of Horror-like series of books from Paizo. Essentially I'd be looking for official ways to change up the core assumptions of Pathfinder 2 while maintaining balance and ease of play in a way that house rules and 3rd party content often fail to achieve.
-----
Related to the post above, my biggest want for Pathfinder is support for styles of play outside of the game's initial scope. For all their balance issues and rules clumsiness older editions tended to be better about supporting multiple modes of play. I would like to see products designed to help a play group tune the base game to different settings.Does "outside of the game's initial scope mean Epic Tier or nonviolent political drama? How far beyond "kick down the door and murder things on a square grid with d20 combat" are we talking here?
In terms of the number one change, I'd like to see in an official book, I'd want to see a move away from the idea of combat as a puzzle. I'd define combat as a puzzle as Paizo's current game-like state where party and enemy alike are held in tight balance such that gamified and specific tactics are required to solve each battle. The current edition of the game can feel a bit like XCOM or Final Fantasy Tactics rather than a freeform TTRPG where players are encouraged to think beyond the rules and solve combat by rather unfair means.
To that end, I'd want a flatter power curve (perhaps akin to a D&D 5e style flat AC and to Hit system), with rules for how to modify monsters so they fit this paradigm. Then I'd want deadlier effects on both sides, much reduced HP pools, fewer spell slots per day but each spell being massively impactful, and where divine healing can save the mortally wounded but not heal them to full effectiveness instantly. Pair this with impactful environmental modifiers that both enemies and PCs alike should try to use and you have a system where combat is deadly for both sides and thus avoided outside of sure wins and forced engagements.
Essentially, how would the people of Golarion treat combat if they were real and the system not a game designed to give a small group of players an adequately challenging power fantasy?
-----
From another thread it sounds like they want options for hyper lethal combat where part of the experience is about avoiding direct battles or setting up ambushes or traps, ala something like Dark Heresy.
You nailed it. I can enjoy the combat as a game style that the current game has and admit that it does make GMing very easy but as a player, it feels a bit like wearing a straight jacket and being told to color within the lines. There's precious little of that old AD&D spirit left in the system so you don't even see players suggest that the best way to clear a small dungeon would be to set a fire before it and attempt to suffocate the occupants with smoke.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are RPGs out there that speak to that sensibility, literally the whole OSR movement is "combat is deadly, best avoided" line of thinking. We're talking about a double-digit number of such games at this point, and most of them will do a better job at this than Pathfinder.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm likewise curious what's to be gained from trying to muscle PF2 into an OSR shape, rather than just... playing a game meant for that style. What do you want to *keep* from this game in such a thing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've rallied against Wisdom as a bizarre umbrella stat longer than most of my friends have played tabletop; it's so strange that it's not only a Franken-hybrid of perception, piety, and willpower, but also arbitrarily covers certain fields of knowledge that are deemed to be "folksy." It's pretty insulting to say that those who understand medicine and nature aren't using their Intelligence!I know it's not how Paizo likes to do things but I really want a way to make Int based medicine a thing.
Int is kind of a crusty stat already and it bugs me to no end that academic doctor is just not something Paizo thinks should exist.
Plus like... Alchemists? Investigators? It feels like they should be good at anatomy and stuff like that.
Nah I'm good. I'd rather druids have nature skill keying off a key stat and clerics have religion keying off a key stat. I think that's well worth any weirdness
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are RPGs out there that speak to that sensibility, literally the whole OSR movement is "combat is deadly, best avoided" line of thinking. We're talking about a double-digit number of such games at this point, and most of them will do a better job at this than Pathfinder.
The issue is that, aside from D&D and perhaps Cyberpunk, Pathfinder is the biggest thing going. You're far more likely to attract a group, especially for those of us who only wish to play in person, by saying you want to run Pathfinder than by saying you wish to run [insert game]. That and Pathfinder has some generally very good ideas - like the underutilized 3-action system - that are very worth keeping for even an OSR-style game.
-----
I'm likewise curious what's to be gained from trying to muscle PF2 into an OSR shape, rather than just... playing a game meant for that style. What do you want to *keep* from this game in such a thing?
The recognizable name for attracting players, the 3-action system, the lore and world-building, the feats and general class design, and the base stat blocks that would then be modified. Probably around 50% of the game could be kept as is, 25% heavily modified, and 25% tossed out completely. The supplement wouldn't do this work for anybody - especially changing monster stat blocks and changing spell effects - but give guidelines for what to change and set some entirely new rules to make the whole thing work.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah I'm good. I'd rather druids have nature skill keying off a key stat and clerics have religion keying off a key stat. I think that's well worth any weirdness
Couldn't that be done with a class feature that just gives these classes the ability to use Wisdom for specific skills due to their connection to a higher power?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are RPGs out there that speak to that sensibility, literally the whole OSR movement is "combat is deadly, best avoided" line of thinking. We're talking about a double-digit number of such games at this point, and most of them will do a better job at this than Pathfinder.The issue is that, aside from D&D and perhaps Cyberpunk, Pathfinder is the biggest thing going. You're far more likely to attract a group, especially for those of us who only wish to play in person, by saying you want to run Pathfinder than by saying you wish to run [insert game]. That and Pathfinder has some generally very good ideas - like the underutilized 3-action system - that are very worth keeping for even an OSR-style game.
-----
I'm likewise curious what's to be gained from trying to muscle PF2 into an OSR shape, rather than just... playing a game meant for that style. What do you want to *keep* from this game in such a thing?The recognizable name for attracting players, the 3-action system, the lore and world-building, the feats and general class design, and the base stat blocks that would then be modified. Probably around 50% of the game could be kept as is, 25% heavily modified, and 25% tossed out completely. The supplement wouldn't do this work for anybody - especially changing monster stat blocks and changing spell effects - but give guidelines for what to change and set some entirely new rules to make the whole thing work.
The thing is, people play Pathfinder not because it's popular, it's because it's what they want to play. If it's PF2, they want a crunchy, tight math wargame with many character options. A game that's "Pathfinder, but it's actually an OSR game" makes little sense; there are more complete OSR games out there already that address this particular idea.
The three-action system is great, not underutilized at all, but it's also a very "modern" and "gamey" thing, exactly the kind of stuff OSR baulks at, because it keeps closer to "you can move, attack/cast a spell, and maybe do something else that GM allows you" paradigm.
There is some appeal in a game that's basically an OSR with some Pathfinder DNA and Golarion-specific content, but I'm not seeing Paizo doing that; it's an ideal candidate for a 3PP product, tho!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, people play Pathfinder not because it's popular, it's because it's what they want to play. If it's PF2, they want a crunchy, tight math wargame with many character options. A game that's "Pathfinder, but it's actually an OSR game" makes little sense; there are more complete OSR games out there already that address this particular idea.
I've generally found myself drawn to games that are flexible so perhaps I'm just not the target audience for a system like Pathfinder which is very much a singularly focused system. I respect something like Heroes of Horror and Unearthed Arcana for D&D 3.5. It can be debated how successfully they translated their ideas into the system but I respect that for giving fairly wild and transformative ideas for new ways to use the system you've already invested in.
The three-action system is great, not underutilized at all, but it's also a very "modern" and "gamey" thing, exactly the kind of stuff OSR baulks at, because it keeps closer to "you can move, attack/cast a spell, and maybe do something else that GM allows you" paradigm.
I feel like there should be a far greater mix of abilities that take 1, 2, or 3 actions to accomplish. I was at first excited to see spells that took 1 action and 3 actions but we just don't see many spells that don't stick firmly with 2-action casting. You could even extend action counts beyond a single turn to create spells that take 4 or more actions to cast. Instead, the system seems mainly to be used to restrict things and bind otherwise interesting classes up in managing action economy rather than fulfilling their core appeal.
This may be required for balance but it has pushed me away from wanting to play otherwise interesting concepts because of how they've been squished into Pathfinder 2's balance paradigm.
There is some appeal in a game that's basically an OSR with some Pathfinder DNA and Golarion-specific content, but I'm not seeing Paizo doing that; it's an ideal candidate for a 3PP product, tho!
I'm not expecting it either. I just came by to drop my thoughts in a couple of what do you want/need type threads and might or might not stick around to talk about a game that I half enjoy and half am repulsed by.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're a bit behind with Pathfinder 2e material, there are now several multi-action spells or even more-than-one-round spells, such as Horizon Thunder Sphere. There was a design comment earlier that Paizo is light on designing such spells because they tend to induce decision paralysis.
I don't agree with the "binding" comment at all. PF1 was all about weaponising/abusing swift actions, 5e is all about doing the same with bonus actions, PF2 action economy is one of the best D&D offshoots had in a while. In fact, the OSR action economy was, to me at least, "binding", because ultimately, what you could do in a round (beyond move/attack/cast spell) was down to GM's whim.
Finally, I don't think that you can be "repulsed" by a gaming system. It's a weirdly loaded word for talking about games that are about pretending to be an elf fighting monsters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're a bit behind with Pathfinder 2e material, there are now several multi-action spells or even more-than-one-round spells, such as Horizon Thunder Sphere. There was a design comment earlier that Paizo is light on designing such spells because they tend to induce decision paralysis.
I would have liked to see the entire magic system designed around variable action spells with Paizo respecting players enough to know that many of us will figure it out or else simply not choose such spells.
I don't agree with the "binding" comment at all. PF1 was all about weaponising/abusing swift actions, 5e is all about doing the same with bonus actions, PF2 action economy is one of the best D&D offshoots had in a while. In fact, the OSR action economy was, to me at least, "binding", because ultimately, what you could do in a round (beyond move/attack/cast spell) was down to GM's whim.
You seem to fundamentally like PF2 as a system, while I like the bones of it but not the meat hung from them. The way the rules are written is very good, and the 3-action system is amazing for gamers who want a level of crunch to their combat; the harsh focus on balance and the stripping of player agency within the world is a terrible cost for that.
You also mistake me for somebody who wants a pure OSR rules set and that is also not me. I am progressive in that I want the best rules possible to build around a system that treats combat as the deadly serious thing it is. I like Paizo and a lot of what they are doing now and in the past but the philosophy of rigidly enforced mechanical equality in PF2 is not one I can get behind.
Finally, I don't think that you can be "repulsed" by a gaming system. It's a weirdly loaded word for talking about games that are about pretending to be an elf fighting monsters.
Loaded, in what way? I'm not here to war about editions or yuck anybody's yum. If people like the game that's excellent, don't let my complaints stop you. I'm here to express what I want from the game and people are free to respond to my posts or ignore them as they wish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On this, I would like a sort of "biomod" system as well, possibly in some kind of "Ultimate Alchemy" book or something.Oh, it's a small thing, but a Fleshwarp-like Versatile Heritage would be a big help. I'd love the idea to inject just a little aberrant or mutant flavor into any other Ancestry.As much as we like the choice to make fleshwarp an ancestry.(let me play my fleshwarp tiefling who was transformed by the waters of lamashtu). I do think a versatile heritage that lets you take fleshwarp feats or ones with similar fluff/mechanics would be wonderful and open up some more concepts.Absolutely! Let me play a weirdo with all sorts of gnarly implants - it's one of the big reasons I want "Book of the Dead, but for aberrations."
Back in ye olde 3.5, Magic of Eberron had a number of supernatural supernatural "grafts" player characters could acquire; I remember options for magical plants, "deathless" (positive-energy undead) flesh, and pieces of elementals all being in. Stuff like that, plus more general alchemical body horror, would be a nice complement to the clockwork prosthetics we've seen.
To say nothing, of course, of Numerian cybernetics, or whatever wild magic/skymetal tech Arcadians have surely found a way to fit into their bodies.
This. Fwiw, sci-fi has never been separate from fantasy (unlike what some DnD guys seem to think). Modules dating from ye olden days of the 1970s had major sci-fi elements, not even mentioning what paizo has done in recent years.
But also, more multiversal/universal exploration stuff and sourcebooks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have liked to see the entire magic system designed around variable action spells with Paizo respecting players enough to know that many of us will figure it out or else simply not choose such spells.
If the entire magic system was to revolve around variable action spells, you arguably couldn't use it if VAS weren't your jam. Your logic does not compute here.
You seem to fundamentally like PF2 as a system, while I like the bones of it but not the meat hung from them. The way the rules are written is very good, and the 3-action system is amazing for gamers who want a level of crunch to their combat; the harsh focus on balance and the stripping of player agency within the world is a terrible cost for that.
You also mistake me for somebody who wants a pure OSR rules set and that is also not me. I am progressive in that I want the best rules possible to build around a system that treats combat as the deadly serious thing it is. I like Paizo and a lot of what they are doing now and in the past but the philosophy of rigidly enforced mechanical equality in PF2 is not one I can get behind.
Have you played PF2 to any serious extent? Because combat is deadly and dangerous here, most of any modern D&D iteration. Two crits from a level +3/4 monster and you're down. Make a major tactical mistake and you're down. Compared to padded HP sumo of 4e or idle autowin CharOp festival of PF1, it's a game that's borderline gruelling at earlier levels.
Now of course, this isn't a "thus the monster tears your bowels open, roll 1d100 on disembowelment table to see how many rounds will it take for you to expire messily" type of deadly, but D&D was never that.
Loaded, in what way? I'm not here to war about editions or yuck anybody's yum. If people like the game that's excellent, don't let my complaints...
I mean that hyperbole such as "repulsive" or "terrible cost" doesn't do you many favours in arguing about a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, what do I still need.
Skill Feats - A lot of skills have minimal skill feats. I want an explosion of good skill feats for each skill. Give me good reasons to take them!
I sympathize, and even somewhat agree, but... we had that thread.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43pbl?Skill-feat-ideas#1
It went... basically nowhere.
If we want to get a bunch of exciting, flavorful skill feats to play with, we need to start by identifying which skills need feats, and what kind of feats we'd like to have for them.
Personally, I took a stab at it and failed. If you want to try to resuscitate that thread with a few cool ideas of your own, that would be awesome. Do you have any cool ideas of your own? I'm fresh out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the entire magic system was to revolve around variable action spells, you arguably couldn't use it if VAS weren't your jam. Your logic does not compute here.
I'd see that system with some basic 2-action spells woven in the way VAS spells are used now. Or just put in a sidebar that says tables can choose to play with some or all VAS spells as two-actions only. It really isn't that hard to make a more complex system simpler for those who might need it.
Have you played PF2 to any serious extent? Because combat is deadly and dangerous here, most of any modern D&D iteration. Two crits from a level +3/4 monster and you're down. Make a major tactical mistake and you're down. Compared to padded HP sumo of 4e or idle autowin CharOp festival of PF1, it's a game that's borderline gruelling at earlier levels.
It isn't deadly though. Characters can yoyo up and down the HP ladder without any long-term ill effects so as long as you beat the encounter and get to rest there was never any threat and everybody will be fine the next day. Compare that to systems that actually threaten players for failure and you can see that PF2 is still very much a theme park where the enemies are swinging nerf weapons and combat is more a tactical puzzle than a life-or-death struggle.
I mean that hyperbole such as "repulsive" or "terrible cost" doesn't do you many favours in arguing about a game.
I am, among those who know me, a rather famously hyperbolic person; to the point where sometimes friends have to ask if I'm serious or not about things. The thing is that I am often verbally negative with a smile on my face, insulting a thing I enjoy for its flaws because I am driven to make things better. I am a happy pessimist who uses impactful terms - and sometimes heated debate - to get to the core of an idea because I simply do not care for pleasantries and dancing around issues for the sake of politeness.
I am not for everybody and do not care to be.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, what do I still need.
Skill Feats - A lot of skills have minimal skill feats. I want an explosion of good skill feats for each skill. Give me good reasons to take them!
I sympathize, and even somewhat agree, but... we had that thread.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43pbl?Skill-feat-ideas#1
It went... basically nowhere.
If we want to get a bunch of exciting, flavorful skill feats to play with, we need to start by identifying which skills need feats, and what kind of feats we'd like to have for them.
Personally, I took a stab at it and failed. If you want to try to resuscitate that thread with a few cool ideas of your own, that would be awesome. Do you have any cool ideas of your own? I'm fresh out.
I almost wonder if skill feats were a bad idea in the first place. I think it may have been a better idea to gate certain powerful uses behind proficiency or behind difficult-to-reach DCs and allow other - currently feat-gated - skill uses with a small penalty to your check. Then we could have general feats, now more plentiful throughout your character's levels, that allow you to remove these penalties from an entire skill for a single feat.
It's streamlined and allows for cooler, if often unlikely to succeed, uses of skills right from level 1.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I almost wonder if skill feats were a bad idea in the first place. I think it may have been a better idea to gate certain powerful uses behind proficiency or behind difficult-to-reach DCs and allow other - currently feat-gated - skill uses with a small penalty to your check. Then we could have general feats, now more plentiful throughout your character's levels, that allow you to remove these penalties from an entire skill for a single feat.
It's streamlined and allows for cooler, if often unlikely to succeed, uses of skills right from level 1.
Skill feats are awesome and I'll tell you why.
It's because, as a charop junkie, skill feats mean that I have a resource on my character sheet that ties directly into noncombat abilities. In order to fully optimize my character, I *have* to figure out a way to leverage them. Otherwise I'm just leaving power on the table, and I *hate* doing that. That gives me reasons to actually care about my skills and which skills I have and how I'm using them. It almost forces a degree of depth on my character. If I decide that I'm going to have a bunch of medicine feats, then suddenly I have an opening to explain how and why I trained in medicine, and what that means for me. It gives me reason to fill out the noncombat part of my character, and then it gives me ongoing reason to care about it.
We value and pay attention to the things that we have to pay for. Skill feats is a way of leveraging that in very useful ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I almost wonder if skill feats were a bad idea in the first place. I think it may have been a better idea to gate certain powerful uses behind proficiency or behind difficult-to-reach DCs and allow other - currently feat-gated - skill uses with a small penalty to your check. Then we could have general feats, now more plentiful throughout your character's levels, that allow you to remove these penalties from an entire skill for a single feat.
It's streamlined and allows for cooler, if often unlikely to succeed, uses of skills right from level 1.
Skill feats are awesome and I'll tell you why.
It's because, as a charop junkie, skill feats mean that I have a resource on my character sheet that ties directly into noncombat abilities. In order to fully optimize my character, I *have* to figure out a way to leverage them. Otherwise I'm just leaving power on the table, and I *hate* doing that. That gives me reasons to actually care about my skills and which skills I have and how I'm using them. It almost forces a degree of depth on my character. If I decide that I'm going to have a bunch of medicine feats, then suddenly I have an opening to explain how and why I trained in medicine, and what that means for me. It gives me reason to fill out the noncombat part of my character, and then it gives me ongoing reason to care about it.
We value and pay attention to the things that we have to pay for. Skill feats is a way of leveraging that in very useful ways.
How do you feel about purely skill-based systems where your character is defined by their main stats, skills, and gear only? I've played and enjoyed several and can attest that many of them do allow for optimization; even if more modern games take steps to curb serious abuses.
I often find myself thinking that feats in general, especially as done in PF2, actually just limit things that a skilled character should just be able to do. PF2 would appeal to me just as much if classes were boiled down to a few key special abilities, possibly how many HP they gain per level, and how many skill points per skill category they gain per level. You'd then gate what is currently locked behind feats by skill investment and character builds would be defined by which skills they choose to advance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. I think d20-based stuff just isn't for you, at least in a way that mass market games are likely to serve.
Anyway, to the skill feat topic: I'd love more higher tier feats that do weird things, like the Consult Spirits line. Medicine has some really neat things. I don't know what that'd look like but really anything where you might pause the game and try to figure out how to represent a thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you feel about purely skill-based systems where your character is defined by their main stats, skills, and gear only? I've played and enjoyed several and can attest that many of them do allow for optimization; even if more modern games take steps to curb serious abuses.
I often find myself thinking that feats in general, especially as done in PF2, actually just limit things that a skilled character should just be able to do. PF2 would appeal to me just as much if classes were...
I feel that they're completely different systems that strive for and achieve completely different things.
I played a decent bit of White Wolf back int eh day, and the major issue there was that there was so little in common between the characters. Like, if you had a character who was specced for social and a character who was specced for combat, then "who's awesome, and who gets nothing" was a question of "what kind of scene is this?" Beyond that, all of the abilities were so severely context-specific that tuned balance wasn't just missing, it was almost impossible to even define.
PF2 literally puts everyone on the same battlefield, which is great. It then also makes sure that everyone is walking in with a decent helping of noncombat abilities, even if combat was literally the only thing they cared about when making their character... and for those who wish to optimize for things that are not combat, they get to have a decent supply of combat ability anyway, as long as they're willing to follow some relatively simple build rules about stat distribution. and pick a halfway attack cantrip or weapon, depending.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. I think d20-based stuff just isn't for you, at least in a way that mass market games are likely to serve.
You're correct, though I do run a regular 5e game and enjoy it in spite of that system being bad at just about everything.
-----
I played a decent bit of White Wolf back int eh day, and the major issue there was that there was so little in common between the characters. Like, if you had a character who was specced for social and a character who was specced for combat, then "who's awesome, and who gets nothing" was a question of "what kind of scene is this?" Beyond that, all of the abilities were so severely context-specific that tuned balance wasn't just missing, it was almost impossible to even define.
I've never been the biggest fan of White Wolf's rules, so I agree with you on that system. I think you might get more from a system like Eclipse Phase or Cyberpunk RED.
I can also say that my favorite character ever was a hacker in a Cyberpunk game. By the standards of the setting, he was basically unarmed with only a pair of medium pistols; one registered and legal and one black market. There weren't a ton of fights but the few we had involved him running and hiding and being a massively self-serving coward. His role was as a hacker and social engineer and he had a massive impact using those skills.
It takes a certain kind of game and a skilled GM to allow those divides to work.
PF2 literally puts everyone on the same battlefield, which is great. It then also makes sure that everyone is walking in with a decent helping of noncombat abilities, even if combat was literally the only thing they cared about when making their character... and for those who wish to optimize for things that are not combat, they get to have a decent supply of combat ability anyway, as long as they're willing to follow some relatively simple build rules about stat distribution. and pick a halfway attack cantrip or weapon, depending.
I feel like PF2 is designed to handhold a group through the entire process. People say the game is hard, but it's only hard because the math makes it so a certain degree of luck is required to succeed. The actual tactics themselves are shallow and limited to playing the odds with the limited set of tools the restrictive balance of the system lets any given character have.
It doesn't allow for RP within combat unless the GM is willing to run things a bit easier because it expects that in-combat optimization is what fans of the game want. The very balance the system aims for makes builds and preplanning almost an afterthought because - even more so than most d20 fantasy games - PF2 *is* the tactical puzzle of combat and everything else is window dressing.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My take - PF2 does certain things, and does them very well. Personally, I like those things. It's not GURPS, and it's not trying to be GURPS. It's trying to carve a survivable niche out for itself out of limited resources in an ecosystem dominated by someone else. The correct way to do that is to specialize, and draw in the people who like what you're specializing in, and appeal to them, and hope that the pie slice you're aiming for is large enough to feed you, and that you have what it takes to pull it off. PF2 appears to be succeeding in this thing, which is great, because that means I get to have more of it, but it just doesn't have space to also be everything else. They have enough space for things like a smallish grand-sweep military module, so that the existing players who want to include grand-seep military in their campaigns can do so. That's the kind of thing that maybe fits into the special rules section of an AP... and if they do it well enough, they might even be able to pull in a few other players who like grand-sweep military, and who are unsatisfied with how their existing RPG does it. You might have something similar for ongoing deep noble intrigue over influence in an imperial court, or whatever.
What they're not going to do is try to rebuild major chunks of the game engine. There's just not the market for it. The people who are inclined to buy their books, especially the ones that aren't core books, are that way because they're already PF2 fans. By and large, they aren't all that interested in ways to turn PF2 into something that is not PF2 - and a lot of those would take up a significant acreage of pagespace to do well. If you want a major conversion mod at the level of "remove the skill feats and replace with something else", that's pretty much going to have to be homebrew. We do have a Homebrew and Houserules subforum?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of the discussion, I must say both sides (inasmuch there are any) are saying things I agree with. I would personally rather less pressure be put on the “feats” system and more character-building options integrated into the system itself. However, I also think the basic chassis we have could stand improvement in terms of being less of a “combat puzzle box” and less restrictive for the sake of “balance.”
Currently, what I want would be some kind of “tier” system to differentiate level advancement (as much as I dislike 4e, this is one thing they actually did) and that isn’t focused solely on combat either so both GMs and players can benefit, as well as getting rid of the problem of having items be more important than the actual character (fwiw, this is the major flaw of percentile/skill systems, as well as in PF1e and I suspect is in PF2e).
Also, to reiterate an earlier opinion, better creature creation/item creation rules for GMs and players and showing how they can work in the pre-existing system (this is one of my biggest problems with DnD 5e).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. I think d20-based stuff just isn't for you, at least in a way that mass market games are likely to serve.You're correct, though I do run a regular 5e game and enjoy it in spite of that system being bad at just about everything.
-----
I played a decent bit of White Wolf back int eh day, and the major issue there was that there was so little in common between the characters. Like, if you had a character who was specced for social and a character who was specced for combat, then "who's awesome, and who gets nothing" was a question of "what kind of scene is this?" Beyond that, all of the abilities were so severely context-specific that tuned balance wasn't just missing, it was almost impossible to even define.I've never been the biggest fan of White Wolf's rules, so I agree with you on that system. I think you might get more from a system like Eclipse Phase or Cyberpunk RED.
I can also say that my favorite character ever was a hacker in a Cyberpunk game. By the standards of the setting, he was basically unarmed with only a pair of medium pistols; one registered and legal and one black market. There weren't a ton of fights but the few we had involved him running and hiding and being a massively self-serving coward. His role was as a hacker and social engineer and he had a massive impact using those skills.
It takes a certain kind of game and a skilled GM to allow those divides to work.
Digression alert—in terms of rpgs, both Eclipse Phase and Cyberpunk (and parts of the GURPS line) fall into this personal category I have where I will mine them incessantly for ideas and inspiration but would never actually try to use their settings or systems as is. (Also, *flashbacks to Cyberpunk 3e and those horrible dolls and the grenade scatter table of tedium*)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Digression alert—in terms of rpgs, both Eclipse Phase and Cyberpunk (and parts of the GURPS line) fall into this personal category I have where I will mine them incessantly for ideas and inspiration but would never actually try to use their settings or systems as is. (Also, *flashbacks to Cyberpunk 3e and those horrible dolls and the grenade scatter table of tedium*)
I find that Eclipse Phase hits a space where I'm vastly more likely to eventually write a story that uses that setting's technology base than I am to run a game in it. Beyond the tech and the rules, I almost couldn't care less about the rest of the setting and the TITANs.
Cyberpunk isn't in that same space. Though in the games I've run I often find myself moving the game away from Night City and subtly shifting things around to suit how I want to run my game. I've also stuffed in a lot of house rules as base Cyberpunk 2020 has some issues. When next I run a game using those rules I will also likely backport a bunch of stuff from RED into it.
Damn you for mentioning the Cyberpunk game that doesn't exist. The gauntlets, the dolls, the whole Cybergeneration... *shudders*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My take - PF2 does certain things, and does them very well. Personally, I like those things. It's not GURPS, and it's not trying to be GURPS. It's trying to carve a survivable niche out for itself out of limited resources in an ecosystem dominated by someone else. The correct way to do that is to specialize, and draw in the people who like what you're specializing in, and appeal to them, and hope that the pie slice you're aiming for is large enough to feed you, and that you have what it takes to pull it off. PF2 appears to be succeeding in this thing, which is great, because that means I get to have more of it, but it just doesn't have space to also be everything else. They have enough space for things like a smallish grand-sweep military module, so that the existing players who want to include grand-seep military in their campaigns can do so. That's the kind of thing that maybe fits into the special rules section of an AP... and if they do it well enough, they might even be able to pull in a few other players who like grand-sweep military, and who are unsatisfied with how their existing RPG does it. You might have something similar for ongoing deep noble intrigue over influence in an imperial court, or whatever.
What they're not going to do is try to rebuild major chunks of the game engine. There's just not the market for it. The people who are inclined to buy their books, especially the ones that aren't core books, are that way because they're already PF2 fans. By and large, they aren't all that interested in ways to turn PF2 into something that is not PF2 - and a lot of those would take up a significant acreage of pagespace to do well. If you want a major conversion mod at the level of "remove the skill feats and replace with something else", that's pretty much going to have to be homebrew. We do have a Homebrew and Houserules subforum?
I agree. I don't think Paizo can make what I would like them to in terms of both content and scale of books produced. I would love them to churn out work at the crazed rate that 3.x managed with plenty of niche side books and experimental rules but it isn't at all realistic.
As for homebrew, if I had a group for PF2 I would engage and try to make my vision a reality. As it stands, I'd be more likely to try to gather the spoons to make my own system from scratch or port a property I like into a system that better fits my preferences.
I'm going to be an oddball on these forums as somebody who enjoys RPGs but hates most of the remaining online spaces to talk about them; likes parts of PF2 and strongly dislikes other bits; wants very niche and specific things that won't ever get published but still enjoys watching the new content unfold.
Oracles, Sorcerers, Bards, and half of Psychic would like to have a word...Nah I'm good. I'd rather druids have nature skill keying off a key stat and clerics have religion keying off a key stat. I think that's well worth any weirdnessI've rallied against Wisdom as a bizarre umbrella stat longer than most of my friends have played tabletop; it's so strange that it's not only a Franken-hybrid of perception, piety, and willpower, but also arbitrarily covers certain fields of knowledge that are deemed to be "folksy." It's pretty insulting to say that those who understand medicine and nature aren't using their Intelligence!I know it's not how Paizo likes to do things but I really want a way to make Int based medicine a thing.
Int is kind of a crusty stat already and it bugs me to no end that academic doctor is just not something Paizo thinks should exist.
Plus like... Alchemists? Investigators? It feels like they should be good at anatomy and stuff like that.
That's fair. I'm a 5e immigrant, though. I really hated the wizard and rogue being better at religion than my cleric. Between the two I prefer p2e, but they could've just had stat swapping on a case by case basis as noted above. If you're going with the hammer approach over the scalpel, I prefer wisdom over intelligence
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love love love being able to use multiple attributes for a skill, and I'd greatly appreciate having completely different attributes. I want positioning to matter, I am bored in ranged but I don't want to be strong...
I wish most attributes had some sort of combat skill action. Dex characters feel so stuck with strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Digression alert—in terms of rpgs, both Eclipse Phase and Cyberpunk (and parts of the GURPS line) fall into this personal category I have where I will mine them incessantly for ideas and inspiration but would never actually try to use their settings or systems as is. (Also, *flashbacks to Cyberpunk 3e and those horrible dolls and the grenade scatter table of tedium*)I find that Eclipse Phase hits a space where I'm vastly more likely to eventually write a story that uses that setting's technology base than I am to run a game in it. Beyond the tech and the rules, I almost couldn't care less about the rest of the setting and the TITANs.
Cyberpunk isn't in that same space. Though in the games I've run I often find myself moving the game away from Night City and subtly shifting things around to suit how I want to run my game. I've also stuffed in a lot of house rules as base Cyberpunk 2020 has some issues. When next I run a game using those rules I will also likely backport a bunch of stuff from RED into it.
Damn you for mentioning the Cyberpunk game that doesn't exist. The gauntlets, the dolls, the whole Cybergeneration... *shudders*
For my Planescape Future setting, I have basically transplanted large portions of EP, as well as other sci-fi RPGs and materials, and their themes into my setting, revising/improving them as needed.
Cyberpunk Red is decent, I’m just a bit iffy on the old metaplot stuff. But seriously, “3e Cyberpunk” was like the DnD 4e of Cyberpunk, except at least 4e had actual art (also it was tremendously worse in every way than its predecessor, whereas 4e was merely mostly worse).
I'd love love love being able to use multiple attributes for a skill, and I'd greatly appreciate having completely different attributes. I want positioning to matter, I am bored in ranged but I don't want to be strong...
I wish most attributes had some sort of combat skill action. Dex characters feel so stuck with strike.
This kind of thing honestly falls into my personal “miscellaneous” category of probably about a hundred little things (like carrying capacity, travel times, etc. etc.) that I feel need to be addressed in some way or other to minimize book-keeping and maximize actually playing.
Although this specific question also raises the broader problem of "what do attributes actually do" and "how to solve the problem of certain attributes being more important than others".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. I don't think Paizo can make what I would like them to in terms of both content and scale of books produced. I would love them to churn out work at the crazed rate that 3.x managed with plenty of niche side books and experimental rules but it isn't at all realistic.
As for homebrew, if I had a group for PF2 I would engage and try to make my vision a reality. As it stands, I'd be more likely to try to gather the spoons to make my own system from scratch or port a property I like into a system that better fits my preferences.
I'm going to be an oddball on these forums as somebody who enjoys RPGs but hates most of the remaining online spaces to talk about them; likes parts of PF2 and strongly dislikes other bits; wants very niche and specific things that won't ever get published but still enjoys watching the new content unfold.
Fwiw, I actually kind of feel the same way sometimes. Which is why I like to homebrew so much.
If you’re interested, Legendary Games is making an RPG called Corefinder (working name afaik) that is currently still in the process of being made and that is accepting fan feedback on their discord. You might want to check that out.
I might have mentioned this before, but I would love to see a mechanic similar to 3.5 Crusader class Maneuvers are great but I am not talking about them. I'm talking about how the Crusader had an empty pool that could take absorb hits during a fight, it progressed with your level but it was always a delay in damage not a complete negation. And while your pool was filled you got bonus to damage based on how filled it was.
It's a very different type of tanky class/mechanic and I would love to see something similar to it in 2e.
Also I think Maneuver classes would work really well in 2e but its also almost not really needed. A lot of feats and mechanics are similar to them. In this way I think Maneuver classes would be about creating more fun actions but be balanced around other feats. Stuff that comes to mind is Kinetecist feats, Megaton strike, megavolt, various feats that cost 1 or 2 actions that let you do multiple things. So a class where the budget was put into unique martial abilities that you can call upon in a limited fashion could be fun. *could be another fun way to do something that feels thematically like a gish but not one.*
Could also be a new way to create a offensive divine character, a warrior who gets flashes of divine inspiration letting them cool flashy moves, to take down their foes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take - PF2 does certain things, and does them very well. Personally, I like those things. It's not GURPS, and it's not trying to be GURPS.
That is good because GURPS has scaling problems. Plus a ridiculous open ended list of skills. I am not a fan. These are things that PF2 got right.
It's trying to carve a survivable niche out for itself out of limited resources in an ecosystem dominated by someone else. The correct way to do that is to specialize, and draw in the people who like what you're specializing in, and appeal to them, and hope that the pie slice you're aiming for is large enough to feed you, and that you have what it takes to pull it off. PF2 appears to be succeeding in this thing, which is great, because that means I get to have more of it, but it just doesn't have space to also be everything else. They have enough space for things like a smallish grand-sweep military module, so that the existing players who want to include grand-seep military in their campaigns can do so. That's the kind of thing that maybe fits into the special rules section of an AP... and if they do it well enough, they might even be able to pull in a few other players who like grand-sweep military, and who are unsatisfied with how their existing RPG does it. You might have something similar for ongoing deep noble intrigue over influence in an imperial court, or whatever.
AFAICT PF2 is trying to cover a lot of niches. It does have androids and guns in a fantasy world. So in that respect it is like GURPS. Yes PF2 is a totally different style of game than the rules lite story games like Fate but those are a totally different concept. I don't think it reasonable to expect a cross over.
What they're not going to do is try to rebuild major chunks of the game engine. There's just not the market for it. The people who are inclined to buy their books, especially the ones that aren't core books, are that way because they're already PF2 fans. By and large, they aren't all that interested in ways to turn PF2 into something that is not PF2 - and a lot of those would take up a significant acreage of pagespace to do well. If you want a major conversion mod at the level of "remove the skill feats and replace with something else", that's pretty much going to have to be homebrew. We do have a Homebrew and Houserules subforum?
Certainly that would be a new game. But just fiddling with a few simple rules like say the time required for a short rest, could really have an impact on the game and really make a difference to how it feels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
playable drow