| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Intelligence should give Additional Lore for each point instead of a trained skill. Far more useful for characters who actually want to have high intelligence, and having a bunch of lores allows you to cover RK without worrying about the wisdom knowledge skills by getting Lore: Undead etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, there's not a lot of evidence that Paizo is planning to significantly modify the base game. The biggest actual mechanical changes we've heard so far are a replacement for alignment, rogues and wizards getting new proficiencies, and witches getting some corrective errata to patch up some flaws.
More importantly, it sounds like the new books are already basically done and headed off for printing.
Also, Intelligence-based classes get fewer base skills because they'll have a high Intelligence bonus to balance it out. Wizards and psychics shouldn't have more total skills than rogues and rangers, and they should be roughly level with fighters and barbarians. So, you may disagree with that, but it's not an accident. It's a deliberate change from PF1, where wizards usually out-skilled basically everyone despite not being designed as a "skill monkey" class.
There's not really any reason wizards should be better at skills than other classes, whereas clerics being good at Will saves is an obvious flavor choice for them.
Keep in mind, they've said removing alignment is the biggest thing they're doing, so a retool of any stats (something that would require rebuilding every character in the game) is solidly outside the scope of what this is planning on. Some of the issues are probably just a fact of this edition- at least for default rules. Pathfinder Unchained in PF1 addressed Int being TOO important for flavorful characters by adding an optional rule for extra background skills- one that soon became the de facto assumption for games.
Enhanced Ability Scores would be a nice optional rule for the GMC to include, or for someone else to publish under the new ORC license if not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Beastkin: allow the player to select a different unarmed strike.
Right now, it's only "jaws", but some animals just don't have bite attacks, or fangs :P
I would allow it to select something else, such as horn, antlers, trunk, tusk, mandibles, beak or headbutt. If the animal doesn't have a head-based unarmed strike, then allow for claw, fist, hoof, talon, wing, pincer, sting or tail.
Creature Type Trait for creatures from the Shadow Plane. Please consider adding this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's not really any reason wizards should be better at skills than other classes, whereas clerics being good at Will saves is an obvious flavor choice for them.
There's not really any reason wizards should be better at skills generally, but the character with academic superpowers should probably be good at Recall Knowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really mostly hoping for stuff like "Swashbucklers get scaling proficiency in their style skill" (like Inventors get for Craft) and "Basic Lesson" is a class feature for the Witch rather than a feat (since *EVERY* Witch takes it.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not really any reason wizards should be better at skills than other classes, whereas clerics being good at Will saves is an obvious flavor choice for them.
I think the problem is that when you establish Intelligence as "the skill stat", but then you give Int classes less base skills so they're just equal to everyone else... well, aren't you kinda killing half the point of being good at Int? It's like if they gave Wisdom classes bad Perception and Will progressions so they're not too good at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed to the latter part, but I don't know about the first. I mean the super smart guy probably is good at learning things, like skills hah.
Well, yeah, that's what their high Int is for. Literally, he's super smart, so he learns more skills. But if you want a skills-focused magic-user, bard and eldritch trickster are right there. The flavor of wizard is more "academic who doesn't get outside a lot".
Clerics don't get Expert Will Saves because they have high Wisdom. They get it because their class is fundamentally linked to a theme of conviction in their beliefs. Wizards' high Int shouldn't automatically give them 4+Int skills. That logic feels totally sideways to me--"Their key ability makes them good at skills, so we should make them even better at skills".
Wizards are already advantaged at skills and Recall Knowledge. That advantage is called, "Intelligence Key Ability Score". It's already reflected in their design, so there's no need to worry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's not really any reason wizards should be better at skills than other classes, whereas clerics being good at Will saves is an obvious flavor choice for them.There's not really any reason wizards should be better at skills generally, but the character with academic superpowers should probably be good at Recall Knowledge.
Loremaster archetype or the thmarateruge?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SRD Monster: Choker
Re-theme this monster into a family of creatures that takes inspiration from Marvel's Symbiotes (Venom, Carnage, Scream, Lasher, Phage, etc.)
Then create a Monster Archetype, similar to the Undead Archetypes, that allows players to then learn to work with the Choker inhabiting their body.
Keep in mind, they've said removing alignment is the biggest thing they're doing, so a retool of any stats (something that would require rebuilding every character in the game) is solidly outside the scope of what this is planning on. Some of the issues are probably just a fact of this edition- at least for default rules. Pathfinder Unchained in PF1 addressed Int being TOO important for flavorful characters by adding an optional rule for extra background skills- one that soon became the de facto assumption for games.
Enhanced Ability Scores would be a nice optional rule for the GMC to include, or for someone else to publish under the new ORC license if not.
I don't think that this kind of change "require rebuilding every character in the game". Alternative Scores that changes way more don't requires so much change.
Anyway I don't think that we require a overhaul in Intelligence at all. It's mostelly a situational stats that's key for wizards, witches and some psychics while is way more useless for other classes like many martials. It's like Strength for most spellcasters, can be situational useful for athletics but usually for many builds is just dead stat while for many melee martials is a key stat.
Attack Spells - I won't go over all the issues, we all know them. Maybe ditch true strike so you don't have to balance around it? Half damage on a fail might help a lot.
...
Low Level Ranged Damage - Using a bow until you get striking is just painful. Doing 1d6 (maybe +1 one you get compound) for 3.5-4.5 a hit. Compared to a 1handed str fighter doing 8.5. 2hander doing 10.5. Difference is just massive. This gets better as you level but early on could use some help.
Honestly, I'm not in favor of changes to ranged weapons.
Note that being at a distance is often extremely acceptable. In all my play experiences, melee behaves at much greater risk than ranged. So I think it's fair that they get some kind of benefit for it.So much so that perhaps one of the justifications for attack cantrips requiring 2 actions, almost all of them are ranged, cause similar damage and do not require weapons (so much so that their biggest question is not even their comparison with efficient ranged weapons like the bows, but with saving cantrips that have half damage miss effects and multiple times can hit more than one target and that doesn't seem anywhere near competitive with the benefits that attacking cantrips receive, which are basically some effects better critical hits and a slightly higher chance of success on boring targets).
Elemental Runes - These tend to crowd out every other weapon rune, particularly on low damage die weapons. They are also why most of the specific magic weapons are bad and don't scale, since you can't add these to them. Maybe make them their own rune type, or just allow one that gets more damaging at higher levels, I don't know. I feel the armor runes are much better since they are not "must takes." I also like the idea of just having more levels of striking rune. Yeah it would help big weapons but it should, their damage advantage falls off late game.
I understand the point. But I think it's too late to mess with that.
Many players simply wouldn't appreciate the nerf and these runes also have the added utility of exploiting various weaknesses. Even with the change in alignments, we might have something more interesting for alignment damage runes. Once they were heavily ignored runes as they were considered second rate extra damage runes due to being far more situational than the other energy damage runes.Finally, and this is probably outside the remaster wheelhouse, I would love to see prep casters given some more flexible options. Flex casting eats way too many slots, but something in the middle maybe? This is the BIGGEST complaint I see from 5e converts, prep casters just feel outdated. And yes, they can play spontaneous, but people WANT to play a wizard. Maybe give prep casters more flexible casting, let spontaneous have all signature spells, I don't know.
Finally, and this is probably outside the remaster wheelhouse, I would love to see prep casters given some more flexible options. Flex casting eats way too many slots, but something in the middle maybe? This is the BIGGEST complaint I see from 5e converts, prep casters just feel outdated. And yes, they can play spontaneous, but people WANT to play a wizard. Maybe give prep casters more flexible casting, let spontaneous have all signature spells, I don't know.
Here is something I quite agree with. Not so much for the thematic issue. But it's really useful.
The fact is that with some very occasional exceptions. In practice no one really likes Vancian Conjuration! The best we have are people who accept it because it's already there, or who ignore it because we have the spontaneous alternative. That's why for me it was something that should be reversed. Instead of Vancian spellcasting being the default, it should just be the exotic alternative obtainable via class archetype in exchange for benefits that really make up for it, for the simple reason that I doubt it's something most players would prefer.It would be nice to see the flexible spellcasting as standard without decreasing the current spellslots while making vancian something similar to what we have today with the Rune Lord archetype, which inherited the old characteristic of school mages of not having access to spells from the opposite school, however receive several other benefits for this.
This would also help get away from the concept legally associated with D&D until 3rd edition. Since it's easier for WotC to sue claiming that Paizo copied the idea of prepared spells from their old editions than for them to claim against the flexible casting that is much more common in many other games of the genre. Although to really move to a more legally secure situation, the ideal thing would be for Paizo to completely leave the very concept of spell slots since it is something very characteristic of D&D until today. But Paizo will not go that far, as it is a mechanically very big change and if it were to do it, it would have already announced how it did with the alignments. But I think that putting an alternative rule like Spell Points would already be a good preparation to run away from this problem.
Ooze Creature Type
This is a small thing, but I always found it odd that Ooze is a both Creature Type and a term included in the names of creatures of that type. For example: Blood Ooze, Chromatic Ooze, Gray Ooze, Id Ooze, Luminous Ooze, Pyronite Ooze, Rust Ooze, Sewer Ooze, Tallow Ooze, Tar Ooze, Vaultbreaker Ooze, Verdurous Ooze, Yeast Ooze.
If Ooze is the Creature Type it feels like there should be a different generic descriptive term applied to specific creatures, OR there should be text simply clarifying that ooze is commonly used a descriptive term for creatures of the Ooze Creature Type and does not indicate an associated family.
Additionally, this might be a good time to start clarifying different Ooze families and what the general requirements are to be included in that family of ooze. Some potential Ooze Families include: Puddings, Blobs, Slurries, Sludges, Ichors, Jellies, and Slimes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, I think most dragons are the same way. Lunar Dragon, Diabolic Dragon, pseudodragon, dragon turtle. A lot of giants and hags, too.
I don't know, I think most dragons are the same way. Lunar Dragon, Diabolic Dragon, pseudodragon, dragon turtle. A lot of giants and hags, too.
That's a super fair point! I hadn't really thought about dragons in the same way.
Giants and Hags are different, we don't add Humanoid at the end of Hags or Giants, but i definitely follow the line of thought.
Bear in mind, I'm not sure PF2 has "Creature Type" anymore. Isn't it all traits and families now? Hags have the [hag] and [humanoid] traits, giants have the [giant] and [humanoid] traits.
Bear in mind, I'm not sure PF2 has "Creature Type" anymore. Isn't it all traits and families now? Hags have the [hag] and [humanoid] traits, giants have the [giant] and [humanoid] traits.
The Creature Type Traits are listed on Archives of Nethys, not to be confused with the Monster Traits also listed on Archives of Nethys. I would link, but I don't remember how. Humanoid is listed under Creature Type Traits, Hag and Giant are listed under Monster Traits. I assume this division is still currently accurate.
And thank you for drawing the Dragon naming convention to my attention. I don't know why that never stood out to me but ooze does. I guess that is my silly brain.
I'm sorry, I'm probably just bad at AON, but I genuinely can't find "creature types" mentioned anywhere on the 2e PRD. Can you just post the link, formatted or no?
EDIT: Found it! But Giant is a Creature Type trait, actually. I think (I get the sense, I mean) that "types of trait" seem to be more for easily finding certain traits, rather than having any meaningful inherent difference. That said, thanks for teaching me something new about the AON!
I'm sorry, I'm probably just bad at AON, but I genuinely can't find "creature types" mentioned anywhere on the 2e PRD. Can you just post the link, formatted or no?
EDIT: Found it! But Giant is a Creature Type trait, actually. I think (I get the sense, I mean) that "types of trait" seem to be more for easily finding certain traits, rather than having any meaningful inherent difference.
LOL, so true about Giants! That's what I get for quickly checking while watching a movie. I blame that mistake on JW: Dominion. Sorry about that!
Oh, I'm no one to judge when it comes to careless multitasking on these forums.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH this is probably beyond the scope of the Remaster. But I feel like every class should have a first level class feat, and the majority of archetype dedications should be level 1 and not level 2. Some characters I've played have felt more defined by the archetype I wish to give them then the class themselves, and it can feel really rough waiting till level 2 to get it, or awkwardly asking the gm, can I have this thing early as long as I lock into it now.(which is the current guidelines for some concepts like the Vigilante dedication)
I think this is lowkey my biggest pet peeve. Something I can tolerate but really wish could be adjusted.
TBH this is probably beyond the scope of the Remaster. But I feel like every class should have a first level class feat, and the majority of archetypes should be level 1 and not level 2.
Oh, I really like this idea. Tack on a bonus 1st Level Feat to each class and allow any 2nd Level dedication feat as an option in place of the Bonus 1st Level Feat. No need for permission for free Archetype, the option is built in at the start.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love more class feats, but I think the reason for casters not getting one at first level is to reduce the choice load for new characters, since they already have spells to stress over. That may be why 1st-level archetypes aren't a thing, too, though I would love more clarity on that stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love more class feats, but I think the reason for casters not getting one at first level is to reduce the choice load for new characters, since they already have spells to stress over. That may be why 1st-level archetypes aren't a thing, too, though I would love more clarity on that stuff.
Thats a good point, balancing that can be tricky. I still think the benefits outweigh the cons but then again I am no longer a newcomer, and was sort of shoved into deep end when I started playing ttrpgs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only thing I'll say: Please give Trolls a creature type. They stick out like a sore thumb when compared to other creatures. Give them Humanoid or Aberration or whatever. Or establish the Troll's trait's place in the Creature Identification rules.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My top ten things I'd like to see in the remaster, from the smallest changes to the biggest.
10) Fix AP/Module writing. Going up against higher level opponents disproportionately punishes spellcasters due to how save scaling works. So repeatedly sending PCs up against one big bad at party level +2/+3 over and over again just makes spellcasters feel useless as they can't land spells to save their lives. Reserve big fights for the boss, and include a lot of 'little' fights (a group of four party level -1 monsters, for example) for the trash mobs.
9) Like the Inventor/Thaumaturge, give every class a single skill that auto-scales legendary. Some classes absolutely HAVE to level certain skills if they want their class to work (like bard with perform, wizard with arcana to scribe spells, or most especially swashbuckler with acrobatics/their style skill). This means that those PCs effectively don't get to choose the skills they become good at. You wanted your swashbuckler to be able to also be a survivalist in the woods? No, you can't you Have to level up acrobatics, and intimidate for your character to work.
8) Minor fixes to monk, they are cool and everything but so MAD between their need for strength dex and con that they just don't do enough damage to really be a good striker or tank like a ranger or fighter. Some sort of damage buff or way of buffing their AC without having high dex (and needing to keep on the ground from mountain stance.)
7) Minor fixes to the Swashbuckler: As it stands . . . the class is cool conceptually but doesn't need to exist. The fighter is better at fighting, the thief rogue is better at dex-to-damage. Damage on a miss is nice, but I think it needs a bit of a buff in order to be better at what it does than other classes. Also suffers from the above "spellcaster problem" where they can have problems getting panache against one big enemy, meaning against a series of a bunch single powerful enemies, the swashbuckler is going to feel useless because they can't generate panache.
6) Minor fixes to Skill bonus magic items: Just a minor complaint, but magic items that give skill bonuses are way over the map. For example, if I want a bonus to ANY diplomacy check, I can just wear a pair of glasses of socialability. But if I want a bonus to perform, I need to choose between an instament, a belt, or mask depending on what I am doing, and all of them cost different amounts of money?
5)Minor fix to inventor: Need more worthwhile low level class feats.
4)Minor fix to Barbarian: Same as Inventor
3) Minor fix to witch: They said that they would do this, but the was is generally considered pretty weak considering players are forced to choose between witch class abilities, Familiar abilities, or lessons.
2) Fix to clerics: While clerics are generally considered pretty good, it's basically ONLY because of Divine Font. Free heal spells are great, but they A) Make the player feel like a heal bot and B) really take away from anything else a cleric might be doing. I suggest giving the warpriest legendary spellcasting, and buffing up the cloistered cleric to match. Oh, and how about a third doctorine? Sacred fist is a popular fan idea.
1) I'm sure we all saw this coming . . . fix the alchemist. They said that they would do some work, but IMO the class needs a decent-sized overhaul. Maybe a minor 'at will' bomb they can make that they can throw ad-nauseum? Make the class legendary in . . . . anything? (Bomb throwing maybe?).
Anyway, those are just my ideas, let me know what you think.
