What are some small changes you'd like to see in the Remaster?

[Blake's Tiger]

Squiggit wrote:

It would be a more significant change but I feel like, especially since we're switching just to modifiers and not points, that just making 1 boost always +1, but you can't reach +5 until 10 or +6 until 20 would be fine.

It would change the math in that Inventors and Thaumaturges (etc) can catch up to other martials at level 5, and effectively give characters two extra boosts over the course of the campaign that would have to go into secondary/tertiary stats.

But I don't think those would necessarily be bad things, and tracking 'half boosts' in the new math would be kind of awkward and not necessary.

That's the most straightforward solution I've see proposed.

It also mirrors how Skill trainings are level gated (E at 3rd, M at 7th, etc.).

[PossibleCabbage]

The Raven Black wrote:

Allow Retraining for ability boosts, Classes and Backgrounds.

I'd like them to also change the retraining rules that that if you couldn't have qualified for the dedication at level 2, say, but can now, then you can retrain your 2nd level feat instead of using a higher level feat slot.

Like this would help "archetypes in the toolboxes of APs" that get worked into the plot work better. For example, in book 2 of Agents of Edgewatch an NPC does grant you access to the Jalmeray Heavenseeker archetype but when this happens you're about 6th or 7th level and the dedication feat is a 4th level feat.

[HeHateMe]

Personally, I dislike the fact that to get from 18 to 20 in an ability, I need to invest two ability boosts into it, but the first one provides me no benefit at all. I would prefer if the rules just said you can't reach 20 in an ability until 10th lvl, and allow us to use that 5th level ability boost somewhere else rather than being forced to waste it.

It's also the only time an odd ability score is used in 2E, which is strange.

[Perpdepog]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Allow Retraining for ability boosts, Classes and Backgrounds.

I'd like them to also change the retraining rules that that if you couldn't have qualified for the dedication at level 2, say, but can now, then you can retrain your 2nd level feat instead of using a higher level feat slot.

Like this would help "archetypes in the toolboxes of APs" that get worked into the plot work better. For example, in book 2 of Agents of Edgewatch an NPC does grant you access to the Jalmeray Heavenseeker archetype but when this happens you're about 6th or 7th level and the dedication feat is a 4th level feat.

I've never seen that as an issue. That is, I always thought you could do something like retrain your 4th-level feat slot to gain an archetype you'd been given access to. I consider "prerequisites" and "access" to be too different things. Prereqs have always been mechanical requirements to me, like needing a given value in an ability score to take an option, while access is more narrative and looser, without directly impinging on your character's stats.

[PossibleCabbage]

Well, the CRB (page 481) reads:

Quote:

When retraining, you generally can’t make choices you couldn’t make when you selected the original option. For instance, you can’t exchange a 2nd-level skill feat for a 4th-level one, or for one that requires prerequisites you didn’t meet at the time you took the original feat.

So if you got access to the Jalmeray Heavenseeker archetype in the story at 7th level you could not retrain your 4th level feat because you did not meet the prerequisite (unless you also had the Student of Perfection archetype, I guess). So you'd have to spend your 8th level feat on the dedication.

Changing the retraining rules to prevent "exchanging a 2nd level feat for a 4th level one" but also allowing you to retrain for feats that you didn't meet the prerequisites at the time would be an improvement.

Since then you could retrain your 4th (or 6th) level feat to Jalmeray Heavenseeker then take Heaven's Thunder with your 8th level feat. Like this is something I already houserule since I think the RAW is unnecessarily punitive.

[Perpdepog]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, the CRB (page 481) reads:

Quote:

When retraining, you generally can’t make choices you couldn’t make when you selected the original option. For instance, you can’t exchange a 2nd-level skill feat for a 4th-level one, or for one that requires prerequisites you didn’t meet at the time you took the original feat.

So if you got access to the Jalmeray Heavenseeker archetype in the story at 7th level you could not retrain your 4th level feat because you did not meet the prerequisite (unless you also had the Student of Perfection archetype, I guess). So you'd have to spend your 8th level feat on the dedication.

Changing the retraining rules to prevent "exchanging a 2nd level feat for a 4th level one" but also allowing you to retrain for feats that you didn't meet the prerequisites at the time would be an improvement.

Since then you could retrain your 4th (or 6th) level feat to Jalmeray Heavenseeker then take Heaven's Thunder with your 8th level feat. Like this is something I already houserule since I think the RAW is unnecessarily punitive.

I know; that was why my post made a distinction between a prerequisite and access. I agree that splitting those up in the rules would be nice but that's how I've always parsed the two for myself. Not doing so reminds me of the 3.0/3.5 days where grabbing something like an Int-increasing item would lose more and more value the later in the game you came across it because you didn't get retroactive skill points, which was always a headache to deal with.

If a character could theoretically have access to an option earlier in their career, but gain it later in their career, I treat it as if they'd had access the entire time. That differs from, say, requiring a fourteen in a stat to take a dedication when a PC's starting array had that stat at an eight, so it could only reach fourteen when they reached level fifteen. That's when I enforce the limitations for retraining.

[shroudb]

I'd like a more thorough cleanup on the Class DCs system.

I feel there's ambiguity regarding this system and classes without one, or feats referencing specific Class DC, the interaction with multiclass archetypes, or archetypes that grant Class DC based abilities but no Class DC of their own, and such.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

It would be a more significant change but I feel like, especially since we're switching just to modifiers and not points, that just making 1 boost always +1, but you can't reach +5 until 10 or +6 until 20 would be fine.

It would change the math in that Inventors and Thaumaturges (etc) can catch up to other martials at level 5, and effectively give characters two extra boosts over the course of the campaign that would have to go into secondary/tertiary stats.

But I don't think those would necessarily be bad things, and tracking 'half boosts' in the new math would be kind of awkward and not necessary.

That's the most straightforward solution I've see proposed.

It also mirrors how Skill trainings are level gated (E at 3rd, M at 7th, etc.).

the downside to that would be secondary stats pumping.

so putting as an example 3 stat boosts on Con as soon as you hit level 5 to hit that +4 then.

[Karneios]

ability boosts already have the limit that you have to spread them out each 5 levels when you get them and changing that wasn't part of the idea so pumping con with three of your level 5 boosts can't be done unless I am misunderstanding what you're saying

[MadamReshi]

HeHateMe wrote:

Personally, I dislike the fact that to get from 18 to 20 in an ability, I need to invest two ability boosts into it, but the first one provides me no benefit at all. I would prefer if the rules just said you can't reach 20 in an ability until 10th lvl, and allow us to use that 5th level ability boost somewhere else rather than being forced to waste it.

It's also the only time an odd ability score is used in 2E, which is strange.

Do we know what the balance implications of this would be? I think it would certainly make MAD characters stronger - which could be appealing.

[Ravingdork]

Perpdepog wrote:

Not doing so reminds me of the 3.0/3.5 days where grabbing something like an Int-increasing item would lose more and more value the later in the game you came across it because you didn't get retroactive skill points, which was always a headache to deal with.

I'm pretty confident that, that isn't true, at least for 3.5. Intelligence increases and skill ranks were retroactive.

[RaptorJesues]

I would like the lance to be good. I can then perish happily with one in my sternum

[The Raven Black]

RaptorJesues wrote:

I would like the lance to be good. I can then perish happily with one in my sternum

You mean Holy, I think.

Divine Lance (Good) will be gone forever.

[magnuskn]

Since I've read multiple times in the last months that player characters are expected to have a certain level of equipment at a certain level (i.e. a striking rune at level four, like shown in the automatic bonus progression table), the new GM Core could do a better job at communicating what level of equipment is expected at a certain level than what we currently have from the CRB. There the Party Treasure By Level table (10-9 on page 509) struck me as so obtusely written that I only understood how many items and wealth an individual character should have when the writers showed it two pages later on table 10-10. And even that did not tell me anything about which striking rune is expected at what level and so on. Since there are now hundreds of magic items around, it seems way too easy to give the wrong kind of equipment out as a GM.

Since the math is so much tighter in 2E and therefore item upgrades are way more important to get at the right time, including a more understandable and specific explanation than the current write-up in the CRB strikes me as a good idea.

[Cori Marie]

The Raven Black wrote:

RaptorJesues wrote:

I would like the lance to be good. I can then perish happily with one in my sternum

You mean Holy, I think.

Divine Lance (Good) will be gone forever.

Pretty sure this was meant is in good quality not good damage type. Right now because of it's restrictions Divine Lance is one of the weakest damage cantrips.

[Perpdepog]

Ravingdork wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

Not doing so reminds me of the 3.0/3.5 days where grabbing something like an Int-increasing item would lose more and more value the later in the game you came across it because you didn't get retroactive skill points, which was always a headache to deal with.

I'm pretty confident that, that isn't true, at least for 3.5. Intelligence increases and skill ranks were retroactive.

Not according to the page on Int on the 3.5 SRD. You are probably thinking of Pathfinder 1E where that was expressly the case.

[The Raven Black]

Cori Marie wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

RaptorJesues wrote:

I would like the lance to be good. I can then perish happily with one in my sternum

You mean Holy, I think.

Divine Lance (Good) will be gone forever.

Pretty sure this was meant is in good quality not good damage type. Right now because of it's restrictions Divine Lance is one of the weakest damage cantrips.

I knew I should have put a smiley somewhere.

You are perfectly right of course. But lance and good and Remastered all together were too hard to resist. Sorry for the bad pun.

[Dubious Scholar]

Can we have the old trait from the playtest where the Lance only cared about moving, not necessarily being mounted? Because I was very disappointed I couldn't make a super jumpy barbarian with one. (because barbarians with raging athlete and sudden leap jump offscreen pretty easily)

[Helmic]

Perpdepog wrote:

That differs from, say, requiring a fourteen in a stat to take a dedication when a PC's starting array had that stat at an eight, so it could only reach fourteen when they reached level fifteen. That's when I enforce the limitations for retraining.

Even then, a character that has 14 in a stat at 15 after boosting it three times isn't actually any stronger than a character that has a 14 in the same stat the whole time. A 14 is a 14, the dice don't care how you got it. I fail to see how it's necessary to force that player to sacrifice a level 16 feat to take a level 2 dedication to keep the game balanced, much as I'm already skeptical that we actually need to have certain multiclass dedications require two different attributes be 14 in the first place. I'd even go so far aa to say we don't actually need attribute requirements at all for most dedications, not when there are already broadly accessible and broadly powerful archetypes already competing for investment.

[Gortle]

The Raven Black wrote:

RaptorJesues wrote:

I would like the lance to be good. I can then perish happily with one in my sternum

You mean Holy, I think.

No an actual Lance.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

The Raven Black wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

RaptorJesues wrote:

I would like the lance to be good. I can then perish happily with one in my sternum

You mean Holy, I think.

Divine Lance (Good) will be gone forever.

Pretty sure this was meant is in good quality not good damage type. Right now because of it's restrictions Divine Lance is one of the weakest damage cantrips.

I knew I should have put a smiley somewhere.

You are perfectly right of course. But lance and good and Remastered all together were too hard to resist. Sorry for the bad pun.

It's okay Raven, I saw what you were doing there =P

[Old_Man_Robot]

Perpdepog wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

Not doing so reminds me of the 3.0/3.5 days where grabbing something like an Int-increasing item would lose more and more value the later in the game you came across it because you didn't get retroactive skill points, which was always a headache to deal with.

I'm pretty confident that, that isn't true, at least for 3.5. Intelligence increases and skill ranks were retroactive.

Not according to the page on Int on the 3.5 SRD. You are probably thinking of Pathfinder 1E where that was expressly the case.

Hmmm... I know it says it right there, but I feel in my bones that this used to be different.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Some little things I want:

For Additional Lore to allow you to select lores you already have.

For the Magus and Wizard to get an additional trained skill at starting.

A Quick Draw like feat for consumables.

Some way to "ready" a certain number of consumables at a time. Like a general feat that allows you to ready 3 consumables at a time, and you can use a free action to draw those specific consumables during combat.

A feat that allows you to use either the Coerce or Request action in combat to make enemies compelled to attack you that turn.

A bit of a clean-up of the Free Archetype rules which better integrates it with the core rules, to reflect the sheer popularity of the rule itself.

[YuriP]

About Lance I imagine he's talking about the currently bad jousting mechanics.

Currently Lances are basically a 1d6 + Deadly d8 + Reach weapon when mounted. But Reach only works well if you are a small size creature mounted in a medium creature for medium creatures is basically 1d6 + deadly d8.

Also the benefit really jousting (move with your mount and Strike using the mount kinetic energy) is just meh and too punishing:

You need to invest feat into an Animal Companion feat to being able to do it

You need a Horse as Animal Companion

You need to use your one of your actions to command your companion to use Support action to enable the damage bonus.

The only action after Support action that your mount can use is move at last 2 squares to enter into the reach or to move 2 squares around the target (if you already in the reach to move at last 2 squares without exit of the reach, so pray that you have enough free squares around to do it after you enter in melee range)

You cannot Strike with the justing damage bonus and move away because the Move action needs to happen before the Strike action.

All this to just get +2 per weapon damage dice in just one Strike.

IMO all this need to be reworked in the remaster. The horse mount companion dependency (what's include its feat tax cost), the strange reach weapon interaction with different creatures sizes, the action tax cost to basically get the same avg damage of a 2-handed d12 weapon but limited to just the 1st Strike after move.
We need something that makes it better than take an 1d8 one-handed weapon and strike twice.

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

A Quick Draw like feat for consumables.

Some way to "ready" a certain number of consumables at a time. Like a general feat that allows you to ready 3 consumables at a time, and you can use a free action to draw those specific consumables during combat.

This won't happen. Draw a consumable, specially healing potions/elixirs costs an action to prevent it to being better than spells that usually needs 2-actions to be casted. The designers only compress draw actions related to attacks like happen with Returning Runes, Quick Draw and Quick Bomber. They won't allow this to other things because can be easily exploitable.

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

A feat that allows you to use either the Coerce or Request action in combat to make enemies compelled to attack you that turn.

Until I remember "Provoke" actions was discussed in earliest parts of CRB playtest but was discarded due not being fun enough and due it's aggressive and relativistic to roleplay part. Instead the champion receive its protection reactions.

Instead I thing that some classes like Fighters and Monks may get allies protection reaction feats similar to Champions reaction to protect allies. For example a feat that allows the fighter use it's AoO against an opponent that's attacking an ally in fighter melee range. This would help the fighter to take some tank role without need to force the opponent to target you.

[YuriP]

One small change I would like to see is allow Ki Blasts to line or cone instead of just cone.
Kame hame ha and Hadoukens usually are straight lines not cones! :P

[Karneios]

Swashbuckler has a level 2 feat in Antagonize that is basically a provoke and really I wish that was just an intimidation skill feat

[Old_Man_Robot]

YuriP wrote:

Until I remember "Provoke" actions was discussed in earliest parts of CRB playtest but was discarded due not being fun enough and due it's aggressive and relativistic to roleplay part. Instead the champion receive its protection reactions.

Instead I thing that some classes like Fighters and Monks may get allies protection reaction feats similar to Champions reaction to protect allies. For example a feat that allows the fighter use it's AoO against an opponent that's attacking an ally in fighter melee range. This would help the fighter to take some tank role without need to force the opponent to target you.

I remember the discussions from around that time, and I was in favour of them as well.

Part of the problem back then was that the immunity rider on skill feats wasn't really developed yet, so it being an infinitely repeatable action instead of a specific tactic was a concern. If the concept migrated to a class feat, had a 1 minute immunity clause on success, I feel like that would be workable.

Someone shouting "Hey Over Here!" and making themselves look like an appealing target for a few moments hardly sounds unfun.

I agree it would be a problem as a classes identity or key component, like champion reactions, but that wasn't my ask.

[Trixleby]

1 small change?

Finesse on Hatchet. I know Sweep is the "axe thing" but please. Throwing Axes, Tomahawks, all of that are real life weapons with no way to fulfill the fantasy of a throwing axe. So just...finesse Hatchet. Otherwise it's really MAD to pull off. Something like 18 Str, 16 Dex, still always less accurate when throwing. Besides everyone poo-poos finesse melee unless you're a thief anyway.

[RaptorJesues]

YuriP wrote:

About Lance I imagine he's talking about the currently bad jousting mechanics.

Currently Lances are basically a 1d6 + Deadly d8 + Reach weapon when mounted. But Reach only works well if you are a small size creature mounted in a medium creature for medium creatures is basically 1d6 + deadly d8.

Also the benefit really jousting (move with your mount and Strike using the mount kinetic energy) is just meh and too punishing:

You need to invest feat into an Animal Companion feat to being able to do it

You need a Horse as Animal Companion

You need to use your one of your actions to command your companion to use Support action to enable the damage bonus.

The only action after Support action that your mount can use is move at last 2 squares to enter into the reach or to move 2 squares around the target (if you already in the reach to move at last 2 squares without exit of the reach, so pray that you have enough free squares around to do it after you enter in melee range)

You cannot Strike with the justing damage bonus and move away because the Move action needs to happen before the Strike action.

All this to just get +2 per weapon damage dice in just one Strike.

IMO all this need to be reworked in the remaster. The horse mount companion dependency (what's include its feat tax cost), the strange reach weapon interaction with different creatures sizes, the action tax cost to basically get the same avg damage of a 2-handed d12 weapon but limited to just the 1st Strike after move.
We need something that makes it better than take an 1d8 one-handed weapon and strike twice.

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

A Quick Draw like feat for consumables.

...

...

Precisely. Obviously raven was only joking xD

[YuriP]

I would also like to see an MP variant rule added to allow choosing between it or spell slots somehow because not everyone is a big fan of spellslots and MP is far easier to manage.

[Rysky]

That would require a lot of work, it certainly wouldn't be a minor thing. Not sure they would devote a lot of resources to an optional thing not a lot of people care for.

[PossibleCabbage]

I would honestly be surprised if Abrogail II is still alive at the end of the next six part AP chiefly focusing on Cheliax.

Since the whole "Tar-Baphon makes his move" plot is not just going to be about Cheliax.

[YuriP]

Rysky wrote:

That would require a lot of work, it certainly wouldn't be a minor thing. Not sure they would devote a lot of resources to an optional thing not a lot of people care for.

It's not too different from currently variant rules we got in GMG and would be fine to get new ones once that GMG is pretty OGL agnostic.

And it's not a hard to do a spell points/mana points variant as we can get as example in 3.5, in PF1 (this one is very extensive, but not complex it's just big because Owen K.C. Stephens is very verbose) and officially in 5e (this is the most simple one).

Anyway maybe many people don't want such variant rule now. But I still expect if such variant was release it would be very popular specially among the spellcasters.

And curiously there are a low number of people expecting things from GM core.

[Rysky]

Probably since they're splitting the Player and GM handbook, so people are expecting it to have the GM stuff, not a bunch of of optional/variant systems.

Reminder these books are the standard going forward for everyone, new and long time players. They're not just for people who have been playing P2 since its inception.

[YuriP]

Yet variant will probably be there anyway and there's a good number of not much popular variant rules like Skill Points and Ability Scores Variants that can be replaced to open space to try new variant rules.

[Rysky]

I foresee it having stuff like Automatic Bonus Progression yeah, it could have more niche variant rules, true, I just wouldn't bet on it.

[Tropkagar]

In fact, the one thing that will not change too much. I'd like to keep the spirit damage options for chaotic and lawful entities. What I mean is that I would like to have options for spirit damage, for example in Prothean vs Axiomite encounters. If it doesn't, then I'll probably try to write something for it.

[Dhaise]

My main gripe is how poorly organized the core books currently are. Since I know that's on the list, I'm satisfied for now.

[magnuskn]

Yeah, the automatic bonus progression in GM Core would be neat. Best put next to the WBL table with big arrows on the WBL table showing GM's who don't use ABP when to give out the expected items to all players. ^^

[Gortle]

I like them to remove the distinction between Class DC and Spell DC. They can be made equivalent.

[HenshinFanatic]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Feragore wrote:

I remembered studded leather isn't real, so that could go. Easily replaced by brigandine, which is near visually identical, but a real historic type of armor - the 'studs' are rivets that hold steel plates on the inside.

As a bonus, studded leather was even invented by WotC long ago so there's a case that it's OGL property and should be replaced.

Now that you mention it, I understand that they were kept as-is because people love their fantasy armour, but I would love an armour choice that acknowledges that 'cloth' armours like gambeson were actually very effective and not just a weaker choice that you wouldn't ever take if you had money. Besides which, cloth armours actually look amazing and I think it's time modern fantasy gets some rep in on that.

To go along with that, introducing proper Medium Cloth armour (gambeson is right there and no, quilted is too light duty for proper standalone gambeson) and finally giving cloth an armor specialization effect. Whether it will have the "comfort" tax or not is up to the rules witches @ Paizo to figure out.

[Captain Morgan]

Gortle wrote:

I like them to remove the distinction between Class DC and Spell DC. They can be made equivalent.

Seems like it would cause problems if you have multiclassed and had multiple spell DCs.

[Riddlyn]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Gortle wrote:

I like them to remove the distinction between Class DC and Spell DC. They can be made equivalent.

Seems like it would cause problems if you have multiclassed and had multiple spell DCs.

Not really. Right now if you have spell DCs from multiclassing this wouldn't change that. It makes more of a difference for classes that have feats that use a class DC when you don't have one. Like the arcane fist feat for Magi. It gives them crit specialization for unarmed attacks.

[Ravingdork]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Gortle wrote:

I like them to remove the distinction between Class DC and Spell DC. They can be made equivalent.

Seems like it would cause problems if you have multiclassed and had multiple spell DCs.

For a long time I thought you used the highest of your Spell DCs for all your spells.

Though I was eventually shown the error of my ways, it showed no signs of having adversely affected my games. Quite the contrary, things were much simpler, and multiclass dedidications were much more competitive.

Using the higher of your Spell DCs and Class DCs (call it your "ability DC" or something) for everything would be quite nice I think.

[Mathmuse]

Ravingdork wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Gortle wrote:

I like them to remove the distinction between Class DC and Spell DC. They can be made equivalent.

Seems like it would cause problems if you have multiclassed and had multiple spell DCs.

For a long time I thought you used the highest of your Spell DCs for all your spells.

Though I was eventually shown the error of my ways, it showed no signs of having adversely affected my games. Quite the contrary, things were much simpler, and multiclass dedidications were much more competitive.

Using the higher of your Spell DCs and Class DCs (call it your "ability DC" or something) for everything would be quite nice I think.

The simplification to one Spell DC per character would be nice, but if the Spell DC were also the class DC then ability use could get strange.

I have seen people in real life adapt proficiency from one of their life skills to another skill quickly. One amusing example was a wheelchair-bound friend was a natural at the boardgame Roborally, in which players pre-program moves into miniatures that represent robots. She already had to plan moves like that when instructing an attendant pushing her wheelchair. Likewise, an Intelligence-based wizard who multiclassed to a bard might figure out how to use Intelligence for Occult spell DC.

However, if Class DC were used as Spell DC, then we would have fighters multiclassing to wizard and casting their spells with their Strength bonus, or Swashbucklers multiclassing to sorcerer and casting their spells with their Dexterity bonus. That would be more weird than broken, but it feels unfair.

[Gortle]

Mathmuse wrote:

The simplification to one Spell DC per character would be nice, but if the Spell DC were also the class DC then ability use could get strange.

I didn't really mean that.

Just that there is the terminology Class DC. Spell casters don't have it.
A simple line to say that the Class DC is the same as the Spell DC for any class that doesn't have a Class DC listed.
Most of the time the rules allow that to happen anyway. But a few don't.

But now that you mention it yes I think the rules for Spell DC are overly complex when you pick up a particular tradition or innate spell ability. You could get rid of it all and just use your normal Spell DC with a penalty if it is not your primary tradition or you aren't a caster. Maybe even removing that penality for certain classes. That changes the game a bit but it would make it easier to understand.

[YuriP]

The "problem" of Class DC is that it's basically a workaround to allow classes that don't have a spellcasting tradition to have a DC to use in abilities that requires some DC check unrelated to skills or weapons/armor proficiencies.

And being honest Class DC is even more simple than spellcasting tradition DC. Because spellcasting DC may have a mix of different stats for same tradition when multiclassing (like for example a druid MC with a primal sorcerer even having the same proficiency in Primal DC will use Wiz to calculate it for spells from main class but Cha for it's sorcerer MC) the Class DC is just your own class DC for your specific class with your key stat.

The only reason I can see to people complaining about it is because when taking a MC archetype the class DC of the archetype basically is locked in trained forever once there's no feat to improve it like happen in spellcasters MC with a tradition DC.

That said the only thing I think that can be simplified is remove the specific class DC (like fighter class DC, ranger class DC, barbarian class DC..,) and make it general (make class DC being same for your class and your archetypes).

[Gortle]

Is there such a thing as an Archetype DC? I mean there are feats that tell you to use your Class DC such as Road Kill are these just useless to Spellcasters?

[YuriP]

When you take a non-caster MC archetype like Gunslinger you also get such class DC:

Gunslinger Dedication wrote:

...

You become trained in simple and martial crossbows and simple and martial firearms. You become trained in gunslinger class DC.
...

But non-MC DC don't have an specific class archetype. So I don't know what exactly use in such cases. So usually I homebrew that's same class DC of your currently class or your spellcasting DC if you are a spellcaster. But this need to be clarified.

[shroudb]

YuriP wrote:

When you take a non-caster MC archetype like Gunslinger you also get such class DC:

Gunslinger Dedication wrote:

...

You become trained in simple and martial crossbows and simple and martial firearms. You become trained in gunslinger class DC.
...

But non-MC DC don't have an specific class archetype. So I don't know what exactly use in such cases. So usually I homebrew that's same class DC of your currently class or your spellcasting DC if you are a spellcaster. But this need to be clarified.

that is exactly the reason why i say that it needs a much better write up.

as an example, if a gunslinger ability says "use Class DC", and you get gunslinger from an archetype, do you use "gunslinger DC" or "Class DC" which is your normal class DC, and the one referenced in the rules of said ability?

the whole thing of Class DCs with archetypes is messed up imo.

The simplest way would be a cleanup to simply remove any sort of mention of "specific class DC" from the book and simply have a universal Class DC for all classes.

That also solves the problem of stuff like a caster with weapon specialization that requires class DC and etc.

---

as a completely different issue, i do hope we get some more inclusive rules for familiars. simply giving them ability modifiers, even if restricting the abilities as they are restricted now, would go a long way to clear up isses with half of the ambiguous stuff that keep popping up for familiars and what they can and can't do.

[Jacob Jett]

I think archetypes as a whole are a bit overloaded. It would be a nice-to-have if a future GM-facing book had some verbiage unpacking all of the different roles they play and how their specifications vary according to the role. Afterall being a Hellknight Armiger is different from being a Ghoul is different from being an Archer is different from the Fighter multiclass archetype.

These all fulfill very different ludo-narrative roles. That they use the exact same game engine portions to achieve this speaks to the overall robustness of the engine but also showcases a design pain-point in which it becomes difficult to produce things like a Gunslinger - Ghoul Fighter Hellknight Armiger Archer. Narratively, there's no reason such a combination couldn't occur (e.g., as it could in a novel...).

A wishes-for-fishes would be variant rules that break the space down into different, if related, sets of game-facing mechanics.