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


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 398 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

I would love a small buff to Nimble Dodge.
Currently it's almost strictly worse then Reactive Shield, since ND requires you to use it on attack targeting, whereas RS is used after it has been determined that you've been hit. Plus it raises your shield, giving you the same bonus to any subsequent attacks before your next turn, when ND only applies against that singular attack.

But even beyond being a somewhat weak option, it's a REAL feelsbad one. The number of times I've seen Nimble Dodge just do nothing turn after turn makes it feel awful.
Like sure, low level rogues aren't doing anything with their reaction anyway and it doesn't hurt to try. But trying and failing to have an impact over and over can feel worse than having just chosen a different, more consistent feat instead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

nimble dodge doesn't cost a hand so it likely intentionally worse than reactive shield


I recall something with Psionics in D&D in which energy powers were labeled according to their effects, but the usr could choose between multiple energy types.

If most evocation spells of all levels were reworked so I could have one spell with multiple energies at the time of the casting that would be ideal. I would see higher-level spells being energy-locked, as a tradeoff.

For instance, I'd like to be able to cast a "Cold" Ball and a "Fire" Bolt, and it would also add versatility to casters.

Imgaine if there's a cantrip called "Produce Energy" and at the time of casting, you get to choose between Fire, Cold, Electricity, Acid, Sonic, Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing, Divine, Negative, Positive, Mental and Force.


JiCi wrote:

I recall something with Psionics in D&D in which energy powers were labeled according to their effects, but the usr could choose between multiple energy types.

If most evocation spells of all levels were reworked so I could have one spell with multiple energies at the time of the casting that would be ideal. I would see higher-level spells being energy-locked, as a tradeoff.

For instance, I'd like to be able to cast a "Cold" Ball and a "Fire" Bolt, and it would also add versatility to casters.

Imgaine if there's a cantrip called "Produce Energy" and at the time of casting, you get to choose between Fire, Cold, Electricity, Acid, Sonic, Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing, Divine, Negative, Positive, Mental and Force.

cold acid lightning ball or fire cold acid bolt would be nice to have

that cantrip will have extremely low damage

force are the most expansive damage type

impactful are 2 level higher than other energy rune

shadow blast have very low damage because it can do so many type of damage

versatility come with a high budget


25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:
versatility come with a high budget

Which can be done

1d6 for Fire, Cold, Electricity and Acid
1d4 for Divine, Negative, Positive, Mental and Poison (removed Force)
1d8 for Bludgeoning, Piercing and Slashing

Heightened (+2) The damage increases by 1d6/1d4/1d8


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's enough poison immunity out there it can be on par with fire.


JiCi wrote:
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:
versatility come with a high budget

Which can be done

1d6 for Fire, Cold, Electricity and Acid
1d4 for Divine, Negative, Positive, Mental and Poison (removed Force)
1d8 for Bludgeoning, Piercing and Slashing

Heightened (+2) The damage increases by 1d6/1d4/1d8

could work due to increased heightened (halved) and no stat modifier i guess.

but still having all the damage types in one spell is not something that i see them having.

having an elemental blast though, with that kind of scaling and no stat bonus may be viable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly, if all the energy spells allowed for all the energy types upon casting, there would be (1) far fewer spells and (2) they'd be far less interesting.

Verdant Wheel

This is my small change to Swashbuckler that could feel big!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One change I do not want to see in Remastered is the power ceiling stopping being a hard limit of the game.

Now, the holders of the ceiling might be switched a bit (and thus the ceiling put a hopefully tiny bit higher).

I would not mind Bard losing the top Caster title to Witch, or to Wizard.

Or Fighter becoming second fiddle to a new top Martial (maybe Swashbuckler).

Though I am sure we would have lot of people angry at Fighter not being the best at fighting.

What I sincerely hope will not happen would be that Remastered opens the door to future classes that aim at being the new top martials/casters. AKA Power bloat


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Honestly, if all the energy spells allowed for all the energy types upon casting, there would be (1) far fewer spells and (2) they'd be far less interesting.

I would trade fluff for versatility any day...

Pretty sure there are more situations when a spellcaster didn't have the right offensive spell in battle than players can account for.


The Raven Black wrote:
I wish for clarified Recall Knowledge rules. And that you could retry after failing and crit failing. The action cost and higher penalty are enough by themselves.

They should separate recall into two. One for in combat the other for out.

That way you can get specific rules for the two uses.


Ravingdork wrote:
Honestly, if all the energy spells allowed for all the energy types upon casting, there would be (1) far fewer spells and (2) they'd be far less interesting.

At least join types.

Electricity, fire, and cold.
Force, air, and sonic.
Water, poison, and acid.
Earth and physical damage

Verdant Wheel

Dubious Knowledge!

I want this skill feat to pair to a single skill, not “all recall skills”, unless accessed through a class feat or feature (ex. Esoteric Lore).

So, you could have, for example, Dubious Knowledge (Nature) and Dubious Knowledge (Society) as separate skill feats.

Verdant Wheel

rainzax wrote:

Another cook of Exploration Mode with specific “free” boons for each Tactic (not just Avoid Notice, Defend, Search, and Scout).

Like, if I am Investigating as we transition to Encounter Mode, can I get a bonus to Recall Knowledge? (etc)

Furthermore, some additional guidance on when and which Reactions may be available to characters based on their Exploration Mode when there is a shift to Encounter Mode!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonhearthx wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I wish for clarified Recall Knowledge rules. And that you could retry after failing and crit failing. The action cost and higher penalty are enough by themselves.

They should separate recall into two. One for in combat the other for out.

That way you can get specific rules for the two uses.

For me the RK is something that needs to be redone from scratch!

It's a cool idea, but it hasn't been implemented in a cool way. The RK depends on 5 different skills to work, it is extremely penalizing regardless of success or failure (if you fail you cannot use more on the same type of creature until you get a new source of information and even if you pass a new test you suffer cumulative penalties) , it depends on rarity, which in my opinion just penalizes the test without bringing any compensation or balance in question, the critical failure creates an additional problem for GMs and to top it off several designers thought it would be cool to link several feats to the success of RK.

For all that, plus the action consumption of such an unreliable action, I've seen my players use it less and less.

For you to have an idea today at my tables I don't even impose the rarity penalty (in fact I often compare the RK against 2 CDs, that of the specific creature itself, if it is unique and that of its species, if the creature is of a rare or unusual species I simply ignore the rarity penalty and test as if it were common), I also started to ignore the limit of not being able to test again in case of failure, starting to operate in case of critical failures, on critical failures I just don't pass information and leave the character unable to test again and banish Dubious Knowledge, in cases of biographies or classes that provide Dubious Knowledge, they start to give Assurance instead.

This is a mechanic I wish the Remaster designers completely reworked.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd love it if players could tie Innate spells to Intelligence (for Arcane or Occult) or Wisdom (for Divine and Primal) rather than Charisma. It feels odd to me that an elf who takes Otherworldly Magic to represent time studying the basics of magic uses Charisma rather than Intelligence to cast.


Thaliak wrote:
I'd love it if players could tie Innate spells to Intelligence (for Arcane or Occult) or Wisdom (for Divine and Primal) rather than Charisma. It feels odd to me that an elf who takes Otherworldly Magic to represent time studying the basics of magic uses Charisma rather than Intelligence to cast.

It would probably be better to have "it uses X unless you can cast spells with Y" or "you choose the X"

The latter option might be too open ended, but I do see your point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Update the numerous abilities on various classes that do damaging emanations around the PC to be less... indiscriminate? It's probably most obvious on Psychic, but the issue of "I don't want to take cool AoE because it's too much of a pain to not hit my friends" is on a number of classes.

Funnily enough, the abilities with smaller areas are more desirable in that regard... It's really, really hard to place a 20' emanation around an eidolon in a way that won't catch allies in it - you basically have to move out of melee to place it more like a burst.


Dragonhearthx wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Honestly, if all the energy spells allowed for all the energy types upon casting, there would be (1) far fewer spells and (2) they'd be far less interesting.

At least join types.

Electricity, fire, and cold.
Force, air, and sonic.
Water, poison, and acid.
Earth and physical damage

I could accept/tolerate/live with TWO versatile cantrips: 1 for melee attacks and 1 for ranged attacks, each covering all available damage type, but any energy spell at Level 1 and higher are separate as we know it.


JiCi wrote:
I could accept/tolerate/live with TWO versatile cantrips: 1 for melee attacks and 1 for ranged attacks, each covering all available damage type, but any energy spell at Level 1 and higher are separate as we know it.

To my knowledge, there is no difference between Melee spells and Range spells. You can use Range spells in melee without issue.


I just want spellcasters to always a few attacking spells at hands, since THAT's their main weapon, not a sword or a spear.

Having the wrong cantrip... can still be an issue ^^;


this a wierd rule thing but also gm thing I hope gets addressed items /materials have hit points & can technically be destroyed but the only thing that has any mechanical effect for that is shield I feel for instance say you have pcsc wearing metal armor & they're fighting a red dragon. if that red dragon breaths fire your metal armor should take damage from just being blasted by supernatural fire or at minimum incur a item penalty to reflex saves vs fire thier should be better & more concrete rules for damaging items/materials even if bieng worn by players

guess what those potions or elixirs better get em in a bag of holding or something so enemy's don't go after your source of healing/ resurrection elixirs.

would it change things yes its just that materials/ item hardness/ heath is barely used so why even have it if the fact it can be destroyed isn't supported

would players have to think more yes but it could even help out crafting & tactics more
sorry if it seems randy but it bugs me


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Could they change call to arms Battle mystery focus spell that modifies your initiative and triggers on "You are about to roll initiative" from a Reaction to a Free Action (like the swashbuckler deeds that modify initiative) so we avoid arguments about whether an oracle has a reaction in that moment.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Hellknight as an archetype definitely needs reworking for the remaster by default.

Liberty's Edge

HenshinFanatic wrote:
Hellknight as an archetype definitely needs reworking for the remaster by default.

Why ? What needs changing ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
HenshinFanatic wrote:
Hellknight as an archetype definitely needs reworking for the remaster by default.
Why ? What needs changing ?

It has the issue that the early armor and weapon-based archetypes do of being difficult to get into unless you fall into a fairly narrow character design range, or are human.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
HenshinFanatic wrote:
Hellknight as an archetype definitely needs reworking for the remaster by default.
Why ? What needs changing ?
It has the issue that the early armor and weapon-based archetypes do of being difficult to get into unless you fall into a fairly narrow character design range, or are human.

No mention of how sense chaos and blade of law won't function in the remaster?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
gesalt wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
HenshinFanatic wrote:
Hellknight as an archetype definitely needs reworking for the remaster by default.
Why ? What needs changing ?
It has the issue that the early armor and weapon-based archetypes do of being difficult to get into unless you fall into a fairly narrow character design range, or are human.
No mention of how sense chaos and blade of law won't function in the remaster?

This is what I was referring to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see Uncommon and Rare take a hike, personally.


HenshinFanatic wrote:
gesalt wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
HenshinFanatic wrote:
Hellknight as an archetype definitely needs reworking for the remaster by default.
Why ? What needs changing ?
It has the issue that the early armor and weapon-based archetypes do of being difficult to get into unless you fall into a fairly narrow character design range, or are human.
No mention of how sense chaos and blade of law won't function in the remaster?
This is what I was referring to.

Yeah I totally spaced on that while making my post for some reason, oopse. My point does still stand, Hellknight Armiger and its related archetypes are a bit clunky to slide into, but how those abilities will work in the Remaster are more important to Hellknight identity.

My guess is they'll be rewritten to detect/smite lawbreakers or something along those lines, though I have no idea what damage type they'll do. Spirit damage is possible, but there isn't a way to make it lawful-holy, which is what I suspect will happen to the champion's Smite Evil/Good.

(At least, that's how I'm hoping it works. It'd mean you are much less likely to waste your attack if it turns out your target isn't capital E evil after all, and also stops champions from being able to bop people with their weapons as a morality test.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I really hope some of the ancestry feats that grant innate spells auto heighten to your level. I know trap is kind of a dirty word but it does feel that way for some ancestry feats. Mostly for ones that counteract, like aasimars mercy. A level 13 feat that gives you 4th level remove curse/disease and neutralize poison twice a day seems good, but at that point spells are level 7 and the gap only gets wider.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like it if the way stealth reacts with initiative were cleaned up. Right now it feels very odd that one party can be "in combat" without having actually seen an enemy, and then have to use the "seek" action to find one. Maybe it's just me misunderstanding how that is supposed to work, but it feels clunky to me.

I also would like it if they'd do away with the weirdness around trying to move a short distance, then jump, then keep moving. Right now RAW is three actions: Stride, Jump, Stride, even if the total distance moved is only (for instance) 20 feet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

I also would like it if they'd do away with the weirdness around trying to move a short distance, then jump, then keep moving. Right now RAW is three actions: Stride, Jump, Stride, even if the total distance moved is only (for instance) 20 feet.

Also RAW is for GMs to allow to 'glue' move actions together.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Many of those changes are a little big for a "small" change, so here is one that is actually small - not having a crowbar shouldn't impose a penalty on Force Open checks. Instead, using a crowbar should give a bonus of some kind. If my high-level character can bend steel with his bare hands, taking a penalty for not having a mundane tool seems really weird.

Verdant Wheel

Errenor wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I also would like it if they'd do away with the weirdness around trying to move a short distance, then jump, then keep moving. Right now RAW is three actions: Stride, Jump, Stride, even if the total distance moved is only (for instance) 20 feet.

Also RAW is for GMs to allow to 'glue' move actions together.

+1

Maybe some language around actions with the Move tag being usable before / after / between other actions with the Move tag, and each Stride action adds movement (measured in feet) to a "pool" that can be used until it is interrupted by an action that lacks the Move tag?

Liberty's Edge

Errenor wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I also would like it if they'd do away with the weirdness around trying to move a short distance, then jump, then keep moving. Right now RAW is three actions: Stride, Jump, Stride, even if the total distance moved is only (for instance) 20 feet.

Also RAW is for GMs to allow to 'glue' move actions together.

Do you know where I can find this RAW ? Because, playing PFS, I have always done the one Move action = 1 action thing (so, Stride, Jump, Stride).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Errenor wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I also would like it if they'd do away with the weirdness around trying to move a short distance, then jump, then keep moving. Right now RAW is three actions: Stride, Jump, Stride, even if the total distance moved is only (for instance) 20 feet.

Also RAW is for GMs to allow to 'glue' move actions together.
Do you know where I can find this RAW ? Because, playing PFS, I have always done the one Move action = 1 action thing (so, Stride, Jump, Stride).

splitting and combining movement

Liberty's Edge

gesalt wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Errenor wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I also would like it if they'd do away with the weirdness around trying to move a short distance, then jump, then keep moving. Right now RAW is three actions: Stride, Jump, Stride, even if the total distance moved is only (for instance) 20 feet.

Also RAW is for GMs to allow to 'glue' move actions together.
Do you know where I can find this RAW ? Because, playing PFS, I have always done the one Move action = 1 action thing (so, Stride, Jump, Stride).
splitting and combining movement

Thank you for this. Alas, I fear my PFS GM will not in any way feel obligated by this to allow the gluing of actions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Thank you for this. Alas, I fear my PFS GM will not in any way feel obligated by this to allow the gluing of actions.

In your case, this just makes wall of water an even stronger control spell as it will eat all three actions to work through. If you or any people you regularly group with have access to it, abuse it liberally.


magnuskn wrote:
Probably that gnomish Flickmace thing could go the way of the do-do, if I've followed discussions here correctly.

late on this, but I'd actually like to see the weapons associated with an ancestry worked with their default ability adjustments. Like why would gnomes use a non-finesse weapon as a base when they're generally more agile than strong.

Verdant Wheel

gesalt wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Errenor wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I also would like it if they'd do away with the weirdness around trying to move a short distance, then jump, then keep moving. Right now RAW is three actions: Stride, Jump, Stride, even if the total distance moved is only (for instance) 20 feet.

Also RAW is for GMs to allow to 'glue' move actions together.
Do you know where I can find this RAW ? Because, playing PFS, I have always done the one Move action = 1 action thing (so, Stride, Jump, Stride).
splitting and combining movement

Nice


On a personal note...

I've had ideas for a wellspring summoner where the eidolon only manifests as the meld version.

Unfortunatly, consesus seems to be that meld with eidolon is pretty subpar...

I can hope for improvement.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Clarifying that Reload 0 is still Interact, even if it is a zero action cost.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Clarifying that Reload 0 is still Interact, even if it is a zero action cost.

The request for clarification could use a clarification, because people have many different theories about the mechanism of Reload 0 as an Interact action. Which of the following is it?

1) Reload 0 calls for an Interact free action to reload the weapon before the Strike. This free action still has all the properties of the single-action Interact, including the manipulate trait, except that it is a free action.
2) Reload 0 means that the Strike with the weapon includes an Interact action to reload as a subordinate action.
3) Reload 0 means that the Strike action includes reloading the weapon as part of the Strike and it gives the Strike action all the properties of an Interact action, including the manipulate trait.

Or we could drop the dependence on the Interact action and say:
4) Reload 0 means that the Strike action includes reloading the weapon as part of the Strike and the Strike gains the manipulate trait.

The version at my table is:
5) Reload 0 means that the Strike action includes reloading the weapon as part of the Strike. The Strike does not gain the manipulate trait.

Even if my version is official, it could use clarification that it is official.

Liberty's Edge

Yes. Any official clarification would be good.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
I'd like it if the way stealth reacts with initiative were cleaned up. Right now it feels very odd that one party can be "in combat" without having actually seen an enemy, and then have to use the "seek" action to find one. Maybe it's just me misunderstanding how that is supposed to work, but it feels clunky to me.

IMO this feels fine for as rare as it happens. I really like PF2 initiative, including how it replaced the surprise round. Using stealth for it has a lot of hidden perks and this is one of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
I'd like it if the way stealth reacts with initiative were cleaned up. Right now it feels very odd that one party can be "in combat" without having actually seen an enemy, and then have to use the "seek" action to find one. Maybe it's just me misunderstanding how that is supposed to work, but it feels clunky to me.
IMO this feels fine for as rare as it happens. I really like PF2 initiative, including how it replaced the surprise round. Using stealth for it has a lot of hidden perks and this is one of them.

I thought I'd miss the surprise round more than I ended up doing. Ambushes and laying in wait for monsters feels somehow more "fair" to me, even though it can work out to be very similar in practice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A change to the Pick A Lock activity.

Right now we have locks that require multiple successes ostensibly in order to make them harder, but the Pick A Lock action still allows you to essentially retry indefinitely, as long as you're able to pay 3sp per crit fail.

So a lot of locks end up being a matter of someone sitting in front of a door rolling dozens of times until the lock pops open.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:

A change to the Pick A Lock activity.

Right now we have locks that require multiple successes ostensibly in order to make them harder, but the Pick A Lock action still allows you to essentially retry indefinitely, as long as you're able to pay 3sp per crit fail.

So a lot of locks end up being a matter of someone sitting in front of a door rolling dozens of times until the lock pops open.

I think the problem lies in the narrative role of locks in an RPG. They exist to be bypassed whether by tools or brute force. They're there as speed bumps.

1 to 50 of 398 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / What are some small changes you'd like to see in the Remaster? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.