What would you want in a "PF 2.0/3.6e"?

[Giegue]

As the title says. While pathfinder was a great 3.5.5e, it is really starting to lose thunder to 5e and really show it's age. Thus with PF set to go the way of the dodo in the not to distant future I decided to make this thread to see what all us 3.5e/PF players would like to see in the inevitable PF 2.0/3.6e?

My main personal wishes are many, but these are my main ones:

- Reduced magic item dependency without removing the magic item economy completely like 5e did. Preferably by baking the mandatory magic item bonuses (AC and save boosts, weapon enchantment bonuses etc...) into the classes or general PC level progression to allow for magic items with more unique and cool properties.

- Tome of Battle/Paths of War style manuvers for martial classes or a similar "tier 3" take on martials being part of the Core Rules. Also, general rebalancing to make the gap between casters and martials smaller, but not eliminating it entirely or reducing the scale of magic down to 5e's more heroic levels. Keep this game epic fantasy, just compensate by making martials more epic, please.

- re-working the saving throws to make them work like 4e (so fort can use either str or con, reflex either Dex or Int, and will wis or cha.) or work another way that makes all scores relivent.

- allowing for the flexability and depth options of we love, without the splatbook bloat that drives so many potential players away from PF/3.5e. Also Eliminate any "trap" choices that suck/are pointless to take mechanically to help new players.

- No sorcerer in core. Instead, clerics/priests will be the charisma caster of Core, with Druid being the wis caster and wizard being the Int one. (Nitpicky I know, but I never understood what wisdom had to do with strength of faith. That just seems more a Cha thing, to me, so yeah.)

This is just some rough wants I have. If any of you have your own wishes or ideas share them here!

[Cosi]

1. Move good non-core stuff into core. Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, Warblades, and Warlocks should all be default options.
2. Eliminate the bad core stuff like. Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Monks, and Barbarians are all bad, and need to be tooled up or removed.
3. Split the non-combat spells (like teleport and fabricate) from the combat spells (like stinking cloud and finger of death). Open the non-combat spells up to everyone.
4. Remove the need for progressively larger bonuses coming out of magic items. Magic items should have effects like "shoots rays of fire" or "hides you from sight" not "makes you hit marginally harder".
5. Add a clearer set of standards for what characters should be able to do when. The reason the Monk sucks is because no one wrote down what 15th level characters were supposed to be doing to compare it to what Monks were actually doing.
6. Learn to write more concisely, and cut down on the bloat of later books. Spinemeld Warriors are not a thing that should exist, Dragonpacts should have been a backdoor fix for Sorcererous utility.
7. Write up some rules for kingdom management and mass battles that work pretty well and plug into the system. Helm's Deep should be doable without the game grinding to a halt, or handwaving the battle.
8. Have a default setting. Preferably one that's better than current D&D settings.

[Giegue]

I like those ideas, especially giving non-combat magic to everybody, kinda like the 5e ritual caster feat. My one question though, is I assume spells that are not direct damage/save or sucks, but still more combat-oriented or otherwise specific to certain character types, such as undead creation spells, summoning spells and healing magic, would fall under "only certain classes can do it?

[Cosi]

I like those ideas, especially giving non-combat magic to everybody, kinda like the 5e ritual caster feat. My one question though, is I assume spells that are not direct damage/save or sucks, but still more combat-oriented or otherwise specific to certain character types, such as undead creation spells, summoning spells and healing magic, would fall under "only certain classes can do it?

It depends.

Healing magic falls into two categories. There's combat healing, which sucks, but could totally be exclusive if you made it good enough people cared. Right now, Clerics would probably get better if you took away their ability to cast cure spells, because they would stop wasting their time with them. But there's also non-combat healing (stuff like restoration and raise dead), which the party needs to be able to pony up if they have a bad run in with a bodak or a medusa. That stuff should be all access.

Summoning is already divided into summon monster (which could just be on the Summoner spell list) and planar binding (which is a downtime spell, and should work that way).

Creating undead is a reasonable argument for having a tag system of some kind. Maybe animate dead requires you to have the Necromancy tag, which you can get from being a Dread Necromancer, taking the Blackguard archetype as a Paladin, or burning a feat on Secrets of the Dead Gods.

[Kurald Galain]

As the title says. While pathfinder was a great 3.5.5e, it is really starting to lose thunder to 5e and really show it's age.
What makes you think that?


inevitable PF 2.0/3.6e?
Paizo's big selling point is compatibility; it would be essentially suicide for them to release a Pathfinder 2.0.


- re-working the saving throws to make them work like 4e (so fort can use either str or con, reflex either Dex or Int, and will wis or cha.) or work another way that makes all scores relivent.
The method you propose makes three scores irrelevant. That strikes me as a step backwards.


- No sorcerer in core.
You'll have to come up with a better reason than "...but I don't like it."

[Krazzman]

Even though I am completely fine with Pathfinder how it is there are some things I would have liked to see implemented in a core book.

1. Ditch the design philosophy of having trap options as a way of rewarding system mastery.

2. Make spellcasters easier to play. In effect raise their floor but bring their ceiling a bit down as an additional cost for the raised floor.

3. Raise martial performance overall.

That said we are still pretty much happy with Pathfinder how it is now. Our casters rarely perform better than T3 and our martial tend to be quite good.

[Giegue]

For PF going away, it's main issue is attracting new players, RN. As long as old 3.x players exsist it will never outright die, but 5e has already totally eclipsed PF, and PF is nowhere near as friendly to new players as 5e is. So it will never disappear totally, but if it does not up it's game when it comes to attracting new blood 5e will see to it that it becomes the next AD&D...played almost exclusively by old gamers who started with it.

As for the saves, I'm not seeing how it makes three scores irreliivent. 4e did it that way, and it worked fine. Con still gives you hp, Dex still gives you initiative and ranged attacks. The only stay that gets shafted is wisdom, really, but Cha already gets shafted as it is and not everybody wants to be social so Cha or Wis on will is not harming anything either. All this system does is let characters choose their secondary stats; suddenly, fighters who invest in Cha or Int instead of Dex and Wis are not punished with lower saves.

As for sorcerers... I have more reasons. Mechanically and fluff wise they are just a derivative of wizards, and a much crappier/weaker derivative at that. Thus, rather than make them a whole class, the should just be an archetype of the wizard/Mage/arcanist class that makes them a Cha-based spontainous spells known caster instead of an Int-based book caster. It cuts down on bloat, but still gives sorcerer fans what they want. Conversly, you could also fold the concept of an " innate spellcaster" into an invocation using class that could represent either a warlock or sorcerer depending on your build choices...which would make sorcerers more mechanically interesting and viable instead of just Poor wizard impersonators.

[Jon_Dahl]

A custom class, so that the players could create their own customized classes and be really unique snowflakes, but the custom classes should not jeopardize the archetypal classes. Custom classes should be for the players who want to sacrifice specialized power for interesting options.

[khadgar567]

For pathfinder 2.0 things i want
* tier 5 wizard class( aka if you spend whole your life to just cast maggic missle this is the only thing you learn not chain gating empreal lords to have a tea party)
* boost to syntesitst summoner
* rules to create weapons, armor and gods

[Krazzman]

* rules to create weapons

There are rules for that already in the Weaponmaster Handbook afaik.

[Kurald Galain]

5e has already totally eclipsed PF,
Got a source on that? Because if anything, PF appears to be growing steadily.


As for the saves, I'm not seeing how it makes three scores irreliivent. 4e did it that way,
4E did it that way, and in 4E you can safely dump three scores on almost every character, because those scores do absolutely nothing for you. That's basically the opposite of what you're trying to achieve here.

Aside from that, copying a game as widely-disliked as 4E is just not a good sales move.


* tier 5 wizard class( aka if you spend whole your life to just cast maggic missle this is the only thing you learn not chain gating empreal lords to have a tea party)
* boost to syntesitst summoner
* rules to create weapons, armor and gods
(1) that exists already, it's called a wizard 1 / commoner 19.
(2) wait, so one of the strongest archetypes of one of the most overpowered classes is not strong enough for you? :smallamused:
(3) they exist already.

[The Vagabond]

I actually have some ideas, but honestly I never really bother taking the effort to bring them together into a replacement:

Split Magic into Ritual magic and Vatican Magic.
Probably the biggest change would be a change to the function of magic: As it stands, if a character wants to create a magical effect, they need to create an entirely new spell. This spell can be easily added to any Wizards spell book, or just outright cast by a cleric. But many intresting effects are removed from the DM's toolkit because the DM would require granting those abilities to the players, which would most likely break the game.
A simple method of replacing those abilities would be with the introduction of Rituals, which require certain actions to be performed, such as casting a spell, sacrificing a goat, or casting a sword. Learning a ritual would require the expenditure of gold or some other material, and would not be able to be purchased on the open market/Available only be DM's permission. This serves to increase the toolkit of the DM, The players, and the designers, as it lets a lot more ideas come to fruition.

Making magic more easily neutralized by mundane means.

This is among the more controversial ideas, but probably one of the strongest ones: If the only way to counter a spell is a specific action, it should be a ritual, and hard to perform. If it can be countered by a mundane mean, it should be a spell. Invisibility can be countered by throwing dust and doors. Glitterdust should be counterable by goggles, and Teleportation should be blockable with Salt and thresholds. These rules provide means for life to continue for the mundane peasants, while also nerfing magic in a way that doesn't make it completely useless.

Granular failure states
Of all the things I'd love from a pathfinder 2.0, granular failure states are probably the best. Letting people fail so spectacularly that something catches on fire is just something spectacular. But having Save or Dies simply be a case of "Save or die" is rather boring to everyone involved, as nothing changes. Switching save or dies to a more granular system would make them more valuable, while (Presuming you work to decrease DCs of these spells) making them less powerful.

Expanding the maneuver system by changing the system
Expanding the maneuver system is an absolutely insane idea, but a rather clever one. Rather than tying new abilities to feats, they would instead make them standalone manuevers with prerequisites for their use. By getting rid of the Improved X line, and instead simply providing a prerequisite for each maneuver, we can increase the range of options avalable for martial characters (Due to requiring fewer feats), while still providing some limit. So to perform a chokehold, you have to have, let's say, STR 14 and Improved Unarmed Strike.

In addition, tying each maneuver to a training time or gold cost to be able to use without attacks of opportunity will provide enough limitation to ensure that, while the player has a wider toolkit, they are still limited in a DM controllable way.

Embracing the Forge of Combat
The classes we currently have each serve a different kind of role. But nobody mentions this, because it's just not noted. But in order for combat to be intresting, you require a hammer, and anvil, and an arm, with a primary and secondary function. By noting the proficiency of each class in each role, you can provide guidance for the players so they do not fall into trap options, and avoid thinking in terms of MMO terminology (DPS does not equal hammer, who can be a Wizard who neutralizes enemies, or support doesn't equal arm, who could be providing you with new ways to fight).

In addition, notating monsters in this way will provide assistance to DMs to create intresting and engaging combat encounters that challange the players abilities.

Embracing the changing game play
Playing at level 15 is an entirely different experience from playing at level 5. This is why pathfinder and 3.5 have been being played for over a decade, despite the flaws in the systems. As you level the challenges you have to overcome become entirely different from those in any other game, meaning that you have a wide array of options to choose from for nearly any situation, and it can be easily expanded on to make new and intresting combat encounters. Adventures should be varried and intresting in their design.

Implement a E6 like system for players who like to maintain their current playstyle.
As listed above. By implementing this into the core rules, players who like how the game is played currently can set their current system in place, meaning that they can keep things the same for long periods of time, and change it over time.

More hazards and intresting status effects.
Exactly what it says there. More hazards and and status effects make things more intresting.

Condense and simplify the current Vatican casting system.
Listed in the title. Current method I have for simplifying the current Vatican casting system is a combination of condensing current spells into a single, scaling spell type (Instead of summon monster I, II, II, you instead just have summon monster cast from a higher slot), using the Simplified Spellcasting system, and having a “Mana Pool” which you spend to cast lower level versions of the spell you prepared.

Following, you would condense the various spell leveling systems to be either Prepared (Listed above), spontaneous (as before), and Practiced (Arcanist style). Make the various types of spell stuff condense (So instead of saying a whole paragraph about wizard spellcasting, they would instead be refereed to as “Wizards are Intelligence based prepared spellcasters, who prepare from a pre-built spellbook.”

Redesigning classes to be three pronged and build from there.
To play a solid fighter, you have to parse through thousands of feats and build from there. To play a knight, you cannot play a loner knight, and you’re stuck with a horse. To play a nature-loving freak, you have to transform into a bear. There’s a lot of unnecessary bloat in each class, most of which isn’t really necessary, but is nonetheless required to keep up to speed. The current archetype system serves well enough to provide further flavor to a class, but still results in a lot of unnecessary stuff.

So instead, you split the classes into three parts. So a druid has the Spell casting, the wildshape, and the animal companion. Only now, you can trade the animal companion for something similar to a bloodline, gaining bonus spells, or a pool of spells known. You can trade wildshape for proficiency with a bow. You can trade Spellcasting for trap smithing and bonus feats, suddenly there are more options! You can take archetypes for your wildshape, changing what you can transform into, archetypes for your domain, archetypes for your spellcasting- Switch from prepared to spontaneous, lower it down for more bonus feats, ect.

A fighter can be built differently too- Instead of having just ten bonus feats, how about having some of your feats pre-set, so you don’t have to do as much digging? How about, instead of a scaling weapon focus, you get the Lore Warden’s abilities? A bunch of things you can do to swap out and customize your characters, while also making sure that it doesn’t overwhelm the player.

As to overwhemling the player...

Change the structure of the books.
Nothing is as confusing as a list for a non-linear series of choices. The books serve as the closest equivilent to a UI, and yet we’re relying on people parsing entire pages for one feat, or spell, or similar. Hire a UX and UI designer to work on how you structure your books, and I guarantee you will see an improvement in sales. If the players cannot understand what is given, then you’ve failed at your job.

Making combat faster:
One of pathfinder’s major flaws is that combat can take FOREVER. However, there are methods to alleviate this, such as using troops instead of a dozen soldiers, getting rid of weapon damage rolls, making actions easier to comprehend, stuff like this will improve the swiftness of combat, while still making it interesting. I would get rid of damage rolls, and limit the number of buffs you can be affected by, and any further changes can be made at paizo’s descretion.

Design documents.
One of the best things about pathfinder is that you can fiddle with the system and play around with it to create something interesting and fun, while also mechanically satisfying. However, if you have a dozen things of different themes, which mechanically replicate exactly what you want, but it’s flavored the wrong way, it sucks. However, by creating design documents, users can see the purpose of a given ability, DM’s can check to see how an ability is being used and ban it should it almost break something, or buff it should their vision of the game not fit with the design document.

Bunch of other small stuff on the development side:

Redesigned magic item + Crafting system
Faith and similar boons that function similarly to magic items
Abandon WBL (We don't use Gold as EXP anymore)
Switch carry weight from pounds to stones, with a point of strength meaning you can carry a stone's worth of stuff. Means people might pay attention to carrying capacity.
Cull a lot of useless and defunct feats from core, bring in feats from outside core.
Just replace Diplomacy.
Create a set of standards for saving throws vs skill ranks vs CMB.
Str to CMD only for humanoid and other types of creatures, with the occasional boss monster.
Bring in mythic's Fast template for bosses.
Start implementing some philosophy of bounded accuracy, but leave the rolls fairly high. Something like the diplomacy table in Ultimate Intrigue for all skills should be awesome.


On the matter of compatability
The biggest issue with creating a new version of pathfinder will be backwards compatability. However, the above-listed changes might require major overhaul from 1.0 to 2.0, but a lot of stuff should easily be grandfathered in. Items can be grandfathered in, spells might require some work, but shouldn't be too difficult, feats mostly mean getting rid of the "New Talent" feats into manuevers, and simply considering what a feat is worth. Classes can, more or less, be ported in wholesale (As for most of the major classes, it's more or less the same). Other stuff can be done as you go on.

[Buufreak]

I wasn't aware that this was an issue. With 5th already hitting OGL status, and pathfinder still posting plenty of content, 1st party and otherwise, I was rather convinced the opposite was true.

[Kurald Galain]

I wasn't aware that this was an issue. With 5th already hitting OGL status, and pathfinder still posting plenty of content, 1st party and otherwise, I was rather convinced the opposite was true.

Yes, the opposite does appear to be true (and the OP posted zero evidence to the contrary).

Pathfinder is publishing two books per month, in addition to numerous adventures and related products, and they wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't selling. It would be exceedingly foolish of them to abandon their current line for a "PF 2.0" line, and Paizo is anything but foolish.

WOTC is intentionally publishing as few books as possible for 5E, presumably to keep costs low (as in their traditional model, the biggest seller has always been the PHB1 of any edition, anyway). In this model, and to keep the old brand name fresh, it would be in their best interest to publish a 6E within a couple years, as long as they can do so cheaply. This means that PF is an evolving game, whereas 5E is a static game. So yes, I'd expect a 6E well before we ever see a PF2.0.

Of course, Paizo is very much interested in what people would like to change in PF. The Vagabond's list (above) is an interesting read, and easily half of his suggestions are already covered in one sourcebook or another.

[Giegue]

Hmmm...maybe the PF decline thing is just regional? I mean, where I am everybody has moved to 5e, mostly, and a bunch of youtubers have been saying in chorus that 5e will kill PF with time unless PF does something to get new blood. That being said, maybe the "decline" of PF that I've seen regionally and on Roll20 is not indicative of the overall state of the industry?

[Cosi]

Oh also, add something like Skill Challenges from 4e, but count rounds instead of failures so that it actually does what you want it to.


You'll have to come up with a better reason than "...but I don't like it."

I a world where Wizards are generic casters, Beguilers et al are spontaneous casters, and Warlocks have the whole "my grandmother got diddled by a dragon" thing down, it's not clear that you need Sorcerers for anything.


A custom class, so that the players could create their own customized classes and be really unique snowflakes, but the custom classes should not jeopardize the archetypal classes. Custom classes should be for the players who want to sacrifice specialized power for interesting options.

Doesn't open multiclassing already fulfill every desire you could possibly have to make unique but terrible characters?


(2) wait, so one of the strongest archetypes of one of the most overpowered classes is not strong enough for you? :smallamused:

The Summoner isn't overpowered. It's actually probably worse than real casters. It's just clearly much better than non-casters. It's the Cleric Archer all over again.


But many intresting effects are removed from the DM's toolkit because the DM would require granting those abilities to the players, which would most likely break the game.

Such as? In my experience, when people say "giving players this ability would break the game" they mostly mean "giving players this ability would stop me from railroading them."


Embracing the changing game play


If you want the game to change at 15th level, why are you adding 0th level abilities to counter 10th level abilities?



Implement a E6 like system for players who like to maintain their current playstyle.
As listed above. By implementing this into the core rules, players who like how the game is played currently can set their current system in place, meaning that they can keep things the same for long periods of time, and change it over time.

Yes, the game should just use fiat level up. Then if you want to not hit 7th level, just don't do that.



Condense and simplify the current Vatican casting system.


This is the exact opposite of what you should do. Instead of condensing the spellcasting system, you should add new ones. Give people recharge timers. Give people momentum set ups. Give people the option to attune different aspects for different powers. Give people powers that drain them. Give people pools of points to assign to their abilities. Go wild.


Switch carry weight from pounds to stones, with a point of strength meaning you can carry a stone's worth of stuff. Means people might pay attention to carrying capacity.

This is bad. We want giant things to be able to lift up buildings or trees (which weight thousands of pounds), but we don't want giant things to have strength scores in the range of thousands. So carrying capacity needs to scale faster than linear.


Start implementing some philosophy of bounded accuracy, but leave the rolls fairly high. Something like the diplomacy table in Ultimate Intrigue for all skills should be awesome.

Bounded accuracy is a bad idea. It turns a bunch of crappy dudes from a fluff ability into winning the game.

[Morphic tide]

Well, for marketing reasons the system changes should not be big enough to cause total incompatibility. The numbers should all have clear, stated equivalences. This makes it so that Pazio can get away with not making updated versions of fringe rulebooks.

Have gameplay simplifying options in the core rulebook. Either make all casters spontaneous with class-specific "spells known" mechanics or have a conversion in the core book. Like having only Domain spells for Clerics to pick from to hold their CoDzilla back.

Have simplification options in the core rules. Like reducing combat to the level of stub that social interactions are, which, paired with a proper social combat system, makes pure intrigue interesting like combat is now, making Paths with no combat work.

Cut the damn feat chains. Seriously, feat chains cripple so many builds it's not funny at all. There should not be dozens of boring numbers Fighter feats with most being chains of minor increments, Fighter feats should be comparable to class features.

Make a proper social combat system. Even if it's just a framework, the fact that roleplaying has to be either made up or decided by a single d20 roll is disgusting. 2e Exalted, for all it's horrible balance atrocities, had a somewhat working social combat system.

Hire some of the people who got dropped from DSP for helping with game design. They understand how to balance check amazingly well and if they get to have some control over the conversions, they can make sure almost everything stays working.

Have the pure combat Martials worth using by rolling as many of them as possible into one class. Ranger and Rogue can be rolled together into a Scout class with a bunch of available options to go Intrigue, for example. Fighter and Barb are screwed, though.

Make a setup for hybrid classes like Bloodrager and Skald be part of class or archetype creation guidlines in core. I use those two as examples because they are basically the non-Barb class with the Barbarian things tacked on. Skald is much more Bard than Barb.

Make Sorcerer be focused on endurance more totally. For example, having access to some level of free metamagic that never runs out entirely, or access to unlimited use spells akin to 5e Cantrips. This gives them a niche that the big three can't outdo them in.

[Kurald Galain]

Hmmm...maybe the PF decline thing is just regional?
Well, to give a counterexample, on Warhorn.net (https://www.warhorn.net/campaigns) about 80% of all games are Pathfinder.


Oh also, add something like Skill Challenges from 4e
LOL. Yes, implementing that would be a good way to kill PF. Not even 4E fans like 4E SCs.

[Cosi]

Of course, Paizo is very much interested in what people would like to change in PF. The Vagabond's list (above) is an interesting read, and easily half of his suggestions are already covered in one sourcebook or another.

The entire point of a new edition is to take stuff from various splats and make it core. I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff in PF that is "not terrible", but it's mixed in with a whole bunch of "terrible."


LOL. Yes, implementing that would be a good way to kill PF. Not even 4E fans like 4E SCs.

I notice you cut out the rest of that sentence. Interestingly, that sometimes changes the meaning of things people say.

Yes, 4e skill challenges suck. Because the people implementing 4e suck at making games. But the idea of a subsystem for making extended non-combat encounters that give a variety of possible outputs is a good one. It's like how 4e's attempts to balance the game by cutting out all the interesting parts were a bad plan, but that doesn't make balancing the game a bad idea.

You could make a functional skill challenge subsystem by changing two things:

1. Instead of ending after a fixed number of failures, the skill challenge ends after a fixed number of "rounds" in which each member of the party can make a skill check.
2. Instead of having an overall "success" or "failure" result, the skill challenge has a result based on the number of successes.

Obviously, you could change some things (for example, the outcome of specific rolls and the outcome of the whole challenge should use different words). You could also create abilities that plug into skill challenges. Spells that replace skill checks, abilities that grant an extra round, whatever.

[Buufreak]

LOL. Yes, implementing that would be a good way to kill PF. Not even 4E fans like 4E SCs.

Seriously though, nothing 4 did with skills can be considered good. I mean, 1/2 level bonus to all skills made it so borked that... I can't even think of a proper simile, that's how bad things got in late levels.

The only thing that deserves salvaging from 4 would be some of the fluff.

And as for the original topic, while 5 did streamline, it over did it to the point that fiat is a must.

[Morphic tide]

As long as these "skill challenges" include a framework for social combat, I'm in for the suggestion.

[Kurald Galain]

As long as these "skill challenges" include a framework for social combat, I'm in for the suggestion.

Well, that framework is that each player in turn rolls his best skill (even if that's Athletics or Stealth or Dungeoneering) while the opposition does nothing. Skipping turns is not allowed, if you're a non-social barbarian you just roll endurance or something. If the players score a fixed number of successes before failing three times (regardless of what they're succeeding or failing at), then they win. If not, then they still win but lose 1/4th of their total hit points (again, regardless of how many HP they have).

Is that really what you want? Because that's how 4E's system works as written. One of the most common houserules for 4E is to do anything but that and still use the name "SC" because it's kind of a cool name. But not use any of the mechanics. It should be no surprise that WOTC's design team is on record saying "SCs should die in a fire".

[Sayt]

I think ICV2 has 5e as the number one in sales of late, but Pathfinder is in number two. But Pathfinder is established in the market, and 5e is breaking in after an unpopular editon.

But D&D 5e has a stated design choice not to produce splat books, which means once people have their corebook, they're basically done.

Anyway, back to what I'd hypothetically like to see for PF 2e isn't do much a cohesive new edition as much as a series of tweaks:

*An end to hardcoubters in spells: windwall, freedom of movement, emergency force sphere. I don't think they're good for the game.

*More wildcard ability modifier swapping, but keep the defaults as they are

*4th level casters get their casting at 1, and more slots

*Wizards pick 1/2 schools they can access, rather than 1/2 they can't. Clerics only get domain spells, but domain lists are closer to 4-5 spells per spell level. Sorcerers and Oracles now have a leg up on prepared casters in that they can pick any damn spell they want from where ever. Pare back on conjuration a little, perhaps.

*Automatic Bonus Progression in core, or a similar adjustment to the Big Six problem.

*Do ...something with Planar Binding. Perhaps work it into a comprehensive framework for cohorts and companions including leadership cohorts and animal companions.

[Cosi]

Is that really what you want? Because that's how 4E's system works as written. One of the most common houserules for 4E is to do anything but that and still use the name "SC" because it's kind of a cool name. But not use any of the mechanics. It should be no surprise that WOTC's design team is on record saying "SCs should die in a fire".

Well, no, the thing I want is the thing I described, which fixes those problems. Well, technically it doesn't fix "you should role your best skill", but "you should roll the best skill you can roll" is going to be true regardless of what the rules nominally are if you want to maximize your chance of success.

Again, which is more likely:

1. The people who made the worst editions of the game are not good at making games.
2. Any use of skills more complex than a skill check is fundamentally unworkable.

[Giegue]

@Cosi: I liked your fix for skill challenges, but would personally add a tweek to it. Since you changed it to only allow skills applicable to the situation (so no weird things like an Athletics checks to help persuade nobles at a fancy dinner party) I would add ways for characters wit you applicable skills to contribute. So say a character has no applicable skill to roll, they can just roll a straight ability check to emulate a skill they don't have that's keyed off that ability or make some kind of roll to aid a party member on their skill check.

So going back to that dinner party with nobles, the barbarian who only has skills like athletics and survival has a decent Wis, so instead of just twiddling his thumbs he could roll a straight Wis check to attempt to sense motive without ranks in it. Or conversely, if he doesn't feel confident in rolling just 1d20+2, he could instead make some kind of easy to pass check to help the high Cha Dread Necromancer pass their diplomacy check..with the flavor being something like leveraging his intimidating appearance "put some weight" behind the Dread Necro's words, bad pun intended.

That kind of thing would allow all members of a party to contribute to a SC without getting weird things like "athletics during a trial"

[EisenKreutzer]

Isn't Pathfinder one of the most popular games on Roll20 right now?

[animewatcha]

Would fixing these help?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267985-Completely-Dysfunctional-Handbook-3-5

[NecroDancer]

So I'm mainly a 5e player so I can say that pathfinder/3.5 suffers from the fact that you can make a "bad" character.

In 5e all options are valid and can be equally effective with a good GM (aka a GM that doesn't nerf social skills for no reason) but in 3.X could run the risk of making your character unplayable due to the sheer amount of content.

Honestly 3.5/pathfinder could be best improved by narrowing the area between god-mode and suck-mode.

Also streamlining the skills would be a nice touch for new players.

[SirNibbles]

Any class that doesn't have casting should get full BAB (Rogue, Monk).
Class chassis should be set up to allow a variety of builds with a common theme.
Common should be altered so that the noun 'chassis' has a distinct plural form rather than being identical to the singular form.
All classes should get valuable (yet not overpowered), unique features that encourages taking higher levels of classes, rather than just multiclassing. (There features should kick in at levels 6, 10, 13, 15, and 20- perhaps more often at higher levels).
Clerics should be split into two classes: one with 1/2 BAB and Cleric casting and one with 3/4 BAB and slightly reduced casting.
Classes should have abilities that allow them to be useful both in combat and out of combat (I'm looking at you, Fighters and Barbarians).
There should be Racial Hit Dice for everyone based on age.
Wizards and Sorcerers and Druids should be nerfed very slightly.
Contingencies should be removed.

It's a bit idealistic, but I'd like to see classes that are balanced so that they're relatively equal at all levels of optimisation.

[LordOfCain]

I was literally just thinking about this a couple of hours ago... THE PSYCHICS ARE BACK... I mean... I would really like a second edition of Pathfinder to fix some of the glaring issues, but what about all of the original third party stuff that would be invalidated... It would basically have to just be a bunch of errata without changing any major mechanics to keep all of the AWESOME third party stuff... Like 3.0e to 3.5e instead of 2e to 3e.

[GilesTheCleric]

As the title says. While pathfinder was a great 3.5.5e, it is really starting to lose thunder to 5e and really show it's age. Thus with PF set to go the way of the dodo in the not to distant future I decided to make this thread to see what all us 3.5e/PF players would like to see in the inevitable PF 2.0/3.6e?

I disagree with this premise. PF, 3.5, 3.0, 5e, and for that matter, 4e, 2e, and every other Moldvay, Basic, or other what-have-you edition of D&D is different. Just because one is newer doesn't mean that it displaces the others. They're all different games, and they all have their own pros and cons. Those new-to-TTRPG 5e players that WotC is indoctrinating will eventually learn that there's other editions, games, and systems out there. Eventually they'll try CoC, M&M, Whitewolf, Savage Worlds, Eclipse Phase, Shadowrun, SWSE, Warhammer, or even an older D&D edition. They might decide that though 5e was easy to pick up and learn (and easy to order from their favourite online retailer, or to join the AL at their local hobby shop), it doesn't have the featureset they like best.


Change the structure of the books.
Nothing is as confusing as a list for a non-linear series of choices. The books serve as the closest equivilent to a UI, and yet we’re relying on people parsing entire pages for one feat, or spell, or similar. Hire a UX and UI designer to work on how you structure your books, and I guarantee you will see an improvement in sales. If the players cannot understand what is given, then you’ve failed at your job.

This is a really important point. I think that 3.5e did a good job with it (the book is set up in the order of character creation, so you start at the front with a blank sheet, then end up with a complete one at the end of the book), but it could certainly be improved in terms of presentation. Eg. a whole lot of important things, like partial charges, the withdraw action, etc, are buried at the end of the combat chapter. Some sort of "combat options menu" or chart like the feat charts as a quick-reference would be nice.


Hmmm...maybe the PF decline thing is just regional? I mean, where I am everybody has moved to 5e, mostly, and a bunch of youtubers have been saying in chorus that 5e will kill PF with time unless PF does something to get new blood. That being said, maybe the "decline" of PF that I've seen regionally and on Roll20 is not indicative of the overall state of the industry?

Anecdotal evidence isn't useful in many situations. For gaming, it does sometimes matter, because most folks play whatever everyone else in their area plays, but that doesn't speak to national/ global trends. There's probably hundreds of thousands of AD&D groups meeting in homes across the world, but we'll never hear about them. There's no more AD&D product being written and sold, and they've got the same group they've been playing with for 20+ years, so they're happy and have no need to reach out.

[Darth Ultron]

I'd like:

*Bring back the Player/DM split with books for each, not the ''everyone buy everything and makes us rich'' approach.

*Add a lot more lines to the rules like ''with your DMs approval'' to stop jerk players from ruining the game.

*Dump WBL and really the whole fantasy economy. The idea of ''I buy a magic item with 60, 000 gold coins '' needs to go.

*Add something to spell selection so players can't just ''take any spell''. Maybe something like ''simple/complex'' spells or ''common/rare'' spells. So ''problem'' spells could be placed in the complex/rare category and not be easy for players to get.

*Different XP tables-a spellcaster sould need a good three times the XP as a mundane. So like a character with 15,000 xp would be a 5t level fighter, but only 2nd level wizard.

*Magic and spells need to have huge risks and dangers to use. Like teleport being 50% you die if you cast this.....but also having feats/classes/abilities to remove the danger and risk, but at a cost. So your 10t level spellcaster can teleport and scry and die or do 100d10 damage...but not both.

*Make social skills like diplomacy opposed checks and make the effects very clear....or just drop them and add the line ''role-play for real here.''

*At every level a mundane needs to get a combat ability, a defense ability and a utility ability by class.....but not have the silly lists of ''pick one of the 25 abilities from this list''.

*Mundanes need more actions as they level...like action points to take actions per round....like ''standard action is three points''. By like 10th level they should be taking like ''three full round actions'' a round.

[Kurald Galain]

Isn't Pathfinder one of the most popular games on Roll20 right now?
Yes :smallbiggrin:


in 3.X could run the risk of making your character unplayable due to the sheer amount of content.
It turns out this doesn't happen at the game table, like, ever. This is basically one of those standard arguments used by people that don't play a particular game, to point out why they play a different game. Strawberry vs Chocolate.


It would basically have to just be a bunch of errata without changing any major mechanics
You mean like the bunch of errata Paizo already publishes? :smallamused:

[Troacctid]

Honestly? I've been pretty pleased with 5e. It's more balanced and much easier to learn. My only complaint is that the available options are fairly thin—so if you just ported in some extra content, that's probably enough to make me happy. The most conspicuous absence: prestige classes, which added a lot of interesting customization options to 3.5e but were left out of 5e (although Unearthed Arcana experimented with them a little). I'd like to see some of those. Also, more options for races (more racial variants would especially be appreciated for some of them), base classes, and feats.


Isn't Pathfinder one of the most popular games on Roll20 right now?
Yes, it is in fact the second most popular game on Roll20, after 5e, which had about three times as many active games as PF at last count.

http://68.media.tumblr.com/58b9c2f6fd95a8f8c59b82b4856ae90d/tumblr_inline_okyqf1Liyd1tmt2jn_500.jpg (http://blog.roll20.net/post/156907010215/the-orr-group-industry-report-q4-2016)

[WbtE]

I think that Paizo would be well-advised to publish a second edition of Pathfinder that's an incremental change from the previous. From time to time some changes have come to mind on that level; the one that I remember most clearly is giving the Perception skill the Concentration treatment and just making it a level check with bonuses from various abilities and feats.

[Milo v3]

I'd want just minor tweaks to spells and classes, anything more and I wouldn't purchase it. If I wanted to play a game that wasn't Pathfinder, I'd already be playing a different game.


Add a lot more lines to the rules like ''with your DMs approval'' to stop jerk players from ruining the game.
Jerk players will be jerks regardless of what the game says.

[Kurald Galain]

Jerk players will be jerks regardless of what the game says.

Indeed. Legislating against jerks doesn't work.

[weckar]

You mean like the bunch of errata Paizo already publishes? :smallamused:
I'd approve of a print that actually includes the changes...

[Milo v3]

I'd approve of a print that actually includes the changes...
And Paizo does that.... They don't even release errata unless they are reprinting the book.

[johnbragg]

Backwards compatibility is a huge concern.

So what I'd recommend is definitely NOT a "PAthfinder 2.0" which implies that it must replace 1.0. Let's call it "PAthfinder: Trailblazing" or something.

I'd recommend opening a new setting, with a more limited set of classes and spells to start. Take advantage of the knowledge gained since PF debuted.

And just like a lot of 3.5 tables have adopted PAthfinder content as houserules, a lot of PF tables would adopt "Trailblazing" content as houserules. So new players would no longer create Fighters or Monks and end up feeling bad (although the original PF tweaks helped here), they'd create Trailblazer fighters or monks and feel okay.

[Milo v3]

On the splitting ritual magic from vancian thing, PF sorta has that. If you want planar binding or teleport to just be rituals, only allow them as occult rituals. Done.

[inuyasha]

I actually love Pathfinder's Occult Rituals as an improvement on 3.X's Unearthed Arcana rituals.

[Ualaa]

I don't see Pathfinder dying, but there is some support for 5e out there.
From those I've talked to, everyone plays Pathfinder, but that is just my experience.
Our group has no plans to quit anytime soon, or to switch editions either, and the core of our group has played since first edition, plus Rifts, the Paladium super heroes books, and GURPS too.

I do like the idea of optional rules, in another Pathfinder Unchained like product.

It doesn't make much difference whether something is core or not.
If it is a Paizo hardcover, our group picks up four of them between the members.
If it's a softcover, generally just the online version but I also grab the hero lab license for all Paizo material.

[khadgar567]

Two new books named unchained vol.2 focusing on good old wizard and unleased focusing on synthesis summoner

[Morphic tide]

...Maybe something a bit like 4e Essentials, where a bunch of stuff is published as something of an "alternate/replacement" core book, built to provide a different experience from the original core. Fully and totally compatible with the initial version, not even outright replacing anything, but having all the core rules of the game, including official errata and some of the variant rules, as stuff in them.

I mean, Essentials was probably considered desperate damage control by WotC, to give one last try at making 4e playable, but if 5e's really cutting into Pazio's customer base then a few alternate classes/new classes with the same role as old ones and condensed books of errata'd rules and basic variants would let them grab some new players. Especially if they compacted it into one or two books instead of the typical three or four core books of most D&D based products.

[Milo v3]

...Maybe something a bit like 4e Essentials, where a bunch of stuff is published as something of an "alternate/replacement" core book, built to provide a different experience from the original core. Fully and totally compatible with the initial version, not even outright replacing anything, but having all the core rules of the game, including official errata and some of the variant rules, as stuff in them.
So things like the Unchained classes?

[Morphic tide]

So things like the Unchained classes?

Almost, but not quite. More like Alternate Classes that trim the high bull**** from the BFCs and get the Martials another bit closer. Also re-introducing the feat pileup monster that was 3.5's Fighter, with the only true class feature being an ability to give some increasing number of feats they have to allies. Pathfinder has plenty of toolkit feats to make a class with nothing but a feat every level work out reasonably well, and archetypes can easily be swapping out feats for other abilities like Fighter options.

Oh, and for the sake of every new players sanity, make the feat taxes go away. Seriously, they destroyed the viability of Fighter and made Ranger the only even remotely usable ranged class in D&D proper. I don't care if it results in five pages of nothing but replacements to the feat taxes due to having to list all the feats they replace and give a working scaling function, make those abominations of game design go away. So what if it's flat out invalidating dozens of feats, those feats should not exist.

[Zanos]

-actual numbers-
Wow, 5e is cleaning house at the moment. Maybe I'll give it a try at some point, even if I'm not a huge fan of bounded accuracy and some of the other design concepts.

Gotta say I personally wouldn't want an updated version of 3.5. I don't even play Pathfinder. A system being abandoned has advantages. No more new material or FAQs or errata means I don't have to stay up to date with the latest releases to know the rules, and 3.5 largely does what I want anyway.

[Melcar]

As the title says. While pathfinder was a great 3.5.5e, it is really starting to lose thunder to 5e and really show it's age. Thus with PF set to go the way of the dodo in the not to distant future I decided to make this thread to see what all us 3.5e/PF players would like to see in the inevitable PF 2.0/3.6e?

My main personal wishes are many, but these are my main ones:

- Reduced magic item dependency without removing the magic item economy completely like 5e did. Preferably by baking the mandatory magic item bonuses (AC and save boosts, weapon enchantment bonuses etc...) into the classes or general PC level progression to allow for magic items with more unique and cool properties.

- Tome of Battle/Paths of War style manuvers for martial classes or a similar "tier 3" take on martials being part of the Core Rules. Also, general rebalancing to make the gap between casters and martials smaller, but not eliminating it entirely or reducing the scale of magic down to 5e's more heroic levels. Keep this game epic fantasy, just compensate by making martials more epic, please.

- re-working the saving throws to make them work like 4e (so fort can use either str or con, reflex either Dex or Int, and will wis or cha.) or work another way that makes all scores relivent.

- allowing for the flexability and depth options of we love, without the splatbook bloat that drives so many potential players away from PF/3.5e. Also Eliminate any "trap" choices that suck/are pointless to take mechanically to help new players.

- No sorcerer in core. Instead, clerics/priests will be the charisma caster of Core, with Druid being the wis caster and wizard being the Int one. (Nitpicky I know, but I never understood what wisdom had to do with strength of faith. That just seems more a Cha thing, to me, so yeah.)

This is just some rough wants I have. If any of you have your own wishes or ideas share them here!

1) Fix some of the classes like monk. Generally give mundanes nice things!!!

2) Make the game more viable at higher level. Here I mean 21+ Its just not right that one has to abuse the rules to be able to have spell DC to affect CR 50+ creatures because its easier to scale saves than DC. The Same goes for SP and attacks for mundanes.

3) Make options like tanking and healing more viable. They are still good, but I would like to see even more dedication to less obvious roles.

4) And I would like to see less arbitrary exceptions to the rules. For instance Positive energy aura. For some reason that's the only (AFAIK) spell where an emanation does not affect the caster...

5) I would also like to see a comprehensive explaining of many feats and class abilities and how they interact (For instance in a series of Rules Compendiums or Rules of the game printing. A comprehensive encyclopedia, where questions, for instance about mutual exclusivity would be explained in detail and examples.

6) And give mundanes nice things!

7) Fewer arbitrary prerequisites to classes and feats. Seldom do they fit or do any good!

[EldritchWeaver]

I was literally just thinking about this a couple of hours ago... THE PSYCHICS ARE BACK... I mean... I would really like a second edition of Pathfinder to fix some of the glaring issues, but what about all of the original third party stuff that would be invalidated... It would basically have to just be a bunch of errata without changing any major mechanics to keep all of the AWESOME third party stuff... Like 3.0e to 3.5e instead of 2e to 3e.

Actually, 3.5 broke so much, that 3.0 material had to be updated or it wasn't usable anymore without major changes via house rules.

[Cosi]

*Bring back the Player/DM split with books for each, not the ''everyone buy everything and makes us rich'' approach.

Maybe this is good on some abstract level (though I am not at all convinced), but it's clearly never going to happen because "everyone buy everything and makes us rich" is exactly what WotC wants. Really, books should be more diverse and interesting, not less. There should not be an entire book all about Magic of Blue. Instead, there should be a book about The Planes or something that includes Magic of Blue. And also some stuff for people who think Magic of Blue is dumb, or just happen to be playing Warlocks right now.


*Add a lot more lines to the rules like ''with your DMs approval'' to stop jerk players from ruining the game.

The rules should protect players from jerk DMs not the reverse.


Add something to spell selection so players can't just ''take any spell''. Maybe something like ''simple/complex'' spells or ''common/rare'' spells. So ''problem'' spells could be placed in the complex/rare category and not be easy for players to get.

This is a bad solution. If planar binding is broken, fix planar binding, don't try to jerk people around for wanting you use an ability you wrote to do what it says.


Different XP tables-a spellcaster sould need a good three times the XP as a mundane. So like a character with 15,000 xp would be a 5t level fighter, but only 2nd level wizard.

If you can balance the game with separate XP tables, you can balance it with one XP table. One XP table is simpler, and therefore better. If you want pointless obscurantism in how powerful characters are, you can go play 2e (honestly, a lot of these suggestions sound like "bring back X terrible thing from AD&D").


Magic and spells need to have huge risks and dangers to use. Like teleport being 50% you die if you cast this.....but also having feats/classes/abilities to remove the danger and risk, but at a cost. So your 10t level spellcaster can teleport and scry and die or do 100d10 damage...but not both.

I assume this is an attempt to make spellcasters less appealing, but what it actually does is mandate you have a pile of spellcasters. If each Wizard can only cast half the Wizard utility spells, you just make people take twice as many Wizards. Also, why not just spells known limits? It accomplishes the same thing (minimize spell combos) without gygaxian player screwing.


Mundanes need more actions as they level...like action points to take actions per round....like ''standard action is three points''. By like 10th level they should be taking like ''three full round actions'' a round.

If you can write caster actions that are of appropriate value at 10th level, either you can write mundane actions that are appropriate at 10th level or the concept of "is mundane" has expired at 10th level. Extra actions bog down combat for no reason (can you imagine trying to resolve a fight where the enemy has Fighter minions?).

[Darth Ultron]

Jerk players will be jerks regardless of what the game says.

But...amazingly...most player jerks are also rule worshipers, and even more so the types that think ''every word from cover to cover is a hard core rule'', so that would help a lot...





This is a bad solution. If planar binding is broken, fix planar binding, don't try to jerk people around for wanting you use an ability you wrote to do what it says.

It makes sense, even from a in world view that ''everyone can't just cast everything'' and that many powerful, complex spells should only be for ''a few''. And this would really stop jerk players, power players, optimizers and other types of players that make problems with spellcasters. To make the exotic and powerful spells out of touch for the ''common spellcaster(aka player) is a great idea. Even better: you could make the exotic and powerful spells have a pure role play component that problem players could ''never'' do and solve the problem perfectly.




If you can balance the game with separate XP tables, you can balance it with one XP table. One XP table is simpler, and therefore better. If you want pointless obscurantism in how powerful characters are, you can go play 2e (honestly, a lot of these suggestions sound like "bring back X terrible thing from AD&D")..

Balance it with one table? Ok, then all spellcasters get 1/3 the xp of mundane would work good.




I assume this is an attempt to make spellcasters less appealing, but what it actually does is mandate you have a pile of spellcasters. If each Wizard can only cast half the Wizard utility spells, you just make people take twice as many Wizards. Also, why not just spells known limits? It accomplishes the same thing (minimize spell combos) without gygaxian player screwing.")..

The idea is more fun risk. A spellcaster can teleport...but it's a risk...so they can take the risk or choose not too. If a spellcaster just does not care...then they will take a hard knock soon enough. But any reasonably intelligent player can still have fun and take acceptable risks.




If you can write caster actions that are of appropriate value at 10th level, either you can write mundane actions that are appropriate at 10th level or the concept of "is mundane" has expired at 10th level. Extra actions bog down combat for no reason (can you imagine trying to resolve a fight where the enemy has Fighter minions?).

So a spellcaster with a minion army does not bog down combat?

And how does saying a X level fighter can take 3 full actions in combat slow the game down? A good player would have their actions for the round ready and just say ''I do this''....

[Milo v3]

But...amazingly...most player jerks are also rule worshipers, and even more so the types that think ''every word from cover to cover is a hard core rule'', so that would help a lot...
I always find it amusing you think you've met over half the jerk players in the world :smalltongue:

In my experience it's been the opposite, only players who don't take note of the rules have been problem players for me. But my opinion is that "level of system knowledge" and "jerk-ness" have no links, either positive or negative.


It makes sense, even from a in world view that ''everyone can't just cast everything'' and that many powerful, complex spells should only be for ''a few''.
You realise PC's are the exact type of characters who are traditionally the "few with the extra powers"? PC's are lucky enough they get things like "My god likes me enough to give me cleric powers rather than adept levels" or "My family has dragon blood so I awakened arcane magic" and "I was actually able to figureout how to cast spells through experimentation" despite it being so rare that there isn't wasn't a NPC class option for arcane casters until eberron.

[Morphic tide]

*Bring back the Player/DM split with books for each, not the ''everyone buy everything and makes us rich'' approach.
Actually, the separation of DM book from player book is a bad thing, because it mandates that you go to one person's place for the game. The real problem is bloated prices, which more books makes worse.


*Add a lot more lines to the rules like ''with your DMs approval'' to stop jerk players from ruining the game.
Won't stop jerk players from being jerks. And you just file that sort of stuff under "variant rules." Like how 5e treated multiclassing, giving an excuse for never balancing for multiclass characters.


*Dump WBL and really the whole fantasy economy. The idea of ''I buy a magic item with 60, 000 gold coins '' needs to go.
Needs to come back and be more clear, actually. There's been rules regulating that weird situation, but they tended to get ignored. For the sake of fun. The reason you play games in the first place.

*Add something to spell selection so players can't just ''take any spell''. Maybe something like ''simple/complex'' spells or ''common/rare'' spells. So ''problem'' spells could be placed in the complex/rare category and not be easy for players to get.
Alternatively, you can balance them through either prerequisites to cast, like having particular skill rank requirements and or making them appropriate for their level.


*Different XP tables-a spellcaster sould need a good three times the XP as a mundane. So like a character with 15,000 xp would be a 5t level fighter, but only 2nd level wizard.
They did that in 2e, but kinda forgot that it was a major part of game balance. Instead of having the casters need more XP to level up, just stretch the caster's progression by the same amount. 6th level spells at level 20, 9th level spells at level 30.

If you can balance a class by having it level half as fast as the others, you can balance it just as well by having it level just as fast and progress at half the pace of the others within the same levels.


*Magic and spells need to have huge risks and dangers to use. Like teleport being 50% you die if you cast this.....but also having feats/classes/abilities to remove the danger and risk, but at a cost. So your 10t level spellcaster can teleport and scry and die or do 100d10 damage...but not both.
No. Just no. Instead of that, have school specialization mean more and have stricter limits on spells known.


*Make social skills like diplomacy opposed checks and make the effects very clear....or just drop them and add the line ''role-play for real here.''
Or go further and make it a full on subsystem for social interaction, with the simple opposed roll being an option for those who don't particularly care for social events.


*At every level a mundane needs to get a combat ability, a defense ability and a utility ability by class.....but not have the silly lists of ''pick one of the 25 abilities from this list''.
Or have them get actual versatility in build by giving them the list of things and giving them the choice for off-focus abilities so that they can go pure combat, or go into pure intrigue.


*Mundanes need more actions as they level...like action points to take actions per round....like ''standard action is three points''. By like 10th level they should be taking like ''three full round actions'' a round.
Actually a neat idea, as it lets you have iterative attacks and move speed increases and multiple spells per round(okay, maybe not the last one) baked into core mechanics that everyone uses, leading to the overall "speed" of the class be determined by one number. I mean, if my Fighter 20 can swing his sword 4 times per round, why can't he run any faster than he could at level 1?

It also gives another control on spell power by making them impossible to cast for some casters over others until much later levels, simply due to casting time. This lets you get away with spells not being different levels for different lists, but still having them be locked to the half-caster's level of getting the slot by having the casting time "fit" that level's action point limit.

Heck, you can use it to have a lot of weird wording go away, with Haste becoming "Gain X action points per round," leading to all those action-granting effects being usable for any action you want.

Also, I have one more suggestion: 2d10 or 4d5 replacing the d20, with minimum rolls having a coin flip or d4 rolled to check for natural ones. This deals with the annoying averages problem while keeping the same roll range of one to twenty.

[Cosi]

It makes sense, even from a in world view that ''everyone can't just cast everything'' and that many powerful, complex spells should only be for ''a few''. And this would really stop jerk players, power players, optimizers and other types of players that make problems with spellcasters. To make the exotic and powerful spells out of touch for the ''common spellcaster(aka player) is a great idea. Even better: you could make the exotic and powerful spells have a pure role play component that problem players could ''never'' do and solve the problem perfectly.

Why not just not make problem spells?


Balance it with one table? Ok, then all spellcasters get 1/3 the xp of mundane would work good.

Yes, you're very clever. Now explain why you think having different advancement schedules is better than having balanced classes.


The idea is more fun risk. A spellcaster can teleport...but it's a risk...so they can take the risk or choose not too. If a spellcaster just does not care...then they will take a hard knock soon enough. But any reasonably intelligent player can still have fun and take acceptable risks.

Playing Russian Roulette is not most people's idea of "fun risk". If you can't figure out how to balance teleport, don't print teleport.


So a spellcaster with a minion army does not bog down combat?

Did I say it didn't?


And how does saying a X level fighter can take 3 full actions in combat slow the game down? A good player would have their actions for the round ready and just say ''I do this''....

Why are you trying to fix the game by mandating that people be "good players" instead of making rules that encourage good play?

[CartmanTuttle]

So, based on what I've been seeing, a few things people want are actually Variant Rules that can be fun to use, depending on your group and/or GM. Here's a link for those interested:
https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/gamemastering/other-rules

And in my opinion, everything with Pathfinder is going as I like it, but if I could ask for things, I would ask for two:
1: More Unchained material
2: Spell points system

Although I feel like each have at least half a dozen threads about them by this point :smalltongue:

[Milo v3]

Playing Russian Roulette is not most people's idea of "fun risk". If you can't figure out how to balance teleport, don't print teleport.
This is the guy who had summoning spells have a chance of summoning Orcus who then kills you, his perspective on "fun risk" is more lenient than most.

[Coidzor]

Jerk players will be jerks regardless of what the game says.


Indeed. Legislating against jerks doesn't work.

Plus, wanting to do something that the rules cover explicitly doesn't make one a jerk by default.

What can very easily make someone a jerk is arbitrarily picking and choosing spells, rules, feats, etc. to ban player access to with no externally apparent rhyme or reason and expecting other people to read one's mind as to which ones are banned and why.


This is the guy who had summoning spells have a chance of summoning Orcus who then kills you, his perspective on "fun risk" is more lenient than most.

A nice frothy mug of Orcus, you say? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?357981-Can-you-cheat-at-D-amp-D/page44&p=17759232#post17759232)