Thought exercise.... Perfect Pathfinder?

[Tallyn]

I do really like both editions, although I think I generally prefer 1st edition due to it being more customizable to me. I was just thinking (and wish I had the time to fully write it out), but what if we took the best features of both editions and made an amalgam of the two... what features would you keep from each system, or cannibalize into the other edition? Just a few thoughts for me:

Classes/levling system - 1st edition. I like the customizability of leveling in 1st edition

Skills - 1st edition, but with a twist.. I like the skill points system, but I also am intrigued by T/E/M/L system for possible skill use unlocks

Actions - 2nd edition.. I like the 3 action economy. Some actions take 1, some actions take 2, some 3... and a reaction each round. This would require that I revised the multiple attacks from 1st edition...

Weapon tables - 2nd edition.. I do like that weapons feel (and maybe this is superficial) to have more varied uses in 2nd edition.

Spells - 1st edition (generally). I kind of like the idea of varying degrees of success, but some of the spells in 2nd edition feel a little overly nerfed to me. This would be a major project heh

Feats - 1st edition in general power/use, 2nd edition I like that you get more of them and of different types, so would probably have feats, skill feats, racial feats, etc. Also really like white elephant rules for PF, so would probably implement those in some ways.

I know PF isn't everyone's cup of tea (especially 2.0), but just some thoughts thrown out there that could make PF great again :D

[Eldonauran]

I'm generally in the same position that you are in. I'm running a custom campaign that takes a lot of the Unchained rules that turn PF1 into a PF2 hybrid that suits my kind of playstyle.

Classes/leveling system: Definitely 1st edition
Skills : 1st edition with the inclusion of skill feat every even level
Actions: 3 action economy is great, with tweaks from the Unchained 1e book. I kept swift actions and made immediate actions into reactions
Weapon tables I haven't addressed this yet, but I kind of like the 2e tables
Spells: Generally, I use a hybrid system with most leaning towards 1e. Cantrips now scale based on level, are a SINGLE action (but only once per round) and normal spells are 2 actions (except for the full round actions, as normal).
Feats: Definitely keeping this to 1e. Too much has to change to adopt class feats.

You don't have to do anything to make PF1e great again. It remains what it always has, even if the mainstream players have moved on. I've been through that particular shift many times.

[Serafina]

Well, let's dig my teeth into this:

Classes/Levelling System: Pathfinder 1, but with radical departure. Effectively, everyone Gestalts between a Class and a Background. Backgrounds are what provides Skills and related features, as well as some general non-combat utility, while Classes will stop providing those.

Skills: Skill Points. Backgrounds can provide both Skill Feats (much more generous ones, there is no reason why a Climb- or Swim-speed shouldn't be first-level), as well as unique skill-related features.

Actions: 3-Action Economy works, but with the caveat that you only get 1 Attack Action each turn. Doesn't mean characters can't make more than one attack - those would come from actions that take up 2 actions, or from trading one action for a readied reaction, or similar tactical choices.

Spells: Go primarily with Spheres of Power for casting provided by Classes. Vancian Spells still exist, but are provided by Backgrounds, are stripped off their combat-oriented stuff, and access to a lot of their effects is instead relegated to skill-gated Rituals that everyone can access.

Magic Items: Get rid of the Core 5, no more Items that simply provide boring +X bonuses like +Natural Armor, +Resistance, +toHit/Damage.

Feats: I generally like the idea of general/class/skill/heritage feats, but don't call everyhing feats. Also don't make everything into a chain.

Martial Ability: Provide a lot more cool abilities, starting beyond level 7, 11 and 15 (or so). Take Inspiration from Spheres of Might and Path of War. Some should be Universal and available to every class, because gating access to specific combat abilities to specific classes just feels wrong.

Race/Ancestry: Make them stat-agnostic, darnit. Having Dwarves get +2 to Wisdom just means I won't make them Wizards, so get rid of that. Dwarves being wiser can just be represented via all the ancestry feats they now get, without it being a stat-boost, and if those don't fit my build I'll pick something else instead.

[Firechanter]

Okay let's see...
My knee-jerk reaction was to say "PF2 - absolutely ****ing nothing", but that's not quite accurate.
So how would I like my PF:

Core engine and general power level: mostly PF1.
- Add the Maneuver system from Path of War.
- Overhaul the classes a bit, strip the ones that are too powerful, buff the poor ones.
- I'd be open to cutting the BAB advancement to 1/2 levels
- keep multiple attacks, but get rid of iterative attack penalties

Trim the fat:
- get rid of a chunk of those Conditions.
- toss out all those super crappy junk feats that just clutter the books and do nothing, or even make you weaker. Seriously, sifting through all that garbage is a PAIN!
- make some things that are now mediocre feats available as normal actions anyone can perform.
- Or if you're gonna keep crappy feats, archetypes, PrCs, items etc then please _mark_ them as second-rate, fluffy NPC flavour stuff.
- and of course also scratch overpowered broken imba bull****. In short, level the playing field.

What hints to take from PF2:
- I kinda like the crafting system. Especially that Fighters now get to make and upgrade their own magic weapons, and even without paying feat taxes.
- Also, the dual "tracks" for numeric bonuses and special qualities are a good idea (I can tell because I had the same idea for 3.5 years ago).
- spread around more generous stat increases, such as PF's "+2 to 4 stats every 5 levels". The exact mode would need to be fine-tuned. Make stats less item-dependent.

And definitely make/keep player choices _meaningful_ and have _impact_.
I could go on about this detail and that, but I think you get the general idea.

[KatsOfLoathing]

Some general thoughts on taking the parts of both editions that are good and bringing them together to make something that's maybe great:
Automatic bonus progression should really just be the default assumption of the system. It tightens up some of the deficiencies between martials and casters and prevents having to hassle with WBL if you don't want to.
Combat Stamina was an idea that was introduced late in 1e's lifespan and could've brought some really interesting things to the table had it been put in earlier. Maybe make it an ability available to all pure-martial types? I wouldn't complain.
Some of the options introduced in 2e that add customization to classes which were previously mostly set-in-stone (Cleric dogmas, Druid orders, Paladin --> Champion) are good things I wouldn't mind seeing more of.
Backgrounds are something that could be expanded and codified further, and provide abilities that act as a replacement to superfluous skills like Craft, Profession, and Perform (which is really just an artifact option left around to support Bards, let's be real).
With the exception of folding some combat maneuvers into skills, many of 2e's skill changes were definitely for the better. Combining Climb and Swim into Athletics, allowing non-spellcasters to craft magic items without hurdles, and expanding alchemical crafting were all good things.
2e made some strides towards giving martials nice things (skill feats, some of the upper-level class feats, especially for Barbarians and Rogues), but on the whole they're too little and too late. Having those options still be available, but sooner and on a more broad basis, would improve their status a lot.
EDIT ADDITION: While it is in many ways kind of clumsily executed, the skill proficiency system in 2e was a good idea for moving away from the skill-siloing of 1e and D&D 3.5e, allowing classes that aren't ideally suited for certain roles (who says the druid can't be a diplomat, or the fighter can't be an acrobat?) to still perform reasonably in them anyway.

[spaceman1997]

Well, I can't say I'm the biggest fan of PF2e, but I have been stealing pieces of the system as house rules for my campaign ever since the playtest was announced. However, after my experiences with the 2e playtest (those poor, poor adventurers...) I basically gave up all plans for me to shift systems and ended up modifying Pathfinder to better fit our needs.

The end result has been a slow rebuilding of Pathfinder 1e, primarily focused on fixing the problems from 3.5 or other outdated mechanics. Some of these changes were good enough they've basically become constant house rules among the other GM's I play with, others I really only have to fit my specific campaign setting.

Classes/Progression: Pathfinder 1e, all the way. The whole concept of "Class Feats" just never clicked with any of my players, and 1e already has an ocean's worth of content. That said, I actually use something close to 2e's EXP mechanic as it fits the setting better.

Skills: Again PF1e, with some massive reworks on point distribution, partially due to my adding of more skills, partially to fix known problems. I also grant players skill unlocks automatically. Incidentally, a actually use something similar to 2e's crit system here, with success/failure by 20 being an auto-crit space for me.

Actions: This one's a bit strange. I originally loved the concept of the 3 action economy, but Paizo's implementation of it in 2e left me traumatized enough to not use it. Instead, I've basically taken the old Standard-Move-Swift action system and streamlined it a bit. Actions can be downgraded to the next tier, a lot of strange exceptions have been removed, and more generic actions have been added. From what I've heard, it supposedly has a lot in common with Star wars Sega Edition, but I've never played that so I can't say personally.

Weapons and Armor: Complete rewrite on my end. What started as a rant about shields in 2e and the inability of any game based on D&D to have a good armor list turned into a large excel sheet with brand new stats for all weapons and armor.

Spells: Still using 1e. That said, the moment they announced the 4 magic types in the Playtest Preview, pretty much every GM I know retconned it into PF1e. Other noteworthy changes are the removal of the Heighten Spell Metamagic - casters may always prepare/cast a spell in a higher spell slot than is needed - and spell lines automatically scaling. Oh and the minor change to there being 6 different saving throws, one per ability score.

Alchemy: Doesn't really follow 1e or 2e. For starters, alchemy is NOT MAGIC and follows different rules regarding targeting, application, and removal. It is also no longer Vancian, acting more like a cross between Psyonics from 3.5 and Path of War. The end result is a system that is still incredibly useful, but feels completely different from magic.

Feats: This is mostly due to the setting, but I'm using the Feat Point system (https://dnineteen.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/feat-points). A bit complex, but it fixes so many problems.

Races: Still basically PF1e, but with some more flexibility on racial ability score changes. Also completely redid human, as a flexible +2 and a flexible bonus feat was just broken.

Combat Maneuvers: Still 1e, but with changes to hopefully make them more forgiving to use and less build dependant. Also made a couple of them target AC.

Yeah, there is a reason why I like to joke that I'll publish these house rules as their own system under the OGL once my campaign ends. I still have a lot of work before then though, like rebuilding the entire AC system.

[stack]

Regarding automatic bonus progression: you only need it if the game math requires it. If you don't build the assumption of those bonuses into the difficulty of encounters, then you can skip it. ABP was a bandaid to reduce basic math items without having to rebalance every the entire bestiary.

[Asmotherion]

it's actually spelled "5e"

:smalltongue:

[Aotrs Commander]

I have "just" hybridised 3.5 with PF1, and stolen the odd good idea out of other editions. (Which is the concept (but not mechanical implementation) or solos from 4E and the terminology (but not the widespread implementation) of Advantage/Disadvantage from 5£ (because it writing "with advantage" is so much easier than "roll two D20 and take the best result") - on an Vicious Mockery, because that's just too funny not to use when I saw it in action with the Unexpectables podcast.

Nothing from PF2, though I have, for other reasons, acquired the playtest rules (mostly for Darkest Dawn), so I will likely have some exposure to it to see if there's any ideas I think worth nicking. But, like 5E and 4E, there probably isn't anything widespread, since anything I thought needed fixing, I've done myself in the 600+ pages of house-rules.

For instance, we're still using 3.5 stat progression and racial stat bonuses (and hit dice)... But we use maximum hit points, and base-8 point-for-point with 36 points (e.g. 18/18/16/14/10/8), so I feel the fact nonhumans are only allowed one stat of 20 at level 1 - I'm not sure you could get two 20s with PF point-buy anyway - I feel is more than compensation.



I HAVE been considering increasing feats to one per level, instead of every odd level (we have A LOT of feats now), but on the other hand, I'm not sure I want to add that much extra stuff onto all the NPCs and such (and the players who don't play often...), at least not until I've gone through and tested the current set-up, where we already have sharply increased the amount of decisons per level required. (Though it is more my end and the NPCs/monsters I'm thinking of.)

[Psyren]

My short version of a Perfect PF would be PF1 + Unchained + the better third party options.

I would expand on Unchained by "unchaining" other weak or convoluted classes like the Kineticist and Shifter, and either buffing or removing specialty classes like Swashbuckler and Cavalier.

[Firechanter]

The "Unchained" Barbarian is rather Chained, though, isn't it?

I like the UnMonk, only trouble with it is you can't take most of the Monk Archetypes, because they tend to swap out class features the UnMonk doesn't have.

[Unavenger]

I will add to the undercurrent of just keeping PF1. There are things I would change, but AFAICR, none of them was implemented in PF2 either.

[Psyren]

The "Unchained" Barbarian is rather Chained, though, isn't it?

Yes, I 100% agree - I vastly prefer the original and would keep that :smallsmile:


I like the UnMonk, only trouble with it is you can't take most of the Monk Archetypes, because they tend to swap out class features the UnMonk doesn't have.

There is third-party that fixes that, and it's from the same folks behind the Pactmaker so the ones I read through were pretty good.

[Arutema]

Unchained Barbarian tried to make the math simpler and solve the issue of dying when you run out of rage.

Pity about all the other unneeded nerfs it piled on the class for no reason.