Pathfinder 2nd Edition (no, don't get excited!)

[gamerprinter]

Hard to say. I do not think Pathfinder 2nd Edition would necessarily need to be backwards compatible as Pathfinder was to 3.X, nor does it necessarily need to maintain as many of the sacred cows.

As such, I think I would be interested to see them move away from Vancian spellcasting to a more point based model, for starters. Perhaps they could also afford to move away from the 3-18 model for stats and into stat # = bonus . I would be strongly tempted to say that they should keep all of the base classes they have, but should reorganize the NPC classes. NPC classes should be weak, not completely uninteresting as they are now. Simplified monsters should be a shoe in. Classwise, I think a big question would be whether to bring psionics back inhouse. Psychic warrior and wilder could probably be ditched or merged into soulknife and psion.

Another big thing: I think that there should be a definitive system for heading into epic levels. It does not need to be fleshed out per se, but it should be completely apparent from the core rules how you would do it.

Honestly, all that would chase me away from Pathfinder 2.0. I'd probably stick with 1.0 if that's the direction Paizo went.

I'm not a fan of spell points, and though many seem to hate Vancian magic system, it's the only one I'm comfortable with - I don't want to see it go.

Psionics and Epic rules - yech, never liked either. I don't allow psionicists in my game, and only did Epic once and it was a terrible experience.

And all my NPCs are generally full classes, as if they were PCs, though I still have commoner/adept/expert/warrior in my game. If there were improvements here, I'm might be interested.

No offense, I can't see any of your recommendations as something I want to see.

 

[Rampant]

I would like to see the full attack action fixed, i.e. removed in favor of a secondary attack system that doesn't either turn sneak attackers into gods or punish people for moving.

 

[Lwaxy]

Away from Vancian would be so welcome.

I never saw the point in not allowing a specific class in general. Although psionics don't really fit on Golarion for some reason.

 

[ren1999]

No, I've not heard anything to suggest that such a thing is imminent. Although I imagine that it may at least have begun to exist deep withing the secret Paizo lair.

So, if Paizo were to announced 2E tomorrow, what would you hope they do with it?

As someone who received a free copy of the core rules when they came out and read them, I only recently started to use the modules and really like it.

The Beginner's Box is already headed in the right direction for PF2 but I would add a few things. Starting hit points need to be higher.

If there are still going to be DC saves for spells, be sure to list the DCs specifically in each spell.

Spells do too much damage. I hate having to tell someone that if they can do 4d6 lightning damage that so can my monster casters. If they can cause death with just one roll, so can my monsters.

Every race needs to have the same number of racial traits.
Every class needs to have the same number of class features.
Everybody needs to gain powers at the same rate.

And as always, I'm pitching the idea of having only one set of unique and powerful powers, spells, prayers and feats. Too many now do the same thing.

 

[Morrus]

Spells do too much damage. I hate having to tell someone that if they can do 4d6 lightning damage that so can my monster casters. If they can cause death with just one roll, so can my monsters.

You think a limited use 4d6 (so average 12ish) damage is too high for a 4th level character?

 

[ren1999]

Let's work it out.

A 20th level fighter has d10x20=200 hit points

A 10th level Wizard has a Lightning Bolt spell that does 10d6 max damage.

If the Wizard rolls well, he can kill a fighter twice his level in a little over 3 rounds.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

Let's work it out.

A 20th level fighter has d10x20=200 hit points

A 10th level Wizard has a Lightning Bolt spell that does 10d6 max damage.

If the Wizard rolls well, he can kill a fighter twice his level in a little over 3 rounds.

That's true, if you're assuming that:
1) the Wizard and the Fighter are going one-on-one. Odds are they aren't. Both sides will have allies.
2) the Fighter simply stands there and isn't advancing on the mage or isn't using ranged attacks of any kind. That just makes no sense.
4) the Fighter misses the Reflex saving throw for each of the 3 lightning bolts. Okay, I can kind of buy this, since Fighters aren't normally known for their agility.
5) the Fighter has no resistance to electricity (or fire or which ever element you'd like to use). High-level characters tend to have some kind of magic defenses or buff spells from an ally.
6) the Fighter has no bonus hp (even with a Con of 14, that still an extra 40 hit points)

 

[DaveMage]

Let's work it out.

A 20th level fighter has d10x20=200 hit points

A 10th level Wizard has a Lightning Bolt spell that does 10d6 max damage.

If the Wizard rolls well, he can kill a fighter twice his level in a little over 3 rounds.

So many flaws...

A 20th level fighter will kill a 10th level wizard (avg. w/o Con bonus, 35 hp) in 1 round.
10d6 damage is an average of 35 points. If the 200hp fighter did nothing and failed all saves, it would take, on average 6 10d6 spells to do 200 hp of damage.

 

[ren1999]

DaveMage, you forgot that 200HP is not averaged, it is maximized hp.

When you average lightning damage to 35, you also have to average the fighter's hit points.

A 20th level fighter will not kill a 10th level wizard in 1 round.

 

[billd91]

DaveMage, you forgot that 200HP is not averaged, it is maximized hp.

When you average lightning damage to 35, you also have to average the fighter's hit points.

A 20th level fighter will not kill a 10th level wizard in 1 round.

It's that whole comparison by maximized result thing that isn't working for you. You're much better off looking at expected values - which has its flaws as well, but usually produces a better statistical comparison.