Cognisant
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Yesterday 9:44 PM
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 10,562
I think in some regards the people who made this system didn't have their priorities straight, as I see it a tabletop game should put freedom of choice first, freedom of action second, narrative third and challenge last.
For example the results of skill checks in Pathfinder are very binary and this both strongly discourages players from using them in all but the most mundane ways and discourages DMs from putting players in truly dangerous scenarios. For example almost everything is a DC15 which means a player with two ranks in a class skill usually has a 50% chance of succeeding, and a 50% chance of failure. If that player is climbing a mountain or jumping between rooftops a 50% chance of failure is unacceptably harsh, so players don't do stuff like that until they're of a much higher level and are sure to succeed.
But that's bullshit, at lower levels a rouge/ninja or whatever in the Pathfinder system is defined as such by their class abilities and spell like abilities (which greatly affect the character build) while the general skills one would normally recognise that class by languish until level 5 to 10. I think a character's build should be based on their skills not the other way around because skills are the essential enablers of each class, they are what makes each class "that class".
I was watching a recorded Pathfinder campaign on youtube in which a ranger failed multiple attempts to light a fucking campfire, how does a "ranger" fuck that up, I would understand if this one ranger doesn't have wild empathy or this one rouge can't sneak attack or this one wizard doesn't have a bonded object, this stuff isn't essential to their class identity, their skills are. A ranger that can't survive in the wild isn't a ranger, a rouge that can't do acrobatics isn't a rouge, a wizard without knowledge arcana isn't a wizard, etc, do you see what I mean?
Skills are the essential enablers of each class, they're what make a class.
Take the Pathfinder classes out of combat and you know what they are?
They're nothing, just a pile of abilities that ought to be feats.
That's how I'd fix this, each class gets +10 to their class skills at level 1, none of this ability bullshit, all the abilities and spell-like abilities become class specific feats that players can choose as bonus feats when they level up.
And bloodlines they need some serious fixing too, my problem with the bloodlines is that they're offered as a choice when in reality they're anything but, it's the same problem as classes you're basically deciding upon you build at level 1 with the added bullshit that it's tied into your character's fuff as well. The result of this is build based characters with no real identity, the player either chooses a build then a bloodline to match or a bloodline then tries to figure out how to make it work despite how it may affect the character they want to play.
To fix this I would pull all the low level ability crap out of the bloodlines, leave in a few minor perks and disadvantages (like 5pts damage reduction to this element and vulnerability to that element) so the fluff isn't irreverent mechanically but ensuring the bloodline doesn't dictate the mechanics, and leave in the high level stuff so when I'm level 10 or whatever and I get some drake wings I've been able to adapt my build to accommodate and make good use of them.
The ideal with bloodlines being that a sorcerer wouldn't actually pick their bloodline, they'd just pick their class and at some point in the first session when the DM feels it's appropriate (or funny) the sorcerer's bloodline dramatically awakens and the player rolls to find out what their bloodline is. Wouldn't that be awesome?
If it doesn't matter for the first five to ten levels you have time to adapt but more importantly having this bloodline thrust upon you becomes method acting because it has been thrust upon you and maybe it conflicts with the alignment you want to play or maybe you don't want to be slowly turning into an aboleth, feel the angst!
Also before I forget skills should have degrees of success and failure, even if a ranger totally fucks up trying to start a fire maybe they set fire to the grass beside the fireplace and everybody has to scramble to stop it becoming a brushfire, the point is a ranger shouldn't simply fail at something like that, likewise a rouge may miss a jump but catch the ledge, y'know whatever enables the player to rely on that skill as someone of that class should.
I'm not saying you can't fuck up class skills just that a bard fucking up their performance is different to some dickhead trying to be a bard, one's a professional performer the other's not, the drunken would-be bard may fail to impress but the bard will be booed and heckled, but if he was merely trying to create a distraction he has succeeded either way.
For example the results of skill checks in Pathfinder are very binary and this both strongly discourages players from using them in all but the most mundane ways and discourages DMs from putting players in truly dangerous scenarios. For example almost everything is a DC15 which means a player with two ranks in a class skill usually has a 50% chance of succeeding, and a 50% chance of failure. If that player is climbing a mountain or jumping between rooftops a 50% chance of failure is unacceptably harsh, so players don't do stuff like that until they're of a much higher level and are sure to succeed.
But that's bullshit, at lower levels a rouge/ninja or whatever in the Pathfinder system is defined as such by their class abilities and spell like abilities (which greatly affect the character build) while the general skills one would normally recognise that class by languish until level 5 to 10. I think a character's build should be based on their skills not the other way around because skills are the essential enablers of each class, they are what makes each class "that class".
I was watching a recorded Pathfinder campaign on youtube in which a ranger failed multiple attempts to light a fucking campfire, how does a "ranger" fuck that up, I would understand if this one ranger doesn't have wild empathy or this one rouge can't sneak attack or this one wizard doesn't have a bonded object, this stuff isn't essential to their class identity, their skills are. A ranger that can't survive in the wild isn't a ranger, a rouge that can't do acrobatics isn't a rouge, a wizard without knowledge arcana isn't a wizard, etc, do you see what I mean?
Skills are the essential enablers of each class, they're what make a class.
Take the Pathfinder classes out of combat and you know what they are?
They're nothing, just a pile of abilities that ought to be feats.
That's how I'd fix this, each class gets +10 to their class skills at level 1, none of this ability bullshit, all the abilities and spell-like abilities become class specific feats that players can choose as bonus feats when they level up.
And bloodlines they need some serious fixing too, my problem with the bloodlines is that they're offered as a choice when in reality they're anything but, it's the same problem as classes you're basically deciding upon you build at level 1 with the added bullshit that it's tied into your character's fuff as well. The result of this is build based characters with no real identity, the player either chooses a build then a bloodline to match or a bloodline then tries to figure out how to make it work despite how it may affect the character they want to play.
To fix this I would pull all the low level ability crap out of the bloodlines, leave in a few minor perks and disadvantages (like 5pts damage reduction to this element and vulnerability to that element) so the fluff isn't irreverent mechanically but ensuring the bloodline doesn't dictate the mechanics, and leave in the high level stuff so when I'm level 10 or whatever and I get some drake wings I've been able to adapt my build to accommodate and make good use of them.
The ideal with bloodlines being that a sorcerer wouldn't actually pick their bloodline, they'd just pick their class and at some point in the first session when the DM feels it's appropriate (or funny) the sorcerer's bloodline dramatically awakens and the player rolls to find out what their bloodline is. Wouldn't that be awesome?
If it doesn't matter for the first five to ten levels you have time to adapt but more importantly having this bloodline thrust upon you becomes method acting because it has been thrust upon you and maybe it conflicts with the alignment you want to play or maybe you don't want to be slowly turning into an aboleth, feel the angst!
Also before I forget skills should have degrees of success and failure, even if a ranger totally fucks up trying to start a fire maybe they set fire to the grass beside the fireplace and everybody has to scramble to stop it becoming a brushfire, the point is a ranger shouldn't simply fail at something like that, likewise a rouge may miss a jump but catch the ledge, y'know whatever enables the player to rely on that skill as someone of that class should.
I'm not saying you can't fuck up class skills just that a bard fucking up their performance is different to some dickhead trying to be a bard, one's a professional performer the other's not, the drunken would-be bard may fail to impress but the bard will be booed and heckled, but if he was merely trying to create a distraction he has succeeded either way.