Recent Posts
This is a good question, I'll try to make some estimates based on Jason's charts once I have some free time. It'd be interesting to see how characters of a given level stack up to monsters of the appropriate CR in terms of attacks and AC, by the Beta rules.Using PATHFINDER beta,
Ignoring the spellcasters who have well spells to deal with the AC issue, what is the expected range of AC for the non-spellcasters?
From the low end of the monk to the high end of the fighter, what's the ranger are we looking at for levels 5, 10, 15 and 20?
I would be sure to have two final results from this experiment: one assuming that Jason's "recommended attack bonus" is just BAB, and another assuming that it means "BAB+Str+Feats". For some monsters, the difference could be huge, and probably the difference between "never-hit/always-hit" and "hits 50% of the time".
Guys, Jason is away for the next days. There still isn´t a design forum for the classes. I know that everybody is raring for just that forum to open up ( including yours truly ), but it seems a bit sad that so many are wasting all this energy.
The content of this thread will in all likelyhood be ignored, because the relevant forum has not opened yet and Jason will be deluged with tons of threads about all kind of issues, as soon as the correct forum is open.
Meanwhile you are getting all kinds of bothered, because you feel ignored, yet it simply is a matter of waiting until the time for discussion has come.
Cool down, take a few days off until GenCon UK is over and prepare mentally for posting your own thoughts and reading dozens of threads about all imaginable issues with the classes. I plan to do great battle for a better monk myself (between lots of other stuff)! :)
And, yeah, civility helps when communicating with the designers. Snark is amusing to read, but if I can choose between a cordially worded post and a passive-aggressively worded one, and both are of the same quality, I´d always choose the cordial one.
Jason will have tons of material to work with, and I imagine he will also prefer the use the one in which his integrity and ability are not being subtly insulted the whole time.
The content of this thread will in all likelyhood be ignored, because the relevant forum has not opened yet and Jason will be deluged with tons of threads about all kind of issues, as soon as the correct forum is open.
Three of us from Paizo have already said it won't be ignored, and since we've all posted on it it's clearly not being ignored.
Let's keep the discussion away from the "meta" of how people should act or how things should be moderated and keep it focus on what needs to be changed.
Yes, we'll get to this stuff as part of a specific focus in a few weeks, but it doesn't hurt anyone to be talking about it, and it would be worthwhile to achieve some element of consensus when we do get to classes.
So, everyone, please keep things cool and keep things on topic.
While I do, very well, agree that we shouldn't 'pester' Jason and Co. about parts of the book that aren't the main focus yet; I do think it's a good idea to at least rehash some of these ideas, test them, play them, and present findings and alternatives to the public, so that when they ARE ready to open up discussion on that material, we'll have them ready to hand to him in a nice and polished idea for him to mull over.
QFT. This thread is like reading through Blizzard's World Of Warcraft Forums. I keep waiting for someone to jump out behind a bush screaming "NERF WARLOCKS" at any moment...Seriously people, take ranks in diplomacy.
Having read some of the OP's posts on the WOTC boards during the run-up to 4E, I assure you he has not yet begun to be offensive. Whatever valid points he tries to make get buried by his sarcasm and vitrol.
Regards,
V
I'd add that what LogicNinja and Psychic_Robot have said is greatly interesting. They may not put it in a way that everyone likes -- although the Paizo folks seem to have picked up on the quality of the arguments, which is really good -- but it's got to be worth it. If that means that people making well-considered points they can back up get away with being ruder than other people, then fair enough; the consequences are more likely to be a better game in the end, which is good, right?
tribeof1
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Tales Subscriber)
I'd add that what LogicNinja and Psychic_Robot have said is greatly interesting. They may not put it in a way that everyone likes -- although the Paizo folks seem to have picked up on the quality of the arguments, which is really good -- but it's got to be worth it. If that means that people making well-considered points they can back up get away with being ruder than other people, then fair enough; the consequences are more likely to be a better game in the end, which is good, right?
However, if posters drive away other people away from the game because of rudeness that is a bad thing. If those posters are also rude in real life, I would imagine they would attract less new players than nicer players would.
So, even if a better game is made this way, if the only people who play it are rude, then for me it isn't a better game.
I feel with most multiplayer games, how much fun you have playing is determined significantly by the players of the game. In my experience, good players are necessary for good game, while bad players will lead to a bad game.
However, if posters drive away other people away from the game because of rudeness that is a bad thing. If those posters are also rude in real life, I would imagine they would attract less new players than nicer players would.
So, even if a better game is made this way, if the only people who play it are rude, then for me it isn't a better game.
I feel with most multiplayer games, how much fun you have playing is determined significantly by the players of the game. In my experience, good players are necessary for good game, while bad players will lead to a bad game.
You are not playing with Psychic_Robot. "Well I don't wanna play with jerks" is not an excuse to ignore solid advice that would lead to a better game.
You are not playing with Psychic_Robot. "Well I don't wanna play with jerks" is not an excuse to ignore solid advice that would lead to a better game.However, if posters drive away other people away from the game because of rudeness that is a bad thing. If those posters are also rude in real life, I would imagine they would attract less new players than nicer players would.
So, even if a better game is made this way, if the only people who play it are rude, then for me it isn't a better game.
I feel with most multiplayer games, how much fun you have playing is determined significantly by the players of the game. In my experience, good players are necessary for good game, while bad players will lead to a bad game.
However, if rude posters drive away all the nice people from wanting to play a game. Then who is going to be left?
The result would be a massively horrible game because there would be no one good to play with.
One post isn't going to drive everyone away, but if enough show up they will likely drive a significant number away.
I'd like to echo the comments on the Ranger animal companion. It's tracking for you or warning you about stuff but otherwise it's getting killed and you have to train a new one. Beef it up please!
There's no need for the companions to be changed by "beefing [them] up". The game world is a dangerous place. Taking that companion isn't something forced upon the ranger. If he opts to do it then he needs to ensure the safety of that animal, no matter the circumstance. When the ranger gets to higher levels he can get a more powerful companion perfectly capable of attacking and defending itself, but at lower levels the companion should be as vulnerable as any other member of its species.
Making changes to the game the sake of making everything associated with players more powerful becomes an ourobouros; more powerful characters means the need for more powerful enemies, more powerful enemies creates the outcry for more powerful characters. At some point it needs to stop- or in the case of beefing up animal companions, simply not even begin.
However, if rude posters drive away all the nice people from wanting to play a game. Then who is going to be left?
The result would be a massively horrible game because there would be no one good to play with.
One post isn't going to drive everyone away, but if enough show up they will likely drive a significant number away.
No amount of non-fluffy-bunny posts on these forums will affect who plays the game.
Please don't pretend that, OMG, if we start listening to Robot, the game will be played only by jerks! It's a facepalmingly ridiculous excuse not to listen.
No amount of non-fluffy-bunny posts on these forums will affect who plays the game.
I disagree.
Please don't pretend that, OMG, if we start listening to Robot, the game will be played only by jerks! It's a facepalmingly ridiculous excuse not to listen.
And don't pretend that if every new poster on the forums is called an idiot (for starters) three times within their first ten posts, that no one would just turn back and decide to look somewhere else for good gaming.
I disagree.
And don't pretend that if every new poster on the forums is called an idiot (for starters) three times within their first ten posts, that no one would just turn back and decide to look somewhere else for good gaming.
I've got two questions for you.
How many people post on the forums?
How many people downloaded the Pathfinder beta?
I think you get my point.
It's funny, society is producing a whole mess of rude, self-righteous, self-important people who just can't seem to figure out how to talk to another person and express their opinion in a semi-polite manner.
It's called entitlement and it's a big problem these days. I work at a residential treatment center and a good half of the girls I work with have that problem on top of any other issues they might have. They have never been told no and so they don't know how to deal with it when it finally happens.
2. Everyone involved in the flap over Josh's moderating, please drop the subject. Josh is getting on a plane (with me and Bulmahn) in a few hours to go to Gen Con UK. He will neither be able to read or respond to complaints about his moderating for hours and hours and hours.
Woah you guys hadn't left yet? When I saw Josh was posting at 3AM PDT I assumed you were all already out there. That's just insane staying up that late to mod threads, kudos =p
I agree with a number of these points.
Barbarian - a lot of the rage abilities are too many points for not enough, especially given the very limited duration of the abilities. More of them need to scale with level or application of more rage points.
Bards - agree on the scaling issue with inspire competence.
Fighters - I like the idea of scaling up the DR over time, but 5/- at L19 isn't *nothing*.
Monks - agree that the new ki pool needs to go a little further or not be there. With this and rage points it's like they didn't want to "go too far" with implementing a new mechanic, and thus ended up with something good in concept but toned to questionable utility. Very much don't like the "pool's out no magic fists" deal.
Paladin - lots bad here, agree totally.
Ranger - agree, our ranger in our 3.5e Rise of the Runelords campaign hasn't had his animal companion do anything but sleep back at Fort Rannek. Beef them or lose them.
Sorcerer - Yeah. Metamagic is weak anyway, and removing a big gimp isn't as far as it could go.
Wizard specialists - I haven't read this enough to have an opinion.
There are more downloads than current posters?
And?
How many people check out the messageboards before buying additional products?
There are VASTLY more downloads (and purchases) than posters.
There are tens of thousands of downloads, AFAIK.
There are dozens of posters, at best. The idea that these forums influence lots of people's purchasing decisions is... well, delusional.
The answer is "not very many." When people buy a game it's because they like the content.
However, if posters drive away other people away from the game because of rudeness that is a bad thing. If those posters are also rude in real life, I would imagine they would attract less new players than nicer players would.
So, even if a better game is made this way, if the only people who play it are rude, then for me it isn't a better game.
I feel with most multiplayer games, how much fun you have playing is determined significantly by the players of the game. In my experience, good players are necessary for good game, while bad players will lead to a bad game.
LN already answered this but again, I don't think that it's such a big deal. I read the OP again and then the rest of the replies and it's no biggie so far as I can see (the AIDS thing, which was really the worst thing in the OP, wasn't meant the way it was taken, I suspect, either, although I understand why people took it that way).
To be honest, this Pathfinder RPG is too important -- to those of us that want a sustained 3.x RPG success to go with Paizo's other great material, which I Sure As Hell don't want to end up as 4e-compatible for lack of anything else sustainable because, in the end analysis, PFRPG blew -- to ignore clever people who know their stuff just because they're abrasive. Hell, even if Jason and the others eventually ignore P_R and LN, at least we're having the discussion.
As a final point on the tenor of their posts, I would say that the feather-ruffling is worth it. Just look at their posts, for God's sake. Whether or not you agree with them, whether or not you agree with the importance of what they say (I personally don't get enormously excited by balance but as it's clearly a commercial issue, I'd like to see it achieved more without the ickyness, for me, that characterises 4e), they're explaining stuff, in an open playtest, that needs to be aired and they're doing it concisely and clearly. I hope they manage to do it without getting censured into submission or, even worse, banned -- Paizo are a commercial concern and they have to exercise care in moderation of their own forums, so I understand why it's not to be a free-for-all -- but I'd also hope that the standard for what is considered 'too offensive' is drawn a little more loosely than it appears some might like.
So, for me, as someone that really wants PFRPG to succeed -- and I may be late to the game as a superscriber but, at least belatedly, I'm putting my money in the same place as my mouth -- I'm personally happy to put up with some harsh talk when it's towards the end we want, which is a better game that doesn't get broken after its final release.
Bah, I have digressed from OP again. However, in answer to the other poster (name I've forgotten) on the animal companion issue, I think that the strength of the animal companion is just too low. I don't insist it's the same as the druid companion level, but I haven't really found it particularly useful at any level (in 3.x, I should say, but the animal companion part of Hunter's Bond is basically the same), resulting in too little use of, for example, animal companion buff spells by Rangers. Half Druid level is just too slow. Why not -3, whatever?
However, in answer to the other poster (name I've forgotten) on the animal companion issue, I think that the strength of the animal companion is just too low. I don't insist it's the same as the druid companion level, but I haven't really found it particularly useful at any level (in 3.x, I should say, but the animal companion part of Hunter's Bond is basically the same), resulting in too little use of, for example, animal companion buff spells by Rangers. Half Druid level is just too slow. Why not -3, whatever?
I've always felt that the animal companion was more of a token ability to equate the Ranger with the Druid. It is a minor ability that at least scales with level, unlike most of the fighter's bonus feats. Making it more powerful puts it on equal footing with the druid's companion, which many players have long complained is often the equal of a full fighter in a party. We need to unbreak the druid, not create more classes that can do what they do.
I've always felt that the animal companion was more of a token ability to equate the Ranger with the Druid. It is a minor ability that at least scales with level, unlike most of the fighter's bonus feats. Making it more powerful puts it on equal footing with the druid's companion, which many players have long complained is often the equal of a full fighter in a party. We need to unbreak the druid, not create more classes that can do what they do.
Half level scales so weakly that you're still going backward, in my opinion. A level 20 ranger having an animal companion that a 10th level druid can have doesn't seem to me to be much use at all in a 20th level game.
As for the problem with druids, do you really think that this would be creating CoRoDZILLA? Doesn't seem very likely, to me (not that I'm an expert or all that bothered about balance, as such; I just like the idea that a ranger's animal companion might be somewhat dangerous to the sort of baddies a challenging ranger encounter might feature. As it is, any Ranger that really cared about his or her animal companion would just leave it at home to keep it safe from obliteration).
There was something in the PHB2 that one of my players took for her ranger that replaced the animal companion. I can't remember what it is (the book is in another room and I am feeling lazy right now), does anyone remember what it is?? It was a good idea...I think it had something to do with flanking.
There was something in the PHB2 that one of my players took for her ranger that replaced the animal companion. I can't remember what it is (the book is in another room and I am feeling lazy right now), does anyone remember what it is?? It was a good idea...I think it had something to do with flanking.
It was Adaptive Flanking, which granted one ally the ability to be considered flanking one enemy that the Ranger hit with an attack, ranged or melee. Essentially performing the service of an animal companion without the worry of losing it.
It was Adaptive Flanking, which granted one ally the ability to be considered flanking one enemy that the Ranger hit with an attack, ranged or melee. Essentially performing the service of an animal companion without the worry of losing it.
Except for a Ranger having an effective animal companion is pretty cool, narratively. The other thing looks a bit more like a gamist hack.
I've always felt that the animal companion was more of a token ability to equate the Ranger with the Druid. It is a minor ability that at least scales with level, unlike most of the fighter's bonus feats. Making it more powerful puts it on equal footing with the druid's companion, which many players have long complained is often the equal of a full fighter in a party. We need to unbreak the druid, not create more classes that can do what they do.Half level scales so weakly that you're still going backward, in my opinion. A level 20 ranger having an animal companion that a 10th level druid can have doesn't seem to me to be much use at all in a 20th level game.
As for the problem with druids, do you really think that this would be creating CoRoDZILLA? Doesn't seem very likely, to me (not that I'm an expert or all that bothered about balance, as such; I just like the idea that a ranger's animal companion might be somewhat dangerous to the sort of baddies a challenging ranger encounter might feature. As it is, any Ranger that really cared about his or her animal companion would just leave it at home to keep it safe from obliteration).
This is the problem with allowing a Ranger the Druids animal companion progression (plus some bonuses like +2 HD). Now, using the presented druid-3, you can still have that monster at 19th level but with no bonuses. At low levels, the -3 is about equal with 1/2, but at high levels it becomes almost equal in power.
So the -3 provides no boost at low levels, which is what people are worried about when handling their companions. At high levels it is almost equivalent to a full druid. The 1/2 model still allows this which is slightly more manageable. Perhaps the best solution would be to allow the Ranger a druid's companion at full level, but without the option to select more powerful companions. So by 20th level you can have a Dog with +12 HD, and when you first get it, it would have +2 HD.
It was Adaptive Flanking, which granted one ally the ability to be considered flanking one enemy that the Ranger hit with an attack, ranged or melee. Essentially performing the service of an animal companion without the worry of losing it.Except for a Ranger having an effective animal companion is pretty cool, narratively. The other thing looks a bit more like a gamist hack.
Oh, I am by no means recommending the ability, I was only describing it for the benefit of another poster. I agree with your assessment, it reads like something developed to give arbitrary effects simulating another class feature without any drawbacks.
This is the problem with allowing a Ranger the Druids animal companion progression (plus some bonuses like +2 HD). Now, using the presented druid-3, you can still have that monster at 19th level but with no bonuses. At low levels, the -3 is about equal with 1/2, but at high levels it becomes almost equal in power.So the -3 provides no boost at low levels, which is what people are worried about when handling their companions. At high levels it is almost equivalent to a full druid. The 1/2 model still allows this which is slightly more manageable. Perhaps the best solution would be to allow the Ranger a druid's companion at full level, but without the...
I just read the Pathfinder Campaign Guide (not the RPG, of course, but presumably this sort of add-on will carry across to the PFRPG Golarion down the line) where they can take Enhanced Animal Companion and have a companion at Druid level = Ranger Level -2 so it starts at half (which I'm happy with) and then progresses sensibly. So I'm happy with that, as one might expect and so far I loves me the Pathfinder Campaign Setting.
As for where you'd be worried about boosting animal companions, I'd be a lot more worried about being 20th level and fighting challenging encounters with the sort of companion that a 10th level druid would have at my side, than being 4th level with the companion of a 1st level druid (althoguh with the Enhanced Animal Companion dealy from the CS, it'd be the animal companion of a 2nd level druid, which is Fine By Me).
In my personal (and recent) experience, I have found that a seventh-level ranger's companion (which is commensurate with that of a third-level druid) is pretty likely to get mashed; it's either not worth training or else it's too precious to risk in combat (and this makes sense in a roleplaying sense too, in that if you cared about the damn thing you wouldn't put in the face of almost certain death should your opponents become irritated enough to mash it). That's going to get worse as we level up.
I just read the Pathfinder Campaign Guide (not the RPG, of course, but presumably this sort of add-on will carry across to the PFRPG Golarion down the line) where they can take Enhanced Animal Companion and have a companion at Druid level = Ranger Level -2 so it starts at half (which I'm happy with) and then progresses sensibly. So I'm happy with that, as one might expect and so far I loves me the Pathfinder Campaign Setting.
I haven't gotten their in my CS, but for a feat that seems a reasonable improvement at expense of a feat, just like Improved Familiar.
As for where you'd be worried about boosting animal companions, I'd be a lot more worried about being 20th level and fighting challenging encounters with the sort of companion that a 10th level druid would have at my side, than being 4th level with the companion of a 1st level druid (althoguh with the Enhanced Animal Companion dealy from the CS, it'd be the animal companion of a 2nd level druid, which is Fine By Me).
Now we're talking a bit at crossed purposes. I was merely restating what several other players have mentioned, that at low levels animal companions are potential cannon fodder. Not to nitpick, but a 2nd level druid's companion is the same as a 1st level's. At 5th level, you would see the improvement. You are correct that the real danger might actually be at mid to higher levels.
What I am arguing is that in 3.0 the Ranger did not even get an animal companion. It was given one as an extra boost to abilities in 3.5. Now the power creep proponents are advocating a full companion. The problem is that the PRPG Ranger itself already has d10 HD, full BAB, two good saves, lots of skill points, combat styles, and favored enemy/terrain.
Getting to the 20th-Level argument, at that level, the constant beating an animal companion might take can be negated by large availability of magic (defense and healing) and magic items. The companion is distracting opponents and giving the ranger a few more rounds to act unhindered. If your animal companion dies at 20th Level, and you cannot afford to resurrect it, something is up.
Comments not in are the OPs.
1. Acrobatic (and all the other crummy +2/+2 feats).
Still crappy, but whatever. At least they got upgraded.
2. Arcane Armor Training: WHY.
I hate how the gish has been hit by the nerfbat fifty-two times with these feats. ASF doesn’t actually affect balance. Nobody cares about it. There’s no reason that the feats can’t be “always on.” The swift action prevents gishes from being useful by buffing themselves with a quickened spell.
3. Armor Proficiency: Why the hell are we STILL requiring several different feats for this crap?
Good Lord, the feats are horrendous enough as it is; they should just be merged into one feat. (No offense to Paizo; the 3e job was just horrible.)
4. Combat Casting: Still better off with Skill Focus: Spellcraft.
5. Combat Expertise (and Power Attack and any other feats): f~~@ the players.
Why the Christ—I am aware that that makes no sense—would you gimp this stuff? Giving players control over the “slider” of offense/defense is what made these things good.
6. Double Slice: Why am I getting 1.5x my Strength modifier to my off-hand attacks?
I’m well aware that this is not the intent of the feat, but sloppy writing is sloppy. Add a note that mentions that you get this INSTEAD of the half-strength bonus.
7. Great Fortitude (and Lighting Reflexes and Iron Will): Still s!*#.
They suck. Still. Again, not Paizo’s fault so much as the 3e devs’. They should scale. Give a +2 initially and then maybe another +2 at level 10.
8. Maximize Spell is a POS.
Crappy crappy crappy crappy crappy feat. It remains a “trap” for newbies to D&D.
9. Overhand Chop, please make it good.
Look, a high-level fighter is probably going to be hitting with two attacks out of his four. That means that he’s going to be doing twice his weapon damage plus thrice his Strength modifier. Sure, he has to take a full attack action to do so, but this feat is just lame. Make it an “always on” thing.
10. Tower Shield Proficiency is still poop.
What a waste of a feat.
11. Vital Strike: almost have it.
So close. So very, very close. Unfortunately, this feat has several flaws:
1. It doesn’t solve the attack at a +10 bonus whiffing horribly.
2. It forces characters to use “big” weapons to be effective.
3. It doesn’t do enough.
I'd suggest making it a straight +2d8 for attacks. Yes, TWF will get additional benefits from this, but TWF has enough problems of its own in 3e that I’m pretty sure it won’t break anything.
Psychic_Robot this was a very well thought out and detailed examination. I agree with you on nearly every point here, and THANK YOU for posting it so we could all notice these facts quicker for those who don't have as much time as some.
One thing here I would say is that the clerics/druids should get just the poor base attack bonus, they need the hit points though.
The other is that I like the rage points, but I worry about the increased cost to get the better rages you get access to at later levels.
Regarding Tower Shields, the most often overlooked fact is that they can provide Total Cover. In other words, this means you cannot be targeted by attacks. If you are somehow, such as a spell, you gain +4 AC and +2 Reflex saves.
On a related note I feel PRPG should eliminate the disparity between total cover and tower shields, which grant total cover but do not block line of effect. It used to make sense with partial cover, now it is just odd. At the very least I think Tower Shields should provide real total cover from any spell with a to-hit roll, affecting the shield instead of you.
I would be sure to have two final results from this experiment: one assuming that Jason's "recommended attack bonus" is just BAB, and another assuming that it means "BAB+Str+Feats". For some monsters, the difference could be huge, and probably the difference between "never-hit/always-hit" and "hits 50% of the time".
Yes, I was wondering about that myself. I think it's the former, as +30 to attack at CR 20 as the "High Attack Bonus" seems a bit low, that's a difference of +27 between a good melee CR 20 creature in the Beta and the 3.5 Tarrasque. I'll definitely have to run quite a bit of this stuff... Hopefully I can get around to it soon.
I'm not sure why people don't understand Elemental Rage sucks and the +level AB/Damage (especially AB) rage powers are overpowered
I agree with you that the +level AB/damage rage powers are extremely overpowered and that the Elemental Rage sucks for 8 rage points.
I just wanted to point out that the OPs critisism is focused on comparing pure damage and that there are situations where it could be very useful to be able to add a specific force to your weapon´s damage.
And the maximal bonus damage against vulnerable creatures would be +36, not +18 (4W6+ half dmg). Still to much for 8 points compared to other abilities though
Half level scales so weakly that you're still going backward, in my opinion. A level 20 ranger having an animal companion that a 10th level druid can have doesn't seem to me to be much use at all in a 20th level game.
I've always felt that the animal companion was more of a token ability to equate the Ranger with the Druid. It is a minor ability that at least scales with level, unlike most of the fighter's bonus feats. Making it more powerful puts it on equal footing with the druid's companion, which many players have long complained is often the equal of a full fighter in a party. We need to unbreak the druid, not create more classes that can do what they do.
A token ability isn't a terrific amount of use. It is probably telling that in the two PbPs I run the two ranger characters, played by different people, have both opted not to have a companion but have gone for a variant ability instead. I've always wondered why it had to be half-level and not level -3 compared to a druid. Perhaps the intention was not to pump up the ranger's combat prowess too much but the differential becomes very obvious very quickly - even a lvl 1 companion in a lvl 4 game is potentially in big trouble. And it rather ruins the idea of a "bond" if the ranger needs to get a new one all the time due to casualties.
Now we're talking a bit at crossed purposes. I was merely restating what several other players have mentioned, that at low levels animal companions are potential cannon fodder. Not to nitpick, but a 2nd level druid's companion is the same as a 1st level's. At 5th level, you would see the improvement. You are correct that the real danger might actually be at mid to higher levels.
Yeah, was typing in haste to get some sleep. My point should really have been that the tracking at level -2 doesn't make any difference at low level but does at high level where they are otherwise just monster fodder .
What I am arguing is that in 3.0 the Ranger did not even get an animal companion. It was given one as an extra boost to abilities in 3.5. Now the power creep proponents are advocating a full companion. The problem is that the PRPG Ranger itself already has d10 HD, full BAB, two good saves, lots of skill points, combat styles, and favored enemy/terrain.
But the Ranger was nerfed going from 3.0 to 3.5, right? I don't have a 3.0 PHB to hand, but the d8 HD and spacing out of the special abilities actually weakened the class, I thought; a feeble animal companion that's no use come mid and higher levels wasn't much cop as a replacement, for my money. In any case, I don't think that the power creep is in the ranger, who it seems to me might in fact need some in order to be more attractive as a class.
From the narrative point of view, an animal companion is cool and it's a nice idea. One that swiftly becomes useless isn't cool at all but the way that the numbers are set up means that is effectively the case. From the simulationist/world-logic point of view, you just aren't going to see higher level rangers with animal companions under the existing rules unless they really don't care what happens to them. Was that the intent? It seems to me that it wasn't.
Getting to the 20th-Level argument, at that level, the constant beating an animal companion might take can be negated by large availability of magic (defense and healing) and magic items. The companion is distracting opponents and giving the ranger a...
I am not sure they'd take the effort to buff them just to stop them from getting instantly wiped out when they could just not have them at all. I don't think that makes much sense from most any viewpoint.
I am in favour of compatibility -- there are other changes, such as those to Power Attack, that I think are unnecessary/bad -- but I just don't see this one breaking anything, really, whilst at the same time it can persist a cool class feature through to higher levels, giving continuing benefits to staying in that class*, fixing which is (if I recall) one of the design aims of the new game.
*I'm not a character optimiser or anything of that nature at all, though, so it could be that druid animal companions are useless or horribly broken at higher level and I haven't seen it. All I'm really saying is that ranger animal companion becomes a liability pretty quickly at the moment in 3.x. Incidentally, the Enhanced Animal Companion feature requires the choice of one sort of animal and comes as a replacement for wild empathy as you are in theory focussing on one sort of animal. That's better than nothing, although I am tempted to house-rule it that it's just the animal companion feature (but maybe keep the focus on one animal type).
Let's be honest: Rage points are awesome, even if they are more bookkeeping. However, they just don't feel barbaric.
It should change to a more fluid interactive system.
I've been reading some of the REH Conan books, and the Jirell of Jorey series, and I've been trying to model a barbarian rage ability that simulates those character. They seem to get mad a lot, and the madder they get, the stronger they get.
I'm trying to come up with a mechanism whereby "being really angry" --perhaps a swift Intimidation roll??-- could generate rage points that could be spent that round. The angrier you get, the more rage points you can spend on abilities that round. Next round, you have to keep being angry.
That's what I'm working on. I hope to work through some playtests soon to see how it works.
To be honest, this Pathfinder RPG is too important to ignore clever people who know their stuff just because they're abrasive. Hell, even if Jason and the others eventually ignore P_R and LN, at least we're having the discussion.
My hobby is not too important to expect civility from fellow human beings. That's like saying I should listen to a political candidate even if he says I'm a worthless human being and that he obviously knows what's "right" for the country while anyone who dissagrees is a moron.
My hobby is not too important to expect civility from fellow human beings. That's like saying I should listen to a political candidate even if he says I'm a worthless human being and that he obviously knows what's "right" for the country while anyone who dissagrees is a moron.
To be honest, this Pathfinder RPG is too important to ignore clever people who know their stuff just because they're abrasive. Hell, even if Jason and the others eventually ignore P_R and LN, at least we're having the discussion.
Abusers and bullies always have their excuses and their copouts.