Unless you plan to trim the class list down to fighting man/magic user/cleric/thief niche protection is the wrong direction to go in. In any given game a noncombat niche is either mandatory or overkill and ultimately a waste of a character slot.
To be balanced they should be brought into line with the other skill classes, not made some skill monkey version of Minmax. That means that most of what they need is combat utility to put them on par with the bard and inquisitor with only a little bit of skill enhancement to compensate for stuff like invisibility and silence.
That's what talents were supposed to do, but for some reason they were scaled to the skill focus feats rather than to first through fourth level spells.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
D&D spellcasting is macroscopic and the variable output of numerous spells are proof they aren't quanta.
Hanging a spell is either a function of a wizard's memory, his power, or the amount of time he can dedicate to hanging spells. Not one of these is quantized at a macroscopic level.
Attempting to justify the stupid system by analogy to a phenomenon that never occurs on any scale within several orders of magnitude of any events the game is designed to handle doesn't make the system less stupid. That you have to mangle a dubious analogy until it turns into a cheap sound byte is proof that discrete spell levels using non-fungible resources is metaphysically bankrupt.
He was just talking about large spellcasters. How about Mokmurian or whatever his name is from RotRL.
Is Zelaznian magic really Vancian?
Hanging spells is metaphysically comprehensible. It's the division of spell slots across levels that isn't. A sensible spell preparation system would use a fungible resource pool ie. spell points. Possibly with the determination of how much power beyond the minimum is put into the spells made at run time or possibly with everything but targeting predetermined in the morning.
There's really no reason for any caster to have several independent pools of spell slots at different power levels unless they're a cleric of a perverse or overly bureaucratic god.
If you're the GM, hit them with a team consisting of a melee bard (Chelish dive or arcane duelist), a magus, a melee alchemist (possibly grenadier for the proficiency and probably not a natural attack build because of the "stupid beast" aesthetics), and a melee inquisitor (probably either a half-orc, dwarf, or Gorumite to have a good martial proficiency).
If there's a ranger/paladin-like prepared arcanist in 3rd party or 3.5 material you're willing to see your players use that's also an option.
CMB/CMD is a great system, IMHO, it's very simple and intuitive.
And here's where you lost me.
It is easier to trip a kobold (CMD 10) than to hit him with a touch attack (AC 12). This is ridiculous. This isn't some exotic tiny fey. It's a small humanoid with unexceptional dexterity and an NPC class level.
Paizo's flagship monster, the goblin, also has touch AC greater than its CMD.
The house cat, in spite of being a bleeping quadruped, is easier to trip than to hit with a touch attack.
This is not a sign of a great system. It's seriously counterintuitive and generally a mess. It allegedly works except for extreme outliers, but any approximation for which the common kobold and goblin are outliers is a bad fit.
If Pathfinder 2 doesn't abandon CMB/CMD as a failed experiment I will be severely disappointed. If there's an "optional" rules supplement for things like the stealth fix I will be disappointed if it doesn't also include better combat maneuver rules.
I just had a thought:
That should put disarm and dirty trick back in the rogue's arsenal.
I think it suffers from mismatched prerequisites.
Spring Attack is generally a terrible feat and redundant with its own prerequisites. If I wanted spring attack I'd go druid or synth and pick up flyby instead. I might well still go for dodge and mobility so no saved feats, but at least flyby is still a standard attack.
But even if you do want spring attack in spite of its flaws you want it for a mobile combat build and then along comes whirlwind which is for static combat.
And then there's combat expertise. Haven't we been taxed enough already?
It should be noted that if vital strike is the "solution" to full attacks it's not much of a solution for anyone but fighters. Nobody else can really afford the feats if they want to do anything else. It's not just fighters who lose effectiveness as they level. All the martials except beast totem barbarians above level 10 do.
Precisely. It's not that the professionals are worse game designers, it's that the constraints imposed by publication are inherently bad for game design.
Yes, SKR and Jason could do better work if they weren't professionals. That's why the CRB, which drew heavily on house rules they had worked on as amateur* projects, is the least flawed rulebook Paizo has published.
They would be doing better work because amateurs can iterate their designs without concern for publication schedules and do not need to shovel half complete crap like some of the UM and UC optional rules to fill space. Essentially being a professional forces you to prefer quantity to quality. Amateurs are working for their own personal benefit or their ego and tend to prefer quality to quantity. Professionals also face a bias towards new content rather than fixing old content. Fixing the unbalanced or nonfunctional rules, unless it's done as part of a new edition, doesn't directly move a single unit of product. Even the worst splat will sell at least some copies.
* They may have previously been doing adventure writing and setting design professionally, but that's a different discipline and the house rules that eventually became Pathfinder were not originated under any publication constraints.
If I'm going to fail a fortitude save against disintegrate I'd far rather it be for an item than my character. I think it takes a wish to raise the dead without a corpse and 2d6/level is a lot of damage. If I'm not going to fail the fortitude save disintegrate isn't going to destroy the armor of someone with PC wealth at the levels where it's likely to be seen. Weapons are more fragile, but a +1 metal or +2 hafted weapon will survive better than half the time, a +2 metal weapon will survive 7775 times in 7776, and a +3 weapon will always survive in shape to be repaired.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Creating a rule book is much more than creating rules. As an amateur you don't have to make the hard choices around space constraints, broad appeal and (crucially) deadlines.
This is precisely why amateurs often write better rules.
Publishing is not game design and the needs of publication, deadlines in particular, are contrary to the needs of good game design. Amateurs don't have deadlines. They can release when they're done. They can revise when they or their audience find problems. They can fix problems without worrying about word count preventing serious errors from getting locked in. Amateurs can iterate freely. Professionals have to get it right the first time, or at least get it wrong in a fashion that happens to use as much page space as getting it right would. Professional game designers aren't enough better than amateurs to overcome that limitation.
Corbin Dallas wrote:
There is no RAW in this case.
Attended objects can be targeted. Attended objects use their owner's saves and SR unless their own saves are higher. These are RAW. Unattended objects have their own AC calculated according to their size and their dexterity of 0. This is also RAW. The best we can do for the AC of attended objects is extrapolate.
Distant Scholar wrote:
If it means "completely unhindered" as you take it then there is no such thing as a free hand. The hand is always subject to constraints, eg. reach. Nothing is ever completely unhindered. Even information is subject to some physical laws, most notably Einstein's speed limit.
The buckler arm can be used for any action it could be used for if it did not have a buckler strapped to it. This contrasts with the light shield, which may be carrying nothing and holding nothing, but is restricted from certain actions, ie. wielding a weapon where wielding is a keyword distinct from holding.
That's a metaphysically absurd ruling that would only fly at very gamist tables. And I don't think it's necessary in any case.
Armor will never have a lower touch AC than its wielder and as an attended object has the exact same saves and SR. Any touch attack that can hit the armor could have hit the wearer and while the wearer generally has more HP energy attacks by default do half damage to objects.
Disintegrate does full damage to objects, but is quite high level and a sixth level spell should be powerful. Besides, if you wouldn't have killed the wearer you won't destroy the armor. Your odds of destroying a +1 chain shirt that passes its fortitude save (using the wearer's save, mind you) are 1 in 7776 and can never destroy +1 medium armor tougher than hide or nonmagical heavy armor. Disintegrate has significantly less than even odds of even imposing the damaged condition on a +1 breastplate and only even odds against nonmagical splint mail unless it would have dealt its full 2d6/level to the wearer if so targeted.
Scorching Ray might be ruled to do full damage against wooden shields and armor and cloth armor. Wooden armor is a rare niche item for marines. Wooden shields are for low levels or for druids whose items cannot be targeted in wildshape.
Acid Arrow is the only serious concern against metal equipment and a second level ranged touch attack maybe imposing the broken condition to an object after a delay of potentially several rounds does not compare favorably to Shatter even if it can target magic items and ignore SR. Even here, though, the GM may rule that a material takes full damage from an energy type. The examples given are fire against parchment and cloth and sonic against glass and crystal. If the player is trying to cheese sunder with acid the GM can shut that down just by using discretion explicitly given to him.
Compare my suggestion to the 3.5 sunder rules for things that are not weapons. Was sundering armor broken in that edition? Because what I proposed is harder than that.
As an attended object the item uses the wearer's fortitude save unless its own is higher. It uses the wearer's SR. Those are clear rules. How you hit it isn't and you have no choice but to house rule to some extent.
You can't use CMB. CMB includes the strength mod and has a size bonus instead of penalty.
You can't use the wearer's touch AC either because the size category may be wrong.
I believe it would use the wearer's touch AC modifiers except the size bonus or penalty because it moves as the wearer moves and deflection bonuses add to everything, but it would use its own size category. Full body armor is the same size as the wearer. Breastplates, chain shirts, and any other torso only armor is going to be one size category smaller on a humanoid and probably similarly incomplete as barding.
Weapons would probably work similarly. Their size categories are discussed in the weapons chapter. IIRC two handed weapons are a size category smaller than the wielder, one handed two, and light three.
Shields are yet another complication. Tower shields must be the size of the wielder to give full cover. There is no scaling for shields other than Seelah's. She uses a heavy shield that I would call one size category smaller than her so I'm going to say light shields are probably another size category down. Since I don't know of any Paizo art that depicts a buckler being worn I have no idea whether it's two or three size categories smaller than the wielder.
First thing to drop if you have trouble hitting isn't TWF (assuming you have the improved version), it's rapid shot. Rapid shot will lose you one arrow rather than up to three. Nothing stops you from using manyshot in a full attack that doesn't use rapid shot.
He's got a penalty to his casting stat. He's going to have to buy that to 15 or 16 so he winds up with 13 or 14. He has no bonus to his attack stat so he's going to need to buy that to 16 and wish he could afford 17 or 18. Because of either AC or damage issues he'll need to buy the other of strength and dex up to at least 12, likely 13 or 14. There goes intelligence.
A new player does not need a handicap and playing as bad a race/class combo as dwarf bard is like playing 10 point buy in a 15 point buy game.
+5 Toaster wrote:
If I die first I want to be cremated and used as fertilizer in a victory garden. I hate the thought of being the cause of one of you becoming a ghoul. Ghouls are lame and pathetic and you're better than that.
You have a bonus in one secondary stat and a penalty in another, but your second bonus is in the closest thing a bard has to a dump stat.
This is a race/class combo for an experienced optimizer trying to challenge himself or a "true roleplayer" who wears failing miserably at everything he rolls dice for as a badge of honor. The latter are almost exclusively grognards and the former are generally not new players either.
I think it's better to be told the concept doesn't work up front before he builds a backstory and starts playing.
The invisible when stealthed with a guile pool is too much and conflicts with one of your talent chains. Being able to actually snipe functionally should be moved up instead, possibly halving the penalty at 14 and eliminating it at 18. It's a ridiculously huge penalty IIRC.
The shadow restriction on HiPS is unconsidered copypasta. The rogue lacks the shadowdancer's supernatural affinity for shadows and his version of HiPS should not have this condition. I would make it either unrestricted as an advanced talent or make it unrestricted and cost guile for something like a minute/level of functionality.
Actually, all of the abilities lifted from PrCs should have the references to those PrCs removed.
Cunning Ruse should use guile points instead of being a daily. So should Honor Among Thieves. And Thoughtful Reexamining.
Major Magic should cost more guile than Minor Magic. Possibly the pool should be larger to permit more cost granularity. Or, alternately Minor Magic could give unlimited use. It's not like unlimited cantrips are more broken in the hands of a rogue than a wizard.
Unseen Attacker should not reference the ninja.
Any Su ability that duplicates a spell effect should be an SLA.
How can you not be suspicious about a long rope bridge guarded by enemies with absurdly high dexterity? Yeah they dont hit as hard as human longbowmen, but that doesn't mean they tickle.
But for the OP, desperate times call for new characters. The fighter got away so it's not a TPK and you can bring in new characters and pick up where you all died. The Magus's player is going to have to do that anyways.
In my experience, and from crunching numbers, the lower your odds to hit, the worse power attack hurts you and reduces your mean DPR rather than increase it. Hence for a 3/4 BAB class it's rarely worth it to Power Attack. For a fighter with Power Attack, a two-handed weapon, and weapon training, it is almost always worth it.
I remember from somewhere that rangers not getting favored enemy should power attack on par CR opponents with average AC.
3/4 BAB classes that aren't rogues generally have accuracy boosters and with power attack scaling with BAB rather than level are less heavily impacted.
BAB-PA for full and medium BAB
HD full 3/4 gap
1 0 0* 0
2 1 1* 0
3 2 1 1
4 2 2 0
5 3 2 1
6 4 2 2
7 5 3 2
8 5 4 1
9 6 4 2
10 7 5 2
11 8 5 3
12 8 6 2
13 9 6 3
14 10 7 3
15 11 8 3
16 11 8 3
17 12 8 4
18 13 9 4
19 14 10 4
20 14 11 3
* doesn't yet have power attack
Notice that gap? That gap is never larger than Divine Favor until level 17 and never larger than Divine Power. It's never larger than Inspire Courage. It's only bigger than the bonus from a properly updated Mutagen at level 11. It's never bigger than the Justice judgement. While these classes gain less from power attack they also lose less accuracy in proportion.
Against any AC that a Ranger should power attack when it's not his favored enemy a buffed Bard, Cleric, Alchemist, or Inquisitor should also power attack given the same non-BAB attack bonuses.
I think this is why Oracle is voted both ways. It, like the monk, doesn't do what it's meant to do. It's not functional as a spontaneous cleric because there are too many "for emergency use" spells on the list that you often need at first level they're available (eg. lesser restoration for CR 3 shadows and restoration for CR 7 spectres). On the other hand it's potentially better than the cleric at the cleric's secondary roles. If you think out of combat divine magic is important it's weak, but if you only care about fighting it's quite strong while offering the illusion of being a cleric substitute.
Not every archetype should be supported by every game. Conan doesn't belong in a Star Trek game. Wesley Crusher doesn't belong in Pathfinder. Mr. Mitzelplick doesn't belong in any game unless he's a powerful background NPC. And, frankly, Ash Ketchum doesn't belong in Pathfinder either. Unless you inappropriately use pokemon tournament rules limitations when fighting daemons he's really bad for time sharing in a turn based multiplayer game and bad for balance in one where action economy is an important consideration.
It's better for the game to tell the guy who wants to play an archetype not suited to the genre or setting to come up with a second choice than to compromise the setting or genre.
There's not really much need for a skill character in the fifth slot, though. You already have a ranger or bard or inquisitor for that job and rogues aren't particularly good at magic devices. If that's your planned role a bard (possibly even a second bard) or sorcerer or summoner or wizard or witch or magus or alchemist will do better because they'll have some spells or extracts of their own to supplement their devices. It's not like a UMD focused alchemist or wizard that isn't trying to do much else is any more MAD than a UMD focused rogue that isn't trying to do much else.
As fifth wheels go rogues aren't much. Redundant martials and casters make better fifth wheels. At least you can use the redundant inquisitor as a spare tire if something happens to your cleric or ranger. Or the spare witch if the wizard or cleric goes down. Or whatever.
Mark Hoover wrote:
The literacy rate among current and former news anchors not suffering from severe eye conditions is 100%. The only requirements for the position are looking decorative, not having a horrible voice, and being able to read a teleprompter.
188- the complete, unabridged works of Michael Moore with running commentary by Glen Beck...
I think we were looking for things that would be found in a library in Golarion during the epoch the APs are set in or in a world with a similar level of technology and magic, not something you'd find in a library in PF:modern.
Most, if not all, of Michael Moore's works cannot be viewed without a DVD player or VCR and television set and those are awfully thin on the ground in Golarion and similar fantasy universes even if such a work might fall through a dimensional rift.
It has both an attack roll against full AC and a save. Definitely weaker than hold person as befits an at will ability.
But why not compare it to another at will ability? The slumber hex. I rest my case.
The (too) good
Have you considered using a cooldown mechanic? Having unlimited uses but a 1d4 round delay before you could use any similarly limited class abilities would avoid the insufficient per diem uses problem. It's not a completely unprecedented mechanic (dragon breath operates on the same principle).
Because it's a cooperative game and I don't want to show up to Pathfinder night and not get to play because the rogue is trying to scout someplace and then have to go in blind anyways because there's a 38 point swing on opposed skill checks and he'll not only die like the waste of space he is but alert those he's supposed to be scouting.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you want ridiculous gestalt look no further than master summoner bard.
Let's look at a level 8 master summoner bard. Our feats are lingering performance, superior summoning, and who knows what. We have augment summoning as a free bonus feat.
We can summon 1d4+2 small earth elementals. With augment summoning they have 17 HP and attack with two slams at +8 dealing 1d6+6 damage. Inspire courage as a move action and those attacks are at +10 and deal 1d6+8, better than the medium elemental we'd normally only get one of. About half the durability, but we have at least 3. Since any HP they have left at the end of the fight is wasted that's a rather good deal. Even with augment summoning on the medium elemental for comparison the master summoner bard is still 2-3 times as powerful as the straight master summoner, which is one of the most broken archetypes in the game.
The balance issue may come down to the fact that this bonded items suddenly functions like a spellbook AND a device for getting one extra spell each day AND free magical upgrades, all in one item.
That's basically what wizards get. Spellbooks are chump change compared to the price of spells, which witches still have to pay for.
It's the familiar that's the balance issue. Either you take improved familiar and break the action economy or you run around with a spellbook you can't protect. Both are bad options for balance.
Bender is great wrote:
They are the only ranged slashing weapons that I know of.
There are also daggers and throwing axes and starknives, but they do less damage and less range.
And starknives are one weapon I'm glad got superseded. They're incredibly awkward looking.
Oh, and socially awkward people tend to be so because they have trouble reading people. That's sense motive, which is by default wisdom.
If rogues suck, why doesn't Paizo buff them? I thought the entire point of redesigning the core classes in pathfinder was to make sure there would be a reason to take every single one of them, and to get to level 20 rather than the crazy 3.5 multiclassing with PRCs.
Communication probably. Rogues did get boosted on paper, but none of the new rogue talents actually boost them in a way that compensates for tougher monsters. Fixing them now is practically impossible because of pagination constraints.
Charisma is simply too varied in effect to have meaning. It normally determines how scary you are, how personable you are (which would realistically be practically opposites), and how magical you are (but only for bards, sorcerers, oracles, paladins, summoners, and magic devices). It's a stupid legacy grab bag stat with no clear correspondence to a any real personality trait. It demonstrably doesn't represent what it claims to because if it did will saves would be based on it.
Roleplay your sense motive, diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, and knowledge skill modifiers, not your stats.
So let's get this straight. It is unacceptable to ban a class or archetype because it does not fit the setting, but it's perfectly acceptable to ban something because you think your players are too incompetent to put together a viable build.
Could you please use words instead of unintelligible onomatopoeia?