Bagpuss's page

Zark makes a good point here: (as do others) I think alot of the spellcasters rock and fighters suck has to do abit with meta gaming.

Comments like "smart opponents can run right by a figher and take that AoO to get to the squishies behind him because they are more dangerous"

What "smart" creature is going to allow a free run by shot from a sharp pointy thing? Last time I checked, SWORDs Hurt!

In D&D 3.5 and for high-level, high-hp opponents, sword hits taken in passing really don't hurt all that much and are not as bad as what the caster may do. So rather than this being 'meta-gaming' you appear to want 'meta-DMing', where the DM runs things despite the rules. That's fine -- we all manage what we see as rules defects in that way, I think -- but this is a design forum and I don't think that "the DM will avoid the rules as if the game had rules that made the sort of game we'd like it to be" is very germane. Of course, we'll get around things like that, but at the design level, that's not a satisfactory solution.

D&D combat has never been the most realistic, but it at least used to be that ignoring the fighter not only didn't make sense from the simulationist viewpoint, it didn't make sense in the rules; if you ignored the fighter, who had all his attacks even if he moved, who could disrupt a caster just by hitting them, you could get mashed. In 3.5, it's often enough the smart strategy given how the game works. I don't think that it's unreasonable, in a forum discussing rules and given our feedback on how they play and what we think of them, to ask that the rules reflect the game reality we'd like. Absolutely, we can ignore the rules to that end, but then, why would be we be discussing it here? We could just make one post to the effect of "ignore the rules you don't like and run the game to reflect the reality you want" and shut the whole forum. It's not bad advice, of course, but it seems to me that this is just not the best place for it.

Bagpuss wrote:

Yeah, monk is old-school. The current monk is probably most disappointing to those of us that played 1e and remember the old monk.

On the contrary! I hated the AD&D monk, at least at low levels (d4 hit dice, world's lowest AC, mediocre attack table). I think the 3.5 version was a big improvement, again at low levels. But now it's getting worse in Pathfinder (Improved Grapple & Improved Trip got nerfed big time).

I should have said "remember and liked the old monk". 1e was like that, some classes blew at low levels; as has been discussed recently, that seems more tolerable than blowing at high levels.

Flanking is only +2 to hit; they keep Dex bonus. Flat-footed, which is one way of losing Dex bonus, might be what you're thinking of (which also allows for sneak attack).

I was recently disabused of that notion, too. Up to 40d6! Whew!

EDIT: Wait, doesn't he only get one attack with the off hand? Must have improved 2 weapon fighting.

Yes, he'd need the second feat version (if he's a rogue as is the case here).

40d6 is an average of 140, assuming you can bring it to bear. Chances of them all hitting even when you do get a full attack, though, are often pretty small.

Getting 10 d6 per sneak attack, though, doesn't come at +11/+6...

Yeah, monk is old-school. The current monk is probably most disappointing to those of us that played 1e and remember the old monk.

Monk did reappear in 2e, incidentally, in the Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook, towards the end of 2e.

I thought this would go hand in hand with derevised PA and CE feats which would provide the better 1:1 and choice of commitment. The non-feat attack options being static and the feats dynamic.

Yeah, I'd certainly prefer that to the current situation. I'd just prefer the option to be dynamic if possible, and the feats to also be dynamic, but better.

If he makes a full attack, yes. Would be the same if the opponent was flanked. It's the same as in 3.5.

The high expense of amulet of might fists, and the fact that handwraps are non-core, means that even higher level monks have a hard time hitting level-appropriate ACs with bare-hand strikes, though, particularly with the average BAB. So the solution presumably has to include more than just nixing the flurry penalty.

Nope, the beta says, in so many words, that rogues can sneak attack anything that doesn't have any weakspots

Doesn't it say they can sneak attack anything that has a discernible anatomy? Anyhow, it certainly is 'nearly everything'. It'd better see expanded crittability to match (and the PFRPG duellist* relies on crittability, although intriguingly it also uses 'discernable anatomy' language), though, as I've claimed before.

*And why is it spelt 'duelist' rather than 'duellist' in the Prestige Web Enhancement? Is that an American spelling?

First playtest of it tonight, first level; didn't seem too powerful at all (I kept Int bonus to hit, discarded it for damage; elven wizard using a longsword), although in restricted spaces it would appear to have a large tactical advantage if it occupies the square it's in. Maybe Jason already mentioned this, but as it doesn't AoO it seems that somehow it shouldn't be able to block a square for movement through it (although what if someone tries to end the move in its square?).

It should be a PrC for a particular God or Gods, I would guess. But as Sebastian says, you'd sacrifice capabilities from either side, so there'd have to be some goodies to make up for it.

I thought the offensive version of Fighting Defensively was the Charge. Just a point.

That only works if you actually charge, though. In face-to-face combat, it won't work.

A good name for a static (-4 to hit, +2 Damage) would be Fighting Offensively or Offensive Fighting. Wild Swing or other similar language diminish the possible narrative uses, such as using it to account of more directly aimed(called-shot) blows.

I agree with you about the undesirability of 'wild swing' (although I'd prefer for it not to be static but rather selectable up to some limit). There's probably some fencing term for this sort of stuff...

Sweet.

And while I'm at it, Vudra before Tian-Xia for Golarion! I mean, there are zillions of oriental adventures rpg bookszzzzzzzzzzzzz ...but virtually none India-style.

Usually, they run past just outside of your reach. When that's not feasible, it's still a common tactic to perform a shield rush (D&D bull rush) or accept that attack to get at someone behind you (i.e., if you're a sword and shield in front of a polearm), when the person behind you is more dangerous if not taken out quickly. In combat, doing something (other than hiding or sneaking) "very slowly and warily" usually means you either don't do anything significant (i.e., waste actions) or end up dead quickly when someone who doesn't do things "very slowly and warily" jumps in your face and pounds you. What happens before combat starts is another matter.

Not to mention that they can often just afford, at higher levels where hp are larger and scale faster than single attack damage tends to, to soak the odd AoO to get at other threats (casters, for example), if they're intelligent creatures/opponents.

That's true and I agree, but if you read through the beginning of this thread, I see nothing constructive, just debate(mostly civil actually) about why fighters need more or need less. Not too much design going on there. Look at the title of the thread, what kind of dialogue is that going to inspire? I usually don't post in these kinds of threads, but I guess I just felt a little exasperated that the old stuff is being rehashed...again.

The context is pretty clear, it seems to me, and it is about what should be done for fighters at the design level. But it's clearly also related to an almost-endless debate in 3.x forums across the internet, about whether fighters blow or not so that it might look a little like them (and for obvious reasons, too).

I don't believe that limiting precision damage here is the way to go. I think that if we do enact any sort of weak iterative based on a standard action, it will not be so big a factor.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Yeah, for what it's worth, I agree with you. In fact, if Improved Feint can lead to an interative sneak attack (one passing the Bluff Check) then Improved Feint is going to be sufficiently worthwhile to take (as at present, I am not convinced that it, even for a rogue).

People seem to worry about sneak attack a lot...

And a wall is one of the few challenges a high-level monk can reliably hit!

So, in essence, the out-of-print APs will never be reprinted into physical form? That's a real shame...

I am getting tired of these complaining about the fighter threads. If you don't like fighters, then play something else.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is a design discussion in a playtest/design focus forum. So 'if you think it's lame, play something else' isn't really a terribly helpful design approach but is, rather, advice as to how players might deal with the results of the design if they don't like it. Statements about why it might or might not be fun to play a particular class are entirely appropriate and hopefully useful in a design discussion, but I don't see how "play something else" in response can hope to clear either bar.

If 3.x/PF allowed 1e/2e style multi, the wiz/6-cleric/6 would require about as much xp as a 10th level character. 10th character level for MT would be a wiz/3-cleric/3-MT/4, effective CL wiz/7-cleric/7, which is better.

In 1e, a 6/6 multiclassed Cleric/Magic-user required 80 000 xp and you were in fact a 6/5 Cleric/Magic-User at 55 000xp. Compare with the xp required to make level 7 and 8 in Cleric -- 55 000xp and 110 000xp -- and making 7th and 8th in Magic-User -- 60 000xp and 90 000xp.

So, basically, 1e multiclassing has at this stage cost you a single spellcasting level, ie, your full-class party Cleric or Magic-User is at this stage one level ahead of you. So that's a pretty big difference and it arises from the old xp progression; no one's calling for the same style multiclassing in 3.5 with the existing 3.5 progression (so I am not entirely sure why you raise it, although when you do you haven't considered the value, or otherwise, of keeping class features), even if it were adapted as you say. They are calling for the PrCs that effect multiclassing a la 1/2e to be closer to the power levels of multiclassing in 1/2e, at least for the Magic-User(Wizard)/Cleric combo. Whether that's the right ambition or not is, of course, a matter of opinion.

The level limits in 1e were mostly irrelevant given how damn long it took to hit them for moderately optimal multiclass choices. I used to look at them somewhat warily during character design, but never reached them so it wasn't a big deal for me and, so far as I am aware, nor was it for most players.

With regards to the issue of complaints/whining, I again say that I don't know why anyone would get excited, given that it's a disagreement on game mechanics and it's clearly down to taste and opinion.

Fighters are getting a whole bunch more Fighter-only feats... they were announced a while back, IIRC.

Are you sure? I certainly hope not -- I hate fighter-only feats -- but I wasn't aware that Jason was that keen on them, either.

Haven't played True20, but mechanics like this seem pretty sensible to me, particularly when you have a strong hit/don't hit boundary and then roll separate damage. It links the ease of hitting with the damage, which, as Matt and Jess pointed out, makes AC work much better.

So a full-attacking rogue with three attacks does sneak attack damage three times?

I've seen it in play, but thought it was some feat exploit.

Any attack that meets the criteria (has the class feature, vulnerable to sneak attacks, denied Dex bonus or flanked) is a sneak attack.

Pre-3.x multiclassing had:

• racial level limits lower than 20 levels combined (except gnome cleric/illusionist, perhaps)
• divided hit dice
• divided xp = slowed progression with occasional jumps leveling more than one class close together.

The huge issue, though, was that the multiclass progression combined better with the old class xp progressions. A 6/6 magic-user/cleric didn't take as many xp as a 12th-level magic user, unlike the current situation. That was a pretty big deal and, so far as I am aware, is a big motivation behind the combo classes like Mystic Theurge.

I don't know why anyone's getting excited about this, though. It's only a disagreement on whether a class is good enough.

Pre-3.x dual-classing had:

• progression in first class barred after taking second class
• no hit dice/points from second class until exceed level of the first class
• no xp awarded if abilities of first class were used while level of second class is less than level of first class.

You wanna go back to that? Go ahead, I'll take MT any day. Getting ten levels of both divine and arcane spellcasting progression is HUGE already.

Again, the issue of the two different xp progressions is there rather than cumulative as in 3.x, and it's still a big issue. The old dual-classing system was sort of sucky, I thought, but I still think it's better than straight multiclassing in 3.5 where both classes are spellcasters.

Lamenting limitations that can scarcely outweigh that benefit really is whining.

Why would anyone 'whine' about it? They just disagree with you and it's not real, it's an argument about the desirability of a D&D class.

We must all be thankful, then, that not one person has even implied, much less said, "100%".

Slip of the typing. Let me expand that to "80%". Because so long as it's clear how to use the character/monster in the game, it seems to me that's a lot more important than that it has the stats that would result if you created it in the game.

That's for adventure material, of course (Paizo's bread-and-butter as a publisher). Backwards Compatibility is going to be a bigger issue for crunch/splats, I would agree, at least in that it's going to take more work to bring into PFRPG. I'm happy enough to make the conversions, however, because personally I think that PFRPG's going to be a better game; I can understand that some people aren't, or don't, or aren't and don't.

Actually, JJ, that's a point that does get lost, that you're presumably going to be making efforts to ensure that the APs, etc, are all compatible with 3.5 to a larger extent than 3.5 and PFRPG are close together, or at least ensuring that stat blocks can be used easily enough in either (obviously, the stat blocks may not be 'right' for one system, but that they work is a lot more important; I can't believe many people really care that the creatures and NPCs described are 100% compatible with their own ruleset, which probably include houserules in any case).

You are clearly not spending enough time posting and attending Paizo chatnights, instead lollygagging, loafing and 'editing' (whatever that is; I suspect it's a euphemism for something indelicate).

It would be interesting to see what additions could be made before "everyone wanted to be a Mystic Theurge". I mean, would "retain familiar progression" be enough? I doubt it. Presumably there's something between no class features retained and all class features retained that serves as some sort of balancing point. Of course and however, given the various ways of getting into the class, whether there's any way of making sense of it all in the class, I doubt; feats is probably a better way of doing it, because then there doesn't have to be a large table of possibilities in the MT class description (and clearly it couldn't really easily be "pick a class feature and keep it going" because some class features are better than others) and although it might be manageable otherwise for the core classes, with the splats there will be many ways to get into the class.

... if the touted claims of BC were genuine, less would have changed, and what would have changed would have advanced the existent structure of 3.5, rather than creating a new game system which is substantively similar, yet different.

That's not, it seems to me, a question of 'genuine or not' so much as opinion as to what it all means. Like you, I joined in because PFRPG was supposed to keep 3.5 alive and yet I think that not only does it look set to do that (depending, of course, on what the final result is), it also looks set to be better than 3.5 whilst still being backwards-compatible. That, however, is clearly my opinion; you entered with the same motivations as I and have found things different to the way I did (thus I think that it's not a matter of 'genuine' or otherwise, but just of what we understand by terms such as 'backwards compatible' and how we intepret the changes that appear to be likely to appear in the final version.

You are waaay undervaluing the balance of sacrafcing class features for leveling TWO spell progressions at the same time.

This is the crux of the matter. Many people believe that the balance is on the wrong side (also, you don't sacrifice just class features, of course, you also sacrifice spell levels; the point he's making is that he thinks that keeping some class features would, in fact, make the balance balanced).

Taking ONE character level and letting it apply to TWO spell progressions IS the power.

IF you want your class features, DONT play an MT. It's been said many times.

That's effectively just a statement of the current situation, though. As the other people are talking about the situation they'd prefer over the current one -- because they believe that the current one is such that none of their players will take it and they don't see the point in classes no one takes, for example, or that if they do take it they are at a disadvantage* -- what's basically a restatement of the current situation isn't going to be very persuasive.

*Although they're still better than melee classes at high level, I guess, so the problem is more in the middle levels when they're learning 2nd level spells as everyone else to 6th level.

Bagpuss wrote:

The current state of play is, for me, pretty backwards-compatible.

I can't speak for anyone else, but this issue for me (and the groups I play in) is not so much "Is it backwards compatible?" (whatever that means) but rather "Is it worth making a bunch of changes to what we're already using?"

Personally, I like tinkering around with new stuff for 3.5. But some of the people I play with don't like change very much; if they did like change, they'd probably be playing 4th edition instead of 3.5 (or 3.0, in some cases). So I'm unlikely to be playing much Pathfinder in my play-by-email games unless I DM. Why would a DM start a Pathfinder game (that will appeal to some subset of 3.5 edition players) when he could start a 3.5 game (that will appeal to all 3.5 edition players)?

I guess if you're offering an all/many-splats 3.5 game, then PFRPG isn't going to compete for a lot of people because many of the changes are irrelevant (people don't play core classes for long if at all, when they have splats) and then there's the rules change overhead you mention, although to be honest I don't think that the changes are actually that big a deal unless a build was predicated on combat manoeuvres, which are now harder. I think that it's going to be easier to sell a pbem Beta game than a pbem final PFRPG game unless something sweet like d20srd.org appears for the PFRPG SRD and it also includes, for example, chargen and advancement rules, because the beta pdf is free, unless the PFRPG pdf is really pretty cheap (or free, which would obviously rule but probably isn't that likely).

I have a serious issue with my surly dwarf being less charismatic than a zombie.

That's dwarves for you. Stunty losers with no friends and even the zombies can't stand their stench.

Bagpuss wrote:

The main issue is being good enough to compete in published adventures, it seems to me. Your enjoyment in general doesn't require fantastic stats, so far as I can see.

My enjoyment stops when I go below 0 HP every two or three sessions

or when the resurrections slow down the campaign*,
or in case of a Rogue: when my chances of opening doors or finding/disarming a trap are frustratingly low due to crappy stats.

* At least PRPG put away with loosing a level.

Those are pretty much all scenario-design issues, which is why I made the comment about published material. If you're rolling your own, you can set challenges appropriate to parties of low stats or high stats, etc, in which case player enjoyment and longevity aren't stat-dependent.

I should add that for much published material, I am pretty sure (from my own experiences, so anecdotal) that a lower point-buy would be sufficient to not die with the canonical party of four and also to have some fun. Trickier with Paizo stuff, though. Additionally, the lower point-buys cause, what, a difference of one point of bonus from prime stats and about the same from secondary stats (and maybe make your dump stat worse)? That's generally not going to be quite as important as it feels, I think, but again that'll depend on the scenario (in this case how brutal it is to fail, say, one more save, or to take one more hit before winning a particular combat).

If people can enjoy Warhammer playing an entirely less-than-fabulous character, I am pretty sure that D&D can allow for the same. Obviously it was easier in 1e, where stats mostly didn't matter much of the time (but players still obsessed over them*), but even now the difference in bonuses aren't huge.

If I was designing D&D or PFRPG, which I'm not, I'd prefer lower starting stats but quicker increases in stats than one every four levels or buying magical stat enhancement.

*Me included. But I was young and stupid.

Now I'm hearing again that the final rules could be quite different, and I suspect "different" means "more new rules will be added to move Pathfinder away from 3.5" rather than "some new rules will be reverted to move Pathfinder closer to 3.5".

I can see the point of that concern, which I share to some extent myself. However, I suspect that what is in the final version will mostly have been trailed beforehand through Jason's suggested changes and, somewhat harder to follow, through intimations and musings from Jason and James and others, in forum threads.

I also hope, as I've posted before, that there'll be an 'Unearthed Arcana' of optional rules produced for Pathfinder.

The current state of play is, for me, pretty backwards-compatible. Whilst stat blocks in existing material might be 'wrong' under the new rules, I can still pretty much play the adventure with those stat blocks, possibly with some fudging for the fact that the PF base classes are more potent, but I'd have had to do that anyhow because in 3.5, groups made with splat material were also more potent than the canonical classes on which CR and EL were allegedly based (and, in any case, those are both broken in 3.5 themselves...).

I only allow 3d6, or 20 point buy, EVERYone went with 20 point buy.

Assuming that's a PFRPG 20-point buy, no surprise, as it's way better than 3d6. 20-point buy, with the +2 that every race gets, easily makes for an 18 in one stat. Compared to 3d6, it's miles ahead. I would think it's significantly better than 4d6 drop lowest, too.

meh,
who wants to go adventuring as Joe 'not quite' Average?

I wouldn't seriously start thinking about a character background for less than 20 points (or an equal result from 3d6), I'd roll-play half hearted till he gets killed and then hope for more.

my worst case template for 3d6 is worth about 15 points, anything less and I won't be able to qualify for the feats I'm looking for, might as well stay in town and open a pub.

20-point PFRPG is miles ahead of Joe not-quite-average.

The main issue is being good enough to compete in published adventures, it seems to me. Your enjoyment in general doesn't require fantastic stats, so far as I can see.

CharlieRock wrote:

I think Mongoose made a phb out of the SRD.

Yes, the 3.0 Player's Guide. Nice format-size, like the Arcane and Divine spell books. Too bad it is out of date; doesn't have the GM stuff; and doesn't have the basics of monsterdom. :)

I imagine if anyone believes there to be a market for another one, they'll print it (no reason not to, after all, other than commercial concerns).

I got the feeling for a while that it wasn't so much that a lot of Paizo's existing fans didn't like X or Y or had a problem with it, but that X or Y was cited as a problem by the 4E designers, so it got addressed as if to prove you could fix the cited problem within the 3.5 ruleset, even if it wasn't a big deal with the fans. I could be way off base, but it did seem to me that a lot of the design process started to "chase" the 4E designers complaints.

Most of the issues (excepting the PA one, which looks to me like a DM issue), I had seen. Fighters starting to suck, casters getting too powerful after being dull at low levels, monks missing all the time, rogue dull to play as too many creatures became crit-immune, Paladins feeble, Ranger Animal Companions useless, some spells just too good (the old Irresistable Dance, for example, now somewhat weakened), etc, etc. The 15 minute workday/nova caster was a scenario design issue, for me, though (although I do think it exists when scenarios have no urgency). I want those things, that are part of problems with the rules, fixed, and a fair number have been. I definitely don't just want an SRD with the missing bits -- chargen, xp, etc -- added. I wish WotC had gone this route, of fixing rather than replacing 3.x, but they didn't; I'm happy that Paizo are doing it instead.

But that's just me. Everyone seems to have a different list of what changes are awesome, palatable, pointless or 'too much.' It's a mess.

Also opinions on what should have been changrd, but hasn't, vary.

Not sure it's a 'mess', though, or if it is, it's an inevitable one.

While I think Pathfinder is almost 100% backwards compatible, it's not 100% the same. The compatibility is high, but the "same factor", which in my mind measures the amount of necessary change, is low. Too much has been changed for the sake of change.

I guess that it's a hard line to draw. When I got into Pathfinder RPG, I was concerned about too much change, but the more I think about it whilst continuing to play 3.5 (alternatively with a PFRPG game just started), the more 3.5 annoys me and I like most of the changes (other than stuff that I've repeatedly posted about, like Power Attack and Combat Expertise nerfs). However, that's just personal taste; the real thing I'm posting to say is that, whether changes are good or bad, I don't think that they've been done for the sake of change. I think that they've been done with the intent of making a better game, smoothing out some of the broken or dull or over complex or clunky spots (whilst inevitably leaving most of them relatively unchanged), although opinion as to the size of the existing flaws varies.

20-point Pathfinder buy seems entirely adequate to me. Some classes with horrible MAD may indeed need more points to make an acceptable character, but that's a problem with the class, I think, because you'd have to give more across the board and that would mean that classes without MAD were still better. You can't fix MAD with more points in your pointbuy.

I think his comment about free spreadsheet applications might have been cross-platform.

You guys really need to quit whining.

I fear that people may not be paying so much attention after being called whiners, whether or not it's a justified attack. None of which, of course, lessens the pleasure of launching the attack, but it may rather reduce the strength of the other arguments, in which regard I would point out that the aim of the Mystic Theurge is to reproduce pre-3.x multiclassing (or even dual-classing) which is no longer achievable in 3.x with the new xp cross-class progression without a Prestige Class geared toward it. So there's not a great deal of point in saying "well, it's better than multiclassing wizard and cleric in 3.x rules" when the whole reason for the PrC is basically because those rules, in general and as far as I can see, utterly, utterly blow for developing a spellcaster with more than one base class. Pointing out that Mystic Theurge is better than playing said lame core/core multiclass seems to me to be like being the prettiest corpse; of strictly limited actual value. The question of merit must surely be whether the Mystic Theurge is of comparable worth to straight single-classing (not better, ideally, but merely comparable). That won't solve the 'meleers suck at high levels' problem, but I can't see any design value* to creating a PrC that no one will take unless they're keen to take a hefty power hit.

*This isn't to say that players might not take it, and for good reasons. I'm talking about design virtue.

Also, as James Jacobs points out quite often, undead can now get their hp bonus from charisma (rather than suffer from lack of Con); as a consequence, the game balance reasons for excluding critting undead in 3.5, at least, are fading. Although there are world-logic arguments against the crittability/sneak-attackability of undead in 3.5, they always seemed to me to be motivated, under the covers, by the game balance issues which are no longer particularly valid. Consequently, I don't think that it's damaging things too much to roll it back so that undead are crittable (and then, I would prefer, as a consequence sneak-attackable, unlike the current Beta situation which breaks that crittability/sneak-attackability link in favour of expanded sneak-attackability; I want to preserve the link but achieve the same Beta expansion to sneak attack by expanding crittability).

the same weak spots could be used against many inanimate objects, would a rogue get to sneak attack a common stone statue or other object (like a weapon) ?

It wouldn't bother me if they were, although it seems to me that you could make a case for those things being crittable -- they have locational vulnerabilities -- but not being sneak-attackable because the rogue has no special insight. But it wouldn't bother me if, for ease of book-keeping, they were sneak-attackable too, because I definitely think they should be crittable. So, although my main interest is in re-establishing the crit-sneak-attack link for the new expanded set of sneak-attackable opponents, I don't mind if there are things like truly inanimate objects that are crittable but not sneak-attackable.

Something like that would be OK, I think. You are right about "fight defensively", although I'd prefer more flexibility as in the Iron Heroes version (which I didn't know about). I thin it'd be good to make it clear that the feats are better versions of the standard options, too.

Good luck with the restock. Seems the old Croc isn't able to keep pace with demand.

You're not wrong. I bought a couple of these this month and was thinking maybe I wanted another and now they're on backorder again (which will take them past my timeline, alas)...

I still think this is a terrible idea. I can see it for crits, expecially against golems, but I really hope the remove undead from sneak attack. It takes away from other characters, and it also makes undea less a threat. It is not worth it to please rogue who got bored fighting undead, it really is not.

Undead can get more hit points now. Also, the problem with undead is that you can have whole adventures, lasting several play sessions, where nearly all of the opponents are undead. Even if the previous sneak attack and crit immunity made sense -- which I think it doesn't, because most undead clearly do have locational vulnerabilities -- it makes for No Fun. However, removing the immunity makes sense as well as making for more fun, so it seems like it's win-win to me.

For example, Deinonychus was about 13 feet long (nose to tail) and weight about as much as a wolf. Definately Medium sized.

It's not going to fit inot a 5' square, though, so how can it be Medium size just because it's light? Although I guess we could just ignore the fact that it has a tail.

But I return to what I said in the last post. The saving throw rules are held together by duct tape, leaving the cleric and druid sitting pretty at everone else's expense. The fighter is important in that equation because he's one of "everyone else."

And, as you also said, it's just another weakness of the fighter, on top of all the others. Meleers/non-casters are in general trouble in 3.x and the fighter's the worst of them other than the monk (which is like taking second place in an ugly contest in a leper colony). Crap will saves is just a part of it.

One hole in a dungeon wall is definitely going to collapse the whole thing? That looks a bit like "DM sulk leads to TPK"...