Brother Willi's page

The problem with the old domain system is that it encouraged a lot of level-dipping into "worship the ideal" clerics, who would grab the War domain and Luck domain, and then head off into another class with some healing, a bevy of feats, and a reroll. In my campaigns, it certainly encouraged rogue/cleric combinations.

The idea behind the new domain powers is very sound: it gives players a reason to keep levelling as a cleric. There has been a lot of discussion on how to rework those powers, which I won't repeat here, but in our playtests so far it has given characters a lot more incentive to stick with cleric.

It is also internally consistent, comparable in both mechanic and power to the bloodline and school specialization abilities of the other spell-casters.

Frankly, the loss of compatibility with the other domains is a big issue to backwards compatibility. But there are great number of new domains in PRPG and plenty of parallels can be drawn between the Spell Compendium and the new domains. It hasn't slowed down a Forgotten Realms game at all; we simply replaced the old domains with comparable new ones. The dynamic remains fun, and the new domains give the clerics a bit of flare they lacked before.

A thought occurs to me: Why not simply have each domain add two to three spells to the Cleric's spell list at the appropriate level? It takes up less space, gives the flavor the 3.5 domains added, and doesn't require removing the new (and in my mind engaging) domain powers. It also means that if a cleric doesn't want to use a domain spell, they don't have to take it.

A good DM can give the players and him- or herself a great and fun evening of gaming. If the players are enthusiastic and keep coming back, you are a good DM.

That hits the nail on the head. We all know what we do and don't like, and while there are some general qualities good DMs share, it's as much a matter of preference as any other part of the game.

For me, some of my favorite DMs have been improv comedians. There are several reasons for this:

1) They can create fun and memorable characters rather quickly. This makes conversations with minor NPCs more fun.

2) They build a scene quickly and well. It's definitely a personal like, but I love flavor text and atmosphere for the various locales our party visits.

3) They know the "Yes, and ..." rule of improv. This, as discussed above, means that when an idea is given to them their first instinct is to take the idea and run with it. While parties definitely wander off course from time to time, a good DM will recongize that letting the party drive the action is just as important as the old man in the inn dispensing adventure hooks.

When I first read this, I wasn fairly sure you were wrong, having seen successful Two-Weapon Builds in the past. So I sat down and did the math (it's been a slow night) and I was surprised what I saw.

I worked out the damage output for a non-descript character with a greatsword and a non-descript character wielding an longsword and shortsword. The formula accounted for different strength levels, different feats (generally weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc.), and critical hits.

The fact of the matter is that the greatsword wielder does more damage as levels are gained. It isn't significantly more when magic bonuses aren't involved; the Two-Weapon Wielder tends to be 2-4 points behind at lower levels, and 8-10 points behind at higher levels.

This is only, however, with comparable strength scores. The Greatsword wielder does gain a great benefit by not having to worry about a high dexterity score. Weapon focus doesn't even the score, because the damage output remains low.

Magical weapons can help even the score, but the cost is prohibitive. The extra flaming attacks are helpful, but they are expensive.

Against low-AC opponents, the Two-Weapon damage output ratio increases. Against high-AC opponents, it drops.

Frankly, to make two-weapon fighters comparable front-line attackers without making them use every last feat choice would require such an overhaul of the two-weapon system that it wouldn't be backwards compatible.

If change is needed, it helps to even things up to decrease the penalties for two-weapon fighting by one point. This takes the damage output to a closer level, with the greatsword fighter retaining great options from Cleave, Great Cleave, and similar feats, and the two-weapon fighter can even up damage through focus and specialization feats for both weapons and Two Weapon Rend.

Now the next question is: is this a problem? Two-weapon fighting is being compared in my above examples in two martial characters. A high-dex rogue, ranger, or bard is a different matter, as they are intended to be support characters.

Their damage output difference is made up in other ways. Rangers have animal companions and favored enemies, rogues have sneak attack (which, when flanking is fantastic), and bards have ... spells, I guess. I haven't run figures on this, but TWF may need to remain the Rogue's combat options.

That idea sounds very good to me. I've already been on the record as against Track as a feat, as it is too limited to make it a good choice. I feel the same is true of a feat that lets you identify your quarry with track.

This system, on the other hand, is in keeping with the other skill systems (the higher you roll, the more you know). I haven't crunched the numbers on the +10/+20 numbers as the threshold for identifying the type/name of the creature, but that can be hashed out with simple math. The relation with Knowledge skills could be akin to the synergy bonus concept: For example, if you have ranks in Knowledge(Nature) you get a +2 bonus to track (or just identify the quarry) animals, magical beasts, humanoids, etc. At 10 Ranks, the bonus goes up to +4.

Thus, as an example, a dragon-hunting fighter could have Survival and Knowledge(Arcana). The fighter could track any quarry, but would be exceptionally good at tracking dragons. This fits with the build. A ranger of equal level and ranks in survival would still be better at tracking (thanks to their class feature), but the ranger wouldn't be necessary.

[W]hat are your thoughts on the mechanic I proposed for identifying creatures based on their tracks? From PM, I know Archade thinks the DC should be higher, and I think he's got me convinced, but what does everyone else think?

It seems to be a logical step for the skill. The only concern that comes to my mind is a "realism" question; whether the tracking character could identify a creature they had never encountered before. Currently in the games I play, our modus operandi is to have the tracker, after a successful Survival check, make a corresponding Knowledge(whatever) check to see if (s)he knows what kind of creature made these tracks. It works well and rewards appropriate knowledge skills.

Nonetheless, I see the value in having that all rolled into Survival. Perhaps a check equal to the Track DC +5 identifies the creature's type, while a check equal to the Track DC +10 identifies the creature itself (provided the character could identify the creature)? This way it remains easy to identify something tromping through the mud, but even a higher level ranger couldn't identify what was walking over solid rock prior to the big rainstorm.

First off, the same issue of dungeon exploring exists with all animal companions, although you can usually trust the dire bear to get its own food.

I think this might be easily solved with a paladin ability that allows him to teleport his mount to his location, although this would not be a low level ability.

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

In my experience, many mounts get left behind at the dungeon entrance. My players would probably be relieved to know an intelligent and more powerful horse was watching over the mundane ones. I initially saw the the Weapon Bond as an alternative to the Mount for players who didn't want to deal with the hassles of moving the mount through tight spaces.

That said, I am curious about the action necessary to summon the mount. It could be an out-of-combat action time-frame (e.g. one minute), but this means that a Paladin would be deprived of the mount during an ambush, and would encourage the party to constantly stop and re-summon the mount in each new area. If it's a full-round action it means the Paladin and mount are immobile for a round. It also means the Paladin has to take another round to mount and get into position.

There is also a question of the location of the summoned mount. If the mount can appear as a summoned monster, it allows the Paladin to drop the mount into an advantageous combat position. I am less than thrilled with the idea of the mount appearing and the Paladin already being mounted (the rules for this would be fairly thick).

I feel the best option is to make summoning a standard action which places the mount adjacent to the Paladin. This leaves a move action to mount one's steed, or gives them at least a chance to relocate.

These changes sound like absolutely the right way to go.

In earlier editions of the game tracking posed a running problem for
us. The Track Feat, while useful, was really only helpful to those who had a high Survival (or Wilderness Lore, prior) check. These classes, usually Barbarians and Druids, had very limited feat advancement, rarely took it. In the games we played, therefore, only Rangers would practically be able to track.

And not every party had a Ranger. So for DM's such as myself, who enjoy a good wilderness adventure, tracking was something I'd often have to allow anyone with Survival to do simply because it kept the game moving.

With the new Pathfinder Rules, two things have happened in short order in my circle's games. The first is that many players now give their characters Survival (we tend towards wilderness games, as I said). The second is that the players use it to track enemies, identify good ambush areas, etc. This has helped move such adventures along greatly, and actually improved party tactics.

An improved mechanic to identify quarry, whether in terms of a feat or higher DCs would be a great step in the right direction. I would argue against a feat, however, as I don't know if players would take it. Even though feats are easier to come by, there are a great many out there. Many character builds require the player to pick a long combination of feats, and those players would probably be loathe give up a new metamagic trick, weapon attack, or skill boost simply to be able to identify a monster shortly before it attacks them. Add in the inevitable metagaming that surrounds encountering monsters and its usefulness as a feat is diminished.

Instead, I think higher skill DCs to identify a monster or monster type are a good way to go. Rangers should simply have a bonus to Survival for tracking. Alternatively, the Ranger's improved tracking abilities could be tied to their favored enemies, allowing them to track and identify favored enemies at a higher bonus.