Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Ishani Dhatri

Can'tFindthePath's page

806 posts. Alias of Lane Coursey.


RSS

1 to 50 of 806 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Jeraa wrote:
Xethik wrote:
In official rules, there's nothing that officially has 'Good BAB' or '3/4 BAB'. At least, not that I know of. Perhaps monster rules may have something? So you couldn't refer to a 3/4 BAB class or a 1/2 BAB class without first defining what those are, which takes up quite a bit of page space.

In the Bestiary, the descriptions of the various creature types do include "Base attack bonus equal to 1/2 total Hit Dice (slow progression)", "Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (medium progression)", and "Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (fast progression)."

So there are references to slow, medium, and fast progression BAB as well as 1/2 and 3/4 fractions.

Well I'll be damned again. You are correct; I can't find anything in the CRB that says that.

This just illustrates why we DO need a revised edition (NOT 2.0). You really do need to have a history with D&D 3.x, or have a someone to point to all this stuff, in order to fully learn the game.

I think a revised CRB (preferably broken into two, and including things like Traits, and a brush with Archetypes, while changing no rules (except stealth, shhhh), would be worth it.


Earl Grey wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Forget about the HD, the fractional rule is based on the actual BAB of the class. In this case, 3/4.
Indeed, and just the reason why it is confusing. Why not put 1/1, 3/4 and 1/2 to the column title in "Fractional Bonuses by Class Level" table rather than HD? The intent is clear enough.

Did they really? Wow, in that case, this is a major oversight. That was really kinda dumb, as all rules references to class BAB progressions is Poor, Average, and Good.

Although, I do note that the Level bonuses table in the CRB does not include BAB at all, whereas the D&D3.5 table does (which is not Open Content, and therefore not reproduced). Possibly the origin of the problem...


kestral287 wrote:
The D12 classes exist outside the normal HD/BAB combinations. Use your judgement on deciding whether you want to nerf these classes, buff these classes, or make some straightforward inferences that allow you to leave them alone.

No, there is no judgment call needed, this is just a small oversight; they are referring to the guidelines by which they built the BAB/HD combos on base classes. All DMs can do what they want in their games with cooperation of the players, but, all classes (including Dragon Disciple) have one of three BAB progressions. Forget about the HD, the fractional rule is based on the actual BAB of the class. In this case, 3/4.


Mattastrophic wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
By the way, anyone ever notice Ninjas can take Rogue talents, but not Advanced talents.
Ultimate Combat wrote:
Advanced Talents: The ninja can select a rogue talent from the list of Advanced Talents in place of a ninja trick. The ninja cannot select a rogue talent that has the same name as a ninja trick. The ninja cannot select improved evasion unless she has evasion (either as a class feature or as a ninja master trick).

I'll be damned, I didn't notice that. However, after carefully reviewing the Rogue talents in UC AGAIN, I don't see a corresponding "Master Tricks" Rogue talent.


Tayse wrote:

I've always thought the ninja should've been a better blend of monk and rogue. With the release of the ACG and the hybrid classes I thought there was a missed opportunity to show the ninja it's proper love. Now in the aftermath of Unchained I think the ball was dropped and kicked out of reach.

My GM allowed me to apply the unchained rogue additions to the ninja. If I pressed him for further changes I'd ask to trade rogues edge for monk style strikes (replacing flurry with full attack) and replace rogue talents with ki powers or just add them to the list ninja trick options.

Although currently I am loving my multiclass variant "unchained" ninja with magus secondary abilities (I need to learn the forum appropriate abbreviation) and how I plan to abuse the acrobatics and stealth skill unlocks.

I second the motion for a new Ninja hybrid class. Unchained Monk and Unchained Rogue hybridized for assassination would be awesome. Looking back at the Ninja, it sort of is a combo of Monk and Rogue, before they conceived of hybrid classes (or at least publishing them).


LoneKnave wrote:
Your pool will be pretty bad for it, but yeah, that works. Interesting that Ninja Trick is on the list, but Ki isn't tho.

Remember, not all Ninja tricks require ki. Together with the news that there seems no intention of giving us an official Unchained Ninja, it's clear to me that Paizo is distancing the already strong Ninja from the newly strong Unchained Rogue.

Personally, I think the Ninja needs the Finesse Training from the Unchained Rogue. After that, I believe the superiority of some ki talents is at least equivalent to the other Unchained Rogue goodies. Anyway, that is what I will be proposing to my group.

By the way, anyone ever notice Ninjas can take Rogue talents, but not Advanced talents. And Rogues can take Ninja tricks, but not Master tricks. I think it shows some perspective of how they want the Rogue and Ninja to remain distinct.

With the new powers and rebalanced Rogue talents from Unchained, the Rogue would obviate the Ninja if they let them continue to acquire ki.


Seerow wrote:
ryric wrote:

I wouldn't suggest going down in point buy if your players believe they need high stats to have fun. Most of the perceptions about dump stats and so forth are based on playstyle.

You can finish an AP just fine with no one in the party having any initial stat bonus greater than +2. A 15 at character creation is just fine for your best stat, and once you demonstrate that to yourself, no low amount of point buy is really much of an issue. Try it out for a short mini-campaign and see if it works for you. I did and now 15 point buy feels like an extravagant feast of points.

Obviously YMMV but in my experience playing standard(15) point buy does not have to lead to dumping of stats. heck I've been thinking about seeing if my group is up for a game using the default heroic NPC array of 15 14 13 12 10 8.

Last few campaigns I've been in have used that array with either +1 or +2 to all stats, depending on how high power the DM wanted it to be. It ends up being a ridiculous number of points if you were to make it a point buy, but since the stats are forced to be spread out rather than just taking 2 18s and dumping the rest, it ends up pretty well balanced and gives MAD heavy characters like Monks a leg up that they tend to need anyway. I've also noticed it resulting in an uptick in Gishes and Theurge builds, which I consider a plus personally.

Hah. Reminds me, a long while back (in D&D 3.5) I conceived of the "Heroic Array", which was 10 12 14 15 16 17. It equaled an obscene 43 points in D&D point buy (it would be less in PF), whereas the "Epic" set was 32 points. I used to consider them equal (points and array), but reading your post I realized it works as the set numbers but not as the points....


ryric wrote:
Obviously YMMV but in my experience playing standard(15) point buy does not have to lead to dumping of stats. heck I've been thinking about seeing if my group is up for a game using the default heroic NPC array of 15 14 13 12 10 8.

The standard Elite array of 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, is 15 point buy. I can't imagine many combinations more satisfying for anything other than an arcane caster. But, if your goal is to eliminate the min/max Wizard, that'd do it.

Incidentally, my group (myself included) prefer high stats and so we use 25 point buy. After reading a lot of postings about Ability Scores, I imagine that sounds excessive to most. We don't dump stat though; I can think of only a couple PC's since we started using point buy that have less than a 10. And pretty much only prime casters get to have an 18 at 1st level. We like to spread our characters around. Also, we are allergic to sub-10 Charisma, and kinda don't get the whole "dump stat" approach.


I agree with the OP for the most part. However, in my version, I am leaving out Rogue's Edge altogether. The Ninja needs to have Finesse Training, but the power and access of the ki pool should not be underestimated. All the more so, as it seems the Unchained Rogue can no longer take the Ki pool Rogue talent. Ninjas have Ki, and Rogues have Edge.

Incidentally, in our games the Katana and Wakazashi are finesseable. Wee!

EDIT...of course, the Wakazashi is finesseable anyway....cause those are the rules. Doi!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Like the Epic Level Handbook, some Mythic feats would be fine at 1st level, and some should never have been written.

Amen, brother.

Likewise, many "Epic" spells are pretty much 8th or 9th in real power...and some, well, like you said.


Zhangar wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Did you win intitiaive?

No

Can you make 4 dc 69 fort saves in a row?

Drat, only 3 with rerolls.

You're dead.

Alright guys, getting a pizza. Let me know when you res me.

They won't be able to go far for that Pizza in high level play. Since Miracle/Wish Duplicating Resurrection is only a standard action. Heck you have a whole other spell and 30 ft. you can move after that. People die multiple times in some of my high level fights. Death just isn't a big deal at that level.

Hell, battle res is a thing as soon as limited wish (to duplicate raise dead) becomes available.

At high levels, death is another status effect to overcome (though one of the pricier and nastier ones, at 6,500 to 25,000 a pop). It's low levels where death means it's pizza run time.

Captain America wrote:
If you die ... walk it off.

Indeed. In our long languishing D&D 3.0 epic game, my 20-something cleric wielded a sword that kept him operational though staggered, at deep negative hit points.

During one fight, he took a crit from a heavy war pick (x4 crit) for 202hp (a lot back then), killing him. With his sword in hand, he remained in the melee. The following round, he cast Resurrection on himself. Then the bad guy hit him with a second crit for 212! killing him again...

PS. I know the rez should have taken 10 minutes, it was an oversight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
another_mage wrote:
Wrath wrote:

To prepare for that one fight, I often need to read and understand large numbers of stat blocks, reference feats and spells, work out how they synergise, work out what buffs will be up prior to or during combat then run all of those creatures as intelligent and powerful combatants that want to survive as well as destroy the players.

Given that my work involves large quantities of brain power as well, then high level game play quickly loses its lustre.

This is precisely why I stopped my Pathfinder campaign at Level 12.

Up to Level 9, I found myself spending maybe 4 hours out of game to prepare for 4 hours of gaming.
After that, the time required grows significantly because of the combinatorial nature of powers.

And the power level itself ramps up pretty quickly as well. Poor planning leads to one of two destinations:

- The group steamrolls over the enemy like nothing, because I forgot Player X has Ability Y.

- TPK, because I forgot that none of the players had an effective counter to Big Bad's Ability Z.

Neither outcome is fun, for the players or myself. So, I get to spend 8-10 hours planning around it.
And even after all of it, there's still the element of player surprise that is crazy-difficult to plan for.

So, now I'm running a Shadowrun 5th game for the group. It remains to be seen how much planning will be necessary at Prime Runner levels.

This is an obscure reference, but as I read about your travails I laughed out loud when it occurred to me:

Anyone ever seen Tora, Tora, Tora? The Japanese naval officer who is their strategic planning guru is assigned the task of planning the attack on Pearl.

You see him 'sweat-lodging' it with a towel on his head, rocking like he's autistic, staring at the plans like Gandalf into the hearth at Bag End....

That's what it's like to prepare for high level GMing....(puff, puff....precious...)


Dotage...er, I mean dottage.


This is crazy. It's been a year and a half since any of us last posted on this thread. I've been poring over my Greyhawk collection, and reading all the supermodules, in hopes of getting this going again.

Check my focused threads on Paizo.....and bam!, there you are. Lol.

It turns out 5th Edition is quite good...but just not quite what I want. I am currently warring with the dilemma of seriously modding PF, or biting the bullet and starting a 5e game for ease of use.

It's also kinda funny that you are setting your campaign in the Realms, where my group played most of these. Sounds like quite a lineup.

Good luck with your game.


Arakhor wrote:
Ah yes. As I recall, the other big healing spell is greater restoration, but that's generally for mental conditions.

It also restores all ability damage and drain. Which would completely restore a character from the "end state" in the CRB afflictions system.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

If you guys want to change the way daylight works, that's fine. However, you need to address the language of the spell in the so called "special negation clause". In English, that says the daylight effect is temp negated.

"Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect."

It has said the same thing since D&D 3.0, and is directly carried over via the SRD into PF. I personally always took it to be a balance point; otherwise darkness loving critters, such as Drow, would be totally screwed by daylight wielders, and the special challenge fighting such creatures can present, totally negated.

I think it's still a mess, although Mark's post is very good at breaking down most of the language and collecting it all in one place.

I think this whole area of the rules needs a revision including all related spells. So...not gonna happen.

Due to "and vice versa" the magic darkness is also negated. Otherwise it wouldn't return the light level to "the otherwise prevailing light conditions" in the overlapping areas of effect. I don't disagree that it's a confusing tangle of rules.

I would say rather that it is a confusing tangle of language. I see what you mean there, but as the parenthetical is attached to the action of "bringing into an area", I always saw it as a clumsy-in the moment-self correction on the part of the writer to clarify that it doesn't matter which is "brought into" the other. However, I think we're both right, and that means the language is all wrong.

Anyway, thanks for your efforts and input Mark.

PS- Just a general cautionary to everyone, the designers included: The PHB 3.0 (and therefore the SRD, and therefore the backbone of the PFCRB) was seemingly written in a vacuum. That is, they laid out such things as 'the vision and light rules', and then they wrote rules, racial traits, descriptions for equipment, and spell descriptions, with largely no thought to interactions with additions to the rules. This sometimes causes confusion when new bits are added to the mix. The artifacts of this phenomenon are present throughout the long road from June 2000 and the 3.0 PH down to this FAQ blog post in May of 2015.

-Cheers


Mark Seifter wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

If you guys want to change the way daylight works, that's fine. However, you need to address the language of the spell in the so called "special negation clause". In English, that says the daylight effect is temp negated.

"Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect."

It has said the same thing since D&D 3.0, and is directly carried over via the SRD into PF. I personally always took it to be a balance point; otherwise darkness loving critters, such as Drow, would be totally screwed by daylight wielders, and the special challenge fighting such creatures can present, totally negated.

I think it's still a mess, although Mark's post is very good at breaking down most of the language and collecting it all in one place.

I think this whole area of the rules needs a revision including all related spells. So...not gonna happen.

Due to "and vice versa" the magic darkness is also negated. Otherwise it wouldn't return the light level to "the otherwise prevailing light conditions" in the overlapping areas of effect. I don't disagree that it's a confusing tangle of rules.

I would say rather that it is a confusing tangle of language. I see what you mean there, but as the parenthetical is attached to the action of "bringing into an area", I always saw it as a clumsy-in the moment-self correction on the part of the writer to clarify that it doesn't matter which is "brought into" the other. However, I think we're both right, and that means the language is all wrong.

Anyway, thanks for your efforts and input Mark.


If you guys want to change the way daylight works, that's fine. However, you need to address the language of the spell in the so called "special negation clause". In English, that says the daylight effect is temp negated.

"Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect."

It has said the same thing since D&D 3.0, and is directly carried over via the SRD into PF. I personally always took it to be a balance point; otherwise darkness loving critters, such as Drow, would be totally screwed by daylight wielders, and the special challenge fighting such creatures can present, totally negated.

I think it's still a mess, although Mark's post is very good at breaking down most of the language and collecting it all in one place.

I think this whole area of the rules needs a revision including all related spells. So...not gonna happen.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
The alternative Crafting rules... not that every campaign even HAS a crafter, but how can these even be considered 'optional' when compared to the rules in the CRB?

All this talk of Dynamic Magic Item Creation has me confused. Isn't Fuzzy talking about the Alternate Crafting rules? It seems applying his statement to Magic Item creation would make it rather tongue-in-cheek...

...or else, he's a bit touched.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jester David wrote:
Revisions almost always invalidate the old. (3.5e to PF is anomalous in this regard.)
Pathfinder did invalidate 3.5. All of my 3.5 books have seen zero use since Pathfinder released.

Indeed, a lot of people have the opinion that 3.5 and PF are totally compatible. Except many tables, mine included, allow PF only (or even Paizo PF only). When it first came out, we continued to use much of 3.5, especially the Spell Compendium, but after awhile it became evident there were too many little changes in PF. It was far easier and more reliable to just go PF once sufficient support books were out.

You had to convert less from 3.0 to 3.5 than 3.5 to PF...


Originally posted in this thread.

I will be launching a new campaign in a few months, and I will definitely be using:

-Revised Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Summoner
-Fractional base bonuses
-Staggered advancement
-Background skills
-Possibly a modified version of the Grouped Skills
-Alternate Crafting and Profession rules (possibly going further in detail on changing crafting times)
-Skill Unlocks
-Variant Multiclassing alongside standard multiclassing (also, I am disappointed in most of the VMC progressions, it's a great idea but poorly executed IMO)
-Removing alignment (Outsiders, Divine and Pos/Neg energy charged things, including Blessed/Tainted locations, will still have alignment)
-Revised Action Economy (love this...hope I can convince my group)
-Stamina Combat tricks for all. (with advantages for the Fighter)
-Wound Thresholds
-(possibly) simplified spellcasting
-some kind of Automatic Bonus Progression
-...aaannd Scaling Magic Items.

Also, I love the approach to Monster creation, I have long wanted boil them down to the skeleton and add classes a la SW d20. This system could achieve much the same effect.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
It can work in an AP, though it does create extra work for the GM. He'll need to rejig loot found to match the new WBL expectations and remove items that are covered by the big 6, and occasionally check the character WBL to make sure they're on roughly the right track.
Well - yes. But in large part that would defeat the purpose of an AP instead of just running your own campaign.

My personal challenges in homebrew gaming are creating adventures, namely setting and plot. I am great at filling in NPCs, critters, and adjusting on the fly. So, for me, if all I have to do is manage the loot of an AP, that's be awesome.


The Rot Grub wrote:

Things I'm NOT using:

Staggered Level Advancement -- I rather like the dramatic effect of gaining a new level. The kids who are my players love it, and I don't find that verisimilitude is a big concern to them (lol).
Revised Action Economy -- I'm thinking of switching to this if I find higher-level play is
Wound Thresholds -- I'm concerned that this will increase the rocket-tag nature of higher-level play. And again, my players are not too concerned about believability.
Simplified Spellcasting -- My players are not very OCD about their prepared spells and usually stick to the same spells every day. I also have a separate printed sheet of their usual printed spells, and I ask them to write on it ahead of time if they want to cast new spells, so that they don't hold up the group.
Scaling Magic Items -- My players LOVE to find new magic items, and so I don't feel much of a need to introduce these to my campaigns. Also, since I'm lowering the number of magic items by eliminating WBL and using Automatic Bonus Progression, I will use inherent bonuses on monsters and NPCs so that they're not dropping +1 weapons in their wake.

Not criticizing, just giving my perspective:

Staggered Level Advancement - I have been considering this off and on since Sean K Reynolds introduced it on his site many yahrens ago. The reason for me is not verisimilitude but speed. I want to slow down advancement and concentrate on character play, allowing a decent amount of history to build for the group before they hit high level and, Gods forefend, 20th. So, I want to be able to give something regularly for PC development.

Simplified Spellcasting - One neat aspect of this system is adaptability. As he masters his magic, even a prepared caster is able to choose his lower spells on the fly. I think it needs tweaking, with a more generous pool to counter the loss of slots, and probably cost per slot level to cast the lower spells.

It's all a matter of personal taste and need. Happy gaming with new toys. Btw, are these the 'only' things you won't use, or just what you have identified thus far?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Wu Nakitu wrote:
djones wrote:

"Unchained Rogue has access to Ninja tricks (through the Ninja Trick talent), but can no longer take the Ki Pool Rogue talent"

Still waiting on the 29th for my PDF, can you elaborate on why Ki Pool is no longer available for the Unchained Rogue?

There's a sidebar that covers which Talents are unmodified/usable with the Unchained Rogue, and Ki Pool isn't on the list.

I'm willing to bet that's not a mistake.

The Unchained Rogue already full-out replaces the original Rogue.

Give it a Ki Pool like the Ninja, and there may have been concern that it ALSO would obsolete the Ninja.

I'm fine with the Ki Pool thing being a Ninja-Only trick - it helps further differentiate the class and keep it a legitimate option.

You may be right, but for my money, I'll take the Unchained Ninja!!!


Krinn wrote:

For my upcoming Eberron campaign, I'm planning to get the pdf as soon as it is available. I have yet to read first-hand what it offers, but for what others revealed...

- Unchained barbarian, rogue and monk. These will replace the older classes. I always banned the summoner, so I'll have to look into the new class before relieving the ban hammer.
- Fractional bab/saves ala unearhted arcana will be used if someone multiclasses (I don't expect this will actually be used)
- Variant Multiclassing will be available for everyone.
- Stamina. Free for fighters, others can use it for a feat.
- Skill Unlocks. Free for rogues, others can use them for a feat.
- Background Skills. Yes for everyone.
- Alignment. Eberron already has a different take on alignment, so I'll have to read if any of the new alignment takes are fitting.
- Action Economy. We are going to give a shot to the new act system.
- Wounds. I think I'll use this as well if what I understood is true (roughly a negative level per 25% health loss)
- Disease/Poison. Sure thing!

I'll have to read what the other rules are, like dynamic item creation, simplified spellcasting and other spellcasting related stuff.
Certainly I won't use the automatic bonus progression or innate item bonuses, because the existence of many lesser magic items fit Eberron lore.

Regarding alignment, I think an Eberron campaign would benefit from dropping PC alignment. The discussion about which in Unchained is a total removal. I prefer a system where normal mortals have no alignment, but alignment subtypes are retained. The book talks a bit about solutions for spells that depend on AL, and that could be useful. I wouldn't get rid of all such spells, but keep some for use against the subtyped enemies....although, in the true spirit of Eberron, total removal works well too.

Simplified Spellcasting has great merit, but I think it needs tweaking to make it both fair and satisfying for PCs.

And, finally, the beauty of automatic bonus progression systems is that they make room for those interesting magic items, both minor and major. Otherwise, you just end up feeding the PC big six magic item creation/commission industry. "Oh, that is a cool item....how much is it worth?....excellent!, now I can afford another +2 stat enhancement!" Cha-ching!


Arrius wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Which is a question for the CRB, not Unchained (incidentally, my take is that it's opposed to other people's Perception, which is why there isn't a set DC; you always get your weapon out). It wouldn't be under the skill if it didn't require a check.

Strangely, palming an item (weapon included, I suppose) already has a DC, with one able to substitute the DC with an opposed Perception if willing.

Could it be this carryover (and the skill trick) mean that Pathfinder originally intended to allow Sleight of Hand to draw out weapons quicker than normal?
A skill substitute to Quick Draw, in other words?

Note that the DCs in the CRB are for the action of hiding a weapon on your person. The line about drawing the weapon just tells you what kind of action it is. There is no skill check for drawing the weapon. which makes sense.


Iammars wrote:
The entire premise of this adventure path hinges on the idea that Talingarde is a good country. Obvious sexism doesn't just sour the experience for some players and make others feel unwelcome, it hurts the idea that this country is supposed to be good and that the PCs are evil.

I disagree. I think the entire premise is that Talingarde is a bigoted, misogynistic, single religion tyranny....masquerading as a "good" country.

You know, like most of medieval Europe.

In this vein, it may be the clear intention to use women (so to speak) to illustrate this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

That's a pretty obvious straw man argument there.

Could you point out exactly where I attacked a position you do not hold?

You attacked the position "I can't play Pathfinder anymore if Pathfinder 2.0 comes out".

A position that neither I nor anyone in this thread has held.

I said, "Paizo has to decide whether PF 2.0 will bring more income than continuing to support PF 1.0 by factoring in the new customers and the ones they will keep versus the ones, like myself, who they will lose"

That's all. I didn't say "If PF 2.0 comes out, my books spontaneously combust", simply that I am not going to be investing money in PF 2.0, so people like me represent the risk of the new edition.

It seems you may have completely missed TOZ's point. That is that if everyone else (as in available players and GMs) is playing 2.0, then you will either play solo games, or adapt.

He has had this experience with D&D3.5. Now, if you have a table of reliable players who wish to continue with PF, like many do, no worries!

/translation


Dekalinder wrote:

There is no reason to delve into detailed comparison or other complicated set up. The question is simple. A system where a lesser action (5' step, swift action) takes the same economy of a greter action (move action, attack) is badly thought and umbalanced with the existing material.

If you want to make "alternate systems", you better do your job and make them functional into the existing ruleset. Otherways, what's the point? Just go write Pathfinder 2.0 new CRB.

When I look at the cost of actions in the Revised system, I see a lot of move actions effectively taking up less time, and quite a few standard actions cost just 1 act. So is the bedrock standard action, Attack, a lesser action?

As I said before, you really need to see the whole thing. And if you don't like it, it's optional. There is no reason to sling vitriol at the designers for a completely optional rule.


chbgraphicarts wrote:


It basically boils down to this: Paypal doesn't do Subscriptions.

Oh, yes they do. I used to have six subscriptions through PayPal, now I have three.

Now, there may very well be something about Paizo's subscription model that makes it a no go. Perhaps it is the variable amount of the subscriptions for the RPG line. You would think they could handle that in this day and age...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kestral287 wrote:


Yup, commenting that everybody is worse off under the new system = complaining about casters getting nerfed.

I'll ask again: who benefits?

See, that's the thing. You're looking for a boost, a benefit to your characters.

While I happen to think it does give an overall boost to mobility of melee types and a slight, and well deserved, control on some aspects of casters, that is arguable.

But, what if it benefits no character over any other? It is a total reworking of the action economy.

It can benefit an entire group's gameplay.

If it makes your game better.


Bandw2 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
How does haste work?
Quote:

When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)

A hasted creature gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves. Any condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.

All of the hasted creature's modes of movement (including land movement, burrow, climb, fly, and swim) increase by 30 feet, to a maximum of twice the subject's normal speed using that form of movement. This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature's jumping distance as normal for increased speed. Multiple haste effects don't stack. Haste dispels and counters slow.

looks kinda nerfed to me. other than you can 3x your movement without run penalties now so the +30 movement is insane

Haste gives you 1 extra act, but it can only be used for an attack action...I'll be house ruling that to just give the 4th act.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This system is not "better for everyone" in regards of getting off all their favorite power combos as before...but better!

It is a reassessment, that tries to value things on their own as much as possible. It breaks the chains (pun intended) of the action economy, and opens up new options to all, while narrowing down some others.

But, a lot of the action power combos are the way they are simply because they are workarounds for the stiff action type structure.

I love the fact that a first level Rogue can take up to three attacks. Yes, he'll likely miss, but with the swing of the d20 and low level numbers, he might get the extra hit that takes down his opponent. And warrior types nearly always getting at least two attacks is great, even with the -5. There are other bennies as well, like three moves, for example.

Some subtle re-balancing is part of the system. There are a few foibles, such as the spontaneous metamagic issue, I am certain others will arise. You can make adjustments if you feel it necessary, as this is totally optional, and extremely intrusive as options go.

If it doesn't suit your style, that does not mean it is crap, or a failure.


Mark Seifter wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Hm, how does that affect Sorcerers? If they spontaneously use any other metamagic feat, they now can't also use Quicken Spell? That's a harsh nerf to spontaneous casters.
You are assuming that it takes 3 acts for a sorcerer to use metamagic.

Well, yea. It doesn't say otherwise in the Revised Action Economy section.


magnuskn wrote:
Hm, how does that affect Sorcerers? If they spontaneously use any other metamagic feat, they now can't also use Quicken Spell? That's a harsh nerf to spontaneous casters.

I agree, that is one I hadn't noticed. After PF matter-of-factly says, "yea, of course Sorcerers can use Quicken Spell....duh", now this is a back step.

Easy house rule is no full-round action requirement for spontaneous metamagic. That won't suit many, and it would cause problems with abilities that let you skip it now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

Core page 213 (Magic Chapter) "A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round."

Still applies?

I don't see why it wouldn't apply, since nothing in the new action economy contradicts or makes an exception to that rule.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mortagon wrote:
I haven't received my shipping notice yet so I still don't have the pdf so I was wondering how the new action economy system works since this is of particular interest to me and my players.

Well I think it's incredible, and I hope I can get my group to try it out.

Basically, you get 3 "acts" on your turn. A Simple action requires 1 Act, and this includes things like Attack and Move, but also Swift actions. I know, stick with it.

Advanced actions include things like Cast 1 action spell, as well as things like Charge.

So, on average, you get the same amount of action, but it subtly re-balances certain combinations. Like, if you cast a 1 action spell and a swift action spell, you cannot also move. But if you make 2 attacks, you can also move. Or you can take 3 swift actions. Or you can move and then charge.

It favors martial mobility over casters, and I don't think that is bad. Also, note you can take two or three attack actions, regardless of BAB. The first attack on your turn is at full bonus, the second at -5, and the third at -10. Opens up massive combat options for low level and non warriors, while very subtly limiting iteratives to two additional attacks (normally).


Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Jucassaba wrote:
How does the new poison and disease rules work?

Basically, there are 6 (poison) or 8 (disease) states of health from Healthy to dead for several different types of Affliction (Str, Dex, etc. poison; Physical and Mental disease). Instead of taking ability damage, victims travel on this health state progression track. Each affliction type has different states and effects of those states.

It's pretty cool. Makes affliction effects more "fair". For instance, Strength damage to a Wizard normally doesn't affect them in combat until the fall down, helpless, at 0. In this system, even if you don't need your Strength for combat, and you have an unusually high score for a Wizard, you still become Weakened, Impaired, Staggered, and Immobile on your way to Dead.

That's the other important difference, all the tracks end in Dead. Any poison or disease can kill.

My bad...just re-read it, and it does say that some afflictions may stop short of Dead.


Jucassaba wrote:
How does the new poison and disease rules work?

Basically, there are 6 (poison) or 8 (disease) states of health from Healthy to dead for several different types of Affliction (Str, Dex, etc. poison; Physical and Mental disease). Instead of taking ability damage, victims travel on this health state progression track. Each affliction type has different states and effects of those states.

It's pretty cool. Makes affliction effects more "fair". For instance, Strength damage to a Wizard normally doesn't affect them in combat until the fall down, helpless, at 0. In this system, even if you don't need your Strength for combat, and you have an unusually high score for a Wizard, you still become Weakened, Impaired, Staggered, and Immobile on your way to Dead.

That's the other important difference, all the tracks end in Dead. Any poison or disease can kill.


Rycaut wrote:

What are you talking about re the Monk? (Or has the monk's saves changed in unchained?)

The core rules monk gets evenly advancing saves - all "good" the monk has no saves that advance faster or slower than any other. It is part of why a dip in monk is so strong - you get +2 to +3 if you go two levels to every save for a 2 level dip. Which is very good for many builds.

Sorry, I was thinking you knew about the poor Will save. I was just trying to answer your question about tracking the Monk's save progression versus other classes.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

I will be launching a new campaign in a few months, and I will definitely be using:

-Revised Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Summoner
-Fractional base bonuses
-Staggered advancement
-Background skills
-Possibly a modified version of the Grouped Skills
-Alternate Crafting and Profession rules (possibly going further in detail on changing crafting times)
-Skill Unlocks
-Variant Multiclassing alongside standard multiclassing (also, I am disappointed in most of the VMC progressions, it's a great idea but poorly executed IMO)
-Removing alignment (Outsiders, Divine and Pos/Neg energy charged things, including Blessed/Tainted locations, will still have alignment)
-Revised Action Economy (love this...hope I can convince my group)
-Stamina Combat tricks for all. (with advantages for the Fighter)
-Wound Thresholds
-(possibly) simplified spellcasting
-some kind of Automatic Bonus Progression
-...aaannd Scaling Magic Items.

Also, I love the approach to Monster creation, I have long wanted boil them down to the skeleton and add classes a la SW d20. This system could achieve much the same effect.

16 subsystems including the monsters? That's fantastic! Seems to be the most so far in this thread. I'm glad you're getting so much use and fun out of Unchained!

Unfortunately, I am a big supporter of HeroLab (I have everything official Pathfinder), and I am quite sure that several of those subsystems will never be supported in the app. Sad face.

But hey! I have always been the one keeping track of everything for my group, especially auditing fractional saves and BAB. I'm used to busy sheets and alternate rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rycaut wrote:

I don't tend to do the same thing for saves - for one I think saves get a bit more complicated (how do you track the Monk's save progression vs other classes?) and I tend to think of the boost to saves as one of the features of multiclassing (and yes for the saves that get boosted others may get a bit weaker - so I can see the arguments both ways - but for me I like fractional BAB but not save progression.

Really looking forward to getting my copy - hopefully soon (I'm a subscriber)

The Monk's save progressions in each save category are exactly the same as any other class. 1/3 level round down in Poor progression (Will), and 1/2 level +2 in Good progressions (Fort, Ref).


I will be launching a new campaign in a few months, and I will definitely be using:

-Revised Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Summoner
-Fractional base bonuses
-Staggered advancement
-Background skills
-Possibly a modified version of the Grouped Skills
-Alternate Crafting and Profession rules (possibly going further in detail on changing crafting times)
-Skill Unlocks
-Variant Multiclassing alongside standard multiclassing (also, I am disappointed in most of the VMC progressions, it's a great idea but poorly executed IMO)
-Removing alignment (Outsiders, Divine and Pos/Neg energy charged things, including Blessed/Tainted locations, will still have alignment)
-Revised Action Economy (love this...hope I can convince my group)
-Stamina Combat tricks for all. (with advantages for the Fighter)
-Wound Thresholds
-(possibly) simplified spellcasting
-some kind of Automatic Bonus Progression
-...aaannd Scaling Magic Items.

Also, I love the approach to Monster creation, I have long wanted boil them down to the skeleton and add classes a la SW d20. This system could achieve much the same effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rycaut wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Jucassaba wrote:
What is this fractional BAB?

Assuming it works like 3.5's (as I don't have Unchained yet), it's a system where instead of adding +1 BAB at certain levels, you instead gain either +1/2, +3/4, or +1 BAB per level depending on class. Ultimately it makes multiclassing easier.

For example-- a Monk 2/Warpriest 18 is twenty levels of a 3/4ths BAB class, but comes out with +14 BAB instead of +15. But if you do 20*3/4, you'd get the full +15 BAB.

A Wizard 2/Warpriest 18 would have (18*3/4) + (2*1/2) = 14.5 BAB. Always round down, so +14.

Comes out identical for single-class builds, so much of PF won't care, but like I said-- easier multiclassing.

You can do the same thing for saves too.

Awesome! That's a house rule I have been using for some time - though haven't run my game in a little while, I really like the simplicity and small boost it gives to a LOT of concepts while still keeping scaling working quite well (IMHO) - it makes it a lot easier for non-full BAB classes to multiclass without feeling like they are really really far behind.

Yeah, the first thing we said when 3.0 hit 15 years ago was, "multiclassing xp penalties?....that's dumb", the second was, "hey, how come my multiclass character has a +0 BAB?!??". We never looked back. Most of our earliest and most used house rules relate to making it fair for multies (xp, Monk/Paladin, and BAB/Save progression.), this is the rule that I was surprised was not addressed in the PF CRB. I expected at least an option. I am glad that others might benefit from it now.


wraithstrike wrote:
It was in unearthed arcana for 3.5, IIRC.

Yes it was, and it was so poorly written I would be surprised if very many tables used it back then. They pointed you to the chart from hell that I could barely figure out...and I knew what they were trying to do! My group had been using it for years before UA came out.

Paizo did a much better job of describing it, including the math of the progressions, which is really easy. Also, they address the "first level +2" on good saves, and called it out as intended to just add once. Thank you!


Matrix Dragon wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
I have my PDF. I suggest all subscribers check their email.

I would also urge readers of this thread to dial back your expectations for Variant Multiclassing Ultimate Domination combos...

About a third of the progressions are spot on and very attractive, the rest are either confused and spread too thin, or the real stuff comes far too late.

Yea, I have been kind of worried about how many important abilities aren't going to kick in until level 19. At that point they may as well not exist in 95% or more of all campaigns.

The "secondary class features" are gained at the levels of the feat slots given up, so 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th.

It's mostly things that come online in the straight class by 3rd to 5th level being delayed until around 15th. So, the ability is worthless (or at least an afterthought to the style of your character), and building on that ability is futile.

It's a great idea, but I'll be reworking the levels at which the abilities are gained; and sometimes, what abilities are gained.


kestral287 wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Tels wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Variant Multiclassing allows you to pick up Abundant Step if Shift doesn't qualify (which it should). In any case, as soon as you get it, you are eligible to retrain your old feats into ones that you now qualify for, but otherwise wouldn't have when you got the original feat. This is explained in the FAQ.

Shift is a supernatural ability that mentions teleport. It is not, specifically, dimension door and wouldn't qualify even if it was because you are not casting dimension door. If you can't cast dimension door or use Abundant Step, then you don't qualify. How you go about acquiring the ability to cast dimension door or Abundant Step doesn't really matter as long as it's legal.

[Edit] Oops, I was misremembering Shift for the Travel Domain power Dimensional Steps. But, Shift is still a Supernatural, not Spell-like, Ability, and is not 'casting' so it doesn't qualify (though I agree, it should qualify).

Abundant Step is also Supernatural...
But is specifically detailed as legal. If it wasn't for that, Abundant Step wouldn't qualify for the Dimensional line either.

That is right, it is not technically legal. My apologies, I had commented earlier that I thought it reasonable to allow Shift to qualify. I was never suggesting that it was like casting the spell.

Different discussion, same subject.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:
I have my PDF. I suggest all subscribers check their email.

I would also urge readers of this thread to dial back your expectations for Variant Multiclassing Ultimate Domination combos...

About a third of the progressions are spot on and very attractive, the rest are either confused and spread too thin, or the real stuff comes far too late.


Tels wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Variant Multiclassing allows you to pick up Abundant Step if Shift doesn't qualify (which it should). In any case, as soon as you get it, you are eligible to retrain your old feats into ones that you now qualify for, but otherwise wouldn't have when you got the original feat. This is explained in the FAQ.

Shift is a supernatural ability that mentions teleport. It is not, specifically, dimension door and wouldn't qualify even if it was because you are not casting dimension door. If you can't cast dimension door or use Abundant Step, then you don't qualify. How you go about acquiring the ability to cast dimension door or Abundant Step doesn't really matter as long as it's legal.

[Edit] Oops, I was misremembering Shift for the Travel Domain power Dimensional Steps. But, Shift is still a Supernatural, not Spell-like, Ability, and is not 'casting' so it doesn't qualify (though I agree, it should qualify).

Abundant Step is also Supernatural...


I have my PDF. I suggest all subscribers check their email.

1 to 50 of 806 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.