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

746 posts. Alias of Lane Coursey.


RSS

1 to 50 of 746 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Jiggy wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
You seem to be a very literal person.

No, just giving you room to speak for yourself, rather than risk strawmanning you. :)

Quote:
What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.

Okay, so you're saying that if someone declares that the rogue is weak and something else is better, they're telling the player that they're stupid. Got it.

Quote:
Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.

Okay, this seems self-contradictory.

First you said that claiming X was stronger/weaker than Y meant implying that the player was dumb.

Then you said that it's okay to point out the differences between X and Y.

How do those two statements work together? Are you saying that it's okay (for example) to say that the rogue has a "different" attack bonus than the bard, but not to say that it has a "lower" one?

If that's what you're saying, well, that seems pretty ridiculous. If that's not what you're saying, then I need some clarification on how to read your post differently.

I can only hope that most people see my point. It seems clear that you will not no matter how I word it. So I'll leave it there.


Jiggy wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.

This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.

Uh-huh...

I'm trying to assume the best here, but I'm having trouble getting what you're saying. Please bear with me:

So the "Uh-huh..." implies you think the immediately-preceding assertion is false.

The assertion you seem to be saying you think is false is "The rogue is weak, but we wouldn't call you stupid."

So if you think that distinction is false, then that seems to imply that you think anyone calling the rogue weak is (effectively) calling someone stupid. That is, it seems to be your stance that calling the rogue weak and calling a person stupid are basically equivalent.

Does that mean you think someone truly can't say that two classes are unequal in power without essentially calling someone stupid? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

You seem to be a very literal person.

What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.

Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.


Physically Unfeasible wrote:

Anyway, I know the OP is probably trolling but on the other hand, these are appreciable points, trawled over as they are, and always worth examination for the sake of the system:

Disclaimer: This is mostly being done to whittle away a slow day (and it is fun)....

Well said.


Jiggy wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.
I must disagree. I have been haunting these boards for around 6 years, and I got the same exact impressions the OP listed.

I wonder if you might be misunderstanding me.

Let's take the OP's comments about rogues as an example. Now, I think you and I (and the OP!) could all agree that there is a sentiment on the boards that "rogues are weak". So if the OP had listed something like "People say that rogues are underpowered and other classes can do the rogue's job(s) better than the rogue," then I wouldn't have made the post that I did. That sentiment is everywhere.

But the OP severely mischaracterized that sentiment.

He portrays the "rogues are weak" crowd as calling any players of rogues stupid. He says that the "rogues are weak" sentiment is based on a comparison to the combat ability of combat-only classes.

Those are false. Typically it's only the defenders of rogues that make it personal, with the "rogues are weak" criticisms just being about the class's mechanics. No name-calling. (At least, no more consistently than any other group includes a jerky minority. Pretending that the "If you play a rogue you're stupid" is representative of that crowd is like pretending that "No moral standard WEEEEE!" is representative of atheism: people exist who say it, but they are a tiny minority that doesn't represent the larger group, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise.)

Similarly, critiques of a rogue's combat effectiveness are based on how it compares to other 3/4 BAB, "not-just-combat" classes. You know, the kinds of classes it SHOULD be on par with. But then the OP lied...

Not misunderstanding. I think the OP meant that people implied it would be stupid to play a rogue.

This thread is a great example. Most people are commenting here that he is wrong in his interpretation of the board's general opinions on these subjects. Then many go on to list their opinions, nearly all of which say the rogue is weak, and ever since classes X, Y, and Z they can't really do anything as well as other classes...but we would never call you stupid.

Uh-huh...


bookrat wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Edit: ugh. Failed my will save vs troll. Vampbyday has 400ish posts and 102 of them are new threads. Masterful troll is masterful.

This is why I said earlier that based on Vamp's posting history, he's unlikely to apologize to anyone for "misunderstanding" what's been said on the forums.

Can'tFindthePath wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.
Based on other threads he has started, this is exactly what he does and I doubt it's going to change.

Look, maybe the thread leans a little into Troll territory, but I took it as another way of saying, "I am frustrated with all of these absolutist opinions that say you're doing it wrong".

I feel that way.

When I see posts talking about a single spell that ends a combat before it has begun, or 300 damage in a round...consistently...at 10th level, I wonder what game people are playing...and what target dummies their GM is throwing against them....

See above, please. I'm not really sure why you're responding to me anyways; it doesn't make sense that you'd defend Vamp from me commenting on his posting history. Unless Vamp is one of your other accounts.... Is he?

(Wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone make multiple accounts just so they can make a show of "other people" agreeing with their posts. In fact, one particular news agency once made a job culture of this.)

Um...no.


bookrat wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.
Based on other threads he has started, this is exactly what he does and I doubt it's going to change.

Look, maybe the thread leans a little into Troll territory, but I took it as another way of saying, "I am frustrated with all of these absolutist opinions that say you're doing it wrong".

I feel that way.

When I see posts talking about a single spell that ends a combat before it has begun, or 300 damage in a round...consistently...at 10th level, I wonder what game people are playing...and what target dummies their GM is throwing against them....


Jiggy wrote:
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.

I must disagree. I have been haunting these boards for around 6 years, and I got the same exact impressions the OP listed. No, I did not exhaustively research every topic and read thousands of posts to track down every differing opinion, so as to "fact check". Many of us cannot keep up with the sheer magnitude of post output on these boards. But, I have consistently seen the same or similar "absolutist" opinions that are being discussed, and I drew the same conclusion as to the prevailing attitude toward the subjects outlined by OP.

I think many of you are being very hard on the OP. In fact I have rarely seen so many well considered opinions posted on these varied topics in all my years here.

I don't fall into the trap of the absolute opinions, just as I don't go for all the "optimization", but I can easily see how someone could.


StabbittyDoom wrote:

The main reason that the scaling numbers are fun is because not all enemies or challenges scale. My group, for example, frequently encounters enemies of well below their CR. We just skip the encounter and say "we won" with no experience reward. This is not something you can do with a static-numbers system.

Also, the scaling numbers enable characters at level 1 to be as vulnerable as real-world heroes, whereas those at 11+ may be capable of surviving trauma so extreme it begins to stretch credulity (such as surviving a nuclear blast, or swiming through lava).

Another scaling factor is mundane challenges like crafting, climbing walls, or jumping. The existing system allows making 40ft or longer jumps, climbing the underside of an oil-slicked overhang, etc.

Not only does it enable the above outlandish deeds, it enables making some of them routine. Sure, lower level people could, in weird circumstances, do similar things. But higher level PF characters can do some of these things day in and day out and largely take it for granted.

I, personally, would much rather keep the scaling and make it something everyone gets for leveling than abandon the concept of scaling entirely. Though low-power games are fun, there are many other systems better suited to that purpose (e.g. Savage Worlds or World of Darkness).

I'm totally open to better ways to scale it, but the main draw of a direct replacement is that it means you don't have to rewrite any stat blocks :)

Indeed. I love the idea of lower numbers with slower scaling, a la 5th Edition D&D...except I like PF better. But, the point of this thread is a way to replace items that will allow the continued use of published materials, as well as avoiding excessive amounts of WORK for the GM.

I have seen various charts with choice or static progression. I have even toyed with the idea of a straight up "level bonus" to several relevant numbers in the neighborhood of +1 per 4 levels. But spreading the bonuses over the level progression would be smoother and much more satisfying. I would probably reorder which bonuses come when, especially the attributes, but this is solid.


Andostre wrote:

So... would it be possible to replace all the increasing numbers with just one number? These numbers are completely off the top of my head without any though follow through, but what if we did something like:

All classes with a fast BAB progression have a static +5 BAB forever. Medium is +3; slow is +1.

Similar concept for saves and hit points. This would leave the focus on new feats and new abilities.

The multi-classing would have to be re-written, but essentially, the concept is playing E6 where everyone starts at level 6.

Thinking about it, I can already see lots of problems with the concept to be worked out, but it might be worth exploring. (And I bet it already has been. I can't imagine I'm the first to think of it.)

That sounds pretty cool, as far as E6 goes. One of my small complaints about "standard" E6 is the normal progression from 1st to 6th, which takes no time at all, and then BAM...wall. It sort of cuts to the chase starting at 6th; basically, you make up a bad ass hero, with a bad ass build...and play them.

With regard to your proposal, I would make it +6, +4, +2 BAB. It mimics the normal E6 stops for Good and Medium, and "normalizes" the rather odd bit where Wizards end up only 1 behind Rogues. As well, it keeps the "capstone" of a 2nd attack for full BAB classes.


This does not speak to your main point, but I must...

Aelryinth wrote:
A high level wizard with 5 9th level slots (or a pearl of power or two) can get +5 inherent to all his ability scores. With Blood Money, he can do it for free.

Not unless he has a natural strength score of at least 250, as it costs 125,000 in material components to attain a +5 inherent bonus with wish.

Quote:
Without it, he can do it for a fraction of the cost of the other characters.

Yes. 9/10 is a fraction, although I wouldn't call it a bargain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Fergie wrote:

I think this is really "Stuff I hate about 3.5 D&D"

Most of the things you mention were worse back then, and have improved steadily throughout the versions.

Well, he can hate these things in both systems. In fact, it would be really weird if that wasn't the case... Pathfinder alleviated some of these problems, but didn't solve any of them.

Besides, it's very possible to like (or even love) something and still hate some of its aspects... Nothing is perfect, after all.

Indeed. I often see people saying things like "clearly the Devs meant it to be this way", or "3.5 rulings have no bearing on Pathfinder". And then when a discussion of the root failings of the system comes up it becomes "well, it's not so much PF as 3.5 baggage", etc.

3.5 Rulings and FAQs are directly applicable where the rules (or root of a rule) overlaps, except in official rulings for PFS, and are a great source of information and inspiration for house rulings.

At the same time, when Paizo chose to bring forward most of the 3.5 rules set intact for backward compatibility, they made that baggage part of Pathfinder. So, it IS really Pathfinder, and not 3.5 baggage that causes these issues.

I struggle often with these rules, and wish many things were different (and constantly plot to spend the rest of my waking hours rebuilding them)...

...but I do love to play it.

Long live Pathfinder.


bookrat wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
bookrat wrote:

One thing that I guess is kind of a house rule but really shouldn't be:

I actively encourage my players to change the flavor of classes in order to make the mechanics work for the type of character they want to role play. For example, one of my players once converted the ninja class into a gypsy. The ninja's ki pool was flavored as gypsy magic, shurikens became small throwing knives. All the mechanics were identical, just the flavor was different.

STOP RUINING MY CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR ANIME CLASS

Joking aside, I've shared that experience with many a GM who bans the ninja class for the exact reason you stated. I've yet to meet one who would allow it as a gypsy, and they can never seem to give a reason why other than they don't like the oriental setting. They've also never explained how the gypsy culture is in any way resembling the oriental.

But I do love reflavoring or refluffing classes and abilities to try and make characters in unusual ways. I've been saying for a while, "don't let the prewritten fluff deter you from making the character you want to play."

Luckily, my GM isn't one of those. I play a Half-elven Ninja in a Way of the Wicked campaign. Her Ki powers are flavored as fairie magic, and her tradition is the (twisted) remnant of an ancient Elven order of Fey warrior-monks. Her katana is an elven long blade like Arwen's from LotR (Hadhafang), and her wakazashi is like Legolas long-knives.


eric boschen wrote:

First, thanks for giving it a little read.

As for magic. I basically have very little magic in the system. No magic using classes. I do however have some feats the allow for the casting a single spell-like ability. 99% of which are based on Pathfinder spells, and none are battle-related. They are tied to ones race, High Men and Elves can have some limited healing, and ability to read minds for instance. Elves can use an ability like turn undead to keep wraiths at bay, and commune with nature. Dwarves can take feats that allow them to cast open or to use a very limited version of the bards perform.

NPC wizards, sorcerers, as well as other more powerful creatures will have limited spell casting. I just havent gotten there yet. I may create a dark spell list to pull from.

Spheres of Power looks real promising. thanks for the tip. Ill be picking it up too!

As for expanding the level cap, I'll consider it. How high do you think players should go, without adjusting the rules?

Without adjusting the rules, I'd say 10 is pretty much the limit to hang onto the feel you are after. Many will say otherwise, but the primary arguments against going past 6th in P6 type games is spell access. I think 10th is like a half capstone; 1 advanced rogue talent, a third favored enemy, etc.

On another subject, I like your armor as DR and base AC system. However, I think the DR is a bit low. I wouldn't trade my +4 Dex bonus for one point of DR. I know it's hard to balance, but it's a good trope of this brand of fantasy that the light fighting, swashbuckling heroes, put on the heavy stuff and gird for war...because armor can save your life! I don't know, maybe it fortifies against crits?


eric boschen wrote:

Come on over and check out my new project - Many Paths to Tread.

The goal of MPTT is to provide a campaign setting for The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that combines the flavor of Middle-Earth in the 3rd age (as seen in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit), with the sense of endless possibility present in a Pathfinder gaming session.

https://manypathstotreadrpg.wordpress.com/

Pretty cool. While I understand the P6 approach, I am of the opinion that "realism" (that most fiery and divisive of words, it seems) can stand up to 10th or 12th level with some adjustments to the rules. But I dig it.

Here's something: I just picked up the PDF of Spheres of Power, by Drop Dead Studios. It is awesome, and it would work perfectly in a Tolkein-esque setting for NPC's and critters, and potentially PC's. Particularly if one keeps it tight and limited to 10th level or less, or limit progression in "casting" classes to half character level.


WithoutHisFoot wrote:
Why does this need to be a feat? If you need an NPC that, for story purposes, worships and draws power from a dead god, simply let him do that. Ditto for PCs - I'm not sure I see a reason to add this as a feat tax. As DM, you're already adjudicating what gods clerics can choose from anyway. Why add an extra barrier to an interesting character concept?

After all, you can play a cleric with full spell access, with any two domains you choose, who worships no god at all.


My group now relies on HeroLab for most rules look-ups. And if you only enable Paizo sources, you don't have to worry about contamination. However, we have used d20pfsrd for years, and we've never had an issue figuring out what was official Paizo or 3rd party. In fact, most of the main categories on the contents webpage, and the lists on the categories' individual pages, segregated into official Paizo and 3rd party.

As far as the OP, I completely missed the ranged use of Vital Strike. I've never had a PC who had the feat, because I never have enough feat slots and it's never been good enough compared to others. Cool.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:
DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
But why should the power of your channeling (DC) be linked to your Charisma, instead of your Wisdom, while your spells DC is Wisdom-relevant?
Because Channel replaced Turn Undead, which was a Charisma check.
Yes, I know that. But I think that Turn Undead was flawed, because it was already too Charisma based in the last editions of Ad&D. In the first edition, only your cleric level was relevant, affecting what kind of undead you could rebuke/destroy, and their number
I agree that Channeling should be at least partially Wis based. However, to me the deeper question is, why doesn't Cleric have a Channeling Pool (blah + blah per blah levels + WISDOM!) that they draw on to power all manner of cool abilities....like so many others. Ideally, there would be a common list to choose from, and then lists from the domains.

I forgot to mention that in this proposal, channeling pos/neg would be only one of the possible choices. The alternate channeling rules in UM would be great fodder for other choices. But I'm also thinking of domain powers being powered by the pool as well....

Just a thought.


DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
DM Lil" Eschie wrote:
But why should the power of your channeling (DC) be linked to your Charisma, instead of your Wisdom, while your spells DC is Wisdom-relevant?
Because Channel replaced Turn Undead, which was a Charisma check.
Yes, I know that. But I think that Turn Undead was flawed, because it was already too Charisma based in the last editions of Ad&D. In the first edition, only your cleric level was relevant, affecting what kind of undead you could rebuke/destroy, and their number

I agree that Channeling should be at least partially Wis based. However, to me the deeper question is, why doesn't Cleric have a Channeling Pool (blah + blah per blah levels + WISDOM!) that they draw on to power all manner of cool abilities....like so many others. Ideally, there would be a common list to choose from, and then lists from the domains.


pickin_grinnin wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
pickin_grinnin wrote:
Make sure that at least one party member has the capability to heal the other players. Trust me on that one.
That should go for every group, and without saying should it not?
Yes, but doubly so for this one.

I think the point of pickin's comment, and certainly my view, is that it is really easy to get the ability to heal with a good aligned divine class. They pretty much all have it, even if they don't want it.

But, when you go dark side, it becomes a chore that you have to plan for. And even then, you can never match the healing power of goodies....unless your party is all undead.


Headfirst wrote:

Here's an idea we were kicking around in another thread. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve it, so comments are welcome.

Shields

Overview
Instead of providing flat armor class bonuses, a new combat action allows shields to be used reactively, blocking attacks to prevent damage.

System
New Combat Action: Block
While wielding a shield with which you are proficient and not flat-footed, you may use an immediate action to attempt to block an incoming melee or ranged attack. Make a roll using your Base Attack Bonus + Dex Modifier. If the result equals or exceeds the roll of the incoming attack, you block it and take no damage.

If you are not proficient with the shield, blocking requires a readied action instead of an immediate action. You may not use a shield to bash and block in the same round.

Shields
All rules specific to each shield type apply normally, except that none of them grant a shield bonus to armor class.

Buckler: May be used to block one melee attack per round. Cannot be used to block ranged attacks.

Small Shield: May be used to block one melee or ranged attack per round.

Large Shield: May be used to block two melee or ranged attacks per round.

Tower Shield: May be used to block three melee or ranged attacks per round.

Magical Shields
Enhancement bonuses on shields add to block rolls instead of increasing armor class.

Feat Changes
Improved Shield Bash: You may use your shield to bash and block in the same round.

Shield Focus: The number of block attempts you may make per round increases by 1.

Shield Specialization: You receive a +2 bonus on all block rolls with the chosen shield type.

Saving Shield: You may attempt the block action to prevent an attack against an adjacent ally.

Ray Shield: You may attempt the block action against ranged touch attacks.

Mounted Shield: You may attempt the block action to prevent an attack against your mount.

Missile Shield: You receive...

That's pretty good. I may use this mostly intact. I'm also, considering/exploring more dangerous weapons and armor as DR. This would go very well with that. Thanks.


Weirdo wrote:
You're right, it looks like a decent rule of thumb for Golarion, at least for the highest-level characters in a settlement. Though having at least two level 13s in a city of 18400 - one of six such cities in a frontierland - doesn't sound like characters over level 12 are "very rare" as the devs have otherwise indicated.

As I said before, 'to each his own'. So I'm not saying you are wrong, but trying to help you feel better about it(??).

What I'm talking about is the rarity of 13+ level characters. Per your example, it seems to me that about 12(?) 13's out of around 120,000 people is very rare. Those numbers equate to 1 in 10,000 (well the mechanic is 1 in 8000 for 13th), or 1/100 of a percentage point. That's better than the survival rate for well proven reliable medical treatments!


Thanael wrote:
It's almost as if the designers used the 3.5 demographics as a loose guideline...

Except the rules we are discussing are not the 3.5 demographics...


Weirdo wrote:
I like that method, though it might be a good idea to adjust the numbers a bit depending on how big cities get in the setting. I like most people in the world to be fairly low-powered. While having a single 18th level character in first century Rome sounds OK, if the world has several settlements of a little over a million inhabitants (fantasy London, fantasy Paris, fantasy Moscow) and each such settlement has a 20th level character, two 19th, four 18th... down to 512 11th level characters, that's a bit much. 11th level characters are supposed to be legendary and they can't be if there are thousands of them at any given time. If you want to revise the idea that 11th level characters are legendary, that's fine, but having as many as 15 people in a capital city capable of casting 9th level spells is going to change the setting in significant ways.

Those are adjustments that each GM is going to have to figure out for their campaign. I don't play in any worlds that have that many megalopoli. If you do, I'd definitely put the breaks on the level count as you say.

In my personal system, that one 18th level character in fantasy Rome wouldn't even be a PC class (or not all PC anyway). Even if you don't go for the 18th level Commoner, maybe the most experienced and powerful Senator in Rome is an 18 level Aristocrat. Likewise, those 512 11th levels you are concerned about would be mostly Commoners, Experts, etc. Only about 100 would be PC caliber in my book. I don't think it looks so bad if you don't assume all high level NPCs are Full Casters.

Another way to approach "naturally occurring" NPC levels, is to limit them to 10th. It is a good threshold between Normal and Heroic (in a standard PF campaign), and allows plenty of breathing room for fairly capable run-of-the-mill NPCs. Everything above that is placed by the GM as needed.

But then, everything is anyway. This idea is only a guide for throwing out NPC levels on the fly. To each his own consternation.

-Cheers


Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Thanks for the feedback.

The bonus is enhancement so that it doesn't stack with normal magic bonuses. I know what I am trying to do, but obviously since you both agree I must be dropping the ball somehow. I looked up enhancement bonuses, and nothing indicates that they have to be magical. It's just that they always have been until now. I could actually removed those sentences about magic completely.

Okay, I know you guys are way past this now, but I just have to.

Masterwork weapons have an Enhancement bonus to attack, that is non-magical. Ever since D&D 3.0.

-Cheers


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Generally speaking I'd expect to find a single 10th level character in every group of 1000 people.

For each time you cut the settlement size in half, cut the level of those folks by 1. For every time you double the population, jack up those levels by 1.
So a town of 1000 people has a 10th level character, a pair of 9's, 4 level 8s, 8 level 7s, 16 level 6s and so on.... If you continue that trend all the way down to level 1 and add up all the people of each level you end up with a population of 1024. Its like counting in binary.
It then follows that a city of 32000 probably has a 15th level character, a pair of 14s, 4 13s, 8 level 12s, 16 level 11s and so on... adding up to a city size of 32768!
Its both pretty realistic and easy to remember.

I think this is brilliant simplicity. It is reminiscent of my own "system" from several years ago, as far as the math. But mine was charted to insanity.

I would take a population number, cut it in half, and say these are 1st and 2nd level. Then halve it again for 3rd, etc. but, I would also subdivide by percentage in 'prime' classes. For instance, 65% Commoner, 15% Expert, 12% Warrior, 5% Aristocrat, 1% Acolyte (divine), 1% Magician (arcane), and 1% Wildcard (breathing room, as if a DM needs this, oh well).

Then, there would be an overall percentage of PC classes, set at 20%. Each level bracket would be broken down with deference to the higher percentages by class. So, of the 125 5th level NPCs in a sample settlement (population 1000), 81 would be Commoners, 18 Experts, 15 Warriors, 6 Aristocrats, 1 Acolyte, and 1 Magician. But of those 15 Warriors, 3 are Fighters (or something else in the same arena). And of the 18 Experts, 3 would be Rogues (or something more interesting). Of the Aristocrats, 1 would be a Cavalier (or perhaps a Bard, or Swashbuckling dandy). Not enough Acolytes of Magicians at this level to generate a PC version.

Anyway, as you can see, it was too complicated for anything but feverish, late night, machinations of building an ULTIMATE CAMPAIGN... you get the idea.

Vincent Takeda's version achieves pretty much the same results, in the broad strokes, with elegant simplicity. After all, what a frenzied GM really needs are sensible guidelines. The details should be up to them. The specificity of my system might make it a good guide (or not), but it is as much a curse as a blessing.


slitherrr wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:


Its like counting in binary.
I lol'd, and I do love the numeric coincidence of that guideline. However, 32k isn't an enormous city, and level 15 is pretty badass--Rome, Constantinople, and Xi'an, right around the first century, had something like 400k inhabitants. By the time of Renaissance, multiple cities had something approaching a million inhabitants. Does that mean their fantasy equivalents have a couple of level 18s, an adventuring party of level 17s, two adventuring parties of 16s, and so on, when that is about the experience level of people who start prepping to take on gods?

Well, if we are talking about the "fantasy equivalent" of Rome in the first century, I'd be pretty disappointed if the virtual center of the civilized world didn't attract ONE 18th level permanent resident.

Also, in all likelihood, these 'naturally occurring' folk, would be at odds with each other, or at least in competition. They would be the movers and shakers of their community; the leaders of the political, mercantile, religious, military, and criminal sub-communities.

These places would still be the rarest of rare, in terms of "realistic" populations. I would think there would be a few of the highest level people in them.


Threeshades wrote:

interesting idea on the shotguns.

Another version would be to take inspiration from shadowrun again, and have them be able to shoot at two or more targets standing close enough together.

------------

Some direct feedback to my rules would be appreciated.

Alright, so I skimmed over them, and they look comprehensive. I like some of what I see as a 'rules engineer'. I would've made different choices on a lot of specs for individual firearm types, but that is how it is with every subject in RPG rules, isn't it? I haven't seen MDT's original version, so I can't really give proper feedback on "your" rules changes.

Maybe later.

Good gaming!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:

interesting idea on the shotguns.

Another version would be to take inspiration from shadowrun again, and have them be able to shoot at two or more targets standing close enough together.

------------

Some direct feedback to my rules would be appreciated.

Threeshades, I'm sorry but I don't have direct feedback on your rules. I don't like firearms in my Pathfinder.

But I do want to say, GREAT thread title. Made me smile....evilly.


Nathanael Love wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Damage spells tend to have HORRIBLE scaling by spell level Nathanael.

A damage-focused mage takes low-mid level spells (typically level 3-4ish) and metamagics the crap out of them, usually reducing the metamagic cost in some way.

You're right. Damage spells have horrible scaling which is why claiming that casters do more hit point damage than martials is pretty silly.

2d6 large longsword + 3d6 insert weapon ability X + 12 (34 dex) + 4 Greater weapon spec + 4 weapon training+ 5 power attack= 5d6+29

Sorry. I was short changing him.

That adds up to +25, you were right the first time. However, you are short changing Power Attack, at 16th level it should give +10 damage with a one handed weapon.


Auxmaulous wrote:

Well, I'm in.

I have some old JG material from back in the day but my primary reason was just to support JG in their effort to bring back CSotIO with as much material as possible. I saw them supporting the Metamorphosis Alpha KS (which is burning through their goals right now) and the support that FGG and JG have show to each other has softened my otherwise burnt out, cinder of a heart.

I know times are tough, but these are "our" games. We get the resources that we support and help to flourish. I often complain about the state of options in the realm of rpg land - so here's our chance to make a difference.

I doubt that there will be another CSotIO for PF anytime in the future -(maybe a 2nd ed PF) or Lost City of Barakus for that matter - I would love to see these projects come out as strong as possible for the time the will evetually see release with the best potential final record: The finished book.

Anyway

Well said Aux,

There are only 40 hours to go...


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

Think of it this way.

Monster Summoning 3 used to summon a Lantern Archon summons "Bob"
Monster Summoning 4 used to summon 1d3 Lantern Archons pulls from Larry Curly and Moe

If Bob gets killed you are done using Monster Summon 3 for Lantern Archons for the next 24 hours. You just don't have any bound to that particular spell. You can't use it for Larry Curly or Moe because they are tied to MS4 not MS3

but you can still use MS4 to get Larry Curly and Moe. If Moe bites it but Larry and Curly are still ok then MS4 is capped at 2 for the next 24 hours.

But what if I cast SM3, and cast SM3 again the next round? There's no text anywhere telling me I can't summon two lantern archons if I use two spells, nor is there text saying that if the monster you summon is out to lunch, you don't get a replacement. You cast the spell, you get a monster.

but there is text that says if it dies you can't get it back for 24 hours.

Frankly, It's one of those things that needs expanding on and it is an area where a DM can make a call regarding the spells

Nothing in the text says that you summon the same specific creature each time. That you are limited to summoning that one specific creature. Indeed, the rules show explicitly that you can summon multiples of the same type of creature and have them all active at the same time.

Honestly, I think it's intended to be an RP rule. It's a way for people playing good aligned Clerics, Druids, and the like to not feel like they're summoning forth creatures to die for them. You summon a creature and it dies? It's okay, it isn't really dead, it just spends 24 hours reforming on its native plane and is good to go again. Otherwise people may feel that yanking a creature off its native plane and putting it between you and something that can kill it with one hit would be an evil act.

Indeed, you are describing the Variant Rule in the 3.5 DMG called Summoning Individual Monsters (pg.37). The text in the PFCR is identical to the text in the 3.5 PH, both for the spell and the section under Conjuration: Summoning.

In the discussion of specifics under the variant rule they mention and illuminate the "dead and unsummonable for 24 hours". This is what it really supports.

Bravo if your group does this, it is actually a good way to curtail summoning abuse. However, it is not the default rule in the Core Rulebook.


Hey all,

I just wanted to bump this back up into line of sight. There are only 8 days left, and while they have met their publishing goal, there are a lot of cool maps to unlock with stretch goals.

The OP has the link, please take a look!

Thanks.


Da'ath wrote:

A few of the House Rules we use currently:

Misc:
o We use the Rifts (Palladium) alignment system.
o Virtues/Hubris from 7th Sea. All characters begin with 1 Hubris and may select 1 Virtue or Feat of their choice.
o Force Points from SWSE (called Action Points, Daily variant + minor modifications)
o All magic items which grant an ability score modifier are removed. At every 4th level a character gains 2 attribute bonuses (may increase 2 separate ability scores by +1)
o Magic items based on dimensional spaces have been removed (portable hole, bags of holding, etc). Certain associated spells are removed, as well.
o Poison Rules adopted from Pathfinder—Extending the Poison Rules.
o A +1-+5 enhancement bonus on a weapon is granted through superior craftsmanship; elemental, holy, and so on abilitys may be added to the weapon through Item Creation by spellcasters, but the total may not exceed the ehnancement bonus.
o Major changes/additions to counterspell, Languages and acquisition/use, and skills. Many spells have been removed in their entirety (rope trick)
o Quasi-magical items for mundanes have been added in the form of "Charms" and an "Herbalism" system - borrowed from the Midnight Chronicles.
o Hit Points: Starting Hit Points are now front loaded. At 1st level, a character takes his maximum hit die + 10 + Con modifier. Hit points from 2nd level on are the average of the hit die (rounded down). In essence, you're gaining the 0.5 hit points per level you'd normally gain over the course of 20 levels at 1st level. This serves to increase survivability at lower levels, while maintaining the same total hit points.
o Damage Resistance (Magic): Damage resistance/magic is pointless, as written. With this in mind, any creature with DR/magic will require an enhancement bonus equal to its Challenge Rating divided by 4 to penetrate. For example, a Challenge Rating 4 creature with DR 10/magic requires a +1 or better quality weapon to ignore its...

An intriguing list; it is apparent that you took several cues from SWSE. I'd love to hear more details about your rules, particularly skills. Do you have a document work up by chance?


137ben wrote:
Hawriel wrote:


Here is the thing about electricity. It moves at the speed of light.
Not really. It's somewhere between 1/100th and 1/1000th the speed of light.

I think it's time to start the "Physics of Magical Lightning" thread guys.

"What are YOUR houserules?"


thejeff wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Are wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
So by your post as a GM you will give out what info you feel like? I was under the impression that the players got to ask questions not the GM just giving out random monster info.

The rules don't mention how this is done at all. None of the groups I've played in have used the "players asking questions" method (I wasn't aware that some people did it that way until I started visiting these forums). Both methods should work fine for the purpose.

Edit: It might be worth mentioning that in later 3.5 monster manuals, each monster had a sidebar detailing what specific pieces of information you got for the various check results.

Given that the GM is deciding the rarity of the creature, and therefore the DC of the check, it seems natural to me that the GM decides what information is "remembered". System mastery would otherwise allow some players to ask "better" questions. The GM should be in charge of the encounter.

Having said that, many GMs have difficulty with these checks. I think it reasonable to rely on one of more players to help with which knowledge skill is relevant, and suggestions or leading questions that will make it go smoothly and be useful. This is also advisable if the GM knows that they tend to guard and withhold this info. It is an old instinct with many....

Until they've identified the monster (at least by type) how do the players know which knowledge skill is relevant?

More generally for those that allow asking questions, do you expect players to metagame what they ask or should they ask more generic questions?

I had meant to mention that as one more reason it lies entirely in the GM's purview. The GM will need help, unless he has a detailed list of all PC's Knowledge skills, and religiously checks it. But, part of my point is that the PC doesn't "know" what questions to ask, nor even, as you said, what skill to "use".


One of my most cherished D20 products of all time is Fire and Brimstone: A Comprehensive Guide to Lava, Magma, and Superheated Rock, by SammichCon Publishing.

It is a full production, D20system licensed, supplement containing alternate rules for lava.

The core rule is "If you fall into lava, you die. No save."

It has accompanying charts and graphs, as well as detailed examples of play, to support this rule.

Hilarious...and I use it.


As an aside, it drives me absolutely bonkers that Knowledge (Local) is the skill used to identify Humanoid Type critters. Per the CRB this skill is used to learn about Ogres, Storm Giants, Trolls, etc. REALLY?

Unfortunately, the best alternative is Knowledge (Nature) which is already fairly laden with info. But it seems the best choice.

Also, why in hell is a Troll a Humanoid anyway. Aren't they the very definition of Monstrous Humanoid?

/rant


Are wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
So by your post as a GM you will give out what info you feel like? I was under the impression that the players got to ask questions not the GM just giving out random monster info.

The rules don't mention how this is done at all. None of the groups I've played in have used the "players asking questions" method (I wasn't aware that some people did it that way until I started visiting these forums). Both methods should work fine for the purpose.

Edit: It might be worth mentioning that in later 3.5 monster manuals, each monster had a sidebar detailing what specific pieces of information you got for the various check results.

Given that the GM is deciding the rarity of the creature, and therefore the DC of the check, it seems natural to me that the GM decides what information is "remembered". System mastery would otherwise allow some players to ask "better" questions. The GM should be in charge of the encounter.

Having said that, many GMs have difficulty with these checks. I think it reasonable to rely on one of more players to help with which knowledge skill is relevant, and suggestions or leading questions that will make it go smoothly and be useful. This is also advisable if the GM knows that they tend to guard and withhold this info. It is an old instinct with many....

For some reason, the other GMs in my very experienced game group get totally hung up on this use of knowledge.


Kaisoku wrote:

At the levels that you'd have 3 or so weapon groups, it's not inconceivable to have a primary weapon, a ranged weapon, and a couple +1 alternates (like for throwing, or bludgeoning, or reach, or when you are swallowed whole, etc). 2kgp doesn't break the bank at the 100+kgp levels.

You are right, I don't see balance taking any kind of hit with just having it apply to everything all the time. I guess maybe it's just a "this ability feels bland and generic" vs "this ability limits fighters". On paper it looks bland, but in practice each fighter will pick up and use more varied weapons. *shrug*

I dunno... something to mull over.

*Edit*
There is the added bonus of not having to "+3 to this one, and +2 to that one, and +1 to these weapons" kind of nit-picky high-level humdrum.

I'm warming to the idea simply because of that alone. "Fighters should be simple to play" has always been a theme of the class. My bonus feat fix above makes it far more forgiving to try out feats. Having a more general + to apply to all weapons would make choosing/building your fighter far simpler and forgiving too.

I would change Weapon Training so you get the max bonuses with all the groups you choose. So, Heavy Blades at 5th, and Bows at 9th; and you have +2 hit/dmg with both.

Another change might be to give Weapon Training 1 at 1st level. Other than level dipping, I think this would only improve things.

I strongly suggest doing this to Ranger Favored Enemies as well. Being situational and totally up to GM fiat, those bonuses need to be spread out more.


KalEl el Vigilante wrote:

I think the Size (not size) of the Whirlwind is the same of the elemental. Besides everything already said, think about this: CR 1.

How on Earth would a CR 1 small creature be able to potentially deliver slam damage to up to 100 large creatures or 200 medium-small creatures (99% of PCs) in one round (what a double move amounts) and potentially carry a bunch of them inside? Potentially delivering slam damage to up to 400 tiny or smaller creatures seems more in line with the power level of a CR 1.

Exactly.

Excellent point KalEl, I'm sorry to say I didn't think of it myself. We all concentrate too much on RAW, and never mind RAI....what about thinking for ourselves.

Even if the whirlwind rules clearly stated the sizes and capabilities that have been cited (and they do not), they would be wrong. We're not talking about a dogmatic slavery to "balance" here; we're talking about common sense GMing. Would you want PCs or NPCs having the power outlined from a 2nd level spell?


My group has been playing since 1st Ed. AD&D, and when we came into 3.0 we had a really high-level group. We saw with the SR arms race from the top down. 3.5 calmed it down a bit, and these rules are carried into Pathfinder, however, we know where the path leads when it comes to SR. And we didn't like it.

Consequently, we decided to ignore SR altogether; but this is not satisfying either, as some critters are just supposed to be resistant to magic.

So, here is our latest take on SR: We divide SR by 5, rounding down, and make it a resistance bonus against spells and spell-like abilities. But, it also acts as Damage Resistance vs. spells and spell-like abilities equal to the SR divided by 2, round down.

Admittedly, we haven't gotten any real playtesting on this, as our current campaigns are all lower level. But, it's something to try.

Note for clarity: in this rule, SR no longer causes a caster level check to penetrate.


FLite wrote:

Actually, there are rules for what size different whirlwinds can pick up.

They just aren't where you think they would be :)

The prestige class storm kindler gets the whirlwind power *as per the universal monster rules*

http://archivesofnethys.com/PrestigeClassesDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Storm%20Ki ndler

Note that the size of creature the storm can pick up is directly tied to the height of the whirlwind, and that the size of creature picked up is not effected by the size of the character who takes the prestige class:

20' - small
30' - medium
40' - large
50' - huge
60' - huge

First off, this is in no way "errata" of the Universal Monster rules. This seems to be a 3.5 OGL era Pathfinder Prestige Class; not the most closely reviewed material. It seems to have been replaced in Pathfinder compatible rules with the Master of Storms from Paths of Prestige. Wherein, the increasing size of creature lift-able is an aspect of the class feature Storm Shape.

The very fact that the class writers, in both cases, were forced to specify what size of creature is affected is proof that the rules aren't clear anywhere.

I think Majuba's two points cut to the heart of the issue.

The first is an important safety tip, and on wonders how on EARTH such an editing flub is even possible. Particularly without an immediate apology and correction by Paizo. Followed by an exchange for corrected second printings.

But the second point is where it's at. Namely, that the language was changed during the editing of SRD material to fit into the more universal rules in Pathfinder. To me, that simply proves that one should use the entirety of the text from the 3.5 air elemental to utilize Whirlwind in PF. This kind of incomplete word surgery is unfortunately rampant in the rules. Thanks Majuba.


Adjule wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
christos gurd wrote:

To expand on the races thing,

One is that ive seen previously very non-optimal builds used, like an earth sorcerer dwarf. The overall power increase of characters ranged from marginal to nonexistent.
Changes ive made to races,
Orcs, are now +2 str and wis
Half-orcs/elves, get to choose of their parents ability score modifiers plus one other.
Humans, get skill focus as an additional bonus feat.
Aasimars, are unchanged

I like this, but I have a suggestion for those considering adopting it. Ability score maximums. Basically, just subtract the negative racial mods from 18, and institute it as a racial maximum. I don't want to think about Halflings with 18 Str. In fact, I would make Halflings max Str 14.

This would eliminate what you've seen regarding previously non-optimal builds seeing a surge. But I like some of those limitations. For example, as a long time gamer from the Olde Tymes, I still don't completely like Dwarven arcane casters. However, I would rather discourage it than ban it; and this would be a perfect place to have a trait that would allow an 18 in one of those limited stats.

That sounds like 2nd edition. Along with racial class restrictions, racial class maximum levels, and females having different scores than males, the racial ability score maximums were a horrible design that I never saw anyone use. It was a good thing they were dropped when 3rd edition came around.

I have no problem with dwarven magic users or halfling barbarians with 18 strength. It would be preferable than seeing yet ANOTHER halfling rogue or dwarven cleric or half-orc barbarian.

Well, Pathfinder has racial ability score maximums, but they come by way of a penalty. Same end result. What maximums alone do is let you fit your rolls or points into the right slots, so you don't have to put 17 in a score to get 15.

You choose your race based on it's characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. In some cases the race is penalized because of physical parameters like size. If you choose Halfling, I don't see why you should expect to have 4 more points of strength than any other small creature. Even a 14 is ridiculous, but it's livable.

Everything else you mentioned from 2ed. was bad, unfair and unfun. Totally agree.


Laurefindel wrote:
n00bxqb wrote:

No auto-fail/auto-success on 1s and 20s. A 1 is always a 1 and a 20 is always a 20.

Seems silly that a level 20 fighter would miss a level 1 commoner 5% of the time.

I don't think it's silly (well, I think that a game where 20th-level characters are attacking 1st-level commoner in sufficient amount to find the 5% auto-fail rate problematic is silly), but I can get behind the design philosophy that "if you can't take 10, then there shouldn't be any auto succeed/autofail". But Pathfinder is exactly the opposite.

Indeed, the only thing that would make it worth rolling the attack against such a target would be the 5% chance of a "miss".

While it's true that very well trained and drilled soldiers don't "miss" 1 in 20 times at the range. Even those guys miss more in combat. But the die roll doesn't just represent the possibility that the shooter will miss, it is all the random elements of a tension filled encounter.

If you don't like having your god-like heroes "missing" defenseless commoners, then describe the defender slipping on the sand and tripping over his own feet to get the hell out of the way...and stumbling out of the blow.

Or, better yet, the next time a 20th level fighter swings at a 1st level commoner...just describe the clean death.


christos gurd wrote:

To expand on the races thing,

One is that ive seen previously very non-optimal builds used, like an earth sorcerer dwarf. The overall power increase of characters ranged from marginal to nonexistent.
Changes ive made to races,
Orcs, are now +2 str and wis
Half-orcs/elves, get to choose of their parents ability score modifiers plus one other.
Humans, get skill focus as an additional bonus feat.
Aasimars, are unchanged

I like this, but I have a suggestion for those considering adopting it. Ability score maximums. Basically, just subtract the negative racial mods from 18, and institute it as a racial maximum. I don't want to think about Halflings with 18 Str. In fact, I would make Halflings max Str 14.

This would eliminate what you've seen regarding previously non-optimal builds seeing a surge. But I like some of those limitations. For example, as a long time gamer from the Olde Tymes, I still don't completely like Dwarven arcane casters. However, I would rather discourage it than ban it; and this would be a perfect place to have a trait that would allow an 18 in one of those limited stats.


Mattastrophic wrote:

On the other hand...

Why do some classes get two good saves and other classes only get one? It would be more balanced if every class got one Good, one Moderate, and one Poor save. Except the Monk, because three good saves is their thing.

-Matt

This speaks more to the game as a whole, rather than to the fighter specifically, but I think the save vs. DC disparity that seems to bother a lot of people could be essentially fixed with one house rule. Give all characters a Base Save progression of 1/2 level, and then give a non-stacking "class bonus to save" of +2 for the good save categories.

Although sweeping, I've heard only a few people in 14 years say "saves are fine the way they are. I don't think there are a lot of folks who would hate on this, and there are definitely a lot of folks who would love it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Lore Wardens are actually quite viable. Note that they get both more skill points and Class Skills, and a huge bonus on Combat Maneuvers that nobody else gets.

They seem a good baseline for a viable general Fighter.

uhm, unfortunately Lore wardend have a reputation of a terrible archetype among some devs.

Well, the "devs" aren't going to change the Fighter at all, so their opinion doesn't really matter in this case.


Damian Magecraft wrote:

I like this idea since it frees up a great number feat slots.

And implementing it for a number of feats is fairly simple (Once the character meats the next steps prerequisites the new effects come into play).
But what about those feats that should logically be folded together but have no prerequisites? (For example: Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus).
What would one suggest as a logical progression for this?

Speaking only to the mentioned feats, Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus, I would suggest 9th or 10th caster level. It is the half way point for full casters in the power or their spells (5th level spells).


ckdragons wrote:

Yes, I DID ask. :) Thank you, Rynjin. And thank you, Can'tFindthePath.

I didn't realize many of my "house rules" were already RAW. I would be interested to know which ones, so I can trim down what I'm handing out. I'd rather not hand out a "book" of rule changes when my campaign starts. :) Might as well as write my own gaming system at that point.

Regarding Power Attack, you are both correct in this rule is trying to push character to use more sword & board configurations. I was adopting this rule from my friend in a campaign he's currently running. Honestly, I've been on the fence whether to change it from RAW.

Regarding the 15 Point Buy, I currently run with 5-6 players in Pathfinder Adventure Paths. We just finished Carrion Crown with the same point buy and the characters practically breezed through the final encounter... even after I had the last boss teleport away and return to "full strength" in the matter of 5 minutes for "revenge". I know that 15 points is on the lower power side, but I understand the Adventura Paths is meant for 4 players with a 15 Point Buy system. How much of a difference would 20 Point Buy be?

The other items I'm on the fence about (again from my friend's campaign) is removing Many Shot and adding Improved Rapid Shot and Greater Rapid Shot (as noted in my list)?

Thanks again for all your input.

Well I apologize if I misinterpreted Rynjin. The tone that I read seemed a bit judgmental, I guess it's not explicit. Sorry.

Regarding Sword and Board: I really don't like TWF as written, and I like even less the reliance on it to balance two-handed fighting. What if I don't want only TWF or THF in my campaign. I think THF is a strong enough choice with the Str damage bump on it's own. Add in Power Attack, and it becomes a false choice. Why wouldn't you do that? I like to make feats more fair and even in the benefits they grant, rather than stacking and playing off of the basic choices. It just leads to power creep....or in some cases, power CHARGE!

For example, my group has altered Improved Critical, as well as keen, to increase the threat range of a weapon by 1, rather than double the threat range (the choice and benefit of the various weapons threat/crit multiplier are still valid). But, we also let them stack. What this does is even out the benefit of taking the feat, and at the same time it doesn't allow the magic to obviate the feat. And finally, it eliminates an annoying special rule that isn't intuitive: Imp Crit, keen, and other special abilities all have language that say they don't stack with other things that modify threat range. I hate that.


Rynjin wrote:

Half of these are not houserules and most of the other half are nerfs to things that don't need to be nerfed (like Power Attack and Smite).

15 PB with no stats under 7 is terrible, it results in especially weak martial characters and makes MAD classes pretty much unplayable. It also precludes having a stat over 18 anyway (since you need 17 points for a pre-racial 18) so the last part is redundant.

I don't like them.

A little less harsh, eh? It may not be how you want to play, it just signifies a lower power game. If his players are okay with it, then what's the problem?

As far as the 18 limit, it is reachable: 8, 9, 10, 10, 10, 18. Mind you I certainly wouldn't play with these rules, but I am not going to say they are wrong.

Also, while several are not house rules (mostly because of errata), it is far less than half. And further, I appreciate many of the so called "nerfs", they have some merit. For instance, the limit on Power Attack not increasing with two-handers. I LOVE my two-handed power attacks, especially with Furious Focus (duh!). But, it makes weapon and shield even more milk-toast than it already is. PF's Power Attack rewrite was on the one hand, the savior of sword and board, and on the other, it buried it forever. I now only use a shield build if I don't care about doing damage at all.

I like some, but not others.

1 to 50 of 746 << 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.