"Arcane spells that do not appear on the wearer’s class list are treated as one level higher for all purposes (storage and casting)."
So far as I can tell, there's no stipulation that the spells put in the ring be arcane spells.
So it seems RAW: Class spells, and divine spells from any class list can all be learned at the regular level, and Arcane spells that aren't on your list are at +1 Spell Level.
Am I wrong?
If not, Sorcerer with some of those nifty cleric spells could be awesome. Perhaps Inquisitor, Druid, Ranger, or Paladin too.
A Sorcerer with Cure Light wounds as a 1st level spell could be handy in some cases, for sure.
If one were to rank (based on performance/power) all of the base classes (stock, not using archetypes) 1-20, with 1 being Commoner, and 20 being either Druid or Summoner whichever is 'better performing', how would you rate the other classes?
Classes can have the same number if they are the same overall power/performance.
Curious to see how people rank them.
Arguments or links to why you rank things a certain way are welcome.
Okay. So I'm familiar with the concept that some of the magic items are considered "Essential".
I'm trying to get a better idea of what magic items are considered "Essential" for any of the classes.
Here are the ones I'm used to, and I'm interested in hearing about any I'm missing:
Weapon Enhancement Bonus.
What else counts? Pearls of Power? Metamagic Rods? Wands? New Spells Learned (Wizard)?
I'm looking for any "Essential" enhancements or items for any class.
Also: Is there a magic item that gives insight or dodge bonuses to AC?
I had a number of threads I had listed.
Some of them were not currently updated anymore, but still contained a wealth of useful information for games. (That was why I listed them in the first place).
Alternate Game mechanics, GM Advice, Analysis of Classes, etc.
The pages aren't in my lists anymore, and links pointing to them no longer work.
I'm looking for some good quality archetypes, or even new classes: Ideally published ones, but if you know of good homebrew ones to fill the gaps, I'm interested in reading those too.
Looking for replacements for the Rogue and Monk. Possibly some Swashbuckler/Duelist type ones too.
I've read the swashbuckler class by adamant entertainment, and I didn't really like it.
I'm not a fan of the stock rogue or monk. But it seems likely there's some awesome 3pp or homebrew out there for these things.
So I'm asking:
Also interested in hearing about various new classes/archetypes that could fit in a drow game.
I'm also interested in some manner of mental and social combat mechanics for pathfinder, kindof like in SIFRPG or Vampire the Requiem: Danse Macabre, if anyone has done them already.
I've been gone for a few months (been playing RuneQuest 6 and Vampire the Masquerade, and not D&D/Pathfinder), but I recently got motivated to run a Pathfinder game again, and am starting to plan the campaign out, so I'm back.
The way the monk would work was up in the air a few months back. The main devs wrote the rules to work one way, a ton of people (including many devs who made archetypes, and myself) understood it to work a different way.
Paizo said they would deal with the problem after GenCon
Is that resolved? Is it resolved without making Monks weaker?
I'm trying to decide whether I will allow monks in the game, or whether I will disallow monks like I do rogues and gunslingers, and suggest or provide my players with archetypes that accomplish what they're trying to build without having them play the classes I consider and have found to be poorly designed (We've had issues where some players got upset at the monk/rogue for not contributing.)
In case anyone is curious: For the Rogue I suggest Ranger and Bard Archetypes (I allow archetype stacking - They generally take a couple of them together to make a roguey nonmagic ranger - It's basically an alt. class). For the Monk, I'm not sure - I may have to look for 3pp Archetypes or make a couple myself to fill it, and while I don't mind having guns in the game, and Pirates and Musketeers fit in my game atmosphere, cowboys don't, and I'm still not a fan of paizo's gun mechanics - So I tend to grab them from other d20 books I have instead.
So, to sum up:
Monks: Explained? Crazy weak like the Rogue, or a little better now?
I just moved to a new place, and I did the Pathfinder Online Kickstarer donation thing, and I would like to get it to go to the new address.
When I go to manage my shipping addresses and stuff there was the option to remove the incorrect addresses, but no option to add the new one.
How do I get the address corrected for the Pathfinder Online Kickstarter Content?
I've got a google docs spreadsheet going for this work in Progress.
It's set up so anyone can view, but you need permission to edit.
First we need to finish putting in all the racial traits from the existing Race Builder. Then we need to expand on my page from during the playtest, with the list of feats and their effects.
Then we integrate it all into the pricing page, for consistent pricing; based on the fixed value of a pre-selected feat as an anchor point (it doesn't matter what we set it to, for now we can leave it at 2). And price all items as fractions, or multipliers of the worth of a fixed feat. Then if we need to scale up, we change the value of the fixed feat to something bigger, like 4, and all the things below it stretch to fit. That should give us more wiggle room between a feat and 0, if we need it.
Oh, and of course, once we have all our options plugged in, and we're just balancing point costs, we can enter all the existing races into a new page and point to the options, so when we update the costs, it automatically calculates the worth of those races in the new pricing scheme.
I just got the book, haven't had a chance to read in depth yet. While I'm sure it's quite good, no system is perfect, and I want to see all the problem areas in this one. So here I am.
Obviously there is the errata and errors that need correcting, many of which are mentioned here.
When the playtest was going, many of us criticized the way things were priced in the Race Build rules. Many abilities/bonuses were priced at a certain RP, with a similar equivalent or better bonus priced at less points. We started with criticizing the fact that it was happening at all, but then we started pointing out which things were problem areas.
Eventually it turned into this thread here.
So I want to know from people who have looked through it so far:
Do you see any abilities with prices that look too high/too low? Could you point them out? Look for anything that looks to be priced too high, or priced too low, and put it here. It could be an error, or it could just be priced poorly, or maybe its priced fine and we're missing something. But hopefully we can get to the bottom of all that.
If we can pick out these things, maybe they will be added to errata, but even if they aren't, at the very least it will point out things to watch for when evaluating whether a race is likely over or under costed for a given point total. Feel free to mention what sort of point cost you think would have been reasonable, and why you think so.
So I have a friend who is going to start up a Planescape campaign using pathfinder.
I'm looking for things that would be particularly helpful to convert to Pathfinder. Particularly if you can point me to someone who already did it.
I'm converting a couple of the Yugoloths that didnt make it to pathfinder, and adjusting the "Daemon" type description to be more in like with the 2e planescape stuff.
Oh, and the 3e planescape campaign setting races will need converting too. Advanced Race Guide should really help with that once it's out. I like the Khaasta, and everyone loves Githyanki and Githzerai.
What else would be muchly needed?
Any tips on plane-traveling archetypes of classes? A planar druid might be cool. A portal/teleport/planeshift specialist wizard of some kind or something might be cool too.
If nothing else, ideas for stuff that would be cool for the players in a planescape campaign.
I know there are some people who say "Paizo Only", or "Anything by Company X", or "Anything in these books (list)", or "Paizo + Case-by-case", or even "Case by Case, for all options."
So. If you allow non-paizo stuff; what specifically have you allowed in your games that you really liked?
In this case I'm counting 3.5 materials as viable 3PP.
Anything specific you like having in your games that you let your players have access to? If its homebrew, how about a link or explanation?
I'm particularly interested in feats, spells, items, and enchantments.
I like the Genius Guide to Templars, off the top of my head;
And the Acquire Familiar feat from one of the two main 3.5 mage books. Dunno if there's a pathfinder parallel yet.
I use a (slightly altered) weapon proficiency system from Unearthed Arcana, instead of the default one.
Sometimes I reverse engineer stuff from parallels in Pathfinder, and make new rules from that. frex - I've inferred that toughness is a feat, its also the favored class bonus as a whole. Therefore I consider favored class bonuses equivalent to feats, and often allow them as such. 1 weapon proficiency every 4 levels is worth a feat. +1 skill point per level? also worth a feat.
So what specific non-paizo options do you guys allow in your games, that you thought made your games better, or at least didn't regret?
Oh: I also use the firearms from an old mongoose book called OGL Steampunk, instead of the paizo ones, which I dislike for a variety of reasons.
Continuing from Here where it was kindof off-topic.
This is Really DeathQuaker's Idea, and I'm just gonna try to help get the ball rolling.
The Purpose of this thread, is to organize a Monk playtest. The Monk changed after the Beta, and the changes were not (open) playtested. Most of us have been playing the monk *wrong* according to the most recent clarification.
We need to test with a few different builds:
Core Monk with Clarification
Either using the same stats, or an array of stats which can be swapped around.
Some Test Scenarios, and Numerical Analysis will be useful.
Once we have some analysis done, we can look at the effects of possible changes:
- Masterwork and Enchanted Unarmed Strike; Perhaps made as treatments, or training sessions, or tattoos, or whatever.
Could I get some advice on pricing "industrial sized" bags of holding?
The type IV is big enough to hold one medium creature, + a little bit 6.3^3.
I'm looking for advice for pricing ones big enough to hold large, huge, and gargantuan creatures; for say, bringing a bunch of horses across a pit, or what have you.
So, one that's 2000 cubic feet (1 large creature), 16000 cubic feet (1 huge creature), and 128000 cubic feet (1 gargantuan creature).
Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
I know its not the standard interpretation, but I find it both reasonable, and arguable from this quote, that enchanting a monk's unarmed strike is doable. So a monk could have a +1 ghost tough unarmed strike, without needing the amulet of mighty fists, and the amulet would give them bonuses they could use as well.
I guess the issue at hand is whether magic item creation/enchantment qualifies as a spell or effect that improves manufactured weapons. I say yes.
Does anyone have a rules quote to the contrary?
Would be nice to know if I'm technically right and this is doable, or if its just a houserule that I wont be dropping.
I have several animals, some of which are large size, and I'm looking for a way to transport them through stuff. Is there an economically viable way to do it?
I keep running into situations like rope ladders, and climbing trees, and rowboats, and limited capacity on the wizard's teleport, etc.
I'm a Level 12 Houndmaster Cavalier with Leadership, and the leadership got used on a Worg.
Ideally items. I'm thinking something with extradimensional space, but I wanna make sure they dont suffocate either.
Any tips on the best way to do it? How much would it cost?
So I'm in a Pathfinder: Greenskins campaign, wherein the GM disallowed the standard races, and has us playing as Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, and Orcs (with a couple grippli as well).
Our hobgoblin wizard (yes you heard correctly) had, in 5 levels, never taken a point of damage.
Right now we've been helping some desert-goblins and djinn drive a chelish army out of their desert.
Last session, the hobgoblin wizard set off a trip, and took 2 or 3 damage (at level 10). He uses a wish. Not to heal himself, but to change history so that he got out of the way and never took the damage to begin with.
Do you guys have anything silly/stupid that a player has wished for in your games?
This guy can fire 6 rounds in 10 seconds while riding a horse (and hits all the targets). He's a regular human being, so he can't be above level 5.
So its all in technique and training, which you can learn.
Was interesting to see such a rate of fire in a bow.
Why would anyone *NOT* Take leadership, if they are allowed?
I dont think I've built a character that didnt go for leadership at level 7 since Pathfinder has come out (and with 3.5 I was always GMing).
I mean, you get a character two levels lower than yourself in addition to your primary character. How cool is that? Additionally, most GMs allow you to take a monstrous pet or some such.
I've seen it used for many characters to get a powerful or flying mount.
Or a caster to buff yourself. Or some way to shore up your weaknesses.
In my current case, I went with a sort of packmaster concept. I'm a half-orc Houndmaster Cavalier, and the Gm allowed me to take a giant Worg as my cohort (though power-wise, I'm sure there were better options than a Worg advanced to CR 7). Being a cavalier, and having the wolves, I grabbed a couple teamwork feats and gave them to all 4 characters, so my "pack" works well together.
Why would you take a regular feat at level 7, assuming you have a choice? I can't see any good reasons for it as a GM or a Player.
I'd think it would work like this for party composition, honestly.
1 1 1 1
I suppose at high levels the cohorts fall behind for those with lower charismas.
Still seems pretty cool to me.
Here's what I've got figured out:
So I have the flavor figured out: An orcish kennelmaster, with Wolves, and perhaps some Wargs or a Winterwolf thrown in (whatever I can manage via Leadership) 9+Cha+2(Special Power - Speak w Animals, Generosity)-2(Animal Companion).
Hound Master Archetype, Order of the Dragon.
And FYI, here's what I'll get from Hound Master Cavalier:
I intend to grab 5 levels in the Beastmaster PrC(WoWd20) and have them work for the build, and flavor I'm going for.
From next level forward I'll just keep taking Hound Master Cavalier.
I'm looking for advice on how to capitalize on all of this well in combat, and what to give the character himself for combat.
I was thinking of giving the wolves (companions And any from Leadership) Tandem Trip and Paired Opportunists, (I could also give them Coordinated Maneuvers if I dont find anything better) but beyond that I'm not really sure what to take for Combat stuff.
If I go for a Winterwolf mount, the GM said I can take Hound Master AND Emissary, and just use the HoundMaster Capstone Ability. - If I go that route.
Should I go for reach weapons? Maybe Archery? THF? I'm going to be moving around alot of minis on my turn, so range/reach may help in terms of attacking from behind 3 wolves, but I dunno.
I can give buffs like other Cavaliers as well, obviously, and can grant teamwork feats to people. Any tips on which ones to take for tactician and greater tactician?
So I'm Building an Orcish Houndmaster for a Greenskins PF Game. Taking Leadership for a Winter Wolf Companion, maybe I'll get a couple Wargs out of it as well.
I'm coming in at level 9.
The DM's allowing the "Beastmaster" PRC from the WoW d20 Core book; which will provide me with wild empathy, charm animal, a bite attack, and speak with animals (while the PrC levels continue to improve my animal companions as though they were hound master levels). All of which are pretty cool.
Here's one thing I'd really like: Is there a way for me to get track without dipping another class? Perhaps through a different cavalier archetype, or a feat or something?
Or maybe a way to boost the tracking power of canines?
Raw: Would these stack? (Guessing Not, though I could be wrong.)
(+6 to hit while flanking with a familiar who has outflank)
My instincts say it's an increase of +2, and should stack, but for some poor wording.
Interested what other have to say about this.
Personally I'd love to see an "official" set of (obviously, optional) rules to account for removing magic items completely while not buggering up the CR system; as well as maybe something that allows you to get the benefits of a level more gradually, for people who want slow but steady progression, or who want to run an E8 game with slow leveling but more frequent improvements than you get if you just slow down how often you get levels.
Anyone else have any interest in that?
According to the weapon proficiency feats, 1 per 1 chosen weapon.
But I imagine for *All Martial Weapons* there would be a reasonable discount, since you can't possibly actually want all of them. After so many weapon proficiencies you want, the rest are just giveaways.
Would you notice the difference if you got shortsword and longsword, then got to pick 4 more of your choice? (2 feats)
What about shortsword, Longsword, Bastard Sword, and 6 more of your choice?(3 feats)
At what point does it stop mattering?
I'm hoping this thread is useful, and gets stickied.
There are alot of 3pp materials out there, and not all of them have informative reviews.
Plus, some products have ugly covers, or just text on the cover, and my eyes just glaze over while I'm searching RPGnow, and I dont even notice them. OpenDesign and LPJ tend to attract my attention more than the others, simply because I find most of the other companies dont have very good cover design alot of the time.
A cover doesnt reflect the quality of the contents inside, necessarily, but a cover gets your attention.
This thread is for recommending any 3pp that you read and found useful.
Provide a link if you can. Here, RPGNow, DriveThruRPG, whatever; but a link.
I'm going to ask that you dont advertise your own books here, in the interest of more objective suggestions.
I'm going to start.
I had seen it lots of times and never considered it, and got it because of all the good reviews I saw. The cover didnt draw me in. It wasnt ugly, but it didnt catch my attention either.
Super Genius Games Templar
I noticed this because of the cover, which frankly is unusual for SGG products for me. I didnt realize that alot of their stuff was OKCStevens, and I didnt look through many of their products due to what I considered to be really ugly covers. I simply don't like the typeface, borders, and logo much, and sometimes the cover art is really lackluster. I dont know. I find it looks low budget, and that tends to put me off. But I realize not everyone can afford to hire shiny graphic designers and hire an artist to do a cover for them.
But having read some of it? Phenomenal game design, really nice writing.
Okay, so IME, the Eidolon of a summoner seems a little bit overpowered, but I've heard others say its merely competitive.
This isn't quite a DPR Olympics thread, but sortof.
I'm interested in comparing an Eidolon to a THF Meleer, at 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 20.
I'm interested in seeing the Attack Bonuses, Average Damage for each attack, AC, Touch AC, Saves, HP, and DR, particularly. Note any Damage that isnt reduced by DR separately, and note Crit Ranges and multipliers.
I'm not sure how the DPR olympics do it, but I was planning on comparing all of the builds against various ACs (like, 1-50) and DRs (like, 1-20) in Excel, and showing the results in charts and stuff.
Here are the builds I'm interested in most:
1. Specced for the best damage you can get (use iteratives and natural attacks).
2. Natural Attacks Only.
3. Synthesist for Condition 1.
4. Synthesist for Condition 2.
I'm interested in how they compare to a THF Meleer. Fighter is probably the best bet, but if you can build a better DPR Barbarian we can look at that too.
Can I get a hand coming up with the builds with which to make these calculations?
I believe the standard is WBL and 15 point buy?
Its widely regarded that the summoner is overpowered.
My analysis using excel sheets (while not exhaustive) showed that an even an eidolon only using natural weapons outdamages a thfer versus most ACs if the enemy has up to DR 7. All while outdoing him in AC, with DR 5/(pick good evil lawful or chaotic), and fly 30.
1. Has anyone already attempted to rebalance the summoner to make sure its competitive while not being better than the alternatives?
For now lets stick to the base and not do the archetypes just yet. Fixing the summoner will likely fix the Synthesist, and Broodmaster needs a boost.
What do you guys think?
I'm thinking the first thing needed would be to determine just how overpowered it is, and where.
the obvious parallel is druid, but also, a fighter and a bard.
Alot of the abilities (as many have pointed out) are not priced well in relation to eachother.
A simple way to measure some of these things, I think, is the value of a feat. So whatever a single, fixed feat is worth, should determine the price of several things. Note: I'm using the _Good_ feats as a guideline, not the feats that players are likely to avoid if they have the option.
First I looked through what you could get with a feat. And since one feat is worth the favored class bonus of 1hp/level, and favored class bonuses are equivalent, that provides alot of things equivalent to a feat.
One (non-selectable) feat is worth:
And because 1hp/level is an option for what you get for going into your favored class, the following are also equivalent to a feat.
+ The couple I missed, and Whatever the favored class bonuses are for Halflings and Humans...
Getting the bonus up front is likely worth more than spreading it out over 20 levels, but the above is right, for sure.
Any bonus for yourself, has the same value if applied to your Animal Companion, Familiar mount, or Eidolon.
I lost where I wrote it down, but due to the dwarf oracle favored class bonus, its clear a single weapon proficiency is worth 1/5 of a feat.
If someone wants to contribute more info into this, or has a problem with what I've stated, let me know. :)
Okay. Let me start off by saying I dont want to use enlarge/reduce person, I legitimately want a gargantuan/tiny/diminutive eidolon. More emphasis on the small ones than the big ones.
Specifically I want it to work with the broodmaster. So you can do like the broodmaster artwork, and have some tiny rodents. Because those are size tiny, and because I want to make my ferret-summoner.
Yes, 8 ferrets or weasels or squirrels or housecats will not be the big combat devastator that 2 Mediums would be.
But they'd make great scouts, great distractors, and you can always use a different set of eidolons tomorrow, assuming access to 4th level spells or a wand. You could easily make them bipeds and have them act like quadrupeds (you wont be giving them pounce anyways, and most squirrels don't go 30ft/round on 4 legs, but they do use their front legs like hands).
You give them all 2 ranks in climb, and skilled:climb. With your remaining 4 evolution points, half of them can have skilled: UMD. (and thats assuming tiny size is worth as much as small size (which it really isn't)
If you decide 4 tiny eidolons is enough for you? you have 4 skillpoints each, and each of them has 4 evolution points as well. Make them monkeys. Cast mad monkeys. Send them out into the chaos, have them return with some nice new stuff.
I was disappointed when I found out that Tiny and Diminutive weren't options. It killed my 4 imps idea, my 7th ed mtg inspired squirrel hermit idea. Diminutive is a side note, because the only diminutive thing I can think of is the frog. But I'm sure I could come up with a cool idea for it later.
How would you price it out? Gargantuan would be rather expensive as some sort of further upgrade to huge (and you couldnt take it until late game), but tiny and diminutive should be much easier mechanically.
So I was reading the thread about the stingy DM, and it occurred to me:
What about a D&D campaign without magic items. (maybe still include scrolls and potions and other consumeables).
I've seen houserules that bake your bonus equipment right into your character.
What about just running the characters as is? What would you need to do to accomodate them.
Can we come up with some guidelines on how to make this work? (like how much to adjust monsters of each CR, and what to look for)?
I figure maybe there could be a simple table, and you look at the monster, and make the following adjustments, and wham: monster is at the right CR for your level, without permanent magic gear.
So I started on a webapp yesterday.
Breaks down the Race Creation options playtest into parts, instead of just packages of parts, and allows people to rank them in relation to eachother.
It should give us a more accurate idea what the options & packages are worth.
Good for a feedback tool, good for pricing out our/your own point buy system.
Might result in a very detailed full race creation system before ARG is out, might help make ARG be better, because the devs will see it.
I could make a separate spot for Paizo devs to rank the options, so they could vote separately and it would tally things as well.
Page with more details here.
Any interest in voting with this when I'm done?
Post in Either thread.
So I've started making a Web App. I don't know how long it will take me to put it up(or where in the nine hells I'm going to get it hosted when its done), but I've been going through the playtest, and collecting a big list of all of the racial options - outside of the pre-build packages.
The idea is I want to put them all into a DB, with some possible suggested pricing (it should include all of the playtest pricing, as well as pricing from one or two other race-building system pricings if I can manage it), and an option for people to vote on what they think the prices of individual items should be.
Then it'll calculate an average based on the user votes.
The goal will be to allow users to sort it in a variety of ways as well, and essentially you'll be sorting through the whole list, and deciding which items you think are as good, worse than, or better than, which other items. Maybe even being able to rearrange them as you change the ratings.
It should be able to take that information, and use it to calculate the prices of various pre-packaged elements, such as races, types, subtypes, and sizes.
Basically its a computer-aided feedback tool for this playtest.
To let users change their ratings, I was thinking that I'd use the "login via facebook" plugin.
So far I've got an incomplete list, and some page layout.
I'm interested in help with this undertaking, if anyone else is interested in helping.
What do people think?
[Edit] I'm thinking that maybe a better approach might be to have them sort them in terms of power, and have them assign numbers to a handful of the top and bottom ones, and have it automatically generate the middle ranked ones, then let them adjust them after.
Someone yesterday proposed an idea that the playtest doesn't include, and I think that it's worth considering.
Consider the teifling. It has the ability where for sorcerous magic you treat your charisma as though two points higher. This basically patches them so while they may get charisma screwed in other areas, they aren't terrible as sorcerers or bards, which makes sense for the concept.
Now if you give that to a race that already gets +2 Cha, or even +4 cha, that ability stops being a little patch and starts providing substantial benefit.
What someone proposed yesterday, is that instead of just pricing the abilities at one price, and hoping the GM can make sure they make rounded races, what about this?
Abilities cost less race points when they don't synergize with the abilities you already have. So if I have a character with some melee combat abilities, and -2 wisdom, but say, have +1 vs mind affecting effects, that +1 would cost less than if I was a race with a bonus to wisdom.
Now, their idea was to break it into categories, like traits, and charge you more if you take more than one in the same category. Those categories could be based on attributes or something else synergy based.
What do you think of the concept? Do you have any ideas on how to do it?
If things are cheaper when you don't synergize, it encourages people to build races that aren't minmaxed for a specific class.
I think the idea has real merit, and is worth looking into in further detail.
I'd like to see something in the book:
So: The consensus, is that the thematically built PF Races, which wered designed using this point buy system, are not equal to eachother in power, and therefor should not all cost 10 points, because it makes the building blocks inappropriately priced.
One poster vehemently wanted that baseline 10 point cost.
Now, this gives me an idea: what if we could have it?
I'd like to put forth the following proposal:
So you want a straight 10 point race set? Here it is. Halflings would get a boost, dwarves would get a small nerf.
15 Points? everyone gets boosted, but not necessarily by the same amount. Whatever it takes to get to 15 pts. Aasimar may get a 1pt boost, or they may be deemed "close enough".
Do the same for 20, 25, 30, 35,and 40.
It would mean one page for each of the standard races, but I'd be okay with that, and it would give us standard races races that are on the same power level with whatever say, giants and outsiders, that the GM allows.
I'd like to at least see 10, 15, 20, 25.
For things the document lacks that we'd like to see, or restrictions it has that we don't think it should.
Don't include the type restrictions. Ideally, there should be no type restrictions in the document (besides the fact that humanoids bigger than medium need the giant subtype).
Likewise for the size limits on quadruped. They don't make much sense.
Type & Subtype:
Ideally, include more and/or all of them from the monster manual, or at least include the prices of all the innate abilities individually so we can piece together the prices ourselves (even better).
My first goals when I saw the guide were:
Specific Abilities I want to see the value of:
Many of the missing features can be found in Upper Krust's Challenging Challenge Ratings, but its a bit dated, and not well organized. Using it to help this set of rules out though would be a big benefit.
I dont have the time to go into alot of detail on the pricing and examine each ability, like I'd like to, however, I do have a few things to say:
Issue 1: The scale isnt sensitive enough:
The 10-point scale is too small, and not fine grain enough.
I get that they don't want to have fractional costs. My argument there is to increase the number of points you get, and re-price the abilities accordingly.
So instead of a base race being roughly 10 points (because we all know they aren't equal in power, though they are relatively close) Give us more points! I'd say add another 0 to the end for simplicity, but adjusting the scale for humans to be 50 or even 30 points would hugely improve granularity.
Issue 2: Individual Ability prices:
Its a little heavy reading, because its not very well organized, but Here.
Its not perfect, but Upper Krust's Challenging Challenge ratings is the best guide to race and class design I've ever read. Things are well thought out, and well priced. UK pointed out a couple things that he thought were over or under priced after this revision, but they were few. I remember something to do with turn resistance, and that he overpriced iterative attacks past your second attack.
Point is, (while designed with 3.5 in mind) it does a great job of pricing abilities against eachother.
The scale it uses is based on Challenge Ratings, so .42 is .42 of a Challenge Rating. Regardless of the scale, if you look at how things are priced in relation to eachother, you'll see what I mean. It will prove useful to the people critiquing the prices, as well as the people at Paizo who are looking to revise their own prices.
I very much like the basis here, but I'll say up front that I think it could use some fine tuning.
I'd like to see archetypes that change up spell access.
Perhaps sub out a bunch of spells for a bunch of new ones, or sub out a list entirely for a new one.
You could have say, necromancer bards. Or mobility magic Rangers/Inquisitors/Paladins.
I dont think I'd want to see an archetype with a custom spelllist, because I dont think Paizo would keep supporting the list in future books. But subbing spells for other spells, or using another class' list, or both, I could see working quite well.
What do you guys think? Worth being made?
So, I'm putting this in General because it wont fit into one category. It's Rules Questions, General Discussion, 3PP, and Houserules Material.
- Can a Synergist wear Armor when Merged with his Eidolon?
Quest for Options:
- Something to keep the Eidolon when sleeping or Unconscious.
Different Themed Summoners
- Alternate themed Summoner Archetype: Say a summoner with some nature spells for a naturey-themed summoner, perhaps with the Druid Summon spells instead of Summon Monster.
Idea: Synergist as a build your own Shapeshifter:
I'm particularly interested in the synergist rules clarifications, as I have a game starting tonight at 6, and I'm seriously considering making a Synergist.
Just throwing it out there. This thread could serve as ideas for Paizo to shore up things people think could have been done better in future books, or Pathfinder 2.0, as well as a source of inspiration for houserules.
You can include possible changes if you have any ideas or to explain what you mean. But the main purpose isnt to share houserules you use, instead to point out the things you wish were different in PF, so for complex things just summarize what you mean.
I'll start with a couple things:
1. The Rogue and Monk are both too weak as character classes.
2. Multiclassed Casters should be more viable, without having to rely on a whole bunch of PrCs to patch things up. Make spells/day a unified progression like with BAB/attack progressions, with bonus spell slots for classes that have a higher number of slots of each level.
3. Give saves the same treatment as skills: Class-Saves and Cross-Class Saves, so that good saves only get the +2 once, not for multiple classes.
4. Smaller Archetypes, to make it more viable for building a character with 2-3 archetypes on a class.
5. Encourage more combat mobility and diversity. Make it easier to have non specialized characters moving around and tripping and such while still being effective.