Jeff Wilder's page

I also like the changes. It's what we've been using as a house rule since we got the Beta. I ran the numbers; here's a link to the En World post.

Defensive Casting By Spell Level

One thing that I might consider as a house rule is to have the check use character level, rather than caster level. I don't think that would break anything, but it would help out multi-classed PCs, at the expense of some flavor.

This seems to be settled to the OP's satisfaction, but I still wanted to chime in with a couple of thoughts.

Don't think of the space a creature occupies on the battlemat as the actual space it fills. (It's because some people think this way that we had so much freakin' size creep in the D&D minis line as the sets went on.)

Instead, think of that space as (1) the space the creature controls on the battlemat, and (2) the space the creature needs to function effectively in combat.

Once you begin to think it these terms, spacing in the game makes fine sense. Some people, for instance, think it's absurd that a warhorse occupies a 10x10 area. If you're only thinking in actual space, they're right that it's absurd. But as anyone who's ever been around an unruly horse knows, the area it actually controls -- the area you don't really want to be in, just in case the horse sidesteps or wheels -- is much larger than the horse itself ... large enough that 10x10 is far from an unreasonable approximation, especially for a horse of 18 hands or more.

If there's no need in the game to think in terms of "control" or "function," don't. Let people and creatures occupy the spaces that make sense to you. There's no reason to switch to game mechanics until there's a reason to switch to game mechanics. Just make sure that your players know that even if you let them explore a corridor side by side, when as encounter happens and the need for control and combat function comes into play, one or the other of the explorers is going to get pushed out of the way (into a legal space), and they should be aware of that and be prepared for it.

(As an aside, I kinda doubt two normal humans, especially in armor, can move normally down a five-foot corridor. I know I couldn't possibly do it with another adult male. It's true that I'm a very big guy -- 6'5" and 300+ pounds -- but on the other hand I don't wear armor or carry 100 pounds of gear.)

-- Jeff

I'd change multiclassing to be more similar to 3.5's gestalt classing, with slower advancement. (The upshot would be a little like 1E multiclassing.) I worked up a pretty decent little system for it. It's clunky, but it works, and I think professional designers could clean it up.

What we've seen of Pathfinder doesn't fix 3.5's multiclassing, which I personally think is 3.5's biggest problem.

-- Jeff

The problem with this is nesting bags of holding for massive increases in carrying capacity.

The only thing I want to worry about with regard to bags of holding and other extradimensional spaces is, "Will whatever fit?" (And by this, I mean physically fit past the mouth of the bag.) I don't want to have to constantly be calculating capacity and such. If it matters, my perspective is as a DM.

-- Jeff

My suggestion for extradimensional spaces inside extradimentional spaces is simple: they just stop working, in that they cannot be accessed. You take your handy haversack into a rope trick, no problem, but you can't retrieve anything from it or add anything to it.

Having catastrophic things occur is a sacred cow -- a little one -- but it's a pain in the ass that basically renders a large number of spells all but worthless. And that's if it's remembered in the first place.

-- Jeff

This was just a mistake in design from the beginning, and it's unlikely to change in PFRPG due to the backwards compatibility issue.

Magic item crafting should have been organized based on what an item does and how it works, not on its physical form. So something like:

Craft Spell-Trigger Item (e.g., scroll)
Craft One-Use Item (e.g., potion)
Craft Charged Item (e.g., wand)
Craft Rechargeable Item (e.g., stuff with uses "3/day")
Craft Magic Arms and Armor
Craft Permanent Item

And so on.

And then you could have feats further in a feat chain. Say all of the above only work for items emulating 1st to 3rd level effects. You could have a version that does 4th to 6th, and a version that does 7th to 9th.

You could also have specialty feats, like one for using the wielder's caster stat and level for effects (the way staffs work now).

While the caster level idea could be good, I don't like the idea that each spellcaster use its best ability modifier (ie int, cha or wis). Casting a spell works the same for all classes. Why should they use a different ability for this ? Just because it favors them ?
Really not my taste. Use CON, I think it's the best for concentration.

On the other hand, you could reasonably just low the base DC to 10 + spell level and make it a normal caster level check. I think that would work fine, the only downside being that it isn't backwards-compatible. But if Jason is considering changing the DC anyway -- to double the spell's level in the DC -- that's apparently not much of a concern.

-- Jeff

Adding in BAB to Acrobatics to avoid AoOs works for me, because it adds in a scaling opposing force.

Casting Defensively already has a scaling opposing force: the spell level. Adding in another one is basically a double-whammy.

If BAB is added to the DC for Casting Defensively, spell level should not be. You could then just use the same DC as for Acrobatics: 15 + BAB.

-- Jeff

3. CMB 15

-- Jeff

In general, just being "Grappled" is not nearly as big a deal in Pathfinder as it is in 3.5. A lot of penalties and restrictions that applied to grappled creatures in 3.5 just don't apply in Pathfinder. "Pinned" in Pathfinder is actually closer to the effects of being grappled in 3.5.

-- Jeff

Hey, Jason.

I don't have a philosophical problem with upping the (CL + mod) DC to use (2 x Spell Level), but be aware of what you're doing. In 3.5, it was eventually possible to auto-succeed on Concentration checks to cast defensively, and given how easy the math is to see, I have to believe that was intentional. (THe logic was probably that a caster being threatened was in enough trouble already.)

If that dynamic is changed, so that effectively a caster has a 50 percent (approximately) change of doing nothing but wasting a very good resource, that's going to have pretty serious repercussions in combat.

Now my wacky idea for the day:

How about keeping Concentration, and add utility: it can be used to prevent AoOs for anything? Scale the DC based on the activity in question and on whether there's another skill that's more appropriate.

Drinking a potion? DC is 15 + BAB
Standing up from prone? DC is 20 plus BAB
Moving out of a square? DC is 20 + BAB

If you fail the check, you don't do what you were trying to do and either the resource is wasted -- "I spilled the damn healing potion!" -- or you provoke as normal.

And so on. Maintains backward compatibility, maintains a Con-based skill, doesn't favor any particular class, and pretty useful, even if you have an overlapping skill like Acrobatics.

The downside would be figuring good DCs for the various things that normally provoke.

Anyway, like I said: Wacky.

While it's true that "they" is forcing its way into the English language -- and much more rapidly, lately -- it is still extremely jarring for people who internalized grammatical conventions more than, say, 20 years ago. Much, much more jarring than switching on an equitable basis between the feminine and masculine pronouns.

(I'm conflicted about this, FWIW, because of the gender-dominance implications. On the other hand, 15 years ago people were also complaining about switching gender pronouns, only back then people were saying that it was fine to just use the masculine for everything. The evolution of language is pretty interesting.)

-- Jeff

I like the Concentration = Autohypnosis idea

If not, IMO the best solution is to use (caster level + ability mod). We've been doing this for months, and it's worked out very well. (Combat Casting becomes a useful feat again, which is nice.)

A potion of Lesser Restor is nice, but it usually takes 3 such potions just to counter one Ray of Enfeeblement spell. Empowered, it would take 5!

Just to be clear, ray of clumsiness wasn't originally a Necromancy spell ... it was Transmutation, and I changed it to Necromancy. One, I couldn't figure out why enfeeblement would be Necromancy, but clumsiness not, and two, I specifically wanted death ward to work against both spells.

(No, death ward doesn't work against touch of idiocy. There are a few other defenses against "Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]" spells, and adding in another defense fet like too much.)

*This* I could live with. It's actually stronger in its effects than the original, *other* than the fact that it doesn't potentially utterly destroy a casters ability to cast at all. I've all but banned the original version.

Out of curiosity, what about this version do you see as stronger than the original?

-- Jeff

Here's what we've come up with in our games:

Ray of Enfeeblement:

Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Ray
Duration: 1 min.
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

A corruscating ray springs from your hand.

You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a -2 penalty to melee attacks and damage, STR based checks and skills, and CMB. The penalty increases by 1 for every five caster levels you have (to -3 at 5th level and -4 at 10th, which is the cap). A target protected from negative energy effects -- such as by death ward -- is not affected by this spell.

Ray of Clumsiness:

Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: Ray
Duration: 1 min.
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

A sickly green ray springs from your hand.

You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a -2 penalty to ranged attacks, DEX based checks and skills, and Reflex saves. The penalty increases by 1 for every five caster levels you have (to -3 at 5th level and -4 at 10th, which is the cap). A target protected from negative energy effects -- such as by death ward -- is not affected by this spell.

Touch of Idiocy:

Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: 10 min./level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes

With a touch, you reduce the target's mental faculties.

Your successful melee touch attack applies a -3 penalty to the saving throw DC of spells and spell-like abilities of the target, INT/WIS/CHA based checks and skills, and Will saves.

I view alignment as descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, your alignment follows your actions, you don't have to make your actions follow your alignment.

Obviously, in practice players do want to "play their alignment," whether simply because they want to feel on the heroic side of things, or because there's an actual in-game penalty if a PC's alignment shifts. But in most cases, a PC's actual alignment doesn't matter much; all we can do as DMs is explain how we view the alignments and then let the players play.

Oh, and for whether your barbarian was "at fault" or not, do a Google search for "moral transference." My guess is that you really don't want to get into that mess, and will decide the barbarian's not at fault. Now the "no remorse" thing ... that's a little more telling. IMO, a Neutral Good person would feel remorse, even if he didn't have culpability.

Actually the first diagonal is 4, the second is 5, and so on.

My point is that it's not worth keeping. All I'm proposing is the deletion of text, not the addition of anything new.

What good is this exception? I can't think of a situation that isn't better handled with the general rule.

Not that I think that's why they specified the true double-double, but it is easier if it's just a flat 6.

Anyway, I've occasionally wondered the same thing. Just not sure it's worth changing.

Rules or not rules, i have never seen one of my players using his character's beloved sword to hack into dungeon walls.
Once again, we don't need rules for everything.
Common sense should be used.

The issue is not with failure, the issue is that 5% is a LOT. In a game where you make numerous die roles a session, 1 is going to come up quite frequently.

I guess what I don't get is why folks who complain about stuff like this don't just play diceless? If the dice can't really screw you over (or, of course, save your goose when it would otherwise be cooked), then what's the point of using dice?

My group seems to enjoy the possibility of failure on saves, and few rolls in the game provoke more groans of amused sympathy or cackles of ironically mocking laughter than a 1 on an otherwise guaranteed saving throw. (And I count myself in this when I'm a player, including my dwarf cleric with high Fort and Will saves, who's failed literally half the poison saves he's ever had to make.)

I honestly find it a little baffling that anyone thinks a PC should be immune to anything the PC isn't actually immune to, but I never really understood the argument that PCs should have script immunity, either, and this seems like a lesser version of the same thing.

What I'm proposing is tweak the combat rules a bit to allow both options: If you want to try a CM, you can choose if you'll provoke an AoO or not. If you decide to provoke it, your maneuver has a DC of 10+CMB. If you "maneuver defensively", your DC would be 15+CMB.

Since pg 388 has come up, does a temporary strength boost increase a character's carry capacity for encumberance purposes or must that be a permanent increase such as from the belt?

Creating a character at high level encourages min-maxing, giving greater benefit. An organically developed character is penalized in comparison.

A wizard that creates an INT-boosting item and decides to make it boost a skill he already has a substantial investment in is not a very smart wizard. (Or he's making the item for someone else.)

Personally, I think the best way to handle Int-boosting items is to say that every item that boosts Intelligence must have a "hardwired" set of skill ranks in it. That way, when you find a +4 Int item, it gets written like this:

headband of intellect +4 (Diplomacy 2 ranks)

This "headband of intellect +4 (Diplomacy 2 ranks)" doesn't work nearly as well as the current headband of vast intelligence. You may be confusing the INT bonus to skills (+2 for a headband +4) with the actual ranks that "would have been" gained. That's why the item in PF Beta works as it does.

For example, a 10th-level PC donning a headband +4 "would have had" 20 extra skill ranks (2 per level), not just the 2 you suggest. So the PF Beta gives him those 20 skill points in the form of a pair of "hardwired" skills with ranks equal to his level.

This is a really elegant solution ... for item-granted permanent INT-boosts. I especially like the ability for the creator (or DM) to hardwire different skills in.

I'm not really sure what the solution should be for non-item permanent INT-boosts. (Do they even exist? I can think of no non-item INT-boosts that last for 24 hours, even in non-core 3.5, so it may be a moot point.)

Responding in no particular order to other points from other posters:

Allowing skill points gained from INT-boosts to stick around after the INT-boost is removed leads to: "Hey, cool, you gained a level and because of your headband +4, you got two extra ranks and spent them. I'm about to gain a level ... can I borrow your headband +4 for 24 hours so that when I level, I get two extra ranks? I'll give it back right after I spend them."

Hardcoding the skills encourages min-maxing, penalizing normal players.

There's also a creator's paradox. Creating an item that grants skill bonuses normally requires 5 ranks in that skill (although headbands have omitted that detail.) If it overlaps you'd never fully benefit from the items you create.

That said, I've always been in favor of item-creation allowing the meeting of prereq "by committee." As long as everyone spends the time required, and the group as a whole can meet the prereqs, I say go for it.

Another possibility that's intriguing would be to have the item gain its associated skill(s) by "imprinting" on someone with that skill. So you'd create the headband +4, then you'd hand it off to someone with the two skills you want in it, and as long as they have 3 ranks in the skill(s) and wear the headband +4 for 24 hours, it gains those skills. Whether it could be "re-imprinted" or not, with the same process, would be up for debate. I suspect you'd want it to be, while I'd prefer that it keep the skills it got first.

We've been playing for several weeks with a CL check (modified by casting stat) in place of Concentration (or Spellcraft). It's worked great.

I 100% agree with Robert on this one. As it stands, with no modifiers, CMB works great.

My only disagreement is one of terminology: they do grant "retroactive skill points", but they dictate how they're applied. Note that page 388 says "This might cause you to gain skill points", and this is the typical source.

Again, there is nothing about "retroactive" skill point gain. Pathfinder does not change this rule from 3.5, thankfully. Again, the fact that the headband of vast intelligence provides a skill (at rank equal to HD) is evidence that retroactive skill points are not intended. Why would a headband allow "double-dipping" of that sort?

Personally, I think that skill points and permanent -- but not really permanent -- INT-boosts are problematic enough that the whole issue should just be sidestepped by saying that skill points are based solely on non-boosted INT, and once gained, can't be lost. Keep the skill associated with a headband, though ... that's a nice little addition.

Perhaps there should be a size limitations on the Move and Pin options.

I think I'm in favor of shield bonus applying to touch attacks, with two caveats (already mentioned, I think):

(1) Bucklers should not be included.

(2) The "animated" property needs to go away (my preference) or be bumped up to about +4 in value. Maybe even +5.

(I have a druid in my game who insists on using an animated shield. Mechanical brokenness arguments aside, how anybody can think the image of a shapeshifted velocirator with a shield hovering in front of it is somehow cool ... sheesh.)

Version 1.1 -- Clarifying movement of a target creature when another creature joins a grapple.

The following replaces the last sentence in the "Multiple Grapplers" section:

To join an existing grapple, the creature must succeed on a DC 15 combat maneuver check. If a creature joins a grapple without being adjacent to its target, determine whether the target is moved with a combat maneuver grapple check against whichever resisting grappler has the highest CMB (which may be the target). If the joining creature wins, the target is pulled adjacent as normal. If the target is no longer adjacent to other grapplers, they are no longer grappling that creature. (They are still grappled, however, until that separate grapple is otherwise ended.)

For the difference between "temporary" and "permanent" stat boosts in Pathfinder, see page 388 and 389.

The upshot: "Temporary" boosts only give bonuses associated with the respective stat. So if you have a STR of 16 and buckle on a belt of strength +2, for the first 24 hours you still have a STR of 16 ... but you get +1 on melee attacks, melee damage, STR-based skill checks, and so on. But if you take 16 points of STR damage, you're paralyzed.

A "permanent" bonus actually ups your STR to 18. If you take 16 points of STR damage, you still have a STR of 2. It's not actually permanent: if you take the belt off, for instance, you're back to a 16 STR.

And yes, the bonus -- whether temporary or permanent -- is still an enhancement bonus, and won't stack with, e.g., stat-boosting spells.

(While the distinction between "temporary" and "permanent" boosts is a good idea (among other things, it discourages swapping stat-boosting items around the group), this could definitely be worded better. It could be as simple as calling it a "temporary boost" or a "permanent boost.")

BTW, a boost to INT does not grant retroactive skill points. (If I'm wrong about this, please post the page number. I believe the confusion comes from the seventh paragraph, right column, on 388, but notice that neither that paragraph, nor the "Intelligence" paragraph it refers to, says anything about retroactive skill points. Pathfinder has not changed this from 3.5.) However, an INT-boosting item instead grants an associated skill, which (aside from the lack of choice and the possibility that it's duplicating a skill you already have) amounts to the same thing.

Again, that associated skill replaces the "retroactive skill bonus" a boost to INT would have given you ... it doesn't add to it. Again, a good idea: an INT-boosted character gets a mostly complete boost, but it stops the problem of doffing and donning an item to shuffle "retroactive skill points" around.

Am I misreading your proposal?

Nothing in multiple grapplers says that aiding another is the only thing you can do. On the contrary, what I've tried to do is simply say that anybody in a grappled is "grappled" and has the same five options as everybody else: move, damage, pin, aid, or escape.

By grappling his teammate, he's just made it even easier for the Tentacled Horror to join the grapple, as the DC is now a flat 15.

You're right, however, the Tentacled Horror should not have to be adjacent to join a grapple, and I'll change that.

With regard to your buff housecat, that's not me ... that's all Pathfinder. I didn't want to mess with the system too much.

Does this help?

Disarm and similar maneuvers are incredibly powerful in the action economy of D&D, from the players' perspective. That's good enough for me, right there.

But consider this: in Pathfinder Beta, most of the maneuvers can be taken as attack actions ... and there's no penalty for making them later iterative attacks. That has two big implications: one, the base performance of the maneuver needs to be somewhat harder to perform, and two, high-BAB types have something else to do with those low-BAB iterative attacks ... something that's fairly efficient. (Pathfinder provides other things, of course, like Vital Strike, but I like the encouragement to use maneuvers, too.)

This revision attempts to address two things that the Pathfinder Beta Grapple rules do not address well. First, it does away with any distinction between an attacker and a defender, except on the acting creature's turn. Second, it includes rules for multiple grapplers. There are other, relatively minor, changes included, such as a bonus for creatures with improved grab, a clarification on how many free limbs are needed to grapple, a wording change from "flat-footed" to "loses Dexterity bonus to AC," and so on.

Comments and suggestions are welcomed. In particular, making the simplified Pathfinder rules work with multiple grapplers proved troublesome, and my solutions aren't particularly satisfying.

Suggested Revision -- Grapple

As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options (and yours). If you do not have Improved Grapple, improved grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver, and as usual a successful attack adds its damage to the combat maneuver DC. Creatures without two free limbs -- or improved grab or a similar ability -- take a -4 penalty on combat maneuver checks for grappling. Creatures with improved grab gain a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks for grappling; possibly more, if they are particularly equipped for grappling. (The creature's "Improved Grab" entry will specify the bonus if other than +4.)

If successful, you and the target gain the grappled condition (see below). If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).

Grappled: A grappled creature is being restrained by another creature, trap, or effect. It cannot move normally and take a –4 penalty to its Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made for grappling. In addition, a grappled creature can take no action that does not leave it one free limb for grappling, except attempt to escape the grapple, unless the creature has improved grab or a similar ability. A grappled character that attempts to cast a spell must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

On a grappled creature's turn, it declares whether it wishes to end the grapple. If all grapplers in the agree to end the grapple, it immediately ends. Otherwise the grapple is maintained.

In a maintained grapple, a successful combat maneuver check as a standard action allows you to perform one of the following actions.
Move: You can move up to one-half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus. After this movement, any other grapplers (besides you and your target) are no longer grappled, and must rejoin the grapple normally if they wish.
Damage: You can inf lict damage to your target equal to your unarmed damage. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
Pin: You can give your opponent the pinned condition. Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled condition, but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC. You must maintain a pin from round to round, using a standard action, but the combat maneuver check is at a +5 bonus. If you fail to maintain the pin, the target becomes grappled instead of pinned.
Escape: You are no longer grappled. This action also allows use of the Escape Artist skill (at the same DC as a combat maneuver check). In a grapple involving multiple opponents, the DC is based on the highest CMB among the enemy grapplers.
Aid: You declare your assistance to a specific other grappler. With a combat maneuver check (the DC for this action is a flat 10), you grant that grappler a +2 on combat maneuver checks for grappling until the end of his turn.

Pinned: A pinned creature cannot move and loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A successful check means the creature becomes grappled, instead of pinned. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned creature that attempts to cast a spell must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled and their effects do not stack.

Multiple Grapplers: Multiple creatures may participate in a grapple. To help initiate a grapple, a creature must be adjacent to the intended target and ready an action to aid a specific other creature in initiating the grapple. If that creature then attempts to grapple the intended target, and the aiding creature succeeds on a DC 10 CMB check, the initiator of the grapple receives a +2 bonus on combat maneuver checks to grapple until the end of his turn. To join an existing grapple, the creature must succeed on a DC 15 combat maneuver check.

Binding a Pinned Target: If you have your target pinned or otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie them up. This requires that the target remain pinned for five consecutive rounds. The DC to escape from being bound is 20 + the binding creature's CMB. If a helpless creature is bound, the DC becomes 25 + the binding creature's CMB. A bound creature is helpless.

(I have not read the whole thread, and am probably late to the party. I'm lazy and sleepy. Sue me.)

I'm in favor of a mostly or completely non-magical ability to Keep the Damn Target Dead. (The assassin's spells didn't bother me as much as the ranger's do, but I still like that it's become a purely physical prestige class. I just created a ftr3/rog6/asn4 NPC for my Pathfinder Eberron game.)

How about:

Death's Clutch (Ex): During his esoteric studies of death, the assassin has learned a quick, but complex, ritual to interfere with attempts to return a target to life. If the assassin spends a full round adjacent to a creature that has died within 1 round, performing this ritual (which provokes Attacks of Opportunity), any attempt to return the target to life requires a CL check with a DC equal to 10 plus the assassin's class level.

Dunno what level the ability should be granted at. My thought is at least 6th. The DC might not be high enough. If not, just say the CL check has to beat the DC of the assassin's death attack.

(I don't like the Trap the Soul thing. If the assassin has spell-like powers, why take away his spells? Also, why interfere with Speak with Dead? Isn't the whole point that the target doesn't see the assassin? Finally, note that my version of the ability works on any just-died corpse, which I like. Among other things, gives an assassin reason to occasionally work well with others.)

I'm a combination of both, but (like a few other folks) slowly losing my high hopes for Pathfinder. (It's not specific changes that are sinking me, but rather what I perceive as the evolved design focus.)

-- Jeff

Also grappling party members in 3.5e was a trap for monsters since the penalties were too much (loss of AC, cannot cast spells, can be sneak attacked and so on).

That's a good point, as far as concealment goes. It might be worth the complexity to say that sundering, disarming, and bull rushing are subject to the miss chance. (I wouldn't subject grapple or overrun to it, personally, but see below.)

The lack of touch attacks shouldn't be too much of a big deal. Most grappling monsters (i.e., with Improved Grab) didn't make touch attacks to grapple anyway ... they had to hit with normal attacks, and presumably still will in Pathfinder. (BTW, a 1 on a CMB roll is an automatic failure.)

-- Jeff

Patience young padawan. We don't know ALL of the changes yet, and won't until next year. When the final rules are released, I suspect there will be a lot of changes that haven't been made public, and won't be made public until such time.

-- Jeff

Here's the thing: listing a bunch of changes you don't like isn't a helpful reason for why you're giving up on Pathfinder. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that your preferences aren't valid or that you don't have the right to express them. Under another topic title, they very well might be useful observations.

I'm simply saying that Pathfinder is not going to please everybody in all respects, so if you're going to be so broad as to tell us why you're losing hope on Pathfinder, tell us that, not just a list of stuff you don't like. If the stuff you don't like is illustrative of that way, by all means list it, but then tell us how it's illustrative.

Me, my hope for Pathfinder waxes and wanes. When it's waning, it's usually because I've grown doubtful about the designer's ability to look with an objective eye at the changes he's made, and because I begin to feel that the players of certain aspects of the rules have their opinions more valued than the DMs of those aspects of the rules.

On the other hand, when my hope waxes, it's usually because I see the designer taking a subsystem he's worked hard on, and recognizing its flaws, and changing it. Or I remember that the Beta is a Beta, and there are likely more changes going on than can be posted about on this forum.

Anyway, just sayin'.

Bagpuss, I'm really not sure I'm getting your point.

All I'm saying is that obviously the designers of Pathfinder already feel that Climb and Swim are related by "physical prowess," as evidenced by the Athletic feat. Combining the skills is no more a blow to realism.

Two other examples, just off the top of my head, where this was done: 3.5's Nimble Fingers feat (bonuses to Open Locks and Disable Device) and Stealthy feat (bonuses to Hide and Move Silently) both were heralds of their governed skills being combined as being "close enough." There are probably other examples.

Any anybody that argues that Climb is more valuable from a utility standpoint than Open Locks was -- or is anywhere near as valuable as Disable Device is now -- is just asking to be laughed at. And Swim? Gah.

-- Jeff

The thing that kills me about people who says Climb and Swim are too different to be related is that Pathfinder already relates them. The Athletic feat description already exists, and it reads, "You possess an inherent physical prowess."

Sheesh.

Athletics as a skill (IMO, also incorporating Jump) is simply a matter of balancing skill utility, and by Pathfinder's own current rules, the realism is close enough.

-- Jeff

I'm not sure if this is actually on-point to the thread, but something occurred to me about CMB as I reread:

Many folks think the CMB DC (15 + opponent's CMB) is too high. Given that iterative attacks give multiple attempts to perform (most of) the maneuvers without an iterative penalty, the current DC is definitely appropriate. (I have previously argued that the effects of combat maneuvers are powerful enough to justify the DC, but although I think it's a valid argument, it's not convincingly strong.)

Accordingly, maybe this would work:

(1) Make all combat maneuvers standard actions to use.

(2) Drop the DC to 10 + CMB.

(3) Give a small bonus on CMB for each iterative attack the character has. (I.e., +1 or so to CMB at +6, +11, and +16 BAB.)

Some folks might argue that CMB already incorporates BAB, so that part of the solution is double-dipping, which is true, but the current system also double-dips, by giving multiple attempts at the same DC, which is much more powerful. In any event, the third item is the least important, and though I think it's worth adding, I could live without it.

The things I like about this suggested change are:

(1) It standardizes combat maneuvers to all be standard actions.

(2) It reduces multiple rolls from iterative attacks.

(3) It sets a DC for success that encourages the maneuvers.

-- Jeff

As I remember, a pinned character counts as helpless against attackers outside the grapple.

Regardless, it's actually ruder now. Now, instead of the guy pinning you needing a buddy to execute a coup-de-grace, he can tie you up and do it himself.

-- Jeff

Since there is NOTHING which distinguishes between grapple "controller" and "controlee" (besides Pin), then the original TARGET of a Grapple, then on their turn would seem to be able to PIN their opponent who INITIATED the Grapple, immediately in one round!

-- Jeff

I think the system is pretty elegant, although like most of D&D it is fairly abstract.

-- Jeff