Jeff Wilder's page

If I sound like I am repeating myself, Appraise DCs to identify the carvings, the 7th level character with the +7 in Appraise let him take 10 and identify the value of everything up to 1,000 gp with no effort. The Appraise DCs should really be set 5 higher.

Out of curiosity, why do you want the PCs to have to sweat when they evaluate treasure? Do you find it adds to the game?

We used to worry about it, but it led to way too much, "Hey, do you remember those gems we got six months ago? My Appraise is high enough now ... how much are those worth?"

(I scramble to find the adventure from six months ago. Ten minutes later:)

"Oh, man, is that it? I wish we hadn't had to wait three levels to sell them."

(Personally, I'm for transparency being the norm. If I want an item of treasure to be mysterious, I'm fine with making it mysterious through my power as DM.)

--Jeff

Option 2a: Suboption of 2

As option 2, but rage powers can be used as often as you like while rage, but no more than one per round. Some powers would need a bit more modification to make them work with this, more open system.

This would be my preference. Bear in mind that although I wouldn't enjoy tracking rage points (as they exist now) as a player, I can understand why some people would. Accordingly, my major issue with the rage point system (tracking points) is coming from me as a DM.

As minor issues:

(1) I'd like to see Pathfinder keep the introduction of new subsystems to a minimum.

(2) I'm sure I'll get booed out of the park for this, but I like a little symmetry in the way classes work. Although I think the rogue went overboard in power, I like Rogue Talents, and would like to see them (meaning "a similar mechanic") for barbarians.

(3) Especially consider the role a typical player is looking for when redesigning classes. When I play a barbarian, it's because I want to hit things. Hard. I want to jump and climb. The last thing I want to do every round before I reach for my d20 is figure out how many points I can afford to spend to do these things.

As an aside, Jason, so far my group owns three print copies of Pathfinder Beta. Two of us subscribe to at least two Pathfinder lines. At this point, we're in it at least as much to support Paizo as we are to see the new D&D we'd have wanted. I can only imagine how ego-punishing an open playtest must be, no matter how good someone is at taking constructive criticism, so here's one voice helping you keep in mind that you've got thousands of people out here getting your back.

So the people voicing support of rage points ... don't bother to track them when they DM?

I can definitely understand that (the PITA of tracking them is my point, after all), but if character creation rules are only intended to limit PCs, this should be made very clear in the final Pathfinder rules, because that's a major paradigm shift.

--Jeff

My proposed suggestion was to make it so that only ONE rage power could be used each round.

If I misunderstood, I apologize, but Rage Powers pretty much already work like this. Unless otherwise specified, using a Rage Power is a swift action. Since only one swift action per turn, only one Rage Power per turn.

--Jeff

Is it worse than tracking player and NPC spells? I don't feel it is.

So you've DMed barbarian NPCs using rage points?

I think it's worse, yeah. (I suppose it depends on what you mean by "tracking." We use an initiative board -- run by a player -- to track spell durations. Spells themselves I just cross off as used. A spell point system would annoy me just like rage points do.) But even if it's not "worse," it's additional. Barbarians can be made just as interesting by menu-by-level choices or (as someone else suggested) Rage Powers (a la Rogue Talents). Why are we adding another subsystem to the game?

That aside, you mentioned going nova in your reply. That, in itself, is an issue; a big enough issue to seriously rethink the subsystem. A DM using rage points has no reason not to nova.

Here's another thing about rage points ... Jason is having to balance three things, with every power: barbarian level, rage point cost, and the potential effect of the power. It's just too much, and too easy to get wrong.

So, anyway, what's wrong with menu choices or Rogue Talent-like Rage Powers? What makes rage points superior enough to deal with the problems that go along with them, including the simple fact of Yet Another Subsystem?

Regarding other specifics of your reply:

Your reading of Animal Fury makes a lot of sense, and I agree that was probably the intent.

As for Terrifying Howl, well, I don't want barbarians to have a power as powerful as a 4th-level spell at clearing away enemies. It would be slightly better, obviously, if it doesn't use the barbarian's modified Strength, but it's still too much. (BTW, what wizard spell at 4th-level takes out a potentially unlimited number of enemies, with no HD limit, to the extent that the panicked condition does?)

I agree that Unexpected Strike isn't quite as good as I thought at first. I'll downgrade it to a 7, borderline 8.

just to say the playtest we had with a very tired father playing the barbarian did not give any book-keeping problems and actually 'felt' easier to control than the on-off 3,5 version...

As a player it would bother me primarily because it feels like YATONRS (Yet Another Tacked-On Rules Subsystem). As a player, I wouldn't have a real problem with the book-keeping.

As a DM, it's nightmarish. In one encounter I had three barbarians. Gah. What I want, as a DM, is the ability to make a "raging" statblock, without having to worry about tracking a fiddly little detail every single round.

i like this idea in principle, but i'd hate for the barbarian to get hit by a trap in encounter 1 and burn up all his rage points reducing the front door to matchsticks

A trap is neither an enemy nor "in combat," so rage wouldn't trigger.

Well, I spent 20 minutes composing a post, hit Submit, and it disappeared into nothingness. Got kicked back to the main Pathfinder page, somehow. Super.

In short: Rage Points add too much book-keeping to the game. It drove me crazy as a DM, and it would drive me crazy as a player. Pick a few threshold levels at which barbarians gain access to a new menu of powers that are always-on during a rage. The powers will need to be rebalanced, but they need that anyway.

In any case, I've played several barbarians as a DM so far, and here on my observations on rage powers. A 0 is "too crappy to consider," a 10 is "too good to pass up," and a 5 is "balanced." Note that this analysis is while using rage points, not for a hypothetical power-menu barbarian. If i don't mention a power, it's because I didn't use it and don't necessarily think it's too weak to use.

Please forgive terseness ... my more expansive post was eaten by board gremlins, did I mention?

Animal Fury -- 9. Adds too much damage potential.
Clear Mind -- 5. A very in-genre ability.
Elemental Rage -- 6. Not a fan of "non-magic magic," but it's fairly well balanced.
Guarded Stance -- 2. If I wanted AC, I'd be a fighter.
Intimidating Glare -- 9. Shaken for 7 rounds is a big deal.
Knockback -- 5. Self-balancing, since it's not permissive.
Low-Light Vision -- 0. This is an example of a power that could be always-on and balanced.
Mighty Swing -- 6. On the nice side, but not brokenly so.
Night Sight -- 2. Why not "Darkvision"?
Powerful Blow -- 5. Compare this to Animal Fury.
Renewed Vigor -- 2. Needs to be a move action.
Rolling Dodge -- 2. See Guarded Stance.
Roused Anger -- 4. 5, if the fatigue goes away temporarily.
Strength Surge -- 5.
Surprise Accuracy 5. Compare to Animal Fury.
Swift Foot -- 3. Not real useful when already raging.
Terrifying Howl -- 11. Yes, 11. Panicked? DC based on STR? Are you kidding me?
Unexpected Strike -- 9. See Animal Fury.

Question: Rage points are renewed after 8 hours of rest. Can that happen more than once a day?

Oh, and wanted to add: instead of rage points, or rages per day, simply have rage trigger at a certain HP threshold. If the barbarian is down, say, 25% of his HP, he enters rage immediately and stays there until all enemies are dead, he hits 3.5's CON mod + 3 rounds limit, or he's healed.

BBEG -- "Yes, I said, 'Cast your healing spell on the berserker!'"

Now, given that, let me play Devil's advocate for a minute and argue that if you're already house-ruling, you're not actually playtesting the Pathfinder Beta.

I think you're right (obviously) to some extent, so what it comes down to is this: do I want to suffer through things that I know I will end up changing, even if Jason doesn't? I know that Climb and Swim are not valuable enough to stand on their own. (Seriously, Acrobatics gets Tumble, Balance, and Jump, and Climb and Swim are supposed to have anywhere near the same utility? By themselves?)

While I'm not sure that all of my changes work yet (among other things, I'm worried that skill points might stretch too far for high-skill characters under my changes), I do know that the stuff that I listed I'll end up changing eventually in some way. The idea that someone always needs to playtest rules to know when they're weak ... well, it's incorrect. I know that a member of Paizo's staff posted his opinion to the contrary, but, well, he's wrong. He can tell us "thought-testing" will be ignored (and be correct), but he can't tell us it isn't valid (and be correct).

It's true that I'm not strictly playtesting Pathfinder Beta. I consider that I still am, in that I know some of the RAW don't work for me or my game, and I'm just preemptively trying to find things that do. Just pretend I've playtested Appraise, Perception, and so forth for a few sessions, and they didn't work. Rather than stick with them, I'm changing things up.

I think one of the things Jason needs to be clear on, once the playtest gets to that section, is how he's evaluating skills. Is it "realism," "utility," "game balance," or "appropriate to genre"? Where do each of those fall in relative weight? Right now in Pathfinder RAW, there's a very clear schizophrenia going on in that regard. Perception and Acrobatics are off-the-charts in utility; Climb and Swim are useless by comparison. Appraise is a weak skill for the genre, even if you argue that its utility has been bumped enough. Concentration into Spellcraft would make perfect sense, except in game-balance, since only wizards are likely to have a high INT. And so on.

If Pathfinder does nothing else for me, it's released me from my self-imposed freeze on all but the most minimal house-ruling. For the past few years, I've fallen on the "don't change, for uniformity's sake" side of the "should I house-rule this" argument. That's changed. My other DM and I are willing to take what we like from Pathfinder and ruthlessly change what we don't. (Within approximately the same limits of backward-compatibility we're seeing in Pathfinder.)

BTW, I didn't find your comments negative in the slightest. (How can I, when you agree with me?!) I agree with you that I'm not playing Pathfinder RAW ... my question then becomes, "Should I thus not bother to post my playtest experiences here?"

-- Jeff

BTW, it's a little ambiguous, but I'm pretty much positive that the ranks in a skill that are associated with a headband of vast intelligence are meant to replace the skill points you'd otherwise gain when the bonus becomes "permanent" after 24 hours.

Why do it this way? So that people don't keep miraculously coming up with the perfect needed skill every 24 hours by taking off and then replacing the headband.

You can find the skills reorganization I'm playtesting HERE and (the same thing, with more discussion, on EN World) HERE.

--Jeff

Intimidate doesn't represent threatening to hurt someone. It represents making someone believe you'll hurt him ... and possibly not even physically.

--Jeff

Put me in the camp that doesn't believe CMB is intended to use an "attack roll" as its base.

Note that this raises another interesting issue: since CMB stuff can be done as an attack, if it's not an attack roll, it doesn't suffer from iterative attack penalties. So a fighter 12 could attack (+12 plus) with his first attack, maybe second, and use CMB stuff with any iteratives he wouldn't otherwise hit with anyway.

I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing -- for one thing, it provides an alternate viable path from the "massive damage" choices that eliminate iteratives -- but it's interesting.

--Jeff

Comments very welcome. These changes have worked well through character conversion. We'll be making no further changes for the next several sessions of playtesting.

(BTW, I posted the first draft of our changes in this forum a little while back, but there are several changes, both subtle and not-so.)

PERCEPTION
Pathfinder -- Combined Spot, Listen, and Search into Perception. Also added other senses (taste, touch, smell).
Problem -- Perception is just too much for one skill. Who won't max it out if they can?
Change -- Divided Perception into two skills, one active and one passive: "Observe," which is INT-based, and represents actively looking for something, whether it be traps, a weird taste or smell, or a clue at a crime scene; and "Notice," which is WIS-based and covers all of the same things. Observe also includes picking up the tell-tales of a truly valuable item (Appraise), and Notice also includes the ability to get a sense of when someone is trustworthy or evasive (Sense Motive).

In general, Notice DCs will be unchanged from Perception DCs, and Observe DCs will be 5 lower than Perception DCs. To balance that out, Notice is always a free action or even no action at all. Observe, on the other hand, will generally take at least a move action, and using Observe will generally be noticeable by people paying attention to you. Notice cannot be used to detect a trap with a DC higher than 20.

Classes with Observe as a class skill are bard, ranger, rogue, and wizard. Classes with Notice as a class skill are barbarian, druid, ranger, rogue, bard, paladin, and monk. Races with bonuses get them to both skills.

Just one cool example of how this would work in practice: if a rogue with, say, +11 in Notice is moving down a corridor containing a pit trap (DC 20), that rogue would (assuming Take 10) automatically perceive the trap while still 10 feet away. By contrast, to find the same pit with Observe, the rogue would only need a +5, but it takes time and the attempt to find it is noticeable if anybody's paying attention.

APPRAISE
Pathfinder -- Gave better rules and the additional use of identifying magical items.
Problem -- It's a lame-ass skill in a heroic fantasy game.
Change -- Folded Appraise into Observe.

SENSE MOTIVE
Pathfinder -- Pretty much left Sense Motive as is.
Problem -- None, really. It's not a hugely useful skill, unless the DM allows it to be used as a lie detector, and it fits nicely into Notice, where it balances Appraise's place under Observe.
Change -- Folded Sense Motive into Notice.

ACROBATICS, CLIMB, JUMP, and SWIM
Pathfinder -- Combined Jump with Balance and Tumble into Acrobatics. Left Climb and Swim alone.
Problem -- Jump doesn't fit well at all under Acrobatics, because a superb jumper should not always be a superb tumbler. Tumbling is a specialized skill, and Jump is an "everyman" skill. Climb and Swim, on the other hand, just aren't useful enough to stand on their own, and a good athlete is usually pretty good at athletics in general.
Change -- Removed Jump from Acrobatics, and combined Climb, Jump, and Swim into Athletics, which is STR-based.

LINGUISTICS
Pathfinder -- Combined Forgery, Decipher Script, and Speak Language into Linguistics.
Problem -- We don't like the inclusion of Speak Language into the skill, and think it works fine as is. Speak Language is useful enough to be worth 1 or 2 skill points.
Change -- Speak Language works the same as in 3.5. We're also going to allow spoken communication with Linguistics, at +5 to the DCs. As with getting the meaning of a text, this takes one minute per conversational exchange. It can be done at more normal conversational speed if the PC takes a -10 to the Linguistics check. Failing a check by 5 or more is a miscommunication. Finally, you can identify a language, spoken or written. DC is 10, going up with rarity and complexity.

DISABLE DEVICE
Pathfinder -- Combined Open Lock and Disable Device into one DEX-based skill.
Problem -- We don't like the skill being DEX-based. We kinda like the conceptual difference between a cat-burglar and a safe-cracker, though of course nothing stops a rogue from being both!
Change -- Disable Device is INT-based.

SLEIGHT OF HAND and BLUFF
Pathfinder -- Made no significant change to these skills.
Problem -- Sleight of Hand just doesn't see very much use in any non-thief-centric game we've ever played. That, combined with the fact that the described uses for Sleight of Hand are so similar to how feinting and distraction are described under Bluff (distraction is basically a Sleight of Hand of oneself!), it made sense to combine them.
Change -- Folded Sleight of Hand into Bluff.

RIDE and HANDLE ANIMAL
Pathfinder -- Made no change to these skills.
Problem -- The skills aren't useful enough to stand alone. After all, Ride is just a specialized form of Handle Animal.
Change -- Fold Ride into Handle Animal (CHA-based). The only core classes that don't have Handle Animal are bard, cleric, rogue, sorcerer, and wizard.

SPELLCRAFT
Pathfinder -- Folded Concentration into Spellcraft.
Problem -- Spellcraft is INT-based, so this is yet another bone thrown to wizards. On the other hand, Concentration really doesn't cover enough to stand on its own.
Change -- The skill formerly known as Concentration is now a caster level check, modified by spellcasting attribute.

ASSIST BONUSES
Pathfinder -- Pathfinder got rid of synergy bonuses, but still allows Aid Another to assist with skills.
Problem -- Not much. Just want to expand on it a little.
Change -- First, any reasonable skill can be used to assist with another skill use. For example, Knowledge (history) could be used to assist with a Linguistics check to identify an ancient language. Second, you can assist yourself. (In practice, this works out kinda like on-the-fly synergy bonuses.) It might take extra time, but that won't often matter. Third, assist bonuses from the same skill don't stack. Two people can search a room with Observe and get a +2 bonus. A third person just duplicates effort.

I had been having thoughts similar to the OP's.

You can see what I came up with HERE.

-- Jeff

One general question, though: Why does everyone like to play out-of-default races? Monsters races, and such? I'm one of the few people I know who enjoys just being human, or elf, or dwarf.

I'm actually with you on that. Dwarf's my favorite race, followed by human, followed by half-orc and (Pathfinder's) half-elf.

The warforged's player loves incredibly powerful combinations that nobody else sees coming. He saw the brokenness of the artificer and the extreme brokenness of the warforged artificer way, way, way before I did. (Luckily, he's a pretty reasonable guy, or I'd have had to invite him out of my game by now.)

The spirit folk's player wanted to play an Asian-themed PC. I decided he was from Thelanis, and crossed between the planes when he was in a shipwreck.

The halfling's player ... well, he's newish, but his character in our Age of Worms game is human, and his previous character in this game was half-elven, so I don't think he's "weird race" prone or anything. I think he just wanted to be a dino-rider.

The kalashtar's player is a drama queen and loves the whole idea of mind-linking, "purity," and "otherworldly beauty." He plays an avariel in our FR game, as another example.

And the goblin was human. He died several levels back, and all they could afford at the time was reincarnate. Since he's a fighter/rogue, both the player and the PC decided the benefit was enough to justify staying that way. He's having a great time with it, having developed a serious fear of anything with Improved Grab and (especially) Swallow Whole.

In short, we really only have one player who's actually not up for playing more standard races. It just worked out by genuine coincidence that we have none of the most common races in my game.

Any attack, even spells, where a character must roll to hit, allows for criticals, sneaks attacks and the like. In other words, if you have to roll, whether its a ray, a spiritual weapon, or a flying splash of acid, its all treated the same rules wise.

Note that this is not strictly true in Pathfinder. Pathfinder explicitly disallows splash weapons (alchemist's fire, flasks of acid, and so on) from sneaks attack's bonus damage at least.

In 3.5, a ray is a weapon, for all the purposes that you mentioned. This is in 3.5, but spelled out more clearly in one of the splatbooks. (Complete Arcane, maybe?)

Sunday night we converted PCs in my Eberron game to Pathfinder. I'll be running my campaign until about 16th level, and will report on it here at least once per level.

Some caveats: (1) We've made some changes to skills, beyond even what Pathfinder's done. You can see our changes (so far) HERE. (2) We're not using Pathfinder's double-bonus to non-human abilities (nor the bonus for humans), because we created these PCs using a house-ruled point-buy system. (3) We're not using any of Pathfinder's suggested fixes for 1st-level HP, because we have a HP-minimum house-rule. (4) We use the Magic Item Compendium, which has some fairly major rules at odds with the direction Pathfinder has chosen. (5) Finally, we're using a lot of non-core options, even beyond what's included in Eberron.

Given these caveats, I'm not sure how valuable our playtesting will be, but, you know, can't hurt.

Character Conversion Notes

Warforged Artificer 11 -- His Use Magic Device modifier took a small hit (from losing synergy bonuses), which he complained about. The artificer also has a lots of stuff explicitly or implicitly tied up in 3.5's use of XP as a balancing factor for several things, most notably item creation and the use of a 1st-level infusion called spell storing item. After some give and take, I decided that magic item creation works like spells (i.e., 5 gp per XP), but folded and allowed him to continue using XP to pay for his spell storing item infusion. I probably should have been adamant, because it is the ridiculous power of this infusion that contributes significantly to the brokenness of the artificer. But we'll see how it goes.

Sea Spirit Folk Shugenja 11 -- No real issues. One thing I noticed (because of this player's feat choice) is that for most characters who will bother, Agile Maneuvers (DEX instead of STR to CMB) is significantly better than Defensive Combat Training (+4 to defensive use of CMB). If a PC is only taking one, it will almost always be the former. A high-DEX PC who takes both will be all but CMB-proof. They should probably be mutually exclusive.

Goblin Fighter 4 / Rogue 6 -- No real issues, other than the ambiguity as to what, exactly, is subject to sneak attack. For now, we've settled on oozes, elementals, and incorporeal creatures being immune. I'm a little concerned that the rogue got too much of a power boost ... all of those abilities, increased HD, plus (effectively) a bonus feat every two levels (Rogue Talent). But I'll hold off judgment until I see it in combat. (He picked Minor Magic (ghost sound, 2/day), BTW, which I thought was a fun choice.)

Kalashtar Paladin 10 -- No real issues at all. He's excited that his Channel Energy may see actual use, and he was happy with the change to Lay On Hands.

Halfling Druid 10 -- A new PC. Other than an incredible +29 to Notice (Perception), nothing troubling. He's using the Shapechange variant druid rules from the PHB2, and I have to say I really like that variant. I like the Pathfinder use of beast form, too, but the PHB2 variant has to be my favorite.

I also created some future foes for them using Pathfinder, including an adult white dragon and a number of classed hill giants. I didn't notice a significant decrease in prep time, but on the other hand, the skills system isn't yet second nature to me. I kept having to recalculate, sure I'd made mistakes. Once I get more used to it, that change alone will help.

I do have some concern, based on this NPC creation, that the +3 bonus for trained class skills should only be awarded at 1st level. But we'll see how it goes.

Oh, I almost forgot: Nearly everyone is having some issues with Jump being folded into Acrobatics. It just doesn't feel right to us that anyone who can tumble is also a stellar jumper, and conversely that anyone who wants to be a strong jumper ends up being a great tumbler. For whatever reason, we don't have nearly as big a disconnect between Climb and Jump, or even between any of Climb, Jump, and Swim. This also fails the "usefulness test" for skills, as currently Acrobatics is so much more useful than Climb and Swim it's ridiculous. I think we're probably going to take Jump out of Acrobatics and combine Jump, Climb, and Swim into Athletics. We'll allow a feat to use DEX instead of STR.

Heh, that's the worst part, he's not Rogue 11/ Fighter 1

Right! Got that mixed up, sorry.

I'd be more ok with him being a stealth god if he was, he's Rogue 1/ Fighter 11.

On the other hand, he's only got one or two other good skills, right?

Yes, you're right, that's a ridiculous modifier for invisibility. To make matters worse, the +20 to Perception checks to pinpoint also seems to apply! Sheesh.

Invisibility shouldn't add to Stealth, it should simply permit Stealth when it otherwise would be impossible (e.g., when you're standing out in the open). Use the +20 to Perception DCs for pinpointing a square, and that's all it needs. I'd even be okay for a higher mod to Perception if the creature isn't moving. +40 seems excessive, but whatever.

(As an aside, where'd your fighter 1/rogue 11 pick up Armor Training? Even mithral full plate has a -3 ACP.)

A couple immediate observations, Combat Maneuver DCs are way, way too hard by default, even the nearly full BAB Fighter has no reason to attempt them, as he can generally do far, far better simply attacking.

I think this is intentional. Given equal CMBs, a PC has a 30 percent chance of pulling off a special maneuver. The "Improved" feats give a 40 percent chance. I do think that most of the time, the best option should be a normal attack.

Note, though, that a fighter against (e.g.) a cleric will have a much higher chance, especially if built for the maneuver. Fighter 8, 18 STR (CMB +12, +2) versus Cleric 8, 14 STR (CMB +8) gives the fighter a 60 percent chance of succeeding. I haven't used it in play yet (we just converted our 10th- and 11th-level PCs last night), but it looks pretty good to me. No more auto-success on special maneuvers, as in 3.5.

(These things are powerful. Way too powerful in 3.5. Take disarm or trip, for instance. Costing someone a move action (and thus full attack) plus at least one AoO ... that just shouldn't be an automatic success. 30 percent against an equal opponent seems about right to me.)

BTW, there is some ambiguity on CMB attacks. These are "attack rolls," so arguably you add appropriate modifiers (i.e., haste, flanking, etc.). Against that interpretation, however, is the special +4 modifier specifically mentioned for the target being stunned. Also, note that if this isn't an actual attack roll, CMB maneuvers don't get worse with iterative attacks! Now this is kinda cool, as it's a nice alternative to the other Pathfinder option of "massive damage instead of iteratives," but this section does need to be cleaned up.

The bonus to Stealth from Invisibility needs to be either toned down, or specifically limited to being spotted visually. A flat +40 to all stealth checks while immobile and a +20 while moving is way, way too good.

Where's this rule? I couldn't find it under the invisibility spell, the Invisible glossary entry, or the Perception skill. Are you maybe confusing it with the +20 to Perception checks to pinpoint an invisible creature, or am I just overlooking it?

At level 12, the fighter/rogue had a stealth check of +72 if he stood still, and +52 the rest of the time. In Full Plate. (+12 ranks, +3 class skill, +5 shadowed armor, +6 dex, +6 skill focus, +40 invisibility)

For what it's worth, you're overlooking the ACP of -5.

Anyway, assuming +47 (while moving) is correct, the 10th-level druid in my game has a +29 Perception (+31 for sound), giving him a fighting chance of detecting your fighter/rogue. Given that your fighter/rogue has the benefit of two magical effects, it seems reasonable. This is someone who has invested heavily in being stealthy, after all.

[Split of Pathfinder Beta and spell layout.]

I tend to agree. I don't think there's any way in hell that the final release of Pathfinder can (or should be) a single book. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like huge, cumbersome books like (e.g., Ptolus or World's Largest Dungeon), and that's the size Pathfinder would have to be. Just give us three rulebooks. (Including the Pathfinder Bestiary. Get those people who did Classic Monsters Revisited started!)

The layout is a pain. While I like the labeling of the stat-block for spells (and creatures), I'd like to see better use of color to set things off. I specifically agree with you about the ease of confusing the Cost/Construction of magic items. Oh, and for the final, make sure somebody's paying better attention to the flow of the document, especially in this section. Having "Description" at the bottom of a page or column, by itself, with the actual text following on the next page or column, is pretty sloppy.

All that said, this is the Beta, obviously. It can't hurt to voice concerns, I guess, but I have a lot of faith in Paizo to fix this stuff for the final product.

Like Pathfinder Charter Superscribers that preordered the book more than a year in advance?

Yeah, that'd be a good way to piss people off. Consider that I'm not a "Charter Subscriber" despite my converting 30 issues of Dragon and Dungeon into Pathfinder, and extending my subscription indefinitely.

Note that there are some subtle changes scattered throughout the rules that address the buffs issue.

For example, divine favor and divine power no longer stack.

I think these issues are definitely on JB's radar.

I, for one, would like to see a total overhaul of the item creation system, though I doubt that this is possible.

It's possible. It wouldn't even be particularly disruptive to backward-compatibility. (How many statted-out NPCs have item creation feats? For the few that do, making the change -- depending on how it's handled -- wouldn't be a big deal.)

I'd love to see the system redone in Pathfinder to get rid of the goofy "physical item types" distinction that 3.5 uses in favored of a "type of trigger" system like some third-party sourcebooks have used. (I.e., whether it's a potion you drink as a standard action or a runestone you trace as a standard action, it's the same crafting feat.)

In fact, I think one designer (guy who did ... Complete Artificer, maybe?) actually went out of his way to make his system readily available again. While I'm not sure how I feel about his idea of "spell slots as balance," as I never play-tested it or got a feel for it from reading, I really like how he categorized the possible items to be crafted.

Actually, scratch that: I would like to see an overhaul of the whole magic item system, something that makes permanent magic items rare and important but still leaves room for characters that want a bag full of petty magic items to have them.

This, on the other hand, is probably impossible (for Pathfinder). It's just not B-C. (FWIW, my personal taste coincides with yours, but I've learned to suck some things up as the cost of being able to play regularly.)

I like all of these suggestions except those for halflings. I'd keep halflings +2 DEX, +2 CHA, -2 STR.

(1) The iconic D&D halfling has been anything but wise. You can argue that Wisdom in Pathfinder isn't really "wisdom" as the English language uses it, but most people I know tend to roleplay a low-Wisdom PC as a low-wisdom PC.

(2) Doesn't the halfling racial identity sorta depend on being likable?

(3) Keep halflings more differentiated from gnomes.

(4) Giving a third race +2 to Wisdom is IMO too much.

I'd also keep favored class as rogue or bard. Again, the iconic D&D halfling has become "roguish." I don't get the cleric idea at all.

Oh, and as an afterthought, using your suggestion for gnomes: why not favored class druid or ranger? Aren't gnomes supposed to be linked with nature? (I have to admit I never really cared for the "gnome bard" archetype introduced in 3.5 as a substitute for the gnome illusionist. I suppose I'm okay with sorcerer, but I'd still rather see "sorcerer or druid" over "bard or druid" or "bard or sorcerer.")

Because it is now instantaneous and doesn't require any prerequisites spells-wise, caster level-wise, or skills-wise. Plus, everyone knows that heroes always have years worth of time between adventures and know all the spells there are between them.

(Just so it's clear, KaeYoss is being ironic here.)

The problem with using time and spell availability as "good enough" balancing factors is that they're so heavily DM-dependent. I'm not a particularly fervent advocate of "rules in place of DM judgment," but this isn't really a matter of judgment, but rather just a matter of campaign styles.

I like significant time to pass in my campaign. I strongly dislike the 20-in-20 phenomenon. With time constraints not being significant, simply due to my perfectly valid campaign-style choice, I've found item creation to be somewhat problematic in my 3.5 game, even with XP costs. I've had to ask the item creator to tone it down. It can only be worse with no balancing factor to replace XP costs.

Personally, in my Pathfinder games, I'll be using 5gp-per-XP, just like spells, unless Jason comes up with something I like better. There's no way I'll be simply allowing item creation at half-price.

I'd leave the active one Perception and call the passive one Intuition.

We actually considered exactly those names. Eventually, we went with Observe and Notice for three reasons: (1) Avoids confusion with Perception as it currently exists. (2) Allows "perception roll" to be used as a generic term for either. (3) We think the names we went went are both simpler and more descriptive of what's actually happening.

The only problem I see [is] meta-gaming.

True, but already an issue if the DM allows it to be.

Your example seems a bit off though. How does the rogue 'Take 10' on a passive skill? Can an elf 'Take 10' when passing a concealed or secret door?

Why not? In our games, we actually assume any passive use (like an elf's) is a Take 10, unless the player says otherwise. Pathfinder itself has at least one passive use of Perception being an assumed Take 10, in the Disguise skill.

Oh, and if their intent is to actively sense without being noticed then maybe a Bluff check and a Perception check are in order?

I think that's pretty reasonable, but I'd let the DM decide that, personally, on a case by case basis. I wouldn't use it myself, if only because (1) Observe and Bluff are both already useful enough, and (2) I want to avoid any possibility of a recursive crash of my players' brains! ("I Observe him to see if he's Bluffing to Observe me to tell if I'm Bluffing to Observe him to see if he's Bluffing to Observe me ... ")

Regarding the use of Appraise to identify magic items someone else mentioned above, you are of course correct. In our games, we make use of the artificer's Monocle from Magic Item Compendium, which is a pretty cheap item, so I was completely discounting that use of the skill. Even without the existence of an artificer's monocle, though, I still don't think Appraise is valuable enough to be its own skill ... at least, not in a default game.

Comments very welcome. These are changes we're making and playtesting. Reports to follow later.

PERCEPTION
Pathfinder -- Combined Spot, Listen, and Search into Perception. Also added other senses (taste, touch, smell).
Problem -- It's just too much for one skill. Who *won't* max it out if they can?
Change -- This one is complicated to explain, but actually pretty simple in execution. We just thought about how perception works, conceptually, and there are two facets of it: active and passive. "Active" is actually *trying* to find or perceive something. It's based on how well you put clues together and quickly make sound deductions. "Passive" is more intuitive, and based on just noticing things in the normal course of activity.

Accordingly, what we've done is re-divide what Pathfinder calls Perception into two skills: "Observe," which is INT-based, and represents actively looking for something, whether it be traps, a weird taste or smell, a clue at a crime scene, or tell-tale signs that someone might be being deceptive or evasive; and "Notice," which is WIS-based and covers all of the same things.

In general, Notice DCs will be slightly higher than the same Observe DCs -- probably around +5 -- but to balance that out, Notice is always a free action or even no action at all. Observe, on the other hand, will generally take at least a move action, and using Observe will generally be noticeable by people paying attention to you. (Which might be a little problematic, for instance, when using Observe to judge if someone's being weaselly.)

Classes with Observe as a class skill are bard, ranger, rogue, and wizard. (And, relevant to our games, artificer.) Classes with Notice as a class skill are barbarian, druid, monk, ranger, rogue, bard, paladin, and monk.) Races with bonuses get them to both skills.

Just one cool example of how this would work in practice: if a rogue with, say, +15 in Notice is moving down a corridor containing a pit trap (DC 20), that rogue would (assuming Take 10) automatically perceive the trap. By contrast, to find the same pit with Observe, the rogue would only need a +10, but it takes time and the attempt to find it is noticeable if anybody's paying attention.

APPRAISE
Pathfinder -- Pretty much left Appraise as is.
Problem -- It's a lame-ass skill.
Change -- Folded Appraise into Observe.

LINGUISTICS
Pathfinder -- Combined Forgery, Decipher Script, and Speak Language into Linguistics.
Problem -- We don't like the inclusion of Speak Language into the skill, and think it works fine as is. Speak Language is useful enough to be worth 1 or 2 skill points.
Change -- Speak Language works the same as in 3.5.

DISABLE DEVICE
Pathfinder -- Combined Open Lock and Disable Device into one DEX-based skill.
Problem -- We don't like the skill being DEX-based. We kinda like the conceptual difference between a cat-burglar and a safe-cracker, though of course nothing stops a rogue from being both!
Change -- Disable Device is INT-based. (Sorry, high-DEX rogues! You can use your extra Pathfinder feat(s) to take the Tactile Trapsmith feat ... )

RIDE and HANDLE ANIMAL
Pathfinder -- Made no change to these skills.
Problem -- The skills aren't useful enough to stand alone. After all, Ride is just a specialized form of Handle Animal.
Change -- Fold Ride into Handle Animal (CHA-based). The only classes that don't have Handle Animal are bard, cleric, rogue, sorcerer, and wizard.

With a light shield, the bard could hold a one-handed weapon in his shield hand and still cast.

Anybody know if this has been definitively answered ... maybe in another thread?

Hello? Bueller?

Bards are also proficient with light

armor and shields (except tower shields). A bard can cast bard
spells while wearing light armor and using a shield without
incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any
other arcane spellcaster though, a bard wearing medium or
heavy armor or using a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell
failure if the spell in question has a somatic component.

So can bards cast spells with no arcane spell failure while using a shield, or not?

What's the scoop? I'm preparing to run "Quoth the Raven," and it'd be nice to have the supplement for 150.

(Completely off the subject, anybody got a guess as to why I'm not listed as a "charter" Pathfinder subscriber? I converted all my remaining Dungeon and Dragon issues to Pathfinder, way back when. It's not a big deal, but I'm curious.)

Overall Art and Layout -- I love Wayne Reynolds' art (in general), so I'm perfectly happy with seeing so much of it "recycled." The format of the doc is good and readable. I'm probably in the minority in that I'd prefer a sans serif font.

Alignment -- I'd like to see alignment somewhat deemphasized (but not eliminated). I basically think alignments should represent extremes. Unlike in 2.5, where everything falls into 9 alignments, I'd like to see it that 90 percent or more of sentient creatures don't have alignments in terms of mechanical effects ... instead, maybe some system of "allegiances." This may be too much of a departure from 3.5, though.

Page 3 -- "Compatibility" -- I'm very pleased this is stressed, and I encourage the designers to continue to stress it. I don't want to lose the utility of my huge 3.5 library.

Page 4 -- "Races" -- That elf is just too buff ("frail"? really?), and those ears have absolutely got to go. Is it wrong that I find Sailor Gnome so hot? Oh, and why does the dwarf look like Baron Harkonnen? He's even floating a little bit.

Page 5 -- "Races" -- Dwarf and Gnome, "Hatred" -- Up the bonus to +2, and allow it to apply to damage as well. Make it meaningful, and make it conform more uniformly when other bonuses.

Page 6 -- "Races" -- Halfling -- Halflings seem to make better wizards than elves do. After all, wizards still need Constitution, but they rarely need Strength. How about +2 Charisma instead of +2 Intelligence. Sure, it overlaps with gnomes a little (no pun intended), but I'd rather that than overlap with elves.

Human -- I'm not sure humans got enough to keep up with the other races, especially given that their 3.5 advantages (skills and bonus feat) are diluted in Pathfinder. I think they need a little more, if there's any desire to keep human as the baseline.

Page 10 -- "Classes" -- Table 4-1 -- I'm all for customizable speed of advancement, but please keep in mind that wealth will also need to be adjusted, probably with its own table.

Page 10 -- "Classes" -- Cleric -- Change "Turn Undead" to "Channel Faith." It fits the description of what's going on more.

Page 11 -- "Classes" -- Fighter -- Should Weapon Groups be listed with Fighter? It seems more general, and thus more suited to Equipment, or Combat. I do like the addition of weapon groups very much, but the inclusion of picks in "Spears" is very odd. Picks should probably be in "Hammers," and then while you're at it just throw all spears into "Polearms."

Page 13-14 -- "Classes" -- Rogue -- The description of sneak attack needs to be altered to match the new flavor referenced in the sidebar. Personally, I don't think it's worth having the restriction on "must be able to reach" a weak spot in a foe. If a rogue is sneak attacking, he's finding a weak spot within reach, by definition. Also, please eliminate the restriction on sneak attacking from concealment when the concealment is due to dim light. I've really never liked that a human rogue can't sneak attack someone in a dim alley.

Page 16 -- "Classes" -- Wizard -- Arcane Bond needs to be modified to restrict who can use the powers imbued in the item. As written, the rules can be abused to allow incredible discounts on enchanting stuff. Add a simple, "Any powers imbued in an item by virtue of Arcane Bond function only when held by the bonded wizard."

It'd be nice to divorce the bonuses provided by familiars from the type of familiar. IMO, a wizard's player's first criterion in selecting a familiar should be "what's cool" instead of "what gives me the best bonus." I don't really have a suggestion for this, though.

Page 20 -- "Skills" -- Overall, I'm on the fence about eliminating skill points. For most skills, it's true that it's almost always better to have them maxed. On the other hand, a little Knowledge (local) or Craft or Profession or whatever can be character-defining, and, more importantly, the lack of maximum ability in a skill can be character defining. All in all, given that skills are generally only calculated at character generation or when leveling up, I think eliminating them gets rid of more than it enhances.

In general, I'm in favor of rolling some skills together. There are a few exceptions:

Forgery in Linguistics? No way. Just make Forgery a Craft subskill.

I don't like Open Lock and Sleight of Hand being combined into Theft. Other than being arguably Dex-based, those skills aren't really linked. I'd suggest Open Locks either standing on its own -- it has the utility for it -- or being combined with Disable Device. (What is a lock if not a device to be disabled?) As for Slight of Hand, put it in Deception. Sleight of hand is more about misdirection than manual dexterity, anyway.

Why is Sense Motive in Deception rather than Perception? I see that Deception would be helpful, but handle that with a synergy bonus. (The classic Sense Motive being "smelling fear," right, and dogs might have Perception, but sure ain't gonna have Deception.) Oh, and please, please stress that the Sense Motive use of whatever skill is not a lie detector. Maybe not even call it Sense Motive, but rather Character Judgment or something.

With the elimination of Use Rope, BTW, Escape Artist can't be entirely unchanged. It'll need a static DC for escaping from being tied up.

I like the addition of "no more than 2 steps" in Diplomacy, but I suggest taking it even farther. Make each step a separate check, with the second check at the original DC+5. Also, mention that sometimes Diplomacy just won't work. Same for Intimidate.

I'd like to see Perform simplified. Personally, I'd be in favor of saying that, mechanically, if you've got Perform you can use any instrument or medium you want. That might rub some folks the wrong way, I guess.

I'm ambivalent about discarding Track in favor of Survival, but final judgment will have to wait 'til we see the Ranger. Tracking is so associated with rangers that I never really had a problem with it requiring a feat for somebody else to use.

I just don't like the Fly skill. Flying has weirdnesses all throughout 3.5 (like being the only rules that need facing (sorta)), and this seems to add to them. If anything, the ability to improve flight seems more like a Feat.

Page 32 -- "Feats" -- Mechanically, most of the +2/+2 feats just aren't worth keeping, IMO. Still, something to be said for the roleplaying utility, I guess.

Improved Overrun -- Needs to specify that the "does not provoke AoO" language applies only with respect to the target. As currently written, allies of the target arguably wouldn't get AoOs that are based on movement.

More later on the other chapters.

I'd find two things very helpful. They interrelate, but could be implemented separately.

First, less important: include all of the SRD y'all intend to use in the Playtest Releases. I dunno about most people, but it's difficult for me to keep track of "what's been omitted" and "what's just not listed because it hasn't changed," even when there are sidebars to that effect.

Second, I would absolutely love it if changes and additions to rules (not flavor text or examples/clarifications) from the SRD were indicated somehow, most likely by font color. Reasoning is similar to the above. Basically, I want to playtest meaningfully, and it order to do that, it needs to be more apparent to me that some rules have undergone minor changes (e.g., the +2 mods, in lieu of +4 mods, in the Improved X feats). I'm very sure there are changes I simply haven't noticed in the Alpha, because they're easily overlooked.

I used Monte Cook's "vs. attack bonus" house rule for Tumble and defensive casting for a while and found it added little to my games. I want rogues to be able to tumble in for sneak attacks. I want wizards to be able to cast spells.

Among other things, AoOs are about the defender dropping his guard, not about the attacker's skill in penetrating it. And the tumbling defender should only drop his guard if he's not very good at Tumble. (And ditto for defensive casting.)

If changing the rule, I'd say make Tumbling to avoid AoOs an automatic, improving class feature. (Say, avoid AoOs while tumbling from one opponent per four levels.) The problem with that is that it takes that ability away from other classes who might otherwise make the skill investment.

So I say keep Tumble to avoid AoOs, and defensive casting, as relatively easy skill checks.