Pathfinder X's page

An answer for this would be beneficial Jason.

I would rule that a negative penalty would be cut in half.
a -1 would be reduced to 0 (1pt net gain)
a -2 would be reduced to -1 (1pt net gain)
a -3 would also be reduced to -1 (2pt net gain)
a -4 would be reduced to -2 (2pt net gain)

How many are you thinking?

Giving this as a bonus.. and adding Combat Reflexes to increase your aoo/round would make quite the mix.

The OP suggested +1 per iterative attack... so 1 at 6,11, and 16.

Interesting idea...call it...Combat Training.

2) PF's skill system grants a +3 on all class skills, how about this? Upon taking additional (non PrC)clases, you get no skill bonuses on level one, then get +1 at level 2, +2 at lvl 3, and +3 at lvl 4.

Sounds better?

No it doesn't sound better, the +3 is there to make up for the loss of the x4 skill points at first level. Also you can only put 1 skill point in per level, your system adds more complexity and a nerf, no thank you

Good point. Please note this in the errata thread, stickied to the top of the forum. The answer here is that roused anger cancels out the fatigue and allows you to enter rage. When your rage is done, you should suffer all the built up fatigue (I think, I am open to debate on this one). I will make sure this is clarified.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

All the built-up fatigue? So, exhausted once the rage drops?

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

Thanks, you made me laugh out loud. Love it!

You wouldn't laugh if you'd seen American History X... ugh!

Or someone who'd been curb stomped in real life.

Ouch but I like it.

I'm making a barbarian with 'Curb Stomp' and 'Shrug it off'. ;-)

FEROCIOUS IMPACT

The impact from the barbarians strike sends the opponent flying back as if the subject of a bull rush. The target must also make a relfex save versus the damage inflicted to stay on its feet. Only usable once per round as a swift action while raging.

Yeah, and it penalizes the half-orc. That's why I'd be OK with a flat 4 skill points to off-set the x4 loss.

I think 4 skill points at 1st level would be an offset that would end the 2+int debate.

Nevynxxx wrote:

I think it will give DMs more options, both running the AP, and to pull little bits to use for themselves in other games.

With three XP/level progression paths in Pathfinder RPG, pulling some encounters out of the main adventure and offering them up as "optional" might assist groups who prefer the fast progression, while including them might assist those who prefer the more leisurely level progression. It provides options for different game styles, as provided for in the rules.

This is what I was thinking...and it also makes it feel less railroaded if there are optionals built into the entire Adventure Path. It also makes it more repeatable by the same group of players.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hi there All,

Permanent Int bonuses now grant bonus skill points (Beta, pg 388). If you are wearing an item, such as a headband of mental prowess (Beta, pg 377), you will note that the item comes with a set number of skills that the addition points get placed into, automatically).

As for fighters and their skill points. I think that their list of class skills is certainly up to debate, but the number of points they receive is probably pretty set. Unlike many of the other classes, the fighters skills did not go through much change, meaning that the 3.5 fighter's skills need next to no conversion. Bumping them to 4 would also be out of line with all the other classes that get 2. At this point, I prefer the skill diversity between the classes (in terms of the number of points) and would prefer to keep the current values (especially considering these are so easy to houserule up, but not to go down).

Thoughts

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

A simple thought:

I would actually boost ALL of the classes' skill points by 2, not just the fighter. I instituted this as a house rule in my playtest campaign and the players all love it.

Skills are hardly game-breaking, especially with the caps on how high you can get a given skill. Having more points doesn't let you get better at the automatic skills that you're going to take because they are critically needed in actual gameplay (Perception, Spellcraft, etc.), but it will allow you to have more room to take more flavor/background skills (I'm looking at you, Craft, Profession, and Perform), which no fighter in his right mind would take as it stands because he can't afford it.

You still have great diversity of skill points between the Ftr/Pal/Clr end and the Rog/Brd/Rgr end of things, but the people at the low end get to play the skills game too.

Also, it helps deal with two related problems:

1. If you have an INT below 10, you are screwed if you have a 2/level SP class. Your SP have just...

I have toyed with the idea of splitting skills into physical and mental skills. making physical skills =x+(dex+str+con/3) per level and mental skills y+(int+wis+cha/3) per level. where X = 3 for melee and 1 for non-melle, and y=1 for melee and 3 for non-melee.

Unfotunately that would break all backwards compatibility and we'd never see it on Pathfinder

I think Rangers should have the same Animal Companion progression as Druids.

If you take the Animal Companion away from both of them the Druid can do more cool things, and is superior (in and out of combat). So why on earth, or on Galorian, should the Ranger's Animal Companion be weaker?

Also, in story terms, it makes no sense for the ranger to have a weaker companion.

I am of the mind of Level -2, like a cohort. The druid has spells, and mid-level combat abilities, the Ranger has excellent combat abilities and weak spells...equal trade...thus even a druid level companion would be balanced in my opinion, but 1/2 level companion sucks.

Jason,

A 3.5e 1st level fighter with a 10 int (8 skill points) could get all of his class skills at rank 1.

A Pathfinder Fighter with a 10 int (2 skill points) could only get 2 of his skills. And have 0 in the rest, having a 0 means not having the +3 to the skill either.

Removing the x4 means you have completely changed the number of starting skills available. Something needs to be done. Either increase the base numbers to 4+int. Or add 4 skill points for all classes at level 1 to offset the removal of the x4 modifier. I think I'm leaning toward the 4 skill points for all, these 4 skill points would represent the background of the characters. While leaving the base skills/level in place. It would be a similar mechanic to the Hit Point bonuses based on race. Perhaps base it on the race's lifespan. Short lived (half-orcs) 3 skill points, medium lived (human, halfling, gnome) 4 skill points, long-lived (dwarf, elf, half-elf) 5 skill points.

Thanks for the input guys. I'll definitely take that to heart. I need to be more firm and basically say "ok, you made your argument and that's it." I think I'm going to let the player trade in his chainmail for a chain shirt as well, that will get rid of that problem. I also need to try to stop it from being an adversarial thing as well. I guess I'm used to that sort of style and so I'm kind of doing it myself (as much as I try not to).

As for the haggling thing, you're right, I'm just going to tell them: this is how it is, you won't always get a discount.

With the night attack, I wasn't really trying to attack them when they were weakest per se. It was really just (what I thought would be) an interesting encounter. The last two nights I left them alone to sleep peacefully anyway =).

One thing that I didn't mention though that toyrobots made me realize: I'm having a hell of a time making encounters that are challenging but not so much that 1/2 the party dies. The player who has the fighter I mentioned earlier is on 4th level and basically takes any advantage he can think of to up his damage output and AC and everything else. He's got like +11 to hit and +9 to damage and 21AC. Now, I don't really have a problem with that necessarily, and of course you want your char to be powerful. But, it makes it really hard as a DM to try to come up with something that will challenge the group but not kill them. I mean with a regular party of 4th level chars I might think that 3 ogres (CR 3) would be somewhat challenging. But our dear fighter only needs like a 5 to hit and can kill either of them in a couple hits even without cleave. On top of that, there are 3 other chars to help him out. So I sent 4 ogres after them, thinking this has to be a challenge, but between bad rolls and the fact that they only need like 8 to hit it was yet another joke encounter. So when it comes down to things like "ok, I'm going to just swap out the chain mail for a chain shirt to remove one of the only weaknesses my char...

With the haggling issue, create some modifiers, +5 DC if the item is uncomon, +10 is rare +20 if unique. It's contested, and the Merchant most likely has Diplomacy also. So take the merchants Diplomacy also. The merchant who has profession (merchant) gets to take 20 on his rolls, while the player can take 10 or roll...

With no index in the back of beta, just call it how you want, and look the rules up at the end of the game, so the pace doesn't suffer. It's not your fault that he didn't know the rule, ignorance is not an excuse.

name-calling doesn't work, tell them if they resort to name-calling again, the game will end right there....or the name-caller will take max dmg everytime they're hit.

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

DUNGiN & DRAGiN are gonna cost money again huh? Whatever, they lost me at 4ello.

Thank you for that contribution.

However you may wish to look at the magazines whilst still free, if you already haven't.

Whilst mechanically useless in 3.x the fluff itself is not without merit.

Later days

I had been downloading the pre-4e stuff, I might have a looksee at the fluff again and download whatever I can before it's gone.

Nothing against the pla4Ers, good gaming to those who play 4th!

DUNGiN & DRAGiN are gonna cost money again huh? Whatever, they lost me at 4ello.