Roman's page

That's a solid idea Samurai - I like it.

I like racial starting hit points.

I like many of the changes being introduced by the Pathfinder RPG and will most likely buy the product. I expect that at least one member of my gaming group will also buy it and perhaps more. If I do buy it, it will be my first purchase from Paizo. Up till now I have been exclusively a WotC D&D customer and if I remember correctly I have never bought a third party product before. With the advent of 4E, however, this has changed. 4E is making both rules and flavor changes I dislike and does not feel like D&D any more to me at least. Seeing the quality that Paizo is putting into the Pathfinder RPG and the fact that they maintain D&D flavor, I may well buy more Paizo products in the future.

Roman wrote:

Since that is the case, why have a dedicated generalist/universalist class? I see little reason to have one.

Here's a reason: nine options for your character is better than eight.

Even if the ninth choice is redundant? And it is redundant in this case.

Still, I can see that there is not much support for expunging the generalist/universalist wizard. Hence it would be a bad idea to do so, even though I do believe it would be a good thing to do from a game design point of view. Having a redundant choice, while not optimal, is clearly better than antagonizing (probably) numerous players over its removal.

Given that fact, though, I would say that it is best to make the generalist/universalist wizard a meaningful choice again by restricting spellcasting from prohibited schools for specialist wizards.

How do you like my idea of making spells from prohibited schools one or two spell levels higher for the specialist wizard (rather than preventing their casting completely)?

Also, I would, in that case, advocate the removal or at least toning down of the generalist's/universalist's abilities - wish and limited wish.

Although I definitely agree that the rogue in 3.5E has a hard time against undead and other creatures immune to sneak attack, I do feel that the Pathfinder fix of removing the immunity completely (except for formless/featureless creatures) has gone a bit too far. I would rather recommend using the house-rule I have been using for some time now (and which seems to work fine in my group): Creatures formerly immune to sneak attack instead take half damage from sneak attack (of course formless/featureless creatures are still immune, just like in Pathfinder Alpha 2).

This ensures that rogues don't become useless when dealing with undead or other such creatures, but also satisfies the simulationist notion that things without vital organs are more resistant to sneak attacks (although they still have weak-points and are thus not immune).

The suggested rule also retains the philosophy that different characters are variously useful in different situations. This differs from the 4E philosophy of making everybody equally useful all the time. The 4E philosophy would paradoxically likely result in a few characters (those having players with dominant personalities) dominating every situation (I know it would in my groups and I would venture a guess that most groups have some dominant or most experienced players) and a decrease in fun for the rest of the group over the course of the campaign.

Note: Of course, if this change would make the rogue weaker than the other classes, he would need to be compensated with other abilities to make up for that.

I agree with the other comments. Although I do like the idea of spell level = caster level, the compatibility with 3.5E aim of the Pathfinder RPG would be compromised by implementing this. I would probably be willing to sacrifice some compatibility to achieve this, but I think most people would not be willing to do so.

If I were to go back to restricting specialist casting of spells from prohibited schools of magic in order to make the dedicated generalist/universalist make sense in the ew context, I would not prohibit spellcasting from the prohibited schools completely. Rather, I would have spells from these schools be higher level spells for the specialist. One level higher would probably suffice, but more would be possible.

Roman wrote:

Specialist wizards are more flavorful ...

Just wanted to disagree with that there. Frankly my gut feeling from playing 1st edition is that specialist wizards are nutty overpowered innovations, not really flavorful. But putting that aside, the "Master of all Magics" flavor of a Universalist is quite appealing - I'd never grant the title "Arch-Mage" to a specialist.

We will just have to agree to disagree (though I have not played 1st edition). Don't get me wrong, when I play wizards I do tend to play generalists/universalists, because I want to be able to do everything that magic can do rather than fewer things slightly better, but restrictions do create flavor and make for greater variety among mages. Besides, specialization mitigates the 'mage/wizard can do everything' problem that is apparently perceived by many groups.

With the new mechanics, all wizards can cast all types of magic, so all of them can function as generalists/universalists. Since that is the case, why have a dedicated generalist/universalist class? I see little reason to have one.

I despise XP costs on several levels:

1) XP make no logical sense whatsoverer - a wizard who creates a magical item is suddenly less experienced? That's just ridiculous.

2) XP costs are unfun and their expenditure disadvantages the creator of the item in question, even though the item is often for somebody else in the party... way to encourage cooperative gameplay... or not.

3) I don't use experience points at all when I run games. I just tell my players that they level, when I feel like they have accomplished enough (whether combat or non-combat stuff) to level up. Needless to say the removal of XP costs for magical item creation will potentially make my game easier (I say 'potentially', because my players generally don't bother creating magical items).

Hence, I am very happy about the removal of XP costs from both magic item creation and from spellcasting (though in psionics this may be more problematic, because monetary components don't make much sense there). I too wouldn't like it if the PCs were to start creating magical items left and right, but this can be solved by requiring them to quest for special ingredients of magical items, which is something I have been using in lieu of experience points anyway.

I have seen a lot of calls to increase the number of skill points classes receive in order to enable them to flesh out their characteristics better. With the combining of skills, though, I feel that that might be too much. Wouldn't it be better to give each character one 'background skill point' per level and enable him to spend it only on Profession, Craft or Perform skill groups? I think that might work better than just giving more skill points to classes and thus decreasing the usefulness of rogues (particularly given the removal of cross-class skills).

It may also be useful to give characters who take a level of their favored class +1 skill point per level (instead of the +1 hit point per level [or perhaps even in addition to the +1 hit point per level]), which would give characters more skills and help lessen hit point inflation that seems to be taking place in Pathfinder with some classes getting upgraded hit dice.

Pathfinder has changed specialist wizards in such a way that they no longer have to forego schools completely. They can still prepare spells from their prohibited schools and all they lose by doing so are their specialist benefits for that particular day. In effect, these wizards can function both as specialists and as generalists/universalists. As such, I think the generalist/universalist wizard becomes redundant and likely unbalanced, as he gets 'general/universal' benefits whatever spells from whatever schools he has prepared for the day. There is an easy solution to this: Remove the universalistgeneralist wizard. Sometimes less is more and this is exactly such a situation. Specialist wizards are more flavorful and if they can act as generalists/universalists by foregoing their specialization benefits for the day than there is nothing to lose from the removal of the universalist/generalist.

*Note: This comes from a regular player of wizards. In fact, non-specialized/universalist/generalist wizards are the most common character that I play, though I should mention that I am most frequently the DM.

I would keep the Divine Bond ability at once per day. It will than be the Paladin's way of going 'nova' - he will save it for the important fight of the day, where it will enable him to shine.

BTW: I am happy to see the divine bond affect the weapon instead of having to take the power to summon a 'pocket mount' when playing a paladin - the mount summoning just irritated me for some time, so an option not to take it is great.

This is what I posted on another board.

The Pathfinder Alpha (1) skill system is vastly preferable, in my mind, to the skill system of SW Saga or 4E, where it is impossible to be bad at a skill at higher levels. Indeed, in practice I almost always give both my PCs when I play and NPCs when I DM max ranks in their skills, so it works out like the Pathfinder system. That said, however, there are players who do like to tinker with their skills and assign different numbers of ranks to different skills. 3.5E system supports both: I can assign max ranks to my skills and have it simple, whereas those who like it can really fool around with their skills. As such, I don't see any major benefit of the Pathfinder Alpha (1) system over the current 3.5E skill system that supports both simplicity and detail depending on what one wants to get out of it. (Still, unlike the 4E skill system, the Pathfinder Alpha (1) skill system works fine for me.)

It is a bit of a bad form to quote oneself, but I am doing this, beacause I feel that Paizo have run along with this kind of thinking with the new skill system in Alpha 2, which makes it even easier to max skills than the 3.5E system, but still supports tinkering for those who want it. Kudos to Paizo all around on the new system - I really like it!

If I were to have one suggestion, though, I would recommend increasing the bonuses to class skills with level, so that the distinction between a maxed out class skill and non-class skill at level 20 is not +20 vs +23. I would suggest a progression that increases the bonus to class skills by +1 every four levels, starting with level 2. This would result in the following bonus to class skills:

Level 1: +3
Level 2: +4
Level 6: +5
Level 10: +6
Level 14: +7
Level 18: +8

Why did I chose a progression every 4 levels starting with level 2? I would recommend it, because it meshes well with the other progressions in Pathfinder - it gives a bonus at levels, where the universal progression grants neither a feat nor an ability score increase. It also seems to work out pretty well in terms of final numbers. +28 for a maxed out class skill versus +20 for a maxed out non-class skill is a substantial difference, but maxed out non-class skills can still be useful at that spread.

(If we have a progression of this sort, it could be possible to remove the front-loaded +3 bonus at 1st level in lieu of a +1 bonus, or even a complete absence of an initial bonus, but I think the initial +3 bonus, although a bit front-loaded, is fine.)

I should also mention that a decent idea to prevent dipping a skill point in each class skill just to gain the bonus, might be to rule that the class skill bonus cannot exceed the number of ranks one has placed into the skill.

None of these changes are really necessary - from my perspective the skill point system is already good. Nonetheless, I do feel that especially the first change would improve the skill system further.

It is probably best, however, to discuss the class and non-class skill issues in another thread. I will begin one and post this there.

The Pathfinder Alpha (1) skill system is vastly preferable, in my mind, to the skill system of SW Saga or 4E, where it is impossible to be bad at a skill at higher levels. Indeed, in practice I almost always give both my PCs when I play and NPCs when I DM max ranks in their skills, so it works out like the Pathfinder system. That said, however, there are players who do like to tinker with their skills and assign different numbers of ranks to different skills. 3.5E system supports both: I can assign max ranks to my skills and have it simple, whereas those who like it can really fool around with their skills. As such, I don't see any major benefit of the Pathfinder Alpha (1) system over the current 3.5E skill system that supports both simplicity and detail depending on what one wants to get out of it. (Still, unlike the 4E skill system, the Pathfinder Alpha (1) skill system works fine for me.)

It is a bit of a bad form to quote oneself, but I am doing this, beacause I feel that Paizo have run along with this kind of thinking with the new skill system in Alpha 2, which makes it even easier to max skills than the 3.5E system, but still supports tinkering for those who want it. Kudos to Paizo all around on the new system - I really like it!

If I were to have one suggestion, though, I would recommend increasing the bonuses to class skills with level, so that the distinction between a maxed out class skill and non-class skill at level 20 is not +20 vs +23. I would suggest a progression that increases the bonus to class skills by +1 every four levels, starting with level 2. This would result in the following bonus to class skills:

Level 1: +3
Level 2: +4
Level 6: +5
Level 10: +6
Level 14: +7
Level 18: +8

Why did I chose a progression every 4 levels starting with level 2? I would recommend it, because it meshes well with the other progressions in Pathfinder - it gives a bonus at levels, where the universal progression grants neither a feat nor an ability score increase. It also seems to work out pretty well in terms of final numbers. +28 for a maxed out class skill versus +20 for a maxed out non-class skill is a substantial difference, but maxed out non-class skills can still be useful at that spread.

(If we have a progression of this sort, it could be possible to remove the front-loaded +3 bonus at 1st level in lieu of a +1 bonus, or even a complete absence of an initial bonus, but I think the initial +3 bonus, although a bit front-loaded, is fine.)

I should also mention that a decent idea to prevent dipping a skill point in each class skill just to gain the bonus, might be to rule that the class skill bonus cannot exceed the number of ranks one has placed into the skill.

None of these changes are really necessary - from my perspective the skill point system is already good. Nonetheless, I do feel that especially the first change would improve the skill system further.

Just to point out that removing the x4 skill points doesn't totally do away with order being important.

Take a rogue 1/fighter 1
At first level they can only put one point in any skill, so (assume they are non-human with Int 10) they "max" out 8 skills.
At second level they can only put one point in any skill that was previously maxed out which means they could have 6 skills with 1 point and 2 skills maxed with 2 points.

Now consider a fighter 1/rogue 1
At first level, again they can only put one point in any skill, which (again assuming INT 10 non-human), they can "max" out 2 skills.
At second level, they can only put one point in each one of their 2 maxed skills, but they can put two in any other skill if they wish. So they could in the end have 5 maxed skills (1 point in 2 previous, 2 points in 3 new) if they wished.

So comparing the two characters:
1st: 6 skills with 1 rank, 2 skills with 2 ranks
2nd: 5 skills with 2 ranks (you could also match #1 if you wished)

I guess you might say the power level has switched, previously taking rogue first was the better choice, but now it appears as if taking rogue second might be better.

I see what you mean, but it is a world of difference from the previous importance of order of skills. This time it is only the number of maxed out skills that is different, but not the actual number of skill ranks. It is not inherently better to max out skills than to have a broad range of skills, especially when one considers the bonuses granted to class skills in the new skill system.

I would not really want to see classes getting more skill points. Skills are already getting combined, so that there are fewer of them, so there is no need to add more skill points to classes too.

lordzack wrote:

I don't understand why you'd want that. This way taking cross-class skills is not completely useless.

I think he was concerned that the class/cross-class distinction had become pointless.

Yes, that was indeed my concern, but it was upon initial perusal of the rules only. Now that I read it more closely, I see that class skills get a +3 bonus and am really happy with the new system.

Heh, upon closer inspection I see that the maximum number of ranks is equal to level/hit dice even for cross-class skills. No matter, I still like the system a lot.

Thank you for getting rid of the x4 skill points at level 1! I disliked that about the previous system (even though I liked the 3.5E system overall), since it meant that in any multiclass combination, it is always better to take the class with more skill points at level 1 and only later the classes with fewer skill points.

The new system gets rid of that and I like it.

Clarification question: Is the maximum number of ranks one can put into cross-class skills limited by level/2 or by level? I hope it is still level/2, even though they cost one point for one rank.

I like it too! :)

One thing to keep in mind... I suspect a sizable amount of Pathfinder's readers WON'T run the adventures. I know that, for several years after college, I wasn't playing D&D at all, but I kept my subscriptions to Dragon and Dungeon going, and I kept buying D&D books because they were enjoyable to simply read. That's one of the areas, incidentally, that WotC's delve format fails to deliver on—it makes it very difficult to simply read an adventure for entertainment.

This is true, I also had a period when I read D&D books just for enjoyment and didn't have a group to play with, but for me it holds even stronger than your statement. Frankly, as a DM, I am not even interested in running a pre-made adventure that I don't enjoy reading - there is simply no motivation unless the adventure inspires or excites me through its storyline.

Indeed, the same reasoning, in my case, applies to pre-made campaign settings. The campaign setting has to interest me, excite me and inspire me, otherwise I won't be interested in running it. Hence, making a campaign setting that is very easy to run and having the main book include essentially only information useful to an adventuring party, but little to inspire me, excite me and get my imagination running will likely mean I will not be interested in the setting no matter how easy to run it might be or how well-suited to running adventures.

(I mention this latter statement, as I think this is a philosophy that is being applied to the new Forgotten Realms in 4e D&D and will result in me not being interested in the new FR.)

I was not opposed to a new edition in principle and was even somewhat excited, even though I suspected it would not be exactly to my taste, but the more I learned about 4E, the more I began to dislike the direction it was taking both in terms of rules and in terms of flavor.

I am glad that the Pathfinder RPG will continue regardless of this announcement and regardless of whether or not Paizo decides to make 4E products. :) The Pathfinder RPG is shaping up to be very interesting indeed and I would have hated to have seen it die.

I am completely opposed to combining Climb and Swim into some kind of Athletics skill. They are completely different modes of movement and it makes no sense whatsoever to combine them. Indeed, I like how they have added Flight as a new form of movement.

On the other hand, I do like combining balance and tumble into a single acrobatics skill. Adding jump in the mix, is not so great, but is OKish.

I have implemented the Pathfinder RPG turn undead mechanics in my game. As a DM, I am really enthusiastic about them and my players love them. The turning mechanic has already come into use several times, so turn undead is now actually useful and it is much simpler to use to boot.

I guess completely positive feadback is not really useful to you, since it does not involve constructive criticism, but nevertheless, I like the new mechanics so much that I felt I had to give some kind of feedback.

If I really had to make some constructive suggestions, I would perhaps consider renaming Turn Undead into Channel Positive/Negative Energy, which would describe its effects more accurately. Nevertheless, the old terminology is fine too. For a while I also thought that the saving throw against the damage should be fortitude rather than will, but that would still necessitate a will save for the 'fear' effects, so we might as well keep it as it is and have a single will save for both.

Yes, I think the OP has identified a real problem. The most balanced solution would probably be compensating benefits given to other classes only if they are taken at first level.

For example: martial classes could receive bonus hit points and spellcasters bonus spells.

I don't have either of these two products, so I cannot tell how chase/escape/movement/running mechanics work in the said products.

The system I came up with, however, is completely consistent with the core rules and is pretty simple too (though perhaps I would need to present it more clearly).

The one set of rules where I have always considered 3.5E D&D to be lacking are the mechanics for movement and particularly chases. In fact, there are no good rules for movement/running in a chase, since the standard movement rules allow for no variability and thus almost all medium-sized humanoids run at exactly the same pace all of the time. This approach makes for boring chases with pre-determined outcomes and does not mesh well with the more random nature of the game in most others aspects of the rules.

In order to spruce up chases, I have come up with the following mechanic:

Running does not quadruple base speed, but merely triples it. Creatures involved in the chase, however, get to roll a d20 check and gain an extra base speed/10 movement per round for each point by which they beat DC 0.

(Note: The same effect could be achieved by setting the DC at 10 and maintaining the original multipliers, but this would result in frequent subtraction, which is said to be more difficult and slower than addition. Hence the somewhat non-standard DC 0 is used here instead, to avoid subtraction of speed in virtually all circumstances.)

The feat, run, no longer shifts running speed from quadruple to quintuple of base speed, but rather adds a +10 bonus to running checks. Of course, it still provides the +4 bonus to jump checks made with a running start.

Medium Encumbrance and Medium Armor downgrade base speed in the same way as in 3.5E rules. Heavy Encumbrance imposes a -10 penalty in place of reducing the running speed multiplier to 3x base speed (which would be redundant). This replaces their other movement penalties for the purposes of running.

Creatures can take 10 on their running checks in situations, where their life does not directly depend on the outcome. Taking 10 on running checks yields exactly the same results as would be obtained by following the old running rules, which could, therefore, be used when simplicity is desired. Chases, escapes from a collapsing tomb, and other situations, where running speed makes all the difference, however, would be adjudicated using the chase mechanic, since the life of the creatures in question depends directly on their running checks, so taking 10 is impossible.

BTW: This is my first thread on this forum. I generally post on EN World, but was attracted to these boards by the announcement of the Pathfinder RPG, which promises to evolve from 3.5E D&D. Although I have been a loyal D&D fan and used (almost) exclusively official materials thus far, 4E is just not doing it for me, so depending on how these rules develop, for the first time ever I may turn to third party companies to give me my RPG fix.

There is a much simpler fix for this problem. Get rid of the universalist! Since specialists are no longer forced to forego spells from the prohibited schools, there is no need for the universalist at all (and the specialists are more flavorful anyway), so why keep him artificially in the game, where every wizard can act as a universalists if he wants to?

Note: Just to clarify, when I play wizards in 3.5e, I tend to play universalists, because I don't want to lose access to any spells, but with the new specialists this is no longer an issue.

Hello All,

After reading a large number of posts on the subject (and talking it over with fellow staffers), I am starting to agree with many of you.

Here are some of the shifts I am considering.

8th Lv - This power is usable once per day per two levels of the caster.
14th Lv - Plane Shift 1/day
20th Lv - Meteor Swarm 1/day

There is another option, and that is to greatly alter how wish and limited wish function. These spells are high on my list of spells to be altered (by toning them down a bit and removing the XP cost). Such changes might make them a more even spell to have in these slots.

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer