|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I did read it. And unless I missed something, they selected 13 people who didn't have mental illnesses and gave them the means to set their lives right.. and they did.
And thats awesome.
But "selected" is what is missing from the 100k plot of land and magic box theory.
I'm not even slightly against helping the homeless. I am completely against throwing money at people and hoping it fixes them.
Like I said in my original post- take that same amount of money (I think the OP said 6 billion or something) and use it to make individual assessments of every single homeless person in NYC (which is where the OP was getting his information from, unless I misremember) and Then fix each person as a person and individual. If they require counseling or drug abuse help or just some money to get off the street to get a job (amazingly difficult to get a job without a physical address) or whatever it is they need.
I am against a broad spectrum anti-homeless "cure" because it doesn't exist. We need to take each person as a person and assess their issue and why they are homeless if we are ever going to solve the problem.
It will be slow and it will be expensive. Some folks will need to be returned to the mental health facilities where they were ejected from and others will just need to be given abit of help that no one has ever bothered to give them before.
I'm totally against "throw money to everyone" like the article suggests- to the extent that you are literally giving them money. I am for *spending* some money on them all to figure out what the issue is and then helping with whatever it is from there- even if that help means actually giving them little green pictures of presidents.
The best use of a staff isn't to use it everyday like you would a wand.
Rather the staff is useful for the spells it has that you Don't necessarily cast all the time but want to have handy.
While it is true I still probably wouldn't buy one, I wouldn't automatically sell them now like I used to do in previous editions.
Need lesser restoration? No longer do you need the cleric to waste a spell slot on it everyday *just in case*. Cure blind/deaf and disease are also on the staff (as is a cure spell, which I wouldn't use except for emergencies).
If you are using the spells from the staff everyday this is an indication that you need to start memorizing those spells- not that the staves are somehow flawed.
I would contend that "F'off or die" is in fact an attempt to start a fight.
Maybe thats just a reflection on where I'm from and what I've seen though. I will accept that it may not be a universal truth.
I would however cautiously advise people not to walk up to someone who is mad at you and has an axe in hand and say to them "F'OFF OR DIE" unless they are in fact wanting a fight.
I would say anyone "Insisting" I learn a brand new word just for them is going to be exceedingly disappointed. Unless they are my boss- and then they'll only be disappointed sometimes.
Its hard enough to remember who all said not to use sir/mr/ma'am and just want their first (or last or Mr Last or Ms First or whatever) without someone trying to introduce brand new words just for them.
I mean, I guess you have a right to try but good luck getting it to stick.
We're all just people trying to get along. Anyone looking out for a reason just to get all up and offended is going to find it, and is going to have a very unhappy life in the process.
If you put a trap in the obvious place they'll search for, find, and disarm it without any big deal making it just a speedbump and seldom worth the time it took to deal with it.
If you put a trap in a not-obvious place (such as on a random spot in a random hallway) then you've just slowed the game to a crawl as they (rightly) check every square inch for traps.
There isn't a decent medium between the two. They are either worthless or more of a time sink than a party full of monster summoners.
Last time a guy told me not to call him sir, I said "yes ma'am!"
He was amused, so was the table.
I am frequently told/asked not to call someone sir or ma'am but it still slips out- especially among folks I'm not familiar with or just 'cuz.
In stores or in other places where I contact/encounter people without knowing or being expected to know their names I use them all the time.
thank you sir, no ma'am, excuse me sir can I get by? and such.
Is telling someone to F*ck off an indication of taking 1 minute to try to make them friendly, or is telling someone to F*ck off an indication of taking a standard action in attempt to demoralize them?
Was the PC trying to get assistance and cooperation from the NPC?
No, of course not. He was being rude. he was being Intimidating. He was trying to demoralize him.
COULD the DM have hand-held the character and ask the question? I suppose.
"F*ck off or I'll Kill you" is demoralization, not a minute long *conversation* intended to get someone to do as you ask or give you information.
DM did the right thing.
IMO: I don't see the problem.
If you are using the module as a one shot then it does exactly what it says it does. You go from 1-x and fight a dragon. With the page count being what it is- its either give big awards for little things or just have it occasionally say "arbitrarily level them to 3 here or you can't complete the next part."
If you AREN'T using it as a stand-alone thing then just lower/alter/adjust the rewards. Cut and paste the adventure along with other things of your own devising or other published modules until the PC's are of an appropriate level to take on the Big Bad and then complete the module.
You are buying a module that says you are going from 1-7 in its pages. That, by necessity means, you are going to get enough XP in it to go from 1-7.
My personal concern is the 8. Not because of uberpoweredness or anything- its just because I never make characters with under 10 in their stats.
It bugs me.
You don't have to extrapolate brand new rules for Implosion.If you exceed their HP they go unconscious (as per the HP rules) and if you exceed their -con then they are dead (also as per the HP rules.)
You don't have to say "well.. CRAP! it did more than his HP. Lets make something up!". No, you just follow *the rules*.
For you to create lava with the spell you have to create rules enough to essentially double the length of the spell. In fact, more than that if you do it for all the possible elements involved with the spell. You also have to figure out what kind of lava is coming out and at what speed (does the PC pick? does the DM? die roll?).
In order to "apply gravity" to the spell you basically have to completely rewrite the spell and add a TON of stuff to it that, for most of it, isn't in the rules at all.
Because that isn't what the spell is for and isn't what the spell was intended to be used for. CAN the DM allow it? Sure! SHOULD he? Thats up to him and the group!
If you have to invent pages of rules to make a spell do something then its a pretty good indication that the spell wasn't intended to do that- at least not by RAW.
I agree.Which is the point of my entire post.
Spells do what they say they do. Grease isn't flammable.
Why? Because the spell doesn't say that it is.
Eh, the Paladin is fine- it should have just been moved to the APG.
The Paladin code isn't meant to be a crutch or a stick the DM is to beat him over the head with. It is meant to be a most awesome Rp opportunity for the DM, the Paladin Player and the group.
That is the life of a Paladin. It isn't easy. It isn't meant to be. And not all groups or DM's can handle it.
And thats a perfectly good houserule.
But its not RAW. Grease isn't flammable.
Can you honestly say the Grease spell has that in there? Even implied?
I can't. I really can't.
It is the responsibility of the DM to draw the line, but it is also the responsibility of the players to not always be trying to redraw and bend the line every chance they get.
Spells do what they say they do. Spellcasters are plenty powerful enough without rewriting every spell into a list of 400 things they can do that they don't say they do.
Is grease flammable?
Does burning grease still operate as a Grease spell?
If I grease someone's armor and Fireball them do they roast in their own armor? Why not?
Do we have to do this for every single spell in the game?
I'm willing to bet that very nearly every single damaging elemental spell can be "added to" in some fashion because "logic" says that X Y Z should go well beyond what the spell says.
It isn't about Grease. Its about spells doing what spells say they do.
If grease is flammable then the players have every logical right to super examine every single spell in the game for additional effects.
Creative is good. Imagination is good. Increasing the base power of spells by adding powers to them not listed in the description is bad.
Internal logic of the game world, yes.Spells do what they say they do and only what they say they do. Extrapolating extra effects into the spells just makes spellcasters even more powerful than they are.
Does fireball suck all the oxygen out of a room and potentially suffocate the inhabitants? No. Why? Because fire doesn't work that way? No- because the spell doesn't specify that effect.
Spells do what they do and don't do what they don't do.
I'm in the camp that says, magic is powerful enough without adding extra things to make them do things they don't say they do.
Grease doesn't say anything about Oil. Nor about it being flammable. Therefore, it isn't.
Opening the portal to a volcano creates a portal to a volcano. Anyone stupid enough to walk through it unprotected gets burnt to a crisp.
Unless a spell says it can do something then it can't do it. Unless you are houseruling it the spells you mentioned do not create lavaflows, vacuums or waterfalls either to or from them. They all mention creatures passing through it. Creatures. Not lava, not water, not air or fire or whatever.If they did then the description calling for the spell type changing for calling creatures of the various types would also say the same about using them as free-flowing energy dispensers. They don't. Because the spells don't do that.
As for syphoning off water.. I dunno. Question for the DM, as the rules don't appear to cover it.
The purpose of going in is to save the villagers.
Your DUTY is to go and rest up and find reinforcements so that you can TAKE OUT THE EVIL.
Now, if the player is just a chicken and says "we have a chance but.. nah lets run away"- that is one thing. but if they scout and realize they have a snowball's chance in hell of killing the baddies and that all they will accomplish is to add to the cookpot then its not bad evil or against their code to get the heck out of there.
It is NOT heroic to throw yourself on the sword of the enemy unless doing so serves some purpose. "Well gee now I'm dead too, hope these monsters eat me and go away instead of pwning the next village" isn't heroic. Its moronic.
Should the Paladin lose his/her powers for leaving to get reinforcements to thwart a clearly superior foe? Abso-freaking-lutely not.
Sarenrae wants the evil DESTROYED. She is NOT pleased to see her Paladin acting like they have a negative int score showing up on her doorstep in pieces saying "But i tried, even though I knew I had no hope.. I tried!".
Retreat. Get reinforcements. Go after the evil and DESTROY IT.
Magic Jar gives you their physical but not magical abilities. SU and SLA are out but EX are kept.
Spells don't do things they don't say they do.
Calling with Gate doesn't work during TS because it is Instantaneous and during TS you can't cast spells that effect (or affect? I forget) other creatures.
Create Demiplane doesn't create a demiplane with a hole in it. The water stays in it unless you do something else to empty it. Not sure what "with a portal attached" m eans but you'd have to figure the rules for whatever spell or effect you were using to attach said portal.
Unless he has the ability to summon the deity then he can't.
He can gripe piss moan complain cry plead and beg but thats all irrelevant, unless you decide he makes a diplomacy roll (or a bluff roll) and one of the captors is succeptible to said roll.
"I don't recognize your authority" is completely irrelevant to whether or not that authority has the ability to exercise itself upon you.
1) Would a LG Deity do anything to stop someone from exercising the right and might of the law against someone, even one of their followers, who has broken the law? Nope.
2) Is he guilty of the crimes the followers of Iom have accused him of?
Being sorry for them and making up for them are part of the sentencing, not part of whether or not the actions took place.
(remember- self defense means you KILLED the person, and are admitting to it, but are saying it was self defense in order to avoid the *punishment* from the death.)
Now, if I were the player I would instead insist on a right to defend myself. I would argue that any trial that took place without my presence and the ability to defend myself can not be a just trial and would demand a new one. LG priests/priestesses should see the reasoning of that. (afterall, if no one was there to defend him then he didn't have a trial at all. he just had an accuser say "HE DID IT!" and the judge said "GUILTY!". Thats not a trial.)
If the players and DM want to have an agreement that says the character recsts his spells unless he says otherwise then if I was DM I'd go for it.
Because the player will forget.
Are you sneaking? Sure. Except for that 6 seconds you are casting that spell. Talking to the Queen? Well sure until you cast a spell in her face. Then you are talking through a gag wishing the manacles weren't quite so tight and really, really hoping your cell guard isn't named Bubba.
It sounds fine in theory to say "I keep resistance up." But in reality its going to get you *killed*. But if the PC's really wanted to do it, then I would let them. I'd just remind them that the world assumes they are actually casting it once a minute- they didn't just suddenly extend the duration of a cantrip to 24 hours.
Punitive? No. Just enforcing the rules. If you cast it once a minute unless you say otherwise then you cast it once a minute unless you say otherwise.
I am inclined to agree, personally, and if i was also inclined to remove the item that would be the reason why.
While you ideally should know what all of your PC's can do it is unreasoanble for you to be expected to remember every in and out of your PC's abilities.
When they make a new item, such as this one, they need to come and tell you what its for.
"Hey DM, I'd like an item of +5 sense motive for my character. Other skill increasing items are cheap and it fits with him being kinda paranoid, always looking out for liars."
"Sounds good, 2500 is the going price."
*mwahahaaa he fell for it!"
That just doesn't go over well with me.
Full Disclosure is an important part of custom magical item design.
"Hey Bob, I know I said that +5 was ok but.. its really turning out to be a much greater problem than we initially thought. Lets cut it back to +2 for now. Maybe in a few levels you can upgrade it to +4 or so- we'll see how it turns out by then."
While you Can reorganize the campaign to fight against one character- if the problem is just one item then its far easier to just talk to the player and remove/adjust it.
You Have the right. You Have the authority.
Killing Big T as a construct of forum debate isn't terribly difficult.
The real challenge in killing Big T is in taking a group of characters who are actual characters (not forum constructs) who've been "organically grown" through a campaign from first level to last and then give them say.. 18 hours notice, ingame, that they'll be fighting Big T.
Therein lies the real issue. Big T is easy to kill here on the forums but is he so easy to kill with a group of characters who were just characters in a campaign with feats, spells, and magical items that they acquired (or made) for the general purpose of adventuring rather than the specific task of killing him?
I don't think so.
Get off the message boards. :\
Ignore people who tell you not to take a feat because its a "trap".
There are way too many armchair quarterbacks around here who delight in telling everyone the "right" way to play. I suggest finding your own way to play- that way that gives and brings you enjoyment.
Also, welcome to the game :)
Curse you all! :p
I first came across this thread at 3am and thought "hmm whats the SCP?".
As to the OP.
The line betweeen creepy and dangerous is a thin one. Once you cross it the PC's will try to murder it and then its just another combat encounter.
In our ROTL campaign my character died. When I made his replacement the DM just told me to use the appropriate WBL from the table. I did.
I came to the table with a great deal more wealth than the rest of the party, as a result. (8 people in the campaign with little adjustment made to wealth). We, the group, had been handling things fine- the death was a mistake on my part.
But now my new character was out of whack. The DM decided to "impart" wealth to the rest of the group so everyone would be at the same wealth level.
If I was your DM I would adjust your wealth to be equivalent to that of the group's average wealth. If this means you get more cash, you get more. If it means you get some gear chopped, you get some gear chopped. Whether or not this number was anywhere close to the WBL in the book though would largely be happenstance.
If you watch someone actually using a shield (SCA or otherwise) you'll find that the shield survives NOT by being struck like a door stuck in the frame but rather by being something the weapon hits to deflect it.
That is to say- the shield isn't a wall. Its a moving object to deflect the weapon coming at it. You strike the shield and it moves your weapon away. The shield isn't taking "a hit" like you would use your weapon to strike the door to sunder it.
This is why the shield doesn't take damage unless you are aiming to damage it. The same reason the opponents weapon doesn't take damage unless you aim to damge it.
An axe readily sunders a block of wood. Chop some wood and try it out- its tiring but hardily difficult. Using that same axe against a piece of wood strapped to someone's arm though is an entirely different affair.
I think this needs an FAQ.
The two sections on LLV contradict each other.
"Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day"
and the other says
"In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch."
Which states that anyone without Darkvision hits a 20% miss chance. Not exactly "as well as they can during the day".
When rules contradict, we must FAQ! :)
Anything the PC sends into combat is fair game to be murderized.
This goes for mounts, henchmen, animal companions, eidolon(s?), familiars, or whatever.
If a Player wants it safe from harm they need to figure out how to keep it out of harms way.
So definately- if he rides Bob the Horse into combat then you should factor Bob into who gets hit during the fight.
To me, Hard Mode is every encounter at APL+4 or greater without much- if ever- a chance to rest or recooperate. Such would grow annoying to me very quickly.
On the other hand, not fudging the dice to me is just.. playing the d20 system.
By all means, if you and your players enjoy *however* you are playing then keep it up! Don't let anyone on the boards come and tell you all you are doing it wrong.
For me though? I want the dice to tell the tale. Did the bad guy get 1 shotted? GO PC's!. Did the PC get one shotted! Go NPC!
Did the DM decide it wasn't a memorable way to die so he fudged the die?
I mean no disrespect. Honestly. I am genuinely confused. If you are going to roll the dice Then decide if you are going to accept them or not- are we even playing Pathfinder anymore? Why bother with all the character sheets and expensive books? We can sit down, make character concepts then sit around on the couch and talk it all out. I could see that being very fun. Again, no sarcasm. It could, depending on the skill of the Storyteller, be very heroic and interesting and cinematic. It could be extremely engaging.
But it wouldn't be Pathfinder.
Pathfinder is a game based on rolling a die to determine the success or failure if any given venture. Want to bluff the guard? Roll the die. Want to seduce the barmaid? Roll the die. Want to murder the High Cultist Poombah guy? Roll the die.
And all that work is for naught if the DM is just going to scratch his chin and say "nah. I don't want you to die yet."
Again I ask.. Why bother with this rules heavy system if the DM is just going to neuter it on a whim? And make no mistake- saving a PC or NPC for any reason at any time is just a whim. You are just deciding when they live or die. (afterall, if you save him now just to "let the die" kill him later on you are in effect deciding when they live or die.)
I truly don't understand that mentality.
I play D&D and by extention, Pathfinder, because I want a die roll to determine success or failure. I WANT to die if the rolls dictate I die. I want to die if its because I got flanked by two shadows in an encounter that no one would have remembered otherwise. (we remember it now, RIP that rogue.) I want to die if its a super cinematic where in an effort to bring the bell tower down on the BBEG we actually bring it down on ourselves, killing half the group in the process only to have the BBEG pick off every single surviving member- save one. (who escaped by the skin of his teeth). (RIP everyone in that group cept the Fighter. And the cleric, who chose to be resurrected and in so doing changed his character greatly due to what he saw would happen to him in the afterlife if he kept on as he had been.)
I've died twice in the current group and I've loved every minute of it. One was not memorable except for the fact that I died. The other was extremely cinematic- the makings of the beginning of a movie the rest of which would involve the surviving member going after the BBEG to make them pay for what they did. (which the fighter did in fact do).
What if the DM had decided to let the rogue live? What if he had decided to fudge the tower so we all laughed and lived and curbstomped the bad guy afterward?
The campaign would be very very different today, thats what. We play a game based on the d20. Whether you die in an unmemorable side quest crypt by a mob -2 your CR to an unfortunate roll of the dice or in a narrow corridor martyring yourself for the survival of the group.
We play a game based on the die. If you are playing d20, let the d20 make the decisions. I truly don't understand why you'd bother with all the books and paper and such if you are just going to ignore them.
The line that they are watching you closely means nothing without the necessary implication that they'll do something about if if you cross "The line".
Imagine as you leave detention the teacher says "I'll be watching you."
What're they saying?
Of course not. They are saying, "IF YOU SCREW UP WE'LL BE MEETING AGAIN".
They Will Be Watching.
They'll be watching and if you are abusing their powers then action will be taken.
As a PC:
I'd rather die and TPK than live because the DM decided to let us live and have the NPC die.
As a PC: I'd rather one-round shot the BBEG before he did anything "cool" than have him live through DM fiat for two, three, or four rounds when he should already be dead.
We're playing dice, folks. Its the point of the game. We live by 'em and we die by 'em. If you aren't going to go by the dice- good or bad- then just put the dice away and have Storyteller Hour or something. I am personally not interested in a game where I say what i want my PC to do, roll some die, and then have the DM decide what happens. Why roll the die? just ask the DM. "I attack the orc. Did I hit it? Ok. i attack it again. Did I hit it? ok. Is it dead yet? No? I attack it again. Ok, that was all of my attacks.".
The game would go so much faster without dice. If you are going to ignore them, then just ignore them.
I TOTALLY get that it sucks to have a TPK. Its alot of work for the players, and its alot of work for the DM.
I also get that its irritating to have the BBEG get one-rounded by the PC's. (note to DM- no more throwing 1 bad guy at the players, eh? 4 full round actions > 1 full round action).
But what would suck worse is for the DM to just arbitrarily decide what works and what doesn't and when things are hurt or die just because of some idea of cinema or something. "But it wasn't a dramatic death!".
Live by the dice. Die by the dice. Put fudge in the oven to enjoy after the game. (or during it, if folks can keep chocolatey hands off minis and books!)
I think maybe super strict RAW may be yes, but I think RAI is no.
And here's why.
"uses a prohibited shield".
Now, are you using a shield by holding it? Even holding it in one hand? I don't think so- especially not if it was put there magically by someone else.
I personally think that 'wearing armor' has that same implication in this instance.
If you dominate a druid and have them climb into steel full plate- have they done anything wrong?
Remember what the prohibition is about. Its about their beliefs and their actions. If someone is forcing them to do it, then they haven't acted against their beliefs.
One definition of "wear" is "to use". This implies a willingness to put the item to the purpose for which it was intended. (thats not the only definition- there is also just "to have something on your body").
The purpose though of this prohibition isn't to make druids easy to keep in captivity. "Well, he was a terrible druid. Then we stuck that iron Skull Cap onto him with Sovreign Glue and he can't do a thing".
I'm just not sure they intended the prohibition on metal armor to be some grand achilles heel for the class.
I think its about willingly breaking vows, not about pin the metal on the druid.
This is alot more about "How do you handle one player disregarding the decision of the group" and alot less about healing or whatever kind of cleric the guy is.
If you just go in with the guy and heal him up after and say "gee what a battle" what you've really done is just had one guy tell the group "See your vote? Screw it. Take that stick and shove it. I'll do what I want, and if you want to be part of my group you'll come with me."
*that* is the issue. And it needs to be solved at the table, not "in game" because "in game" the way you handle it is to let Dipstick the Fighter die, and move on with the group's plan.
In character its "Hey. You. Yeah, YOU, the one bleeding on my shoes. No, I'm not healing you. You know why? Because we took a vote and WE SAID TO NOT GO IN THERE. Yeah. You speak common, right? Good. Next time you go running off by yourself after we said to go a different way? We'll notify your family the general location of your remains. You are either with the group, or not. You Decide."
But players don't tend to like their characters getting ditched, even for good reason.
Deal with it at the table before the game.
The group needs to talk to each other OOC.
And if "well its what my character would do" is the answer, remind him that what the group would do is leave him in town next time.. (i.e. "My character is a jerk" isn't an excuse to be a jerk. You made the character. FIX IT.)
Bill Dunn wrote:
Without incentive, everyone will just use a shield. A flat +2 bonus might seem attractive at extremely low levels but at higher levels folks will just go 1h/shield and be done with it.
at 8-10 and above (maybe sooner), +2 damage is just not gonna do it.
When others are charging 1% less for the same service, that 1% seems exorbitant- especially in the long term.
Given that Paizo makes its bread and butter off of subscription sales (i.e. credit card transactions) I'd wager that the 70 cents per book tends to add up rather quickly. And thats assuming its 1% rather than 1.7%.
In short- if AmEx wants to be accepted in more places, maybe they should get in line with the other CC fees.
I think "don't try to date at the gaming table" is a pretty good rule. Whether you are handsome, ugly, tall short fat rich poor whatever and whatnot, no one came to the table to find a date. They came there to game. If you are sitting there half-drooling over the "chick" at the table (regardless of how they are dressed) then you are the problem. She's there to game. Treat her accordingly.
I've gamed with quite a few women over the year- most of them the wives or GF's of the other gamers. They are there to game too, not get stared at by single guys.
I, personally, disagree with "don't give them your chair, open the door, etc" but thats because.. Thats how I treat women. Its how I was raised and I'm not going to change that behavior just because I'm at a D&D game.
Don't want to be a "creeper"?
2) Don't stare. Regardless of their attire, they are there to game. If you have a problem with their clothing address it before or after. (this goes to guys too. Guys can dress inappropriately too- though defining that is of course up to the group's tolerance).
3) Treat 'em like you treat everyone else. If you aren't a door-holder-opener then don't become one. If you don't usually ask if anyone wants a drink when you get up, don't start just cuz a woman is at the table.
I personally think of "creeper" behavior as "different" behavior.
Longer than I'd originally intended..
On a (slightly) note to the side-
did anyone else notice that "the hill" the eagles put them on was carved into the shape of a bear's head? aka Beorn?
I don't think it was "some random rock with stairs" in as much as it was carrying them (and their wounded dorf) to someone with the ability and possible inclination to help.
(though I don't remember such a rock from the books..)
For me personally:
Metamagic feats are too expensive to both take and in application. You are essentially double penalized- once in a feat slot and then again in spell slots.
The rods basically alleviate this. They take something I won't use (the feat) and turn it into something I will use. (a held item).
"What if they did away with the MM rods". Then I'd go back to not using the feats.
IMO the feats are out of whack due to the double cost, so removing the rods is the same as simply deleting the feats out of existence. (for me personally).
I have no opinion on the pearls.. I'm not sure that I've ever had or used them.
Generally I'm against an edition-overhaul no matter what name they give it.
That being said- I'd like the rogue to be tweaked. How? I dunno. Making rules isn't my forte. Its rather sad though that the rogue is now the ninja, with the red pen taken to the old favorite because he's just not up to par.
The monk likely needs fixing as well.
The rest? I'm not so sure about. Aside from the need for some errata or clarifications on some things I don't see that most classes need to be fixed.
Regardless of the actual intent behind the 3.0/3.5 conversion the actual effect was "go buy more books". I like my books, and don't really want to go around buying new ones. A "path.5" would mean any new books they printed went off the new rules, meaning basically everyrule book they put out prior to now would be invalidated or require the DM and players to sit and have to convert it.
What we have may not be perfect (not that we, the board, could ever agree on perfection anyway) but i'd rather keep it than to have to convert it to some new system and/or buy it all over again.
I have to say, I'm 100% totally and completely against them stealth-errating things the complete opposite of what they've said the rule would be on the boards.
Its not that the Silvanshee isn't totally awesome without LOH scaling (it is, and I chose it before knowing it scaled) but it totally borks folks who are trying to run by the rules when they say first X and then later sneak in Y instead.
Not cool at all.
Totally not seeing any clause about murdering evil when you find it, or even a requirement that an undead creature must be killed on sight- intelligent or otherwise.
What does a Paladin do who finds a Lich in a pathfinder lodge going about the business of the Pathfinders? Wave, and go on about his or her duty. Sure- they'd certainly keep an eye on 'em just in case they *did* go about doing evil.. but BEING evil doesn't give the Paladin the right to kill them. And being a Lich probably isn't against the law.
Furthermore- there's no evidence in RAW that Liches have to do anything evil. They are "evil" beacuse Undead are evil but the creation of one isn't necessarily so.
The exact methods for each spellcaster's transformation are left to the GM's discretion, but should involve expenditures of hundreds of thousands of gold pieces, numerous deadly adventures, and a large number of difficult skill checks over the course of months, years, or decades
No mention of puppy kicking, innocent slaying, virgin soul sucking or anything. Just expensive, deadily adventures with a number of difficult skill checks.
Is it evil? By RAW yes. Does it ever have to commit an evil act?