Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Arclord of Nex

The Speaker in Dreams's page

1,026 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,026 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I would look into the "Combat Patrol" feat and all its prereq's myself. With a reach weapon you end up with something like a 15' or 20' threat area!

It's pretty bad-ass to have that many AoO's (if backed with a proper Dex score) to unleash on bad-guys trying to get past/move through your area.

This is not a focus to your post, but it's a FINE feature for any pole-arm player to consider adding into the mix.

Clyde Caldwell, people!!! This guy was seminal in 2e art to me! I don't know about the rest of you, but this project is fully giving me such a great vibe overall ...

When the total hits $7500, another artist will be revealed ... Caldwell did a lot of the 2e work, but especially the spelljammer stuff stands out to me - I loved that setting SO much, and the artwork was certainly key in setting the tone and tenor overall of the things I loved about it!!


Just a quick update for anyone interested:

The game is moving forward very nicely and starter kits are available for download from rpgnow and drivethru rpg as well as from the company's site itself ( These only have 4 classes and cover up to level 10, but it's a solid system!

Additionally, if anyone is a fan, they have gone live on a Kickstarter project to get funding started and get to the full production of books. I can't recommend this game highly enough - it's just very nice and hits all of my right buttons.

You can check out the kickstarter site and the bonus depending on level of support here if you are interested.

This is a solid idea. I am going to certainly present it to gaming groups as I move forward. I tend to present options and have discussions on rule variants collectively before I move forward in games I run, but this is a solid, solid rule variant.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

However, if you like the idea of the feat (or insist on retaining the prerequisite) simply make the feat declare all skills class skills for the character who takes the feat.

Boom, done.

yeah - that's what I'd say. Make it the "all skills = class skills" feat. It's pretty useful, and certainly not broken - it's just changing the "type" of skills, but does nothing for SP's inherently.


Really minor way to show that Humans are just THAT damn good at learnin' stuff, IMO.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
That said, in Pathfinder Batman is a Ninja.

Ooo! Good call. Change me to Fighter/Ninja gestalt then.


NOTE: on the M&M's Damage Save system is actually a damn fine fit for comics. How else do you explain that in one comic Wolverine gets a whammy bop on the top of his noggin' from Thing and is KO'd, and then in other's he's getting b!+&+-slapped by the Hulk halfway across a state park and he's up and running w/out losing consciousness? I think, in COMICS, that 5% chance to just drop is actually fitting to the tropes of the genre.

YMMV, clearly, but comics don't work like some sort of absolute system of measures - just read 'em and consider the crazy inconsistencies all over them.

It's a good system for mimicking genre conventions.

Blue Star wrote:
There's a huge problem with your analogy: Cap has fought Batman, Cap was going to win that fight, Batman himself admitted it,however it would have taken Cap a long time, they both knew they had bigger fish to fry, and a limited time table with which to accomplish it.

You're talking Avengers/JLA, right?

That scene was all about acknowledging that each one is the BEST at what they do.

Cap? Batman took the few test shots and figured it out: he's stronger, faster, and can fight *at least* as well as me - this guy will take me out.

However, does Batman give up when out-classed? No. So what did he do? He changed the nature of the game on him.

He bluffs his way past Cap into making him *think* it will be a long, hard fight (which is probably wouldn't last long, honestly - more on that in a second). He then follows up with, "The question is, do you want to?"

He changed the nature of the game - he went from a scenario where he WILL lose (ie: combat with Cap) into one where HE set the terms (a temporary alliance to find the puppet master of the scenario).

To me, there's no way that Batman is going to take Cap in a straight fight, so the analogy is actually perfect. Cap = Genetically Engineered expert with years and years of experience vs. Bats = normal guy that trains hard and has lots of experience himself.

The genetically engineered guy is *always* going to take down the non-genetically engineered one every time here because there's no real edge of experience or skills to be given to the underdog.

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Batman's starting class for me is debatable, could be straight rogue, could be a mix of fighter and rogue, or could be straight fighter, or even Paladin if that is the version you think of as his alignment seems to change depending on the writer; on another thought I did see a bard variant that had now voice component that MIGHT work (big if on this last one). What I have to insist on is the PrC. I would have to say Shadowdancer. The shadow abilities to pull the exact item or spell he needs in an instant is like his utility belt. His speed to jump from dark point to dark point confusing his enemies is the shadow jump. So I would have to say Shadowdancer.

Ok, now for this PrC ONLY, you just made me break my thought that NO magic would fit his concept ... damn you!!!


Hmm ... maybe not. Can 1-off magic items pull off some similar effects? If so, then I'll still cling to Rogue/Fighter.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
I said there's no normal person in the DC Universe who matches Batman's social presense. Superman is a Mary Sue - the guy has moved planets.

Totally agree. If it was missed, then that was part of what I implied by saying that "all hope is lost" with him. No smilies on the board to emphasize it, but consider that a tongue in cheek smiley, or a [sarcasm] tag wrapped around it. When DC wants to pull the uber-cheese/Mary Sue/whatever it's always Superman in some sort of "If he can't do it ... we're done for!! Woe is us!!!"

I'm surprised they didn't, somehow, manage to get Superman to hi-jack the Blackest Night storyline.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Batman has inspired three different Robins and three different Batgirls and a Batwoman and has turned Catwoman into, at least, partially a hero and the list goes on. Let's not forget that one of the Robins ended up dead and one of the Batgirls ended up permanently paralyzed and, despite this, he still is responsible for inspiring the creation of a large number of the DC Universe's heroes.

Now you're mixing editors and legacy with "inspirational effects of Charisma" though.

No disagreement on any of that, however, a LOT of that is editorial drive in DC saying, "hey - let's expand the bat-family and make more $ to tell stories about these characters." It's a bit disingenuous to characterize it like he's, personally, inspirational or something.

If anything, that characterization would play well with The Brave and the Bold cartoon portrayal, where Batman IS the DCU ... which is crazy. Aquaman is not some sort of egomaniac or sycophant hanging on Batman's every move, nor are the rest of the DCU behaving like that in any medium BUT that specific cartoon. A better cartoon that portrays a closer impact of how he impacts others would be like the Justice League cartoons - he's clearly intimidating and what have you, but he's just not "front man" material to the group, and especially to the other heroes. That role is Superman's.

In the (can't remember - maybe the 52? Or the Infinite Crisis? Identity Crisis?) story line [specifics are escaping me at the moment] it was sort of roundly established that within the DCU Nightwing was the greatest natural leader that the hero community as a whole would gravitate towards and rally behind. I thought that was pretty interesting, and certainly the case to use in stating that Nightwing may actually have a higher Charisma, or be a better leader with more respect (because he is, and he was given more respect and trust - something Batman doesn't inspire from other heroes - he creeps them out and they don't really trust him).

None of that, though, is to say that Batman is NOT influential - just an observation that within the DCU itself, he's not actually in that top-notch a position to be considered the best ever. Kind of like the strength comments, he's strong, but not the strongest ever. I think he's charismatic, but not the most charismatic ever. He's up there in on the short list, but, IMO, given those story lines, I think Nightwing is more deserving of that position than Batman, and the stories really back that all up - Nightwing's mates believe and follow him willingly. Batman has to scare people, and some will outright defy him because they DO NOT trust him. It's not like 1-off's either, mind you, those character traits become central plot points and sources of inter-team conflicts.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Name a hero who is a normal guy who was inspired by Nightwing to become a super. I can't think of any. But Batman has inspired such normal guys repeatedly.

Again - DC editorial choices and within the DCU's actual hero community effects are completely different organisms. The one is profit driven, and the other character and story driven.

It's not even a reasonable measuring stick to use.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Batman is one of the top three core heroes (alongside Superman and Wonder Woman) of the DC Universe. Villains aren't scared of the boy scout, but they are terrified of the Bat. The Bat has beat Supes in a fight on several occasions and its not true that, if Supes dies, all hope is lost. The world has actually survived without Supes already on at least two occassions that come immediately to mind.

Again - wrapped up in sass/untranslated sarcasm, so we're in agreement here.

I would doubt the "several occasions" thing, but the rest is fine. When Superman is in "Mary-Sue" mode, the world *does* in fact lose all hope (and that was the point of those stories where it comes out).

I'm glad they're starting to go away from "only Supes!!" in the story telling paradigm because it was wearing FAR too thin for my tastes. There are a LOT of heroes in DC, and they all deserve to shine, not just be eclipsed by Big Blue all the time.

Blue Star wrote:

@The Speaker in Dreams: it hasn't been like that in a very long time, the Batman you see in comics today can absolutely destroy those guys you mentioned in hand to hand. No nerve strikes, no fancy moves, no tools, just raw punch. The only guys that can kick Batman around like that are metahumans or augmenting themselves in one way or another.

With one exception: his adopted daughter can beat him like a drum, but she was raised to be the greatest fighter on Earth. Suffice to say, in all of comics she has 2 equals/superiors:Karate Kid (Val Amorr) who has a thousand years of martial arts advancement to back him up, and Captain America who, while he is augmented, doesn't need those augmentations to be awesome in general, much less martial arts. Karate Kid just knows more, they are probably equals physically. Captain America pretty much only wins because he never gets tired.

Typically when Batman is shown as you are describing him, he is very young, usually just starting up. Which that only comes up in the cartoons and movies.

Not really.

*Maybe* if you are going only by, say JLA appearances he makes (ie: bat-god that I've noticed you state you don't like).

My main cite was the No Man's Land story with that generic "big tough guy" and that's not a young or inexperienced Batman at all. It's Batman as he really is.

Honestly, since you mention Captain America, the best example of the differences of those two would be the movie Soldier starring Kurt Russel. His character is a guy that is trained essentially from birth to just be a kick-ass combat master. Consider this guy Batman - he's 100% normal and was trained obsessively for his entire life. In that movie, the next generation of "soldiers" comes by taking the project 1 step further - they genetically engineered the participants. These guys were human genetics taken to the highest potential. They were FAR stronger, and FAR faster, and FAR tougher, etc on all levels to the 1st generation soldiers.

In essence, the Kurt Russel is the fanatic Batman - "normal" person training excessively and doing things that most other "normal" people can't really dream of, but still each one limited by his own genetic make-up. Some were smaller, some larger, etc.

The genetically engineered guys are Captain America's - that's essentially what the SSS was - liquid genetic engineering in a bottle. Comparing Cap's performances over the years, he's never really having the same Batman problem of being stopped by a "big tough guy" in his comics and appearances. In fact, many times the "big tough guy" steps up and other lesser enemies will back away as the big one challenges Cap - who then walks right through the guy. No trading of blows or anything like that because Cap actually *is* WAY stronger than the strongest strong man (in fact, Cap's at the limits of human strength potential as determined by genetic engineering via the SSS). Cap, having superior attributes than pretty much all but genuinely enhanced/superhuman opponents, just packs more punch than his opposition can deal with. This isn't true of Batman who remains very much a "man" in his own comics - recent, or otherwise (exception *maybe* with Morrison's Bat-god, but who is still just a "man" and doesn't really compete physically with the other 'gods' or things on their level).

I wasn't thinking of any movies in my Batman assessments. More like "Tales of the Dark Knight" and things like that - certainly NOT from a "young" Batman at all. The stories I've read are from Batman in his prime.

Batman *does* take apart the bigger guys, but it's not because he's more powerful than they are. It's because he, literally, takes them apart, piece by piece since he lacks the raw power to drop them outright.


Either way, as most have said, statting him out is hard as hell in PF terms. M&M can do it, but it does it outside of the level-system entirely. Class and level-based? Really, REALLY hard to pin him down.

I don't know ... to hit supers properly? We'd *at least* be looking at gestalt classing just to try it.

I'm not a fan of him being "magic" powered in the least, though, lots of gadgets, so the haversack with LOTS of 1-off items stuffed inside sounds about perfect, really. Fighter/Rogue gestalt for me. That's because I just can't see anything that would justify "magic" up and running for Batman. I can see him as "dirty fighting" and using SA to hit the HELL out of anyone that can't keep up w/him in combat, and then Fighter's Weapon Training on Unarmed/Fists and Batarangs/thrown weapons as his 1st and 2nd choices to add additional emphasis.

Within the "magic-mart" equipment paradigm? His str should be pretty high with all the standard array of "junk" to buy ... but that's more D20-ism than true to the character. On his own? Maybe a 20 or so tops.

Blue Star wrote:
Shows what you know.

Actually, it does.

Batman has been depicted many times through many years fighting big guys that are simply tougher and stronger than he is - quite a bit. These are guys like say, "Ubu" (I think - not sure) the right hand man of Ras and other big guys. In No Man's Land there was a story where he had to just fight a nameless "big guy" and that's pretty much typical of his whole career - he fights guys that are a LOT stronger than him, and tougher than him all the time. In the scene I'm thinking of, it's like a wrestling ring/boxing ring situation and Batman has to fight the big guy. He doesn't fight the guy like normal because he can't hit him hard enough, and he knows it. Instead, he out fights the guy and takes him apart with strategic body strikes. Why? To make up for his pointed LACK of strength, or rather - his lack of strength relative to THAT guy in order to just put him down. He's not strong enough to manage it.

Note: What I'm saying is a FAR cry from "Batman is a weakling" mind you. He's not. Not at all. He's not even *close* to super-human or anything of the sort if there are "just guys" waltzing around the Gotham Underworld that he knows he can not hurt with raw power alone. When Batman punches "Big Thug A" and that guy moves his head only, then back hands Batman and sends Batman sprawling, this establishes where his strength really is - he's below "Big Brawny Human" in strength levels. Those guys are stronger.

It doesn't matter, though, because Batman takes them down hard constantly by picking them apart.


It's not an either/or proposition I'm suggesting. All I'm saying is that to insist that Batman has anything close to "super" strength, or can lift 1 ton is wrong.

He can (and is) be Strong and NOT be "the strongest ever" at the same time, and that's ok.

Insisting on crazy super-strength for him would then insist on crazy super-strength for "Big Thug A" types that have populated Batman's comics for years, and with comics too numerous to count that give evidence to what I'm talking about.

If you want to claim that 1 comic panel proves the point, I'll point to "extra effort" and use that as the extreme case and rule that is most likely in play in that panel of Batman holding up whatever it was you saw him holding up. It's not a routine thing for him, but he managed it (so his strength would be significantly less factoring in that kind of mechanic - which is pretty much exactly the type of situation that mechanic is meant to represent anyway).

I think the best bet for Batman is full Rogue with Feint constantly being used for all combat. Improved Feint is his BEST friend, because he then opens up w/a can of Whup-Ass (and damage die) on the target. Failing that, a Rogue/Monk, or Rogue/Fighter gestalt mix-up ... because just "rogue" alone is not a fair portrayal of his combat skills, IMO. At the same time ... it's 5 points of difference from Rogue to full BAB types, so it's not a tremendous loss. However, only the Rogue can support his outrageous skill levels.

Blue Star wrote:
In a different system, probably hero system, he would cost around 1,000 points. He's simply too superhuman to properly be built, the man can lift a ton, giving him a 32-33 strength, this is unenhanced strength, and he is definitely not a barbarian.....except socially speaking.


Batman can NOT lift a ton ... at all. He's just a guy. Bane, all juiced up on Venom ... maybe. Not Batman, though. He's just a guy that fights other "just a guy" types out there, as thugs mind you, that he hits and they take it and turn around and hit him harder.

Yes, he ultimately takes those guys down, but that is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a guy that can lift "a ton" or even close to it.

He's damn strong - easily. He's not even in the "worlds strongest man" competition in strength, though. Not when "big thugs" can take his shots and hit him harder in his own comics.

Just sayin' ...

Oh, for DC types with more Charisma - I can think of 2 immediately: Dick Grayson (acknowledged throughout the ENTIRE DCU for his charisma and leadership abilities - things Batman lacks), and Superman ... because he's Superman and everyone looks up to him for pretty much everything.

If you take Batman down, people get upset. If you take Superman down, the DCU's population loses all hope.

It's a difference of scale, IMO, for that particular one.

Blackborn wrote:

I basically dislike all non-magical combat-centric classes. Outside of combat they fail to overcome most challenges. They force DM's to be accommodating. Most combat-centric classes can't even recognize when an NPC is lying to them. The only thing they can do is fight. Furthermore they are easily duped, eluded, or outright used. I've had a player's fighter single-handedly slay his entire party after a simple Dominate Person, after which the wizard in control simply had the fighter walk off a cliff. It's even easier with illusions. I've had an entire Good party slaughter innocents while failing to recognize a simple illusion. Suffice to say, they were afterwards arrested, and executed. Campaign over.

Obviously it was the DM who allowed the characters in the first place. But should the DM have his story-telling limited because of this? No. The less combat-centric a campaign, the more freedom a DM has. Unfortunately, most players like to play combat-centric characters, and this leaves DM's in a difficult spot, unless they just like dungeon after dungeon with no world interaction or non-combat encounters.

*I should note that in both above examples not all the characters in party were combat-centric.

wow ... that's really uncharitable a stance to take as a GM. Everyone's there to have fun, no?

Why can't you tell the story with modifications as needed (such as spell choices unleashed by the BBEG's) for the good of the group. TPK sucks, especially from within the same party. It's even worse if you're not giving them any real outs in the situation.

If the GM is going to run around willy-nilly determined to make combat characters suck, then the GM needs to take responsibility when the melee characters suck. Laying that on the feet of the game, or the players is just nonsense.

Although I don't like the class much, I have to admit that the mechanics underlying the Bard concept makes for a pretty good class.

Some capability for melee/combat, some class specific stuff that attempts to define primary functions of the class, and some magic tossed in, but not the most extreme of anything, and the spell list is pretty much tailored just so. It's a good overall mix and approach to take power-wise.

In terms of balance for say achieving the goals of the classes premise? Paladin and Sorcerer all day long. The things that PF did with these classes, to ME, are the gold standard. Both classes, more than all others, just drip with flavor and fully emote the point and purpose of the class at pretty much every point. I could do without paladin casting entirely, but whatever. It's still done so, so, very well that it's not a problem that detracts too much for me.

Pedantic wrote:
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
Roughly: "Bardic performance should be a unique mechanic and cover the entirety of effects bards can produce."

I have to agree here, to be honest. The closest thing that ever came out was the Seeker of the Song prestige class, and that was almost insultingly positioned next to the much more effective Sublime Chord. And, I suppose there's the bard masterpieces, but we all know that any alternative spell abilities must be strictly worse than spells. It's apparently a law of game design that was inherited all the way back from 3rd. I've always wanted a bard that didn't feel like he borrowing everyone else's shtick with some slightly reflavored trappings.

Admittedly, the bard only spells helped, but the recourse to the standard spell format just ruins the whole thing.

nothing says they must always remain here. We can even run a pet project through the suggestions/house rules forum to make exactly this. Since the bardic "casting" is being traded off whole sale, why couldn't similar, but pointedly rsstricted to in theme abilities be granted to them instead?

More fitting for a different thread, though.


jonnythm wrote:
I think the problem isn't so much that the class can't do what you want so much as your concept for the class is different than other people's concept. You see the bard as a primary caster, we see it as a caster/fighter with a bunch of utility powers.

I think that is key there as if it is true then you've fully misunderstood my stance entirely, and we're talking past each other.

My concept of it is not a "caster" in the least. It's NOT a magic-wielding class. It's a PERFORMANCE ART wielding class and where we differ is in saying "you can re-fluff magic to mean performing" to pull off what I prefer.

I see it as a Performance/Fighter/Generalist overall would be the best way to put it.

I do not like "caster" applied to the Bard at all.

With the potential that PF let loose with Rogue Talents and Rage Powers, all I keep wanting is to finally get a bard that is 99% fueled by his Performance abilities (as he SHOULD HAVE BEEN since 1e).

That is the extent of my complaint and comments, really.

Question: What class do you not like?
Answer: *I* do not like the bards because they have never fit the mechanics with the fluff together nicely enough to fit *my* standards and expectations.

I'm quite aware of how divergent my own expectations are on that, and I have said so all along. What *I* want to see has never, mechanically, been represented at all. In any edition (not sure about 4th, but I would think 4th would come closest if anything, and I loathe 4th to no end, mind you).


PF has the potential and layout to pull off what I'd like to see a bard capable of (ie: remove casting and replace it with heavy Performance-based abilities to add variability and depth to the class).

NOTE: I have no problems with the mechanics in place for the Bard class, though, as a Fighter/Mage hybrid. In that sense it's pretty good, however, if Fighter/Mage or Fighter/Caster is what you're after, then the Magus is a better fit for that type of play, and makes the Performance piece of the existing Bard class stand out at odds with the rest by comparison (since the Magus simply does that sort of thing much better).

Darkwing Duck wrote:
My problem with your position is that if your character concept can be done with the sorcerer, then we don't need it to be possible with another class. That other class should focus on character concepts that can't be done another way.

My problem with yours is a refusal to see alternative paths rather than re-fluffing entirely different classes to do the same.

Case in point: Rogue and Barbarian.

PF took what existed and changed them for the better by re-examining class roles and inspiration from sources that originally inspired the classes in the fist place.

3.5 had Rogues and Barbarians - both sucked pretty hard, IMO.

You can "re-fluff" sorcerer's to behave as Rogues or Barbarians (hell, there's even RAGE spells out there, too, and caster classes that let you rage-cast). Does that make the Rogue concept obsolete as a class? Or the Barbarian?

No - it means a SORCERER class can pretend, or play at masquerading as another class using his class features to approximate the effects of those other classes. Is this satisfying? No ... not to me (which has been my point).

PF took the boring/weak "Rogue" and created all kinds of interesting rogue-specific abilities and sprinkled them all over the class and additional supplemental works. They didn't eliminate a class and call it "redunant - class X can do that ... and MORE to boot!"

They did the same thing with the Barbarian - they made it interesting and flavorful by re-examining the role and sources of inspiration and pointedly NOT resorting to "casting" of any kind to make it happen.

I'm saying I would prefer a Bard to be "bard-y" in the same way that PF treated Rogues and Barbarians.

Why *my* preference is such a bug up your arse is beyond me to comprehend.

**simply not caring any more**

jonnythm wrote:
[Quote =The Speaker in Dreams] another post that's long

Socerer Buffs = bardic performance in flavor, who is to say that haste isn't bardic performance being used to enhance? There's nothing that says it CAN'T be. For that matter bull's strength, divine favor, rage, herosim, all these spells could be flavored as bardic performance, you could make ANY 9 level spell casting class into this, with just re flavoring. Sure you're not following the rules, and using that lateral thinking as you put it, but what's the problem with that?

I don't understand why, just because its name is different than what you want it to be, that you say that it's not the same.
Can't you just change its name? I apologize if you find this offensive, I try my best not to cause people to rage over the internet.

I've no problem with using a SORCERER to get at the effects I'm looking at - it's pretty neat and creative.

That's a separate issue from saying, "Bards do BARD stuff just fine" as I've been defining what I want to see Bards do.

The BARD class can NOT do this. The SORCERER class can (and is a decent approach), but then to accomplish what I want, I've had to jump class to approach it (and then I'm still not 100% satisfied with it because I'm not a fan of the way Magic pulls certain things off, and even likely makes the bard far more broad than what I'd intend his area of influence and effects to be centered around).

There's a difference there in what I'm saying about the 2 approaches.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
I never replied to your Pied Piper comment. I scrolled back and checked.

Apologies. I confused you with TOZ.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
you, Darkwing - Fail on "suggestion" over mice by the rules - it can't do that

I never said anything with regards to suggestion over mice.

But, like jonnythm, I think you can build the character you want with a Sorcerer. There is even a Maestro bloodline.

To both you and johnnythm:

I agree, a sorcerer can approximate what I'm mentioning, but then, it can ONLY do that through 100% lateral thinking and approach to the concept. At it's core, it's still a "use magic" class, and at that it is pointedly D20-styled magic period.

It is not, at all, or by any measure, a bard as described under the bard's descriptive text. It doesn't have any of the other bardic features (like knowledge of many things, etc, etc, etc). It's a sorcerer PLAYING at being an epic-style bard that I would prefer existed. However, that's a kludge.


That has nothing to do with the CLASS of bard pointedly NOT functioning like I would like it to function.

It's a functional work-around, at best, that you suggest. However, it guts the other pieces of the bard that *mostly* function just fine: countersong, and other sorts of things, etc.

Totally my view, but I want to see a Final Fantasy style "Edward" character in-game and playable. Singing notes/playing an instrument that can ACTUALLY harm and/or cause effects upon his targets. THAT, to me, is fully awesome and should be there with the class IF the class is to be included side by side with all of the other classes that have their own "schtick" so to speak. I (very aware of this being a "ME" issue here, fellas) am not satisfied, or calmed by having mechanics that belong to other classes properly sort of force-crafted onto the other class in order to make it function and give it a "thing" to work on.

If bards have magical "performance" skills, then I want to see that MECHANICALLY front and center defining the class. Kind of like Barbarians and their rage powers is what I would prefer to see with Bards and their performance abilities.

You craft on "mundane" magic the same as other casters, and I find it wanting because that's not "bard" to me. It's "mage" pure and simple. It's LAZY, really, and I am not a fan of it at all.

I have similar complaints for both Ranger and Paladin casting - it's an after-thought and pretty terrible all around. If there are clerics that *do* already commune w/the gods, then what is the point in allowing these non-casting primary types start casting? And then spells that are kind of worthless in effect and duration for the levels that they are granted ability TO cast in the first place. Nah. I'd rather see genuine effort put forth into further defining and developing the "ranger-ness" or "paladin-ness" of both classes rather than take a random add-on effect of another classes main feature.

By contrast, though, something like a Magus I can deal with. When IT gets casting added into it's class structure, it's ACTUALLY reinforcing the point and purpose of the class - NOT simply re-packaging existing features of other classes for lack of creative effort being put forth into designing the core of the classes abilities. (unlike the Ranger, Paladin, and Bard.)

Note: On the bard thing DWD, you mentioned "suggestion" when I wanted the Pied Piper specifically. That's where that came from.

Paladin - easily this given PF's treatment of them. This is my favorite iteration of paladin's ever. Just fantastic from top to bottom!

TOZ wrote:

'Follow' doesn't work?

Let's see ... does suggestion work on animals?

Can suggestion surpass language barriers?

Can suggestion fully subvert free-will and turn targets into marionettes?


Doesn't seem to work.

For the record, though, my complaint lies chiefly in the fact that "dancing, prancing, pretty, sing-y boy" is really NOT supported by the mechanics.

I WANT to see a guy rip through battle and SING, yes SING his enemies into submission.

I mean, like border-line Banshee from X-Men fame here at the higher end of things.

I want to see a guy dance and have a sort of "Uncontrollable Dance" effect take hold of his enemies, making them all more vulnerable targets in combat.

I want to see the guy pick up a lute and strum notes on it directed towards his enemies to strike them deaf, dumb, and blind all in one stroke because the NOTES are pure magical harmony and dischord wrapped all into one and it, literally, breaks the minds of the targets (that fail saves of course) that hear it.

I want to see performance MADE into genuine magic, and not a foot note, and I want to see mechanics make THAT into a reality for the bard. Not this ... pseudo "almost skilled at everything" stuff that we currently have. I want to see an epic "performance" based class that is SO good at his schtick (and no, his schtick is NOT being a semi-caster, or almost a skill-monkey, or anything else) that if he brings that schtick into play offensively, he's every bit as devastating to face as anything else you can imagine encountering ... BECAUSE of his performance skills being THAT damn good.

Sorry, +X bonuses to allies just does NOT cut it. Limited spell casting as arcane/divine, likewise does not cut it. That's not giving a "bard" his due, and it's not even hitting the description properly of what it's stated class dosier says it is supposed to be representing.

My objection is based fully around the flavor and sensibilities of the class that is described being at odds with what is mechanically made feasible.

Mechanically, it's solid and works as everyone has been saying it can work (minus you, Darkwing - Fail on "suggestion" over mice by the rules - it can't do that). It's a good support - the best, really, at the higher levels w/the speedy action to get the performance up and running. It's lame as hell, but it works mechanically. Even not putting many points into the performance skill - valid. Weird, but valid by the mechanics. NONE of that, however, provides me with anything to like about this class as being representative of a "bard" in the least.

Note: I hold an equally special deep, dark pit of disdain for 2e and pretty much EVERY version of a bard I've ever encountered. I've not seen a 4e bard, but I imagine that given the paradigm shift of that game overall there will be a far superior treatment of the Bard in that system that would be more to my liking overall (even though I loathe the system beyond all else period). With all of the focus on powers of "at will" and "daily" and the like, I'd be surprised to NOT see powers that are far closer to what I'm envisioning to be there for the bard to make use of.

Note #2: I am quite aware that I am extremely discriminating and exacting in defining what I want a bard to do, but so what? We're talking about a world where a guy w/a sword can lop off dragon's heads in like 6 seconds or so just by closing to combat, others can get crazy-nuts in combat and practically lift a castle wall single handed, magic is real and POWERFUL ... and yet we have yet to see a functional execution of the "magic of music" or anything close to it.

I feel perfectly entitled to my righteous indignation in this shortcoming of the class design. I feel even MORE justified by seeing the music/performance down played and relegated to 2nd fiddle while the class gets access to MAGIC full tilt, but NOT as focused through his performance ... AT ALL!!!

Nah ... they dropped the ball. The dropped the ball back in 1e, and have been consistently fumbling the HELL out of the thing ever since.

I want the "magic music" there and on full display.

I want to see the 1-gloved hand snap up into the air mid-combat and a whole grouping of enemies follow suit and start to dance according to the whims of the moon-walking master that compels them to do so.

Until I'm seeing performance capable of pulling off feats like that, I'm not going to be happy with ANY version of a bard people put out there.


NOTE $#3: Again - note that this doesn't say that other's can't play the exisiting "wish I was a bard" bard class, or that the mechanics that govern it are made of fail. It works ... but that's not at all what *I* want the bard to do, or the role I feel it should occupy.

TOZ wrote:

Do you find the harpy and siren abilities to magically effect people with their songs dumb? Why not? Because they are monsters and of course humans can't do monster things?

I guess this story is dumb too?

It would be AWESOME for a bard ... IF Bards could do that through their performance.

Instead, bards can do it, sure - but through spell-casting (ie: pointedly NOT the instrument that matters).

That story is actually my key piece as to why the Bard class sucks.

It *can't* do what one of the most famous exemplars *should* be able to do IF the class was truly going with "magic in music" as the schtick.

It doesn't, and so, I find it lacking.


Doesn't mean I don't let other people play 'em, though.

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Druids used the same cleric template in 2e. It didn't work - primarily due to inflexibility in the cleric class to represent different kinds of priests. That inflexibility still exists in the cleric class.

What I think needs to be done is get rid of the cleric class, make Perform and Healing skills the primary healing methods, create a Priest feat, make the rest of the spells that are worth keeping arcanist spells. Druid becomes a Sorcerer archetype, Paladin becomes a Fighter with the Priest feat. Create a system called 'faith' which allows someone with the Priest feat to do stuff like boost will saves in believers and consecrate ground and get bonuses in social skills against believers. This faith system would grant hero points whenever a believer or a priest did something risky which reflected their divine source's tennants.

And ... yet there is the entire "specialty priests" of the FR series that would dramatically beg to differ entirely on the substance of your assessment.

"specialty priests" done "right" absolutely and 100% positively "got it right" staying within the "sphere" structure of spell accessibility and then tweaking a few properties/spells/whatever here and there to more properly align with "God of X's" dosier/domain of influence/etc.

2e FULLY got the clerics right, and especially so when they went "specialty" priest about it.

FR Adventures is the GOLD STANDARD for me, boy, on what clerics *should* be all about. Completely tied the cleric to his deity from top to toe it did.

I can back you on the alternatives you suggest above, though - solid ideas each and every one (probably good ideas for PF 2nd edition when they get around to it, honestly). I just can't let the 2e side-swipe go unanswered, or unchallenged, though.

Well I'll break mine into 2 categories: Aesthetic dislike and Mechanical dislike.

Clerics - WAY too many good things and not nearly enough to keep them in check ... at all.

Druids - just as bad as clerics, AND they can shape-shift, AND they have a freakin' pet "insert something" following around ... wtf!?!?! No thanks. It's not even like a Familiar, either - you know, essentially weak and NOT for combat. No ... they can end up with a dire-tiger or worse. No ... just no.

Monks - MAD ... no class feature synergy .... 'nuff said.

Barbarians - "per rage" ability limitation that are negated at the highest levels later with the ULTIMATE meta-game construction EVER to see the light of day on a printed page. "Rage-on" / "Rage-off" looping as soon as no-fatigue comes into play for the barbarian end of rage effect. Lame, lame, LAME!!!

Summoner - accounting nightmare!

Cavalier - too bound to the mount.

Alchemist - just ... catastrophically disappointing. Probably could have been better treated as a wizard archetype or something.

Witch - better handled as a sorcerer archetype honestly.

Bards - their mechanics and concept are terrible. If you're going to up and "perform" mid-combat, it ought to be some epic-performance types of effects, not little stat boosts here and there. I mean, I'm talking like the Pied Piper kinds of effects. Play a few notes, perfectly tuned, and aimed at your zone of effect and those targets turn into your very own, personal marionettes to play with as YOU choose because your MUSIC is that damn good. I want to play Orpheus-level notes, man! I want to make gods weep at the sweet melodies of my music and let me resurrect the dead! I'm talking music so wonderful the soul comes RIGHT back into the body to hear the player's song. Instead ... we've got the existing Bards. Lame!

Monk - it just doesn't belong (note: this is despite my propensity for playing them). A more western-styled "monk" should have been there if that was the term used even WAY back in the day of 1e. It should have been a "this is Friar Tuck's class" sort of thing. The eastern concept? Should have called it a martial artists, or something like that.

Gunslinger - I actually like most of the mechanic bits, it's just not that bad. Thematically, though, it's not what I envision when I'm going for "swords & sorcery" in my game. It sooooo is not right for that and I can't really ignore the screeching brakes in my head even though it's pretty much fine mechanically.

Alchemist, Inquisitor, Witch, Oracle & Summoner - All of these things, IMO, really belong under the auspices of existing class archetypes. These things bring too much fiddly bits for NO WHERE NEAR enough pay-off for me.

Druid - there is already a "cleric" for connecting the idea of "I worship the god of X" in place. WHY does the person that worships the nature god get even MORE toys than the other types? It should just be like a specialty priest of "nature diety" and be done.

Bards - I hate these guys. Mostly because of mechanics, but even so ... I hate these guys because they don't represent any worthy archetype from tales and lore at ALL in terms of effect or role. Pied Piper, Orpheus - THOSE are bards to me, and this class can't come close to those characters, so what's the point? No thanks.

Heladriell wrote:

Since the playtest is ending, I'll post my wishlist for the book:

1-Ways to create playable construct races, that CAN be healed and resurrected (I did like a lot the warforged in eberron).

2-Options for high powered races, like regeneration, holy aura, big package of SLAs and other abilities that can emulate great creatures like solars or dragons.

3-Rules for in-game customization. Giving access to some racial abilities to characters as their lineage becomes stronger.

4-Racial classes would be great, or type classes with electable powers.

5-Some sample races with full description would be nice, including a race of every type.

6 Advanced versions of the classic races would be welcome.

I think Paizo is doing a great work with this system and I was quite impressed with it's quality. I hope the final product will be even better.

You ... what are ...???

How did you get in my head?

Seriously, though - I love every one of those points listed.

Good call to mention it.


Ok, I'm going to try and summarize this in bullet points (mostly to see if I'm following correctly):

1) swapping out feats for favored class bonus effects you're in support of (yuck), but not vice versa (ie: forgoing class bonuses for extra feats).

2) +2 to 1 skill for 2 points - from the existing race builder values? This is a "price problem" and needs to be evaluated/corrected accordingly. Correct? {is that what you're saying?} Is this ignoring the fact that it adds to overall skill competence values? Shouldn't that count for something kind of like how choice counts for an "open" feat vs. a "preselected" feat? {not all that much, but isn't this also a factor?}

3) What is "these" when you say "if one is worth more than 2 rp's" referring to? Are you saying that fixed feats should/could have different values, even to each other? {I think that's bad if so, because the system makes no distinction there. That's unlike the "open" vs. "preselected" feat disparity that has at least *some* presence in the system}

4) On the "favored class bonus benefit" progression thing - never mind. I get you fully now. Favored class, over ALL levels (1-infinite) just has the effect of 1 feat. Yes? Got ya! ;-)

5) Thallin's suggestion I would not touch with a 10-foot pole here. Just layering on extra spell capacities!?!?! Yipes! That's just a bad idea, but mechanically it's sound enough. Rules-abuse potential is extreme, but it's sound in theory. Personally, I'd never allow this particular option, but this is less about preference and more about pure mechanics.

Suggested pricing scheme thus far:
1) 1 feat, pre-selected = 2 rp's
2) 1 trait = 1 rp
3) 1 feat, "open" = 4 rp's
4) Favored Class bonus (taken as a whole, not level by level) = 1 feat.

[did I miss anything there?]

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
You are confusing issue here. The feat cost is fine, you are paying for flexibility no one else can match.

There's no confusion - unless we're talking past each other.

Paying for flexibility I can understand (to a point, and ONLY as relates to other feats, mostly). Paying WAY more for the effect of an open feat compared against other 4 rp-priced things is just too much and a flag gets raised.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Fly however is two cheap, but that is an issue of underpricing something based off some vague idea of tiers which has zero to do with the subject at hand.

No - this has everything to do with the subject at hand. This is precisely why I even mentioned that there is a problem with how "+1 open feat" is being valued in the first place.

Let me again state that the value itself assigned to Feat is kind of irrelevant to me. It's the value in the .pdf for the race builder [u]as compared to other 4 rp abilities in that same race builder[/u] that prompted me to make the observation that something is wrong with the feat pricing in general.

My objection was based 100% upon (a) the existing prices in the .pdf, and (b) "+1 open feat" compared against other 4 rp priced abilities.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Fly however is two cheap, but that is an issue of underpricing something based off some vague idea of tiers which has zero to do with the subject at hand.

No - it's the basis for stating the opposite (ie: that the "+1 open feat" is actually OVER-priced). All we have to go by are the existing .pdf values. That you're saying the cost of Flight is undervalued is a GOOD thing as I see it. It means we're actually saying the same thing, even if getting lost in semantics.

Again - the raw point value is kind of irrelevant to me. It's the interaction between other values of similar priced abilities that I take issue with. NOT the value of the open feat itself. Follow? [ie: you can call an open feat 10 rp's and make flight 10 rp's and I would STILL have this same problem because my issue is one of relative/comparative scale. The one (feat) is no where NEAR the effects of the other (flight/any other 4 rp ability, or 10 rp in this case).

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

2) Feats are worth far LESS than a good majority of the racial abilities, regardless of what feat you insert.
3) A "pre-selected" feat is worth less than an "open" feat (marginally here - it's still a feat).

This is simply incorrect as you are not looking at it at for what the feat is really worth. Its not a single feat you are gaining, its early entry into any feat chain or skill mastery at your chosin profession that no other race can match.

As long as you keep ignoring this fact you will never understand.

1st - you *did* catch the point that this is all stuff (in a 1st draft) that we've mostly in this thread agreed upon, right? You, yourself just stated that flight is underpriced. That's *exactly* what #2 says.

A feat, any feat, even with "early entry to a chain" assuming you go that way (which is not a guarantee since you can pick, literally, any feat you want - chain/tree, or otherwise), is just not equal to the 4 rp valued racial abilities out there. There are 1 point racial abilities that people have called out as being underpriced, same with 2, and 3 point ones. By comparison to THAT scale, even AS "early entry" value, it's just WAY out of wack with what those other 4 rp valued abilities provide. Again - AS things are currently priced. No feat can do that - at all. Even spell-type feats. What feat can grant you say, an extra level 3 spell? Or the ability to fly outright? None. Even in progression of feat chains - no end effect of any feat chain can compare with those effects. At all.

On point #3 - that's just the same things you all have been showing and talking about in this thread. That human "flexibility" or the "open" feat is better than a hard-coded/pre-selected feat. I'm agreeing with that, but not that it's in the neighborhood of x3 to x4 more. If anything, there was the archetype reminder that it goes into say a about a 2:1 value at most to close that gap.

To tie that back to my stance that the absolute value of the ability is irrelevant. Let's call "+1 open feat" a 10 rp value again. Then a "pre-selected feat" or simply "+1 feat" is going to have a 5 rp value (and maintain that 2:1 value point). Follow?

Note - that's just what the system seems to suggest with a few archetypes here and there, but it gets to the point of "open" being more valuable than "preselected" and provides a quick ratio for making a pricing guideline (2:1 in whatever final value is assigned).

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Again no, as the feat is ANY feat you ever need to master a feat chain or skill above what any other race can hope to match at that level. A Pre selected feat would be worth much less.

This is for point #4 where if the effect is replicated by a feat, it should be assigned the same value.

This in no way is mentioning "any feat" at all. In fact, this would be the "pre-selected" feat type because it's providing a predicted, and reproducable effect that a feat can also accomplish. So, I'm not following any of the objection here at all.

Mostly, it looks like you're also in agreement with the principals there, if not the semantics of the #'s (but that's not something I really care much about - if you want 4, that's cool with me - it's irrelevant, really).

Anyway, the point I'm at is just trying to find all of the "common ground" so we can move forward. #'s for me is "open ground" in that i don't really care where they end up as long as they are consistent and make sense (like if flight is to get jacked up to like 8 rp's, I'm good with that as it's not longer 4 rps, and no longer saying that "+1 open feat" is equivalent in effect to flight - because it's not even close).

Darkholme wrote:

+1 first level Domain use /2 levels is equivalent to +1 hp/level.

Why do I say this? because both are selectable as favored class bonuses.

Its not the powerful domain abilities, its the first level ones. And if theyre not equivalent, then why you shouldn't be allowed to swap one for the other, and in that case, they shouldnt have been made equivalent by Paizo in the APG.

Dwarf Cleric, Elven Wizard, Elven Sorcerer, etc.

Look at the alternate favored class abilities in the APG. thats where I got the ones you're finding hard to believe from.

How did I connect them to feats? +1hp/level is what you get from toughness, and thats the benefit you swap out for thes alternate benefits.

*Are* they actually equivalent? I'd say theyre pretty close, at least for the most part. But thats not my point. My point is that according to paizo ability valuations, these things are equivalent.

Ok, I got ya. Thanks for the breakdown - makes sense in much the same way I've been looking at the system's assumptions on Feats in general.

So ... these things are being suggested as what? 2 rp's then as "fixed feat" sort of thing?

By this measure the magic-stuff *does* end up costing "more" though and is valued more highly from it's built in "every other level" progression. Maybe, then, it would be best to remove those things from your first list (since they actually have a different value by way of the delayed progression by comparison to the other options out there)?

Yeah ... seeing it tied into the "= +1 hp/level = 1 feat (toughness)" is definitely what threw me.

It would probably be more beneficial to make those into a separate grouping that is valued at x2 of the base grouping (1 feat) because that's basically what all of those options are, then, with that "every other level, or 1/2 levels" terminology attached.

It's a per level dedication, but you only get an actual effect after paying for 2 levels worth of dedication (favored class bonus), so it's just a bit off and not all that helpful to even include it in the "= to a feat" list because it's actually a bit more than a feat.

Does that make sense?

Thalin wrote:
Hard to compare; like a racial trait gets you a feat/4 levels (Half-elf summoner) or a feat every 6 levels (Rogue Trick / Bard performance). Feats can also be worth two feats (net + trident proficiency; human). They should streamline-balance; if rogues/bards/barbarians get a feat equivalent (of a feat people do take) every 6 levels summoners shouldn't get one every 4.

Sure, but going this route jumps the ship of the Race Builder's purpose and leads straight towards PF 2nd Edition.

I like what you're saying, but it's just not the right approach to take for what currently exists in PF's system.

For the Race Builder to be useful and fair, it has to be designed from the current evaluations/metrics/whatever that the current system has that drives PF. It can't be redefining or reevaluating existing relationships (good, bad, or otherwise). It needs to mimic them.

Darkholme is on the right path, but it's a bit of work to get this sort of thing ironed out.

I disagree with some of the assessments, or rather, I think the "This is like so, and this is at this level, so this ability at this level is the same value" that has put you into a position to look at +1 to Domain, etc power uses/day as to equate with a +1 hp/level. Magic is FAR more potent than that simple train of thought leads, and the system actually enforces this (mostly) by delaying magic gains in several ways.

Mostly, though, I'm just not following the train of thought that put you there fully in the first place. +1 Domain power/spell/whatever is not even *close* to +1 hp/level. {which I cite since it was your example up there}

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Make some hundred or so human subraces. Each of them trades the free feat for a single fixed feat!

Now they're not worth as much. :P


The salient point has been, "they still aren't as useful as races that can fly" the whole time. {note: this isn't to make Fly into the gold standard, but it's just a 4 rp sample to compare against the existing 4 rp assigned value of "+1 open feat" that we keep looking at.}

Yet, both have the 4 rp value (+1 "open" feat and flight).

I'm thinking that a sort of compilation of the things we agree on will be best at this point because I think a bit of confusion is stemming from focusing upon particulars and not the whole of "what is wrong" or "how it went wrong" myself. Instead, we're chasing down minutia that really isn't going to help the race builder overall.

Correct me if I'm off on this, but I'll try and list the things we are (mostly) in agreement on - no particular order:

1) There is a price disparity in the existing race builder system

2) Feats are worth far LESS than a good majority of the racial abilities, regardless of what feat you insert.

3) A "pre-selected" feat is worth less than an "open" feat (marginally here - it's still a feat).

4) Any racial ability that can replicate a feat should just be assigned the value of that same feat (for pricing consistency).

5) Humans were artificially inflated, by a LOT because of the faulty design premise that "all races = 10 points" from the get-go.

To this I add the following fact (ie: nothing that's been agreed upon yet, but it's a fact regardless): The D20 system that drives and operates PF does not make any distinction in value of Feat A vs. Feat B.
*This means that when a feat is provided/opened to the character, the character has free reign to grab whatever feat they want.
*Restrictions of "feat chains" are not a difference in feat value, but rather a sort of prescribed/forced evolution of feat choices.
--IE: To get Feat B, you need Feat A, but at no point does the system say Feat A is less than Feat B, only that the one is needed for the other. It does this by, at the time of selection, mentioning that Feat A = "+1 feat" and when it is time for Feat B, by spending the same "+1 feat" Feat B is also selectable and "paid for" with the same resource with no real distinction of the value of "+1 feat" for either one.

Ion Raven wrote:
First off, I'd like to say that feats may not all be equal. However making a distinction now will only upset the balance in other places. The best we can do is almost or pretty much a feat.

I'm just quoting this for emphasis.

Of all things stated in this thread so far, it's really pretty much just distilled truth.

Pick, pick, pick and re-evaluate is just doing things that the inherent system didn't do in the first place.

I like Darkholme's idea (+1 man!), but it's beyond the scope of the race builder.

I like the other idea, though, in the other thread. using it not so much for absolute value, but more like to make a "yardstick" to measure against other things in the system - that's a good idea, but then it's a pricing scheme to MAKE a pricing scheme. Which is funny in itself, but a lot of effort to create something not inherently supported by the system.

I like Darkholme's idea best for approaching PF 2nd edition, though.

That is where that approach can REALLY shine and clean up a LOT of things in the game, IMO. The stuff that WoTC missed when they designed it, basically, but that PF never addressed and is still bonded to currently (and causing much of the disagreement in this thread).

Epic Meepo wrote:
I'm sorry, did you just call me a liar?

Actually, no. It's more like "fool me once ... fool me twice" as I'm looking at it now.

Essentially, you came in and said, "Hey - the Archetype does a 2:1 trade, so the system *does* say that choice in feat is more valuable than fixed feats."

I found that interesting, and valid - I re-thought this (again, since the system did it), and came back with adjusted perspective from this information that I'd just forgotten to account for.

Thraxus, then, popped in and said you left out other trade-offs, and that your assessment wasn't fairly stated.

I then (foolishly I might add) assumed HE was right, when I had just finished ASSUMING you were, likewise wrong. I did this with no verification of my own in either case. So, there's the fool me twice piece.

Seriously - big misunderstanding there, and I *will* be checking everyone's claim of "system says X" now to see it for myself, and THEN I will respond.

I don't think even Thraxus was trying to call you a liar as he mentions the inherent disparity of weapon and armor feats specifically as a sort of defense against even what he brought up.

Epic Meepo wrote:
I was attempting to politely answer your question in a way that didn't rub the fact that you're demonstrably wrong in your face. But since my honesty is now in question, I guess I have to give the full version of my argument and make your own claims look patently absurd:

My claims are based around the way the system functions. Period.

When you showed evidence of feat value IN THE EXISTING SYSTEM, I then reevaluated it from that standpoint.

I'm not beyond reason, or arbitrarily making statements.

Epic Meepo wrote:
On 1st level, the unarmed fighter loses 5 feats: one fighter bonus feat, Armor Proficiency (medium), Armor Proficiency (heavy), Shield Proficiency, and Tower Shield Proficiency.


Epic Meepo wrote:
Also on 1st level, with no other changes on that level whatsoever, the unarmed fighter gains 18 feats: Unarmed Strike, one style feat (without having to meet its prerequisites), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bo staff), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (dan bong), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (double chained kama), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (emei piercer), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (fighting fan), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kama), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kusarigama), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kyoketsu shoge), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (nine-section whip), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (nunchaku), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (rope dart), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (sai), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (seven-branched sword), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (shuriken), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (siangham), and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (urumi).

Yeah ... that's quite a lot. All the "exotics" and then the whole Monk weapon list. Seems very strange as a whole, though. It also stands out alone to me, since no other archtypes seem to approach this level of "free feats" handed out.

I think it's the "including exotic monk weapons" that skews this, though.

Otherwise, the intent in layout seems to imply that the sacrifice of the armor and shield proficiencies is = to all monk weapons, even the exotic ones. It's really, REALLY strange, and I can't really look at it as anything but an anomaly - something that skirted past the designers notice, or that the designers looked at as SO insignificant so as not to matter - implying some sort of lesser value for Exotic Weapon Proficiencies - which we all KNOW to be true, but the system still prices it at "+1 feat", so you can't really get away from it, even though that seems to be the point of this particular design for this archetype.

It's certainly the best thing to point out, though, as ludicrous. It's also, the *only* thing to point at, really. Most other things within archetypes (keep in mind archetypes, themselves are both new to the system, and essentially experimental) don't come *close* to this degree of "imbalance" so to speak.

What I really take away from this is that Unarmed Fighter is just a "special snowflake" or something and doesn't quite fit in with the others. It's not overpowered despite the wording and implications you make up there about so many feats in play, and that's kind of reflection of inherent 3.x imbalance that PF has inherited and that neither system has really attempted to address.

On the "tone this down" end, all of the monk weapons proper are not part of the "all EWP" statement. They fall under "monk weapons" statement. In itself it's more like a weapon group (all simple, all martial, monk, etc). Still, with any given supplement a new monk weapon can pop up, and because the system says, "Exotic Weapons = +1 feat to learn 1 weapon" this skews the entire archetype sideways big time, and not in a good, or reasonable fashion if we're looking to it for guidelines on the value of feats.

It's an outlier on the design floor. It's the exception, not the rule, and therefore less valid in using as a measure of the system proper.

Is it bad regarding "feat" allotment? yes. As bad as you claim? Not so much, but it's still terrible, and its' still not true to the majority of the other archetypes out there.

Epic Meepo wrote:
So there you go, right from the PRD. Four fixed feats and one combat feat equal seventeen fixed feats and one style feat. So limiting a feat choice from the list of all combat feats to the list of all style feats is only offset by thirteen fixed feats. Either that, or Exotic Weapon Proficiency is worth less than one-third of any other feat. Take your pick. Either way, your argument that all feats and feat choices are equal is flat out wrong.

Only, this holds true for this one archetype alone - not the majority of archetypes. Those (the majority) are much more modest in their concessions and adjustments. Most, actually, just do 1:1 exchanges, even of feats.

You can't point to the one, "bjorked" archetype and claim the whole system does this.

You need to look to the averages and how it behaves overall. Overall, archetypes do not do what this one does that you managed to find.

ALL of this stated, I'm not beyond saying that versatility *can* count for something. It's just not 4x the cost of no versatility worth of something.

That's pure crazy. 2:1 seems ok to me. It's not that bad, and as I said before - by comparison an "open" feat seems about on the level with say Darkvision or a good few 2 RP types of abilities. Some still seem FAR better, and some 1 RP's are WAY too good for what they do, but hey - it's NOT a perfect pricing system yet.

Quick note here that we all have the same goal, right? A better system. Let's focus on that and less on tearing each other down, eh?

Thraxus wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:
"An unbreakable gains Endurance and Die Hard as bonus feats. This ability replaces the fighter's 1st-level bonus feat."

Technically, the Unbreakable looses proficiency with Tower Shields as well, so effectively it looses two feats for two feats at 1st level.

The same holds true for the Dragoon (looses Tower Shield proficiency) and the unarmed fighter (looses medium armor, heavey armor, and shield proficiency, but gains all monk weapons).

That said, armor and weapon proficiencies are hard to value given the options PCs have as they advance.


wow! I guess I need to check things when presented, then. Pretty dishonest to leave that out.

I am back to my original position.

Ion Raven phrases it best that feat = mostly a feat is probably as good as it should get.

Emerald Wyvern wrote:

Hogwash. By your logic, it's "balanced" for one race to offer Skill Focus: Craft (Basketweaving), while another offers One Feat of Player's Choice.

The value of any given feat is not just "+1 feat period". It can't be. And sure, the current system doesn't explicitly tell you "Hey, taking spell penetration as a paladin is probably not that great an idea" - but the idea that all feats are of exactly the same value is ludicrous. Hey, I know! I'll take power attack on my sorcerer! That's just as good as taking spell penetration, right? I mean, +1 feat is +1 feat! Period! So it doesn't matter which one I pick, right?

Now, the value of a given feat is rather less clear-cut when you're designing a race, since an individual could be of any class. But there are still some options that are clearly more valuable than others.

[edit] Ninjaed by Epic Meepo, who has rather better examples / arguments. [/edit]

Irrelevant. You want subjective values applied when the system makes no such distinction.

There's a difference between a feat choice that is of use to a class, and "+1 feat" granted systemically. The system makes this distinction, not me. I'm just pointing out the obvious, or what you want to look past to try and insert subjectivity into the system.

At all points I measure it against the systems standards and expectations.

According to Epic Meepo's cite, and the archetypes (which I did overlook) the value of "chosen" feats compared to "open" feats is a 2:1 ratio.

So, ultimately, even WITH that in play, my point still stands - 4 rp is too much to charge for the benefit it provides (as evidenced by the chosen feats having a 1 rp value).

Epic Meepo wrote:

"At 1st level, a dragoon gains both the Mounted Combat and Skill Focus (Ride) feats as bonus feats. This ability replaces the 1st-level fighter bonus combat feat."

"At 1st level, a unarmed fighter gains the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and any single style feat (see Chapter 3) as a bonus feat... This ability replaces the bonus feat at 1st level."

"An unbreakable gains Endurance and Die Hard as bonus feats. This ability replaces the fighter's 1st-level bonus feat."

That's the system, as presented in the official Paizo PRD, saying flat out that two pre-selected feats are less valuable than a single feat you are free to choose from a long list of options.

Ok ... admittedly I wasn't looking at Archetypes - just class structure.

Hmm ... so, this would imply that 2 "feats" defined is = to 1 feat of choice, then?

Roughly a 2:1 value.

In the race builder we have defined feats showing up at 1 RP, and then the human "+1 feat" showing up at 4 rp's.

That's still not adding up right to me. It's TOO highly valued there.

Again, though, it's relative values overall, so the "4" is irrelevant and can be changed to whatever is most convenient. I want to see the value of other 4 rp values being compared to "+1 feat" and re-priced according to something MORE in line with their actual value.

However, at 2 rp's, there's that Monstrous Humanoid that basically is giving you Darkvision. That, to me, sounds about fair for "+1 feat of your choice" then.

The salient point remains, though - at 4 rp's it is WAY too pricey (at current price values in the .pdf that are all being changed as stated by the company designers anyway).

Aelryinth wrote:

You are incorrect.

Some feats are clearly more valuable then others, and more powerful then others.

1) I most certainly am absolutely correct. The system makes no distinction from 1 feat to the next. They are all "+1 feat" period.

2) Let's not talk past each other here.

To clarify #2: YOU know that some feats are "better" and I know that some feats are "better", BUT (and this is the crux of the matter) the SYSTEM makes no such distinction about the value of a feat. To the system: Feat = Feat = Feat, period.

So, it's not that I disagree with your assessment that Feat A is better than Feat B, it's that SYSTEMICALLY there is no difference between A and B regardless of whatever in-game value we assign to it to claim that Feat A is "stronger" or whatever than Feat B. To the system, they are both just "+1 feat" and that's it.

To propose that the race-builder makes subjective values of the worth of a Feat while the main system itself continues on following it's own non-value-based paradigm (ie: +1 feat = +1 feat) is just a bad design idea. It doesn't play with the other mechanical constructs of the system proper that the race-builder system is supposed to be feeding into.

If it is designed with a different paradigm, then it's going to provide different values. In particular, values that to not equate out to what the SYSTEM proper expects and interacts with.

Aelryinth wrote:
This is like saying Teleport isn't valuable, because I already know fifteen other spells, and Wish doesn't mean anything, because I've got forty other spells by the time I get it...worthless.

No, not at all. This example, by the SYSTEM is assigned qualitative values. Teleport is a 5th level spell. It is unavailable by default unless you choose it as your only "+1 spell" learned as a wizard, or one of very finite spells as a sorcerer. It is accessible only at X levels, and will continue in frequency of casting potential according to spell capacity as it grows.

Wish, however, is a 9th level spell - this is THE most powerful spell of all types of spells. It has entirely different effects than Teleport, and it is appropriately more highly valued and restricted as a spell.

Spell types have nothing to do with the points I've been making.

Aelryinth wrote:
This argument is the same as "Spell=Spell", completely ignoring that the power, versatility and requirements of spells are generally improving by level, and getting to better feats faster is a good thing...and humans will do that.

Spells improve with level-based riders (mostly - not all). However, that is the SYSTEMIC metric that is used in the value of the spells.

Regarding Feats, and systemic metrics, all we have is "+1 feat" period. It makes no distinctions on what specific feat is taken, and feats don't have "levels" or anything like that. Hell, most do not even have a level-based rider of improvement like spells do. Yet, despite all of that, the system still tells us, "You hit level (odd number), pick +1 feat to add to your repertoire."

There is no subjective value, in the system that runs the game, about the value of a feat.

This isn't about arguing that "+1 feat" is not useful, or gives humans an edge - it does. However, it's still just "+1 feat" even for that advantage.

Emerald Wyvern wrote:
You're ignoring the value of flexibility.

Not at all. I'm granting "flexibility" the same leeway it's given within the SYSTEM. You know what that is? "+1 feat" period.

It doesn't get much more flexible than that, does it? That's what I'm placing the value at, and leaving it right there.

My take, "Here's a feat - take what you want with it." In other words, my value is absolutely DESIGNED around the idea that Feat = Feat. What feat you insert is irrelevant. I'm basing the value around the same systemic value it has in the game.

Emerald Wyvern wrote:

4RP is for any feat the player wants to take.

If we assume that price is correct, then some specific feat (chosen by the GM at time of race creation) ought to be worth 1-3RP. And explicitly called out as having that range to it. A skill focus to, say, any craft or profession skill, is worth a lot less than Endurance or Alertness, which in turn is worth less than things like Improved Initiative.

I must stop you RIGHT THERE. Where, in the system do YOU see ANY kind of distinction made that says "Skill focus is less of a feat than Power Attack, therefore Power Attack costs 2 Feats in stead of just 1 Feat" or anything of the sort?

That doesn't exist - at all. Why? Because the extent of "value" is "+1 feat" period. This basic D20/3.x/PF framework simply doesn't put feats on a graded scale. *At best* you have pre-req's, but those do not function in the same way at all because any 1 of them within the chain has the value of (wait for it ...) "+1 feat" period.

The system does NOT, it POINTEDLY does not grade the feats on any sort of a scale at all.

Why, then, should the race builder suddenly start introducing artifacts of design, like grading of feats, when the underlying system it is designed to interact with does no such thing?

I think what you propose has merit ... but in, say, Pathfinder 2nd Edition. It has NO place in a PF 1e race building tool-kit. The paradigms are incompatible.

Emerald Wyvern wrote:
I don't expect the system to provide a price for every feat; I do expect it to acknowledge that they're not all necessarily equal.


Show me where ANY feat is not just "+1 feat" in value, then? {Existing within the system, not the admittedly faulty PF listed values that the company says it is going to rework and revalue.}

What you want, while nice and admirable for FUTURE design of the game, is 100% incompatible with the existing underlying game mechanics.

Emerald Wyvern wrote:
Which would put Fortunate at around 6RP - it can't be worth much more than that, though. Why? Well, if you're trying to make a gish, or an archer, or really any actual build that's focused more on offense than defense, the feat will be of more use to you than the saving throw bonus. For a heavily defense-focused build, Fortunate would be better than the feat, of course. Which all suggests that the two are at least ballpark equivalent in value. Within, oh, maybe 50% or so.

So, your now associating "value" to specific builds?

That's a terrible idea.

The value needs to be assigned to the game mechanics it is connected to in the system.

Assigning value according to specific builds is just a bad, bad plan.

wraithstrike wrote:
I think extra feats are really powerful, but 4 points seems fair for one feat. Each additional free feat should cost more to make sure it is not abused. I would say 50% increase each time it is chosen, so the second feat would cost 6 points, and the 3rd would cost 9...

I'm not a fan of this, as I just think feats are systemically "weak" or "low value" overall.

However, in context of race-building, I think it's a solid idea to inherently limit potential abuse of a "cheap" resource being stacked up like that.

Or, just enforce a "This ability can only be taken 1 time for any given race" with maybe another line of "This ability can not be combined with similar abilities that grant feat-like properties."

Something like that.

VoodooMike wrote:
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
You can either pretend that "level 1" is the END GAME and make "+1 Feat" into an AWESOME GAME WINNER!!! It doubles your feats!!!
For race, level 1 is, in fact, the end game.

No. It's not. It's the entry point to playing THE REST OF THE GAME. What's more, the rest of the game ... IN A LEVEL BASED SYSTEM.

Designing a "race" is not the game. The "game" is level progression, adventures, saving the day, and becoming more competent as you progress in your story.

For "race", level 1 is just the foundation of the game, and thus, why over-valuing ANY ability is such a problem. For that matter, under-valuing is just as troublesome.

The premise that level 1 = "be all/end all" of race is ludicrous.

VoodooMike wrote:
It represents front-loaded benefits for character creation, which is why the extra feat has always made humans the most mechanically popular race in 3rd edition and beyond.

Umm ... based on what? Your personal game experiences? Your own magical talents for somehow knowing how all people played the game at all tables? Omniscience maybe?

You're making a huge claim there.

You're also coupling it with an unspoken "munchkins play humans only" sort of mentality or tone.

Not selling me on the validity of the argument or claim in either case.

VoodooMike wrote:
Once you start asking about the race's mechanical effect across all 20 levels, you've pretty much moved beyond the point of race, and into the realm of class, feats, and items, which are what character progression has traditionally been about. Race should not have a progressive mechanical benefit and, in fact, should become less important over time in everything but fluff... it should, in fact, become relatively unimportant by about level 5 if we're going to use core races as a baseline.

2 different things entirely here are being presented.

1) mechanical effect of race being irrelevant to class level.

2) Race having progressive impact in play akin to class levels.

On point #1 - I actually agree with that. HOWEVER, that's not what the other camp is saying either. The other camp is arguing that the level 1 value (class/level based metric here) has SO much more impact that it's TOTALLY worth 4 RP's. This, in light of the fact that it progressively is devalued, and the other 4 RP sample abilities we have are, pointedly, NOT losing effect over time, or relevance. Let's go to Fortunate (or whatever). It's 4 rp's and it's giving +2 to all saves always. Forever. No feat can do this. At best, it can get 1 of those things to happen (+2 to 1 save), and this is giving a +2 to all 3. That's like a 3 feats to 1 value. So, if we say a "+1 feat" is worth 4 RP's, then that ability *should* be more like 12 RP's on it's own. However, the existing document says it's 4 RP's. That, is just flat out crazy.

On Point #2 - I'm not arguing for races to have a progression with level at all. What I've done is point to the SYSTEMIC value of a feat and shown that the SYSTEM doesn't really give a lot of value to "+1 feat" inherently once you get outside of this race-builder system.

In fact, the designer's entire premise was challenged, and they've acknowledged that they did something wrong in assuming that "all races are worth 10 RP's" and that in this process they WILL be re-evaluating the values that have been assigned to abilities. That part of the argument's been won already - go playtesters!!! Go Paizo for listening to the fans!!!

Now, back to the point of the moment - the very fact that "+1 feat" was assigned a 4 RP value IN THE FIRST PLACE is 110% suspect because of the stated design premise (ie: that all races were equal and of a 10 RP value). Everything on EVERY race's make up is up for re-pricing and raised eyebrows. Why? Because the original premise that LEAD to the current #'s in the document were arrived at from an entirely flawed starting point.

Again, by way of comparison, at what point does +2 to ALL saves become irrelevant? Especially when you consider stacking limits, etc? At what point does Flight become irrelevant? Or Tiny? Or "insert 4 RP ability from the existing .pdf"?

It's all the same end-point. The other 4 RP value abilities are providing SIGNIFICANTLY more in terms of mechanical benefits and performance than ANYTHING "+1 feat" can approach.

VoodooMike wrote:
While a good theory, it isn't GMs who will be putting this into play most often and everyone knows it.

No. No I do not know this.

As the one who mostly GM's, I can't tell you how many times I have said, "No." Why? Because it just didn't fit the game we were playing at the moment.

This is a GM tool. It's been stated by the designers that THEY intend it to be a GM tool. More importantly, though (to put the nail in the coffin of "this is for players primarily"), is that they have also said this is absolutely NOT for PF Society play, or to be used in it. At all.

To reiterate: this is a GM tool. The designers are intending it to be used this way. They are preventing it's use entirely in organized play.

Those of us who plan to play test it should be doing so from the intended design goals - as a GM tool.

Now, value in RP's of the feat is irrelevant. If you like it at 4 RP's (to anyone), then what do *you* think should be the RP value of Flight? Or Fortunate (or whatever it is called)?

For me, if Feats stay at 4 RP's of value, then Fortunate better be 12 RP's. That thing is doing the work of no less than 3 feats!

+1 for this thread overall.

Good idea to add this into a race-creator system.


Aelryinth wrote:
You're still costing the feat wrong. The value of the feat is the Next Feat Taken that the guy next to you couldn't get.

No, wrong.

Show me where in the system is says, "Feat X is worth 3 units, and Feat Y is worth 1 only."

You can't.

You know why?

It is because THE SYSTEM itself has baked into the class structure "+1 feat" and really that's the extent of the value THE SYSTEM has. Period.

The system doesn't assign different values to different feats, yet that's sort of what you keep trying to mess with by including chains or anything like that.

The *closest* you can get is "pre-requesites" and those are not the same thing at all. Why?


Because the system says, "Character level (odd #) ==> +1 feat" and that is the extent of it.

Nipin wrote:
You are missing a very important factor here. We are not always 20th level characters.

Umm ... no. I didn't miss that at all. In fact, I counted on it - that's the 1st level at which you get a feat. Humans, as a racial feature get "+1 feat" more than everyone else. The higher the levels go (I chose 20 because level progressions only go so high, and epic rules have yet to be made official for PF at this time), the more IRrelevant that "+1 feat" becomes as a human feature.

20th level, as I used it, was just a snap-shot to establish what the value of Feats was as a baseline. The system awards them at X progression rate, over Y levels, and that was the extent of it.

You can't divorce the over-arching system design and how it values feats in favor of looking at 1 level in any given progression (at that, the 1st level, and the most insignificant level, frankly) and say that is the sum total of the "value" of a feat. That's not internally consistent to the system that exists outside of the race builder, and that is not going to play nicely with anything moving forward.

Nipin wrote:
The majority of players begin as a 1st level character with 1 feat. The bonus feat raises it to 2 feats, a 100% increase. As you level the value drops each time a feat is gained. At 9th level the norm is 5 feats; the trait now offers a 20% increase.

So, you would rather design a race builder that assigns value NOT as the over-arching system actually functions, but rather - reduce it's value to "how something functions at level 1 and level 1 only" is that it?

That's ridiculous. There is no long-term understanding of how the feats function "in system" as the system progresses. Or, are you adding to a rider there that the race builder should also only assume existence for all values at a level 1 and level 1 only progression - ever?

That's equally silly to me. It's a level-based game. *Of course* characters will get better.

You can either pretend that "level 1" is the END GAME and make "+1 Feat" into an AWESOME GAME WINNER!!! It doubles your feats!!!


You can look at how feats function in the long haul of the game's life and look to what value the system itself assigns, and design the race builder along those lines.

Nipin wrote:
So, should I start with a 100% increase in feats which eventually dwindles to 20%?

Here we are again.

You're pricing the "+1 feat" as though it's value is the BEST EVER in the race builder, and then continuing on, KNOWINGLY saying that it's value is not even close in the long-run of the game to what this race builder says it is.

How you can write, read, and understand that to NOT be inherently contradictory is beyond me. I look at it and it leaps out, "something is wrong here!"

Nipin wrote:
The trait is VERY powerful for low level builds and for the vast majority of players does not diminish significantly. This of course assumes every feat is a +1 feat typed power bonus, but in reality it is much more complex.

Now you're back on making a POINTEDLY subjective value based around a level 1 impact of a game mechanic that clearly provides diminishing returns, and then insisting that because the level 1 impact is so great, it should stand side by side with the ridiculous advantages of, oh, I don't know, let's say Flight (particular feature is irrelevant - pick any 4 rp ability and the point remains the same).

More, this is a level-based game. It's a game where you KNOW for a fact that "level 1" is not even *close* to the sum-total of where you will end up (unless you die at level 1 that is). Progressive leveling is what the entire game revolves around, and you're trying to justify an inflated price to a game resource that we know is just not that special, or all that unique.

Getting +1 more of the SAME things that everyone else has anyway isn't much to write home about. It is nice, and it is an advantage, however, you HAVE to consider the in-game value of this thing. Systemically, it tells us that it's just NOT that valuable a character resource - it isn't.

Note: this doesn't say that feats can't do nice things - they can. But nice things on the level of the other 4 rp-value examples we have? No - not even *remotely* close to being THAT nice in the least.

I think the more important thing is what Ion Raven put down. ...if anything, it's other abilities that are undervalued.

That's where the meat of this discussion will be. As I said, the whole basis of my objection to 4 rp's is by comparing it to other 4 rp abilities.

Again - I could care less what the final value of it is in the abstract. Hell - make it a 10 rp ability for all I care. HOWEVER, I want to know what the other abilities are getting priced out at. That's where my objection resides. You can't put a "cheap" (systemically speaking) feature like a feat on some grand pedestal for things that are systemically providing FAR superior benefits than anything that "cheap" resource can possibly achieve on it's own.

So ... fine. Let's say 4 rp's is fine for "+1 feat" ... where should Flight be rated if 4 rp's is "just a feat" essentially?

Ion Raven wrote:

Put me in the camp that believes that Human Feat costing 4 RP is just right, if anything it's other abilities that are undervalued. Hardy, Adaptability, and Gnome Magic should cost at least 3 RP not just 1 RP. Feats and feat like things should cost 3 RP. Being able to assign that feat to something to benefit your character whatever it may be should cost a little more (so +1 RP) coming up to 4 RP.

Everything Racial has a higher importance in the low levels. That's just how the game runs.
EDIT: Almost anything, Human's extra skill point every level effectiveness incurs throughout the lifetime of the character. Still it's at the power of a feat (Similar in effect to Toughness).

The bolded emphasis (mine) in the statement above I can get behind easily, actually.

If people want Feats to cost 4, I'm good with that. HOWEVER, everything else needs to sky-rocket by comparison. Seriously, the point I'm against is the price disparity in the first place. Whether "+1 feat" is 4 rp, or 2 is largely irrelevant. It's the matter of things being priced appropriately for the effects that they grant in-game.

Thalin wrote:
You're not refuting that human is the most taken race just for that extra feat though.

Do I have to? It's your experience, clearly. Do you presume to speak for "all who have ever played the game of all games Pathfinder" and therefore, are THE one true voice of authority on the matter?

I'm not, nor am I claiming to be. Humans get to have "+1 feat" as a racial feature. I'm not arguing about that, or that it's useful. I'm arguing about the value cost assigned to the thing. It's WAY off-kilter and I'm calling a spade a spade when I see it.

[For the record - I've played MANY games where there was not a human in sight. Doesn't mean much of anything, though - NOR am I claiming it should.]

Thalin wrote:
Face it, without changing game mechanics, almost all martial builds and a growing number of caster builds want more feats to feel more "complete". Summoning options, better metamagic make mages desire these before. You don't want to wait those two extra levels to get online; you want it now, and later you'll get a different support feat.

Yes ... many would like the opportunity to pick up "+1 feat" I'm sure. However, in the end, even if they did, you know what they would have?

Take a guess ...

"+1 feat"

Thalin wrote:
Once you are 9 or so human starts to lose value. Until then, that extra feat is what everyone wants; far more than the good-but-generic boons of other races. At 4 points as a player if I could design my own race I would rarely pass up an extra feat; some builds I might pay 5-6. This says it is possibly undercosted, but not overcosted.

So basing the value of "+1 feat" should revolve around the fact that by 9th level it's impact has been diminished, and it will only continue to diminish from there, correct?

You *do* realize that practically makes the case for me. It's OVER-valued in the low levels, and then it's insignificant past level 9. Totally insignificant and worthless in, say, the way that Flight could be taken at level 1, and by level 9, it's also insignificant and of minimal value. Or ... maybe +2 to all saves? Or "insert any other 4 rp value ability from the .pdf that you want to analyze".

You're measuring the value of the feat by what it can combine with, and not by what the SYSTEM tells us they are valued at. That's wrong-headed, IMO, for this sort of a project. You are putting in FAR more value to the thing than it truly has. Not every choice will be about optimization in this, and the system shouldn't be designed around that.

If you're worried about player abuse - well, then, that's EXACTLY why this is a GM tool product.

Thalin wrote:
Most of my PCs are humans because that extra feat lets me do what I want to do faster. All of my games start from 1, and as I play primarily PFS end at 11. I want as much as I can get as quickly as I can.

Irrelevant. It's anecdotal at best. All it proves is your personal preferences.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
This has zero to do with it.

No. That's exactly the point of it. The SYSTEM, once you begin and PLAY from level 1 - level infinite, the SYSTEM tells me "+1 feat = +1 feat" at every point and turn.

It tells me, also, that in changing from +1/3 levels (3.5) availability to +1/2 levels of availability that the feat, as a game mechanic of value has been made more common, and is, therefore, less valuable in the first place. When a race got +1 feat in a game that ONLY handed out 7 feats over a 20 level progression I'm looking at that as a 8/7, or 114% of what other races receive and that's over 20 levels, mind you (ie: not really worth much at too many given points). As that changes in PF, and there are now 10 feats over the same 20 level progression, I'm now looking at 11/10, or 110% of feats.

I do not deny it being of value. It *is* however, incredibly OVER-valued. Especially in PF's framework. There would be a stronger case of leaving it at a higher value IF this was still a 3.5 product ... but it's not a 3.5 product.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
How powerful is it next to other abilities of the same cost.

THIS is pretty much what matters most, actually. No disagreement ... however, let's look at some 4 rp abilities, then, eh?

*At 2 rp you can be a monstrous humanoid and get Darkvision, as well as now be a "monstrous humanoid" and maybe qualify for critter feats, too. It's not 4 rp's, but at 2 rp's, it's *already* more useful than ANY feat available. {yes - this is hyperbole, so don't get crazy trying to prove 1 feat can "win da' gamez" now.}
*4 rp's can get you Advanced Modifiers (ignore the pre-req's, just focus on the value of points here). +4/+2/+2/-2. Again - DWARFS the impact of "+1 feat"
*You can be Tiny and get the 4 RP's of that. +2 dex (note - in addition to whatever racial stats you have going anyway), and the other benefits (and then they account for 0 in space occupation ... and this counts for nothing against them. Provoking AoO's in order to enter a target's square and attack - this sucks ... yet it, too, is priced at 4)
*Duergar Immunities are valued at 4. Immunity, IMMUNITY to very common conditions and threats ... at 4 rps. THAT certainly dwarfs a "+1 feat" effect in so many way's it's not even funny.
*Fortunate - +2 racial bonus on all saving throws. Again ... show me the feat can grants you a bonus on anything more than 1 save, and I'll eat my words on this one.
*Damage Reduction
*Elemental Immunity
*Spell-like Ability - this can only use 2nd level spells, but it's free. Show me the feat that lets you just bust out with a spell for no good reason? {note - it's only 2 RP's on this one}
*Flight. 4 rps, and you can fly ... FLY, mind you.

There are more (examples in both directions), too, but it's not that relevant. The point is "+1 feat" =/= 4 rp's in terms of the other things that say "4 rps" are telling us they do for effects and mechanics.

It's crazy. +1 feat is NO WHERE NEAR the ability to fly. At all.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
3 feats of your choice at level one can be very powerful compared to two or one feats.Many abilities are not as good later on in the game, but they does not mean they should cost less.

Now you're talking about specific class potential to make use of "+1 feat" then?

That should have nothing to do with the inherent value of the feat itself.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
What you should look at is this in line with the powers of the same cost for level 1? A farmer? a expert? Most of the race are not 10th level wizards or 15th level fighters or 8th level clerics, with enough cash tied up in magic items to float a small kingdom.

Powers of the same cost (I'm assuming the documents RP values, yes?) = no. Hell no, not even close.

Farmers and experts? Last time I checked, racial choices matter most for PC's. Are you suggesting that they be balanced against potential NPC class power nerfing?

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
An extra feat just gives that race and every member of that race a huge edge in what ever field they choose.

No ... it gives them "+1 feat" and that's it. They could be a farmer with a passion for sword play and pick up Weapon Focus.

Or any other reason you want to insert a feat for, it can be inserted ... because you know what? It's just "+1 feat" no matter how you cut it.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I think 4 points is fine for a feat, you are playing for near countless options and flexibility after all.

Now skilled on the other hand is well over priced.

Um ... no. You are paying for "+1 feat"and which has the SAME value at every odd #'d level in the game.

@Xum: my question was not directed at you so much as taking the point you mentioned and bringing it up as it has been used in this thread so far - as a justification for why "+1 feat"and is SOOOOOO much more powerful than X, Y, or Z because of "choice" and such.

I am fully with your observation, though. ;-)

Xum wrote:

Main problem with feats is jus that, they have completelly diferent power levels, even those without level requirements.

Too many absurd or just plain bad pre-req. Without those bad pre-requisite feats however the humans do get a better use of their extra feat.

I remember the time when you would get 1 or 2 levels of fighter just to get pre-req feats, and I still see it happening, that's a problem that cannot be solved in this edition, and will never be solved until Feat inflation stops.

ok ... so if there is an acknowlwdged feat value issue, how is it a good thing to value feats higher than their actual in-system value?

Point being: I am not seeing how it is beneficial to a race building system to charge an outrageous premium on a general purpose mechanical artifact of little inherent (ie: feat = feat, and 1 feat/2 levels) value.

Thalin wrote:

... but feats are interesting and fun, and they define your character. Archers who start from 1 don't want to wait an extra level to be "online", they want point blank / precise from the outset, with rapid at 3. Weapon masters want that combat expertise / improved trip right away.

Humans are popular because most games start from 1 and end around 10; and humans get to play more of those levels fully functional.

There is a reason they end up the most popular race; flexibility in feat chains for early levels is huge.

No argument. It is a good human feature -as they get +1 more feature (earlier) than all other races ... at the cost of a whole slew of racial boons others get. It is a fair trade, but still leaves humans wanting by comparison.

More interestingly, though, I read the above assessment and I am not thinking about how much better humans are, but rather how screwed melee classes are. An archer needs to invest 2 feats (impossible for all but humans at 1stthe level) to be "online"? Meanwhile casters are good to go from the word go.

I see only greater reason, then, to devalue what a feat is worth by comparison.

Again, my assesment comes from the games baked in value assessment of feats popping up at 1/2 levels. It is a relatively "cheap" resource to the system itself. Keep in mind, too, that it is not like the system values feat x differently from feat y, mind you. They arw all just "+1 feat" and that is it.

Nah. Not convinced. It's 1, and only 1 feat ... compared against the whole long laundry list of racial powers?

No - not even *close* in value.

*Maybe* if feats were still at 1/3 levels like 3.5 did it (ie: more rare), however, with the direction PF took, the progression dropped to 1/2 levels (1, 3, etc), so they've made them "more common" now, and therefore less valuable.

Feats are NOT that powerful, or that vaulable in PF's own paradigm shifts from 3.5 - present.

1 to 50 of 1,026 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.