anthony Valente's page

Another way to do this, instead of doing a per encounter or per Con modifier per day method is to say the heal check heals hit points = to the character's con modifier to a minimum of 1. But that makes the skill far less useful at the higher levels. Also, it becomes yet another thing that is tied to the Constitution ability score, making it even more valuable.

Better ways to rule mundane healing through a heal check should be level dependent or hit die dependent, and not Con based. With Level dependent, the heal skill keeps up with Character Power, but with Hit Die dependent, the heal skill keeps up with Class power. I like to go with healing based on level of the character as I proposed earlier as it has less problems and is simpler than HD dependent. As far as trumping magical healing is concerned, again I don't think it really does. Cure light wounds happens in 6 seconds or less, whereas mundane healing needs a healers kit to be reliable, (except at higher levels) and takes 5 minutes and isn't 100% successful. And the "rest period" in my proposal could be eliminated, (though my players do like it).

Another idea....

One way that combat feats could be differentiated from general feats is that combat feats could scale with level while general feats could remain static. Suppose Dodge is left as a combat feat. Assuming that you can use one combat feat per round, that +1 to AC won't be all that welcoming at the higher levels and would probably never get used over feats that are obtained at high levels. Change Dodge to something to the effect of: +1 to AC for every four points of BAB, then it retains its usefulness.

I don't feel that this hurts backwards compatibility. All wizards/sorcerers can be converted to PFRG by simply giving them extra hit points equal to their wizard/sorcerer level. After all, the average goes from being 2.5 hp/level to 3.5 hp/ level. Even at level 20, its only 20 extra hit points more. And at 1st level, it puts them back on par with an ordinary D&D dude (the commoner).

And there is precedent to changing hit dies. The ranger is a good example of this. I do like Paizo's proposal of bringing them back to d10 hp/level I must say.

We tried the alternative starting hit points with new characters. The standard hit points are the most preferred in our group. We have never had problems in the past, and when making our characters using the other methods proposed, we felt that the characters became too durable compared to other monsters such as orcs or even the ogre. I think the survivability of 1st level character is fine where it currently is and perfectly illustrates the frailty and inexperience of the newbie adventurer. If it is percieved as an issue that needs adjustment for pathfinder, it is a minor one compared to the other issues of 3.5.

If Paizo felt a fix was needed, then I would rather they solve the problem by not tinkering with starting hit points, but by making the jump from 1st level to 2nd level quicker by modifying the experience point table. In other words, the less time you spend being first level, the less of a chance you have of dying from that "one lucky hit" as some put it, or the less number of trips back to town after one encounter.

Throwing this out on the table:

Lightning Counter-Strike:
You react to your opponent's attack with blinding speed, delivering an attack of your own a split-second before your foe strikes.
Prerequisites: Improved Initiative, Dex 15+, BAB +15
Benefit: As an immediate action, you may make a single melee attack at your highest base attack bonus at one opponent you threaten who strikes at you. You may not use this feat while you are flat-footed, or otherwise denied your dexterity bonus to your armor class. You must be aware of the the attack. The use of this feat uses up the use of a combat feat on your following turn.

I like the concept of combat feats presented in Alpha. I'd like to add a concept as to how combat feats should be designed, which is based on spellcasting:

1) You should be able to use one per round, much like a spell caster casts one spell per round (in general)

2) You should not have to use one combat feat to unlock another (as has been proposed). You should be able to use any combat feat you have available, much like a caster can cast any spell available.

3) You should have unlimited use of your known combat feats, unlike spells.

4) Combat feats should be less powerful than spells, but still remain potent and useful. Each combat feat should be limited in its scope. This concept of less powerful combat feats in relation to spells takes into account that spells are available for only a limited time per day, whereas combat feats would potentially be always available.

5) Combat feats that are very potent should be limited in their use by restrictions as to when you can use them. (can't think of any examples at the moment)

6) Combat feats should have levels of power (much like spells) and characters should be able to obtain them in similar fashion as spell casters aquire spells (learn two new combat feats upon advancing a level) may seek a tutor (instead of buying a scroll and copying it, etc.)

7) Unlike most spell casters, characters should be limited to the number of combat feats known as they are powers that are always available.

How about this idea?

Keep the current skill system with skill points and such, but change it in the following way:

1) Get rid of the current class/cross class concept. You gain 1 rank per skill point spent, period. It doesn't matter what class you are or what skill it is.

2) Limit the max number of ranks you can have in a given skill by your level.

3) A "class skill" is now defined as follows: A character who trains in a class skill gains a +3 class skill bonus to to his skill checks in that skill.

Another idea is to just get rid of the 2 for 1 point cost of a cross-class skill and make it a 1 fo 1 cost. You could still cap the maximum number of ranks in a cross-class skill equal to half your level.

I think there are only 2 real problems with the current skill system:
1) the 2 for 1 cost of cross-class is confusing
2) there are some skills that aren't very useful (consolidating has helped this)

I would also like to see a couple of new skills such as one to assess a situation or opponent, like the idea presented in Complete Adventurer for the Sense Motive skill.

Concentration should be made useful for all classes, for instance it could be used to suspend the effects of certain mind affecting spells for a round: as a standard action you may make a concentration check to avoid the effects of a spell such as "confusion" for the current round.

Just some thoughts anyway...

What about giving the fighter a feat tree essentially for free? It could be chosen at first level, and would follow somewhat how the current monk gains the unarmed strike feat tree. There's the three most common ones: Two weapon fighting, sword and shield, and Two handed fighting. Perhaps the fighter can gain feats along these lines when they gained a given level rather than choosing them with one of their feat slots. I think this would give them a focus in style, but allow for versatility by freeing up feats that would otherwise be spent on attaining them. The Ability could be called Combat Style, much like how the current Ranger chooses one at 2nd level. Personally, I think that ability is more of a fighter thing than a Ranger thing anyway

I can see how giving the fighter weapon training bonuses like the 3.0 ranger would still lead to that character still going to his weapon that he best attacks with almost exclusively. It's only natural. I like the ideas presented here that make the fighter good equally with a wide range of weapons at high levels. I also like the concept of having weapon training bonuses only applying to iterative attacks. I think this concept should be explored further.

I can see everyone's points of view. It was just a thought that was spawned from an idea I had for making a smoother increase in ability rather than a choppy one. As it stands now there isn't really any difference between a score of 14 or a score of 15 for instance, other than the fact that 15 gets you closer to a 16.

I could ramble on about my thoughts on this, but after reading the responses, I agree that this idea wouldn't add much to the game as a whole and doesn't address more important issues.

I may house rule it for myself however :).

One thing that has always disappointed me was that only even numbered ability scores provided a jump in bonus (or penalty). They always seem as if an odd score is more a nuisance than a benefit. What if abilities provided bonus modifiers in the following way. Basically you would give each ability a "primary modifier" and a "secondary modifier" Strength for example might look like what follows:

Str Primary Secondary
12 +1 +0
13 +1 +1
14 +2 +1
15 +2 +2
16 +3 +2
17 +3 +3
18 +4 +3
etc.

In this example, a Strength of 14 would give a secondary bonus of +1 to hit and a primary bonus of +2 to damage.

Don't know if it would be too complex or no...

The problem with tying all this hp stuff to Con or your Con modifier is that it makes Constitution as an ability too valuable. From the existing rules set, you get:
1) bonus Hp equal to your Con modifier at every level
2) bonus to Fort equal to your Con modifier

These by themselves are quite nice.

Now adding all these proposals, some possibilities put forth could add:

1) Extra starting HP equal to your Con (in one starting HP option at least)
2) go to negative Hp equal to 10 plus Con modifier
3) amount of times you can be healed by mundane means tied to your Con modifier
4) amount of hp healed is 1dx + Con modifier
5) etc.

The result? Who would ever create a character without a good Con score? As it is right now I have yet to see a player make a character with less than a 14 Con in my campaigns in 3rd edition.

I'd rather see more things being linked to character level rather than ability scores, including what is being discussed in this thread. Such as healing a number of HP equal to your level after an encounter, or your character dies when he reaches a negative HP total equal to 10 + character level.

This naturally makes them scaleable and gives more freedom to players during character creation in putting ability scores in abilities they want to rather than where they think would be most optimal. In general, stat boosting items are already a high priority on on most players wish lists. Tying too many benefits to ability scores would only increase this urge.

I also find that tying a mundane healing mechanic to a limited number of times per day equal to your Con modifier to be a needless mechanic. It also just seems plain awkward...
Two characters are involved in 5 encounters in a given day. One has a 14 Con and the other has 20 Con. So basically, one character can be treated after each fight, but the other can be healed after only 2? It is also a mechanic that would add redundancy. You already get bonus hp equal to Con modifier, so let's add Con modifier number of healing times per day? Both in essence are increasing total hps and result in widening even further the hp gap between a low Con character and a high Con character.

The beauty of the current benefits of a Con bonus is that they provide that bonus in two different ways: one gives bonus HPs, the other a bonus representing hardiness to withstand other types of health related assaults that don't deplete hps (poison for instance)

So my advice... stay away from Con modifier mechanics on this one, unless it results in providing a bonus in a new way.

I'd like to lend a couple rules to this discussion that I have added to my campaign.

It's intended to accomplish the following:

1) allow non-magic healing characters a way to provide healing
2) reduce dependency on a cleric
3) cut down on wands of cure "x" wounds
4) be simple rule-wise and useful at any level of play

The rules are a little more complex than this but....

Rest Period:
Once after each combat encounter you may take a rest period to regain energy expended and allow minor pain to subside. Upon completion of the rest period, you regain hp equal to your character level. You may not gain more hp than what you had at the beginning of the encounter and you may not rest if you are unconcious.

First-Aid:
Once after each encounter, you may recieve first-aid. This requires a heal check. The DC is 20 with a healer's kit, otherwise it is DC 25. Success allows you to regain a number of hp equal to your character level. This may also be performed on an unconcious character, but the DC rises to 25 with a healer's kit, DC 30 without one. This may give the character enough hp to bring him above 0.

I have it a little more spelled out than this to cover loop holes, but this is the basic nuts and bolts of it.

I want to see iterative attacks stay. The only thing I see wrong with the current incarnation of Iterative attacks is at the high levels, particularly 16th and above. My group is currently running the Age of Worms Campaign and we are just finishing up "The Library of Last Resort." This is what I notice:

The 4th attack gained at 16th level, is almost pointless, usually needing a 17+ to hit, but often a perfect 20. I see this both from the PCs' as well as monsters. This is especially true with the two-weapon fighter and the ranger with rapid shot.

What I also notice is that it isn't the actual attack rolls that slow down gameplay, because the math really isn't that hard. It's what happens afterward... figuring out damage. Does Axiotmatic apply? Electric? Holy weapon damage? Damage reduction? Feats such as Point Blank Shot, the +1 to attack from prayer, etc. need to be remembered as well.

Also, I find that the spell casters take up just as much time and often more figuring out just the right spell to cast than the warriors (the party consists of 1 sword and board fighter, 1 two-weapon fighter, 1 ranger, 2 clerics, and 2 wizards.) The sword and board fighter consistently resolves his round the swiftest, not so for the two-weapon fighter if he decides to make a full attack (with 7 attacks). But in our group, it's looking up the effects of spells and rules such as grapple, cover, trip, etc, that take up the most time, not iterative attacks.

In summary, I'm for Iterative attacks, but would like to see a drop of the last one gained by all classes. This would look like (at 20th level):

Good BAB: +20, +15, +10
Average BAB: +15, +10
Poor BAB: +10

I'm also for more movement during a full attack action. I think the simplest rule is most effective: you can move your normal speed and make all attacks you are entitled to based on your BAB. You would still suffer from attacks of opportunity (and keep the 5' step useful), yet most if not all current feats would remain viable (such as spring attack and mobility). Some might require minor rewording. The only one I can think of that becomes almost useless is Shot on the Run, which I didn't see that much use of anyway.

What I would like to see for skills:

1) Consolidating some of the skills as Alpha already proposes

2) Keeping some sort of skill point system (not choosing skills)

3) Characters may have max ranks in a particular skill = to their level. As a class feature, at first level, Rogues may have max ranks in a skill = to their level +3.

In our campaign, I currently rule that the amount of negative hit points a PC can sustain before dying is equal to 10 + character level. Real simple. So a 1st level character would not die until reaching -11 hp and a 20th level character would not die until reaching -30 hp. I think that adding the Con modifier to this score puts that much more emphasis on that ability, making it more valuable than it already is. I understand the concern with players knowing when a fellow companion is going to die. I don't think that in and of itself is a big issue. In our games, I don't allow the players to know other players hp totals while playing, and if a PC falls, the controlling player can't speak in reference to the battle or his PC's condition. It makes for a lot of drama and other PCs always try rush as quickly as possible to tend to a fallen commrade. I'm sure not all groups may like this method, but there can still be other mechanical solutions to increase tension. For instance, with (10 + level) or (10 + level + Con) thresholds for hp, when a character goes into negative hps, if he doesn't stablilize, he would lose 1d4 hp per round instead of the normal 1 per round.

Again, I'm for simplicity and usefulness. 10 + level for negative hit point threshold is easy to remember, and works better than the current system. And I wouldn't worry about the "OK, we have 5 rounds until Trask kicks the bucket..." I don't think that is a big deal.

Hello all,

I think I'll peruse these posts and compile a list of what everyone thinks doesn't work or needs fixing to create that "Bullet List" I was thinking of creating when I opened this post. It may take me a couple of days to get to it however because I have a busy weekend ahead of me. If someone wants to compile it before I do feel free. I was thinking of just a list with a very brief reason for a change.

Add to the list:
2) Light Shield vs Bucker: Reason: Buckler is clearly superior.

Reading through the Alpha set, I notice that some mechanics have been sensibly simplified (skills for example) while other mechanics have been not so sensibly made more complex (combat feat chains). I agree with the OP that ALL new changes should err on the side of simplicity rather than complexity.

I'm for leaving the Vancian system as is. It is fundamental to D&D 3.5 as well as the compatability of pathfinder's intent (at least in my opinion on the latter). The 15 minute adventuring day has never been a problem in any campaigns I ran. There are so many ways that a spell caster can contribute with the system as is... especially with scribing scrolls, and the use of staffs and wands and other magic items. It has been a long time since we have played with low level characters, but in my current campaign, the characters are of 15th and 16th level, and I have yet to see the spell casters suggest calling it quits before continuing because they can't contribute. I can see the problem of contributing spell casters "past 15 minutes" at lower levels as characters have a small selection of spells. Again, I think this is still aleviated through the obtaining of scrolls and rewarding of magic implements by a judicious GM or whipping out the ol' Crossbow.

I just don't see a need to throw out or greatly alter the Vancian system. I do not think it is one of the things that is broken in 3.5 and Pathfinder needs to seriously address.

I would be more open to enhancing and adding rules and mechanics and making very slight tweaks to the current rules rather than seeing a complete overhaul, or adding a mechanic that nerfs the concept of the Vancian system. I would rather see, the addition of "action" feats for spell casters or building on the implement concept to come up with something to keep casters useful after 15 minutes of adventuring if the community feels the need for something to be done.

Messing with the fundamentals of the Vancian system is not a good way to go IMHO.

Hello All.

I just wanted to start a thread that specifically lists what everyone thinks needs to be fixed. It could serve as a "table of contents" or bullet list of sorts to be used as a platform for other threads. I love the idea that paizo wants to tweak 3.5 and also wants our input as I would rather stick with the 3.5 system. However, looking through the threads so far, there are a lot of interesting ideas and feedback, but it is bewildering to try and sort through it (for me anyway).

My first contributions to this list:

1) Eliminate at least the last iterative attack of good, average, and poor BAB tables. Reason: I currently run a 16th level campaign and they almost never hit. It slows down gameplay