neceros's page

I disagree with the main post.

Wrong. Prestige classes are meant to help you specialize, not broaden, your abilities. There is a big difference.

The issue here isn't that you're getting something for free. The issue in 3.5 is it's inherent flaw in the way it assigns abilities based on class levels. We can't change that.

However, we can change the fact that your direct power comes directly from class levels. A normal 10 Fighter/10 Wizard will suck. That's no fun, it's not a balance system, and will ruin a character.

I don't believe it is the player's fault to want to be half and half, but the way this exponential system works is wrong. It's not truly half and half, as each level you gain you become exponentially stronger than the last.

You are not getting anything for free if everyone runs by the same rules. We aren't trying to munchkin bonus stuff out of the system, hiding behind your back giggling and making snark remarks. We are truly trying to make it a better system where everyone can get the character they want without cheaping to prestige classes that are obviously not balanced.

As much as we cringe to hear it prestige classes broke 3.5. We need to find a way to unbreak them and bring balance back to base classes.

Then again, I've never liked specialists as their benefits have never been worth it.

Whelp, nothing else to say here. Hope you find something that makes you happy.

stuff

And yet, they still get a power. :)

• Energy resistance 5 to one element -- Always on is not lame. :)
  
• +2 armor bonus -- Again, continually on is not lame. It's hard to get AC without duration.
  
• Always act during surprise round -- I thought this one was minor.
  
• +2 enhancement bonus on Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate -- Not for me
  
• +1 on damage -- It's +1 damage ever 5 CL. Not too shabby, since it stacks with everything else.
  
• "Concentration" illusions last "concentration + 2 rounds" -- It's ok
  
• Control 8 HD of undead per level instead of 4 HD -- I like pets and pet classes, plus this one is astoundingly powerful.
  
• +1 enhancement bonus to Str, Dex or Con -- Hard to get stat bonuses, so these are nice

Mind you this is from a "Somethings better than nothing, considering it's harder to get something other ways" mentality.

I actually have a sorcerer that took Undead as his bloodline.

The character's parents were sorcerers who made a deal with some devil, but revoked the deal and instead of losing their souls, embodied them within phylacteries and hid them away.

Their off spring had some issues.

Hey, why don't we all call ourselves generics and we can all have the same hair, clothes and attitudes? That'd be fair, right? Cool!

Ah, I see.

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but D&D is a niche book. It's well enough known that it makes money and we can usually find gamers all across the nation without looking too hard.

However, Pathfinder, I think, is an even narrower niche simply because it doesn't say "D&D." Absolutely give us what you noob friends think, but I wonder if anyone besides in the know will buy the book?

Anyone who is building a fighter/wizard needs to understand that they are trying to build a character that has classes that are at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Without taking a prestige class, it's very difficult to achieve.

That's the problem. Prestige classes are awesome. So very awesome, in-fact, that they took over D&D. Prestige classes are meant for specializing or changing your focus through your career, not letting you become 9/10ths of 2-3 classes, losing barely a caster level if you do it right (I have.)

That leaves everyone else in the dust, because they didn't crunch so much.

Seems balanced for the most part.

Specialists get a cool power that generalists don't get, and if they want to cast from all schools they forgo that power. Generalists don't get any special power, but they do get to pick from all schools.

Another generation method I was considering is thus:
For every dollar you give the GM he or she allows you a +1 to an ability score. This transaction may occur so long as dollars are continued to be offered, or until the other players pummel you for giving the GM too much money.

I'd like to ask what your ideas are on system-wide changes, like the core rules. There have been quite a few suggestions that would alleviate the math issues with 3.5 that don't hamper backwards compatibility.

Thanks, Jason!

Give them some paper and let them write it out, if they feel like it.

If not ask them what their favorite aspect was, what they disliked the most and what they wanted from the session.

Let me suggest:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/improving35PathfinderNecerosCoreUpgrade

These changes, you may find, are actually presented in Unearthed Arcana optional rule book. It is a very well conceived notion: One that I have thought about, as well.

We started to add 1/2 BAB to AC... works fine IMO.

Some classes are simply better fighting than the others.

This is one path I was considering, as well. I agree that fighters and barbarians should be better at fighting than those devoted to other causes.

Changing AC in this way wouldn't be adding AC to the end total. All we're doing is making some of the power come directly from the character in lieu of items. This ensure more room for useful magic items, which feels better in the long run when you can use things that you've always wanted to buy, but never got around to it because you had a Ring of Protection instead.

I also use different +stat boosting items, more like those in 4e then in 3.5. Instead, I issue more ability points through leveling up.

jasin, you're being pretty aggressive while we're just trying to help you out.

Unfortunately, monks wielding swords is contrary to the definition of the class, in most circumstances. They've already added a couple more weapons to the monk list as it is, plus forcing the monk to take a feat in exchange to use a longsword with flurry isn't unheard of.

Pathfinder is explicitly made t be backwards compatible, so it's not unreasonable to keep the feat in other source books.

I'm a huge Cook fan.

Hey, that's pretty nice. I might have to swipe some of your placement ideas...

Thanks! Happy to help.

Far as I can tell, the bonuses don't apply until you wear them for 24 hours. Or something like that...

First, it would look copy-cat. Second, they would look like cogs you could insert into a round of combat to accomplish a goal, not magic spells which alter the universe to better suit you.

Weird how people can't see past their nose.

I've retooled my character sheet to support BETA. See here:
Neceros' Character Sheet

Thanks, and happy gaming!

In my theory monsters aren't touched. Only creatures out of the player handbooks are given these upgrades.

I've always thought that monsters can be arbitrarily upgraded on the fly to help incorporate adaptation. If the DM wants to use this system for monsters, it will work fine. Less Natural armor and insane stats than normal, and use this AC system and it should work out.

Thanks for replying!

My reasoning behind these changes is to supplement and balance multiclassing. Third is a great edition, but the math fails after level 12 or so. This method ensures that the math doesn't fail so quickly.

If everyone is getting AC from their innate power, supplemented by armor naturally, then the story can continue into epic without forcing each opponent to 1-2 round combats, which drastically changing consequences depending on dumb luck.

Fighters will still be king of the battlefield -- especially in Pathfinder.

Consider this. A level 10 fighter will have an AC of 10 + half level 10 + armor 8 + dex 1 + enhancement + 3 + ring of protection 1 = 33. A wizard will have an AC of 10 + 10 + mage armor? 4 + dex 2 = 26. That 7 point difference is astounding, in reality.

This system has the benefit of utilizing 4e's basic concept (a concept that could have had supreme beneficial factors, had they taken the system into a better field. That's another post, however) of balanced equations, without taking away the flavor or 3.5 and the multitudes of options.

I believe 3.5 is a great system, but it's core is flawed and quickly fails. Pathfinder alleviates some issues with power, now it's someone's turn to help it on it's math. I don't mean to say my methods are perfect, I'm no designer (yet), but they are a good step toward that path.

Let me explain the saves a bit more.

Saving throws and save dcs are torn from some variable that is invisible to me. They don't make sense. It may not seem like a lot, but the difference in a couple points is enough to make or break the save, as with attacks and defenses.

Example time. A 20th level wizard who casts a spell has a save DC (Not regarding any feats, specialties or miscellaneous bonuses) of 24, assuming a stat of 18 in int. Of course, it would be vastly higher, probably a 24 or more by then. Targeting someone's poor save, they would get a bonus to their roll of 12 (Give or take, depending on their ability modifier, but it's almost sure to be below the wizard's ability, plus the wizard has more ways to increase his or her save dc). The defender would have to roll a 12 to succeed.

This level of math increases continually from level 1 to ... endless. Three factors would change it.
Ability: This factor should usually be in the favor of the caster, if done right. However, this is an even consideration.
Enhancement: With implements that add to Save DCs, and weapons that add to attack, this is also an even consideration.
Feats: This one can vary, but generally spell focus, greater spell focus, ability focus, etc. There are ways to increase both the value of the attacker and defender in both circumstances.

The question, then, is to consider who should get the advantage. As it stands, it is an even 50% chance of both sides succeeding if the defender has a good save. Should the caster have a little bit more chance to succeed then the defender, due to the fact that spells are used even if they fail? The caster generally has a limited supply of their shtick. I Say no because multiple variables go into this consideration, and it seems to even out.

I'm done rambling. Please give me your thoughts.

There's a feat in both Dragon Compendium and also Eberron that allows the monk use of a longsword in flurry and proficiency.

Easy to replace "Longsword" with any weapon, really.

Interesting that I missed this entire thread before posting a new one about how to fix core 3.5 mechanics. It's still... processing, or whatever new threads do before they appear.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/improving35PathfinderNecerosCoreUpgrade

Hey folks,

My group and I have been talking about Pathfinder for some time now. We've finally got a couple games going to test and support the rule set. For the most part, we love all the changes, as they are good upgrades, balanced revisions and just plain smart thinking.

However, the changes are conservative and don't really help balance the core system. It's still 3.5. Granted, Paizo never promised they were going to fix the system of it's flaws, and instead vowed to help balance the core system at it's heart: It's classes and races, plus some additional goodies like skills, etc. This got us to thinking, and me writing.

I'm not a writer. I give you a fair disclaimer that what you see below has not been edited to much any great extent, and I have a chaotic mind. It's hard for me to put my thoughts down on paper.

Below you'll find some revisions to the core 3.5 system, which Pathfinder is base upon. These changes, so far as I notice, do not remove backwards compatibility. There may be instances where you will have to alter some aspects to fit it better with these new rules. For instance, monsters may need to be altered to fit. Then again, add a couple more hitpoints to each monster and call it good.

1. Save DCs
Any attack that opposes a saving throw is now calculated thus, including powers, spells and abilities: 10 + Half Caster level + Ability bonus.

2. Armor Class
Characters now gain half their Character Level as an unnamed bonus to their armor class.

3. Magic Items

• Enhancement bonus to armor class may only be applied to armor, and not to rings, bracers, etc. Cloth (Robes, shirts) may be enchanted like normal armor, but must fulfill all other requirements per normal (must be masterwork, etc).
  
• Miscellaneous magic items that provide a bonus to AC now provide a maximum +1 to AC (ie, ring of protection cannot exceed +1).
  
• Implements may be enchanted to benefit casters in their spell save DCs and bonuses to hit when using spells. These foci must be enchanted using the same rules for enchanting weapons, with the same enhancement bonuses applying to the attacks and damages of the user's spells. Example: A wizard enchants a staff with a +2 enhancement. His or her staff now gives an additional +2 item bonus to all his or her spell save dcs. This staff costs 8,000 gold, as is normal for a +2 weapon. Enhancements may apply to only one of either save dcs or bonus to attack with spells, but not both.

4. Death Effects
All spells and abilities that have an instant death effect (save or die) are removed. In exchange, those abilities may stun or deal damage depending on a case by case circumstance.

Alternatively, someone suggested that death effects be replaced with rules similar to the Death Domain, from 3.5 PHB special ability.

5. Caster Levels (Manifester Levels)
Caster level, spells know, and spells per level for spell casting classes are given a multiclass bonus equal to half the value of all classes not already giving you caster levels for that particular class. This multiclass bonus may not exceed the class level providing the original caster level. This bonus works in the same way a "+1 arcane/divine caster level" would work from prestige classes. This bonus does not give you any other benefits that you might aquire from leveling in your normal caster level class, including class abilities, only spells, spells known and caster levels. Below are examples.

• 4 Wizard / 10 Fighter: Wizard gains +4 to caster level from Fighter class. The Fighter actually gives a +5, but this bonus is limited because it may not exceed the Wizard class level of 4.
  
• 5 Cleric / 4 Druid: Gain +2 bonus for both the druid and cleric caster levels from the opposite classes. Druid now has a CL or 6, and Cleric has a 7, on a 9th level character.

6. Saving Throws
All saving throws calculated as follows: half character level + ability bonus. Classes who previously had "good saves" (a +2 bonus at level 1) give a one time class bonus of +2 to that saving throw. You may gain the class bonus to saving throws only once at first level, thus multiclassing into a different class will not benefit your saving throws.

If anyone has additional thoughts, or corrections please don't hesitate. However, if you disagree I'd love a friendly response in your reasoning. :)

I think for my next game I will not roll any dice, but will instead just assign a +modifier that everyone can build with.

Even characters, creative people will get what they want and it's not too powerful.

Probably +10 total bonus.

Uh. It's the same magic system...

They mentioned they were getting rid of spell-like abilities, and instead adding bonus spells.

I'll plop mine out here:

http://www.neceros.com/forum/index.php?automodule=downloads&showfile=16

Thanks!

neceros wrote:

I'll plop mine out here:

Neceros' Pathfinder Character Sheet.

Thanks!

Great sheets, just some questions, suggestions, and requests though:

- spell resistance, not resist
- damage reduction, not resist

- what are the boxes next to CMB for? ammo? bad placement if so, instead add place for CMB defensive DC calculation, due to possible feat bonuses

- trained skills (with ranks) gain a +3 bonus.

Just my initial thoughts.

Ooo. I had been considering what to put near CMB. Those were filler boxes, which in my recent version isn't there anymore. I'll post the revised soon.

While I understand that Resist is not the proper term, it is still valid. further: I don't have room to spell it out otherwise.

Yep, trained skills get a +3 bonus if you have ranks in them.

Happy Gaming!

Uh, no.

The Human Favored class bonus is to represent that humans adapt to situations better than most other races. This means, among other things, that their favored class can be whatever destiny (read: player) decides it to be. There is no 'normal' human class.

That's all.

Worse post ever.

1. Pathfinder has a great logo, and it sticks out more than the movie ever did. No need to change anything.

2. Race line up actually makes the races not look stereotypical and 30 years old. I love the artist, even if I don't particularly appreciate a certain race. It still looks pretty nice.

3. Whine. Whine. Don't like 4e? Ebay it. Don't throw words like you're using to describe 4e to us as some of us may still like 4e or play 4e. You don't like it: get over it.

4. I forget what you were complaining about. Edit: Oh yeah, I agree that the spells are difficult to read. Too many bars in each spell. Leave it at one bar per spell somewhere near the top, or do something else. Those bars make scanning hard. :)

If you have constructive criticism pertaining to the betterment of Pathfinder, I applaud your desire to continue it's growth. Do so in a positive manner, and stop trashing other systems.

Take care.

I'll plop mine out here:
http://www.neceros.com/forum/index.php?automodule=downloads&showfile=16

Thanks!

Eww, Mushy.

On point; I see no reason why a Human can't take Fighter as his Favored class when he's a rogue at level one.

Which ever path is taken in release it must have at-will abilities that make the cleric viable every day, every hour. I hate Vancian.

It tends to hit the point of least fun at level 7, when you're casting 2nd-level spells instead of 4th-level.

The natural issue with 3.5.

neceros wrote:

Let's be serious here, now; why would anyone ever play a gnome? Come on.

Hey, I'm currently playing a gnome! Balthazar the Shadow, a beguiler/shadowcraft mage, is adventuring in Maure Castle these days.

Last time I played a gnome -- and actually, the only time I've ever played one -- was because it was a one shot and I was intentionally being the comedic relief. I had been sick all week and my voice had failed me. However, I noticed that when I talked in a deeper pitch I would sound almost exactly like the movie announcer guy (Don LaFontaine, if anyone is interested.) It was pure gold being a Gnome Warlock who announced his every action evily.

I digress; yes I agreed that stereotypes are horrible and I hate race/class restrictions, but sometimes it's not a horrible thing. We don't want everything to be as everything else, right?

I plan to fully try one in Pathfinder. Heck, I may even try one in normal 3.5 in the future if I get a chance. The CharOp forums made me realize that while power was fun, and most of the time optimization is needed on some levels, I don't mind actually playing the role.

I concur in the underwhelming aspect of the Theurge. That doesn't mean it isn't fun to play, however. I've always wanted to play one.

neceros wrote:

I'll say this: I may actually play a wizard because of Pathfinder now.

Why wouldn't you play them before?

I'm not much for pre-planning in advance. Sorcerer I could pick spells depending on tactics and general events I thought would occur and be alright. Wizards I had to plan every spell before hand, and I failed at it. Plus, Charisma was usually more handy for me, due to paladins, Ascetic Mage, etc.

Wizards didn't get enough spells in a given day to be sure they could do their job. I wanted to play a mage, not a scholar. :)

I love 99% of it, except for:

- The changes to Power Attack and Expertise (making it totally useless for 99% of fighters - do you REALLY expect fighters not to keep their intelligence reasonably low? Do they now need to keep that high too? Or do only the smart guys get to raise their CA now?).
- More generally, the feats that say "Take the lower of your BAB or your bonus in the xxx stat".
- Changes to Cleave and Great Cleave. Made both feats rubbish now.

I didn't mention feats because those are easy to not use. My group is using 3.5 core feats mostly. So, I'll agree that the current feats are underwhelming.

In comparison, a wizard does, more or less, anything he wants.

I hate 3.5 wizards. Good thing they rock, now. ;)

Put me down for one who dislikes the favoured class mechanic.

It further discourages players from trying something a bit different.

Gnome Cleric? Are you mad?

Let's be serious here, now; why would anyone ever play a gnome? Come on.

I don't think the mechanic deters from people who want to try stuff out. It does, however, add a bonus to those who follow racial traditions.

Either way, it's all the same.

Cleric, Druid and... probably Psion.

Now, now, this isn't about me.

One man's business is always another man's business, for we are all brothers and affect each other even without intent.

:)

Stuff.

You LN from WoTC boards?

My comments.

Races
If you make the Half-Elf worse than it is now no body will want to play it, save those folks who play half-elves regardless of their mechanics.

Classes
Whole heartedly agree in talent trees. The barbarian opened my eyes in what was possible, and rogues were more than happy to have this method. Monks need it as well: Feats are nice, but specific class abilities would be much more appreciated.

Move all the bloodlines, specializations and domains straight into the class sections, as well as channel descriptions. This is one thing WoTC got right with 4e.

Skills
Get rid of fly. Maneuverability is fine.

Difficulty Checks
These have got to be based on your level, whether class or character I leave up to the designers. Static spell saves mean static characters. A wizard who casts fireball, never mind what level the spell is, should cast it at his full potential. That's what level simulates!

The same goes for all DCs. 10 + Half Level + Ability. Fourth Ed got this very right, and so should 3.5 and Pathfinder. This should also go for AC and Saves to an extent.

Action Points/Hero Points
Why doesn't Pathfinder have any?

Multiclassing
3.5 has got this mostly right. The only issue is power scale, as AT said. If you have two 10 level classes then you are two half characters meshed into one. You have horizontal power, but not much punch. People who specialize almost always have better methods then those who generalize.

This is a bad notion. I whole heartedly agree that half of all your other classes should count towards your other class in all ways. Sneak Attack, Caster Levels, and Class Abilities.

For instance, a level 5 Wizard/5 Rogue would have,
Caster Level 7 Wizard (Wizard 5 + Rogue 2)
Sneak Attack 4d6 (Rogue 5 + Wizard 2)
etc...

The whole concept must be focused on character level and less on class level in order to maintain stability through all levels of play. BAB, saves and AC must be stabilized across all levels, with classes giving specific bonuses to their strong points, as AT said.

This would make a great D&D without sacrificing any backwards compatibility.
Good saves give a +2, Everyone gets half level in BAB, with warrior classes giving half their level again as a bonus to hit, 3/4 classes getting a strait +2 or +3, and caster classes getting no bonus.

It can go on. It needs to be fleshed out, but I'd be happy to brain storm with those who want it.

-Neceros