sunshadow21's page

The sales rank of the 5E Players Handbook was #1 at Amazon. Not #1 in some niche portion of the endlessly subdivided categories of books, but #1 in books. That is HUGE *waggles hands*.

Today the 5E Players Handbook is still at #93 in books with 1,348 reviews (ave.4.5/5.0). Pathfinder comes in at #3,360 in books with 470 reviews (ave. 4.7/5.0).

The problem is that while that very much shows that 5E has a far bigger name, that's about all it shows, and the name recognition is as much about past successes than current ones or the possibility of future ones. WotC has been trying for three editions now to get their multi-platform approach to selling D&D off the ground; they are starting to show some signs of finally getting it to work after almost two decades of effort, but it remains to be seen whether they can fully sustain those efforts. Paizo has earned themselves at least a foothold in almost every category that WotC has been even partially successful in with far less time, money, and effort.

It's great that 5E hit #1 of all books, but that doesn't mean anything if they did so almost entirely on the back of the past with little to no contributions of the present or hopes for the future. They are doing far, far, far better this time around in some ways than they have in the past, but have yet to match other successes from other editions, both their own and TSR's in others, so while the numbers remain promising, there's still a long ways to go before WotC truly proves themselves to have finally figured out how to sell the D&D brand.

So, similar metric to the Amazon ranking. Each by itself doesn't say much but all of them together give us a trend.

It gives us a trend for general interest and knowledge, but that's it. Considering that most niche markets live and die by it's diehard supporters, I'm not entirely sure how much that really means. The fact that Pathfinder has a localized source for conversing and buying products that are not reported to any of these secondary sources and 5th edition doesn't makes it really hard to make a true comparison. Add in those people who talk about Pathfinder or any of the other D&D spinoffs but use the default D&D name, terms, and concepts to do so, and the water becomes even more muddied. About all any of these numbers truly show is that on a conversational level, and to a certain extent, on a marketability level, D&D is by far the biggest name; nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't prove that Paizo has a less marketable or profitable brand than WotC because no one outside of the Paizo office ever sees most of the numbers generated by their own store and forums.

A rehash of a rehash of yet another potentail rehash is simply not going to do as well as the current edition imo. A 50$+ purchase at a LGS or a 30-35$+ online purchase through Amazon. For the same material that fixes nothing or very little. I just can't see it doing as well. Already some stick with 3.5. because they don't think PF offers enough new material.

Fans will ask what are you doing to fix the system. If Paizo response is not good enough they will stick with the current edition. Don't underestimate the cheapness of the average consumer. If the Fighter/martial caster disparity is not addressed chances are good it will fail rather than succeed. It's enough of issue with some fans that they won't even look at the rehashed core imo.

Granted a new edition may alienate old and new fans as well. Yet their a reason to reinvest. Backwards compitabilty is not good enough anymore. We have have the current edition for that

If Paizo were to go the route of a full fledged new edition, I would be inclined to agree with you, but I don't think that Paizo would be inclined to that for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is that the rules are not their main product line; that alone changes a lot of the variables in play. What would be unthinkable for WotC could easily work just fine for Paizo.

When they reach the time to want to update and release a revised core book, they can do so simply by incorporating it into the already existing process of printing new versions of the current core book. It's not something that everyone would have to have immediately, precisely because of many of the reasons you've stated, but would more likely in many cases simply get purchased as new players come in and old players replace used and worn books. A great many people probably would buy it right off the bat, but precisely because it's not a must have immediate purchase, I think they would actually have a pretty decent reception if the implementation was handled well, and since this is more or less the exact issue Paizo has had to deal with before, chances of a good implementation are pretty high unless they suddenly lose half their staff.

I think the big thing to look for with Pathfinder 2.0 is not a single book that suddenly changes everything, but rather a string of unchained books followed by a new revised core that ends up being a "best of" all the newer material blended with the original core book material; this could be followed up by a revised version of the other books from the main line that follow the same process. Older material isn't invalidated so much as consolidated. The core of the game doesn't really need a lot of changing as much as it needs a reorg, and a basic reorg along with a fresh look/rework at the more popular classes, archetypes, spells, races, feats, etc. would do just fine when it comes. The key is not to expect a single book to suddenly change the game, but rather looking for it over a series of books that doesn't particularly force immediate purchases of new material because the old books are completely invalidated. In this light, the new core book would be more a compilation of popular new material and rules otherwise spread out over many books, allowing for a single book to serve as a reference and easy entrance to the game. This kind of change would be well accepted. It fits with what they are currently doing, and they have the experience to make it work.

I strongly suspect that when we see the eventual product labeled Pathfinder 2.0 it will be more a consolidation and reorganization of what constitutes "core" rather than the types of seismic changes that WotC tends to prefer. That allows all the old material to be continue to be used while providing a clearer path of entry for new players and reduces the stress put on LPF DMs. Because the sales are primarily centered on APs, it's not going to be a deal breaker to not have everyone rush out and buy the new core book immediately if they want to keep using their existing material.

The core book will look a lot different, but the game as a whole will not. The biggest change I see happening is building archetypes and traits into the core while shifting around which classes (and to a far lesser extent, races) are considered core and how they are structured. Beyond that, the only thing I could see actually changing is the magic system and magic items, but even that isn't going to get a radical change; they've said many times that they like the Vancian system, and any new system is probably going to align in some form to the basic idea of Vancian casting. They may eventually offer a pure point system as an alternative, but it will never be the core. The biggest thing that can and needs to happen is a culling and rewriting of the core spells and spell lists to fit with newer classes and spells from newer sources, but that doesn't really require tinkering with the core magic system.

Everything else would be reorganization. They pretty much copied and pasted most of the basic structure of the core book this go around, and there's a lot of room for improvement in how the different rules are laid out and explained. However, things like a unified chart for saving throws doesn't actually change the rules for saving throws, and most of the problems people complain about seem to be rooted in poor organization; most of the rules aren't that bad to those people that actually figure out how to put all the disparate pieces together from the multiple places they are currently found.

I wouldn't expect most of the alternate rules we've seen in Unchained and elsewhere to make it directly to core, but I could see them very much influencing decisions ultimately made about what will make core for the new "edition" and how.

The "PCs go wipe out dungeon full of a humanoid tribe complete with families for no particular reason" trope in D&D/PF needs to die a quick death and be forgotten. And frankly, though I've seen it talked about on line, I haven't seen it in an actual game in decades.

It's mostly older groups that have the same players that have played together and not with much of anyone else for all of these decades, and may not have even moved to newer editions, but they are still out there, and the point remains valid. Even PF maintains it on an official level with drow and undead being automatically evil, with virtually no room given for being even merely neutral. And that is my biggest gripe with a lot of people who support these social causes. They ask a very specific question, basically demand the one answer they are looking for, and then don't care about any of the other fallout from that question and answer. I don't mind people asking the question, but people have to understand it's never as simple as one question and one answer. If people would understand that and act accordingly, I would have a lot less issue with all of the current social causes being pushed in our society.

But, when you want to say that the religion of the area is anti-gay, that religion (or more specifically, the deity) is of a good alignment, and the deity doesn't punish his/her clerics for allowing the anti-gay activities, then you've lost me.

A lawful good god that focuses on tradition and society rather the individual, someone like Moradin, could absolutely be played that way. Wouldn't have to be the only way, but I could definitely see a lot more resistance to any of movements that have shaken up society in the last several decades from that church without at all challenging their claim to being good. Just because they don't focus on specific concerns on the individual level doesn't make them not good.

One big, big, big problem I have with equating not supporting those causes with not being good is that good can be interpreted in different ways. Our current society is definitely in chaotic good category, focusing on individual freedom and liberty in the immediate here and now rather than a focus on long term success of the family or society as a whole, so that colors our perceptions of what qualifies as good heavily, but it doesn't remove the validity of of the other interpretations out there.

The games are hit and miss, the old SSR ones were great, and it was a real heyday for D&D games come again with Balder's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and of course Torment, but there have been an equal sprinkling of turds, the activation pool of crashidence

The novels are more or less in the same boat. You have a handful of big successes in a field of mostly mediocre efforts. That's been the major problem that D&D has always had with licensing, regardless of who owned it. It seems like it has all of this potential, but consistently tapping into that is easier said than done, as has been demonstrated time and time again. One of the biggest hurdles has been that WotC at least (I don't really know much about this aspect when it comes to TSR) has never consistently funded the brand in a manner that would allow the brand managers to build off any successes they do get. That part does not seem to be changing with the release of 5E, so it's hard for be overly excited about their apparent plans; it's too much of the same things they've consistently done in the past with overall mediocre results.

The difficulty with the summoner versus druid or wizard argument is that the summoner peaks almost immediately and never really has a down level, where the other original classes have very noticeable ups and downs. The summoner never reaches the same heights as either the druid or the wizard, but also never suffers similar downturns. Over the course of a campaign, the summoner will be at or perhaps even a bit under the overall power of a druid or wizard, but at the very early levels where most people get first impressions, it can definitely seem far more powerful when in reality it just reaches it's potential sooner than most classes before leveling off.

The key to managing the summoner is not to get caught up in what they can do at 1st or 2nd level, but what they are doing at 5-8th level, where most of the original classes really come into their own. These are common levels to see by mid campaign, and generally the summoner's early advantage will barely be seen at these levels. Even at the early levels, a few basic house rules, like limiting the number of active summons, and a variety of enemy tactics and terrain go a long way to reducing the problems they can cause at the table. They do require a bit of preparation and understanding to run effectively, both for the player and the DM, but it's not that much more than preparing for a druid or a wizard; it's just a bit different, which is where most people get caught off guard.

Yeah, WotC has, mostly thanks to M:tG, a relationship with brick'n'mortar stores that's pretty much pure love and fluffybuns - which is why they don't ever want to do anything that would remotely irk LGSes. Paizo went the opposite direction and decided to g%@ d#@n the torpedoes with direct sales, subs and PDFs for everything, resulting in a far less cordial relationship with stores. Time will tell who bet on the right horse.

At this point, I would have to say Paizo.

For all that Paizo may not have the close relationship with game stores that WotC does, they still have a decent working relationship with most of them. PFS still brings a lot of people into the actual stores, and their subscriptions are more broken down so that people will often buy books from lines they don't subscribe to from stores. In the end, Paizo may have tensions with brick and mortar game stores, but they do have a working relationship with them despite those tensions. As long as they keep communication channnels open and PFS remains strong, they will likely continue to have that working relationship.

In contrast, WotC has virtually zero internet presence, and that will definitely hurt them going forward. The needs of catering to the Magic crowd limits their ability to expand into what for D&D is a crucial area, as physical books are now just one part of publishing a tabletop RPG. The relationship that WotC has fostered and requires for Magic is going to be a major problem when it comes to supporting the D&D brand, which has already hurt WotC, and will only do so more and more in the future. They are in a tough spot where in order to keep both brands strong, they are going to have to accept that some things are going to have to change across the entire company, not just in the individual brands, making necessary changes much, much harder.

I thoroughly hate people that say that that casting can never be hidden, and I thoroughly disagree with the RAW ruling on this. It shouldn't be easy, and it shouldn't be automatic, but it should be doable. All that saying it can't be done without specific class abilities does is make it so that most enchantment and illusion spells, as well as many other spells, can't be used in most of the situations they are most relevant, and that strikes me as being counterproductive. I get that they shouldn't be easy, but usually functionally impossible seems a bit over the top for me.

If a caster is willing to invest skill points in the the appropriate skill or silent or still metamagic feat, or asks for a custom feat, I have no problem giving them the opportunity to try to hide their casting. They still have a chance of failure and they have invested something into improving their chances of success that could have gone elsewhere.

But it's not the be-all-end-all.

----------------
The best potential improvement I've seen is the D&D website, with the basic rules as a free PDF and the new hyperlinked rules. So the start up cost for beginning to play is $0. Because when someone is curious about the game the first thing they're going to do Google it. And a few small tweaks like How-to-Play videos would help.
This is a way Paizo is lagging behind. Their website is... well, it hasn't majorly changed in ten years. It's not easy to navigate and is really more of a webstore than a site dedicated to a game.

The key is that nothing by itself is the ultimate solution, but rather an entire chain of smaller, more focused solutions, and that is what WotC had, and Paizo has today.

Paizo has the APs for the home crowd, organized play to get the local retailers involved, a number of product lines for the core rules, companion books, and accessories to augment both of the above, a license that lets 3rd party publishers get in on the process, and a strong online component to bring in that crowd. They all work together to strengthen each other and produce a result greater than the sum of its parts.

WotC, on the other hand, has a bunch of largely separate product lines that have little or no relation to each other which limits any success from bolstering all of the other areas of the brand. Unless they change this, a successful movie or video game or anything else that resonates in the main stream media isn't going to help them much. They also have virtually no online or electronic presence, hampering them further.
--------
As for the second point, about all Paizo really needs to do a front page that would then direct people to the various things on the website, like the different forums, the store, and the online rules. That's a very minor gripe, though, and most people manage to navigate the site just fine without it. As for WotC's website, I've seen it and I'm not impressed. They actually make it harder to find most of the relevant stuff in the process of trying to make it easier, and the archives have been completely removed, reducing its usefulness for a lot of people. I'll take Paizo's website any day. It's not perfect, but it has far more information on it and once you figure out the basic setup, it's not that hard to navigate.

Why? The Vong had been scouting the Star Wars galaxy for c. 60 years before the main invasion fleet arrived. The amount of intelligence they had gathered themselves was enormous, and then of course they captured Vergere and extracted a vast amount of info from her, particularly about the psychology of the various races working together.

It's also said, quite a few times in the series, that the Vong got lucky in that the New Republic was undergoing some serious democratic crises when they arrived (although some of them had been instigated by the Vong's agents). If the unified Empire had faced them, especially with a Death Star or two (to one-shot the worldships from millions of miles away, which would have made life a hell of a lot easier), the outcome would have been dramatically different. The Imperial forces smugly point that out a lot.

As for the infighting, that is completely plausible. Even in the face of overwhelming threats, vested interests continue to fight one another. You can see that right now, from nations shying away from dealing with terrorists or rogue states because they don't want to pay the price, or governments and corporations choosing to continue (or even accelerate) wrecking the planet in the interest of short-term monetary gain. Quite a few of the races in the NJO don't believe in the Vong until they're quite far advanced, and then consider themselves out of the firing line as they're too far away, or can barter with the invaders, or benefit whilst the invaders and the Republic fight one another to mutual destruction.

All of that is reasonable to a point, and the base concept is fine with me, but the idea that the Vong could get that much intelligence on the rest of the universe without anyone else finding out and moving to counter it is a bit much for me. And it's emblematic of the entire issue I have with the whole Vong storyline; everything is so blatantly over the top "we are stirring up the universe for the sake of stirring up the universe regardless of whether or not it's the best story we could come up with" that all of the in story explanations ultimately fall flat for me. They are simply too perfect of an enemy with too few weaknesses and they have too many readily available answers to anything that anybody could throw at them. There's no real story there to me; it's too obviously a setup that the powers in charge would fix and end when they felt like doing so and there was nothing in story to suggest that the protagonists could do anything but constantly retreat and hope for a miracle before the Vong took over the entire universe. There's nothing to get excited or invested in because any solution was obviously going to come out of nowhere and when it did, the invasion would be over in the course of a single book (or at best, a half way decent trilogy) and the rest of the books in the middle had virtually no impact on the storyline whatsoever.

I didn't mind the base concept, but the execution was way too far over the top for me. If they really wanted something that world shattering, they needed to come up with a better concept or a better implementation of the whole Vong invasion.

sunshadow21 wrote:

I'm actually inclined to agree that on it's own, Enlarge Person is not the best of spells. You really do need something to go with it, whether it be Combat Reflexes or favorable terrain or something similar, to really get the most out of it. I don't know that I would quite call it useless, even on it's own, but it can become that in the wrong circumstances. For a full round casting, it doesn't by itself bring that much to the table.

It takes a bit of thought to get the most use out of it, but most strength-based combatants will find Enlarge Person at least occasionally useful and sometimes very powerful; the party fighter used it to great effect two sessions ago to hold a 10ft corridor.

I do think the 1 round casting time is unnecessary and a bit much. I also find it a little inconvenient to keep track of all the adjustments, especially on top of rage.

Rynjin wrote:

The only downside is a -2 AC...which is insignificant compared to the benefits, and not a huge deal in the first place.

The -2 Dex has a few other downsides, including -1 to Reflex saves, initiative if pre-buffing, skills, and if you're using Combat Reflexes, reduces your AoO by 1. Increased space can also be a mixed blessing.

Honestly, the full round casting time is the only part that really bugs me. Cut it down to a standard action and you get solid results for what you spent. With a full round casting time though, it often becomes more of a headache than it's worth. The caster is basically pinned down that entire round, the recipient gets some decent bonuses, but calculating all the new numbers on the fly can be difficult and annoying, and there are some real downsides to the spell as well that recipient has to be prepared to deal with. I wouldn't quite call it entirely useless, but it's definitely one that if you're reading and implementing it properly, can lose it's luster real fast if you're using it on a routine basis. It's much better as an occasional casting than a routine one.

I don't expect realism according to our world in a campaign world, but I do expect it to follow it's own set of consistent and realistic expectations in both causes and likely effects.

Greyhawk and Golarion both do this tolerably well; the politics and economy are decent and realistic consequences follow from most actions, both mundane and magical. Neither are notably fantastic or bad in this regard; they serve their function as a storytelling device without making their weaknesses too glaringly obvious.

Forgotten Realms ignores any sense of consistency in any way, shape or form; it may work fine for a novel universe, but for a campaign world, it falls flat on it's face in my mind. The spellplague is actually a very good example of this; magic went crazy and left the areas that had been most abusing magic untouched while other areas where little to no magic was used were completely destroyed. The fact that magic always seems to effect those places and events that are least involved in the story and world in general, and this is true of the vast majority of FR stories, never rang true to me. In the end, it's the lack of any internal consistency that turns me off of Forgotten Realms as a world, no matter how interesting a handful of the NPCs and stories may be. I don't mind a good fantastical adventure with no consistency beyond the rule of cool occasionally, but it doesn't work well as an entire campaign.

Eberron's greatest strength is that it explores realistic and consistent consequences of having magic in the world, something that not even Greyhawk and Golarion really looks at. I could care less about the realism as it compares to our world, but love the fact that it is realistic and consistent within it's own world. Magic has a profound impact on both politics and the economy, which also limits a lot of the abuse you see of it in Forgotten Realms, as that also makes it highly regulated. Dragonmarked characters and magic users in general have a lot of people watching them, ready to stop them should they go off the deep end and go against what their house/country/the world in general is willing to tolerate. It also allows for a functional way to give players access to basic magic items without taking away the mystique and uncertainty of the truly powerful magic in the world. This internal consistency makes it much easier to create the kind of stories that I am interested in telling and playing in. I personally could do without the mystery and race against time aspects found in most of the published adventures, but those are easy enough to ignore and tell your own stories within everything else the official material presents.

@sunshadow21 agree with your points that most games share responsibility between players and GM. I like that a lot. My point was that those systems do not remove the GM from the equation entirely, and most encourage and allow the GM to engage in world and campaign building by limiting player options to those that make sense to the campaign. Which to my mind is the only approach that makes any real sense.

Most systems, though, require that the DM does most of that work before the players are even invited to play in the campaign. D&D is one of the few that allows a DM to start from scratch after the players have already sat down with their dice, and that is both it's biggest strength and biggest weakness. Once others are involved, DMs have to be willing to give up some (not all, but some) of their creative freedom and power in order for the others to feel at least somewhat engaged, and D&D not only does not encourage this, it does not even particularly facilitate it.

Some of the best games I've been in have been D&D, because of the freedom and lack of limits, but all of the worst ones I've been in have been non-3.x D&D, for exactly the same reason. That's a big reason why 4E struggled, and I can see it being a problem for 5E as well. With the right group, 5E could be a lot of fun, but it will be very easy for a lot of people to have one bad experience that makes them refuse to even think about trying it again. It's going to be far too easy for a DM to make 5E a DM's game with the players just along for the ride; 4E had that exact same problem, and not only did they repeat it, but they amplified it. That amplification, along with a very limited release schedule for support, is going to be a major challenge. This isn't 1980 anymore; players have enough other options for entertainment, not only in the tabletop game market, but overall, that a game that flat out glorifies the role of the DM while actively limiting what anyone else can do without the DM's attention is going to struggle in the wider market once the shine wears off.

5E doesn't do anything wrong, it just doesn't stop when it starts going in a single direction. To limit magic, they not only made concentration the rule rather than the exception, but they limited spell slots. They didn't just take away magic marts, they didn't even bother list prices to serve as starting point and comparison tool. When they finally stopped, they hadn't just limited the ability of the player to interact with the world while the DM was working with another player, they completely removed it. To me, every fix went one step farther than necessary, making it that much harder for the player to functionally share in the story being told. I'd rather have a system where I can look something up and ask the DM a reasonably detailed and straight forward question once he has a free moment rather than having for each person take five minutes at a time with the DM trying to figure out basic stuff that a rules book could answer, or at least help define the question, just as easily and far more quickly. The pre-3rd edition approach that 5E is taking does not allow that, and that will limit it's long term appeal to a lot of players, especially new ones that are used to video games.

I just think that Wotc is between a rock and a hard place. No matter what they do it never seems enough imo.

I agree with this to a point, but they are the ones that determined they have to completely reinvent the wheel every edition, and frequently during the entire lifetime of each edition as well, unlike pretty much every other rpg out there, so it's hard to feel too much pity for them.

I think that 5E is a decent enough blend of the older editions, which is great for those burnt out on PF and looking for a supported system that plays more like the older systems. However, it doesn't offer anything notably unique that can't be accomplished by a skilled DM in PF or any of the older D&D systems, nor does make it notably easier for a newer DM to put together a long term campaign, even if the individual encounters are easier to manage. I hope it gathers enough support to last a while, unlike 4E, as I do think that the different worlds are a major strength that no other system can offer, but the core system itself is pretty generic at this point. While I can see this being a major selling point for some, unless they really ratchet up support for the different worlds, it's not going to be enough to sustain itself in today's crowded market, just like 4E had a good solid core system once they settled into it, but was unable to get the level of support it needed to truly sustain itself. They need to make far better use of the worlds than they have since taking over the brand; relying solely on the core rules, which are at their core the same material in each edition with a few tweaks, is not going to be enough.

Physical books are living on borrowed time. I wouldn't be surprised if my grandchildren see them become a museum curiosity. The economics of printing and distribution simply don't make sense in a digital world.

I would be surprised to see physical books disappear completely. They can offer many advantages that digital products cannot. Their use will continue to decrease until digital products equal or surpass them in day to day life, but they will always be around. Simply writing off physical books entirely is just as stupid as ignoring the need for developing digital products.

Charender wrote:

So what would you say about a level 6 spell like say Scrying can be defeated by a something that isn't even a spell.

Even better! And another good example of how magic acts in a believable fantasy narrative -- that is, it has limitations. And what self-respecting BBEG would spend years creating a lair, and not put a sheet of lead lining in the walls? Of course, if your players read every detail of a spell, and use it to their advantage, that's "good play". If a BBEG does the same thing it's called "DM Fiat". Makes no sense to me.

I do agree with you on this. Way too many players think it's cool when they manipulate the details of the magic system and the individual spells, but get huffy when the DM tries doing exactly the same thing. I also think that far too few DMs actually run spell users as a player would, feeding the viscous cycle.

And here I believe you have more correctly identified the real source of discontent with Pathfinder: it is a game based almost entirely on system mastery, to the point that the story must revolve around it. I don't disagree that this is a major problem (and why I prefer other games); I just don't think it's about magic per se.

The first part isn't quite true. The problem is more than just the magic system, but it's not unique to PF or the 3.x chassis. D&D at its core has always to some degree been about system mastery and revolving around the magic system. They all break down in the same way at some point for the same reasons, most of them involving magic, with only some minor variation in the level it breaks down. Magic has always been at the center of the core setup and always will be; at some point, to keep going, the system requires some kind of magic or technology or similar system, and that aspect can easily take over the rest of the system if not controlled from the start. It's never been something a party could get away with ignoring until level 10 and suddenly find a good solution for it. Most of the stories that people want to tell with PF but can't weren't actually all that good with in earlier D&D editions either if people were running them largely as written in the book. When you're ignoring at least 1/3 of the book, you aren't really telling a story within the system laid out in that book. The only real change is that 3rd edition and PF made it significantly harder to ignore the book, forcing people to actually accept what the system actually was rather than what they wanted it to be.

But again, it means dm's giving up some of their narrative power to a mundane ability.

No, what it means is that everyone needs to look past simply what the class abilities say that character can do, regardless of the class, and actually put that character in the world. Mechanically, a wizard and a fighter will never have the same potential; that difference is far too engrained into the D&D dna for that ever to change. There are things that could be done to limit that difference a bit better, but it will never, never disappear. What made it work early on, and what makes it work in 3rd edition as well as any edition, is to look past the class mechanics and embed the characters in the world itself, giving each character their own allies, enemies, and resources beyond the WBL, which in my mind only governs access to immediately available adventuring resources, and let the world be the vehicle that drives the story for everyone. You do that, and suddenly, the wizard doesn't have narrative advantage because you're not basing narrative control on class mechanics.

The more I see it, the more it highlights the original problems I had from the earlier editions. Seemingly strict and unbendable rules for magic (unless of course the DM decides otherwise, a not uncommon occurrence), but everything else is basically in a free for all reliant entirely on the DM and the player's individual ability (vs the character's ability) for anything more than basic attacks. As a player who doesn't have the luxury of playing in the same group on a regular basis all the time, I find that level of difference very problematic; with the right group it can be fine and even great, but with the wrong group, it's not worth bothering with and can end up being far worse than anything 3rd edition could create. 4E ultimately had the same issues; giving DMs back their power comes at the cost of losing most of the systems portability.

I'd love to find a middle ground where players can have consistency while DMs still retain a certain amount of control, but at this point I doubt I'm going to find that in the D&D brand. There are simply too many assumptions and expectations built into D&D that make it highly unlikely that any company could develop a system that did that without alienating large chunks of their audience.

Some groups found that 3e's focus on rules caused their players to do so as well - even myopically. Some groups found that 4e's focus on powers turned the game into a skirmish board game of shuffling power cards. And in both cases, some groups found the structure of those games liberating from problems they found with previous editions (that many other players never even had).

I always found an easy solution to that with 3e or PF and even the little bit of 4e I played. Don't focus on the rules during actual play. Learn what needs to be learned beforehand and take good notes; let the actual game focus on the roleplaying and story. It does require a bit of out of game reading for everyone, but in the end it's no worse than the approach 5e took of showing up trusting the DM to be able to give good descriptions and concise answers just to have a basic idea of what you can do. Each approach has its strengths and its weaknesses.

I've come up with quite a few methods over the years for this, though I haven't tested many of them. My favorite one that spans multiple campaigns:

Low-level magic items such as potions and the like can be found in most shops. For higher-end items, however, there exists a grey-to-black market network run by a mysterious merchant guild that caters exclusively to adventurers and other figures of more direct (as opposed to merely political) power. Access to increasingly higher-end goods requires commensurate proof of your exploits in the form of fame, records of the ruins you've delved or ancient dead gods you've seen, or perhaps undertaking a quest for the network to prove your capabilities.

That's similar to how I do it. Lower level stuff is commonly found on store shelves. Mid level stuff can be commissioned, acquired through organizations that the PCs have worked with, or similar methods; it's still accessible with just a little bit of effort, but merchants aren't just going to be selling it to anybody walking in off the street. High level stuff typically requires DM involvement in order to highlight the fact that getting them requires meeting more requirements to get someone to make it for you or show you the recipe/plan so you can make it yourself.

For story, I don't usually worry about it until the campaign starts getting into the +3 or equivalently priced items, though sometimes I'll do it with +2s or other specific items related to plot or character backstory; the items before that simply change too often to be worth while to worry about and are still within the price range of many nobles, making them likely to be reasonably common and not particularly unique.

On the one hand, I like when, as my above post indicates, my players know their way around things and sessions don't grind to a halt because someone can't remember what dice to add to what or how this spell works.

On the other hand, I love ad-lib stuff like this and players thinking outside the box.

Choices!

This is pretty much where I sit. When making things up on the fly, something fun to see whenever possible, having questions about how to resolve it doesn't bother me. However, if someone wants to play a two weapon ranger and after 8 levels still needs help calculating their base attack bonuses for all their attacks, I tend to run out of patience. I've found that when first starting a Pathfinder campaign, the first few levels will always take some time as people get comfortable with the rules they and the group are using; when using a system this complex, that's just part of the game. After that, it should speed up; if it doesn't, that is when it starts becoming a negative to me.

Pathfinder requires a certain amount of reading and math in order to keep moving smoothly; I don't expect people to be experts, but I do expect them to be prepared to put forth at least some effort in both of those departments and not just sit down expecting to be told a story and not having to do any work on the mechanical side themselves. After a few levels, they need to be able to run their own character effectively without requiring excessive help or game time, whether that be having the rules memorized or knowing where to find the relevant rules in the book; nothing more and nothing less.

DMs I hold to a higher standard only because they tend to actively use more systems than players, but I still don't really expect them to have everything memorized. Knowing where to find stuff quickly or having the pertinent info already written down in their notes is more important than having it memorized. I also don't expect them to have every class feature memorized; that's on the player of the character in question, not the DM. Nor do I expect a perfect RAW ruling for every situation; as long as it seems reasonably close, and the rulings are consistent, specifics for repeat situations can be looked up after the game is over.

WotC's biggest problem with digital tools is that they always seem to try for one tool that does everything. The difficulty that creates is that they end up asking people to pay for everything when they really only want one part of it. Part of Paizo's success with their subscriptions is that they have multiple subscriptions that allow for the buyer to customize what they get. Same with HeroLab and selling each package individually, including within the systems themselves. Dungeonscape may offer something similar to that customization, as it isn't being made by WotC themselves, so there is reason for hope in that department, but it still won't be able to compete with the accessibility a basic PDF offers.

Not offering a PDF fearing that it will compete with Dungeonscape or the physical books is a bit far fetched. Each is a different products that appeal to different crowds. Offering only a PDF probably would not be a good digital strategy for WotC, but not offering PDFs at all is equally silly.

Given the sales figures of 5e so far I think the pricing seems about right to me.

The true test hasn't really sunk in yet. The initial sales were guaranteed regardless of price. Once everyone who knew they were going to buy the books no matter what the price was, either as collector's items to play the game, is when the true test will start. The sales figure over the course of the first year are more important than the sales figure for the first month.

I'll stick with Arcavic; maybe even mix some levels of witch and and a dragonmark in with the ranger levels. Also, I think I found the combat style I want to take with him. It has feats for feinting and dirty trick, which I think would be a very good fit for Arcavic.

I find that both mechanics and flavor have to be there in the end to have a good character. Which one comes first doesn't matter nearly as much as an end product that incorporates both. A character that lacks either is noticeably less interesting. Either the character can't actually do what I am roleplaying when it comes time to pick up the dice or the game becomes a glorified board game; neither is really the best experience.

On the OP, though, the development cycle of both 3.5 and PF have shown that designing a basic generic class isn't actually as popular as many people like to make it sound. The typical cleric and wizard expectations are hit just as much as fighter and rogue. Witch, oracle, bard, druid, sorcerer, and summoner have in many groups taken the place of the the traditional casting classes. The main advantage all of these more focused classes is that neither mechanics nor flavor are favored; they have good mechanical support and still cover a wide range of flavors quite easily. The traditional classes have strong flavor, but usually lack mechanical support to effectively back most of the flavor up.

The original classic party worked for it's time, but it's probably time to treat all four of the classic roles as broad archetypes covered by multiple mechanics/classes rather than specific classes unto themselves. As classes, they are hard to balance against each other and across multiple tables/groups, which is a major consideration that has to be looked at in today's increasingly mobile world. Paizo has shown that making a fairly focused core class and having archetypes and customizable class features to change the focus while staying within the same general framework is probably the best design going forward. Throw in traits, and you get even more flexibility while maintaining basic mechanical support. Leaving almost everything beyond flavor up to the DM is not a sound idea if the goal is to truly engage the player, and even WotC picked up on this; 5E includes built in subclasses and backgrounds.

That's half the fun. Arcavic doesn't really care about being nice, just efficiency.

A lack of early campaign books shouldn't be much of a problem. Players looking to play in a setting like FR or Darksun have 2nd/3rd/4th material to draw upon.

Older players will have that material, yes, but if the goal is to get new players, they will need at least a basic gazetteer to support the adventures no later than next summer to give the new DMs something to work with beyond the adventures themselves. It's not impossible to do, but the fact that they didn't even plan something that basic is rather telling in how much faith they were willing to put into 5E's success. Hopefully, they were just hedging their bets while setting up for the best case scenario of needing more material quickly; we'll find out soon enough.

I think the position that Paizo is or has beat Wizards in all segments is simply wrong.

I don't think that Paizo has beat WotC yet, but I do think they are strong enough that they firmly control their own destiny and very little of what WotC does or does not do will impact that in the near future.

At least the clerics don't get claws as their domain ability in a kajillion slots like sorcerers do, and when they do they have a 3/4 BAB so they can be built to get some use out of it. Most domain abilities are fairly useful, some are even full-on class features (like animal companions) and by default you get two. So, in essence, the spell list is supporting a shell that gets:

3/4 BAB
Channel Energy (and any variants that might be chosen)
Good Fort, Good Will
Two Domains, their abilities, and their bonus spells
Medium armor proficiency and shields (can use heavy)
Free weapon proficiency in deity's weapon
Free conversion of spells into cure/inflict
Ability to leave spell slots open and fill them later

Take that shell, let it have the wizard list (I guess without the arcane failure chance for armor) and damn. I don't think people would play anything else.

They don't need anything like the full wizard spell list. Rather, I would like to see it structured so that domains drive spell selection similar to the way that wizards have schools. Would keep the same relative amount of power they have now while allowing for greater options in character concepts that are backed up in actual play.

It's actually fairly easy to get a general idea of what things will look like until the DMG comes out, and I have yet to see any of the changes made be received with completely positive reviews. Dis/advantage seems to be getting more positive reactions as time goes on, but most everything else remain heavily mired in the mixed camp, with a few not liking a particular feature at all, most not really sure how it will actually work in play, and a few wildly positive about it. Hardly "very positive" overall. It's not negative, which is something that I will freely give WotC credit for, but it's still a far cry from very positive outside of a few voices.

thejeff wrote:

donnald johnson wrote:

Player's Handbook (which is the same as the Basic Game), page 203: "Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:

Casting another spell that requires concentration. [].
Taking damage. [].
Being incapacitated or killed. []."

Concentration allows you to cast other spells that are immediate, such as attack spells.

Last time I was playing, I was a fighter, our wizard cast fly on me, and while I was flying and attacking (move part of movement/attack/move the rest of the movement), and the wizard was blasting things, the cleric was casting damage spells, and healing. Was a fun battle, until the draco lich showed up.. :) .... :(

I like to play a game to get the feel of a game, reading a thing really doesn't give a feel of the game. Buff magic is one of the things that I hated about 3.x.

Buff spells can be scaled as well. Fly for example: if cast as a 5th level spell, two characters can be affected. Having two characters bouncing around the battle field would be high fun.

Until someone hits the wizard and your ability to fly goes away.

You are wrong.

You get hit and that does not automatically end concentration: Page 203, Players Handbook, "Taking Damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage."

I guess I should have entered the entire text of the rule.

I don't see that being a major problem if the spell lost is effecting the wizard; the wizard player knows the risk and probably planned accordingly. Where I see that becoming a major problem is when that spell is on the fighter, and they are relying on it to tank someone that could wipe the entire party out if it goes down. Or really any other situation that another character or the party as a whole is relying on that spell. That is where the instant loss of the spell when the wizard is faced with an impossible save is going to upset people, because at that point, it doesn't just hurt the wizard, it hurts the entire party.

Vancian casting as originally designed still works fine for the wizard and cleric. I would like to see an alternate system that gives more flexibility to fewer base capabilities for the spontaneous casters, though, to give each it's own niche. Vancian for prepared casters to give them greater flexibility up front, but less adaptability in the heat of the moment, and something else for spontaneous casters that gives less overall base options, but more flexibility in the actual encounters. This allows for each type of caster to shine at different times without being constrained by the other type.

I suspect we'll soon see though. As I said, they seem quite clear that they're not going to be putting out as much support as in previous editions.

Honestly, thats a good thing. Splat book fatigue was a big problem for both. Their announced strategy of fewer, but higher quality books, is a sound one if they can actually pull it off. It supports the system sufficiently, but allows the brand to move beyond it to other things. It's not so much they aren't supporting the system as much as it is they are looking for a smarter way to support the system. There is a big difference.

Lines from the product description like "a fresh look at the system itself, altering some of the fundamentals of the game" and "a new system for resolving player actions" sound like potentially major changes to the core rules, whether you want to call the Unchained system 2e or not.

It's closer to Unearthed Arcana than a new edition. A book of optional rules that the designers are throwing out to see how far players are interested in going away from the initial design and what players are looking for in terms of adapting the system going forward.

Now what i really would love to see would be a different magic system for Pathfinder. Something very similar to the one used in Dreamscarred Press Psionics, but only with magic.

Points up to caster level, spells you can augment with more points.
Spells you can make more powerfull or usefull with more points, like sleep for higher CR, mind-affects for undead or others, etc.

THAT would be awesome and give a much more dynamic feel to magic, expressing the power gain in a different way, but also stay in check.

I would love to eventually see the words of power system, or something similar, fleshed out, not as a replacement for the vancian system, but rather as an additional system that spontaneous casters use. The vancian system works great for prepared casters, and even decently enough for spontaneous casters, but a different system for the spontaneous casters would let them stand out and built right would allow them be more flexible with their spells than the vancian system allows.

Assuming that WotC has figured out how to support the system long term, I would say 2, maybe 3, quarters in a row followed by Paizo and WotC changing back and forth as their respective product lines ebb and flow between routine material and the big stuff. There are a lot of potential advantages that 5E seems to have right now, but only time will tell how well they hold up, and there are several things I can already tell that even if a lot of people like, an equal number of people will find rather distasteful at best. WotC has a solid product, but it will not bring back the majority of those lost to the 3.5/PF crowd, who were clearly not targeted by the changes, may not win back large chunks of the pre 3.x crowd that will likely see a lot of the 3.x and 4E stuff as unnecessary, and may even have difficulty convincing 4E players that they want to buy yet another set of books so soon after buying all the 4E ones. Also, they chose to lead off with FR, a move that makes sense in some ways, but hurts them in others; it will turn off as many people as it brings in. If the DMG has enough alternate rules to satisfy the pre 3.x crowd, and they have enough quality world and adventure support, it will do fine, even if it does not overwhelm its competition over the long haul; otherwise, people will starting looking elsewhere for their gaming yet again.

For Fighter that's not too likely, but I guess it's possible.

The fighter doesn't appear to be getting a direct rewrite, but it doesn't need one; the class itself is fine. The fighter has problems because the combat systems relied upon to do anything are broken. If they can fix those the fighter doesn't need much else beyond rewriting a lot of the combat feats to not have silly prerequisites and/or abilities spread out over 3 feats that could easily fit into 1.

sunshadow21 wrote:

To fix wands, I would actually rather see them all made like the eternal wands introduced late in 3.5. They still hold a spell, but only have so many charges per day, with the ones with a lot of charges being rare and expensive. This still allows for them to provide some out of combat support, making it so the cleric doesn't have to save every spell for healing, but it doesn't completely replace the use of spell slots for healing at the same time, and requires a bit of resource management to use effectively.

Forcing a player to waste slots on hp healing isn't fun.

Making hp healing completely slotless, something current wands frequently do, also isn't fun in the long run. The way wands work now, blissfully taking damage while focusing entirely on dealing damage in return while ignoring tactics or defensive measures is too often encouraged, and that is a problem. I don't think the solution is to return to just relying on spell slots, but the idea of having wands completely replace spell slots is equally bad. There needs to be a balance between the two. Eternal wands with limited charges per day is the easiest way to do so without completely rewriting the game and it's core expectations; you still have access to wands, freeing up some spell slots, but you also still have the challenge of resource management akin to if you were relying on spell slots alone and you still need to rely on spell slots for emergency healing or healing beyond what the wand can cover in a single day. Short of rewriting the system from scratch, it's seems like the best solution available.

I would just like to point out that, as the first person in this thread to suggest putting the 4 into Con, I was joking when I said it.

I really don't mind rolling for stats, or low Con characters, although I've never played with a Con that low.

It's not a bad concept if treated correctly. Several races can pull that up to a 6 and there are several ways to mitigate a 4. The key is not to make it an auto suicide if you go that route, but to actually try to make a playable character out of it. Even if they only last a session or two, it can still be a fun challenge if treated appropriately.

Option 1: put 4 in con, play a rogue, arrive butt-naked to battle and provoke by attempting to punch the meanest-looking foe around. Spend the rest of the 1st session rolling up decent stats. The chances or rolling a 4 again are minuscule.

Option 2: Show option 1 to the GM, and allow his good judgement to let you reroll your stats.

And piss off the entire table because you knew the risks before rolling, and auto suiciding your character is not cool, period. A far better option is to actually try to make it work, with the understanding between you and the DM that natural survivability is not a sure thing. You may even surprise yourself and find that the character both survives and ends up being fun. I really don't get the people who keep suggesting suicide the character. A 4, while a challenge, is not an automatic death sentence, and doesn't automatically make that character subpar to someone who got lucky and rolled high. A good DM takes advantage of the opportunities and weaknesses presented by every stat array rolled, and encourages their players to do the same.

sunshadow21 wrote:

While I generally agree with you, Wraithstrike, I would still probably allow lighting the torch (though I wouldn't guarantee the elemental's response to the effort) and consider any unprotected spell components (or anything else similar in nature, really) being worn by pretty much any elemental unusable. I might even consider the getting the water or air if it's a large enough elemental, assuming that the elemental is not actively trying to avoid that particular action. There are certain properties of all the elements that can be adjusted without rewriting all the rules.

I was not discussing what is ok to allow. That is up to a GM to go beyond the rules. I was just making a point about how using flavor or fluff to justify something can lead to unexpected issues, and that people should know that flavor/fluff are not rules.

I am actually more permissive than I seem to be in the rules section.

Fair enough, especially since I included caveats of my own regarding how those additional things might actually play out. Most things along this particular line I would probably say it's not possible because the elemental doesn't like you, because the elemental is too small, or something similar though, not because the rules don't say it's not possible. That way, if they really want to use flavor/fluff to do something, they can as long as they put in enough work to take into account most, if not all, of those unexpected issues. Tends to lead to fewer arguments than saying because the rules say so.

People have to buy the comics for the heroes to be made. A large part of the population that has traditionally bought comic books is the white and male population, so it's no real surprise that most older heroes reflect this. As the type of people who buy the comics change, I fully expect the heroes being featured to change. I just don't care for the idea of completely changing old heroes to fit the new desired stories. New characters tell the new stories far better, and can do so without stepping on the toes of the stories already being told by the existing ones.

Without having read the entire thread, two things need to happen. First, combat maneuvers need to be made easier to get by removing the prereq feats and combining many of the existing feats for the maneuvers a bit. Pathfinder did a lot to make these easier to use, but a lot more needs to be done.

Second, all spell lists need to be redone, from scratch; they worked fine when clerics and wizards were the only casters in the game, but at this point, they need to be reworked. For the divine casters, I would personally like to see them make domains drive what spells the caster has access to; makes domains more of a core feature of their class while building in some rp enforcement into the mechanics by making the different flavors of deities matter. Wizards still have enough limitations in their own class that the list is not a big problem for them, assuming that the DM properly manages the resources he is giving the party, but using it as a base or starting point for every other full arcane casting class is not an effective solution.

Third, they need to formalize a different system, either a point system or the words of power system, for spontaneous casters in order to truly make the difference between prepared and spontaneous noticeable and real.

Fourth, they need to look at the numbers within the healing and destruction spells and rework them to make them functional within the greater math built into the system now, not the math built into earlier systems. That or look at the math of the overall system and reign it back in, but the former is far easier, and far more likely to happen. This way, people who want to play blasters and healers can actually do so, rather than every caster ending up being a summoning and buffing god because literally nothing else is effective.

In the end, I would have to say neither to the original question, as both nerfs and buffs are better off being used sparingly and when nothing else will work. What needs to be done is reexamining the base material for each class and seeing if it's still working as originally intended, and reworking it as needed. Simply reworking the spell lists and the math found within the spells themselves would fix most of the caster problems we've seen crop up since 3rd edition. Go back to the idea that not all clerics had access to the same spells, and limit the all encompassing arcane list to the wizard, which has definite limitations built into the class if you know where to find them (even with the d6 hit dice and unlimited cantrips which were much needed improvements), and the raw power of the casters is suddenly not an issue. Meanwhile, making maneuvers easier for all classes to get and use makes it easier for the non-full caster classes to add interesting options to combat that don't require a magical explanation.

EDIT: Fifth, change skill point allocation. Make each stat, or at worst, each major group of stats (physical and mental) provide skill points for related skills. This gives more skill points overall, making it more likely that more skills would be used while enforcing a focus. A wizard that chooses to dump their physical stats would not be able to be stealthier than a rogue that invested heavily in both dex and stealth. Again, this provides more options overall while making it less likely that any one character is going to dominate overall.

From what I remember comics have always had gimmicky things to draw attention to themselves, but am I the only one that seems to think they rely more and more on gimmicks as the years roll on and not on good old fashion quality story telling? Is it actually getting worse or is my memory working through a nostalgia filter and it has always this bad?

It's probably amplified as the amount of competition for people's attention has amplified, but it was always there. It's just that most gimmicks are not remembered for very long and they tend to reuse the same gimmicks over and over again, so it can easily feel like the latest round of gimmicks is much worse than the last 10 combined.

Zardnaar wrote:

3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.

Hate. Hate. hate with a passion. Magic should be special. It should never be some cheap affordable convenience otherwise it stops being special, rare, mystical. The problem with having cheap healing on tap is that it encourages lower level characters to push the limits of what they can do in a day "because we can just heal up afterwards" instead of being more responsible and learning their limits.

The same goes for all that 3rd edition "magic for people who can;'t do magic" kind of item. You know, tindertwigs, tanglefoot bags, thunderstones, sunrods, smokesticks, everburning torches. All those things should never have been put on the equipment lists to begin with as players assume they can have them and I keep having to explain that I don't like having these things in my games.

Than D&D is not a good system for you, because even early on, when magic items were officially rare and special, actual adventures and campaigns usually had their share of non-special magic because magic is cool and shiny and something everyone who has ever played the system has tried to get a hold of. A better idea than trying to make all magic special is to accept that wands of CLW, tindertwigs, smokesticks, +1 weapons, etc do exist, are common, and really aren't all that special. Save the specialness for the higher end stuff that shapes entire sections of campaigns. The key is to find a middle ground where common magic is common, but rare magic retains that true specialness.

I usually follow the different charts for wondrous items for guidance in this area. The cheap magic, basically anything on the minor wondrous item chart or its cost equivalent and spells up to 3rd level, I don't waste time worrying about as a general rule, although I make exceptions as needed. The stuff from the second wondrous item chart, anything in that rough price range, and spells level 4-6, are common enough most people know about it, and those who can afford it can usually find a way to get it, but it's not automatic, and it's not something that can simply be found sitting on a shop shelf. Anything above that goes through me, the DM, at all times, and even in game knowledge of such items or spells tends to be limited or nonexistent to the all but a select few. I find this is the easiest way to not have to change a lot of game mechanics that rather rely on the presence of cheap magic while still keeping magic itself as something mysterious, dangerous, and near impossible to fully understand.

Can only really comment on a couple of these.

First, natural spell is necessary for the druid as written in 3.5 and PF. Without it, natural shape and spell casting will never work well together and you end up with the same problem that monks have, which is a lot of different abilities that completely fail to work with each other and, worse, often clash with each other. Now you could probably find some other way of implementing it, but if you intend to use the druid as written in 3.5 and PF, yes, you do need the ability to cast spells while in animal form. Otherwise, you may as well dump the class, and play a nature based cleric or oracle (which has it's own problems because the cleric spell list is not designed for that kind of character). In the end, it's not the best solution, but to get rid of it would basically require rewriting the entire druid class, as well as polymorph rules in general; something that could be done, but probably isn't worth the effort.

Second, I've never found unlimited ability score progression to actually be an issue in an actual game. Every resource spent on raising ability scores beyond the bumps you get by leveling is a resource not spent somewhere else, and most DMs in an actual game tend to be a lot stingier with giving players unlimited resources than the theory crafters tend to admit.

Third, fighters with 2 skill points are a problem, but to me the bigger problem is basing all skill points off of int. Simply increasing the number of skill points doesn't really solve much, it just adds more inflation to the game. I've toyed around with several ways to increase skill points while forcing a certain amount of specialization at the same time. My preferred idea so far is to give out a number of skill points to each ability's scores based on that ability, i.e. Dex drives the number of points you have to spend on Dex based skills, with a base that reflects the current tiered system so that skill based classes still have an advantage over the other classes in the skills arena. An alternate method I've played with is to somehow average the physical abilities to drive the points available for physical skills, and the same for mental skills. In both cases, there is an increase in skill points, but less chance of stepping on toes because characters will tend to have skills based on their abilities, not on what players think are the optimal skills that everyone automatically should take.