username_unavailable's page

I'm going to limit myself with the big one: Multiclassing.

<. . . explanation of why taking a level of rogue can be abused under the current Alpha skill system . . .>

That's too big a benefit for a single level of rogue.

I totally agree. This also devalues the rogue, as it means a person with one level in the class can basically do all the things a Rogue is expected to do regarding traps and whatnot without actually buying into the class.

Here's a possible solution:

Instead of having multiclassing "promote" all cross-class skills from the new class into class skills, allow a character to promote two cross-class skills to class skills at the cost of one skill pick.

For example, Tolly the Wizard takes Appraise (C), Craft (C), Spellcraft (C), Acrobatics (cc) and Stealth (cc) as his starting skills. At second level, he chooses to multiclass into Rogue, and can either choose to take a new Rogue skill or to "promote" Acrobatics and Stealth into class skills.

I feel this more accurately emulates the process of re-maxing class skills after a multiclass in 3.5 than the current system.

I can see a lot of incentive to go Rogue before taking almost any other class, if only for the skill selection.

Fo example, if I create a first-level human rogue with an Int of 10, I can deck him out with nine skills. Let's say I take the following:

Acrobatics (C), Appraise (C), Craft (C), Fly (cc), Knowledge (arcana) (cc), Linguistics (C), Profession (C), and Search (C) and Spellcraft (cc).

Now I take a level of Wizard, and chose Escape Artist as my skill pick. It is a class skill because I have a level of Rogue.

Now My skill list looks like this:

Acrobatics (C), Appraise (C), Craft (C), Escape Artist (C), Fly (C), Knowledge (arcana) (C), Linguistics (C), Profession (C), and Search (C) and Spellcraft (C).

So I now have a wizard who can tumble just as well as a rogue of his level, use escape artist as well as a rogue of his level, and search for high DC traps as well as a rogue of his level. Hey if he's got an Int of at least 12, why not give him Theft as well so that he can disarm traps and open locks as well as a rogue of his wizard level.

Plus, he has the maximum possible bonus for every skill on the Wizard skill list.

Ouch!

Of course, I haven't playtested any of this yet, so maybe it will come out in the wash somehow . . .

This is an interesting thought. As-is the SR rules provide a blanket X% chance of spell failure regardless of attack rolls and saves, but on top of these existing mechanics, they don't do a lot.

I've crunched a few numbers with regard to our friend the red dragon in an attempt to discover how much SR really does. My conclusion was that SR renders the dragon's defenses 2-4% more effective at blocking at least some spell damage.

Red Dragon math behind the spoiler:

However, SR also reduces the chance of residual damage on a successful save, and affects targeted spells, which don't even get a save, but also don't have residual damage. Then there is magic missile, which has no save or associated attack roll.

An SR solution should, in my mind solve all of these problems. "Spell Evasion" seems like a good idea, but I think it would have the effect of making SR significantly more powerful. Under the current system, a red dragon's SR will not activate, but it will pass its saving throw (and take partial damage for attack spells) 60-80% of the time. As spell "spell evasion" would get rid of these "partial" effects, it would reduce the average damage of a spell like fireball from 40-50% -> 10-20%.

Hence my proposal would be to take "spell evasion", narrow its effectiveness such that there is still a chance for residual damage, and add mechanics to take into account targeted spells and magic missile:

Spell Resistance 4 (Ex)
This creature is immune to magic missiles. It gains a +4 inherent bonus to its AC when targeted by spells or spell-like abilities. When saving against a spell or spell-like ability, a natural roll of 17-20 means that the creature suffers no effects, even if such a result would normally result in either a failed save or a successful save with some residual effects.

Hi there . . . I'm a new visitor 'round these parts, but I found a sweet hat, so I'm feeling more comfortable. I'm intrigued by what I see in Pathfinder, and will definitely start trying to get some game time in on it in the near future.

I like that all the classes see a little more fleshed out, and that the wizards and clerics seem to have some more options. I do have some concerns though:

• As some of the above posters have mentioned, the usefulness of power attack, and other related feats seems to diminish based on ability score improvement. Obviously, calculating the pros and cons of using power attack is something that has slowed 3.x combat down for years, but a solution that equates higher Str with lower attack probability is not necessarily the right solution, in my opinion. Now, of course, it could be argued that creatures with 45 Str just shouldn't take Power Attack, but this then precludes such high-Str creatures from using Cleave . . . or at least put them in a situation where the use of that feat requires the use of a very-likely-to-miss attack the round before - thus, the second attack gained off Cleave (if the first hits) is burdened by a larger and larger cost as the Str of the user increases.

Possible fix: cap Power attack at a reasonable trade-off. Maybe -5/+5.

• The combat feats seem like a really cool idea, and as a fan of fighting video games like Street Fighter II, I like the "feel" of comboing attacks together. What I am not crazy about is the fact that many of these attacks not only require a previous attack to have been used, but also require it to have hit. So, if I, the fighter, miss with either of my initial two attacks, I need to start again from the top in order to "charge up" my third attack. In a situation where a fighter will hit 75% of the time, the odds of comboing three successful attacks in a row are 27/64 or 42% . . . and that's only if some other party member doesn't drop the foe, for example. At best (in a situation where the Fighter can only miss on a "1") such attacks are only 85% effective. A powerful feat that's only useful 4 out of 10 times in a typical fight seems suspect to me, especially when it is supposed to be an ultimate expression of power.

• Finally, I think the new cover system looks neat; however I don't like the idea of having to haul out a book to reference a chart in the middle of a combat -- right after the big bad guy has ducked behind a pillar and started chanting something, for example. Consulting the rules takes time and breaks tension, and that's not what I think you're going for in an action-based combat system. Turning undead needed simplifying for just this reason, and I like what you've done with it . . but in the same way, I feel cover has reverted. 3.5 made cover relatively simple, such that it followed a pretty static set of rules . . . is such a solution maybe in the cards for Pathfinder as well?