voska66's page

I've liked how other games scaled your power to make things way below your level non-threats. AC scaling addresses that as well as answering the age old question of my youth, "How can I get my AC higher?" You've got armor, dex, rings... a feat here or there, but other than that it didn't really scale...

Please don't post your AC 50 fringe munchkin build and try to derail the thread.

...anyway, I like +1/level. Leveling feels meaningful every time. You get better at facing challenges. I can throw more exciting foes the players' way. Pipsqueak monsters don't stand a chance. Players feel big.

Also really enjoying exploring the new feat paths with fewer feat taxes and cool new archetyping systems.

Not to derail here but average fighters get over 50 AC by 20th level PFv1 from my experience.

Still it makes sense to scale AC 1/level like BAB was. You get better at attacking you should get better defending too.

Mekkis wrote:

Ckorik wrote:

If you don't have a money sink then who cares how much a wand costs? Currently the difference between a level 1 wand used at level 15 - and a level 4 wand is roughly 7.7% of your character wealth (a level 1 wand is 0.3% of your WBL - a level 4 wand is 8% of your WBL at level 15). This is being called 'game breaking'. By rights - if you are going to argue it's not game breaking then please explain why we continue to talk about it, because it's certainly held up as 'the problem' that resonance will fix.

In all the games I've played where the wand of CLW was used, the game hasn't broken. Therefore, it isn't "Game breaking". The game works fine with it.

I think you're misunderstanding what "Wealth By Level" actually means. Probably the "Wealth" part.

Wealthn. In the private sense, all property which has a money value.

Property which has a money value. Which does not include consumables consumed. The WBL tables are designed to say "At level 15, characters are expected to have 240,000gp in wealth". Not "At level 15, the total amount of gold that has been given out to the characters should be 240,000gp".

And with that in mind, there is no problem if at 11th level they used two wands of CLW to heal rather than a wand of CMW.

It simply provides cheaper healing. It doesn't break the game. It doesn't even break wealth by level.

Please remember that design is theoretically supposed to be based around an average of 5 encounters per day of CR = APL, with each encounter of that sort using up about 20% of a party's resources. The fact that a level 1 wand utterly obliterates that principle, making it a lot closer to 5% of their resources, suggests that yes, it does break the game.

I disagree. The wand is a party resource. If they use it to heal after the first encounter that is using resources of party. Part of that 20%. The party spent gp on the wand or found it as part of the treasure. It counts as 15% of their WBL as consumable items which includes wands. That's no broken.

Now it can be broken by hand out too much wealth or having the party tripping over wands of CLW as the move through the dungeon crawl. But not broken that's just a GM causing the problem that GM has to deal with and maybe it's something GM wants anyways.

Why is a WCL considered a bad thing and spamming. That's the purpose of it. I don't see problem with it.

There's loop holes in spell combos. Like take a witch with Hex Vulnerability and the healing Hex.

Cleave is great now that you can train it out for little gold as per the Ultimate Campaign rules. Used to be only fighters could swap out feat ever 4 levels so if you find it not be useful get rid of it.

Still it's useful though situational but a situation that comes up a lot. At least it does in my games. I find single bad guys die too fast due to lack of action economy. So most fights have lots lower CR monster ganging up and in doing so they become adjacent. So cleave it quite useful in my games as is great cleave.

I never worry about what I roll on dice for damage. I I work out my damage based minimum rolls and see if that is acceptable.

Like I CRB barbarian with 18 str and Great Sword Raging Str +9, power attack +3 So I do 14 damage minimum per hit at 1st level. That one shots pretty much anything I'll encounter, I'm more likely to not power attack as missing is my greatest problem and 11 minimum is still pretty good.

The most useless magic item I find in the game are magic arrows. They are a consumable that cost as much as magic bow so why any one ever craft magic arrows when you can craft a bow that is permanent.

I loved the magic items in 1e and 2e. MANY had no combat buffs or things like that, but were just cool and fun. I miss having those.

Lots of cool stuff like that in the books but they just get sold so the player can better sword or belt or of the other big 6.

Sundakan wrote:

Being banned in PFS isn't really an indicator that it's too powerful. PFS dislikes certain playstyles, particularly Dex based one and defensive styles. Most things are banned for either flavor reasons (see: Vivisectionist) or in the interest of keeping build variety within manageable bounds.

Just going to second this. PFS tends to demand simple, straightforward builds that work in the new-group-every-game format of PFS. Basically, anything with iffy flavor, complicate, or likely to cause table variance is likely to get the banhammer. Plus, as mentioned, defensive boosts tend to get targeted because they can mess with encounter design: that's why Crane Style got multiple nerfs.

Defensive builds I think get banned because they can turn a quick encounter in very long encounter. I have party of defensive players right now. They usually run 10-15 rnds of combat slowly chipping away at bad guys who need 18-20 on D20 to hit them.

The weapon design tool isn't for players to design weapons. It's for GMs.

I'm the GM and reviewed those rules, looks like it's for players to me. It's so restrictive you can't even make a rapier. As GM I get to bend the rules and can make exotic weapons that use more points. If I were to use that GM the rules are largely useless.

Those guidelines don't allow for a crafter character who doesn't directly participate in combat. Three characters with extra gear isn't normally going to be more powerful than four characters at WBL.

The guideline give a range. 1 feat 25%, multiple 50%, a whole class would there for be 75% or 100%. If the class truly isn't capable of participating in combat I'd go with 100%, if the class is able to participate a bit then 75%.

If a player did this in my group they'd roleplay kicking the fighter out of the group and hiring a fighter that was good in combat. It's happened in the group I the GM for.

The key with larger groups is encounters with more of the same monsters they'd normally fight at 12th level.

The APL is a guide. I'd increase the APL to 15 only for determining the XP value of the monsters then select the monsters from CR 11-15. You still have to be careful though as some monsters have synergies with more of them. Watch out for thing with area of effect. The characters might be able to take 1 or 2 breath weapons but when they get hit by 6 it's TPK even if the encounter is CR 11 creatures. Had that happen in one of my games so learned the hard way with that one.

Also what ever you do do not put the party up against a single monster. Action economy is just favorable to the party when you have 8. That's double the action economy of typical party.

Another tip which works great for big group and high level. Make use of interesting terrain that gives the bad guys the advantage. I typically put something good for the PCs if they can figure it out too.

It's been that way for over a decade now, and I(as a player) never found much wonder in magic items, and a lot of players feel that way. Making them rare doesn't translate to "more special" for everyone.

For the players that do see them as special, giving them something that is not in any official book still makes their eyes twinkle. What I plan to do next time I run a campaign is to use the unchained rules that allow enhancement bonuses to be built into the character. That way they can spend gold on magic items for the "cool factor" vs the "need factor".

You know I find a problem, the amount of +1 weapons around at high level.

I don't want 2.0. That means starting over again. I've done that too much with game systems and it's annoying having to start with basics again and wait for option to come out in the same books repeated.

In my area, there's a semi-orgainized play campaign going on. I am not in it due to inability to provide an adequate backstory, but I know what happens from one of my friends who is in it. Recently, the party was knocked/poisoned unconscious and left on an island without gear. Since any sort of rolling was bypassed, I couldn't believe that the GM would take away all the gear (effectively destroying several interesting builds)simply because plot. However, everybody I asked about is saying that I'm a bad player for asking the DM to be as bound by the rules as the players. What is so wrong about wanting to try out interesting mechanics, and having them not arbitrarily lost? Especially since the characters were without their main gear for around 20% of the campaign length? (It's five day long sessions, at levels, 4,8,12,16,20)

I remember playing a series of modules in 2nd edition AD&D called scourge of the Slave Lords which originally was written in AD&D as series of modules. There was part where the GM had to capture the party as part of the story and enslaved them to run oars on slaver ship. In it he party saw their possession destroyed, sold or taken by high level slavers. There was lots of opportunity to get new magic items once the players could escape. I do remember how pissed the player were with this when I ran it. After it happen I had to halt the game and we had a talk about. Once on board the the game continued and the players found the challenge of escaping with out magic items very fun after they got some loot to build them up again.

The way I see it is the price includes the gauntlets. So I see gauntlets as factored into the AC the armor gives you. To sell them, assuming the can be removed, would mean the armor wouldn't function as intended. So I don't see this as way to get cheaper adamantine armor. I'd let a player do that but I'd lower the AC by 1 for compromise the arm piece.

Piecemeal armor grant AC for arms, legs and torso. Full plate would be 1, 1 and 6 for total 8. You get 9 for fully fitted suit of full plate. So the -1 makes sense.

I removed Leadership as feat. Now I put in with the Ultimate Campaign where you need to invest capital to gain leadership.

Leadership isn't broken and as GM I expect players to take it at some point. I rarely see it taken though. So I removed it as feat and make it bonus feat players could work towards in similar way to 2nd Edition D&D. That's where if you build a keep you attract followers. Seems to work pretty good for the game I run using the Ultimate Campaign book.

Culturally, D&D is going to stay in the lead because it came first. Just as many people call all drywall sheetrock and all copiers Xeroxes, many groups I know call any and all fantasy tabletop gaming "D&D."

Even the 4th Edition debacle didn't change that, so of course with 5th being a legitimately pretty good system, why would that change?

With that said... "Observations From a Retailer" is what I like to call "anecdotal evidence." That article's content may be summed up in its entirety as follows:

"One store isn't selling as much Pathfinder stuff as it used to do in part because its staffers seem more inclined to push 5th Edition D&D which has a higher brand name recognition and is also a perfectly fine system."

To which I respond, "but MY local gaming store sells more Pathfinder than D&D because the Pathfinder players are often on hand using the game room so people see it as a fun game they can easily find a group for."

Both of these anecdotal data points are equally meaningless.

But they suffer from the same problem as Kleenix did. The brand became the name for all similar products from it's competitors. D&D is that and has been since I first started playing and that was in the mid 80s.

From an optimization point of view there are very few prestige classes that help there. From a creative fun to play build prestige classes are great.

I never liked feats either but then I came from AD&D where the were no feats and thing feats do were dependent on creative GM and describing what you'd do. So feats to me kind of removed control of that from the GM.

On the flip side I played with GMs that played RAW. If there was no rule for it then it didn't happen. Feats were rules that allowed the stuff I used to do in my game to work in game where GMs needed a rule for everything. As well you had players that just weren't a free form, the gave them tools to work with as well.

So after that I came to like feats. I create new ones for my game and take player suggested feats in consideration. I also toss out free feats to the players for things I think they should have.

Joey Cote wrote:

Play a fighter with a higher intel instead of huge strength. Now you have the skill points to do other things. Take the plus to skill point instead of whateverelse for favorite class. Use your regular feats to buy feats not associated with combat.

It perfectly possible to build a fighter that can do things other then combat, it just means you cannot also optimize them for combat. And so many people optimize for combat, because it tends to happen more then other actions, generally.

It would be nice if fighters could take a list of feats that bonused some skills instead of pure fighting feats as the extra fighter feats, but its not that big a deal.

Clerics, on the other hand, get completely shafted when it comes to skills and doing anything other then casting or bashing.

Fighter: Has a terrible skill list and 2+int skills. STR, CON, WIS and DEX are key abilities for the fighter, in roughly that order. Point buy is thin, and this class's purpose is to be strong, quick, and tough but not easy to mentally dominate. INT is a luxury, CHA doubly so.

People on the Forums: Why are you dumping INT and CHA? Just get worse at the thing you picked this class to be good at so you can get a few more skill ranks.

Wizard: 2+int skills, but its skill list is focused heavily around the class being staggeringly intelligent. Its class features key off intelligence. No level of intelligence is too intelligent for a wizard, and the more that stat gets pumped the more skillful and magical the wizard retroactively becomes. DEX and CON have some importance to keep the class moving about and upright, but STR, WIS, and CHA can be safely ignored or dumped at the wizard's leisure; wisdom has little part in their game plan, strength is easily compensated for with magic, and charisma can be neatly bypassed by the unscrupulous with mind control or by the crafty using one of the many, many options that allow the wizard to port charisma-based skills to their intelligence score.

"Well, you...

The fighter is STR, DEX, WIS, CON in my opinion. The fighter is about tanking. High AC requires a high dex, armor training make you dex count in Full Plate. You need strength for damage output.

The Weapon and Armor Mastery guides solve the skill problem. You can use BAB as you skill rank on many skills. You can turn bravery into bonus on most all will saves with feat.

Only magical healing stops bleed. Fast healing is extraordinary (as are feats).

A DC 15 heal check also stops bleed and that's non magical.

Cures are way better than channel because they get a flat bonus that is more likely to overcome the haunts HP total than a bunch of random d6 rolls. Overall, haunts are just s+@+ty mechanics, traps that rogues can't disable because f+#$ rogues.

I rarely see haunts in games. The odd time you do. I use them in my game as creepy factor not something to really hinder the party.

I don't see much of difference between Vigilante the class and any other class having a dual life. Rogues for example and the problems they can bring to party when their goals go against the party. The Vigilante is just another class with more tools to keep their dual life separate. So it's all how you play the character that decides if the character can work together and class doesn't really impact that.

Depends what the sun in the fantasy setting. There may be no gravity at all at the sun. Maybe it's just giant portal to the elemental plane of fire and void between planets and that portal. I don't think there is anything on what the sun is in Glorion other than it functions much like it does here.

When I ban classes that is all you need to know. Me explaining why doesn't change anything.

Sure it does. You might ban class for reason then I go make character with another class that does exactly the same thing that caused you ban the first class. Knowing why helps avoid that.

Had that happen in game once. The GM banned paladins with no explanation so I played LG cleric with Paladin like code. The code of the Paladin was why he banned the class in the first place. Once I found out I reworked my character but it wasted a hour of game time. Another time it was banned summoners. The ban turned out to be because the GM didn't want to deal with a mass of summoned creatures. Too bad the player playing the summoning focused druid didn't know that ahead of time. We all thought was because he felt the Edilon was too much trouble.

It would be neat if the ninja, monk and samurai had an alternate class feature (nothing as developed as an archetype) to swap out kama, nunchaku, katana, etc. for some non-Asian weapon proficiencies, to help hammer this concept home and encourage the idea of Garundi monks (Ouat dwarven monks!), Ustalavan (or Halfling!) ninja or Aldori (or elven!) samurai.

I had monk order in Brevoy that were Aldori dualist. The Aldori dueling sword was considered monk weapon and Aldori Dueling feat was added to their list of bonus feats.

Worked really well as Monk Archetype. They lost the monk weapons replaced by the light weapons group and added the Dueling sword to the group.

Maybe his parents were not immune to poison as per the Advanced Race Guide Dwarf Traits Alternative racial trait. Seeing he did kill them poison that's what they must have had.

Have you played this character? Sure some encounters at CR 15 you might live through but Giants will kill you. I don't see this character surviving RotRL.

I tried the low AC thing with an Invulnerable Rage going for high DR. I took a beating every encounter and my hit points were higher than yours. My AC was 22 and rage plus reckless abandon dropped it to 16. Had breath of life used on me more the few times. By the end I had to stop using reckless abandon focus on my AC

Insain Dragoon wrote:

I didn't know Iron will gave a +6 bonus.

+2 from Iron Will and +1 from Indomitable Faith, because Monks need few feats to be good at their job. Higher WIS due to lower CON requirements than other classes - thanks to high AC and Improved Evasion - you are free to put more points into WIS too. This is the gist of the matter.

That's poor class design. You are saying that in order to be what the class should be you need spend a feat, trait and build you stats a particular way. If you have to do this it seem to me that is poor class design. You are right every umonk will be taking iron will and indomitable faith to make for this loss of good save. At that point shouldn't it just be a class feature?

In fantasy setting where gods grant miraculous powers that that was the case on this world then we'd probably see nothing but religious zealot presidents. I mean who wouldn't vote for guy who can resurrect you family members.

The only reason you don't see religious leaders running for president is they probably aren't eligible due not being a US citizen and why would they take lower job. President over some mortals or working for the big guy upstairs guaranteeing you as good spot in the afterlife. Seem to me the Pope or a bishop would not want to be the leader of a nation.

Had bard our group say "I wear chain-mail and carry a footman's fail, because it rhymes."

Another classic was the rogue in the party. "You never asked"

He always had the solution for everything. He was always picking pockets and the GM was note passer. So we never knew what the rogue had. Then between adventures the rogue offer to sell a scarab of golem bane to the fighter and he has 4 them. We just went through a meat grinder of dungeon with nothing but golems. So we are all like "Why didn't you tell us you had these." his response was "you never asked". He also didn't use them himself, though of them as nice trinkets he said. This was regular with him.

How about Ultimate Mundane.

New classes and rule for running no magic games. Like the WOD Mortals book. This would work well with steam punk I think .

I don't want all classed to balanced.

Having classes that are not balanced gives flexibility to the game and makes it a better game. I've played games where things perfectly balanced and it's not bad just not flexible at all and assumptions are everyone is the equal. Any tweaking breaks the game. I prefer no balanced by far.

Imagine if you will a dungeon room, that is actually made of butter.

Butter flagstones on the floor, huge slabs of butter for the walls, butter beams on the ceiling. Everything is butter.

Now go cut through the wall with your sword. Cuts like butter! Your sword cuts the butter wall easily. Now it is a butter wall with a slash in it. Wall still standing, because one slash isn't enough to compromise the structural integrity of a wall (butter stick to itself or melting back together notwithstanding). So you cut the wall again. Easy, it's butter! Still, wall standing.

So now you are hacking and thrusting and drilling into the wall with your sword, trying to make a hole. And while cutting the wall is easy, it's butter, man that sword is heavy and so is all this butter you're trying to move around. Eventually, you're just plum tuckered out.

Now, things would have been much easier if they had been using an adamantine spoon, adamantine shovel, or adamantine hot fresh loaf of bread, all of which are much better at getting through butter, but not one ever thinks to bring those.

I remember a 2nd edition module where I found a +5 butter knife once. It was the only thing that would kill the ginger bread man IRRC.

exploits and cheese are not the same thing, although many exploits are indeed cheesy.

Cheesy is a 'gimme'. It's when you do something over the top and out of line that cuts the sense of immersion and breaks your view of something.

Dual wielding greatswords does that for a LOT of people. It's not an exploit, because there's no real mechanical advantage to it...unless you're so damn strong you're going to hit with them regardless.

It IS cheesy, because its so unrealistic and anime-ish.

==Aelryinth

So is throwing a fireball but people don't issue with that.

My only problem with book bloat is how heavy my backpacks(s) get. That's always been the problem in the past. But with PDFs and the PRD I this problem doesn't exist for Pathfinder. The PRD in particular is the most useful. PDFs for stuff not in the PRD that is referenced infrequently works great me. No more lugging a ton of books as game matures to a friends house.

I personally love more options. It's just more in my GM tool box that I can dig into and use creatively. Saves me a ton of time not having to come up with my own systems for downtime, armies, intrigue, and such.

The classes are great. There are enough classes to play all martial character, no spell casting, if I want. I can do all full casters or partial casters or martial with sprinkle of magic. It's all there to use and was severely lacking with just core rules.

You don't fix it, you accept it.

It's one of the things I like about pathfinder. I can run a game of pure martial, no magic. I have the Cavalier, Fighter, Rogue, Ninja, Samurai, Monk, Slayer, Kineticist and Barbarian to choose from. If I want a little magic I can introduce 4th level casters like the Paladin, Ranger, and Blood Rager. There you go no caster disparity with these mixes.

You could run a game of all casters again no martial disparity. Want to tone magic down a bit say no 9th level casters. Go with on 6th level casters. With no martial classes there is no caster disparity.

I mean those classes exist for people who want to play them. If you want fighter spitting fireball then play a magus. Don't try to fit a square peg through a round hole. That's how I see it.

You had this problem in other games. If you played mortal in Vampire you were out classed by the supernatural vampire and thought of as snack. Thing is you didn't play that mix very often.

Now I can understand how people don't like this but it seem the game is built this way.

Real talk,the spoony one vs Strahd

spoony being the paladin got tricked into helping an incredibly old and evil vampire because not helping him would result in the death of innocent people.

remember subtly and don't let him catch you being breaking the law, he can't legally do anything to you if he doesn't catch you, remind him of that.

As lawful evil one shouldn't be breaking the law but abusing the law to their own ends.

The Unchained Barbarian is a straight nerf to the class. Its Stances are fairly garbage, it deals less damage overall (its morale bonuses are no longer multiplied by 1.5 when using a 2H weapon), and none of the new or reworked Rage Powers are very good. The only thing remotely decent about it is getting temp HP, and that's for ease of use, not because it's better. Barbarians were never "Fighters with worse AC". Barbarians generally had BETTER AC than Fighter because of Beast Totem, and all of their Rage Powers gave them unique abilities Fighter couldn't get, so I have no clue where that's coming from.

Unchained Monk is a better beatstick in melee with a 2H sword than the original Monk, but that's about it. With archetypes (especially Zen Archer, Sohei, and Sensei) the Monk has many more options for use, and doesn't have to spend Ki to activate EVERY ONE OF HIS CLASS FEATURES.

I disagree. The morale bonus was only +1 to damage +2 at 20th. Not a big deal. Accurate stance is great. I used to use reckless abandon to do what Accurate Stance does taking the the hit on AC so I could use Power Attack more often. No hit AC with Accurate stance. Now will save bonus from rage stacks with superstitious. Increase damage reduction is double from 1 to 2 DR each time you take for +6 DR if you take all 3.

Bad dice rolls is when you need to look at the humor in it all. Been far more memorable bad rolls of the die than 20s roll.

I was in the one game were my barbarian was climbing a bell tower stair case. It was old and steps would break. Had to make reflex saves and I rolled 1 not once, not twice but 4 times. So I fell 3 times, then I finally get to the top the they drop the bell on me, my final 1. 4 in a row but I survived it. Had high con and ton of hit points as used up all my CLW potions. We've laughed about that for years.

Page 118, Sensate archetype for Fighters says they lose weapon training 2, 3 and 4, but it doesn't mention weapon training 1.

I don't see that as error. So you get weapon training and centered senses. Nice but nothing great really. Weapon Training is better as you don't need to wait till 15th level to use as swift action. As well it's easy to counter centered senses. How often does fighter fail a will save, even with up to +4 from center senses.

voska66 wrote:

Don't change a thing. Let the player struggle through it. They will figure it out over time and be better off for it. This comes from experience as I'm dyslexic and it affects number and letters. Gaming helped me a lot. No one changed the game for me and I struggled but I loved the game so much I put the effort in. Something I didn't do in school. I didn't find out I was dyslexic till I was in my first year of college. That's right gaming got me that far. Once diagnosed I was taught techniques, took years to perfect and when I went back to finish what I started 4.0 in every class. I just took what I did to learn games applied to my classes. I'd come over book reading all kinds of ways till it made sense.

I have no interest in changing the rules of the game, but I'd like to emphasize that although it's great that it worked for you, powering through your disability and working without accommodations doesn't work for everyone. It certainly doesn't work for my ADHD in particular and only got me so far in life before my coping strategies proved ineffective and broke down. I wasn't diagnosed with ADHD until I was in college.

If I have a player tell me they're having problems and that they need some kind of accommodation, I will try to help them. I will not say "tough nuts, just struggle through it because someone on the Paizo boards said that worked for them." If I did that I would be a bully, and a hypocrite because people throughout my life have done that sort of thing to me many times and it was very emotionally destructive to me over time. On the other hand if people told me they didn't need any help, then I won't force help on them and leave them be.

Sorry, it's kind of a hot button issue with me.

Don't get me wrong, help them as best you can. But help them though the difficulty don't remove it. That's what I'm getting at.

Don't change a thing. Let the player struggle through it. They will figure it out over time and be better off for it. This comes from experience as I'm dyslexic and it affects number and letters. Gaming helped me a lot. No one changed the game for me and I struggled but I loved the game so much I put the effort in. Something I didn't do in school. I didn't find out I was dyslexic till I was in my first year of college. That's right gaming got me that far. Once diagnosed I was taught techniques, took years to perfect and when I went back to finish what I started 4.0 in every class. I just took what I did to learn games applied to my classes. I'd come over book reading all kinds of ways till it made sense.

My problem with the Vigilante is that Paizo has already locked themselves into having a Vigilante base class, and no amount of playtesting will convince me that this is a good idea. It doesn't matter how good the class becomes; it's not something that should be a class. Paizo should have publically playtested the idea before committing themselves to printing it.

I love the vigilate concept but I'm the GM. This class in playtest is awesome as villain for the PCs. It's perfect! As a player it's usable but no where near as good as it is for GM to use against the players.

A second edition is pretty much inevitable economically. At some point, people will get enough of the constant release of new classes, feats and items into the existing system, not even to mention inconsistencies in the current rules and unwanted synergy effects. Sales will taper off as people turn to other, less convoluted systems. And the Paizo staff will want to keep feeding their families.

A new edition will have some die-hards who will stop buying Paizo products altogether, but if the developers manage to make the system substantially better with their new iteration, enough others will keep playing, return or start playing that it will work out.

Pathfinder Unchained pretty obviously is a way for them to probe what kind of changes the fanbase reacts positively to. The developers can gauge the feedback and use it as a core around which to build a new edition of the game.

For main rule system sure but from setting they have room to grow there for another decade. I'm not sure what other books I could possibly need for Pathfinder on rule base point after Unchain and the Occult book. I'd love to see more Golorian hard cover books on different continents.

I may be in a minority but one of my biggest hopes is that they go digital only (them and everyone else). It's not that I have a particular preference for digital over print but it wastes less paper and is more environmentally friendly.

My fear is that dinosaurs will not get any future support (fluff or new types). I don't actually hVe any really big fears.

How is going all digital more environmentally friendly. I'd argue the exact opposite. To use digital material you need a device capable of reading. You have tons of devices on the market to read these PCs, laptop, tablets and such. All of them last about 3-5 years and end in the junk pile. Now compare that to a book you have on shelf. I mean I still have some of original AD&D books from the mid 80s. Now my Apple II, that I no longer have nor the 8088, 286, 386, pentium II, Pentium III, 3 AMD PCs, 2 laptops, and now I have Ipad and Kobo. All that old stuff is in some landfill not breaking down like paper book would.

Summary of conversation to date:

*** Start of Summary ***
Dex to damage is not Overpowered but allowing it does have the major game effect of devaluing Strength. Dex-based fighters become about as good as Strength-based fighters, leaving little mechanical reason to ever be Strength-based. So long as you are OK with this global change, allowing Dex-to-damage is probably fine.
*** End of Summary ***

Here's an extreme example of Dex-to-Damage as an Exploit [Songbird of Doom]. This obscenity shows what a powergamer can do with Dex-to-Damage. Kudos to this thread's OP, for showing us a brilliant build that abuses Dex-to-Damage.

My personal opinion: I loathe Dex-to-damage and rarely allow it. I am a martial arts aficionado. I observe that a lot of non-martial-artists see a skillful exchange of blows and, not really understanding what they see, interpret it as an agile exchange of blows. I think this is the origin of the whole Dex-to-damage meme. I hate it. I don't think it's overpowered, but I do think it's lame and stupid.

Martial art is combo of both agility and strength. The key strength though is core strength not bulging biceps. That keeps your center and maximizes your agility and maximizes the efficiency of strength in blows. How much you can arm curl doesn't matter when your agility and core strength allow you put you weight direct behind the blow in small surface area maximizing you damage.

So I have no problem with dex to damage but I think any feat that allows it should have a prerequisite Str of 13. Nothing worse that seeing a 7 str fighter with dex to damage. That's just stupid.