Does anyone else ever feel like an initial initiative roll that you have to stick with is tedious and unrealistic for long combat? You roll an initiative and you're stuck with that sequence until combat is over. Whether combat lasts 5 rounds or 50. Ugh. It's not just that that's unrealistic, it's that things get so repetitive and mindless and (sometimes) dull.
Now, I'm not advocating a return to rolling new initiative every round, mind you. But if you have a +10, bought and paid for with reactionary and Improved Init, and you roll a 1 and you have to go dead last, then I think you should have a way out after about ten or maybe even five rounds. Maybe this could be a feat that lets you reroll a bad one (with Improved Init as a prereq, of course, and maybe a high minimum dex bonus to boot), or maybe it could be a rule that only applies to a minimum initiative bonus. Or maybe after five rounds of combat, whoever wants to reroll is allowed to (including DM, of course), with the stipulation that you have to take the second roll, even if it's worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disagree. All the other classes don't need enough attributes! It was a crying shame they took away Paladin casting off wisdom. I want everyone to be MAD in P2 please. I have seen where dropping important attributes to 1 or 2 leads, and its not where I want to go.
Yes and no. I think it would be okay for other classes to become more MAD, under one condition:
The MADness has a breadth of variability in how it turns out. One of my favourite sorcerer concepts is a high-int sorcerer, so a P2 sorcerer that relied on both cha and int would be okay. But if sorcerer became reliant on dex + cha instead, it would utterly destroy my concept. On the other hand, if it became int + cha only, it would destroy someone else's concept.
The more limiting the MAD is, the fewer concepts can be created from it.
Taking the sorcerer example, it could work like the following (completely separate from bloodline powers, so any bloodline can be taken with any MAD set):
Int + Cha casting, gain some skill or knowledge related power.
Wis + Cha casting, gain some mimic of cleric basics, such as low end healing spells maybe.
Str + Cha casting, gain a gishy combat power of some kind.
Dex + Cha casting, gain something that might aid defensively or a reaction-themed thing.
Con + Cha casting, gain some way to turn hit points into spellcasting bonuses or spell slots into hit points?
That way the MADness is synergistic. Each combination makes sense and grants a way for the stats to help each other instead of just being an arbitrary requirement.
Okay, thank you. You just shot down my premise. I wonder if there are other posters who can do the same.A year from now, what are your friends going to remember and talk about? The battle? Or your buffing?Actually, this was 7+ years ago, and we still talk about how my bard turned battle weary nobodies into an inspired army. The fight itself is talked about less.
The same goes for the assault on the fort, because it hilighted the power of inspire courage. It was +2 at the time, and I tell ya, giving that bonus to 20+ level 4 warriors gave us the edge we needed. The advantage adds up.We based more than a few of our battle plans around the bard buffs. The sheer number of people that can by enhanced by bardic music makes larger battles something to gravitate to.
Mate, I'm sorry. But could you give me 3 "Wow moments" for all the other classes please?
|
Does anyone else ever feel like an initial initiative roll that you have to stick with is tedious and unrealistic for long combat? You roll an initiative and you're stuck with that sequence until combat is over. Whether combat lasts 5 rounds or 50. Ugh. It's not just that that's unrealistic, it's that things get so repetitive and mindless and (sometimes) dull.
It is easy and I prefer that than having to roll initiative each round (I have played systems that did that and it just made combat last longer without any real gain). Plus with Delaying and Readying initiative places arne't totally static, there is often some movement in order when I play.
But if you have a +10, bought and paid for with reactionary and Improved Init, and you roll a 1 and you have to go dead last, then I think you should have a way out after about ten or maybe even five rounds. Maybe this could be a feat that lets you reroll a bad one (with Improved Init as a prereq, of course, and maybe a high minimum dex bonus to boot), or maybe it could be a rule that only applies to a minimum initiative bonus. Or maybe after five rounds of combat, whoever wants to reroll is allowed to (including DM, of course), with the stipulation that you have to take the second roll, even if it's worse.
TBH, after the first round of combat, when no one is flat footed any longer, I don't feel there is a "last" place - its just a cycle of actions. I can understand how others may feel differently however but I can't see me ever wanting to re-roll initiative a few rounds into a combat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else ever feel like an initial initiative roll that you have to stick with is tedious and unrealistic for long combat? You roll an initiative and you're stuck with that sequence until combat is over. Whether combat lasts 5 rounds or 50. Ugh. It's not just that that's unrealistic, it's that things get so repetitive and mindless and (sometimes) dull.
dont get me started on the palladium system... i hate that system, love the concept hate the mechanics.
|
- Monk needs too many attributesDisagree. All the other classes don't need enough attributes! It was a crying shame they took away Paladin casting off wisdom. I want everyone to be MAD in P2 please. I have seen where dropping important attributes to 1 or 2 leads, and its not where I want to go.
Hmm. I don't really care one way or another in a vacuum, so I'll rephrase what I said to clarify what I meant:
"Monk needs too many attributes, in comparison to the other base classes."
If you want to keep Monk as MAD as it is, then make everyone else more MAD . This is possibly a better idea than going the 4e route, as you alluded to, where you buff one stat, or maybe 2, and dump everything else to the lowest number possible. Having everyone be MAD would certainly be less ridiculous.
But that also changes all your calculations for what is an appropriate CR, since the players will be much less combat effective if they have to spread their numbers around more.
|
|
Make rules for determining attacks of opportunity and threatened spaces without a battle matt. The battle matt makes me feel like I'm playing chess, not roleplaying.
If you drop 5-foot steps, you don't really need a battlemat for AoOs.
*Maybe for Reach it might take a bit more effort though still doable, but otherwise you're good.Just a thought.
I don't like the Weapon feats which require X levels of fighter or a certain BAB.
These are Fighter class features, really, and probably should have been treated as such. The only good reason to have 'X levels of Fighter' was to allow other classes (like the Eldritch Knight) which are treated as 'X levels of Fighter'. I guess treating them as feats makes them 'more optional', depending on your fighter's build.
Having BAB as a prereq, though, that makes good sense. It's the 'you must be this nasty' prereq that just can't be matched by feat prereqs alone. Like having the DEX prereq on the TWF chain.
You're right on the money about Natural Spell though. It IS too good. I'd make it scalar, though, so that you could use (Max Spell Level) -2 (or -3?) so that when you take it you get only your lowest spells.
As for Improved Initiative...how far down do you adjust it? +3 is almost as good, but +2 seems a bit meh. If it was only +2 I'd add in that you win initiative ties.
Combat Expertise definitely needs kerjiggering. I think it should go to -1 to hit/+2 AC (progressive) but prevent full attacking (since you're on defense). This would probably enable Dex-Based swashbuckling action a bit better (since you have a move action and higher AC to deal with Attacks of Opportunity).
As for Improved Initiative...how far down do you adjust it? +3 is almost as good, but +2 seems a bit meh. If it was only +2 I'd add in that you win initiative ties.
+3 would still be very good IMO, and most would consider it HOT. +2 would make it iffy. +3 is my vote. No one likes lame feats. Initiative is just so very crucial, this particular feat can be a decision maker. Feats should be great but not 'must haves'.
Tiered is what we do with Natural Spell. We use Natural, Improved, and Greater...
The reason to have 'fighter level' reqs on feats is so that you had feats specific to fighters...no more, no less.
Having a class ability that makes you qualify as a fighter is a different bonus.
Now, if having 'fighter only' feats was actually worth the 3 feats that are set up that way, i.e. the spec tree, which is LESS POWERFUL then weapon training, we'd have something to talk about.
Yes, ONE fighter class ability is more powerful then the entire spec tree, 4 feats. Gives you an idea of what feats are worth, and why the fighter seems underpowered, doesn't it?
==Aelryinth
|
|
Tiered is what we do with Natural Spell. We use Natural, Improved, and Greater
What do the different tiers do? I've been banning it outright when I run games. when other people run them, they allow it, and every time I see more reason to ban it. At least wildshape isn't the broken shenaniganry it was in 3.5
|
|
Yes, ONE fighter class ability is more powerful then the entire spec tree, 4 feats. Gives you an idea of what feats are worth, and why the fighter seems underpowered, doesn't it?
Class Features/Abilities aren't exactly standardized in terms of power. Feats are(more so).
But yeah, feats are in some cases far weaker than class features. In Others, feats are sometimes stronger.
Now is the Weapon Spec Tree worth 3 feats for the benefit? I'd say maybe not.
The reason to have 'fighter level' reqs on feats is so that you had feats specific to fighters...no more, no less
I'd argue that if a feat was class specific, make it part of the class description/rules, and not a feat.
I'd like to see feats be class agnostic; based on feat, ability, and story pre-requisites instead of classes. Class specific things should be in the class descriptions. Sure, some of the above pre-reqs would involve class dips but why over complicate matters?
Logically, why would a rouge not be able to spend his feats to get all of the pre-reqs and end up with Greater Weapon Specialization? I can think of many reasons why they might want to do so.
Rules like this stifle role play and back ground IMO. They make players paint their characters into pre-defined 'cookie cutter' layouts and I'm not a fan of such.
All of the above said, I still think that Pathfinder is way beyond other offerings. Even so, there is always room for improvement.
Tiered is what we do with Natural Spell. We use Natural, Improved, and GreaterWhat do the different tiers do? I've been banning it outright when I run games. when other people run them, they allow it, and every time I see more reason to ban it. At least wildshape isn't the broken shenaniganry it was in 3.5
When I am the GM this is what I house rule:
Natural Spell
REVISED
Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of first and second level druid
spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and
somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are
melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you
are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while
in a wild shape.
Improved Natural Spell
ADDED
Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of third and fourth level druid
spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and
somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are
melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you
are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while
in a wild shape.
Prerequisite: Natural Spell
Greater Natural Spell
ADDED
Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of any level druid spells while in
a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic
components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are
melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you
are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while
in a wild shape.
Prerequisite: Natural Spell, Improved Natural Spell
I hated spending 100 gp to find out that the cloak we found was just a cloak of resistance +1. Uless that sword is an artifact IMHO getting to the treasure hoard should be the adverturer not identifying it.Identifying magic items. Go back to the 3.5 rules. Or better yet, go back to the 2nd edition rules. The easier it gets, the cheaper it feels. There's no sense of wonder when you find an awesome sword stuffed in the middle of a treasure hoard. It becomes "here, I'm gonna stare at it for 3 rounds and we'll know all about it."
And 24 hours.
8 hours purifying, 8 hours casting, Immediately needing rest for 8 hours after....
We had wizards in our groups who purpsfully NEVER learned Identify. It cost too much, it was tedious... and it took you out of the adventure for the day. Everyone else was in the tavern RPing and you may as well take a mcDonalds run...
LOVED the pathfinder change to that. You could already see the schools and auras of the weapon... why did it take so long to know what they DID??
Just get rid of it altogether. Initiative bonuses (other than from Dex) should be exceedingly rare.As for Improved Initiative...how far down do you adjust it? +3 is almost as good, but +2 seems a bit meh. If it was only +2 I'd add in that you win initiative ties.+3 would still be very good IMO, and most would consider it HOT. +2 would make it iffy. +3 is my vote. No one likes lame feats. Initiative is just so very crucial, this particular feat can be a decision maker. Feats should be great but not 'must haves'.
Tiered is what we do with Natural Spell. We use Natural, Improved, and Greater...
That could work too. :D
The reason to have 'fighter level' reqs on feats is so that you had feats specific to fighters...no more, no lessI'd argue that if a feat was class specific, make it part of the class description/rules, and not a feat.
I'd like to see feats be class agnostic; based on feat, ability, and story pre-requisites instead of classes. Class specific things should be in the class descriptions. Sure, some of the above pre-reqs would involve class dips but why over complicate matters?
Logically, why would a rouge not be able to spend his feats to get all of the pre-reqs and end up with Greater Weapon Specialization? I can think of many reasons why they might want to do so.
Rules like this stifle role play and back ground IMO. They make players paint their characters into pre-defined 'cookie cutter' layouts and I'm not a fan of such.
All of the above said, I still think that Pathfinder is way beyond other offerings. Even so, there is always room for improvement.
It's a problem because the fighter has 11 feats as class abilities. Since feats are worth 1/2 to 1/4 of a true class ability, the fighters is effectively getting SHAFTED on his class abilities.
Also, making feats specific to one class is hardly unusual. Rage feats are not going to be taken by a fighter. Channelling feats aren't going to be taken by a wizard. Song feats aren't going to be taken by a Rogue.
They just didn't update the language to 'weapon training' or Weapon training II or III, is all...but it amounts to the same thing.
Logically, why can't the fighter blow a feat and acquire a Rogue Talent?
Same thing. You let Rogues and Barbs grab fighter only stuff, it should go the other way. "because I want specialization" means the fighter gets to grab Opportunist and Superstitious. Yessssssss.
===Aelryinth
Just get rid of it altogether. Initiative bonuses (other than from Dex) should be exceedingly rare.As for Improved Initiative...how far down do you adjust it? +3 is almost as good, but +2 seems a bit meh. If it was only +2 I'd add in that you win initiative ties.+3 would still be very good IMO, and most would consider it HOT. +2 would make it iffy. +3 is my vote. No one likes lame feats. Initiative is just so very crucial, this particular feat can be a decision maker. Feats should be great but not 'must haves'.
Tiered is what we do with Natural Spell. We use Natural, Improved, and Greater...
No.
Improved Initiative exists so that PC's can get an Init bonus that beats monsters, who frequently have inhuman Dex scores. Now, many monsters take Imp Init, too, but without it, PC's will basically never go first, except possibly the rogue, against a very wide array of monsters.
Imp Init is worth the feat. Just ask any wizard.
Now, getting rid of Init bonuses from Familiars, nerveskitter, and the 2 3.5 weapon enhancements, as well as the Div spec class, I'm all for that. Notice how it tilts so much to spellcasters, not so much to the melee classes who should be the fastest ones on their feet?
==Aelryinth
Does anyone else ever feel like an initial initiative roll that you have to stick with is tedious and unrealistic for long combat? You roll an initiative and you're stuck with that sequence until combat is over. Whether combat lasts 5 rounds or 50. Ugh. It's not just that that's unrealistic, it's that things get so repetitive and mindless and (sometimes) dull.
Now, I'm not advocating a return to rolling new initiative every round, mind you. But if you have a +10, bought and paid for with reactionary and Improved Init, and you roll a 1 and you have to go dead last, then I think you should have a way out after about ten or maybe even five rounds. Maybe this could be a feat that lets you reroll a bad one (with Improved Init as a prereq, of course, and maybe a high minimum dex bonus to boot), or maybe it could be a rule that only applies to a minimum initiative bonus. Or maybe after five rounds of combat, whoever wants to reroll is allowed to (including DM, of course), with the stipulation that you have to take the second roll, even if it's worse.
You can just wait to move wherever you are, but please, no additional rolls. We're already rolling enough.
About natural spell feat... why is it so powerful? It allows the Druid to be a spellcasting falcon (flying caster) or gorilla (brute with spells)?
Well, I think it should be noted that elementals are able to speak and have hands, so a wildshaped druid is able to cast in shape of an elemental. These shapes also give him most of these abilities and allow him to look very innocuous at first as well (ripples in water, boulder, ...).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone else ever feel like an initial initiative roll that you have to stick with is tedious and unrealistic for long combat? You roll an initiative and you're stuck with that sequence until combat is over. Whether combat lasts 5 rounds or 50. Ugh. It's not just that that's unrealistic, it's that things get so repetitive and mindless and (sometimes) dull.
Now, I'm not advocating a return to rolling new initiative every round, mind you. But if you have a +10, bought and paid for with reactionary and Improved Init, and you roll a 1 and you have to go dead last, then I think you should have a way out after about ten or maybe even five rounds. Maybe this could be a feat that lets you reroll a bad one (with Improved Init as a prereq, of course, and maybe a high minimum dex bonus to boot), or maybe it could be a rule that only applies to a minimum initiative bonus. Or maybe after five rounds of combat, whoever wants to reroll is allowed to (including DM, of course), with the stipulation that you have to take the second roll, even if it's worse.
Honestly, Iniative is another thing i think was done Awesome in Pathfinder (as I have never played 3.x I give it no credit for what may or may not be holdovers.)
2E we rolled every round, and it slowed things down very much... Then you had weapon speeds. Anyone with an average to large weapon was going LONG after the monsters. EVERY ROUND.
When we switched to pathfinder, we kept the roll every round thing for a few months... then tried switching it to 'keep what you roll'...
I LOVE it!! It's AMAZING how much the combat has sped up, and with holding actions and readying actions... Whether you have a 6 in initative or a 10 this round... REALLY doesn't matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Replace the crafting system for mundane items with one that is either realistic or fun for players. Both traits would be acceptable as well.
Shift magic use toward lower level spells by reducing the number of highest-level spells casters have per day, and scaling lower-level spells by caster level.
Although the table for wizard spells grants one spell/day of the highest level spell usable by a wizard, that's not reflected in real game play.
Level 9 = 1 5th level spell.
Specialist = +1
Bonded item = +1
Int 20 = +1
That's four spells/day as soon as you're able to cast at the new level! In a typical adventure, that's 1-2 spells per combat. I think this math lies at the heart of the caster/melee disparity.
To make up for the lower volume of spells/day, it would be a simple matter (and quite helpful in other ways) to remove "spell level" from the saving throw difficulty calculation. Using the level of the caster rather than the spell, plus making a handful of spells scale better, would give casters plenty of good-but-not-overwhelming options at higher levels.
Remove iterative attacks (as they exist now) and critical confirmation rolls. This would speed up combat significantly.
Drop prestige classes entirely and replace them with base classes or archetypes (alternative class features).
Regarding skills and feats, I think there's definite value in considering bringing back the division between feats of combat and non-combat feats/skills that was originally under consideration back when 3.0 was being developed (see several interviews with Monte Cook).
I love this idea.
I used to houserule this when I ran 3.5. I divided the list of feats into "Good Feats" and "Bad Feats" and every time a player got to pick a feat, they were given a free additional feat from the Bad Feats list. All of the non-combat feats were on the bad list, along with some very weak combat feats, feats that were only usable in very narrow situations, etc.
We had richer and more interesting characters with this system, because players felt free to use the entire range of feats rather than just the best ones.
Weapon Finesse- isn't it about time that this was just given, or at least a weapon property like brace or reach that would allow weapons that had it to use DEX for attacks rather than STR?
I agree!
About Weapon Finesse:
Not sure about making it a given, but I darn sure would shift damage adjustment to Dex as well as attack.
No, no, please no!
While I understand the desire to do so, I think that making melee hit, ranged hit, armor class, reflex save, lots of high quality skills, AND damage, all use one attribute is asking for trouble.
Return to the 3.0 version of DR, (not the 3.5, the 3.0 that actually mattered). Drop the Magic counts as _______ DR.
I agree. DR is an interesting mechanic, and it's unfortunate that it's negated so easily. I'd rather see lower numeric values for DR than see it negated without effort so often.
|
|
Tiered is what we do with Natural Spell. We use Natural, Improved, and GreaterWhat do the different tiers do? I've been banning it outright when I run games. when other people run them, they allow it, and every time I see more reason to ban it. At least wildshape isn't the broken shenaniganry it was in 3.5When I am the GM this is what I house rule:
Natural Spell
REVISED
Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of first and second level druid
spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and
somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are
melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you
are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while
in a wild shape.Improved Natural Spell
ADDED
Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of third and fourth level druid
spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and
somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are
melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you
are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while
in a wild shape.
Prerequisite: Natural SpellGreater Natural Spell
ADDED
Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of any level druid spells while in
a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic
components of a spell.
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are
melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you
are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the...
its bad enough forcing EVERY druid to use natural spell as a feat, but now you want to make them use 3? that would piss me off. natural spell should not exist, or should be a class feature gained by leveling.
natural spell should not exist,
...
So true. It should be nuked from orbit.
Natural spell should be a class feature. It's not as powerful as you all claim, without it, the druid becomes a much worse class, it should be a given.
More of a campaign thing, but get rid of gods. I want my Torquemada and Carrdinal Richelieu in LG churches without the easy tell of whether they're getting spells.
And as for sacred cows, replace alignment with optional codes of behavior (which grant bonuses to will saves) and hierarchical allegiances (ie. I'm more loyal to my family than my church, but both rate below my loyalty to myself).
You can do that already. Make a deal with some other God. I hear Asmodeus is open for business. ;)
But I'd like that Torquemada and Richelieu to be deluded into thinking they are doing the will of their god.You can do that already. Make a deal with some other God. I hear Asmodeus is open for business. ;)More of a campaign thing, but get rid of gods. I want my Torquemada and Carrdinal Richelieu in LG churches without the easy tell of whether they're getting spells.
And as for sacred cows, replace alignment with optional codes of behavior (which grant bonuses to will saves) and hierarchical allegiances (ie. I'm more loyal to my family than my church, but both rate below my loyalty to myself).
That can EASILY be done mate. To be honest, on the second edition days, it happened all the time, I remember a fiction about a Torm priest getting his powers from Bane... Golden.
But I'd like that Torquemada and Richelieu to be deluded into thinking they are doing the will of their god.This could be done in PF without getting rid of Gods, Eberron in 3.5 did it :)
You mean by making the gods not real :)
You mean by making the gods not real :)But I'd like that Torquemada and Richelieu to be deluded into thinking they are doing the will of their god.This could be done in PF without getting rid of Gods, Eberron in 3.5 did it :)
Possibly. Or else they are distant, have no particular need for direct recognition, and grant spells to those whose beliefs and practices serve their interests and portfolio, whether or not said individual worships them by name. What I like to call the Aslan/Tash principle. If you torture somebody, you are paying homage to Zon-Kuthon, even if you think it's to the greater glory of Iomedae.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Just get rid of it altogether. Initiative bonuses (other than from Dex) should be exceedingly rare.
The funny thing about Improved Initiative is, if everyone takes it, it's like no one took it.
We used to make jokes about how Improved Initiative and Alertness were the "monster feats." E.g., "it's a monster, so it has those feats." This has been less true since 3.0 but we still make the joke occasionally.