What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

All I can say is: I'm more intimidated by little ol' Jet Li and Bruce Lee than I am of Michael Clark Duncan, but not Jackie Chan. And I've seen MCD in bad guys roles, before. I've never seen Bruce Lee or Jet Li in a bad guy role. Do what you want with that.

Edit - afterthoughts: See, I think blue's problem is that he thinks of "charisma" as being a reflection of how winning of a personality you have. But charisma is a lot more than that. It's force of presence and personality. It's how well you manage your image.

But the other problem is that he sees big scary guys as being intimidating because they are scary and intimidating. He makes the mistake of assuming that strength is the only relevant tool for determining intimidation. And it's understandable enough because it's the most common form of scariness we see in other guys - the size of them. The size bonus/penalty given under the intimidate skill only applies to Small or Large humanoids. How would you add in a bonus if you're obviously larger or stronger than the target of the intimidation? How would that even be determined? 6" height difference? Add the strength modifiers to the DC and bonus for the check?


blue_the_wolf wrote:

your example doesn't work.

Michael Clark Duncun is an intimidating man no matter how you slice it, why do you think he is most often cast in big scary guy roles? sure he can play a nice guy, but when he does its usually specifically to present the contrast of a large scary guy who turns out to be nice or funny.

however.

The question is not weather or not some one is intimidating or not. the question is who is MORE intimidating when they actively try to scare you.

a 5 foot 5 inch 140 pound guy with a great sense of personality?

or

a 6 foot 5 inch 240 pound guy flexing his muscles?

now... i know that some contrarian is going to mention how SOME small guys have that knack to get under your skin and all that. but thats the exception not the rule.

Its like when someone says a woman can be stronger than a man. Sure, some women are physically stronger than some men but the fact is, generally speaking, men are physically stronger than women.

in the same way generally speaking big strong people are more intimidating than charismatic people.

I need more context. What if the 5'5 guy can bench press 300 pounds and has a mean streak, and the big guy is demonstratively weaker, and a lot nicer?

Reputation aside though, intimidation is largely about how far you are willing to take things IMHO. They guy who is better at getting the point across that you will be badly hurt is more likely to intimidate someone.

Size alone is not enough, nor is strength. You have to be able to give off a certain aura.


all things being equal. without knowing a persons history. the big strong person is more intimidating than the small charismatic.

if i was wrong then people would higher lawyers and sales men as body guards and bouncers.

but like i said. believe what you like and play your game as you like.

I believe your fundamentally wrong in a general sense and you believe I am fundamentally wrong based on exceptions to the rule. this is one of those arguments that simply wont be resolved.


The big guy is only more intimidating before he tries to intimidate. That is what the size bonus in the game represents. Big guys are also hired because they are often more likely to win fights. If you out a good small man against a good big man the big man will win most of the time.

When it becomes time to exert yourself the man that is better at forcing his will upon you will be more scary. I am not saying size is not a factor, but it is not as much of a factor in what I have seen. I have seen to many big men get blown off while trying to talk smack just because they did not sound credible.

edit: As to the lawyers and salemen comment not everyone pushes charisma out in the same way. The guy that has learned to get by on diplomacy may not be good at intimidation, even if he can sell you the shirt you are already wearing.


I would say you're right: the first thing we do is "size up" those with whom we're about interact. We instinctively question, "Can we take 'em." But why?

I don't think you're wrong based on exceptions to the rule, I think you're wrong because you're using a standard practice (the sizing up process) as all the evidence you need to understand the pattern of intimidation and how it works. You've got a very myopic view, it seems. You're simply not looking deep enough.

If it's all about size and strength, then would you be intimidated by a large guy dressed as a farmer or a small guy dressed as a ninja? Or does that represent another "exception to the rule"?

It's not an exception. Our experience is that we can't take big, strong guys. But our experience is also that farmers are not dangerous like we believe ninjas to be. Don't you understand, it's not about the intimidator, it's about the target? It's about what the intimidator can make the target believe and size/strength is only one tool in the toolbox.

You've already admitted that "when you first meet". But after that? So it can be about something other than strength, right? Hence, that's why it's a Cha-based skill.

Edit: One more thing. You talked about the large guy talking to the small guy at the end of the alley. Now, imagine the large guy turns and walks towards you in the dark. You only have size to estimate this guy and he scares you. You might turn and get the hell out of there. Now imagine it's the small guy that turned and started to walk towards you in the dark. Chances are much smaller that you'll run, right? Then he's next to you and you feel the malevolence of his intent, the spice on his breath, the creak of his leather armor, and the whispery thin voice as he says, "I want to ask you a question or two. Oh, don't worry about my friend there, I'll protect you from him. He's scared of me." Now, not only do you feel fear, but you're afraid to run. This guy doesn't sound like he wants to kill you, maybe just answering a few questions is "ok".

Anyway, I'm done with this argument, too. Thanks blue.


I take you have never been threatened by a lawyer. Intimidation is more than physical, far more. Lawsuits are often used as a form of Legal intimidation. Cops intimidate without using Strength or size, they use their legal standing and the law.

How convincing someone is is through the force of personality, what they can and will do, and have the means to back the said threat.

Does size matter? Not really. I doubt a 145lb UFC fighter would be intimidated by the majority of us gamers. Just sayin


Intimidation does not just mean "I will break your legs".

There are other ways to hurt someone without ever being physical. I might not tell the shopowner in a PF game that I will harm him, but I might way I will spread the word about his bad business practices, and bring him to ruin. He then has to worry about his livelihood. Is he intimidated? Darn right he is.


wraithstrike wrote:
The big guy is only more intimidating before he tries to intimidate. That is what the size bonus in the game represents.

The size bonus is only a -4 or +4 for full steps of size (Small or Large opponents). But shouldn't there, perhaps, be a smaller modifier for a dude that's 5'6" meeting a guy who stands 7'2"?


Both are medium sized so by RAW there is no modifier at all. If you try to break it down too much you have to get into height, weight, physical build, and so on.

I was just using the game as context, when comparing bigger vs smaller.


Fighter- Combine the standard fighter and give him the Lore Warden's stuff as well.
Fixed.

Fix TWF by Combining it with TWD and make it 2 feats.
Eg.
TWF- Preq 15 dex.
You get an offhand attack and a +1 shield bonus when you twf.
When your BAB is +6 you get a 2nd offhand attack and a +2 shield bonus when you TWF.
You also make a primary and offhand attack as a standard action or as part of a charge.

ITWF- Preq 17, BAB 12,
You gain a 3rd offhand attack and a +3 shield bonus when you TWF.


I would like to make the comment that I think Diplomacy is also broken. With a static DC to turn any sentient target towards friendly, it's not surprising to see this abused. For most sentient, hostile creatures, a character would need a 35 diplomacy check to make that creature indifferent. What is the likelihood of that?

Well, consider from CRB only, the 5th level Halfling Rogue with a 20 Cha (easy with racial bonus + ability boost at 4th level) would have: 5(ranks) + 3(class) + 5(Cha) + 2(Persuasive) + 3(Skill Focus) = 18. This Halfling Rogue with a ring of invisibility has a decent chance of talking Smaug out of roasting him (70%), in fact convincing Smaug to be indifferent (45%). In fact, that 5th level Bard has a 20% chance of making Smaug friendly. He could ask Smaug for some detailed advice with no penalties. Talk about a huge CR (19) encounter "handled".

By 10th level, that changes to 26 making the chance to convince an ancient red dragon to be Indifferent the trivial roll of a 4 or better and Friendly with a better than 50-50 chance. Ridiculous, but completely RAW.

What about the hostile King? The hostile Necromancer? There's no difference between that hostile King or Necromancer and a hostile farmer. The chances of changing their attitudes is exactly the same. No matter that the farmer is a level 1 Expert or that the King is level 15 Warrior. The Expert requires the same 35 DC as the King or the Red Dragon. And our 10th level halfling rogue would have equal chances with either one.

This is broken, imho.


You need the time to make the diplomacy check. I think it is 1 minute and they might not want to listen.
There is also a table that makes thing harder depending on the request.
I do think the CR/level of the creature should be a factor though.
That is why I like Rich Burlew's system. The request and the level of the character are both taken into account. If he(NPC) has an adviser that is taken into account also.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand we do need to decide how much these things are handled by the book, and when a GM should be expected to step in and add circumstance modifiers.


JFYK

from d20pfsrd wrote:
A creature’s attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations.
So, apart from the GM letting it in some situations, you cannot turn an hostile creature to a friendly attitude. The additional diplomacy check you have when you change your target's attitude to at least indifferent does not override the fact that
Quote:
You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature’s attitude more than once in a 24 hour period.

Also:

from d20pfsrd wrote:
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.

this caveut means that GM has somewhat of control over Diplomacy skill. If the creature (=GM) wants to attack you or harm in some other indirect way, no diplomacy check will save the character and no requests can be made. The GM can for example make an intuition check for the npc or the monster to know your intentions and/or can stop the speaking character because the npc has no time/need/whatever to spend in a conversation(and thus ruining the attempt of a Diplomacy check, because it requires a minute for changing the attitude and few rounds to make a request). As my job - product seller and promoter - I know this happens and many people who do use diplomacy has part of their job may agree with me when I say that to make a request or convince others is not the hardest part, which is in fact having a chance for speaking.

Finally, even if a character has the possibility to make a request, that request will be always under GM control:
from d20pfsrd wrote:
Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

As we say in our group, Diplomacy is a double check, one for the npc/monster and one for the GM. You get easier DCs and more favorable requests results ingame if you win the check against 15 + your GM's charisma modifier.

I agree though that the more npcs the character has to convince,the higher it should be the DC.


The only thing I can think of that I would like to see fixed is to see the spellf that where nerfed from 3,5 restored. I don't like nerfs (I don't like class balance either btw.[oh and I still like to play rouges and less powerfull classes, I just don't care for balance]).

But nothing really needs fixing tbh, I can live with the less powerful casters we have now, just as long as it isn't taken any further.


On intimidation, I always attribute it to a CHA skill, based on my observations of my parents, growing up.

My Dad, is a 6'1 carpenter, musician, and gear trader. Barrel-chested, strong as an ox, but friendly as a teddy bear. Not very intimidating, even when he's angry.

My Mom, is 5'0, barely 100 lbs., and has an intimidating presence unlike anyone I've ever met. It's not just my perspective as her son; she has a reputation among my friends and family as a "take-no-sass, rip you in half if you look at her crossways" kind of lady. Think Sarah Connor from Terminator 2, only with a lot more cussing and a shorter fuse.

I can definitely see where STR could be a factor in Intimidation, but in my opinion, CHA is a much heavier contributor.


45ur4 wrote:
from d20pfsrd wrote:
A creature’s attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations.
So, apart from the GM letting it in some situations, you cannot turn an hostile creature to a friendly attitude. The additional diplomacy check you have when you change your target's attitude to at least indifferent does not override the fact that
Quote:
You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature’s attitude more than once in a 24 hour period.

You and I obviously aren't reading this the same way. If you beat the DC, you improve the target's attitude by one step. "For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character's attitude toward you increases by one additional step. A creature's attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way..."

What's the point in "every 5" if it's not to mean "no more than two additional steps above a regular success"? I mean, if you're right, then it should read, "If you beat the DC by 5 or more..." and not "For every 5..."

The way I read it, Diplomacy can be used to shift someone's attitude by up to three steps. Once for a success and up to two more times based on the degrees of success counting by 5.

But, just generally speaking, and this is true with intimidate, as well: all of you who wish to have the dice not dictate anything about the roleplaying really need to get rid of this Intimidate and Diplomacy mechanic. And while you're at it, you may wish to rip out Bluff, as well. It's a huge point and resource sink if you're only going to use the roll as a, "Well, he's doing well."

There are far too many places where people "waste" points, feats, class features, and racial abilities to ignore the mechanical nature of intimidate and diplomacy. The way I see it, you have just a few options concerning these skills:


  • You can make arbitrary judgment calls each time someone wishes to use their skill. And those judgments will be informed only by the factors that come into your head right then.

    -- But then you should probably rip out the rules for these skils as well (substituting some other benefit for associated racial and class abilities), so people don't waste their points and resources on skills you're just going to ad hoc, anyway.

  • You can make "checks" which are really nothing more than, "oh wow, what a low number, you suck at that" or "oh nice, great roll, so you're pretty successful at what you're doing"

  • Or, You can fix the mechanic so that it's not based on static DCs regardless the target and so that you have a guideline concerning the various factors that might come into play.

Am I missing anything?

Edit: I suspect you all play games where Diplomacy and Intimidate skills are rarely used (I can imagine why). As a result, making constant and arbitrary judgment calls for these skills is not the case. But a little more role-playing-centric game with great investigative/diplomatic characters where the players have invested heavily in these areas are going to generate far more interest in objective rulings.

I know how to make judgment calls as evidenced by the work I put into rewriting the Intimidate skill. I've got plenty of common sense. But I'm not God. I won't be able to consider all the factors that go into an intimidate or diplomacy roll or do it consistently, without some sort of guideline. The guidelines as currently written are broken.


wraithstrike wrote:

You need the time to make the diplomacy check. I think it is 1 minute and they might not want to listen.

There is also a table that makes thing harder depending on the request.
I do think the CR/level of the creature should be a factor though.
That is why I like Rich Burlew's system. The request and the level of the character are both taken into account. If he(NPC) has an adviser that is taken into account also.

So, that means you agree that Diplomacy, as written, doesn't work. That's cool. :)

I looked at Rich's system, too. I thought it was brilliantly conceived and his reasoning/defense for writing it was very nicely expressed -- I felt like he was in my head singing my tune. But the actual rule he has written, there, leaves some things to be desired, too. For instance, it says nothing about trust or about the receptiveness of the target. But the largest reason I don't like it is that it requires a new roll for every "deal". If I want simple advice, then that's a deal for which I need to make a roll. If I then want simple aid, then again I need to make a roll.

I like the *concept* of the current system, in that people will behave according to their attitudes towards you and in accordance with their nature. And the goal of diplomacy is to change their attitude. Of course, there is an overriding assumption that you want to change their attitude towards indifferent/friendly/helpful, which may not be true. But I suppose making people dislike you doesn't take much effort. :)

Ultimately, I want a Diplomacy rule that works like the current one does, but has the DCs corrected and gives some guidelines on what Circumstance modifiers might need to consider.


I would like better class balancing, to include the weakening of some classes and the diminishing of special abilities that threaten to become bloat. There is so much now, it doesn't even fit in the level by level bars! More is not always better.

Pathfinder needs to work out what number of special abilities, spells, points and stat increases occur each level for all classes, and to stick to it so the power is balanced across the classes and across the levels. It is good to get something every level, but some classes get more than others. There have been complaints against the sheer amount of book-keeping that results, from just tracking abilities of certain classes. By all means give more than 3.5, but pathfinder does not need to get so excited and give more than easy to track.

:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blue_the_wolf wrote:

OK.

Here is another one.

Why is intimidate based on CHA and not STR?

Intimidate... being the primal reaction it is should be based on STR.

I accept that an intelligent or charismatic person may be able to bluff that they are more dangerous than they appear (even if its true in the case of a sorc for example)

in fact there is even a skill for that

Taunt: it allows the person to use the bluff skill to intimidate instead of the intimidate skill.

so why not make intimidate bassed on STR, bluff bassed on CHA and leave the feat as is?

Intimidation is about more then just standing there and looking scary. Its about BEING scary. The big thug who makes everyone shake and quiver as he walks into the room has a force of personality. Charisma isnt just about being pretty and charming, its about your presense. Thats where intimidate comes from. Strength alone doesnt cut it. Look at say Hodor from The Song of Ice and Fire. He is big, incredibly strong, but not even moderately intimidating. Where as Tyrion can often intimidate people with his name and force of will.

Or look and Sand de Glokta from the first Law Trilogy. An inquisitor and torturer and insanely intimidating to most people, but he is a weak cripple. Strength doesnt remotely play into his intimidation. And sand certainly doesnt intimidate by bluffing, he does so by stating the truth in a way that absolutely terrifies people. That is all charisma, and it is definately intimidate.


Josh M. wrote:

On intimidation, I always attribute it to a CHA skill, based on my observations of my parents, growing up.

My Dad, is a 6'1 carpenter, musician, and gear trader. Barrel-chested, strong as an ox, but friendly as a teddy bear. Not very intimidating, even when he's angry.

My Mom, is 5'0, barely 100 lbs., and has an intimidating presence unlike anyone I've ever met. It's not just my perspective as her son; she has a reputation among my friends and family as a "take-no-sass, rip you in half if you look at her crossways" kind of lady. Think Sarah Connor from Terminator 2, only with a lot more cussing and a shorter fuse.

I can definitely see where STR could be a factor in Intimidation, but in my opinion, CHA is a much heavier contributor.

Yes, so much on intimidate comes into play. I see you respect your mother, and find her a little bit frightening. I think I know the type, some women pull it off quite well, they may need to do so to survive. Now you mentioned "rip you in half" as a turn of phrase, the problem with intimidate is that an aura can only do so much. That 100 lbs lady cannot tear someone of size and strength apart, not with her bare hands anyway. I am sure she can cuss and bluster, and knows plenty of tricks but there are people of size, strength and ability that she is simply not going to be a threat to, no matter what she says.

I'll use the example of a sheriff friend of mine. A nice fellow, friendly, quite heavy and well trained. He gets a lot of threats, some people mistake his friendliness for weakness, and try their luck. He tries to keep people's actual abilities in mind and how they compare to his heavy frame. A smaller person certainly can be a danger, but they are going to have a hard time wrestling with him, or pushing him around--as much as some people try to pretend they are ready to go.

So back to the game, there are plenty of modifiers that could be included as supplemental material. Such as, does the intimidator actually pose a threat, how much power do they have politically, and how much behind a swing or if it goes to combat? Are they trained? Veterans? Renowned etc etc. Because, to put it back to the story of Josh, if a 100 pound commoner with some intimidate, a mother used to getting her way in a family, perhaps even with skill focus: intimidate really tries to scare and frighten hardened soldiers/treasure hunters/barbarians/plate armoured cavaliers etc etc, if this person really tries to intimidate folks the commoner has no way of taking, no chance of even besting one on one, there should be some real penalties on the commoner's check.

Thank you for your story Josh, your mother as a character is going in my next game as a troublesome npc.


3.5 Loyalist, his mom can intemidate you if you believe she poses a credible threat. Her intemidation could be based on the threat that she could blackmail you, ruin your reputation at church, eviscerate you in fiction, or maybe the 100lb woman will pull out a knife or gun and kill you.

Threatening to blackmail someone, or to imply you will use violence is a crime. Implying you will use violence is the assault part of "assault and battery." it is a crime.

But it is also what player characters are in general relying on.

"Tell me or else."

"or else what?"

"or else you are going to be sorry" /flex

That's a crime. As soon as the situation is over, the victim will most likely be enraged and suffering a bruised ego, and if he can manage it or has a witness, him or the police will come back for you.

The only reason Intemidate doesn't work as written is because a lot of gamers just roll a die without thinking about what is being said.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think that the reason Intimidate is based on charisma rather than strength is that intimidation is not just scaring somebody -- it is scaring somebody into doing exactly what you want them to do. A brute who is big and strong but with low charisma is plenty scary -- but with no force of personality backing it up, that scariness provokes a fight/flight response rather than compliance with his demands.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
I want Dragonborn Warlocks.

Dragonborn were introduced in D&D3.5 (in Races of the Dragon) so there may at least be some basis to do a conversion, as you could with the 3.5 Warlock class. Unfortunately neither are OGC so if Paizo did want to do something, it could only be similar, not the same.

Josh M. wrote:
To each their own, but I'm the total opposite. I hated the "attacking defense" mechanic of 4e and SWSE. I've always felt if I'm getting hit by a fireball, my saving throw was sort of my own attempt at dodging out of the way. I felt that saves gave more control to the player, even if that control was a random die roll.

I think the best of both worlds is a Players Make all Rolls mechanic, where you would roll your attack against an NPC's static Defence, but roll your own Reflex, Will or Fortitude Save against an NPC's static attack modifier.

This way players get to feel in control and the GM can run several monsters easier as the players are making all the rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not that I think it will ever happen, but the monk needs a serious overhaul. It's like the designers never watched a martial arts movie or something - they are clinging to this old concept of medium BAB and HD with limited weapon proficiencies. Seriously, just give them d10 HD, full BAB and proficiency in all simple and martial weapons (with the ability to flurry with any weapon in which they are proficient). They should be on par with a fighter or barbarian in terms of DPR and not be limited to being secondary or support fighters. Watch some Bruce Lee!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the player rolling AC and GM rolling attack.

Normally if I have an AC of 15 and you have an attack of +15, you can't miss. If we roll, I could roll a d20+5 and get a 17 for a total of 22 when you roll a 6 for a total of 21.

If I have an AC of 38 and you have an attack of +6, I could end up with a 2 + 18 for my defense and you could get a 15 + 6 = 21 and hit me.

I don't play past level 6 so the drag of multiple attacks doesn't bother me. If I played to 20, your no GM rolling method would be better.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:


Yes, so much on intimidate comes into play. I see you respect your mother, and find her a little bit frightening. I think I know the type, some women pull it off quite well, they may need to do so to survive. Now you mentioned "rip you in half" as a turn of phrase, the problem with intimidate is that an aura can only do so much. That 100 lbs lady cannot tear someone of size and strength apart, not with her bare hands anyway. I am sure she can cuss and bluster, and knows plenty of tricks but there are people of size, strength and ability that she is simply not going to be a threat to, no matter what she says.

I'll use the example of a sheriff friend of mine. A nice fellow, friendly, quite heavy and well trained. He gets a lot of threats, some people mistake his friendliness for weakness, and try their luck. He tries to keep people's actual abilities in mind and how they compare to his heavy frame. A smaller person certainly can be a danger, but they are going to have a hard time wrestling with him, or pushing him around--as much as some people try to pretend they are ready to go.

So back to the game, there are plenty of modifiers that could be included as supplemental material. Such as, does the intimidator actually pose a threat, how much...

I think you misunderstood me. My Mom's intimidating factor is not what she'll physically do to you, it's the verbal thrashing and screeching that has made grown men cower in fear and run for the hills; literally witnessed during my parents divorce. I've seen my Dad stand against a group of men his size without flinching, but he's terrified of my Mom.

She won't kick anybody's tail in a fist fight, but she can cut a person down to nothing in just a few words. Not even just a barrage of profanities or name calling; she can literally zero-in on a person's weaknesses, shortcomings, or fears, and use them against them like a weapon. The mental scars she can leave do way, way more damage then any kind of physical cut or bruise would. Thankfully I never truly endured the brunt of this, but I've seen what her words have done to others.

I love my mother, but I do what I can to not tick her off, lol. I just felt she was the perfect living example of Intimidation without needing physical brawn. Didn't mean to get all confessional.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we're talking just in terms of a revision of PF rules (the sort of stuff that could be incorporated via errata) then I personally would like the following:

Fix Grapple - A start would be to revert back to the 3.5 rules for the stuff beyond the initiating of the grapple (i.e. keep the CMB vs CMD of PF but in terms of modifiers and how it works beyond that, go back to 3.5). But personally I would like to see it simplified somewhat further.

Change Channeling - I would prefer Channeling to take only a Swift action (or at most a Move), to solve the issue of giving up your Standard action to heal everyone in combat.

Also reduce the amount of healing it gives so even if a Cleric spams all his Channels you avoid the hit point yo-yo effect, and also it reduces the disparity in healing ability between parties with and without a cleric. Maybe have the die size change so at level 1 Channeling heals d4, at level 3 d6, level 5 d8 etc. I.e. its just enough to possible keep people on their feet to get to retreat or get that finishing blow in.

Allow for some spells other than cantrips to become At Wills, perhaps when a caster can cast 3rd level spells he can cast a number of 1st level spells equal to his casting ability mod as At Wills.

Or maybe go the Encounter power route and say such a character can recover his spell allotment with a 5 minute rest (or even 30 minute) - so a spell caster still can't spam the same spell in a single combat, but can use it in several combats as long as he has a chance to recover for a particular length of time.


Digital Mage, even though I'm very critical of PF, I think the writers did an awesome job. The things I like I don't mind fixing with house rules. It is amazing how one person sees something as OP when another person sees it as too weak.

In my house rules, clerics can channel smite if they have the feat. Otherwise, channeling only works as lay on hands because I think it is too powerful.

My game includes a lot of mass combat. The last game the party (apl 5) with about 30 soldiers against 25 orcs lead by an 8th level fighter with two 4th level casters. They smashed the orcs over about 10 combat rounds and didn't loose a single soldier thinks to all the healing available to them, channelling being a huge part of it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DigitalMage wrote:


Change Channeling - I would prefer Channeling to take only a Swift action (or at most a Move), to solve the issue of giving up your Standard action to heal everyone in combat.

Also reduce the amount of healing it gives so even if a Cleric spams all his Channels you avoid the hit point yo-yo effect, and also it reduces the disparity in healing ability between parties with and without a cleric. Maybe have the die size change so at level 1 Channeling heals d4, at level 3 d6, level 5 d8 etc. I.e. its just enough to possible keep people on their feet to get to retreat or get that finishing blow in.

Both your suggestions make little sense on their own and zero sense together.

In-combat healing using cure spells and channels is suboptimal. You won't be able to keep up somebody who's being full-attacked by a CR-appropriate monster, and having channel as a swift/move will change little in this regard...

...especially when you nerf channel along the way. There's one in-combat healing spell that counts in the game and it's heal (OK OK breath of life too, but for an entirely different reason.).

The only serious use for channeling is out of combat use to reduce your happystick usage. Your proposed changes won't change anything in this regard.

Silver Crusade

Gorbacz wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:


Change Channeling - I would prefer Channeling to take only a Swift action (or at most a Move), to solve the issue of giving up your Standard action to heal everyone in combat.

Also reduce the amount of healing it gives so even if a Cleric spams all his Channels you avoid the hit point yo-yo effect, and also it reduces the disparity in healing ability between parties with and without a cleric. Maybe have the die size change so at level 1 Channeling heals d4, at level 3 d6, level 5 d8 etc. I.e. its just enough to possible keep people on their feet to get to retreat or get that finishing blow in.

Both your suggestions make little sense on their own and zero sense together.

In-combat healing using cure spells and channels is suboptimal. You won't be able to keep up somebody who's being full-attacked by a CR-appropriate monster, and having channel as a swift/move will change little in this regard...

...especially when you nerf channel along the way. There's one in-combat healing spell that counts in the game and it's heal (OK OK breath of life too, but for an entirely different reason.).

The only serious use for channeling is out of combat use to reduce your happystick usage. Your proposed changes won't change anything in this regard.

Actually it would make a big difference. If Channeling is a swift, or a move action. then the cleric would be able to use that plus use another spell as a standard action.

I mean it's healing that would cost less, and wouldn't take up a higher level spell slot so it would be better than a metamagic feat.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Read what I wrote. It's still a wasted swift or even worse, move - xDy healing suffers from the same problem as xDy damage, meaning - too little.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Liongold wrote:

One thing i would like to see fixed in pathfinder, is to have a community that doesn't complain about the game so much.

40% of the talk here is... how do i make my PC more powerful
40% of the talk here is... this class is to powerful

[b]the problem here is that the game is broken because people are trying to break it.[\b]

if i buy my dauther a new doll and she wants it taller, so she pulls and pulls on its head, than the head pops off. when that happens she crys that her toy is broken... Why is the toy broken???!??

That's right and certain measures should be in place that control this.

Wouldn't it be better if the doll had a built in mechanism that allowed the legs to be extended if the child wanted her doll to be taller?

Everyone wins!

No matter what system you invent, there will always be folks trying to break it. Part of that is inherent in the D20 structure that Pathfinder inherited. The only way to prevent it would be to go the route that 4th edition did, put a major limit and squeeze on player options. If Build options are limited, so would be the opportunities to tweak the system.

Then again there would be those that argue that such a solution would be worse than the problem.


Craft skills and Item Creation feats.


Dr Deth, I agree. As a gm I've found it nearly impossible to drop a PC with even a CR +3 encounter unless the first person being dropped is the healer himself.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:

Both your suggestions make little sense on their own and zero sense together.

In-combat healing using cure spells and channels is suboptimal. You won't be able to keep up somebody who's being full-attacked by a CR-appropriate monster, and having channel as a swift/move will change little in this regard...

No, but if someone go down to just -1 or -2 HP, or even gets reduced to Disabled and then the other PCs draw off, push back the foe or finish off the foe who dropped the PC, then giving that PC a few extra HP can allow them to get back on their feet and perhaps retreat to a distance where they can still contribute with ranged attacks and not be at risk of being coup-de-graced.

Gorbacz wrote:
...especially when you nerf channel along the way.

Perhaps my suggested reduction was a bit low, but often just half a dozen HP can be enough to get back on your feat and hopefully away from danger. The alternative would be to reduce the number of Channels per day.

Gorbacz wrote:
The only serious use for channeling is out of combat use to reduce your happystick usage.

I hear this a lot on these forums, that healing in combat is mostly suboptimal - and maybe in theory it is - but in practice I see it being used in combat a fair bit, usually to keep people in the fight (and I see it succeed).

Allowing it to be done as a Swift action instead of a Standard would also mean that it would no longer be a choice between healing X amount of HP or inflicting Y amount of HP damage on a foe, instead the cleric could do both. One of the issues I had as a cleric in 3.5 was having to spend my action healing a fighter who went headlong into combat and got struck down, and thus losing out on a chance to do something cool myself.

I have yet to see it in action, but I would be interested in seeing how a Cleric in a 3.5 game with Sacred Healing (PHB2) would work out - they can as a Swift action use a Turn Undead attempt to heal d8+Cha damage to everyone in 60 feet (and at the same time deal that same damage to undead), basically its about on par with a Mass CLW spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DigitalMage wrote:

Allowing it to be done as a Swift action instead of a Standard would also mean that it would no longer be a choice between healing X amount of HP or inflicting Y amount of HP damage on a foe, instead the cleric could do both. One of the issues I had as a cleric in 3.5 was having to spend my action healing a fighter who went headlong into combat and got struck down, and thus losing out on a chance to do something cool myself.

I have yet to see it in action, but I would be interested in seeing how a Cleric in a 3.5 game with Sacred Healing (PHB2) would work out - they can as a Swift action use a Turn Undead attempt to heal d8+Cha damage to everyone in 60 feet (and at the same...

I hear you man, but I have to tell you... putting everyone in terms of DPR is the reason I couldn't stand 4th ed. I don't want my cleric trying to compete with my fighter... that's why he's a priest and the other is a warrior. They have two different callings in life. I like flavor to be every much a part of this game as good mechanics. Balance is for Monopoly.


jupistar wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

You need the time to make the diplomacy check. I think it is 1 minute and they might not want to listen.

There is also a table that makes thing harder depending on the request.
I do think the CR/level of the creature should be a factor though.
That is why I like Rich Burlew's system. The request and the level of the character are both taken into account. If he(NPC) has an adviser that is taken into account also.

So, that means you agree that Diplomacy, as written, doesn't work. That's cool. :)

I looked at Rich's system, too. I thought it was brilliantly conceived and his reasoning/defense for writing it was very nicely expressed -- I felt like he was in my head singing my tune. But the actual rule he has written, there, leaves some things to be desired, too. For instance, it says nothing about trust or about the receptiveness of the target. But the largest reason I don't like it is that it requires a new roll for every "deal". If I want simple advice, then that's a deal for which I need to make a roll. If I then want simple aid, then again I need to make a roll.

I like the *concept* of the current system, in that people will behave according to their attitudes towards you and in accordance with their nature. And the goal of diplomacy is to change their attitude. Of course, there is an overriding assumption that you want to change their attitude towards indifferent/friendly/helpful, which may not be true. But I suppose making people dislike you doesn't take much effort. :)

Ultimately, I want a Diplomacy rule that works like the current one does, but has the DCs corrected and gives some guidelines on what Circumstance modifiers might need to consider.

I am not saying it is not usable, but I think Rich's system requires less GM adjudication, and is less prone to abuse due to misreadings. Some players want to treat diplomacy as a non-magical mind control when it is not.


DrDeth wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

In-combat healing using cure spells and channels is suboptimal. You won't be able to keep up somebody who's being full-attacked by a CR-appropriate monster, and having channel as a swift/move will change little in this regard...

The only serious use for channeling is out of combat use to reduce your happystick usage.

My experience runs counter to this. Casting a cure spell on someone who is one hit from going down or dying is very efficient. And if a monster can take someone from full health to minus in one round without a series of lucky hits or a crit, then the CR of the encounter is off.

I find your philosophy fairly common among those who don’t work as a party, and treat PC’s as just disposable pieces of paper- “I can always write another” .

That is incorrect. I am willing to bet that the GM arbitrarily raises the difficulty of the encounters to make people want to heal in combat, because if not then healing in combat is not worth it, and if the party works together they won't get in serious trouble. Of course there are always exceptions because the dice gods are fickle but generally speaking healing can wait until combat is over.

As to your comment about someone being one hit from dying I will say that is one of those exceptions. Of course it is cheaper to keep someone alive than to raise them. I don't think Gorbacz was ever advocating allow anyone to die. The idea is that the person normally never gets that close to death if the party plays well. Prevention of damage is more efficient than trying to cure it.


wraithstrike wrote:
jupistar wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

You need the time to make the diplomacy check. I think it is 1 minute and they might not want to listen.

There is also a table that makes thing harder depending on the request.
I do think the CR/level of the creature should be a factor though.
That is why I like Rich Burlew's system. The request and the level of the character are both taken into account. If he(NPC) has an adviser that is taken into account also.

So, that means you agree that Diplomacy, as written, doesn't work. That's cool. :)

I looked at Rich's system, too. I thought it was brilliantly conceived and his reasoning/defense for writing it was very nicely expressed -- I felt like he was in my head singing my tune. But the actual rule he has written, there, leaves some things to be desired, too. For instance, it says nothing about trust or about the receptiveness of the target. But the largest reason I don't like it is that it requires a new roll for every "deal". If I want simple advice, then that's a deal for which I need to make a roll. If I then want simple aid, then again I need to make a roll.

I like the *concept* of the current system, in that people will behave according to their attitudes towards you and in accordance with their nature. And the goal of diplomacy is to change their attitude. Of course, there is an overriding assumption that you want to change their attitude towards indifferent/friendly/helpful, which may not be true. But I suppose making people dislike you doesn't take much effort. :)

Ultimately, I want a Diplomacy rule that works like the current one does, but has the DCs corrected and gives some guidelines on what Circumstance modifiers might need to consider.

I am not saying it is not usable, but I think Rich's system requires less GM adjudication, and is less prone to abuse due to misreadings. Some players want to treat diplomacy as a non-magical mind control when it is not.

I agree with you. I also think Burlew's approach is useable. I would just like to see some further considerations given to it (dealing with issues of trust and reception, dealing with resulting attitudes as in "that varmint horn-swaggled me!").

But on the other hand, giving some consideration to your word usage, perhaps that's what it *should be* - some form of lesser charm person. If I have a high Charisma and a high Diplomacy (I'm trained in the art of persuasiveness and conversation and charm), maybe it's exactly like that - a minor form of mind control. Let's call it "mind influencing". I don't know, just spitballing, here, but what's wrong with that sort of perspective?

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

In-combat healing using cure spells and channels is suboptimal. You won't be able to keep up somebody who's being full-attacked by a CR-appropriate monster, and having channel as a swift/move will change little in this regard...

The only serious use for channeling is out of combat use to reduce your happystick usage.

My experience runs counter to this. Casting a cure spell on someone who is one hit from going down or dying is very efficient. And if a monster can take someone from full health to minus in one round without a series of lucky hits or a crit, then the CR of the encounter is off.

I find your philosophy fairly common among those who don’t work as a party, and treat PC’s as just disposable pieces of paper- “I can always write another” .

That is incorrect. I am willing to bet that the GM arbitrarily raises the difficulty of the encounters to make people want to heal in combat, because if not then healing in combat is not worth it, and if the party works together they won't get in serious trouble. Of course there are always exceptions because the dice gods are fickle but generally speaking healing can wait until combat is over.

As to your comment about someone being one hit from dying I will say that is one of those exceptions. Of course it is cheaper to keep someone alive than to raise them. I don't think Gorbacz was ever advocating allow anyone to die. The idea is that the person normally never gets that close to death if the party plays well. Prevention of damage is more efficient than trying to cure it.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you here Wraith. I've played in a lot of games over 27 years and I have seen many many times when healing, even a little, has been the deal breaker of the encounter. One thing that needs to be taken into account is as long as you have 1hp you can still do everything perfectly fine. Getting that other healer up, that caster or that fighter can make the difference because they may have something that they can do that will turn the tide of the battle or even finish it. Now if your PC acted differently by having his HP full then I could see where you are coming from but they still get to fully as long as they have 1 hp. I agree that hit prevention is great but it's not always going to be possible but with a cleric he can heal that person back up and still be able to throw a buff on that same person to make them harder to hit, if healing was a swift/move action.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

In-combat healing using cure spells and channels is suboptimal. You won't be able to keep up somebody who's being full-attacked by a CR-appropriate monster, and having channel as a swift/move will change little in this regard...

The only serious use for channeling is out of combat use to reduce your happystick usage.

My experience runs counter to this. Casting a cure spell on someone who is one hit from going down or dying is very efficient. And if a monster can take someone from full health to minus in one round without a series of lucky hits or a crit, then the CR of the encounter is off.

I find your philosophy fairly common among those who don’t work as a party, and treat PC’s as just disposable pieces of paper- “I can always write another” .

That is incorrect. I am willing to bet that the GM arbitrarily raises the difficulty of the encounters to make people want to heal in combat, because if not then healing in combat is not worth it, and if the party works together they won't get in serious trouble. Of course there are always exceptions because the dice gods are fickle but generally speaking healing can wait until combat is over.

As to your comment about someone being one hit from dying I will say that is one of those exceptions. Of course it is cheaper to keep someone alive than to raise them. I don't think Gorbacz was ever advocating allow anyone to die. The idea is that the person normally never gets that close to death if the party plays well. Prevention of damage is more efficient than trying to cure it.
I'm afraid I can't agree with you here Wraith. I've played in a lot of games over 27 years and I have seen many many times when healing, even a little, has been the deal breaker of the encounter. One thing that needs to be taken into account is as long as you have 1hp you can still do everything perfectly fine. Getting that other healer up, that caster or that fighter can make the difference...

Pssst. A big part of those 27 years was spent playing 1E and 2E, where dragons had 88 hp and having a healer capable of doing 3d8 was a game changer.

3ed inflated the hp up the wazooo but didn't quite bother to scale some things up, such as cure something wounds (and blasting spells).

Silver Crusade

Gorbacz wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

In-combat healing using cure spells and channels is suboptimal. You won't be able to keep up somebody who's being full-attacked by a CR-appropriate monster, and having channel as a swift/move will change little in this regard...

The only serious use for channeling is out of combat use to reduce your happystick usage.

My experience runs counter to this. Casting a cure spell on someone who is one hit from going down or dying is very efficient. And if a monster can take someone from full health to minus in one round without a series of lucky hits or a crit, then the CR of the encounter is off.

I find your philosophy fairly common among those who don’t work as a party, and treat PC’s as just disposable pieces of paper- “I can always write another” .

That is incorrect. I am willing to bet that the GM arbitrarily raises the difficulty of the encounters to make people want to heal in combat, because if not then healing in combat is not worth it, and if the party works together they won't get in serious trouble. Of course there are always exceptions because the dice gods are fickle but generally speaking healing can wait until combat is over.

As to your comment about someone being one hit from dying I will say that is one of those exceptions. Of course it is cheaper to keep someone alive than to raise them. I don't think Gorbacz was ever advocating allow anyone to die. The idea is that the person normally never gets that close to death if the party plays well. Prevention of damage is more efficient than trying to cure it.
I'm afraid I can't agree with you here Wraith. I've played in a lot of games over 27 years and I have seen many many times when healing, even a little, has been the deal breaker of the encounter. One thing that needs to be taken into account is as long as you have 1hp you can still do everything perfectly fine. Getting that other healer up, that caster or that fighter
...

Doesn't matter! -10 is still the cap that kills you so all you need is to be able to heal 11 points and the person is back to 1. You may need to play in a few more games because from the sounds of it you haven't had much experience.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Doesn't matter! -10 is still the cap that kills you so all you need is to be able to heal 11 points and the person is back to 1. You may need to play in a few more games because from the sounds of it you haven't had much experience.

I don't need to, but it seems like you might want to read Pathfinder rules finally, because the cap that kills you is -CON.

:)

:P

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

-10 is no longer the cap if you have more that a 10 Con.

Don't use smartphones kids, the ninjas will get you.

101 to 150 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.