Pathfinder 1.5. Where to make changes


Homebrew and House Rules

201 to 250 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

What is Monk Flurry is Equal to?

Flurry at level ( ) is equal to:

(1-3) Fighter BAB Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Shortswords
(4-7) Fighter BAB Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Longswords(without the -2 penalty for not using light off hand)
(8-11) Fighter BAB Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Bastard Swords(without the -2 penalty for not using light off hand)
(12-15) Fighter BAB Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Greatswords(impossible)
(16-19) Fighter BAB Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Size Catergory Large Bastard Swords(impossible)
(20) Fighter BAB Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using No Comparable Weapon(impossible)

(Also this would require a fighter that has atleast 19 dex, not counting fighter only feats and abilities because guess what Monks ARENT Fighters)

Not to Mention:Once per round they can spend a ki point to get another attack while flurring at highest bonus.


proftobe wrote:
webguy2003 wrote:
ciretose wrote:
webguy2003 wrote:
Monks are fine, if you want to increase their unarmed attack bonus just Flurry (flurry = max possible two-weapon fighting for the lvl based on fighter BAB). If you complain about the melee power of monks you dont know how to play a monk, PERIOD end of story!
When you add enhancements to unarmed attacks like you can to swords, at comparable cost to TWF, sure.
For your issue its as simple as use monk weapons or a house rule that makes the Amulet of mighty fist cost the same as 2 weapons of the same enhancement and only works for unarmed attacks (not natural and unarmed since that is the only reason its more expensive).
Does this house rule(changing pricing)also change that the AOMF as written doesn't help with DR or is that another house rule that we need(that you didn't mention in your original post) because we don't know how to play monks? I agree that by adopting both house rules a lot of monk issues go away, but even then its a clunky class with no real synenergy between abilities That requires a decent amount of system mastery to play well.

.

.
.
.
Pulled directly from the Players guide: This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

and

A magic weapon is enhanced to strike more truly and deliver more damage. Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5.

By simple deduction attacks with enhance bonuses are magic.

Also: As long as he has at least 1 point in his ki pool, he can make a ki strike. At 4th level, ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.(you do not spend ki points to ki strike it is just on if you have atleast 1 ki point)


webguy2003 wrote:

What is Monk Flurry is Equal to?

Flurry at level ( ) is equal to:

(1-3) Fighter Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Shortswords

Sorry, but this is wrong. Shortswords have a 19-20 threat range and can be made of special materials. They can also be masterwork at this level for +1 to hit.

webguy2003 wrote:
(4-7) Fighter Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Longswords(without the -2 penalty for not using light off hand)

Even more wrong. Not only do the longswords have a greater threat range, they will be enchanted by this level while the monk can only look forward to an amulet of mighty fists at the top of this level range. Further, the fighter will be using Weapon Specialisation and Weapon Training to add up to +1 to hit and +3 to damage above that which the monk can produce. Add another +1/+1 enhancement and you are looking at +2 and +4 respectively.

webguy2003 wrote:
(8-11) Fighter Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Bastard Swords(without the -2 penalty for not using light off hand)

Again, this ignores the greater threat range and the fighter's greater static bonuses. He's going to have +2 weapons and Greater Weapon Focus by this stage, and at 9th level another +1 to hit and damage for his weapon training. That now adds to +3 to hit over the monk and another +5 to damage. If the fighter was still using the short swords he would be turning out better damage - especially as he's going to be taking Improved Critical earlier than the monk.

webguy2003 wrote:
(12-15) Fighter Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Greatswords(impossible)

Also unnecessary, the monk by now has a +2 AoMF, while the fighter is on +3 or +4 weapons, with another level of weapon training to come and Greater Weapon Specialisation. He's going to be at +4 to hit and +8 to damage ahead of the monk. Again, if he was using the shortswords he'd STILL be scoring far more hits and delivering more damage to a target with each hit. Not only that, his +3 weapons are bypassing magic, silver and cold iron damage resistance, while the monk only bypasses magic and lawful.

webguy2003 wrote:
(16-19) Fighter Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Size Catergory Large Bastard Swords(impossible)

Again, the fighter is getting his final helping of weapon training and has fully enhanced weapons. Without such things as dueling gloves, the fighter is +5 to hit and +8 to damage on the monk. Using just a pair of shortswords he is beating the monk's average damage per hit (1d6+8 > 2d8).

webguy2003 wrote:
(20) Fighter Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using No Comparable Weapon(impossible)

The fighter is still hitting with +8 damage over the monk, which means his shortswords are still superior to the monk's unarmed strike. Not only that but his threat range is far greater (17-20 by this stage) and he automatically confirms and gets a x3 critical hit multiplier. The monk only has +5 worth of enhancement and properties, the fighter can take up to +10. The monk is comprehensively beaten at every turn.

webguy2003 wrote:
(Also this would require a fighter that has atleast 19 dex)

Not hard by level 20.

webguy2003 wrote:
Not to Mention:Once per round they can spend a ki point to get another attack while flurring at highest bonus.

Which slightly offsets the fighter's far greater chances to hit with each and every blow. More likely the monk will be using that ki-point to keep up with the AC of the fighter, as he's had to forego his amulet slot while the fighter's weapons take up no slots.

But lets not forget, the fighter is also getting the benefit of Two Weapon Defense and Two Weapon Rend, feats the monk cannot take to enhance his defense or damage output.

I'm sorry to comprehensively debunk your comparison, but you have made the mistake that many people made with the monk, that the size of the dice they roll in unarmed combat and the number of attacks they can make with a full attack matter a great deal. They are the least important factors. What matters more are to hit bonuses, static bonuses to damage, enhancement and properties, and ability to get past DR. The monk gets none of these easily, and the fighter gets them all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see the laws of supply and demand....

I would like to see WBL eliminated. That makes for a lazy DM.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

webguy2003 wrote:

What is Monk Flurry is Equal to?

Flurry at level ( ) is equal to:

(1-3) Fighter Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Shortswords
(4-7) Fighter Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Longswords(without the -2 penalty for not using light off hand)
(8-11) Fighter Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Bastard Swords(without the -2 penalty for not using light off hand)
(12-15) Fighter Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Greatswords(impossible)
(16-19) Fighter Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using Size Catergory Large Bastard Swords(impossible)
(20) Fighter Dual-wielding w/double slice feat using No Comparable Weapon(impossible)

(Also this would require a fighter that has atleast 19 dex)

Not to Mention:Once per round they can spend a ki point to get another attack while flurring at highest bonus.

Insert the words "ordinary, nonmagical" between the word "using" and the name of the weapon, and this is correct. (The only difference being that the monk's unarmed strikes bypass DR/magic.)

However, if the fighter mentioned has Weapon Training in heavy blades in your example, the fighter gets bonuses to attack and damage that the monk does not from level 5 onwards. From 4th level on, the fighter may also take Weapon Specialization for additional damage that the monk may not. And then the comparison starts to break down a bit.

Not going to argue about flurry, just pointing out the comparison may not work as well as intended.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't have much to complain about at all with most of... everything. :p
I'd actually disagree with several points that the OP suggested. In particular:
I think monks are fine and if anything only need a simple (official) way to enchant their unarmed strikes. I see so many threads from both 3.5e and PF that ask about methods to do this other than house ruling the amulet of mighty fists to allow for more than just enhancement bonuses.
Rogues are fine, no need to mess with them.
I don't have much practical experience with metamagic or non-core (haven't gotten around to playing more than a couple of levels as any non-core classes) so I can't really voice much opinion there. I do think it'd be good to have a horseless option for samurai, though. A small selection would be superb.

As for my own suggestions, I think there needs to be some (possibly fundamental) changes to prestige classes (and multiclassing in general). The treat for sticking with a base class for 20 levels is great, but it does its job too well, in my opinion. I've only multiclassed once or twice since I started PF and that was because 1) I had a very specific concept in mind that needed to multiclass, and 2) I knew the campaign wasn't intended to last to level 20 anyway. In 3.5e, I found multiclassing troublesome enough simply from the opportunity cost. Unless planned at just the right moment, and going from and to the right classes, you take a hit to BAB, and saves if nothing else, not to mention multiclass spellcasters having to hold off on getting more powerful spells. Practically the only viable options for spellcasters to multiclass into are prestige classes that grant spell levels. It may just be me looking at the "master-of-none" part of the "jack-of-all-trades," but I just don't feel that multiclassing is as viable an option as it sh/could be.
...No idea how to fix it, though. ^^'

Now, all of that said, I don't think Pathfinder needs a new edition or even a full revision. The errata, updates, sourcebooks, and so on I feel do a very suitable job in keeping the game going as is without need of major revision.


Hey Dabbler, you cant count fighter only feats because monks arent fighters, just like they arent rangers so you wouldnt compare favored enemy in with attack and damage.

Also, the a dual-wielding fighter would have to buy 2 weapons(a simple house rule making the ammy cost the same as 2 weapons but only for unarmed attacks and we also have brass knuckles which give AN attack an enhancement bonus, so you would need two) so the attacks should be the exact same minus fighter only feats and abilities. Use a little common sense when playing, ie just because a rule is one way doesnt mean you have to play that way.

Monks Arent Fighters

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Ah, the 1d3 damage dealing brass knuckles arise again.

This web guy seems to be uninformed about certain errata.


webguy2003 wrote:

Hey Dabbler, you cant count fighter only feats because monks arent fighters, just like they arent rangers so you wouldnt compare favored enemy in with attack and damage.

Also, the a dual-wielding fighter would have to buy 2 weapons(a simple house rule making the ammy cost the same as 2 weapons but only for unarmed attacks and we also have brass knuckles which give AN attack an enhancement bonus, so you would need two) so the attacks should be the exact same minus fighter only feats and abilities. Use a little common sense when playing, ie just because a rule is one way doesnt mean you have to play that way.

Monks Arent Fighters

Nope. They are not rangers with favoured enemies, paladins with smite or barbarians with rage either. But they ARE a combat class and as such should be expected to fight on a par with these other classes, and they don't. In fact it isn't hard, once you account for MAD, for any of these classes when not using they 'special trick' to out hit and out-damage the monk, albeit probably not with two weapon fighting.

In enhancement alone they are usually +1-2 ahead of the monk in hitting and damaging even if they TWF. If they don't they are +3-+4 ahead of the monk in hitting. Factor in another +1-2 from MAD and that adds up to +4-+6 ahead of the monk in hitting alone, and the same in flat damage. This is the factor that makes the biggest difference if you are fighting anything other than mooks. Forget the monk's greater number of attacks - most of these are only going to hit on a 20 anyway against anything with a strong defence.

Sad thing is the monk is locked into what many regard as the least effective fighting style, which is also gimped by only applying to some pretty awful weapons and not getting access to some more advanced feats. If the monk player decides to optimise for damage they lose out on AC thanks to their lack of armour (even in 25 point buy you can't max out three stats at once). A monk can have an excellent AC, but then they are likely to miss out dealing any meaningful damage.

For example, at high level with a monk's robe the monk might be able to dish 2d10 damage, but at that level also they are likely to face an opponent with DR10-15/alignment. 2d10 vs DR 15 will score about as well as Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest - nil, in most cases, without a +5 enhancement (because let's face it, DR/lawful is pretty rare).

I get what you are saying about the AoMF, but that actually just underlines the point that something needs fixing.


webguy2003 wrote:

Hey Dabbler, you cant count fighter only feats because monks arent fighters, just like they arent rangers so you wouldnt compare favored enemy in with attack and damage.

Also, the a dual-wielding fighter would have to buy 2 weapons(a simple house rule making the ammy cost the same as 2 weapons but only for unarmed attacks and we also have brass knuckles which give AN attack an enhancement bonus, so you would need two) so the attacks should be the exact same minus fighter only feats and abilities. Use a little common sense when playing, ie just because a rule is one way doesnt mean you have to play that way.

Monks Arent Fighters

You were the one that started comparing them to fighters listing all the feats a fighter would need to keep up with the monk comparing monk class abilites with fighter abilities. Then when dabbler actually compared the classes suddenly monks werent fighters and it was an unfair comparison. Then suddenly we're at three house rules to make that comparable monk that we didn't know how to play effectively.

Also by FAQ the enhancement bonus of an AOMF doesn't act like the enhancement bonus on a weapon because its powers are based on a completely different spell; magic fang vs magic weapon. To this you reply again about house rules that easily fix the issue. The problem isnt that with your(ever expanding) list of house rules the monk isn't fixed, but that the monk needs to be fixed in the base game. Something even the developers have agreed is needed.


Lawrence DuBois wrote:

...I've only multiclassed once or twice since I started PF and that was because 1) I had a very specific concept in mind that needed to multiclass, and 2) I knew the campaign wasn't intended to last to level 20 anyway. In 3.5e, I found multiclassing troublesome enough simply from the opportunity cost. Unless planned at just the right moment, and going from and to the right classes, you take a hit to BAB, and saves if nothing else, not to mention multiclass spellcasters having to hold off on getting more powerful spells. Practically the only viable options for spellcasters to multiclass into are prestige classes that grant spell levels. It may just be me looking at the "master-of-none" part of the "jack-of-all-trades," but I just don't feel that multiclassing is as viable an option as it sh/could be.

...No idea how to fix it, though.

Hey Lawrence, the multiclassing problem was something I had issues with too. Thus, I started working on the problem. You can find a detailed and very viable solution that I and 4 others have been working on over the last year at the following links. We use soemthing called MultiCLass Archetypes. Check it out.

MultiClass Archetypes Wiki

MultiClass Archetypes Thread


Quote:
Nope. They are not rangers with favored enemies, paladins with smite or barbarians with rage either. But they ARE a combat class and as such should be expected to fight on a par with these other classes.

So are you saying that a monk should do as much damage as a paladin when smiting and a barbarian while raging? I have never seen the monk as a primary damage dealer. The top 3 in melee damage should always be barbarian raging, paladin smiting and the fighter. The monk is good as is. Unless the monk loses the 3 good saves there should not be an increase in its damage potential.


If the Monk is not a damage dealer, then what is it?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Arslanxelan wrote:
So are you saying that a monk should do as much damage as a paladin when smiting and a barbarian while raging?

No, that they should be able to handle themselves in combat while doing their shtick the same way the smiting paladin and raging barbarian do. Right now, they don't.


But what are monks? It's a difficult question, because monks are impossible to describe.

One might ask the same about birds. What are birds?

We just don't know.


Monks are rogues trying to be fighters going in the guise of a priest...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Maybe the monk should be a full BAB and d10 HD class. I've never really thought they've needed it in the past, but since they get full BAB while flurrying anyways, the boost to BAB and HD will give them some more staying power and allow them to qualify for (non-bonus) combat feats at the same rate as the other main combat classes.

Alternatively, I'd like to see them have a bigger ki pool (either level + Wisdom modifer, or even 4 + Wisdom modifier at 1st level plus 2 per level thereafter), and maybe more ki powers to select from, kind of like the magus's arcane pool and arcana powers. For example, spending 1 point of ki as a swift actions to resolve melee attacks as touch attacks for 1 round.

But a full BAB monk would be REALLY tempting to dip into.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Monks are rogues trying to be fighters going in the guise of a priest...

For some reason I put Rogues when I meant Acrobats.


Anyways. On Topic.

I'd like them to clean up some rules and feats. Make some of those feats (*coughproneshootercough*)actually useful.

Some class revisions. Monk and Rogue specifically. Otherwise, I'm generally happy with the classes as they turned out other than some fuzzy rules sometimes.

I just noticed that a bunch of Prestige Classes were added to the SRD and they seem cool, but I never really liked prestige classes. Things like the Pit Fighter and Brother of the Seal sound like good alternatives to the base classes though.


Pathfinder has, almost a year slower than 3.5 did, gone to the Splatplosion. Archetypes, feats, 500+ spells, 40+ prestige classes, 15 base classes...

Which means that the rewards for system mastery in character creation have gotten larger.

I understand why this happens; books with player options sell about 4-5x as well as books with GM options. They also take more work, and the more material there is to check against, the harder that work is.

I would like a serious serious streamlining. I'd like archetypes built into the rules from the get-go. I'm eyeing both SAGA and d20 Modern as examples of how this was done.


I know this is never going to happen, but the skill system needs a huge rework. I'd actually like to see the current skill system disappear for something that's more elegant. There's a lot of useless skills, a handful of skills that are necessary and then become "skill tax" like Perception, then there are skills where putting enough ranks in it gives pretty much everything it has to offer. Some skills should just be rolled into class features (Perform for Bard, A number of Rogue skills like Stealth), while others have no business being skills; Profession for example makes more sense as a background trait and Appraise gets used more as miscellaneous knowledge check then its intended purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AdAstraGames wrote:

Pathfinder has, almost a year slower than 3.5 did, gone to the Splatplosion. Archetypes, feats, 500+ spells, 40+ prestige classes, 15 base classes...

Which means that the rewards for system mastery in character creation have gotten larger.

I understand why this happens; books with player options sell about 4-5x as well as books with GM options. They also take more work, and the more material there is to check against, the harder that work is.

I would like a serious serious streamlining. I'd like archetypes built into the rules from the get-go. I'm eyeing both SAGA and d20 Modern as examples of how this was done.

Sort of unrelated to the topic at hand, but I find it funny that so many bragged about Pathfinder's lack of "the splatbook problem that made 3.5e so bad" when now it's on the same level, and going to be even worse. Then again, I take sick pleasure in laughing at people who insist that 3.5e is in some ways inferior to Pathfinder. Then again, since this is Paizo's forum, biased views (positive towards PF and negative towards D&D) are not really a surprise in any sense of the word.

Both systems have their goods and bads.


Icyshadow wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:

Pathfinder has, almost a year slower than 3.5 did, gone to the Splatplosion. Archetypes, feats, 500+ spells, 40+ prestige classes, 15 base classes...

Which means that the rewards for system mastery in character creation have gotten larger.

I understand why this happens; books with player options sell about 4-5x as well as books with GM options. They also take more work, and the more material there is to check against, the harder that work is.

I would like a serious serious streamlining. I'd like archetypes built into the rules from the get-go. I'm eyeing both SAGA and d20 Modern as examples of how this was done.

Sort of unrelated to the topic at hand, but I find it funny that so many bragged about Pathfinder's lack of "the splatbook problem that made 3.5e so bad" when now it's on the same level, and going to be even worse. Then again, I take sick pleasure in laughing at people who insist that 3.5e is in some ways inferior to Pathfinder. Then again, since this is Paizo's forum, biased views (positive towards PF and negative towards D&D) are not really a surprise in any sense of the word.

Both systems have their goods and bads.

Hehe, it was only a month ago when I made a side comment on how I'm a poor person who can't afford all of Paizo's splat (CRB, AA, APG, GMG, UM, UC, ARG, Paths of Prestige, Ultimate Equipment, Races Books, Inner Sea World Guide, Faiths of Purity/Balance/Corruption) and got berated on how its nothing compared with 3.5 and the completes and BoED, BoVD, etc...

This was in person btw, not on the board


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Presuming at some point there will be a major revision (but hopefully not a new edition...) which classes would best be served by another pass of "Pathfinderization"*

*(Pathfinderization being defined as doing a lessons learned on the existing class and tweaking where needed, as they did from 3.5 to Pathfinder.)

My opinion, feel free to add your own. They are like certain orafices, everyone has them and they are all full of...stuff...

Core.

1. Barbarian is good. It matches flavor to mechanics, and remains effective in it's role throughout. Only complaint is it needs non-core to do so, but that is nit-picking.
2. Bard is great. Well balanced, fits a role, beloved by those who love bards. No change needed.
3. Cleric is good, perhaps adding a more "preist" like spell caster option, but that is complaining around the edges.
4. Druid is very good, the polymorph fix worked, well done.
5. Fighter is ok, but could use some more high level options/abilities. But it basically serves it's role.
6. Monk needs a way to increase unarmed attack bonus. That is it. Period. Full stop. Do that, monk is fine.
7. Paladin is great, bad ass when they are supposed to be, without being overpowering at other times. Good class, leave it alone.
8. Ranger is damn near perfect.
9. Rogue needs a boost. The shrinking number of skills and the change to the trap and lockpicking have made the "skill" class role less critical. Letting them sneak attack more things helps, but they need a little more to keep up.
10. Sorcerer is fine, although I think metamagics need a major overhaul, and spell clarification would be helpful with some of the more abusable options. I get GM deference, but adding a "high risk" component to spells working in exceptional ways may allow story to proceed while still giving GM's way to balance cheese casters.
11. See above about sorcerers.

Bards:need some tweeking at higher levels and some of their performances like Countersong Fascinate needs to be fixed (see Treantmonks guide on why they suck). Activated as a immediate action would fix it.

Versatile Performance needs to be fixed. Even James J. think bards should be able to bard to "cash out" any skill ranks he spent on skills that, later on, get "replaced" by a versatile performance.
Bardic Performance: The Rounds mechanics work fine in battle, but not so fine out of battle. Helping someone to climb a wall could cost you 20 rounds or using Countersong when you pass some Sirens could cost you anything from 50 rounds to 5000 rounds.

Clerics: Make them more fun. No, I didn't say more powerful. 4 skills per level. Give them something to look forward to at higher level especially at even levels. Boost healing and channeling or grant players options if you want to boost healing and channeling. Remove Channeling feat taxes.

Fighter: Boost them at higher levels. Give them some "fantastic" options at higher levels. 4 skill per level. Give them some more class skills. remove some feat taxes. Give them greater weapon focus and greater weapon specialization for free when they level up.

Ranger: Give them acrobatics as a class skill. Create a feat that let the swap a favored enemy bonus at a cost. The whole: I pick FE ork at level one, but no more orcs in this game is sort of frustrating. Remove Instant Enemy as a spell.

Boost rogue/ninja. Fix stealth rules.

Monk: Fix monk.

Give all classes at least 4 skills per level.

Sorcerer (and other spontaneous casters). Give them some more spells known or options like the human favored class option. Let all spontaneous casters cast spells with meta magic X times per day without increasing casting time (or remove slower spell progression).

Oracle: More curses.

Magus: Nerf them or set a limit on how many pearls of power one can have.

Feats:
Remove weapon fines and make it an option all classes can use or give it as a bonus feat to all classes that use armor.
Remove or boost combat expertise
Remove combat expertise as a feat tax.
Clean up or remove feat chains. Especially combat maneuvers and vital strike.
Create pounce as a feat. At least fighters should be able to grab it.

Skills:
Boost the heal skills. Make it useful even if you are a fighter, rogue or whatever.
Consolidate some more skills. My suggestion would be some knowledge skills. It's very seldom you see knowledge nobility used.
Fix the appraise skill. If not even a 3 level expert with skill focus appraise can tell you what a longsword is worth, something is wrong.
Tweak the stealth rules.

Craft:
Clean up the craft rules.

Races:
Gnomes: Give them a boost. Perhaps a bonus skills point per level. Also Gnomes should be able to pick the Human favored class option that grants more spells known.

Archetypes:
Less archetypes and more feats.

General:
Clean up high level play. Once you pass mid levels (say 8 - 10) things get crazy. This needs to be addressed.

Sovereign Court

@Ragnarok: Sorry, but that was probably the biggest deal-breaker for me when it came to 4e. I like my skills just how they are, and I don't see how any but the smallest changes would be for the better.
While I can see where you are coming from with Profession, I mix my roleplay and rollplay enough that most of my characters would notice its absence. As for Appraise, perhaps this is just a peculiarity of your group as the three I have played with IRL and numerous play-by-post games have all used Appraise for (and only for) its intended use or uses that are inherently tied to it like determining whether a diamond has any flaws or something (since such things directly affect its value). While I try to refrain from derogatory comments in discussions I can't say that making Stealth a rogue class feature is anything less than idiotic. It is a fairly integral part to several other classes and archetypes (ranger, rogue, monk) and can be useful and used by any class. It wouldn't matter if a party's rogue can walk on bubblewrap without a sound if the fighter can't so much as breathe without waking up the entire dungeon.
As for perform, aside from being a good background/money-making skill like Profession or Craft, it is a requirement for several feats and prestige classes that don't necessarily need a bard to use, and in at least some cases aren't even ideally suited for the bard class.
I might suggest, however, giving some Perform-related options to such classes, or the skill in general. Perhaps something like Perform (dance) could be used in place of certain Acrobatics or combat maneuvers like feint (similarly to how Intimidate and Diplomacy fulfill the same general role, but in different ways and possibly leading to very different results - particularly in the case of failure).

Bringing back synergy bonuses from 3.5e may help with a lot of this, actually...

@Elghinn: It's an interesting idea, and I'll probably give it a try when I get a chance, but since each combination has to be built ahead of time it lacks a lot of the flexibility and spontaneity that is possible with "true" multiclassing. ...Actually, it reminds me a lot of gestalt...


The best way to boost rogues would be to give them better rogue talents. Giving them a chewed out version of the ninja's ki pool is not the way to do that.


Lawrence DuBois wrote:
@Ragnarok: Sorry, but that was probably the biggest deal-breaker for me when it came to 4e. I like my skills just how they are, and I don't see how any but the smallest changes would be for the better.

I was expecting this kind of response, bringing up 4e is Godwin's law for PF...

Lawrence DuBois wrote:
While I can see where you are coming from with Profession, I mix my roleplay and rollplay enough that most of my characters would notice its absence.

Not absent, just as an extra background trait.

Lawrence DuBois wrote:
As for Appraise, perhaps this is just a peculiarity of your group as the three I have played with IRL and numerous play-by-post games have all used Appraise for (and only for) its intended use or uses that are inherently tied to it like determining whether a diamond has any flaws or something (since such things directly affect its value).

The actual purpose, is purely for determining market value. Determining if something is flawed, it's rarity and demand, what it's good for, and its history are not outlined as part of the skill even though all these things potentially affect its value and thus it becomes used more as miscellaneous knowledge because rolling to see how much you sell individual items is frankly kind of boring.

Lawrence DuBois wrote:
While I try to refrain from derogatory comments in discussions I can't say that making Stealth a rogue class feature is anything less than idiotic. It is a fairly integral part to several other classes and archetypes (ranger, rogue, monk) and can be useful and used by any class. It wouldn't matter if a party's rogue can walk on bubblewrap without a sound if the fighter can't so much as breathe without waking up the entire dungeon.

My point is that Rogues (and Rangers in their favored terrain) shouldn't have to invest in stealth. (Can't say anything about a monk, never heard anything about stealth being integral to monks, never even seen/heard about a stealthy monk in play) Also the idea that a stealthy rogue is useless in anything but a party who all maxed out their stealth skill can't be anything less idiotic than what I suggested.

If stealth wasn't a skill and perception wasn't a skill, then it could work as dexterity and wisdom checks with certain classes being able to use it a little better or in more situations.

The dependency on certain skills is only there because the game builds up said dependencies.

Lawrence DuBois wrote:

As for perform, aside from being a good background/money-making skill like Profession or Craft, it is a requirement for several feats and prestige classes that don't necessarily need a bard to use, and in at least some cases aren't even ideally suited for the bard class.

I might suggest, however, giving some Perform-related options to such classes, or the skill in general. Perhaps something like Perform (dance) could be used in place of certain Acrobatics or combat maneuvers like feint (similarly to how Intimidate and Diplomacy fulfill the same general role, but in different ways and possibly leading to very different results - particularly in the case of failure).

A house built on a poor foundation doesn't mean that the foundation is good. If they create a more elegant solution, then there's nothing to stop them from making feats and prestige classes use the elegant solution. I personally think that being able to play an instrument should be a roleplay choice. Can characters not have families or homes because there are no rules for it? Does a character really need to invest precious skill points (craft[painting]) just to be able paint a couple of pretty pictures?

Lawrence DuBois wrote:
Bringing back synergy bonuses from 3.5e may help with a lot of this, actually...

Yes, bring back more bookkeeping and super diplomancers![/sarcasm]

That all said, even if they did take this into consideration, it is not something that would work as update. It would have to be a new version altogether...


Star Wars Saga Edition (SWSE was one of the best d20 books ever made in terms of mechanics IMHO. Hint its better than Pathfinder, 4th ed and 3.5. If 4th ed resembled SWSE more I would not be playing Pathfinder. It wasn't perfect thugh as the odd bit was a bit pointless and stupid/broken (useless talents, some overpowered force powers)but its core was very very good in terms of skills, prestige classes, and options with only 5 classes. For the most part it had the fun part of 3.5 (flexability), the fun part of 4th ed (skills, defenses, more hp at lvl 1) and without the problems of 3.5 (broken spells) or the blandness of 4th ed.

Part of the backlash against 4th ed was that it was only 5 years since 3.5 had come out and 3 years before 3.5 for 3.0. I have been running d20 now for 12 years and some things that were abusable in 3.0 in 2000/2001 are still being abused now (spells, archery feats in particular). I remember building cleric archers in 2001 and the same feats got used in Star Wars and Pathfinder (point blank shot, rapid shot, precise shot, ranged attacks 101).

As long as they don't do something truly stupid like b#+#$$~s up Golarion totally (RSE or droppiong a continent on it) and evolve any hypothetical PF2 in a logical direction rather than use a butchers axe a'la 4th ed I would be very keen say in 2-3 years for a PF2. 4-5 year editon cycle is to short, 10 years probably to long. Kind or playing Pathfinder 1.5 in my game anyway as I've incorporated various elements from SWSE in the game already.

Personally I am more or less loyal to OGL/d20 rather than any particular verison of it as even 4th ed had some good points. I don't have much hope for D&D Next but if it is any good I'll drop PF and play that but probably set games in Golarion or support Paizo in other ways via buying things like fluff/minis or even adventures with maps and plot ideas one can mine. I like Paizo but I'm not fanatic about them. They rode a wave of discontent over WoTC dropping the ball. Nor would I care if WoTC and Paizo worked togather in the future-Golarion as a D&D Next World sure, Paizo gets to use iconics like Beholders;)

Ediiton wars are always fun and games I suppose but Paizo won that round. Its like Paizo has fantastic ideas ruined by the 3.5 legacy (high level APs dealing with optimised spellcasters don't really work lol).


Arslanxelan wrote:
Quote:
Nope. They are not rangers with favored enemies, paladins with smite or barbarians with rage either. But they ARE a combat class and as such should be expected to fight on a par with these other classes.
So are you saying that a monk should do as much damage as a paladin when smiting and a barbarian while raging? I have never seen the monk as a primary damage dealer. The top 3 in melee damage should always be barbarian raging, paladin smiting and the fighter. The monk is good as is. Unless the monk loses the 3 good saves there should not be an increase in its damage potential.

No, I am not. But it is important to note that the monk does not measure up to any of these classes even when they are not smiting/raging/hitting their favoured enemy. It would be nice if they did, but they don't, and that's the problem: the monk falls well below the baseline in spite of that rising damage dice of theirs for unarmed strike.

It really isn't about damage potential as it is about hitting - if you cannot hit, you cannot deal any damage at all. The reason monk-players have to crank up the damage output is because it is the ONLY way to make the few blows that ever connect actually count, and the ONLY way they can get through any DR the target has. I'd much rather hit more often, do less damage and be able to ignore DR.

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Monks are rogues trying to be fighters going in the guise of a priest...

...and failing at all three. Not enough skills to be rogues, not enough ability to hit to be fighters, not enough special abilities (and those they have do not actually work well with one another) to be a priest.


Dabbler wrote:


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Monks are rogues trying to be fighters going in the guise of a priest...
...and failing at all three. Not enough skills to be rogues, not enough ability to hit to be fighters, not enough special abilities (and those they have do not actually work well with one another) to be a priest.

Monks are all over the place and they aren't even sure what they want to be. They don't have what they need and they have things that (for me at least) don't make a lot of sense with the fluff like a bonus to base land speed and tongues. They're all over the place, they wanted to be Jackie Chan but also a Mystical Sage. The people that I know that wanted to play monks only really want a small subset of the abilities and want that subset of abilities to work better. The other abilities are just bonuses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also something that bothers me is the way that exotic weapons work. I feel like exotic weapons shouldn't be its own subgroup but should be a regional thing. Guns should just be simple weapons (like crossbows) that are exotic outside of Alkenstar. Eastern Weapons shouldn't be exotic in the east. I also feel that monks should be able to use weapons appropriate to their region otherwise they really do just end up being Chinese immigrants or Asian Wannabes (if they aren't really from the East). Exotic uses of a weapon should still be considered exotic but it should still fall under simple / martial.


Agreed with Ragnarok Aeon on Exotic Weapons and Appraise skill. One skill I sometimes miss is something like Knowledge (Warcraft), Tactics, or something like that.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Monks are rogues trying to be fighters going in the guise of a priest...
...and failing at all three. Not enough skills to be rogues, not enough ability to hit to be fighters, not enough special abilities (and those they have do not actually work well with one another) to be a priest.
Monks are all over the place and they aren't even sure what they want to be. They don't have what they need and they have things that (for me at least) don't make a lot of sense with the fluff like a bonus to base land speed and tongues. They're all over the place, they wanted to be Jackie Chan but also a Mystical Sage. The people that I know that wanted to play monks only really want a small subset of the abilities and want that subset of abilities to work better. The other abilities are just bonuses.

I agree. The ki-pool concept was good, but while it gave a boost in some areas it was a nerf in others. Wholeness of Body is a great example: it takes a standard action, heals a few hit points of damage, and costs a relatively large amount of ki. It basically does no more than drinking a potion could achieve, at a greater expenditure of relative resources. What's the point in that? It doesn't even work as a swift action, because if you are in a fight and in that much trouble you either get out of the fight or boost your AC instead to avoid taking more damage.

The monk should be the kind of class where you can be Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan on the one hand, or the mystic sage on the other, and NOT through archetypes. They are just the crutches on which the class struggles along.


For Monks I suggest the following
* Making stunning fist a combat maneuver that can be used in place of a melee attack. (It makes sense as a CMB vs CMD, and not require a fortitude save [dirty trick doesn't require one]) By making it a combat maneuver the monk uses full bab regardless of whether it's part of a flurry or not and the monk gets to add his wisdom bonus.

* Replacing fast movement with an ability to enhance unarmed attacks, using ki to give unarmed strikes an enhancement bonus and overcome DR.

* Replacing high jump with the ability for monks to gain DR with their ki.

Giving up some ability to be an acrobat to be better at what they do just makes more sense mechanically and fluff wise.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

For Monks I suggest the following

* Making stunning fist a combat maneuver that can be used in place of a melee attack. (It makes sense as a CMB vs CMD, and not require a fortitude save [dirty trick doesn't require one]) By making it a combat maneuver the monk uses full bab regardless of whether it's part of a flurry or not and the monk gets to add his wisdom bonus.

Actually using stunning fist as a combat maneuver is not helpful, because above 10th level maneuvers have less chance of working against most monsters than just trying to hit them does.

Monks do not currently get their wisdom bonus instead of Strength or Dexterity to hit or with maneuvers (they get it to CMD, but that's different as it's just part of their touch AC), but I agree that they should.

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
* Replacing fast movement with an ability to enhance unarmed attacks, using ki to give unarmed strikes an enhancement bonus and overcome DR.

I think they should just get an enhancement bonus to hit with unarmed strikes as part of ki-strike. It shouldn't cost ki, they don't have enough as it is and it's already called on too much. It should be just to hit, though, to compensate for that rising damage dice (hate it though I do).

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
* Replacing high jump with the ability for monks to gain DR with their ki.

I would prefer an ability to bypass DR in targets.

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Giving up some ability to be an acrobat to be better at what they do just makes more sense mechanically and fluff wise.

To be honest, I do not think that they need to "give up" anything to achieve these things. The monk is weak, and you won't make them stronger by swapping things out, you will make them stronger by adding things and taking away less or nothing.


It's late and my posts are beginning to lose sense even to me, I don't even remember where I was going with combat maneuvers, but I feel the monk is weak not because they don't have enough abilities, but because they have a lot of abilities that don't work together at all.

It's the same dichotomy of having a character that can be fighter sometimes and a wizard other times, that character is no good, but the solution isn't to give them 9th level spells and a full bab as well as some rogue sneak attack dice...


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
It's late and my posts are beginning to lose sense even to me, I don't even remember where I was going with combat maneuvers, but I feel the monk is weak not because they don't have enough abilities, but because they have a lot of abilities that don't work together at all.

This is very true, but also the monk's MAD nature and the nature of the unarmed strike does not help at all.

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
It's the same dichotomy of having a character that can be fighter sometimes and a wizard other times, that character is no good, but the solution isn't to give them 9th level spells and a full bab as well as some rogue sneak attack dice...

You come up with the magus instead, and the magus rocks as a class because his class features do work together.

Liberty's Edge

Thread ate this, so repost
"Kthulhu wrote:

ciretose wrote:

How did that work out with 4e?

I forgot that the only two RPG systems allowed by law were d20 and 4E.

How are the other ones doing, relatively speaking.

When you reinvent the wheel, you better hope people are willing to follow you if your buisness model is based on creating settings and having people play them.

If it ain't backwards compatible, you've just obsoleted your back catalog AND made your work force have to be completely retrained.

Which was as much the problem with 4e as the system itself.


Uncouple skill usage from combat effectiveness. You shouldn't have to give up combat effectiveness in order to have more than a smattering of skillpoints and vice-versa (Fighters and Rogues I'm looking at you). Everyone should have non-combat and combat options to chose from and specialize in.

Fighter is more tightly defined as the armored tank class that kicks ass with heavy weapons, rogue is the light fighter who use acrobatics and deft strikes to bypass the defenses of the opposition. Both classes have a good number of skill points that typically support their traditional character roles (rogues get stealthy stuff, fighters get plenty of martial stuff [perception and healing for instance] but also some leadership abilities - whatever happened to the AD&D fighter who was almost always the party leader).

Make combat resolution easier, figure out the expected damage done per character/monster HD and get rid of iterative attacks. The math can almost always be done easier with fewer attacks with less attack penalties. I understand some people like the bucket of dice but they should play a dicepool system.

Split magic between reliable combat magic (healing, blast spells that do direct damage, etc) and real ultimate power. Real ultimate power takes longer to cast isn't really that useful in combat (too slow, too easy to disrupt) but can still do all the wacky stuff typically given to D&D magic users. I think there is still a role for SoL spells but the impact needs to be more incremental so that casters both for team good and team evil can't auto-win encounters with a lucky roll.

Make saves scale better with level, poor saves just lag way behind good saves and magic resistance boosters just increase the big six dependency. Make caster save DC scale more or less on an even keel with saves so that yeah a high level caster can plow through low level opposition but saves of equal or superior opposition are much more reliable. Give casters at least a decent effect on a made save so it's less disappointing when a monster makes a save (less wasted rounds).

Give martial characters more abilities that scale with casters. Unlimited use per day is completely pointless if you need the casters to heal you and recover critical resources and bypass encounters. If the design math is configured around 4 encounters per day then make the fighter as useful as the wizard is in those 4 encounters don't promise him awesomeness in encounters 7-12 which will never happen in regular campaigns.

Uncouple healing from clerics. It doesn't have to be healing surges but the cleric shouldn't have to be a healbot who uses all his spells on healing friends and you shouldn't need to buy constant healing batteries in the form of wands of CLW. Make non-magical healing viable past 1st level (heroes shouldn't take weeks to recover from high level combat without healing spells). Give people some sort of HP recovery mechanism that reflects the innate toughness of heroes to shrug off wounds and get back in the fight.

Guide combat encounters towards more encounters using equal numbers of foes or even superior numbers of foes. 4 PCs vs one big monster has never been a particularly great encounter design and should be discouraged. Huge demons and dragons should be the exception.


Oh, please, end the era of .5 things.

And that surely doesn't mean "enter the era of everyone can do everything" as some people suggest.

There are reasons for certain classes having certain peculiarities, and there is already plenty of archetypes to break the canons.


Zardnaar wrote:
Star Wars Saga Edition (SWSE was one of the best d20 books ever made in terms of mechanics IMHO. Hint its better than Pathfinder, 4th ed and 3.5. If 4th ed resembled SWSE more I would not be playing Pathfinder. It wasn't perfect thugh as the odd bit was a bit pointless and stupid/broken (useless talents, some overpowered force powers)but its core was very very good in terms of skills, prestige classes, and options with only 5 classes. For the most part it had the fun part of 3.5 (flexability), the fun part of 4th ed (skills, defenses, more hp at lvl 1) and without the problems of 3.5 (broken spells) or the blandness of 4th ed.

Big problem with Saga was the condition track. Several builds could effectively make ANY opponent have the equivalent of 6 hit points (i.e. condition track kill, as opposed to hit point kill) over and over & the death spiral of the track was also problematic.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:

Thread ate this, so repost

"Kthulhu wrote:

ciretose wrote:

How did that work out with 4e?

I forgot that the only two RPG systems allowed by law were d20 and 4E.

How are the other ones doing, relatively speaking.

When you reinvent the wheel, you better hope people are willing to follow you if your buisness model is based on creating settings and having people play them.

If it ain't backwards compatible, you've just obsoleted your back catalog AND made your work force have to be completely retrained.

Which was as much the problem with 4e as the system itself.

You realize that 3.0 did exactly that, just as much as 4E did, right?


3.0e did that yes, but not to the extent that 4e did. You could take a 2e wizard and fit it into 3e and it would kind of work. What was big about 3e, though, was the SRD. That meant everyone had the fundamental rules at their fingertips, and that's what was really different about it and made it shine.


Da'ath wrote:


Big problem with Saga was the condition track. Several builds could effectively make ANY opponent have the equivalent of 6 hit points (i.e. condition track kill, as opposed to hit point kill) over and over & the death spiral of the track was also problematic.

I wouldn't necessarily call that a problem, certainly not compared to a save or die. In that case, 6 hit points is better than 1. In our campaign, we found that taking someone down the condition track was comparatively rare compared to just hit point loss.

We had more of a problem with defenses getting too high compared to attack values.


Bill Dunn wrote:
In our campaign, we found that taking someone down the condition track was comparatively rare compared to just hit point loss.

I'd be interested in knowing specifically what made this rare in your game (curiosity, not criticizing), so I have a few questions:

1. Did you only use/own/limit to the core rule book?
2. Did you use house rule/ban anything?
3. Was your campaign focused on humanoid vs humanoid or humanoid vs monster, ship to ship combat, etc? Monsters & ships had an immense progression for DT post large size.
4. Would you consider your group poor, average, or good at optimization/design of a character? Do they optimize, mostly roleplay, or hybrid of both?

Example Condition Track Killer: Dastardly Strike, Debilitating Shot, Hunter's Mark, and a stun weapon. Assuming success, in one shot the target is unconscious/helpless: -2 for stunning and going over threshold, -1 for Dastardly Strike, -1 for Debilitating Shot, -1 for Hunter's Mark.

You can do this repeatedly, each step down the condition track makes the next effect easier, and this is only one version.

Multiple characters with buffs, other similar abilities, and so on only make this easier and applicable in large battles.

Bill Dunn wrote:
We had more of a problem with defenses getting too high compared to attack values.

Interesting issue. For the sake of curiosity, were your players more focused on classes/talents that improved themselves? I found with 1-2 nobles in a group, there was nothing they /couldn't/ hit when using the group talents.


Also, make combat maneuvers useful past 10th level


It's quite likely that if an OGL was available at the start of 2E, than 3E probably would have taken some hit in sales.

That's the thing...If Paizo were to "junk" the current Pathfinder rules, and go with a completely new system, the PRD means that everyone who likes the current rule set can keep on playing it, and someone will start publishing Pathfinder rules using the PRD as a base. So a new version of Pathfinder is not only going to have to compete with 5E, retro clones, etc, but with its ancestor.

So I really don't see Paizo creating a new game from the ground up. Tweaking it, maybe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some stuff I already posted in another thread. I've put it in a spoiler since I already addressed some of it in my previous post.

stuff:

Hit neutral alignment with a drawback. Hey, I'm a neutral cleric that can do anything I want and Protection from Chaos, Law, Good or Evil doesn't become me.
Fix the fighter and also give him some "non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks!" (as a man in Black put it).
Fix the gnome. Give him the same favored class abilities as the human, and some more fun stuff.
4 skills minimum for all classes
iterative attacks, at least for the fighter.
Fix melee as an option at higher levels.
attack replacement feats should work together and they should be great at higher levels, not worse [I have no idea what I meant by this when I wrote it].
Fix Vital strike, just let it scale.
Fix the rogue and also give him some more and better "non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks"
Make Combat Expertise and weapon finesse built-in parts of the combat system.
Give all full casters, at least the arcane [read wizard and sorcerer], some range magic attack they can cast at will. Why the hell should a wizard use a cross bow and why must all divine casters go into melee at lower levels or get PBS, PS and rapid reload.
Make Clerics fun at higher levels. Bring back or add the beta Cleric as an option.
Rework bardic music performances. As AMIB put it: "Inspire Competence uses combat time with non-combat tasks, bardic music performances often have random length minimums, it's just a mess."
Fix bards at higher levels. Give them - and clerics - some new cool buffs.
Make Inspire greatness ....Great
Let the bard be able to activate countersong, distraction and Inspire greatness (etc) as an immediate actions (if they can identify and incoming threat). As of now they are more or less useless
Fix healing.
Give clerics some GOOD high level spells.
Consolidate some of the knowledge skills and let all classes (or races ) pick one additional knowledge skill as a class skill.
Make traits a part of the core rules and add some traits.
Fix wildshape
Remove all feat taxes.


Da'ath wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
In our campaign, we found that taking someone down the condition track was comparatively rare compared to just hit point loss.

I'd be interested in knowing specifically what made this rare in your game (curiosity, not criticizing), so I have a few questions:

1. Did you only use/own/limit to the core rule book?
2. Did you use house rule/ban anything?
3. Was your campaign focused on humanoid vs humanoid or humanoid vs monster, ship to ship combat, etc? Monsters & ships had an immense progression for DT post large size.
4. Would you consider your group poor, average, or good at optimization/design of a character? Do they optimize, mostly roleplay, or hybrid of both?

Example Condition Track Killer: Dastardly Strike, Debilitating Shot, Hunter's Mark, and a stun weapon. Assuming success, in one shot the target is unconscious/helpless: -2 for stunning and going over threshold, -1 for Dastardly Strike, -1 for Debilitating Shot, -1 for Hunter's Mark.

You can do this repeatedly, each step down the condition track makes the next effect easier, and this is only one version.

Multiple characters with buffs, other similar abilities, and so on only make this easier and applicable in large battles.

We had access to pretty much all the books. But we were also using the game system for a Mass Effect campaign (with biotics represented in Jedi rules). Most of our targets were Geth (droids), Krogan (high Fort defense), or thugs. We did most stuff off-ship and personal.

Of the group, we tend to be simulationists rather than gamists. So we do less optimizing than trying to build characters with usefully diverse and reasonable talents. So the turian cop I was playing, who had been initially groomed for elite soldier status, had soldier, noble, AND scout levels and was angling toward bounty hunter. And his noble talents were geared toward working within Council Space-wide bureaucratic organizations and knowing his way around them.

Da'ath wrote:


Bill Dunn wrote:
We had more of a problem with defenses getting too high compared to attack values.
Interesting issue. For the sake of curiosity, were your players more focused on classes/talents that improved themselves? I found with 1-2 nobles in a group, there was nothing they /couldn't/ hit when using the group talents.

I don't believe we had more than one character with noble levels, and that ws only one or two (mostly to represent officer training at an academy). We also encountered multiple NPCs with levels in heroic classes. At the rate of +1 to defenses per level, everyone without a full BAB who didn't pack on combat feats tended to fall behind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:


You realize that 3.0 did exactly that, just as much as 4E did, right?

That has not been my experience at all. Pre-3e materials translate pretty readily and 3e was geared in such a way that you could run a 1e/2e style campaign and under most of the same assumptions.

201 to 250 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Pathfinder 1.5. Where to make changes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.