Other rules that I think are absurd/unnecessary:
(...)
- Perception isn't a class skill for every class: Again, no-brainer.
I disagre with this one. I think certain classes are supposed to be more alert than others, such as the classic "scout" classes: rogue, ranger, and to some degree monk. If you gave everyone Perception as a class skill, then you'd have to give these classes a bonus to Perception.
Just because it's useful for everyone doesn't mean everyone should automatically be top-tier in it. Wizards wouldn't mind having d10 HD, but that doesn't mean they should have it.
I agree with you. I don't think it should be a skill at all actually, but certainly I don't think everyone should be equally good at it. Being skill-based (as opposed to class-based bonus like saves) and keyed of wisdom, however, means in practicality clerics are far better than rogues at it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh! Got another one!
You can't detect traps unless you're specifically looking for them.
Why? that's not the case with anything else! You don't need to be specifically looking for anything in order tod etect it. If you have a high enough Perception score, you can even detect an invisible statue, but you can't see a huge (and say, pink) bear-trap laying on the ground of well-lit corridor...
It makes no sense from neither a game-play perspective nor from a logic perspective. It's insane!
I agree with you. I don't think it should be a skill at all actually, but certainly I don't think everyone should be equally good at it. Being skill-based (as opposed to class-based bonus like saves) and keyed of wisdom, however, means in practicality clerics are far better than rogues at it.
Other rules that I think are absurd/unnecessary:
(...)
- Perception isn't a class skill for every class: Again, no-brainer.
I disagre with this one. I think certain classes are supposed to be more alert than others, such as the classic "scout" classes: rogue, ranger, and to some degree monk. If you gave everyone Perception as a class skill, then you'd have to give these classes a bonus to Perception.
Just because it's useful for everyone doesn't mean everyone should automatically be top-tier in it. Wizards wouldn't mind having d10 HD, but that doesn't mean they should have it.
Perception as a restricted skill sucked in 3e because of the 0.5 ranks thing, but in PF a class skill is just a +3 to check. I always max out PER whether my PC has it as a class skill or not, works fine - bit tough on Fighters, but Clerics are golden. :D
Perception as a restricted skill sucked in 3e because of the 0.5 ranks thing, but in PF a class skill is just a +3 to check. I always max out PER whether my PC has it as a class skill or not, works fine - bit tough on Fighters, but Clerics are golden. :DI agree with you. I don't think it should be a skill at all actually, but certainly I don't think everyone should be equally good at it. Being skill-based (as opposed to class-based bonus like saves) and keyed of wisdom, however, means in practicality clerics are far better than rogues at it.Other rules that I think are absurd/unnecessary:
(...)
- Perception isn't a class skill for every class: Again, no-brainer.
I disagre with this one. I think certain classes are supposed to be more alert than others, such as the classic "scout" classes: rogue, ranger, and to some degree monk. If you gave everyone Perception as a class skill, then you'd have to give these classes a bonus to Perception.
Just because it's useful for everyone doesn't mean everyone should automatically be top-tier in it. Wizards wouldn't mind having d10 HD, but that doesn't mean they should have it.
So... your guard will never be trained to notice intruders during night watch, your tournament champion will never notice incoming attacks from other opponents during a one-man-standing melee, your archer will never notice the hidden target and your defender will never notice an ally in danger...
Really now?
Perception should be a class skill for every class, and that would break the game at all. Maybe if Perception would be a class skill, some classes wouldn't have too much cheese in their eyes and ears, since they rarely invest skill points on "cross-class" skills, let alone have the Wisdom modifier to back it up.
Post got eaten by bad connection, so I'll keep it short and sweet:
Two more I thought of,
Curses being mandatory. They're too restrictive on RP, and would serve better as a feat (modified) anyone could take, but oracles get for free if they want, so people who aren't oracles can take them for flavor reasons. Alternatively, if Paizo put out more low-impact curses, this could be better, but optional would be preferred.
Secondly is more of a "lack of rules" than a rules that bug me, issue, but it's the lack of a Sorc/Oracle, Bard/Inquisitor or Magus/Warpriest option for Druids. I thought the Shaman in the ACG would be it, but no, it's still a prepared caster (who, honestly IMO, should have been an archetype). I get that the base flavor is less open than for clerics and wizards, but there are a lot of spells unique to the druid, or hard to get otherwise.
Hunter from the ACG is the 6th level druidy class, while the ranger is the 4th level one (which I am sure you already knew). But there doesn't seem to be a spontaneous druidy caster like there is clericy and wizardy. Paizo produced, that is. There is a 3rd party spontaneous druidy caster.
Hunter from the ACG is the 6th level druidy class, while the ranger is the 4th level one (which I am sure you already knew). But there doesn't seem to be a spontaneous druidy caster like there is clericy and wizardy. Paizo produced, that is. There is a 3rd party spontaneous druidy caster.Post got eaten by bad connection, so I'll keep it short and sweet:
Two more I thought of,
Curses being mandatory. They're too restrictive on RP, and would serve better as a feat (modified) anyone could take, but oracles get for free if they want, so people who aren't oracles can take them for flavor reasons. Alternatively, if Paizo put out more low-impact curses, this could be better, but optional would be preferred.
Secondly is more of a "lack of rules" than a rules that bug me, issue, but it's the lack of a Sorc/Oracle, Bard/Inquisitor or Magus/Warpriest option for Druids. I thought the Shaman in the ACG would be it, but no, it's still a prepared caster (who, honestly IMO, should have been an archetype). I get that the base flavor is less open than for clerics and wizards, but there are a lot of spells unique to the druid, or hard to get otherwise.
Must have missed the Hunter, though to be fair, none of the ACG classes really wowed me. It seemed to me that a lot of the classes were trying to fill a theme that didn't need filling, and two (Stalker/Brawler) were trying to be a "rogue/monk, but not terrible" which they did alright.
As for the 3rd party classes, I've looked at a few of them, and I'm not blown away. They seem to be too close to the original druid on the whole, where I'm looking for more of a Sorcerer/Oracle treatment, complete with Mystery/Bloodline type features.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perception as a restricted skill sucked in 3e because of the 0.5 ranks thing, but in PF a class skill is just a +3 to check. I always max out PER whether my PC has it as a class skill or not, works fine - bit tough on Fighters, but Clerics are golden. :DI agree with you. I don't think it should be a skill at all actually, but certainly I don't think everyone should be equally good at it. Being skill-based (as opposed to class-based bonus like saves) and keyed of wisdom, however, means in practicality clerics are far better than rogues at it.Other rules that I think are absurd/unnecessary:
(...)
- Perception isn't a class skill for every class: Again, no-brainer.
I disagre with this one. I think certain classes are supposed to be more alert than others, such as the classic "scout" classes: rogue, ranger, and to some degree monk. If you gave everyone Perception as a class skill, then you'd have to give these classes a bonus to Perception.
Just because it's useful for everyone doesn't mean everyone should automatically be top-tier in it. Wizards wouldn't mind having d10 HD, but that doesn't mean they should have it.
So... your guard will never be trained to notice intruders during night watch, your tournament champion will never notice incoming attacks from other opponents during a one-man-standing melee, your archer will never notice the hidden target and your defender will never notice an ally in danger...
Really now?
Perception should be a class skill for every class, and that would break the game at all. Maybe if Perception would be a class skill, some classes wouldn't have too much cheese in their eyes and ears, since they rarely invest skill points on "cross-class" skills, let alone have the Wisdom modifier to back it up.
I would hardly call not getting a +3 bonus "never succeeding at the check at all".
That said, yes, there's a difference between a typical guard and a specialized wilderniss scout or professional burglar. Those should indeed be better at Perception.
Now, for the guard there's a case to be made for Perception as a class skill (or a Skill Focus), but that case doesn't hold for the wizard, cleric or witch.
---
Also, I agree that Perception is so exceptionally important that should probably be treated more like Concentration or a Saving Throw (Concentration is basically a Saving Throw vs. Spell Loss). Right now putting ranks in is practically mandatory. No skill should be so much better than other skills that putting ranks in is mandatory for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally think the class skill lists are bogus in general. Make all skills class skills for everybody.
Oh! Got another one!
You can't detect traps unless you're specifically looking for them.
Why? that's not the case with anything else! You don't need to be specifically looking for anything in order tod etect it. If you have a high enough Perception score, you can even detect an invisible statue, but you can't see a huge (and say, pink) bear-trap laying on the ground of well-lit corridor...
It makes no sense from neither a game-play perspective nor from a logic perspective. It's insane!
Really? I was under the impression that trap checks were reactive (subject to appropriate modifiers for distraction and senses used) and that searching for traps simply allowed one to make another check without distractions or to find traps one would have difficulty finding at a glance (such as a pit or pressure plate hidden under a rug, or a wall dart trap covered in centuries of dust). A huge pink near trap unhidden in the middle of a well-lit corridor would not require a Perception check at all under most circumstances, much less require an active search.
Strength as a bonus to hit never sat well with me. I've heard the arguments that it helps to penetrate armor, but how does this explain why unarmored opponents are easier to hit for those with high Strength?
I guess it's harder to block blows that have more force behind them?
|
|
Strength as a bonus to hit never sat well with me. I've heard the arguments that it helps to penetrate armor, but how does this explain why unarmored opponents are easier to hit for those with high Strength?
It's often assumed that a to-hit roll represents not one blow, but a series of blows, feints, and finally one that might get through.
Strength also helps you get past blocks, force aside shields and suchlike.
I know other people have remarked that from martial arts experience, it's often the fast, small people you have to watch out for, because they're striking faster than you can block. True, but in my experience you also need to watch out for the tall guy that's hitting so hard that it's hard to block him.
The little guys are using Weapon Finesse, the tall guy is using Strength.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strength allows you to swing/thrust faster, making it harder to dodge the blow. Seems straightforward. If you picture ogres as swinging clumsily instead of horrifyingly quickly, then I can understand the disconnect.
|
So two things I have noticed about this thread:
1. Ross Byers seems particularly interested in it, both speaking about rules he has personally shunned for his games and defending the unpopular dev decisions that he supports.
2. One of the most common complaints I see is about the Sorcerer/Wizard power disparity. The Sorcerer's big advantage appears to be nonexistent, and for that nonexistent advantage s/he sacrifices a full level of spellcasting. Yet I have not seen Ross respond to this, nor can I recall ever seeing any of the devs address it.
Would I be getting my hopes up to think that means we might see a possible fix come Pathfinder v2.0, should there ever be a 2.0? The Pally got some much needed love transitioning from 3.5 to PF - maybe it's the Sorcerer's turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there specific ones or even entire sections that you simply dispense with because you find them ponderous, convoluted, detrimental to flow, nonsensical, irritating or just effin' stupid? Do you rewrite, hand-wave, rule ad hoc, or ignore?
Please don't attack others' comments. Simply list those YOU dislike and why.
This is not an official rule, and we play without it.. but...
Sneak attack damage as it applies to spells. If you are shooting more than one ray, sneak attack damage should apply to each ray, in the same way that it would apply to each attack.
Each attack roll no matter the source should have a chance at sneak attack damage. (assuming prerequisites are met)
Let me add a couple things that have always ruffled my feathers when it comes to necromancy.
- The description of the school in the Core Rulebook is laughably small for such an iconic school of magic.
- The fact that the harm spells are in necromancy, but not the cure spells. Even though it's the school of Life and death
- That how undead minions are created is never explained. Are they powered by captured souls? Negative Energy? Raw Magic? Why are all undead always evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
after a recent thought experiment, I am finding a lot of stat prereqs in feats to be completely unnecessary.
The rules I find absurd are the dexterity limitations in armor rules.
They are there for somewhat balance, but when I look at people in normal life who are in hardened leather or leather compared to someone in plate which has actually been specifically designed for them...the person in plate normally has higher mobility.
Of course if they are in plate that is nothing like their size...I can understand the restrictions, but otherwise, hate the armor/dex rules.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much everything alignment related that infringes upon the mechanics is thrown out the window in my game.
The alignment rules are weird, inconsistent, and add nothing to the game (while taking away so much).
Especially since someone recently pointed out to me that as per published material, killing "evil" (like goblins) babies is possibly a Good act, while healing someone with Infernal Healing is considered always Evil.
|
|
So two things I have noticed about this thread:
1. Ross Byers seems particularly interested in it, both speaking about rules he has personally shunned for his games and defending the unpopular dev decisions that he supports.
2. One of the most common complaints I see is about the Sorcerer/Wizard power disparity. The Sorcerer's big advantage appears to be nonexistent, and for that nonexistent advantage s/he sacrifices a full level of spellcasting. Yet I have not seen Ross respond to this, nor can I recall ever seeing any of the devs address it.
Would I be getting my hopes up to think that means we might see a possible fix come Pathfinder v2.0, should there ever be a 2.0? The Pally got some much needed love transitioning from 3.5 to PF - maybe it's the Sorcerer's turn.
Check out the Advanced Class Guide, the Arcanist class. I think that's the thing Ross isn't talking out loud about.
So... your guard will never be trained to notice intruders during night watch, your tournament champion will never notice incoming attacks from other opponents during a one-man-standing melee, your archer will never notice the hidden target and your defender will never notice an ally in danger...Really now?
Perception should be a class skill for every class, and that would break the game at all. Maybe if Perception would be a class skill, some classes wouldn't have too much cheese in their eyes and ears, since they rarely invest skill points on "cross-class" skills, let alone have the Wisdom modifier to back it up.
If they don't invest ranks in PER they're stupid IMO.
As for my NPCs, if they are in a sentry/guard type roll they will typically have ranks=level in PER, possibly even Alertness feat for another +2. After a few levels the +3 for class skill on a d20 just is not the big deal you seem to think.
2. One of the most common complaints I see is about the Sorcerer/Wizard power disparity. The Sorcerer's big advantage appears to be nonexistent, and for that nonexistent advantage s/he sacrifices a full level of spellcasting. .Would I be getting my hopes up to think that means we might see a possible fix come Pathfinder v2.0, should there ever be a 2.0? The Pally got some much needed love transitioning from 3.5 to PF - maybe it's the Sorcerer's turn.
In fact, mostly what with Human's getting the extra spell per level and the Bloodline powers, we have found Sorcs to be slightly better than Wizards. And "most common complaints"? Honestly I have rarely seen that.
Certainly someday there will need to be a PF 2.0, but I doubt & hope boosting any Full spellcaster classes would be part of it. I'd say we need to boost martials at the mid-high levels, not full spellcasters.
The rules I find absurd are the dexterity limitations in armor rules.
They are there for somewhat balance, but when I look at people in normal life who are in hardened leather or leather compared to someone in plate which has actually been specifically designed for them...the person in plate normally has higher mobility.
Of course if they are in plate that is nothing like their size...I can understand the restrictions, but otherwise, hate the armor/dex rules.
Yes, I'd say the "custom-made" needs to be another add-on for armor, costing about the same as MW but making the Check penalty another one better and the dex limit two better.
Yes, I'd say the "custom-made" needs to be another add-on for armor, costing about the same as MW but making the Check penalty another one better and the dex limit two better.The rules I find absurd are the dexterity limitations in armor rules.
They are there for somewhat balance, but when I look at people in normal life who are in hardened leather or leather compared to someone in plate which has actually been specifically designed for them...the person in plate normally has higher mobility.
Of course if they are in plate that is nothing like their size...I can understand the restrictions, but otherwise, hate the armor/dex rules.
I always thought that is what Masterwork armor was, and why you got a bonus for wearing it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except MW works for anybody.
Back on topic ...
Costless material components. You don't track them, and you drop 5gp on the pouch and you're done. Just reduce the caster's starting gold by 5 and move on.
To say nothing of how ridiculous some of them have to look.
Really? I was under the impression that trap checks were reactive (subject to appropriate modifiers for distraction and senses used) and that searching for traps simply allowed one to make another check without distractions or to find traps one would have difficulty finding at a glance (such as a pit or pressure plate hidden under a rug, or a wall dart trap covered in centuries of dust). A huge pink near trap unhidden in the middle of a well-lit corridor would not require a Perception check at all under most circumstances, much less require an active search.Oh! Got another one!
You can't detect traps unless you're specifically looking for them.
Why? that's not the case with anything else! You don't need to be specifically looking for anything in order tod etect it. If you have a high enough Perception score, you can even detect an invisible statue, but you can't see a huge (and say, pink) bear-trap laying on the ground of well-lit corridor...
It makes no sense from neither a game-play perspective nor from a logic perspective. It's insane!
The way I have always felt that the detect traps issue is fine.
essentially perception is normally used to notice general things while search for traps is looking for specific things.
in other words a big pink bear trap in the woods would be seen naturally probably no check needed but at most perception... but the small wire set to make the huge net buried in the leaves spring up when you try to disarm the bear trap would require search for traps.
Really? I was under the impression that trap checks were reactive (subject to appropriate modifiers for distraction and senses used) and that searching for traps simply allowed one to make another check without distractions or to find traps one would have difficulty finding at a glance (such as a pit or pressure plate hidden under a rug, or a wall dart trap covered in centuries of dust). A huge pink near trap unhidden in the middle of a well-lit corridor would not require a Perception check at all under most circumstances, much less require an active search.Oh! Got another one!
You can't detect traps unless you're specifically looking for them.
Why? that's not the case with anything else! You don't need to be specifically looking for anything in order tod etect it. If you have a high enough Perception score, you can even detect an invisible statue, but you can't see a huge (and say, pink) bear-trap laying on the ground of well-lit corridor...
It makes no sense from neither a game-play perspective nor from a logic perspective. It's insane!
The way I have always felt that the detect traps issue is fine.
Perception is normal everyday general use.
Perception sees that there is a door along the wall.
perception can also be used for seeking specific things. Looking for secured doors for example... or searching for small wires or levers which may spring a trap.
a large pink bear trap does not require a perception check unless its covered in leaves. even then a regular perception may find it by DM fiat. but if its a small wire that crosses the path to trigger a dead fall. the person would have to be Looking for things out of the ordinary.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
So two things I have noticed about this thread:
1. Ross Byers seems particularly interested in it, both speaking about rules he has personally shunned for his games and defending the unpopular dev decisions that he supports.
The (X New) message, it taunts me.
2. One of the most common complaints I see is about the Sorcerer/Wizard power disparity. The Sorcerer's big advantage appears to be nonexistent, and for that nonexistent advantage s/he sacrifices a full level of spellcasting. Yet I have not seen Ross respond to this, nor can I recall ever seeing any of the devs address it.
Would I be getting my hopes up to think that means we might see a possible fix come Pathfinder v2.0, should there ever be a 2.0? The Pally got some much needed love transitioning from 3.5 to PF - maybe it's the Sorcerer's turn.
I'm not a fan of the Oracle and Sorcerer being held back a level. But one thing that bothers me more about Sorcerers is not getting bloodline spells until the following level: A fire bloodline sorcerer shouldn't have to wait until level 5 to cast scorching ray. (Yes, you can take it as a spell known at level 4 and trade it out at level 6, but that's dumb.)
Basically, it means sorcerers are actually kind of worse at casting their bloodline spells. You'll notice this mistake was not repeated with Oracles.A neat patch for both problems is give bloodline spells two levels earlier (and mystery spells one level earlier), but no other spells known at that level. So a 3rd level elemental sorcerer can cast scorching ray as a 2nd level spell (like the wizard has 2nd level spells), but that's his only 2nd level spell until 4th level, when he gets another. (The Spells per day table gets moved down a row, but the Spells Known table can stay the same.)
|
|
I'm not a fan of the Oracle and Sorcerer being held back a level. But one thing that bothers me more about Sorcerers is not getting bloodline spells until the following level: A fire bloodline sorcerer shouldn't have to wait until level 5 to cast scorching ray. (Yes, you can take it as a spell known at level 4 and trade it out at level 6, but that's dumb.)
Basically, it means sorcerers are actually kind of worse at casting their bloodline spells. You'll notice this mistake was not repeated with Oracles.
A neat patch for both problems is give bloodline spells two levels earlier (and mystery spells one level earlier), but no other spells known at that level. So a 3rd level elemental sorcerer can cast scorching ray as a 2nd level spell (like the wizard has 2nd level spells), but that's his only 2nd level spell until 4th level, when he gets another. (The Spells per day table gets moved down a row, but the Spells Known table can stay the same.)
I love that solution. I think that will probably be a houserule in my next game.
|
I believe my rant on Vancian casting was shunted because it included some other things that caused it to... disappear.
I never got the reason why the Wizard and the Sorcerer was in the same book when the new D&D came out. It was the same class with different mechanics. Why not have the Sorcerer (later termed Spontaneous Casting, not to be confused with the Cleric/Druid ability) mechanics could have been use in conjunction with a spellbook and adjust the spells or something else to take Spamming into account.
Spamming is still a concern at higher levels at any rate. Why have a wizard mem three Magic Missiles at first level with no recourse after those three castings but a Crossbow?
I hope that PF ver 2 will have a combined magic mechanic, one that can be used like a wizard without having amnesia and include Psionics that doesn't use PP as a mana source or a spell boost. (I would preferred no PP at all)
I always thought that is what Masterwork armor was, and why you got a bonus for wearing it.Yes, I'd say the "custom-made" needs to be another add-on for armor, costing about the same as MW but making the Check penalty another one better and the dex limit two better.The rules I find absurd are the dexterity limitations in armor rules.
They are there for somewhat balance, but when I look at people in normal life who are in hardened leather or leather compared to someone in plate which has actually been specifically designed for them...the person in plate normally has higher mobility.
Of course if they are in plate that is nothing like their size...I can understand the restrictions, but otherwise, hate the armor/dex rules.
Well, we could call it grand Master work, whatever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh Celestia ... the returning weapon ability and all the garbage around it with timing and having to wait a round and ... gah.
It comes back immediately, and you can throw it again immediately if you have another attack coming this round.
It was the same class with different mechanics.
Having different mechanics is what makes them different classes.
Spamming is still a concern at higher levels at any rate. Why have a wizard mem three Magic Missiles at first level with no recourse after those three castings but a Crossbow?
I hope that PF ver 2 will have a combined magic mechanic, one that can be used like a wizard without having amnesia ..
The Wizard will hopefully not be a idiot and instead use his limitless cantrips or his Force missiles or Blinding rays or some other power.
And they don't "forget" the spells anymore.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
So two things I have noticed about this thread:
1. Ross Byers seems particularly interested in it, both speaking about rules he has personally shunned for his games and defending the unpopular dev decisions that he supports.
The (X New) message, it taunts me.
2. One of the most common complaints I see is about the Sorcerer/Wizard power disparity. The Sorcerer's big advantage appears to be nonexistent, and for that nonexistent advantage s/he sacrifices a full level of spellcasting. Yet I have not seen Ross respond to this, nor can I recall ever seeing any of the devs address it.
Would I be getting my hopes up to think that means we might see a possible fix come Pathfinder v2.0, should there ever be a 2.0? The Pally got some much needed love transitioning from 3.5 to PF - maybe it's the Sorcerer's turn.
I'm not a fan of the Oracle and Sorcerer being held back a level. But one thing that bothers me more about Sorcerers is not getting bloodline spells until the following level: A fire bloodline sorcerer shouldn't have to wait until level 5 to cast scorching ray. (Yes, you can take it as a spell known at level 4 and trade it out at level 6, but that's dumb.)
Basically, it means sorcerers are actually kind of worse at casting their bloodline spells. You'll notice this mistake was not repeated with Oracles.
A neat patch for both problems is give bloodline spells two levels earlier (and mystery spells one level earlier), but no other spells known at that level. So a 3rd level elemental sorcerer can cast scorching ray as a 2nd level spell (like the wizard has 2nd level spells), but that's his only 2nd level spell until 4th level, when he gets another. (The Spells per day table gets moved down a row, but the Spells Known table can stay the same.)
Sorcerers get a lot of love in my house rules. Firstly the following changes occurred!
1. They gain new spells every odd level (just like wizards/clerics/druids).
2. They gain their bloodline spells immediately upon being able to cast the appropriate spell level. This is in addition to the one spell they get to select each new spell level. As a result each time a sorcerer gains a new level of spells they get 1 of their choice plus their bloodline spell.
Further, sorcerers also have the option to forgo a sorcerer bloodline entirely and instead pick 2 cleric domains to use to round out their sorcery. They receive all of the benefits of these domains (such as domain powers) and use their Charisma modifier when appropriate (so all those 3 + Wis mod or DC X + Wis mod are instead Cha mod) and add the domain spells to their list of spells known as soon as they can cast them.
While they don't get the special skills, the wider variety of special powers, or the bonus bloodline feats, this does equate to effectively +1 spell known per spell level when compared to the sorcerer bloodline, and can allow sorcerers access to spells not normally available to arcane casters (allowing them a bit more variance between them and wizards) and makes their magic feel a little more natural like spell-like abilities.
For example, a sorcerer with the Healing domain adds a wide variety of healing spells to her spells known, while a sorcerer with the weather domain can cast call lightning like a druid. A sorcerer with the animal domain can get an animal companion and some animal-themed spells and speak with animals. Have a sorcerer with divine goodly powers? Well a good-domain sorcerer gets evil-combating spells like holy smite and dispel evil!
The benefits of these domain sorcerers are twofold.
1. It allows a wider variety of cloth-wearing spellcasters who can blur the lines between some divine and arcane if desired or go full-one themed sorcerers without the forced fluff of being the bastard child of some monster.
2. It makes building NPCs tons faster. Instead of having to build completely unique sorcerers complete with full bloodlines, it's usually sufficient to simply pick a fairly standard loadout of powers and then simply drop 2 domains on the sorcerer for what would be appropriate for the NPC. This allowed a fairly wide variation of sorcerer themes to be applied with a simple "templating" of the domains onto the bare chassis.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further, sorcerers also have the option to forgo a sorcerer bloodline entirely and instead pick 2 cleric domains to use to round out their sorcery. They receive all of the benefits of these domains (such as domain powers) and use their Charisma modifier when appropriate (so all those 3 + Wis mod or DC X + Wis mod are instead Cha mod) and add the domain spells to their list of spells known as soon as they can cast them.
While they don't get the special skills, the wider variety of special powers, or the bonus bloodline feats, this does equate to effectively +1 spell known per spell level when compared to the sorcerer bloodline, and can allow sorcerers access to spells not normally available to arcane casters (allowing them a bit more variance between them and wizards) and makes their magic feel a little more natural like spell-like abilities.
For example, a sorcerer with the Healing domain adds a wide variety of healing spells to her spells known, while a sorcerer with the weather domain can cast call lightning like a druid. A sorcerer with the animal domain can get an animal companion and some animal-themed spells and speak with animals. Have a sorcerer with divine goodly powers? Well a good-domain sorcerer gets evil-combating spells like holy smite and dispel evil!
The benefits of these domain sorcerers are twofold.
1. It allows a wider variety of cloth-wearing spellcasters who can blur the lines between some divine and arcane if desired or go full-one themed sorcerers without the forced fluff of being the bastard child of some monster.
2. It makes building NPCs tons faster. Instead of having to build completely unique sorcerers complete with full bloodlines, it's usually sufficient to simply pick a fairly standard loadout of powers and then simply drop 2 domains on the sorcerer for what would be appropriate for the NPC. This allowed a fairly wide variation of sorcerer themes to be applied with a simple "templating" of the domains onto the bare chassis.
This is really exciting!
|
|
So two things I have noticed about this thread:
1. Ross Byers seems particularly interested in it, both speaking about rules he has personally shunned for his games and defending the unpopular dev decisions that he supports.
The (X New) message, it taunts me.
2. One of the most common complaints I see is about the Sorcerer/Wizard power disparity. The Sorcerer's big advantage appears to be nonexistent, and for that nonexistent advantage s/he sacrifices a full level of spellcasting. Yet I have not seen Ross respond to this, nor can I recall ever seeing any of the devs address it.
Would I be getting my hopes up to think that means we might see a possible fix come Pathfinder v2.0, should there ever be a 2.0? The Pally got some much needed love transitioning from 3.5 to PF - maybe it's the Sorcerer's turn.
I'm not a fan of the Oracle and Sorcerer being held back a level. But one thing that bothers me more about Sorcerers is not getting bloodline spells until the following level: A fire bloodline sorcerer shouldn't have to wait until level 5 to cast scorching ray. (Yes, you can take it as a spell known at level 4 and trade it out at level 6, but that's dumb.)
Basically, it means sorcerers are actually kind of worse at casting their bloodline spells. You'll notice this mistake was not repeated with Oracles.
A neat patch for both problems is give bloodline spells two levels earlier (and mystery spells one level earlier), but no other spells known at that level. So a 3rd level elemental sorcerer can cast scorching ray as a 2nd level spell (like the wizard has 2nd level spells), but that's his only 2nd level spell until 4th level, when he gets another. (The Spells per day table gets moved down a row, but the Spells Known table can stay the same.)
I like this!
+1 BAB to be able to take certain feats...
I believe my rant on Vancian casting was shunted because it included some other things that caused it to... disappear.
I never got the reason why the Wizard and the Sorcerer was in the same book when the new D&D came out. It was the same class with different mechanics. Why not have the Sorcerer (later termed Spontaneous Casting, not to be confused with the Cleric/Druid ability) mechanics could have been use in conjunction with a spellbook and adjust the spells or something else to take Spamming into account.
Spamming is still a concern at higher levels at any rate. Why have a wizard mem three Magic Missiles at first level with no recourse after those three castings but a Crossbow?
I hope that PF ver 2 will have a combined magic mechanic, one that can be used like a wizard without having amnesia and include Psionics that doesn't use PP as a mana source or a spell boost. (I would preferred no PP at all)
You should check out the playtest for the Advanced Class Guide. The Arcanist sounds like exactly what you're looking for.
Design Manager
|
I'm not a fan of the Oracle and Sorcerer being held back a level. But one thing that bothers me more about Sorcerers is not getting bloodline spells until the following level: A fire bloodline sorcerer shouldn't have to wait until level 5 to cast scorching ray. (Yes, you can take it as a spell known at level 4 and trade it out at level 6, but that's dumb.)
Basically, it means sorcerers are actually kind of worse at casting their bloodline spells. You'll notice this mistake was not repeated with Oracles.
A neat patch for both problems is give bloodline spells two levels earlier (and mystery spells one level earlier), but no other spells known at that level. So a 3rd level elemental sorcerer can cast scorching ray as a 2nd level spell (like the wizard has 2nd level spells), but that's his only 2nd level spell until 4th level, when he gets another. (The Spells per day table gets moved down a row, but the Spells Known table can stay the same.)
Soooooo much this. This is going to find itself as a new houserule at our table in very short order. I always thought it was incredibly annoying to go digging for spells that matched my theme or idea when I got a new level of spellcasting because I had to wait for my Bloodline to kick in. It's just weird, and like you said, in a way it actually makes the Sorcerer worse at casting his Bloodline spells. Not only is he waiting a level just to cast the same level spells as a Wizard, but then he has to wait another level before he gets a spell that's supposed to be iconic and integral to his identity as a caster!
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the ability adjustments based on age. This age discrimination has no place in today's gaming. I want to play a grizzled middle-aged warrior and not suffer a penalty to my physical stats.
I am not arguing that a decrease in physical stats and an increase in mental stats makes some real world sense. I just don't think we need it. So, I am arguing that it is unnecessary, although not absurd.
Plus, it eliminates being able to make your wizard really old for a cheesy buff. Your characters age becomes a role-playing decision only.
I liken it to 1e when female characters couldn't have as high a strength as male characters. Sure, in the real world the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, but I'm not here for the real world. The powers that be at some point decided that this was unnecessarily restricting of female players/characters and I feel they should do the same for our elderly or even middle-aged players/characters.
I don't like the ability adjustments based on age. This age discrimination has no place in today's gaming. I want to play a grizzled middle-aged warrior and not suffer a penalty to my physical stats.
I am not arguing that a decrease in physical stats and an increase in mental stats makes some real world sense. I just don't think we need it. So, I am arguing that it is unnecessary, although not absurd.
Plus, it eliminates being able to make your wizard really old for a cheesy buff. Your characters age becomes a role-playing decision only.
I agree, and I do that in my games.