Alceste007's page

I like the new power attack, it is much more beneficial for sword and board, and TWF, something it didnt do in 3.5. it was what made two handed fighting broken.

and it is much more simple to figure for npc's and monsters, this can greatly speed up combat (which can get too bogged down at higher levels)

The new power attack makes more than one fighting style viable and that is a big bonus in my eyes.

Masika wrote:

Roger and thanks! :)

I thought so.. so you start with less but end with more.

You no longer get the bonus feat like you did in season 0, but you DO get two traits, which are basically 1/2 feats...

The two bonus traits are pretty nice depending on circumstances.

I totally disagree with the OP.

I played LG and I am now starting to play PFS. I like having a complete record of what my character has accomplished. The AR is as much for my benefit to record what my character did as it is for the judge. The AR also takes maybe five minutes to fill out.

Page 35 : "Starting a bardic performance is a standard action,

but it can be maintained each round as a free action."
I have got two questions :
- Knowing that a bardic performance is a free action, does it means that if the bard is an actor, singer he can use his bardic performance + move of 30 feet + make an attack ?
_ What is th DC to maintain a bardic performance ? Because if I well read the rule about Concentration (page 206) to cast a spell you must succeed a concentration check which is equal to D20+Caster level+ability modifier and the DC is different as follows circumstances. But what about the DC to maintain a bardic performance ?

All bard songs use to be supernatural in 3.5 but the pathfinder book does not state their effective type.

Look, let me simplify my request:

Paizo, please give the bard something effective to do in the 2nd through 5th rounds, after level 7.

Because every bard is going to start off with Inspire Courage...because all the other bardic songs are strictly worse. And they're going to cast a buffing spell (Haste or Good Hope).

And then they're going to realize that their spells have all been nerfed in Pathfinder, and their DCs weren't that great anyways. And that their melee prowess is pathetic, because of a lack of feats and an inability to focus on physical stats (Charisma, among others, is more important). So they're basically as good as a wizard with a crossbow.

Every other class in the game can continue to do important things for the party after the first round. Bards can't. This is a bad game design - who wants a player tuning out every combat?

-Cross

The problem with balancing out of combat with combat is the need for an adventure to flow. Most DMs will not stop the adventure because someone failed a diplomacy check to get information. The game will go on even if the person with skills (ie Bard) is missing because otherwise you have very bored players.

I also agree that having a character that is fairly poor during combat is pretty boring. I want my players to be involved and active. The pathfinder bard is definitely a ineffective and boring character atm.

No one plays Bards anyway.

Strangely enough this quote shows how little bards bring to the table now. If a class is seen as useful, helpful, or powerful that class is played alot. Bards definitely do not qualify as having any of the above traits especially the pathfinder one.

The bard was already the weakest/ among the weakest toons in 3.5. In pathfinder after the nerfs there is never really a reason to create a bard over another character. Nerfing the bard was simply very poor balancing. The bard is indeed the "clunker" of pathfinder atm.

I especially dislike the straight jacket feel of the early bard levels of play in pathfinderwith just play, play the song. With 3.5, a bard could play a song then let the lingering factor kick in and do other things. This freedom of play is lost in pathfinder.

Darren Ehlers wrote:

Yeah I am a little bothered by the NERF factor on a lot of things. I am beginning to wonder if they shouldnt have released the book as GAMMA test. I think they should have racheted things back up a little on a lot of things. They obviously got some stuff right but I have to say I find my self somewhat disappointed and scratching my head a lot.

On the plus side, this opens up more revenue possibilities for Pathfinder v2.0 *sighs*

Towards the end of the Beta, it was apparent that there were still a LOT of decisions to be made and options to consider. I even suggested that they delay the release until the game is really ready... similar to Blizzard's philosophy (maker of Diablo and Warcraft). Usually it comes down to investors wishes and prior commitments though (such as booked press time).

The book is pretty much what I suspected given that... 95% refined and improved, and 5% which still needs some significant tinkering.

It is sad though, that the bard has had a legacy of being under-powered, and it seems that Paizo has, for their own amusement, decided to keep that legacy alive along with the Marvelous Pigments reference to a stick with bristles :)

In general, I am fairly happy with the book. I really like the changes to Rogues as well as removal of the stat Christmas tree for items for example. There was obviously alot of time and effort put into the Rogue class. I like Blizzard games for similiar reasons because they take the time to polish there games.

This was not the case with Bards thou. The write up feels forced, unimagative, and rushed out the door. I would have prefered that Paizo remove the bard from the book if this was going to be the result. The quality of the PF roleplay game is a sum of all of its parts. The quality of the Bard write up lowers that quality.

OK. Here it is.

Why nerf the bard? Am I talking about the rounds per day? no. I like the rounds per day. What I'm talkingt about is:
a) Inspire Courage don't stack with Inspire Greatness = Inspire Greatness useless.
b) lots of songs went poof. OK. I get it. Too many songs but why remove Song of Freedom
c) see invisiblity is a third level spell

Of all this stuff I really don't get "See invisiblity".
Just give me one answer and don't say "you can Houserule" cause our DM/GM won't.
So WHY? Why does the bard, who is all about enchantment, illusion and divination get see invisibility as a third level spell? WHY?
Is the bard too good or what?

I agree the bard feels nerfed and weak. The removal of the linger effect feels forced and really reduces bard contribution to a group. Song of greatness is now nothing more than 2d10 temp hit points for a single round. The new additions for the most part duplicate much lower level spells. There are also no feats that help out bards in their nerfed capacity.

The bard got hit with the nerf bat while being one of the weakest characters in the rules. Every other character simply brings more to a group than this bard. The level of thought and balance put into pathfinder's bard feels very minimalistic.

I am simply extremely disappointed with the Pathfinder Bard.

While I would not label PFRPG a "melee edition" of 3.5, I do feel as if Paizo basically left the weakest class (the bard) extremely weak.

I will still most likely order the PFRPG (I am a subscriber and running Pathfinder Society games) but right now I am pretty disappointed in the PFRPG Bard.

In July we officially kick off the Pathfinder RPG with the release of the Pathfinder Bestiary. The massive Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook follows in August, but beyond that we have not yet announced additional rules support for the game.

That support IS coming, and we're in the process of finalizing what form it will take.

The current plan is to release between 2-3 hardcover rulebooks per year, including additional Pathfinder Bestiaries.

What form would you like these books to take? Would you be interested in subscribing to such a line, provided the books cost somewhere around $35 a pop?

What titles/ideas would you like to see us explore?

We're all worried about rules bloat. What is your opinion of new classes and races?

Are you as tired of prestige classes as I am?

Discuss.

I am interested in a psionics book that keeps the 3.5 mechanics and fixes the uninteresting parts (aka soulknife & wilders). I really feel that psionics needs to be more about telepathy, seers, and changing one's own physical structures rather than flinging balls of fire as well.

As far as races and classes go, I feel that each class and race needs to fill a distintive area. A psionic that seeks to serve a god would be different enough, while a psionic that seeks to explore "different" areas is not.

Prestige classes sell books to players. While I agree there are a ton of prestige classes, as long as the prestige class is balanced I do not have issues with them. The problem is alot of prestige classes were not balanced and can dominate gameplay.

Psionics means unusual powers akin to magic but not directly working against it.

It means the power of the mind made manifest: telepathy, empathy, telekinesis, etc.

It also can mean the power of the Force.

It does not operate completely independent of magic. One of the reasons I've despised psionics in the past is this idea that the two are different and never the twain shall meet. I've seen in 2E what that means, and it wasn't pretty. Psionics has, from my experience, not been done well because of this, in part, in any edition. Now, no one wants to try it in 3.5 form in our group due to previous editions' damage.

Yet mechanically, I like it. For some reason, though, I can't seem to trust it.

But you guys I do.

Primarily, I'd like to see some game balance with existing spellcasters. Divine magic and arcane magic are similar in many ways; really, the primary difference mechanically is that divine spells can be cast in armor more easily than arcane. There are plenty of powers out there already, plenty of possible effects, so that's good to work from. Psionics should seem strange, different, yet also useful and have that element of wonder that magic so often lacks.

Sorry, that's vague. Getting late.

I really like the psionics in the expanded handbook as well. The compatibility of magic and psionics is important to me. I was not that big of a fan of psionics until 3.5 ala psionics being OP in earlier editions. Thus, I am fan of keeping psionics compatible with 3.5.

The feel of psionics is great for a more eastern style mystic character. The look and feel of psionics needs to be different than magic but work from a similiar set of mechanics. Also, the telepaths, seers, and psychometabolic characters feel more like someone using an internal source of power.