Alex Trebek's Stunt Double's page

I think messing around with the action economy is just going to be confusing and jam everything up. It looks super awkward, and it really punishes casters. It's basically making every single caster to use a heavy crossbow. That would be like making every single ranged character use a heavy crossbow. Kind of silly, right?

Not really though.

Resolve against full AC to only deal 1d10 damage is not very good, especially when you're starting from such low BAB.

Realise this is compared to things like Boneshatter which does something like 7d6 and can leave them exhausted.

OP: To do this RAW, just remind the caster players that they can write scrolls. Helps to be a wizard, of course. Or failing that, buy them.

To do this non-RAW, change the rules to stop them casting their spells so rapidly. Full casters are too good anyway, so this is no bad thing (YMMV). Depending on how hard you want to swing the nerf bat, you might:
* increase spell casting times to 1 full-round action
* require a 1-round cooldown (no spellcasting more than cantrips) after casting your highest level spells
* introduce fatigue (temporary Str penalty or similar) for casting your highest level spells

and so on

Surely just the higher level spells would become full round casting time.

Daze as a full round action is too much. And touch spells lose too much viability.

Conventionally, there aren't any spells that are "full round action" to cast, they go straight from 1 standard action to 1 round casting time, which means they do nothing but cast for their turn, they are still casting when all their allies and all the enemies take their turn and and the spell isn't actually in effect till the beginning of their next turn.

I think what could get a "Full round action" effectively would be to put in some requirement that a move action must be spent in order to get higher level spells to work. I know you originally said all spells should be full round casting but some are barely worth a standard action such as Daze and some simply will not work due to how the spell is phrased such as Raven's Flight, you finish casting the spell... and have no move actions to do anything and immediately turn back into original form.

But how can there be a clear and consistent rule? Just say "the following spells need a move action to ready"?

Some spells are definitely a good idea to be 1 round casting time, like all the death effects. It is too much to leave a fully stocked, locked and ready to fight badass with only 1 save from being totally dead. I mean totally dead, not even breath of life can bring them back, and many magic items can grant that. To have it that a wizard can run right up to within 40ft of them, moving out of cover to zap them, it gives the target no chance to play the game.

But for such a spell to be telegraphed with their full round of casting it and not moving and then all your allies get a chance to either dodge it or take the wizard down. Of course, this is where mounts are so important for Wizards.

This may lead to hugely favouring crossbow builds because almost as important as gaining dex to damage is avoiding penalties for low strength.It's well known that casters can dump the hell out of strength to max out dex. Dex-to-damage builds are how non-casters can stay competitive. Realise that dex to damage can never have that damage multiplied by using the weapon two-handed. So Dex 22 with dex to damage is actually having the same modifier to weapon damage roll as if they had Str 18 but were using the weapon two-handed. But you're not doing dex for damage.

Have you considered at least having something like light or weapon-finesse piercing weapons never apply their strength modifier to damage, so like how crossbows are strength insensitive so is a rapier. I would argue this makes sense considering the frontal surface area of the tip of a knife is so small that even a small force will pierce right through even a very tough target, trying to push harder doesn't really do any more damage. I remember hearing this from a sword fighter, when it comes to piercing swords you do NOT have to be strong and it's all about how well you can control the weapon, finesse.

At 6th level, if the rogue rolls a 1 on a sneak attack damage dice, she may reroll that dice and keep the second result.

This is a lot less than it seems.

average for a 1d6 is (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) /6 = 3.5

But since '1' effectively is knocked out to be another d6 you can treat it as the average of the d6 so the new average is

(3.5 + 2 + 3 + 4 +5 + 6) /6 = 3.917

This is a damage boost that is only equivalent of a +1 damage every 2-3 sneak die. It's really not much. Also, it's going to slow the game down, inherently it's going to be looking for the 1's and then re-rolling them again before adding up. I would recommend against this feature jsut for how much it can slow things down.

Twist of the Knife is a great name and a great idea though I don't think it's quite there. Tying it with sneak die may cause it to be lost in the shuffle of consideration. I mean in the sense they get Sneak die which could be a +6 (if they get sneak and if they roll that high) a +1 isn't considered that much. Also every 2 levels it too slow a rate for only a +1. Yet +1 every level builds too quickly. +10 damage at level 10 is too much. Yet +5 at level 10 is too little.

How about they are able to add their BAB score to damage? That goes up at a rate which is in between Sneak Die rate and Class Level. But bring some condition to it, like it is only when you attack as a standard action with a piercing melee weapon, so no full attacks. As that can be the problem, a damage bonus independent of the weapon try try to invoke it repeatedly.

Twist of the Knife, love the name, love the idea, just elevate it a little bit in rate and control for spam abuse. I don't think it would be that much of a problem combo-ing it with sneak attack. Lots of attacks are limited to when you make a standard action to melee attack. It could de-value sneak attack too much if they're depending on Twist of The Knife to bring them up but then lose with with sneak attack.

One nice flavour to make dex-fighters less about massive damage would be to emphasise the combat manoeuvre more, particularly those which can be used with a finesse weapon, dex would be used for things like Dirty Trick to blind, to disarm the enemy or to trip them up. I think it would be pretty nice to give them a limited bonus feat for Improved Trip, Improved Dirty Trick or Improved Disarm or the not-a-CM-but-like-a-CM Improved Feint and emulate Ranger with none of those needing pre-requisites. It's the sort of rogue thing to do to disarm, blind and trip, rather than trying to compete with a Greatsword swinging Fighter.

Another consideration is maybe increasing rogue's base speed. Even if only circumstantially. Because positioning is so important for rogues and that's all going to be harder for them.

That's the one. Remind me: was that Terry Pratchett?

Yes, but I don't know if it's something he had a character say in a book or if it was a quip he make in an interview or article or something.

Mulgar wrote:

So now as gm you are deciding when a character is going to be able to use his spells? That's bad gming.

The best way too teach a wizard to conserve his spells is to let him make mistakes. Nothing teaches a wizard to conserve spells like that evocation wizard realizing that he only has force missiles left for the bbeg.

I agree.

To paraphrase that famous saying: it is better to teach someone how to fish than give them a fish.

Set a fire for a man and he will be warm for one night.

Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

So now as gm you are deciding when a character is going to be able to use his spells? That's bad gming.

The best way too teach a wizard to conserve his spells is to let him make mistakes. Nothing teaches a wizard to conserve spells like that evocation wizard realizing that he only has force missiles left for the bbeg.

You know you're probably right, it's better to have them learn the hard way than try to trip them up or reinforce poor decisions.

Though it might be a good idea to introduce the idea of spell-pouch lifting, just to it occurs to them as a way of dealing with really powerful casters.

Spreading out the mooks so much that a Fireball can only hit one of them seems like it would restrict encounter design more than I'd like. I think we're a little off topic anyhow as far as how to keep spellcasters active longer. Stuff like, "Make resting in the dungeon really risky so that casters conserve spells" might work within the current rules at least to a certain degree. Beyond that various house rules have been suggested, but I think peer pressure from the DM and other players will always be part of the answer if resting would make the caster PC more powerful than not resting.

You can put a time limit on the mission, imply that if the PCs stop the monsters will deploy new defenses or get reinforcements, etc. You could also just ridicule the casters for wanting to go back to sleep 2 hours after they woke up. If the DM is strict about only getting back spells once per day (not once per 8 hours of sleep) that can provide some roleplaying ammo and make camping in the dungeon seem like an even worse idea. I'm not saying that every DM must push caster PCs beyond the resource management limits they're comfortable with, just that these might be ways to do it.

While it is true that spreading does restrict encounter design, things like fireball can restrict it as much in how they can easilly wipe out 4-5 mooks in a single standard action. And I think it's fairly on topic because the "target rich environment" isn't there to use the balls powerful spells so they don't get used until the end-game.

You're right that the short term solution is to give a bail-out for spells, but the long term solution has to be to encourage better pacing of the use of spells. Going back to that short term solution, I'm now thinking scrolls would be the way to go. They aren't that expensive, a 4th level scroll is 700gp. That could be a decent bail out.

Also a great opportunity to introduce blasting spells you'd like to introduce them to.

PS: it's way easier to protect spell pouch and replace it than armoured+weapon users protect from and recover from a rust monster. Plus, plenty of spells (particularly low level) don't have material components. And Scrolls are all inclusive. Just read em. Spell pouch means generally some high level spells are only temporarily unusable.

(spell component pouch snatching vs spell book stealing)

Lets get on top of this:

(1) this is technique against rookie Wizards.

They don't even know to consider taking extra spell pouches or doing so much to protect the pouch, that rookiness is why they are blowing their great spells on nothing. Hey, if they are here in this thread reading this their message should not be "I better protect my spell pouch so I can waste high level spells" but "I shouldn't be so wasteful of high level spells that my GM ever considers trying to have a soft-nerf."

(2) this is to stop them making a bad choice

This isn't like stealing their spellbook to make them feel useless. This is to STOP THEM FEELING USELESS!

Because when they blow the good spells on nothing, and then don't have those awesome spells for the big fight, that is how they can feel useless. While it is thematically equivalent to taking their spellbook it isn't functionally the same, they are delayed from spellcasting, not unable to prepare any new spells.

(3) There is no interpretation in the original proposition

This is not about a scenario well out of initiative:

"Your spell component pouch is gone"
"I thought this would happen, I ready my backup spell component pouch"

It was enacted for no reason, at a time when it's not really going to change anything

It's more like, when a wizard is about to blow a really good spell on something he will need for later, have his spell component pouch gone via a retro-active sleight-of-hand, they probably won't have a backup pouch. Even if they did, they'd have to ready it.

Well, I tried, and it went as I expected. You ignored my suggestion to just make humans good at skills and doubled back on yourself

Just because I didn't do what you told me to do doesn't mean I ignored you. If I ignored you I wouldn't have replied to all the things you said. Please could people stop acting so entitled, as if just because you put forward a suggestion I should use it.

Skill Focus is already so similar to just getting a new class skill except it can stack on top of the +3 from putting the first rank into a class skill. It doesn't really serve their needs which is making up for poor class skills when playing unusual classes.

I would honestly as a player complain about that, because it is horribly, horribly strong. You would do better to just not start at level 1 and let people have their feats and skills from levels without massively weakening humans as you currently are.

It's horribly horribly strong but I'm weakening humans?!?!

And no, I have my reasons for not just starting at a higher level, I don't want casters moving straight to the higher level spells. Because I've had that before.

I'm not sure why you've bothered to ask for suggestions, because you've taken very little on board (In your defence, you've done something at least)

I have literally changed every single trait from my original post. That's more than something. That's everything.

responded with abuse to criticism

Where?

I think when you take your time to let your angry emotions settle and look back you will see it's the abuse which has been hurled at me and I have criticised it.

have repeatedly contracted your arguments

Yes, concessions to where people have proven they are right. But I cannot and will not contract to nothing simply because people heap on more condensing abuse.

which many people on this thread have pointed out to you

They haven't actually pointed much out, there is a difference between pointing out and hurling accusations.

I know this sounds like an attack, but please, if you're coming to people asking for their advice, make sure you're actually open to suggestions.

Well... I have literally changed EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of my original proposal.

How about you are open to the idea your suggestion won't be good enough.

I am rather fed up of being attacked with the double fallacy that I am simultaneously:

(1) Dogmatically refusing to change or consider anything

(2) I have "repeatedly" contracted on some arguments which proves I must be entirely wrong.

We can't help you if you don't want help. You're just subjecting yourself to hatred and mockery otherwise.

I have learned to ignore hateful bullies. I have also learned that every single bully with almost zero exceptions is absolutely certain to their very soul that they are in the right, that they are the heroes of their own . Even if you can logically challenge them that they are giving in to hatred and harassment (mockery) they are of course absolutely sure that it's okay simply because "hey, they made ME angry, it's okay when *I* lose MY temper!"

@Baval

"lol why is attacking the statue with a bat a touch attack now?"

Because it has no armour bonus! Nor Natural armour nor shield bonus.

I'm fed up of stating the obvious on this.

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

RAW

Okay, easy there pardner, I'm saying it's pretty clear the "assumption" of the material components in a spell component pouch is that it has the material components for the spells you've actually prepared. Otherwise the pouch would be huge because there are just so many spells with material components, it would be a sack full. That's is clear enough for me.

This is obviously false. The spell component pouch contains the components for all spells you prepared today. And all spells you might possibly prepare tomorrow. And all spells you might possibly prepare the next day and so on. If it worked as you claim wizards would only be able to prepare spells in an apothecary.

Well don't be too surprised if your GM rules another way. There's a difference between "obviously false" and "it's pretty vague and doesn't necessarily indicate that".

And it's a moot point, if you thought to bring a load of extra spell component pouches you'd probably taken steps to stop it being taken in the first place, so keep it out of sight with a decoy pouch.

RAW

Okay, easy there pardner, I'm saying it's pretty clear the "assumption" of the material components in a spell component pouch is that it has the material components for the spells you've actually prepared. Otherwise the pouch would be huge because there are just so many spells with material components, it would be a sack full. That's is clear enough for me.

And if we're going to be RAW about this, I must have missed the part in sleight of hand about where you can put objects on your person to be made immune to sleight of hand yet still at absolutely no impediment to their ordinary use. I mean if its easy enough to reach the pouch to get it, what stops an invisible creature sidling up to grab it?

I think it's actually very reasonable for a GM to employ such a trick as and when it's necessary, to stop could be a disastrously wasteful use of spells by a retroactive pouch lift. Don't get so defensive, this is in the Wizard's favour, to stop them making a huge mistake. And it's a one off trick, you don't need to counter it by getting eschew materials.

One obvious counter is a decoy pouch. That can be a bit of fun, have the pouch be in a water-canteen holder on your belt and an elaborate looking spell-component pouch which has something shiny inside and... an Explosive Rune. So a cheeky little gnome tries the same trick, makes off with it and when they take a look inside they find emblazoned on it:

"Sticks and Stones may break my bones but Runes will do 6d6 dam-" KABOOM! in some cave off to the side.

@Alex Trebek's Stunt Double - One DM I play with has been running us through a dungeon with lots of echoes where anything explosive or noisy like Fireball instantly alerts all monsters in that area of the dungeon. Fireball might not seem like the spell DMs should worry about discouraging, but honestly it is the spell that most of our PC casters want to cast most, and I guess the DM feels like it makes sense it would get noticed in this particular dunegon. People have still gotten excited and cast it when it wasn't really needed a few times, leading to an onslaught of monsters and some tactical withdrawals from the dungeon.

I like that, it's much more straightforward and logical than an idea I had of trying to limits spells by level in the sense that higher level spells were geometrically more likely to be detected.

But still many very powerful spells at high level.

There is a counter to the effectiveness of area spells. I generally keep my mooks 40ft spaced anyway so that only one of them could be hit by a 20ft radius spell effect.

http://i.imgur.com/sayAMAT.png

If each mook is spaced like that as X and Y are spaced to each other then only one of them can be in the affected area. Fireball is going to be a waste of a third level spell, there are first level spells which do 1d6 damage per level, and they don't get reflex for half! That spacing with reach weapons means it's still not easy to get past them, you could just about run to inbetween then where they can both charge for flank + charge bonus.

Also, if space is not permitting with fireballs, black tentacles and Cloud spells incoming they still have the option to take only a move action and ready action every turn as they move into position to charge. The ready action is to take a move action to move out of the area of a spell attack. Which according to the good people down at Stack Exchange is the 100% legal use of the rules as written and intended.

One major counter to the power of Wizards is to reduce bunching, or at least only have them bunch where they are so close to allies that the artillery cannot be called in on them. This actually gives martials a great chance to pick them off as they are carefully manoeuvring where they can swarm the heroes. The wizard may feel useless but they shouldn't, the Wizard's mere presence has forced compromises in the enemy.

Though it's interesting, I was looking through a typical end boss, something like a Fire Giant.

Black Tentacles would be a waste unless the wizard rolled an 18 on their CMB check and they rolled very low on their escape check.

Actually probably one of the best things you can do is pull out a regular level 1 CL1 scroll of grease and target their weapon. That takes care of their main damage dealing means. Then grease again to slip them up. Then start spamming Mud-ball. Or you can go straight in with Color Spray which will stun it and as part if being stunned will disarm.

I really have to question how much you really do need the high level spells. Maybe they'd love to use boneshatter but I don't think they really have much excuse with the high level spells that do exist.

Maybe all that is needed are a few good scrolls.

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

A small invisible enemy NPC may have lifted the pouch with a good enough sleight of hand to put a stall on the high level spells being blown too soon.

This only works once (ever; not once per campaign). After you get your player with this, every wizard will have 30 spell-component pouches. They cost 1gp after all.

They can get as many spell component pouches as they like, but the rules on preparing spells are quite clear, you prepare spells for your spell pouch, not any spell pouch or all spell pouches you have. A pouch is a really carefully stacked thing, with just the right prepared components to be used as the spell is being cast. He'd need to spend at least 15 minutes prepping a new spell component pouch.

I'd have thought that Theft Ward would be a nastier counter, though that wouldn't actually stop the theft, only mean it's really likely the lift will be noticed as it happens.

Either way, this could be an opening to the penultimate fight where you want the Wizard to NOT blow all his good spells. The combat opens with the wizard's MAJOR casting capability temporarily neutralized, such as his spell component pouch being snatched that means he can't just cast black tentacles right then as the Big Boss's Head Of Security. He'll have to fall back on scrolls, staves and material-less spells.

Though yeah, i agree, these are gimmicks, they won't work in the long run if they keep playing chicken.. If they KNOW the big-bad is in the next area - after this fight - they must practice self restraint. They cannot blow their good spells. They have to learn and giving them bail-outs have to be a one-time-offer deal, to help with the learning process.

And part of that learning process may be

"Oh crap, he's casing THAT... NOW!?! But he knows he needs that for the big boss!" the GM thinks

The GM says: "As you utter the secret incantations and tune into the arcana with your gestures you reach for your spell component pouch you realise... oh no, it's gone. Nothing but a note saying 'ha ha! U want ur thing back? U pay the League of Invisible Gnomes 10% of your loooot!' the absolute nerve! You've been robbed! You can't cast any prepared spell that has a material component till you've taken 15 minutes to prepare a new pouch."

It was a shroedinger's cat, the pouch wasn't "disappeared" until it was actually invoked. Any time in the last few minutes a gnome with invisibility lifted it.

Paraphrasing here:

That's a charitable way of putting "straw man arguments".

What's the point in going through each one? You're making things up about me, like as if all I'd have in a scene is someone dangling by a cliff and the ONLY DRAMA can possibly be from the capriciousness of a dice check?

This is just the same as the spells people won't shut up about how much they hate

"The Evil Wizard casts Finger of Death on you, roll an 11 OR DIE!"

but supposedly we should be fine with

"You're taking an ordinary climb check over cliff, roll an 11 OR DIE!"

How dumb do you think my players are? Do you think they can't see their game hanging on coin-flip odds? The randomness of the die is supposed to bring a degree of uncertainty in the progress, the rate or extent of success. We accept this with other things, we accept this with difficult terrain.

You have also pretended I cannot create tension of a save or die when I want it

Scene:

"the surface is slippery and smooth, also you are overburdened trying to carry the queen, this is harder than the walls you climbed earlier"

"I take a ten"

"It's not enough, you will have to throw your weight into this to stand any chance, you may lose your grip! You need to roll an 11 or higher or you will slip and fall to your death"

That's the way I'd have it, because otherwise my players can do the math. They know even a 25% failure rate in climb rolls means a fall where even falling a short distance they take damage and end up prone is really damn likely. It's not like missing with a melee attack or even failing a status-effect spell. They are risking way too much for too small a gain.

"Except its one handed, which means I can dual wield them or use them with a shield."

Except how terrible Dual Wield is, things like Estoc is only going to make a fun build more in the realms of viable.

Lucerne Hammer and Dwarven Warhammer are still the best melee weapons.

"And you apparently never will, which is why you cant understand why humans don't get proficiency in any weapon they happen to have on their person."

Straw man.

I never said it was proficient just for being on their person. I said they were proficient because it was the ONE WEAPON they focused on being proficient with, over all their formative years.

"No, a person has a 40% chance to fail to meaningfully damage the statue."

Your unfounded claim disagrees with how touch attacks are explicitly stated to work.

"Definitely something people are going to do. I know I often just ignore my races benefits for no reason."

How can you be surprised that humans might waste potential when so many humans do waste their potential?!?

"Youre part of the reason everyone dumps charisma, and a bad DM."

Considering you don't actually address any of my reasons but move straight to scoffing and hyperbolic recriminations, I'll take it you know you are wrong, you just don't like that I'm right. Refute my reasons. To attack the gall of the proposal is dogmatic thinking "how dare this person say different, he's part of the problem!"

"If a player dumps charisma, theyre not a "Forrest Gump", he had a high charisma and a low INT. Theyre a Fat Bastard (of Austin Powers fame)."

Another perpetuation of the myth that charisma is simply good looks. Have you not seen how ugly politicians are?

You seem to labouring under the delusion that I think the Bonus Feat is small enough that I got rid of it. I didn't. I kept it. You cannot argue that it is THAT special, you can only argue that it would be intolerable to have one less feat ONCE YOU ARE AT level 5. You yet again cannot argue with my actual reasoning.

It seems like the reason you're finding humans weak is because your house rules are giving everyone a big bunch of feats (at least 3) right at the start (as you said right back at post 71). My primary suggestion for buffing humans is consequentially: don't do that. If you're giving basically the best thing about being human to everyone, twice, of course they're going to seem weak! By all means, tweak feat trees to make them less feat intensive (we all know they need that), but you should let humans keep the thing that makes them special. It's almost surprising you'd have any humans at all.

They aren't special though.

And I gave those feats because feats are often all non-casters have over casters who can't really do as much with feats. Particularly starting off it makes a huge difference to be able to start off paying your feat tax-dues and get the actual feat you want. For example you need power attack to get cleave, yet you wouldn't use it at level 1. Yet at the same time you can't simply remove power attack as a pre-requisite.

Importantly that is just one example feat combinations and pre-requisite deletions is a never ending rabbit warren I have still not been able to untangle.

I suppose I'm fine with your liberal interpretation of flexible, but I'm aware that it's still very strong and worth a lot. Since you're so liberal with feats I'd scrap the bonus feat completely and just go with even more skill ranks. I'm a big fan of the Focused Study alternate race trait, so you could throw that in there as well. Make the humans good with skills since their feat isn't really a thing anymore. That'd be my choice of things to alter from basic humans.

I'm not interpreting anything any more, I discarded Create New Race rules long ago.

What I am now doing is emulating the trend set by other races which is +2 in one physical and +2 in one mental score (That IS a nerf from before where the +2 could be anywhere) and then a -2 must go somewhere. That is overall a nerf. And I have explained it, this is to stop people picking classes only for their ability score modifiers. It is to show how other races are like a further evolution of a certain human tendency.

I don't know about you, but I certainly couldn't reliably climb at 0.5m/s with ease, even up something simple like a ladder, and especially not if people were being shot at or something nearby. And by 'ease' here I mean for an extended period of time as easily as walking. I don't think I could effectively dodge an attack if I was climbing, either.

You're right not to go there, you shouldn't, it's acting like this fantasy game isn't a fantasy game. To overlook the fantastical.

The humans in pathfinder are supermen in most aspects except when it comes to climb they become all too ordinary. Here they are at 18 years old fluently speaking 7 second languages. Self Taught. Or able to deadlift AND WALK AROUND WITH up to 1000lbs weight.

You doubt they could pull their own 200lbs weight up?

There is no roll for them to lift up a weight 5x as much!

Everyone gets to keep their dex bonus while climbing with 5 ranks, and take a ten at 10-ranks.

Remember, before ANY of all of this they can climb 30ft of free hanging knotted rope per round. Without a single rank. With a flat strength bonus.

That's 1.52m/s climb rate.

But what's dumb is missing by only 5 means you have a sudden attack of incomprehensible incompetence and completely lose all grip! All I'm doing is removing a needlessly capricious element of modest shortcomings in the roll resulting in utterly catastrophic failure of losing all grip and falling whatever height it is.

It's fine to treat climbing like difficult terrain, it's already an inherent cost in needing free hands (what about your weapons not to mention shield!) and almost always moving into an area you cannot see. Players want some options to have consistency, especially non-casters. Casters have so many damn ways to get around, what about people who need to reply on their skills?

This is why I think your comparison is unfair, while casters are having the rule of the roost, you're trying to drag everyone else down!

since if humans had a climb speed, everyone would be able to do that.

They can, after investing ranks in it with Climb Unchained.

Since we have guns everywhere, that makes them simple weapons.

This is an unsafe assumption of the actual rationale for how a weapon is categorised as "simple" or not. The weapons categories are NOT rigidly defined and don't such consistent pattern.

Not that I've ever used a real one, I can imagine most people would be able to use one without a lot of difficulty, and they'd be the weapon of choice. BAM, commoner's simple weapon proficiency dealt with.

No it isn't, you've just imagined something which isn't in pathfinder; Glock semi-automatic pistols, and decreed they should be simple weapons.

Lets stop the analogy abuse.

Lets deal with the actual pathfinder rules.

People able to use other stuff, like swords or bows effectively

You are conflating two different things: Getting a SUITE of weapons proficiencies, a la martial weapons proficiency as granted by a class, which is covering a HUGE number of different weapons, some extremely hard to use properly such as high-poundage longbows,

It's REALLY unusual to be competent with SO MANY weapons, that's why martial classes are very distinct, it's why they take up a whole class level.

What is actually really common is to have special competency in ONE weapon, naturally.

The consistent problem here seems to be an inability to distinguish or conflation between broad proficiency in simple/martial weapons categories and the significance of that one weapon-of-choice how they can figure that out.

And you are still missing my thematic arguments that humans lack much feeling of being special. And what's special about other races is they have weapons specifically themed for their race, like orc weapons for orc.

If the basic NPC classes can take care of the weapon proficiencies actual people have, it's probably not necessary to give everyone weapon proficiency in something else as well.

This does not address my aims of making more weapons be considered by all players of the game, too much of the pathfinder weaponry is locked away. People have tried to argue this locking away of WEAPONS is good as weapons would buff casters more. Nonsense. The thing about casters is they cast. The thing about martials is they use weapons.

But then how do you keep cantrips from completely eclipsing 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd-level spells? Note that even if the cantrip's effect is on par with a Nth-level spell, the fact that cantrips are infinitely castable makes it so that more than likely, such a cantrip would, in the vast majority of situations, be preferable to a spell of level N+1 or more.

I'd agree it is a concern that some spells may become so good that some level of spells is used to near complete exception of another, except I think that has already happened but in the opposite direction, cantrips are SO BAD they aren't being considered at all. Many a time I had wizards give me a copy of their prepared spells and they hadn't prepared any cantrips as they thought they were worthless.

So yeah, you'd have to go a LONG way to make cantrips better than even 1st level spells which are really well utilized by scrolls most of the time. It's not much better for cantrips to have infinite uses if they do such pip-squeak damage they lose by action economy. It's just not worth it to add a mere 1d3+1 damage.

I think the trick might be to have that greater Cantrip effect be based on a medium cost Alchemical power component. Alchemical power components already do this, but are a still too weak. Acid flask is barely any better than just throwing the actual vial which ANYONE can do and probably with a better BAB. Yes you can miss even with a touch attack.

Some cantrips are already pretty good like Disrupt Undead. Ranged touch attack to do 1d6 damage with no save. Nice. But it's only any good against undead and they aren't everywhere. But it's an idea of how powerful a cantrip can be. Also, since Disrupt Undead is positive energy it means you can 'kill' many undead for good. Plenty of undead automatically re-form after they have been slain unless hit with positive-energy.

While cantrips are infinitely castable, there's still the pure action economy in burst damage, how much you can do in a round, can be more important than how much you can do in 24 hours. It really depends on the circumstance, as you're making the first part of the dungeon crawl and are making the initial careful probing attacks, things like using cantrips to help finish things off is good, then using the more powerful spells later.

The problem comes in trying to use it the other way round, go straight in with Summon Monster 3 as soon as is possible to fully-realise then falling back on Cantrips.

This is a conceit I worry about, if players know they can always be "bailed out" by the GM then they'll be more wasteful of their higher level spells. It's like guaranteeing banks when they risk money they should be careful with means they'll get into the habit of doing it. You must account for any sympathies such as their eagerness to use their coolest and most powerful spells, it's a really tough thing to do requiring pacing and foreshadowing.

A problem I see with any mechanic to get back more spells is how abusable it is.

I have struggled to defend this before, but it can only be that the power of higher level spells is balanced by the slow rate they can come out, you have to take at least a 6 hour rest with Desna's Star or 2 hours with Ring Of Sustenance then an hour to prepare again. Things like Black Tentacles just cannot be invoked on a whim.

The point is that if you need Greater Invisibility or Fly for the final boss you shouldn't have used it in one of the first two encounters through the dungeon. It can set a terrible precedent that wizards can use their high level spells where the game would normally balance them out as impractical to use.

To an extent this is the responsibility of the GM to not make the game's progress seem so uneven, you have to give an idea of how far through a dungeon the players are and let the Wizard know how much they should be pacing themselves. Also, the GM has to keep a close eye on player resources such as wizard spells, so insisting on a copy of their higher level spells is a good idea, then if they start burning through them a little too quick you might do something to stop them using up spells so quick.

This may involve temporarily taking the party Wizard out of action in a way that doesn't have long term effects, such as being grappled or hit with something that causes nausea or has their spell-component pouch temporarily stolen and it has to be retrieved. That could actually be done failry early on, the spell-component ouch pretty much IS their spell slots. They can still use staves, wands and scrolls but their spell slots - what they have actually prepared - is almost always tied to their spell component pouch as almost all the higher level spells have material components.

A small invisible enemy NPC may have lifted the pouch with a good enough sleight of hand to put a stall on the high level spells being blown too soon.

Another conceit is to say that higher level spells set off an aura that alerts the big-boss, so they should be saved till you are so close he cannot react.

Charon Onozuka wrote:

and a grandmother skilled in use of the garrote.

Grandma just freaking straggled Santa.

Walking home from our house Christmas eve.
You can say there's no such thing as Santa,
But as for me and the police, we believe.
She used a freaking hook shot to get it,
And had a killer dexterity score.
Aided by two free +2 wherever she pleased,
And she used a climb speed to get into the sleigh.
When they found her Christmas morning,
At the scene of the attack.
She had hoof shoes on her necklace,
And incriminating Claus marks in her purse.

Do one for Toddler dwarves getting +4 dodge bonus against giants! Don't forget to work in their effective use of Warhammers.

You do a great job of highlighting how hysterical and detached from proportion these so called problems are.

Eventually no racial traits will be allowed to exist because they wouldn't fit for infants or elderly, or worse of all, females! Imagine that, a woman with nunchukus. Can't have that. It's best to have Nunchukus locked behind a feat, even though it has almost identical stats to a Light Mace, a simple weapon. Even though it's a cool weapon that every other player has asked for but can't afford the feat for it.

Welcome to Pathfinder. No fun allowed.

ATSD, I think we can all tell you why none of the other players wanted to tell you their characters' names now.

Why?

Because you refuse to give actual reasons why my houserules would cause any problem at all?

Imagine that, you were to just state your reasons... assuming you have any reasons, at all. If you did, you've have given them by now.

You've been spamming this thread for days now, contributing nothing except to contrive hollow personal attacks against me and certainly not contribute anything to the topic of discussion. You are the problem.

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

AlaskaRPGer wrote:

1) Do you still feel that Humans are weak compared to other classes and need changes?

2) Would you make any changes to your initial ideas in the original post now?
3) Are there any issues you would like input on?

All these questions have been asked already, and answered already.

Alex - While you state that you have previously responded to these points, I respectfully disagree in what I infer you mean to imply is that there is no value in responding to them again. Re-reading this thread and your responses, my personal take on your answers, when I made my reply, would have been:

1) Yes
2) Some
3) Yes (however you are hesitant to make any changes based on some input as you feel that input is invalid).

The reason I asked these questions, even if you feel you already answered them, was to verify my understanding of your point of view. I did not want to make assumptions, and I apologize if how I understand your point of views are incorrect, but as you did not respond to my request to make it clear to me, the assumptions are all I have.

You know, you're right. I have to show my appreciation in staying that's a pretty good summary.

Except that I've gone more than "some" changes, every single racial trait except language has been changed to be worse.

1) Do you still feel that Humans are weak compared to other classes races [you meant races, right - Alex] and need changes?

2) Would you make any changes to your initial ideas in the original post now?
3) Are there any issues you would like input on?

Please note that I am not asking them again to be rude, but with the thought that it is possible that your responses have changed since your original post as you obtained different information - in particular, Charon Onozuka's reply. I also ask this to keep the topic on rails, and to help you obtain any input you are requesting.

Edited to fix my grammar.

Humans are a lot of things compared to other races, less powerful but also less interesting. One thing Charon Onozuka really failed to do was compare to other races, I made more comparisons in my attempts to refute his reasoning. Like the special pleading of young girls and old ladies of the humans having weapons proficiencies, when the same applies just as much to every race that have weapons proficiencies.

I have already made MANY changes from my original post, and I'm not going to back down from the weapons proficiency one over scoffing that Exotic Weapons must be powerful because they are hard to get, and inconsistent reasoning that it's hard.

"Please note that I am not asking them again to be rude, but with the thought that it is possible that your responses have changed since your original post as you obtained different information"

Very well.

I want specific problems with my proposal in practice.

Not sweeping generalisations. Not vague platitudes. Not spurious theories of game design.

Quite specifically: if you have it this way then this can happen or will happen and that is bad for this reason.

I did get a bit of that in between the scoffing of a granny having Garotte proficiency, though I broke down how it wasn't as powerful as they were possibly alluding to.

Just find me a weapon that you think it a problem.

Lets take a REAL worst case scenario, the worst I can conceive. A Large Flacata, with Effortless Lace (so despite being large sized this one handed weapon can be wielded 2 handed without penalty by a medium creature) and enhanced it with Keen so it's base damage was 2d6 and with a Strength 22 character. Say even that their attack bonus relative to the enemies I was throwing at them meant the Falcata wielder only needed a 6 on his d20 to hit.

Here's a round breakdown of my math

6 to 16 = 11 of d20 = 55% of the time HIT WITHOUT THREATENING A CRITICAL
2d6 +9(strength)+2(Lead Lined)+1(WepTrain)
= 19hp

17 to 20 = 4 of 20 = 20% of the time THREATEN A CRITICAL

.45 x .20 = 9% FAILURE IN CRITICAL CONFIRMATION
Roll normal damage
= 19hp
OR
.55 x .20 = 11% SUCCEED IN CRITICAL CONFIRMATION
= 19 x3
= 57hp

Bottom 25% of the attacks: miss doing zero damage
Middle 64% of the time: hit doing 19 damage, about 41% chance the damage roll will be 21 so actually knock a 20hp enemy out in 1 hit
Top 11% of the time: hit doing 57 damage

Average 57 damage seems high, it's a 50% chance of slaying a Flame Drake in one hit, but there's only a 5.5% chance of that actually happening. I cannot see how that can ruin games, especially all that is given up to get that. They have to invest in keen and effortless lace and give up any prospect of getting reach, all for an 11% chance of a crit.

I've GM'd with crits before, they were just too fickle to worry about, especially with x2 multiplier. Such an investment as that deserves a payoff of occasionally being able to slay something like a Fire Drake in one hit, especially considering all a Fire Drake can do in a round, even abusing fly to bombard Fireball attacks. Then you have a dilemma, you could set a ready action to move out of the way of any Fireball as it comes which is a sure fire defence, or ready an action to 5ft step into their reach to attack them when they swoop in to take a bite out of you!

I think these are pretty good odds, two rounds spent up close and personal there's about a 21% chance either of the hits is a crit, this can really keep game a lot more up in the air. Contrast with ranged classes or even reach classes let alone wizards.

Especially as things like Flame Drakes aren't only supposed to be singular massively risky challenges, their bestiary lore says they are supposed to be in groups as large as 16! Known as a Rampage of Dragons. That's CR13, epic level for level 10, truly an epic fight. What's that, a martial extremely relevant at level 10 and not simply playing second fiddle to a Wizard? That's more of what we need. The focus was so much on all the nothing a Wizard could do with a Falcata but you couldn't see how it could keep martial classes relevant at massive CR's.

You improved this from your original, but it is still broken. Combining the model of what other races use with the flexibility to put the bonuses/penalties into the score you want just makes the human stat array flat out better than nearly every other race out there, and for nearly every class/build.

What makes the existing human work is the idea that they have flexibility where others are locked into a specific package. While the human doesn’t get two boosted stats (unless they trade out their most powerful racial option), they can pick where they want to put their boost.

What is actually broken here?

Be specific, don't just say it's a better option, what's broken about it? What actually leads to an insurmountable imbalance?

You go on to talk about balance for Wizards as an example. Wizards. The posterchild of OP classes.

How about you address my actual reasoning, which is that not everyone wants to play a Wizard. Because what I addressed was the overlooked classes like Paladin and Monk. It's not just about what Wizard wants, okay?

Previously, you claimed that, “Trading -2 CON for all the elven stuff is a damn good deal.” However, this is your opinion. While I’m sure many others share that opinion, there are also many others that wouldn’t. That’s what makes the ability scores for other races interesting – the fact that they’re part of a package deal that you have to take or leave as a whole. For elves specifically, I have many players that simply won’t touch them because of that CON penalty making it easier for the character to die – making it too big of a cost for them to stomach.

I know exactly what you mean.

I accept that it is an unusual opinion... and it is something that should align with you wanting to play an Elf.

I want people to play an Elf because they want to play an elf, they want to role play that certain type of being as set forth by Tolkien and others, not for the ability scores. If they don't have any clue, I want them to play human, it's better than at level 5 everyone being surprised "whoa, Kevin was an Elf all this time? He never showed it".

Part of choosing a particular race is you will have overall the same ability score modifiers as a human (+2 in one physical ability score, +2 in one mental, and -2 anywhere else) but it will be in a set way to reflect the particulars of how that race is.

When you want to play an elf you need to accept you won't take inherent compromise on mental stats but will in constitution if anywhere. Because they are more fragile

And for Wizards, they often cannot lean on their HP at all. They simply cannot afford to even get hit as if they are being targeted, it's because they know they are a wizard, which means they'll be hit to disrupt their spells. Also, Wizards have so many easy ways of helping their HP such as Defending Bone and False Life.

In contrast, your flexible -2stat will just make players dump stats even harder. Have a problem with INT 7 players? Well now they’re all INT 5, solving absolutely nothing.

I have my own ways of dealing with that, if anything is going to get dumped it's Charisma. Which I like to see dumped as it means the players have to compensate with role-play not simply "I roll for diplomacy on skipping real character building and scene development to give me the exposition I want"

I can deal with a few Forest Gumps in my party. It's great that some can't just roll for diplomacy on interactions, the player has to ROLE PLAY. Charisma is getting by with HOW you say it, role play is as much in what you say, your core fundamental reasoning.

Again, a reasoning for human’s being better than everyone else at climbing that isn’t limited to humans at all.

They are NOT better than everyone else.

They are marginally faster, but they cannot make checks that any other race with the same ranks can make. The difference is consistency. A reasonable feature to give them.

Additionally, your problem is that PC’s are doing too badly at Climb checks – the solution to this isn’t, “buff the GM’s favorite race,” it’s actually looking at how climb is working in your games and trying to fix that.

I have.

Climb speed without +8 racial bonus.

Don't tell me to go back and come to a different conclusion.

Otherwise, all you’re trying to do is punish players that don’t pick humans by making them still have problems while humans have it solved.

This fallacy again.

"You can't give X anything, that's a punishment to Y"

I'm sick of repeatedly refuting it only to have my refutations ignored for it to be repeated again.

It's a mobility trait for humans, as they otherwise have no mobility trait. Many other races have buffs to so many different things.

You do realize that options limited to level 10 are typically very powerful when compared to options at level 1, right?

Yeah, but still not as powerful as other racial traits. Trolls, Ogres, Giants, Cyclops are the stock in trade with serious enemy types and Dwarf get's a +4 dodge bonus against all of them.

And the point is it has clear precedent of this being a latent ability in all humanoids in the pathfinder world, that's it's not unreasonable for them to have this come sooner.

Also no, you’re not arguing for humans to get racial proficiency in one weapon – you’re arguing for humans to get racial proficiency in any one weapon.

Yeah, I know, I want them to choose.

What you are proposing is that every human, during some period of their life, picks any one weapon that exists and strikes their fancy to gain full proficiency with it.

Why not? Almost all the weapons in the game are actually used by ordinary people. Even exotic weapons.

"As a result, walking through an average human village should have sights like a village girl wielding a nunchaku"

I hope you aren't using the special pleading of "Oh so you're saying a human child can have this" no more than an Elven Child can use a Longsword and a Composite Longbow! But lets say you're using girl just as 'young woman', well Pathfinder is an extremely gender inclusive game, absolutely NO STATS vary by gender (except those directly for reproduction) so we're talking about a young human whipping around nunchuku.

Why not?

You wouldn't be so utterly aghast at a cowboy type character using a Lasso, or an animal handler using a whip? Those are exotic weapons. A Repeating Crossbow is aimed and shot just like a simple-weapon crossbow, repeating crossbows should only be rare for their price. Nunchuchu isn't against Exotic Weapons limits, it's against regional setting limits, it would be blocked on account the the PC having no connection with the East, which would stop them using a hanbo just as much.

My contention is that Exotic weapons are unusual in the sense of they are not automatically covered under standard stages of weapons training, because they are so niche. That's why they aren't martial. Composite Longbows are arguably much harder to use properly yet they are very common weapons, so when you take certain class "suite" it bunches all the good and common weapons together.

town guards holding two-bladed swords

Well they'd all point and laugh, that's a terrible weapon.

It's only marginally better than a quarterstaff which absolutely sucks even for a simple weapon. And he still needs to burn a feat in two-weapon-fighting to use it remotely effectively.

bandits attacking using a flying talon

Cool! It's like something out of a great adventure or something.

Everyone knows what IS overpowered, it's things like Greataxe which is standard equipment on a Cyclops but allows HUGE crits, even with creatures who can guarantee a critical threat!

grandmother skilled in use of the garrote.

That's a cool idea of a murderous grandma and sounds like a great weapon of choice, the garrotte, but grandma is going to be let down by her strength roll even though she was pretty good at it in her younger years fighting in the Resistance.

Garrotte is still a terrible weapon that takes FOREVER to kill anyone as you have to wait for their constitution-score number of rounds to pass before they even begin to start suffocating. It's always been quicker and more reliable to pin them, tie them up, then cou-de-grace them. I think those targeted by a Garrotte would appreciate the long time to escape with the garotte rather than being pinned, bound and executed within three rounds.

Garrotte is only useful in the following conditions:
(1) You can approach them with near absolute certainty of catching them unaware or helpless
(2) You know you can succeed every grapple check to maintain a hold
(3) it is absolutely paramount is the need to make them verbally quiet, otherwise you'd pin->bound->coup de grace
(4) You know you won't be disturbed in this attack for well over a minute

Garrotte shouldn't even be that hard to use! Garrotte is a great example of how Exotic weapons are vastly overblown in their significance.

In any serious setting, this would come off as zany and nonsensical.

That's because you picked zany and nonsensical weapons.

You just seem to have presumed that just because they are exotic they must be super powerful. But they aren't, they are overwhelmingly just zany fun that doesn't unbalance the game. A Nunchuku is just an eastern equivalent of the flail, it isn't even very good, and I think your perception that it's "zany" is from a lack of perspective on eastern folklore. After all, we're accepting of Western Folklore of the elf archetype being proficient in a Longsword!

Look, I can control my setting, which means the proficiencies chosen by human enemies will probably be something like a Bastard Sword if they are a martial class with a shield emphasis or a whip to show what cruel and wicked enemies they are.

Some Zany weapons can still be interesting, at times, never good enough to build an exploitative class around but enough for an interesting NPC. Things like flying blade with a -2 to all attacks except attacks of opportunity which don't have that penalty but a +2 to hit in that case. That's a COOL THING to have, human enemies can otherwise be really boring compared to Flame Drakes, Trolls and so on. A nice bit of flavour with human enemies is their can be fantastical in their weapons.

Imagine that, the fantastical in a Fantasy Tabletop Role Playing Game.

This is a player problem, not a system problem.

You ever heard of the phrase "the customer is always right"?

It means it's no good passing to buck to what you cannot control, or what in trying to control you will only alienate and lose. My players' choices are shaped by the rules they play by.

Talk to your players about the setting they are going to be playing in, which races are common in that setting, and make it clear that NPCs will react to what race they are playing (especially anything very uncommon in that region).

Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt.

I have tried every possible approach and my players have NOT liked me telling them how to role-play, they ask me flatly, "can I play any race I want or are you going to build my character for me?" and they don't like contrived punishments for poor RP, it jsut makes the game really unpleasant to second guess their attempts at RP.

RP only works for one reason and one reason only: they want to do it in the first place. Role Play has to be the reward in and of itself. The persuasion has to come from the bottom if anywhere, the teammates have to encourage RP.

Extra Skilled: Humans gain four additional skill ranks at first level and one additional rank whenever they gain a level. These ranks are granted after determining ranks from class+INT mod.

This is effectively the same as my proposal only more powerful and less concise.

If you put a rank in a class skill it gives a +3 bonus, that's not even as good as having 4 more true ranks at level 1.

There's just not much thought in "Hey, +4 ranks, thank you very much, I'll stick them wherever".

Extra Trait: Humans gain an additional trait at character creation.

One of the problems with your original write up seemed to be tossing in things with the justification that they’re similar in power to a trait.

Because that's boring and doesn't make people consider exotic weapons which are being hugely overlooked as interesting gameplay elements. And extra trait, heck that's nothing.

Traits is used as a basis that things aren't as verboten as they seem.

And your addendum on "types" of exotic weapons is too hard to apply yet is even broader in scope of my original proposal.

1. you have no idea what a backstory is do you? or do you think commoners are commoners because they like being terrorized by goblins and not because they dont have the years of training it takes to get a pc class?

Keep track of the special pleading here, humans are expected to get good with weapons due to the world being dangerous, but that cannot be to an extent as limited as mere proficiency in one weapon but only as going for a particular class.

2 because elves admire the weapons and almost all members of their race DO learn to use them,as part of their culture.

And here's the special pleading, Elves can have proficiency in multiple weapons because of their culture, but humans can't have racial proficiency in anything.

3. key word: become. they need to train to learn to use the firearms, we dont have a culture where every child is taught to use a gun. therefore, anyone who learns has done something to learn it of his own volition, thus that INDIVIDUAL, not the race, would get the feat or proficiency.

thats the difference between a race and an individual?

Then that is represented in a human who doesn't choose any proficiency. They can choose it but if they don't then fine.

Plenty of human cultures have it where EVERYONE is expected to be proficient in at least one weapon, even if it's just a knife for self-defence, whatever they deem appropriate and they don't have to become a full blown fighter for that to be the case because their day job is still as a fisherman or something.

By your logic, since any human can potentially learn any weapon and any spell

Not any spell, I did set restrictions. They are spell-like insofar as they replicate a spell effect, remember, but ultimately they aren't actually a spell, it's more like they are drawing from the same natural source of magic in reality as casters do. Divine casters invoke the power of the gods, arcane casters have a special manipulation of arcane manipulation of reality, spell like ability is something innate.

all humans should have proficiency in all weapons and spell like abilities for all spells. After all, its possible to learn them

That's arguing from extremes, you can't have anything as if you have anything you have EVERYTHING.

I have set limits, ONE proficiency. You can't complain I haven't set limits when I have.

This is special pleading, it's as disingenuous as objecting to humans knowing how to speak one language, by the logic that if they are excepted to know one language then they can learn all languages and that's too powerful so they cannot know any.

nonproficiency is a -4 penalty, and a level 1 fighter has a +1bab over an expert. that amounts to a 25% less chance to hit. fight a trained swordsman, even an amateur swordsman, i GUARANTEE you will find he is more than 25% better than you at swordfighting

But that's the thing... THEY ARE TRAINED WITH IT!

Humans CAN be trained in a weapon of their choice, this is an equivalent of how elves get a far wider and better choice. Realise that despite a composite longbow being a martial weapon it is much harder to use than any crossbow, even repeating crossbow and it is better too, still a free action to reload only you can add strength to damage and much better arrows compared to crossbow bolts.

And no, "non proficient" doesnt mean you have no idea whats going to happen when you swing the weapon, thats ridiculous. Proficient means "skilled", synonyms include: skilled, skillful, expert, experienced, accomplished, competent, masterly, adept, adroit, deft, dexterous, able, professional, consummate, complete, master. Non proficient means you are not skilled in using that weapon, not a master, not deft. It doesnt mean youre an idiot.

Conjecture.

So inexperienced means you still know how it's going to act? Lact of deft also implies knowing how it's going to be yet

Realise that -4 means they are going to miss a statue 40% of the time.

A Statue of a medium sized person would be exactly like a medium sized person with dexterity zero so AC10 -5 to ac, no armour, yet anyone with a weapon of their choice, a weapon they tried to get good with, a roll of 9 or higher is needed.

Here is what is fair: Societies may highly expect weapons proficiencies for all, in rigid cultures like elves there isn't much choice, but an upside of this standardization is it can cover more weapons. Humans - common with elves and dwarves and orcs - have similar conventions only far more open choice. A downside of everyone choosing anything is they only end up proficient in one weapon, though it could be anything.

As for your "special pleading" comment, its ridiculous. You said so yourself, Elves are built to be wizards, and then they get proficiency in....2 martial weapons wizards will probably never use.

Yes, that's right, you are special pleading, it's supposedly unbalanced for humans to get great weapons proficiencies when other races get a great selection of them.

Dwarves get familiarity.

And proficiencies.

Pretty much every other race gets martial weapon proficiencies if at all.

Yes, in martial weapons which are better than exotic weapons.

Repeating Crossbow is not as good as a Composite Longbow. I shouldn't have to repeat my reasoning on this yet again, every time I do I get no response to it and it gets left for a few replies then brought up again.

Meanwhile humans get ANY feat they want, which is likely way more usable than "I can use a longsword maybe, but probably not"

Everyone gets a feat when they take a level in anything. And variant rules give everyone even more feats at level 1. Remember, it's even explicitly phrased as "an extra feat" it's not even that special.

And youre proposing they ALSO get "I can choose any weapon that is actually useful to me and get proficiency in that"

Yes, only one weapon rather than the bevy of weapons that other races get.

And your justification is "people will probably pick bolas and lassos and keep using martial weapons"

to that there can only be one response:

lol

That's because it is irrefutable that you have to resort to such a response. You probably took a look at the Exotic Weapons, realised they're all a bit naff, none of them have any real primary purpose viability. Every time I've pushed them to really say what would be unbalancing they concede that exotic weapons aren't as powerful as they presumed.

So you do all you can do to reinforce your preconceived notions and scoff. Conveniently decide to give up on reasoning, you realise it's hopeless, despite your strongly held opinions you have no actual reasons to object. We are dealing with your stereotypical ideas and assumptions.

know what? I was at work with my original post and I responded without reading the rest of the thread, which I have just done.

Im ejecting. You play your game howeeeeever you want.

You think humans are weak? Gooood. You think humans deserve to auto pass all climb checks forever because some people can climb trees? Cooooool

You think all humans should have innate magic and proficiency in a weapon that is difficult to learn because every single human goes out of their way to learn one in their childhood? Suuuure.

Its your game, screw up the balance all you want. Doesnt bother me and you refuse to be taught why youre wrong, or even to comprehend metaphors and examples.

Later.

This is damage control.

You can't actually argue with my climb rule, so you have to attack a straw-man version of it that allows to "auto pass all climb checks forever" which is not the case because it in itself grants no bonuses to climb, you will NEVER be able to make a climb check that you could not have made before. This is a fact. This is irrefutable. You are fabricating to make out otherwise.

"You think all humans should have innate magic and proficiency in a weapon that is difficult to learn because every single human goes out of their way to learn one in their childhood? Suuuure."

You apparently think it's okay for every other race to get it.

This is damage control, you are trying to present it as unusual for one race to get weapons proficiencies or spell-like-abilities.

Spell-like abilities can only even exist for races!

You can't actually show how it's screws up balance without resorting to blatant straw-man accusations. Without special pleading "how can humans have spell like abilities!" as if other races don't get FAR more powerful spell like abilities. As if

1) Do you still feel that Humans are weak compared to other classes and need changes?

2) Would you make any changes to your initial ideas in the original post now?
3) Are there any issues you would like input on?

All these questions have been asked already, and answered already.

Could someone please lock this thread?

I'm actually inclined to agree, so many people are not reading anything that is posted, many others are replying to comments that don't actually address what is said in the comment they reply to. They are repeating themselves on matters they have already had counters toas if stating them again means they won't be countered again. They are going wildly off topic, repeatedly. They are using it as a soapbox to demand their spurious theories be accepted under the threat of accusing dismissiveness.

Though that's probably not your reasoning, your problem as stated from previous comments is not that so many posters are being unreasonable, but that their unreasonable demands are not being met.

But it seems some still have some points that deserve addressing.

You may have trouble trying to make up for it at the last minute, generally it might be better to retain your good spells on the way into the dungeon than spend spell slots to try to get them back

Gaining spells back is a huge deal, it's going to be priced like pearls of power. Though those a 1/day items, by Magical Item Pricing Guidelines

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items#TOC-Magic-Item-Gold-Piece-Values

A pearl of power with unlimited daily uses would be 5000gp (not a possibility, forget about that even being allowed) for it to have no limit per day but 50 charges then it's half that price so 2500gp for 50 charges. So arguably one such item with only 1 charge left would be 50gp.

Pearls of Power go up with the square of spell level so a Mana Potion to recover a single level-2 spell slot would cost around 200gp.

3rd level = 450gp

That's roughly how much such Mana Potions would cost. These could just be one-off bungs from a high level "mysterious benefactor" who teleported some of these in as a "gift basket" to help on their mission.

But Caster better not be the only one getting something in this gift basket! Throw in some other nice stuff for the rest of the party, a weapon blanche or something. Probably something much more. See the single use wondrous items.

Okay, my mistake. I thought you might be a reasonable person looking for legitimate assistance, not a rude and dismissive jerk who accuses others of his own follies, more obsessed with feeling superior than actually having a two sided conversation. I can see why others have abandoned your thread already, and will follow their lead.

Good day, and good luck.

The failure in this being an equitable and two sided conversation came about from your inability to actually address what I was saying rather than talk past me, just telling me how to do things without any actual reasons. That is being reasonable, to use reasons. That's legitimate assistance.

You may wish I was the one being rude and dismissive, but it's you who are dismissing me and it's you who is calling me names. That is accusing others of your own follies.

"I can see why others have abandoned your thread already, and will follow their lead."

They came here thinking all they had to do was insist forcefully enough and I would do what they wouldn't do, that I would capitulate to their demands yet they wouldn't capitulate to anyone else's.

Please provide examples.

You do often voice some of your opinions as facts, and then get dismissive when someone disproves your claim.

For example, you have repeatedly said that exotic weapon proficiency can easily be taken with mundane traits, with no link or quote. And I have asked you for said link atleast thrice now. If it exists, I would be glad to know of it.
When you don't allow us to validate your claims then the arguments based on these claims fall flat.

Weapon Style and Tattooed mystic for a few exotic weapons, Heirloom weapon certainty allows both freedom AND other bonuses with weapons proficiency. That's all the precedent I need that weapons proficiency are so utterly guarded as iron-clad class-only features. That and all my other reasoning, not least the irrefutable precedent set by other racial traits.

But I won't take your bait. I NEVER hinged ANYTHING on it having to be a perfect clone of a mundane trait. I am stating the fact that exotic weapons. This is another fallacy so to sum up so no one is falling for your fast one.

My claim: Weapons Proficiency up to exotic is fine for many reasons, as just one of many examples but not limited or dependant on this is how mundane traits allow weapons proficiency, even exotic weapons proficiency.

Actually, you said that climbing speed (without the +8) only allows someone to take 10 on climb checks. I disproved this faulty claim by providing factual evidence. You completely missed the point and attacked a statement of facts as if it was an argument.

When you say things like that it makes my blood boil, because it's such a contrived attack that betrays such staggering contempt you clearly have towards me.

You know perfectly well I was replying to a claim it make checks more likely to succeed and said that it didn't, only of RELATING TO THE ACTUAL CLIMB CHECK does it allow them to take-a-ten. I made this clear from the VERY BEGINNING, to have a climb speed and all that entails EXCEPT for the +8 racial bonus. It would be stating the obvious to bring up dex bonus to climb when it was about how things could be climbed that were previously unclimbeable.

If you are going to take a lack of repeatedly stating-the-obvious as proof of ignorance or deception then you are just trying to derail this discussion.

It's odd that you even agree with my statement about how buffing everyone else to be able to perform the Rogue's job was a nerf to the Rogue

That's obviously not even remotely close to what I said.

I cannot have any discussion with you, somewhere along the way fundamental meaning is lost which makes it categorically impossible to move on from anything. You don't seem to be actually reading what I say, just skimming over it to search for agreement or contradictions then gleaning a gist from it.

I said a NERF to a rogue was a nerf. What I shouldn't have to explain is that traps also got nerfed as they no longer NEEDED a rogue to find them. That's a quality of traps changing from losing their farcical magical quality that a non-rogue could stare at a trap for eons and never see it.

When you give away something unique to Class A so that everyone now has access to it

They didn't get buffed, traps got nerfed.

Rightly. It was a terrible idea to peg one design element to only one class.

Picture the game as an XY graph, where X is something that kind of resembles your class functionality

Your following description was completely incomprehensible and still obviously founded on fuzzy generalisations without any rigorous backing. Don't draw a graph for me, don't make something that looks like statistics but is numbers lucked from thin air.

Pathfinder is already balanced for the party to win. The underpinnings of the game are literally tilted in the party's favor, so there's no base deficit you need to make up. That means every time you're modifying mechanics in a particular race or classes favor, the only way to objectively gauge the impact of that change is to look at its effects relative to the other options in the game.

Why bother repeating myself again, you didn't listen before, why will you listen this time?

How do I know if I tell you why that is irrelevant, that I never claimed the problem was the game had a problem with being won, even if I were to tell you it was about gameplay variety... you've proven you'll ignore that when it's convenient.

You'll go back to lecturing me about how the game can be won as if I ever said it couldn't.

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

Yup. You don't need to be a professional combatant/adventurer to see the need for a weapon.

Why shouldn't a barkeep who still wants to be a barkeep and have ranks in being a barkeep not have a "peacemaker" under the bar? That is, a bat or a club to break up fights.

He does. And when a bar fight breaks out he swings it around like crazy, and he has a pretty good chance to hit even with his nonproficiency penalty on his likely ac 10 opponents.

But then Jeremiah shows up. Hes been training the last 5 years of his life in fighting. Thats right, hes a level 1 fighter.

WHAT!?!?

It takes precisely 0xp to become a 1st level fighter. Considering the scaling to get to even level 2 fighter there's just no way 5 years is for that. And being a fighter grants you more than proficiency in a single weapon.

And he whips out his long sword and makes that barkeep look like an amateur with his bat.

Because he IS an amateur with his bat.

He never trained to use the bat, he doesnt know a complex fighting style with the bat, he just owns the bat. Thus, nonproficient.

Then why is a level 0-nothing Elf proficient in both a Composite Longbow and a Longsword? Not mere familiarity, full proficiency.

This is special pleading I have a problem with, for a human to have racial proficiency in just one weapon then the game supposedly falls apart, yet every other race is granted many weapons proficiencies.

Same for the merchant. He might know that he should have a weapon and he probably knows an Estoc is a good weapon, that doesnt mean he has the training to use the estoc as well as someone who actually trained to use it.

Why not? How many people in our modern reality buy the best firearms the law will allow and quite routinely become competent with them.

And back to fighters, a Level Zero barkeep is not as good as a Fighter, they don't have the BAB. They don't have the armour proficiencies. That's the distinction in skill. Non-proficient means you are EXTREMELY unusure about the weapon, you have almost no idea what's going to happen when you try to use it. A Level 1 fighter really isn't all that much, he's barely more than an amateur.

The SKILL DIFFERENCE is in things like BAB and Weapons Training bonuses and feats related to weapons and Automatic Bonus Progression.

How much do you really want from traps?

Are you looking for defence while resting? Defend enfilade routes while exploring an area? Pre-battle zoning?

What are you expecting the traps to do? mobility debuff? status debuff? Straight damage? Or environmental advantage such as smoke that obscures or hard to pass obstacle.

I think what they're getting at is that if a change buffs casters and martials both, it doesn't actually help the inequalities at all.

How do you conclude that when Das explicitly referred to changes that only applied to Casters.

"More than that, better proficiencies are part of what makes martial classes unique and allows them to perform within their niche."

Is it?

because a heck of a lot of what are known as martial classes because they lack casting abilities actually seriously lack weapons proficiencies. Classic casting classes can have a wide selection of weapons proficiencies.

"By giving those away, you are taking away their niche protection, which is a nerf"

No it isn't.

A buff is a buff.

A nerf is a nerf.

If you can't talk about it as a buff, then it's no good trying to contort it to be about a nerf for something else.

I know why it is being phrased in this convoluted way, because we've already talked about it as a buff for casters and they have no answer for my reasoning. The best they seem to be able to do is ignore my reasoning and and talk around it by some extreme leap in logic.

For the record: the reasoning was that the buff to casters was inconsequential to their their most unbalancing capability; which is how powerful their spells can become. Because their most powerful spells don't synergise with any weapons. Transformation is NOT one of their most powerful spells, it is a high level spell but will leave them as a very poor fighter.

What are powerful spells are the likes of Black Tentacles. Summon Monsters. These are good. These were buffs to Casters when they got them!

"in the same way that allowing all classes access to skills at full progression and the ability for all classes to snag Trapfinding were nerfs to the Rogue"

AMEN TO THAT!

It was a terrible mechanic, it turned rogues from an appreciated variant to have in the group but not actually necessary to them being used just to bog down the gameplay with everywhere having them rub the rogue on the set to find traps. Yet without a rogue available no sane GM would have traps that only a rogue could find.

So the game became tediously predictable. It just becomes a familiar boring routine of have the rogue check for traps. And if there isn't a rogue, well, GM would never be so cruel as to litter unfindable traps.

The best sort of traps are those that bring dynamism to the gameplay, importantly, traps you can reliably find in the right circumstance but not others. This brings in important elements of strategy, for example, as you are moving through the dungeon out of initiative you can always find traps though you may have to use illumination to find them which can give away your position. Yet when you go into initiative, you can't take 10's on perception any more, if you run off someplace you've got to take a chance you may not see a trap and run right into it.

You have to think more laterally about the world, like if the enemy can move through here, they must have a way of telling where the traps are. Or at the very least, if I follow where they go then I won't trigger any traps.

And that's obviously a direct nerf to the rogue, but it nerfed them from a duty they very reasonably appreciated not being a-thing-for-them-to-do any more.

Rogues didn't just lose trapfinding, they got a lot, especially in Rogue Unchained.

"It's more like complaining of nepotism because the boss gave a promotion you worked for and earned to his spoiled nephew who already has a bottomless trust fund and doesn't even show up for work every day."

I can't possibly see how as nerf or buffs aren't mutually exclusive like how being promoted to a single position is.

"It's a matter of perception."

It's a matter of obfuscation, that's the perspective, to obscure and muddy perspective of the actual matter of concern.

"I can't really speak to your statement here, I don't know that I've heard more than one or two systems referred to as "the caster edition", and the ones that come to mind were intended as such."

Is this to reinforce my point?

"That being said, 3.X did tilt the tables vastly in favor of spellcasting classes over martial classes."

Wow, we are going TOTALLY off topic, to multiple versions back, instead of talking about things as they actually are, they are being compared relative to things that many people reasonably don't have any experience in as they may only ever have started with DnD3.5.

This is Paizo forums, I think I owe some respect to my host to talk about their product rather than something that Hasbro owns.

"part of this was because the things that made him unique were more widely and cheaply available to a larger number of classes."

Trying to look at this objectively rather than relatively (and relative to something I simply have to take your word on) this is still a two way street. And something I am trying to help with.

Once again, all of your argument is centered on "but they need the other stuff more!"

No it isn't. Frankly I take that as really crooked.

You have just taken ALL of my reasoning and summised it as that and now you are just moving on. Well I am not moving on till I let you know I think you are being very disingenuous here. You aren't tackling with my reasoning you are hand waving it to move on with no acknowledgement of it.

"That is a direct result of the games you run."

Yes. Pathfinder.

"In most games I've run, played in, seen run, or even heard about, dropping a fighter's str from 20 to 18 to get 7 more points of point-buy is not crippling."

That is NOT comparable. For one, 18 strength is very ideal level for Fighter, it is efficient with two handed weapons as it leads to 1.5x strength damage which is 6. But Str20 that's +5 strength, x1.5 with two handed weapon that is only 7.5 which must be rounded down. So at Strength 18 your strength is more efficiently applied with two handed weapons. It's not worth it trying to go to Strength 20 for only +1 bonus to hit and damage.

Just like how it's not worth going from int 7 to int 12 for that small number of skill points.

"RE: lore warden, the difference from heavy armor to light is not typically a big deal, unless the attack bonuses were already higher than expected for opponents."

My expectations are not too high, YOURS are far too low.

"It is an option to increase skill points. You take these options when you are "trying" to get more skill points."

Back in circles. Is this a purposeful manipulation, to just go over the same things as if I never said anything in an attempt to make it seem like I didn't say anything?

"You complain that they don't have enough skill points, then degrade skill points to "why would you trade anything else for them?" "

This is a catch 22 and it's so obvious what you are trying to pull.

You aren't actually dealing with my arguments, you are trying to contrive a contradiction of values which does not exist, I've been very clear that skill ranks are important, just not THAT important. The disingenuousness of your little trap is trying to work in absolutes and extremes, everything is either incredibly valuable or if less than anything else then therefore worthless.

No.

Get better bait.

I'm very clear on this that skill points would be nice to make games more varied and more interesting but I cannot nerf the game. Even if I did the players wouldn't believe me.

"If skills are so bad as to be literally the last thing you consider when making a character, maybe they aren't all that necessary after all."

Or maybe that's obviously spurious reasoning.

Because priority os obviously relative, they will need dex all the damn time, Will saves are what save them from absolutely hellishly bad attacks!

"It's hard to complain that "that guy has more skill points than me!" when you place no value in them."

Again, more dishonest reasoning of fear of being hit by Hold Person and Coup De Grace'd proves they NEVER want to be good at acrobatics.

TLDR:

"I'm mad that guy has more useless widgets than I do!"
"But they're not worthless."
"I think they are."
"They why do you care that he has more?"
"Because I want more!"

TLDR: "I can't actually refute their logic so I'll ignore it make this straw man of them. There! Now I can make this straw man alex say stupid things that aren't related to the reasons he gave. Like I'm going to make him say something really stupid like he thinks skill points are worthless"

All the OP's perceived problems with his players and their resulting playstyle are entirely his doing.

A purposefully vague attack that cannot be defended or refuted. Designed to shut down discussion.

"He broke his campaign by altering key assumptions of the game without bothering to consider the implications such changes would naturally bring."

More vague attacks, something went wrong... somewhere... somehow...

But never actually saying WHAT. Because there is nothing, there is no reason. You have no explanatory power on your side.

"This (as well as the Dual Talent human "issue" in his other thread that no one else has seen in any of their games) problem is entirely due to the combination of 10 point buy characters coupled with permadeath."

You've either got very bad memory, didn't actually care to read in the first place or are straight up lying. Point buy 10? What an obvious falsehood. It was and still is Standard point buy. And permadeath is also standard, read your rule book when a character is dead, they are dead.

"Rather than backing away from these changes (which would fix all these issues)"

The only "issue" is you being unreasoned in your objections, you are only stating the obvious that if everyone gives into your demands then that issue is wrong

"the OP is trying to houserule in even more heavy-handed changes to try and fix what he broke."

I didn't set the will saves.

I didn't set what was standard point buy.

I didn't set the allocation of skill points.

All I need to do is:

(1) change all the saves for all the save-or-die effects in all pathfinder publications,
(2) somehow change this so that it doesn't make it auto-win for Wizard
(3) change basic arithmetic to change how point buy adds up

Also accept personal responsibility for all the spells, creatures and items that Paizo has made by Pathfinder.

Ah, here's your problem. False statments

Accusations of lying but conveniently vague, brilliant way to shut down someone you know it right but want to undermine.

"and cheesing players (or are they just playing your game?)."

And don't forget to throw in meaningless perjoratives. What does cheesing mean? Nothing. It never will mean anything, it's designed to be purposefully vague. Many will come forward with definitions, but agreement, heck no. I don't thing you're saying that for lack of vocabulary but a calculated manipulation.

"You do know that it is you, as the DM, who controll these things, right? If they seriously NEED to dump Int to survive in your game, you are the cause of it."

So you want me to re-write ALL THE WILL SAVES AND REFLEX SAVES IN ALL THE RULE BOOKS?

I'm going to look pretty stupid when they ask what the will save is and it's only DC8. And of course this again favours classes like Wizard, they cannot fail. They don't even have to care. And sorry, it's everywhere, it's endless, I'm going to need to change all dex rolls for initiative checks, stealth rolls vs perception.

"I'm not saying that it's wrong, I'm saying that this is the result of it."

It sure sound like you're saying it's wrong.

"It's not at all like a man who can't afford a car. It's a man that owns a car, a house, a boat and a pool. And he sells his pool to afford a bigger car, a bigger house and a bigger boat. Now he complains that he only has a bathtub. "

Ahh analogy abuse.

this is classic manipulative reasoning, it's highly dishonest and fundamentally works by refusing to follow the normal human societal rules of how analogies work which is to use an example of one thing how IN ONE LIMITED WAY is an example of how something works. The breathtakingly arrogant dishonesty is just to extend the analogy in a way they know is not representative.

It's not "a man that owns a car, a house, a boat and a pool"

It's a man who needs Strength because he can't cast spells which are entirely independent of strength to do damage.

It's a man who needs Wisdom because unlike a Wizard he doesn't have a super high Will save.

You know damn well a Wizard can dump the hell out of those.

And Wizard get SO MUCH from Int.

Letting casters throw spells as standard actions instead of full round actions isn't a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything from martials.

Letting Casters summon multiple creatures and control them easily isn't a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything from martials.

Yes, because those literally are not nerfs to martials, those are buffs to casters.

It's like getting pay cut at work and instead of complaining about how your pay shouldn't have been cut you go into every stor to complain about how all the prices have gone up.

So if you have a criticism of casters getting buffs, then talks about casters getting buffs. Don't contort it to being about martial getting nerfs. You need to stay focused on the problem.

And by the way, I've heard every edition of every fantasy tabletop game be described as "that's why they call it the caster edition" so try slinging that in some other forum.

That's like saying that wizards going from 1/3 BAB to 1/2 BAB, and clerics going from 2/3 to 3/4 BAB, is not a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything away.

It's not a nerf to martials. And wizards are already in 1/2 BAB.

1/2 bab is still terrible and is only vaguely compensated by how spells from casters are usually touch based as they HAVE TO BE!

"IT's like saying that everyone getting full Con bonus to HP, which martials used to get alone, is not a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything away."

What do you mean full con bonus? You mean a consistent rule on constitution score and Hp?

"It's like saying that everyone being able to get high Str bonuses with ease, once the sole domain of martials, is not a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything away."

What are you talking about? How older tabletop games had extremely pedantic rules on who can put ranks where and were gotten rid of.

Still, if a Wizard buffs strength he's a pillock, even though he can.

"It's like handing out skills and skill points based on Int, instead of relying solely on class, is not a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything away, you're adding to everyone!"

That has left Martials worse off an I have plans to deal with that but not from particular racial traits. And it has left martials worse off not because Wizards are better but because Martials usually have to dump int and in the process end up with only 1 skill rank per level.

"Doubling monsters hit points and raising their AC isn't a nerf to martials, it affects everyone equally, right?"

What is this even referring to?!!? It depends on the type of AC. Also do wizards have to just make the touch ac or do they have to make the touch AND have a DC for their spell high enough that the target fails it.

"Giving multiple attacks away to every class based on BAB (and monsters, too) isnt' a nerf to martials. You aren't takign anything away."

You seem to have lost it at this point, that's DEFINITELY something in martials favour as they have high BAB, and allows them to get more attacks in yet wizard cannot cast any more spells due to high BAB.

"Yessirree, martials are JUST FINE. Nothing got taken away from them at all."

Sarcasm comes across as just churlishness when there's nothing to be sarcastic about.

"We'll just give armor and weapon proficencies away to other classes. we aren't taking anything away from them, so it isn't a nerf to martials."

I said nothing about armour proficiencies.

If you have a problem with that you do realise that Magus is a class which exists right?

No, Skilled is half of the ocean. It effectively doubles the skill ranks a fighter has.

I feel like I'm expected to feel grateful for going from working for $1 and hour to $2 and hour. It's still a drop in the ocean compared to what you really need.

"But not all exotic weapons are for fun tricks such as Bolas. Many of them are just better version of martial/simple weapons."

It's their choice. I welcome them making their choice.

"Casters sacrifice weapon proficiency for their spells. You are making this sacrifice unimportant when you grant everyone proficiency in whatever weapon they choose. A fighter with martial proficiency won't see much of a change, but casters would undeservedly go from simple->Exotic weapons proficiency. "

I'm getting rather fed up you saying this YET AGAIN, and for the 5th time it has to be I'm going to give you the same explanation that you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge. It's kind of rude. I feel like I am listening to you but you are not listening to me. This is a two way street, you can't just keep posting not referring to my last reasoning as if it was never there.

Wizards do far more than lose proficiency, they are FUNDAMENTALLY lacking in capability

"So while martials gain +1, casters gain +2"

Do I have to say it yet again what an irrelevant simplification that is?

"Actually, it also lets you keep your dexterity bonus to AC while climbing."

What? Oh don't try this one on, you talked about bonuses in ability to make climb checks, I remind you that it doesn't actually give them any bonuses to make climb checks, now you're bringing up something not even related to making climb checks! You know when else someone can move over obstacles while keeping their climb check?

"It's something which obviously benefits casters and might be useful for martials."

HOW!?!?!?

You NEVER EXPLAIN HOW!

How is the DC of their spells increased by having an exotic weapon? How is the Range, duration and area increased? How do they get more spells?

They DON'T. That's how!

"Martials already have good weapons. Now casters will have them too. Free of charge."

And I'd laugh when they are foolish enough to use them. And they NEVER ARE, despite all the Elven Wizards, I never saw one stupid enough to invoke their half-BAB in trying to swing their Longsword (which I will remind you for the umpteenth time, all Elves are proficient in) Hell, they never even tried to buff it with Effortless Lace.

The only really relevant upgrade is Repeating Crossbow which I am very fine with, it's a downgrade relative to a crossbow + Rapid Reload.

What I had a problem with was the Elven Wizard using a composite longbow. That was a step too far but that's not a product of any racial traits that I made, that's a product of racial traits that is in EVERYONE's core rulebook and me taking people's advice to have high point buy, allowed the wizard to have high dex and good strength.

I'm sure I remember telling you all this before...

"Martials have low skill ranks and better class skills. Now they have even lower skill ranks while casters gain another class skill to be better at than martials. "

I said I'd solve that separately, that's not something that can be solved with racial traits. Far more important for the Int7 fighters/clerics/paladins (who cannot benefit from skilled) can get a +3 in a skill they need which isn't their class skill.

First, you will have to define the skill point "need" basis for each class. As far as I can tell, and it seems some other posters here agree, wizards do, in fact, need more skills than most,

If you are referring to Sissyl I have answers for literally every single sentence they said, their math literally does not add up.

"as they are expected to keep a fair number of knowledges high"

Actually people except ROLE PLAY in a ROLE PLAYING game, they don't expect the flat exposition of everyone waiting on the wizard's whim to take knowledge rolls in their own sweet damn time (if ever) only to be rewarded with GM left with no choice but to flatly exposit to the wizard's player and only them. And to cap it all off, after the GM has patiently told all this THE WIZARD DOESN'T EVEN SHARE THIS! All he has to say is "I pass this on" but he won't. The number of times I've seen a wizard ignore or change the subject when another player asks what they know (from their knowledge check) only to much later second guess their decision as "I never told you that" MAXIMUM OVER RUSTLE!!!

Even then, how much do they need?

One rank in knowledge arcana can give them a bonus as high as +9 to +10. They can take-a-10 and reliably identify magic auras in Detect Magic.

"as well as spellcraft"

A single rank fulfils almost all possible needs and they don't need to put the ranks in right away.

"and linguistics"

Protected under Background Skills.

"A fighter needs, what, acrobatics, climb, and swim? Maybe a knowledge or survival if they're feeling like being a skill guy for the group. There's not much that's really expected of them."

There's only one reason not much is expected of them: there's not much they can do! Because they don't have the skill ranks! We're back around on the circular reasoning, classes without many skill ranks don't have skill ranks so they shouldn't have skill ranks!

The DCs they have to beat go up continuously, for example

-Acrobatics to jump over things they cannot walk over such as holes, difficult terrain and traps. They rarely have much in the way of dex to make even a single rank got far.Acrobatics to move through threatened square; so damn important as it's against their CMD which can become HUGE/ So many things impose falls of up to 20ft onto fighters such as pits and Air Geyser, the fall alone can inflict 2d6 damage and leave them prone but a DC15 climb check can mean they land on their feet taking only 1d6 non-lethal
-Climb checks can get really high especially if you're trying to compete with how a wizard can fly over, well, anything.
-Escape artist is so important for Dex based characters as grappling so so deeply shut them down and so many creatures have grab. You've got to have the ranks to leverage that Dex to wriggle free.
-Alchemical and Wondrous items can make HEAL checks fairly redundant except they can be expensive to use all the time, also there is no cheap way to quickly repair ability damage except through heal unchained which you need a lot of ranks to make viable
-Intimidate isn't so much a thing for Fighters but is a thing for their cousins the Paladins who are similarly extremely short on skill points so that all these intimidate based builds just aren't viable. Shake Morale is only really worth it if you can do it with an attack.
-Perception is a huge one, if you're a reach fighter it's so important you aren't caught out in surprise round and you're the party deflector shield.
-Ride need at least one rank to reliably fight using a mount, don't need any ranks if you just need it for extra mobility
-Sense Motive has such myriad uses, particularity it involves the more wisdom based players into role play. Yes, touch of truthtelling is a nice option but it can't be the go to option to resort to mind-affecting spells with everyone you merely suspect.
-Stealth is of such a huge importance, for everyone, as party can only move as stealthily as their loudest member, and it very often makes more sense to have the fighter scout ahead for their general resistances, were it not for how they usually cannot make stealth work at all.
-Survival is either necessary without Tracking powder, redundant with Perception of tracking powder or if tracking powder and training in perception is combined it can have amazing effects of tracking creatures who would otherwise be impossible to track such as through a dungeon. A
-Swim may or may not be important, depends on environment and whether things like Touch of The Sea are available.

So about 5 really benefit from a rank per level, few more need at least 1 rank to work.

It's not enough to smatter a few skill ranks as you go, too many skills are all about maximising the ranks every level.

"When I say try, I mean actually increasing Int to a 12 minimum"

Going from int 7 that's 6 points that are direly needed elsewhere for an uphill struggle.

The only "try" is to try to convince yourself this isn't a poor investment of points.

"(come on, it's 20 point-buy[you meant 20 right-Alec]), considering human as a race, considering some archetypes that increase it, and actually putting your FCB into it."

Yet again, give up more valuable things for less valuable things.

That's only trying hard to pretend I'm making myself worse off while Wizards don't have to make such a choice, they can always put their FCB into HP, this is putting Wizard at 4.5hp per level and Fighter at 5.5hp per level/

"There is a difference between "my 7 int orc fighter has no skills" and "I made a 12 Int human lore warden with FCB in skills, but I still feel like it isn't enough"."

Oh Lore Warden, the one everyone had heard recommended but why is it almost never heard of, of wait:

Lore wardens gain 2 additional skill ranks each level. These ranks must be spent on Intelligence-based skills. All Intelligence-based skills are class skills for lore wardens.

This ability replaces the lore warden’s proficiency with medium armor, heavy armor, and shields.

They also lose all their armour training.

No wonder you feel like it isn't enough, It's a TERRIBLE archetype.

It's unreasonable that an Orc has to have the same intelligence as as a Wizard to be good at climbing, acrobatics and perception.

"4 base for everyone is an example. I further suggest a clean plus/minus 1 skill point based on Int benchmarks. Some classes (rogue) could add 1 more due to a class focus on skills. The point is to first level the field, then rebalance to what you want."

No. That's extra complication for little return clearly to favour casters like Wizard which use Int.

I think it would be more interesting for Wizards to consider occasionally giving up their FCB for a skill point rather than a hit point. Something like at level 5 where they may need that last skill rank to max out fly for Air Step.

Also maybe not neglect Wisdom score quite so much just because they have an awesome will save. It wouldn't even mean dumping their core stat, but something like starting with Int20 and Wis11 and at level 4 put their inherent bonus into wis rather than Int. Wizards shouldn't be 80% as good in HP as a fighter.

No, it was a suggestion for a way nobody would ever need Perception when they can spam spells instead that was about as helpful as your suggestions earlier. I.e. Not very. It costs lots and it is far more complicated than GETTING THE SKILL.

No it doesn't cost a lot, Dancing Lights a cantrip, it has infinite uses. And it can tell you exactly where an enemy is and move with you, being used continuously through a dungeon.

Alarm is going to use up a 750gp wand in about an hour as you try to cast it every 40ft and doesn't actually help you get in a surprise round on them as it's no good simply to know that a creature of size tiny or larger is within any of the many 20ft radius areas you cast Alarm. You need to actually succeed perception checks to identify them and where they are to get a surprise round on them.

It seems you don't care about any of this.

These vital details you repeatedly reject only focusing on how Alarm and Dancing Lights are both spells to help notice the enemy but not the critical details.

"Suggesting that nobody needs skills because hey, magic items, spells and other stuff is better anyway is disingenious at best."

I didn't say that.

I said you don't need that many skill ranks and you should know it.

Perhaps that's why you are making things up about what I said?

"It is noted that you don't like counterspelling."

This isn't personal, all of the reasons I outlined are objective reasons.

"And that you find dancing lights so good that yet again, nobody needs skills."

You should know damn well that's not what I said. Or did you somehow miss something as fundamental as the futility of trying to lean on perception skill when peering into pitch darkness? I shouldn't have to spell that out. Or how you only need to take-a-10 when you take away their cover of darkness.

"Your preferences are not really relevant in this discussion."

EXACTLY.

I didn't bring them up. You did. I gave objective reasons not based on personal preferences and YOU started imagining what my preferences are.

"There are other reasons you might like to know what spell is coming. You could have a choice between interrupting two different casters, for example. You could know that your pal is acting strangely because a caster just cast dominate person. And so on."

Uhh, spellcraft isn't for that. Spellcraft is to identify a spell AS IT IS BEING CAST, to identify a spell after it has been cast is common sense, it's something the GM will just tell you if you can see it at all. If a spell creates a 10ft radius of glittering particles which blinds many of the people caught in the area and may highlight the invisible if you can't instantly recognise that as Glitterdust you can just ask the GM and they should tell you.

Some spells are specifically obfuscated and have specific ways of identifying them, for example glamer and illusions are very specific on when they allow a save and what sort of save, usually a will save. This is not something that Wizard has a monopoly over. And the same for the likes of Dominate Person, that's a DC15 sense motive, that's not a bad roll even without bonuses and you can get the whole party in on it.

"To do useful things with summons, you need to communicate with the creatures. It is not necessarily just a charge you want from them. Many of the creatures require different languages, and limiting yourself to those that understand all languages is needlessly limiting. Depending on houserules is not a good way to argue either."

And as I said, it's protected under Background Skills.

Next.

"You said it best yourself: "Some wizards are total jerks and refuse to do the knowledge checks". How you reconcile this with "But I have to say you're being quite unfair to the point of manipulative to over state a wizard not being amazing at EVERY knowledge check as worthy of being called useless." is beyond me, but I couldn't have said it better."

There's a difference between refusing to do the check and being unable to. And they are unable to even with ranks because they didn't happen to put them in the right place or got bad rolls.

"It is also, again, useless to argue that you prefer not to use the monster knowledge checks and usually sidestep them."

It may be a preference but it's quite a reasonable, what with it being a ROLE playing game, that more things come out in roleplay interactions than flat exposition from the GM predicated on the capriciousness of the D20.

"Ah, next up is your detailing of bonuses to flying. It would perhaps interest you to know that the maneuverability bonus of +4 only applies to creatures with a NATURAL fly speed. You also add in an 18 Dex. Without those, you have a different situation."

No it wouldn't, even on Dex 16 by level 5 and even with an extremely unfavourable ruling that the spell Fly would bother mentioning the "maneuverability is good" if it was completely worthless... it is almost exactly the same, they only need a 2 or higher to maintain a hover. By only Caster level 6 they cannot fail a hover check. For 5th level they can either move at least 30ft per round (not a bad idea) or move less than 30ft to need only a DC10 fly check. They only have to suffer this terribly till level 6 where their caster level bumps their bonus up enough that they can NEVER fail a hover check.

"No ranks would put you at +2 on the d20 to beat 15. With the ranks, you have a +10. Enough to beat the DC most of the time and be assured you will not fall, something that will happen to the guy without ranks with rolls of 8 or below. Ergo, PUTTING IN THE RANKS JUST BECAME PRETTY DARN IMPORTANT, wouldn't you say?

I am not the one who didn't do the maths."

Yes you are, how the hell does a 5th level wizard only have a DexMod of only +2? Why are you even contemplating putting no ranks in there when iwas very explicit that 5 ranks was all you could possibly need? Not that no ranks were needed! Why are you ignoring the bonus to fly equal to half the caster level? Why are you ignoring the bonus from Fly being a Wizard class skill?

How the hell is 8 + 10 less than 15?!!?!? Because that's what you said:

"With the ranks, you have a +10. Enough to beat the DC most of the time and be assured you will not fall, something that will happen to the guy without ranks with rolls of 8 or below."

Or did you forget we're talking about a DC15 fly check? Actually, don't answer this, your conclusion it's a +10 with ranks is wrong anyway.

Remember, even by the most unfavourable circumstance of only DexMod +3 and not allowing Good Manoeuvrability to count for anything (which is a BS ruling if you ask me) they still only need to get a 2 or higher, when:

(1) They are below Caster Level 6 (they can only get the spell at CL5)
(2) When they literally won't move even 5ft, that's all they need as that's "less than half speed" to make a DC10 fly check
(3) anything else gives them any bonus to skill checks such as fly

You didn't do the math. I did. Then you rejected it and pulled numbers out of nowhere and combined them in incomprehensible ways.

All this to make it seem like Wizard NEEDs vast the overflowing skill ranks when it doesn't, Wizard got them seemingly by accident.

I wouldn't actually do this. This is an example I am presenting to the OP of a simpler way to achieve what I believe to be his goal, instead of arbitrarily shifting the attributes that affect skill ranks. I prefaced it with "If the core issue is 'I don't like skill imbalance among the classes'", which is where this suggestion comes from. I believe rogues should have more skills, and int-based characters as well, but that doesn't seem to be his perception. He wants his fighters to have more skill points than wizards, without trying.

Well from my point of your it is YOU who is arbitrarily shifting attributes that affect skill ranks, you're going half as far as me in how it isn't int-based but setting it as an arbitrary 4 skill points base for everyone.

To clarify, while skill imbalance is the concern it is not an ABSOLUTE, it is not that there should be exact parity, that's the really important distinction. Classes are not going to be the same, they shouldn't be, there should be a certain dynamic variance but neither to one extreme (everyone only gets 4) nor the opposite extreme (those who most need skill ranks cannot effectively get them, and those who don't need them have so many).

No extremes.

"He wants his fighters to have more skill points than wizards, without trying."

It's not a matter of "try", you can't just clench your teeth harder to make the numbers add up differently, they simply won't.

it's no damn good telling Fighter to use the same point buy as a Wizard when you have to be able to see that's worse than a zero sum game.

Yeah, sure. There are other ways to do what you need skills for. Who needs Perception, when you can just cast Alarm to cover every new area you move into. Yes, short adventuring day, but hey, you could get further if you have a wand of Alarm! Voila! No more need for Perception. By the same token, sure, there are other ways to do things, but you didn't even consider what I wrote. For example, take your wizard with one (1) rank in Spellcraft. Faced with an opponent casting a spell, that is DC 15+spell level on 1d20+7 to identify. I suppose you could ask the enemy to calm down so as not to stress you. Similarly, if you intend to give commands to summoned creatures, taking the time to first dig out a scroll, then reading it, and it has to be tongues and not comprehend languages, well, that isn't going to be very useful. Also, knowing just the names of the planes your outsider enemies come from is another recipe for being called a useless wizard. I suppose you can always sulk and quit playing if the evil GM puts you up against Outsiders before "super high levels where it is ever useful to know which plane creatures come from" As for Fly, you are going to need the points there if you want to, say, hover in midair. In short, your so-called solutions don't help. And hey, why does the rogue get more than 2+Int mod? He just needs to get UMD, and use scrolls for invisibility, spider climb, etc etc etc.

What? Is this in reply to my comment? It doesn't seem to relate to anything I said.

Why are you talking about spamming 1st levels spells like Alarm when and not Cantrips like Dancing lights? I shouldn't have to explain this but when they are bathed in normal light then they cannot use darkness for concealment, they cannot stealth. It is a DC0 perception check to notice a visible creature. Even at maximum range of 100ft the perception modifier only bumps it up to a DC10 which you can still make by taking a ten which you can do out of combat. If you perceive them, and they don't perceive you, you can get a surprise round in on them. That will start initiative and they may still have no idea where you are.

But since you brought up Alarm, you won't need a 750gp wand, you just need to scribe a few scrolls for 12.5gp that will be more than enough for a few choke-points where you know pursuers will likely pass through.

"For example, take your wizard with one (1) rank in Spellcraft. Faced with an opponent casting a spell, that is DC 15+spell level on 1d20+7 to identify"

I didn't cover that because it's a check that is almost totally worthless even if you did make the check.

It's only ever useful for a particular form of Counterspell, a targeted counterspell, which is ridiculously unlikely to work.

(1) You have to be ahead of them in initiative in order to Ready Action Counterspell
(2) You have to actually think it would be better to counterspell than just cast one of your offensive spells or if they aren't visible yet, ready a spell which directly damages the caster you are up against
(3) You have to make the Spellcraft check which includes ALL the penalties that modify perception
(4) Once you have identified their spell, you must actually have either that spell or one of the diametrically opposing spells, with all the possible spells in pathfinder this is more than just a low probability, it is an UNKNOWN probability

And after ALL THAT it's just status quo. Now if you'd hit them with a directly attacking spell, that would have disrupted their spell or made it definitively impossible to cast such as by making them nauseated. It will at least have damaged them.

But okay, let say you REALLY wanted to counterspell for whatever reason. Just counterspell with Dispel Magic.

As a GM, I'd WAY prefer you to do that, as it's really damn straightforward, rather than you pouring over your spellbook trying to know if you can spontaneously cast through your bonded item any equal spell or equivalent counter. Plus all the variables on a spellcraft check you'd struggle so much to beat compared to the Dispel Check (1d20 + Caster level + 1 from Cold-Iron or Mhyrr) vs DC11 + Caster Level).

And you'd going to be better off with Dispel Magic as if you didn't end up ahead of them in the initiative order then you can use dispel magic on whatever ongoing magical effects the spell cast has made.

Counterspelling by spellcraft to have juuuust the right spell has so many problems.

Lets just say you maxed out ranks in spellcraft at level 5 and had Int20 (very favourable) for a +13 and you've got to beat a DC15 + spell level except it's not going to be very close, it's going to be around 60ft away so out of easy charging range so +6 to the DC. Also it's unfavourable conditions because it's combat to a further +2 to the DC. So you've got to beat a DC26 with a +13 bonus. Against a level 3 spell you've got a 60% failure chance! That's even if you had the right spell.

Now the exact same scenario, only with dispel magic, it doesn't matter what spells you have if they are CL5 and you are also CL5 (the right sort of 3rd level spells) you only need to roll a 10 on dispel check you're now onto a 55% success rate! And this increases by another 5% every time you level up automatically. With spellcraft you have to keep pouring skill ranks into it.

"Similarly, if you intend to give commands to summoned creatures, taking the time to first dig out a scroll, then reading it, and it has to be tongues and not comprehend languages, well, that isn't going to be very useful."

yet earlier you said:

"you didn't even consider what I wrote"

Well, linguistics is a protected skill under Background Skills, which is what I wrote earlier and you didn't consider.

Though you're still fighting an uphill battle as you're STILL limited by 1 rank in linguistics per level yet even for the summoned monsters which can understand any language there is such a disparate range of languages. I'd imagine most GMs would allow you to direct them like you'd direct a companion to do any of the tricks under Handle Animal skill but you wouldn't need a check, it would just be a free action that cuts into your two sentences per round.

Even without any of that, summoned creatures will still appear exactly where you direct them and they'll attack an enemy of yours to the best of their ability. It's not like you NEED tongues.

"Also, knowing just the names of the planes your outsider enemies come from is another recipe for being called a useless wizard."

Wait, is this about the Monster Lore check.

Well if goblinoids are a DC = 5 + CR then so are the likes of trolls, so it's a DC10 for Trolls, pick up one of the dungeon guides and take a 10 to find out Troll have regeneration vulnerable to fire/acid. Ditto for knowing Cyclops can auto-hit.

Frankly I usually don't leave this up to wizard's knowledge rolls as some wizards are total jerks and refuse to do the knowledge checks, or they make the checks and get unlucky. Yet the players have fought these same creatures before but with different characters and know their weaknesses, thought somehow have to play dumb to them. I'd much rather have ROLE play than ROLL play, that players can learn about more unusual creature's strengths and weaknesses through non-combat interaction, they might actually talk to some of the NPCs and it'll come up why they might want some silver weapon blanch or arrows with Primal Iron arrowheads.

But I have to say you're being quite unfair to the point of manipulative to over state a wizard not being amazing at EVERY knowledge check as worthy of being called useless.

"As for Fly, you are going to need the points there if you want to, say, hover in midair."

Oh really?

1 (natural 1 on fly check) +5 (ranks) +3(class skill) +2(half of caster level) +4(from the spell granting "good manoeuvrability") +4 (dexMod)

= 19

Hover only needs a fly check of DC15 and normally a natural 1 isn't an auto fail for skill checks, even if it was, no amount of ranks could save you.

In fact with just 5 ranks and a moderate Dex score you can ALWAYS be able to hover even in the worst conditions, even in "severe" winds of up to 50mph! They could still hover!

"In short, your so-called solutions don't help. "

In short is the right way of putting it.

you didn't do the math

The way I see it, wizards need a number of skills. Knowledge arcana, Spellcraft, Knowledge planes, Fly, Linguistics at least. These are all things people rightfully expect a wizard to be good at, or things they need to function. That is five skills. With 2+Int mod per level, that is more or less all their points. I don't really see the big fuss about how they have skill points to spare. Sure, at higher levels, it gets easier, but at low levels, where skills are most useful, it isn't all that generous. Note also that the guy who spent a decade learning all sorts of things and being cooped up in a library gets only 2+Int mod per level "because he is so smart".

Let's address this in more detail.

Background Skills variant rules will likely be used which covers for Linguistics and Knowledge engineering/geography/history/nobility. Though Wizard can actually leave Linguistics alone and just have a few scrolls of comprehend language. Though linguistics is most useful for EVERYONE in a party, particularly to learn a common language that others are unlikely to know.

Spellcraft generally needs to be topped up every other level to keep up with how spell level generally increases every other level and has huge overlap with Knowledge Arcana. Knowledge Planes will probably do fine untrained (able to know the names of the planes) till the super high levels (where you might go to other planes and it' ever useful to know what plane other creatures came from). Spellcraft does not need to be high to fulfil the pre-requisites such as learning a spell from a scroll to put it in your spellbook, it's DC15 + spell level, so dropping one rank in there so even if you've only got int 17 then you can copy scrolls with spell levels 2 by just taking a 10. If you increase your Int to just 18 then you can with only ONE RANK in spellcraft take a ten for:

Spellcraft check = 10 (take a ten as not rushed) + 4(int) +1(rank) +3(class skill) = 18 = DC15 + spell level (3)

So it's not until you get to wizard level 7 that you actually need to put even a single more rank into spellcraft and then again every odd level to still be able to transfer spells to your spellbook. Won't be relevant till Wizard 9 if you have Int20.

The cantrip "Read Magic" covers deciphering scrolls, which you can also just have as a scroll.

Fly ranks only seem relevant in one place and that is for Air Step as getting 5 ranks hugely increases the versatility of the spell so you can move over water as if it was land. Extremely useful and something I'd love to allow my Wizards to do and Skill ranks = 2 + wis they are still more than capable of doing that. I'd expect them to actually get air step at around level 5 (rather than ASAP at level 3). As for the spell Fly, the spell itself gives such great bonuses and along with how they usually buff dex they are totally set from level 5 pumping fly up to 5 ranks and probably not needing to put any more ranks into it.

"With 2+Int mod per level, that is more or less all their points."

Only if they are trying to max out all of them as soon as possible which is completely unnecessary, it doesn't even benefit them.

They don't need to put any ranks in fly till they have anything which lets them do anything to do with the fly skill! So around level 4 they can use Air step fairly well over water and by level 5 they have a truly liberating ability to continuously move over land and water for only the costs of a 75gp scroll.

They don't need to maximise Stealth skill not with how easily they can turn invisible.

Wizards more than contribute to the party's perception needs without simply putting ranks into perception but by spells like Dancing Lights. Oh. My. God. What a fantastically good spell, it seems like nothing at first till you really start to break down the realities of perception challenges in a dark environment. Even when you have Sunrods, even when you have Darkvision. Darkvision is nice, 60ft can see as well as you'd need to see in all darkness but the range is 60ft and if anyone in the party doesn't have darkvision then it's going to be totally undermined by the need for them to have illumination. So something like a torch or a sunrod, except a torch or a sunrod does far more to illuminate yourself than those further away.

This is where dancing lights is amazing and why caster classes are so valuable, as a cantrip although it has a 1 minute duration it can be kept up indefinitely and most vitally, it can keep the illumination where you want it, way WAY ahead of you in the pitch black dungeon, mines, cave system or windowless castle. And because it's 4 torch-equivalent lights and the dim light or torches stack with other torches only up to normal light it bathes an 50ft diameter area in normal light.

Ride is fine even with zero ranks just from dex bonus and military saddle. Swim is covered by Air Step if you have the time to whoop the scroll out. Probably don't need to bother with Intimidate or Diplomacy or Bluff with the spells that they have. Appraise and Craft are under Background Skills so quite protected.

If you really, really feel this is an issue, then... don't play pathfinder? 4E scrapped the min-maxing of skills, I think 5E did too? "trained/untrained" and leave it at that.

Yet again, a simple straightforward rule is called complicated and the alternative is: a far more complicated solution like not only re-learning a whole new rules system but convincing everyone else to use a whole new rules system.

What's easier, throw out ALL the pathfinder material and familiarity they have or a one sentence homebrew errata?

SO:

1 new rule vs an entire bible of new rules

"Because sure, having more charisma doesn't really in itself make you better at jumping... But you could see it the other way too, your athletic skills could be a component of your charisma. If you train in jumping to show off, then yea, your charisma can be tied to your jumping skills. It won't in itself make you better at jumping than anyone else who trained just as much and has equal or better strength, though."

This is yet another huge misapprehension that charisma is physical attractiveness.

Listen to footballers speak, compared to a particularly manipulative politician or lawyer who may be physically inadequate in every possible way. That's Charisma, it's not what you've got it's how you use it. Trees may be beautiful but by definition they have zero charisma.

But wisdom. It is WISE to dedicate yourself to having a wider breadth and depth of skills, not all fighters are skilled... but a Wise Fighter, they would be more skilled. A cloak of intelligence tells you the answers in a test, a cloak of wisdom tells you to study for a test.

"As for your claim that summing all of their modifiers would actually grant them less skill points... what kind of characters does your group create...? Fighters with 7 int, 7 wis, and 7 cha?"

Obviously not Wis 7. Int and Cha are 7 because Wis needs to be as high as DexMod. Because Fighter's Reflex and Will saves are not accelerated and they BOTH need to be high so generally dex and wis are pumped up. Charisma and Int cannot compete. Wisdom for things like perception, that make such a huge difference on whether they act in the surprise round or not.

"Please, if their characters' combined int, wis, and cha modifiers are lower than their int modifiers, they reek of cheese. And the solution to cheese isn't changing the rules..."

No, it's just int and cha combine wipe out Wis-mod. Also it's needlessly complicated and has too many dependant factors.

PS: cheese is a meaningless pejorative, it has zero discussion value. It is impossible to discuss a matter that is framed in a way that is purposefully and designed to shut down discussion.

I'm calling you out Goblin_Priest, you and everyone who use "cheese" use words that you know can be refuted if you are wrong.

Every-time you say cheese, the only possible conclusion from that is you have no reason why it's a problem.

"And if your beef doesn't even have to do with dump stats, but are all about martials getting less skill points per level... homebrew it? Give them more skill points per level?"

I am homebrewing it, this is the most straightforward rule to give them more Skill Ranks per level. Instead of going through every class and making sure everyone has properly applied the change to each class.

Do you have any already existing house rules that are related to this at all? Something involving skill points, intelligence, etc.

Your last thread made more sense once you actually gave the full context of the problem. And this thread is, so far, seems pretty similar to the last.

Only that humans often don't get skilled but it's not for any house rule on my part but things like Dual Talent archetype being preferred.

This skill ranks disparity is not unique to my games, it is near universal problem.

One thing that has come up is that all the setups, variant rules and homebrew none of which can resolve the imbalance in Skill Ranks between classes.

"Are you certain this isn't just an issue of your game's playstyle causing players to value skill points less? Because it sounds like while skill challenges are present, something else is making the players worry far, far more about combat stats. That's not a system issue, that's a your game or your players issue."

Well we play with permadeath, which is what everyone else does. My sessions like most sessions have no easy resurrections nor do-overs. That gives a huge bias to no-dying. They KNOW they will face threats that they NEED stats other than int to survive, skills would be for options that might not be there and they could ignore.

I don't get it, I was berated endlessly and mercilessly for not giving full and absolute appreciation for how unequivocally important it is to be able to make Wis and Dex based saves. Now everyone is saying "just buff int" as if that won't inherently be at a cost in other ability scores.

So how about instead you explain how yours is different.

And please don't be vague, please be specific.

Because I can be specific.

Specifically clerics get a very raw deal in how they have to put ability-ranks everywhere except in Int and only have a base of 2 skill points per level.

Specifically Wizards will not even end up as bad off as Fighter in terms of skill ranks as even with their high will save they won't benefit from and don't even have to let wis dip as low as Int does for a fighter. Along with background skills variant rules they will remain well in utility checks and can still easily get Fly to rank-5 and so on.

Specifically Monk is well deserving of something like this as they lack so much in material advantages, they have to lean on their skills more than any other, it's good for them to be able to have the skill ranks to maximise acrobatics to make it through deep threatened areas.

Specifically Paladin will not suffer such an onerous three way split in mental stats.

So I ask you: what do you think will go wrong?

Warpriest will only be as well off as Wizard used to be in terms of Skill Ranks. Inquisitor will have the most skills but they probably need them the most for how they are trying to get intimidate, sense motive, bluff and diplomacy maximised to the point of really being useful. It's kind of their "thing".

Because your changes seems more like a buff to casters.

Taking away skilled is doing away with up to 50% of fighters skill ranks, while wizards would only lose one tenth or so.

Fighter's skill ranks are impossible to fix on a racial level, even Skilled is a drop in the ocean.

While it is technically true that Caster would be better for getting something that they don't have it doesn't build on what makes casters great. Exotic weapons DO build on what matrials are good at such as Bolas. Bolas would be a terrible idea for a caster considering they can already get Thunderstomp.

"The climb speed isn't really all that important, but you're making a str based skill easier, which is better for classes which dumps strength. Namely casters."

Let's follow this logic through. Remember, this climb speed gives absolutely no bonuses, the difference is they can always take a ten. Now there's the problem, their strength is so poor that taking a 10 won't do it. It will do it if they need to do something really simple like climb a ladder, which they should NOT repeatedly fail as I have seen happen. But if they want to climb the side of a building they will have to roll for it in comparison with a strength based character that can take a 10. This is thematically consistent as a big burly fighter who has trained to wear his armour without penalty climbs with great reliability. A wizard may be able to follow but is very likely to slip and fall, or fruitlessly try to haul up the first bit hopelessly.

Yes I concede that once you've got enough skill ranks and other bonuses then taking a 10 will do you well, but I'm wary to try to nerf casters like wizard and hit other dex focused builds in the process. After all, Wizards still have enough tricks up their sleeves when their physical stats fail them.

Who I really don't have it in for are Dex based fighters, monks and similar. This is the problem I see with trying to attack characteristic weaknesses of Wizards is people forget who else share such physical stats and often have such stats to emulate the advantage that Wizard has.

And please, do not take something which obviously benefits martials and might be useful for casters as a nerf to martials.

I understand that the major complaint is that players can't purchase all the skills they want.

This is intentional by design

No, the major complaint is that non-wizards can't purchase enough skills to do basic things. And the likes of Wizard and Magus so clearly can because of a combination.

All those sacrifices you talk about are especially bad for the likes of Fighters but not Wizards and so on. You don't actually know it is intentional by design, it may just be a useless quirk. Those happen you know.

Ponder this: If your players chose to dump Int, didn't they also choose to not have that many skill ranks? If they do want skill ranks, why did they dump Int, isn't that very counterproductive?

That's circular reasoning, it's like saying if a man doesn't pay for a car he chooses not to have a car, not that he doesn't want a car and wouldn't like a better balance of economics where he could afford a car. He doesn't pay for a car as if he does then he cannot eat.

Non-int based classes like Fighter don't take int not because they think it's a great option they don't have the skill points, it's just that they need the points to go into the areas that save them from devastating attacks. You want to talk about counter-productive, it's hugely core stats just to end up with half as many skill points as a Wizard who hasn't compromised their awesome combat capability which they deserve.

"Also, how is it that raising the point-buy to 20 (to open room for them to not dump Int, so that they gain more skill ranks) affects the CR but not the switching of Int and Wis as keyed stat (to also net a higher number of skill ranks)? Not having to invest in Int and instead focus on Str/Dex/Con means that their average party strength is higher, wouldn't that also result in higher CR enemies?"

Because int is already well known to be dumped as low as it can go to get the key stats of Strength, Dex and Wisdom as high as possible.

People are NOT going to waste Point Buy 20 on a paltry improvement to Skill Ranks but buff their stats which stop them dying and which they use far more often. Dex and Wis.

How can you presume they'd blow an extra 5 ranks in point buy to move their Int from 7 to 11 for almost no change for a fighter's Skill ranks instead of ticking over their wisdom and dexterity to the next level.

"And your suggestion isn't doing the exact same thing? (treating the symptoms)"

Yes, because the CAUSE of this is Int-Mod causing such huge disparity on skill points regardless of what the allocated skill ranks per level are. Treating the symptoms is seeing this obvious disparity and trying to dot post it notes everywhere on certain classes rather than a single straightforward rule to follow from the start.

"And Int is beneficial to ALL classes, not only certain casting classes, since it does grant everyone more skill ranks."

This is circular logic, int should remain the modifier for skill ranks per level because it is the modifier for skill ranks per level.

"The real cause seems to be that your players are dumping Int without realising that they're suffering because of it."

They know they are suffering for it.

They just know damn well they'd suffer MORE to do anything but to dump int. It's not damn good to just say don't dump int, that's not how this works, that's not how ANY of this works!

No.

I'm in favor of raising skill point per level for classes, but not in favor of allowing Wisdom to be used to determine the additional modifier.

... because...

Such a statement is usually followed quickly by a rationale.

"I think all non-intelligence based classes should have a minimum of 4 skill points per level, modified by int."

And who is that different? It's still targeting non-int based classes to get more skill points, the only difference is that wizards are protected where they don't even need protection. With Background Skills then Wizards are even less in need of skill ranks.

"If this is insufficient to rebalance things the way you want you could add even more skill points per level to a class."

Oh, even MORE.

"But I don't think you should ever get Wisdom as an additional bonus in skill points."

... because?

It's not like Fighters have Wis as high as Wizard's have their Int, classes that are Wis based also can't maximise Wis as the likes of Cleric have to spit their focus with Charisma and generally are heavily armour focused on AC which with armour check penalty means they need skill ranks just to bring their rolls back to base-line levels.

You aren't really addressing my reasons, the relative merits of how Int and Wis are used and whether one or the other is used for modifying Skill ranks per level.

"If anything, I'd be more in support of a new class based of the cleric/oracle which uses int as a casting stat, but not a wholesale change of adding wisdom to the amount of skill points earned."

Uhh, new classes is obviously a wholesale change. It's a fiddle where you have to go through everywhere and you have to be careful as some parts of cleric use int for some things, some domains and archetypes. I can't even remember where.

"Any class that isn't int based would dump int (as moast already dump cha) and everyone would only increase Wisdom because it would be the only mental stat that did anything."

How the hell do you get to Strength 19 while retaining decent will and reflex saves on point buy 15 without dumping both Int and Charisma. Strength 19 is key as it's an even number so efficient with two handed fighting and you can swiftly move it up to the next even StrMod around Lv5-6. Dex and Wis can be moderately high and odd numbers. So level 8 and 12 either gets a swift buff with the inherent ability score.

Int is already being dumped. The idea that it simply shouldn't be seems so totally detached from the actual mathematical realities of the rules.

While skill ranks are important to things between combat, Strength, Dex and Wisdom keep them from having to tear up their character sheet because their character is dead. This is an environment where Reflex and Will saves become so horrifically critical for actually being allowed to continue playing your character. Having int just for skill ranks is a luxury they cannot afford especially as a fighter going from Int 11 to Int7 only loses one skill point per level, yet unlocks

@Snowlilly

A fighter with 8 skill ranks per level is ridiculously costly, that's something like Int20.

" maximizing every possible ounce of efficiency from combat at the expense of being unable to perform out of combat."

Wizard currently doesn't have to make that choice, Wizard can be very good in combat and have plenty of skill ranks not to mention all their spells which help them out of combat. And they have such a high will save they can leave Wisdom at baseline and be fine, and can easily dump strength for dex.

This balance needs to be redressed, not be hand waived with Fighters using a Wizard style point buy yet without having the actual class features of a wizard to make such a point-buy viable.

I think it is not a problem but _exactly_ the game working as intended for the wizard to have the most skill ranks. The rogue or bard is the physical skill monkey, and the wizard is the intellectual skill monkey.

Maybe we don't play the standard way, but a character that dumped int would not fit it very well in our games, simply because their character would be awful at their class's required knowledge skills. For most classes, the expectation in our games is that they will be competent in all knowledge skills that are class skills for them. That way, the wizard can take the critical knowledge skills (which we need two party members that are good at to protect from the occasional bad roll) as well as the ones that are critical for his character.

I think what it comes down to is that if knowledge skills are important enough in your game, players won't dump int. If the cleric doesn't do well enough in knowledge religion to identify the undead enemy, someone in the party is going to get badly hurt when the bloody skeleton explodes.

Could you elaborate on this?

Because nothing in the rules says you can't take-a-10 on knowledge checks, I kind it quite reasonable to drop manuals as the effective "masterkwork tools" for a +2 to such knowledge skill checks so they can at least make DC10 checks even on int 6. So people can:
Identify mineral, stone, or metal (Dungeoneering)
Identify dangerous construction (Engineering)
Identify a creature's ethnicity or accent (Geography)
Know recent or historically significant event (History)
Know local laws, rulers, and popular locations (Local)
Know current rulers and their symbols (Nobility)
Know the names of the planes (Planes)
Recognize a common deity's symbol or clergy (Religion)

"For most classes, the expectation in our games is that they will be competent in all knowledge skills that are class skills for them."

This is what the Background Skills variant rules are great for.

"I think what it comes down to is that if knowledge skills are important enough in your game, players won't dump int."

If I were to make them so important that would CLEARLY favour Wizards who already had it so damn good in terms of int let alone other things. They'd have tp dump the stats that would allow them to keep pace with Wizard's balls powerful spellcasting.

You all seem to have the crazy idea you can pump up int without consequence.

Int would have to be made far FAR more valuable than knowledge checks could possibly provide for.

They can cherry pick their primary stats and their dump-stat (this is, in effect, twice as good as the regular human Ability Score adjustment) AND they can pick up any martial or exotic weapon (I really don't see why you even bothered to put the "restriction" there), which is worth a feat alone. It's the ultimate cheese. With that, there's even less reason to play other races.

I really do wonder what you think this would accomplish, it seems more like changes for the sake of a change. And again, you really don't need to bump humans in power or versatility. They're already on top.

Welp that's only equivalent to people cherry picking race which already have the bonuses in the primary stats they want and negatives in the stats of their choice. This is in fact far more equivalent to almost every other race in pathfinder, other races who also get martial and even exotic weapons proficiencies just for being of that race which may be equivalent to a feat but it's also equivalent to some mundane traits.

This "there's a feat that does that" logic falls apart as some feats are such incredibly low value Exotic Weapons Proficiency being one of them. You can't treat it the same as if it was a bonus feat as that as bonus feats would be spent on something far more valuable than EWP.

"It's the ultimate cheese. With that, there's even less reason to play other races."

Good.

Because that's a terrible reason to play other races.

If someone wants to play and Elf it should be primarily because they want to Role Play as an Elf. Not search through all the races for the stats that they want. Because I am fed up of Elven or Tiefling Wizards who don't give a crap about being an races that are so radically different from what's familiar, they only took it for the stats. And not to mention that so many classes other than Wizard don't have ANY race that synergises with the stats they need to have high.

"I really do wonder what you think this would accomplish"

I don't know, what the title of the thread said it was going to do?

Still not 100% sure what the problem we are trying to solve is. Is it lack of skill points? Or that wizards are so all-powerful? Given that removing a few skill ranks isn't going to change the wizards being all powerful problem, I'm going to assume it is lack of skill ranks.

So some solutions
1: House rule that you can't dump int to below 10 (or below 9 or whatever)
2: Use background skill ranks from unchained (essentially you get an extra two skill ranks a level but use them on non adventure centric skills)
3: Give people more than a 15 point build
4: Make up a new feat that gives everyone an extra skill rank per level
5: House rule an additional 1 or 2 or 3 skill points per level for everyone.
6: Start putting some RP penalties on characters who have dumped INT
7: put in some uses for INT based skills (codes that makes linguistics useful) - so they don't see INT as a dump stat.

These are all much easier alternatives than moving the bonus skill points away from INT.

The corollary of the post is pretty much "Why bother with int as a stat, lets just get rid of it. Wizards could use Cha or Wis instead."

Actually going back to my list above, if you put 1 and 3 together - disallow INT dumping, but give everyone extra build points, then I think your basic problem would be solved. Characters would have an extra 2 skill points per level, and the rest of their stats would stay pretty much the same as they are today. a 7 INT gives you 4 build points after all.

Mainly lack of skill points.

Wizard isn't really any less game-bendingly powerful for only 2-3 skill ranks per level.

"1: House rule that you can't dump int to below 10 (or below 9 or whatever)"

That is a nerf to non-casters and still makes a pitiful dent in the problem. The last place people want such tedious rules is as they are fiddling with point buy such an obtuse diktat. It's even more invasive and disruptive ruling yet hurts non-casters and is a huge boon for int-based casters.

"Use background skill ranks from unchained"

Thanks for the tip, I will use that along with this and it's great for everyone to be able to put 2-ranks per level (never more or less) into a selection of the most neglected skills. But they were neglected for a reason, because they had so little impact on game balance and were mostly aides to character development.

"Give people more than a 15 point build"

it doesn't work, because as point buy goes up, CR of enemies goes up, they prioritise Dex, Con and Wis, as you should, these keep you alive, these stop you from being crushed, for a fighter the change in int at most results in them now getting 2 skill ranks per level rather than only 1 which is still too damn low.

By comparison, last time I was on point buy 25 the wizard was able to get strength pretty good which meant they felt better giving themselves magical buffs rather than being a team player. When Wizard had to dump strength he was never going to consider trying to go all composite longbow.

" Make up a new feat that gives everyone an extra skill rank per level "

This is AGAIN going to leave non-casters far in disadvantage this is less than a zero-sum change they are giving up feats which have to make up for lack-of-spells to still get a paltry increase in Skill points. And again, the status quo is they have a calculated Skill ranks per level at zero or negative and it bottoms out at 1 rank, so anything spent to gain another rank isn't granting them any improvement as they're still getting 1 rank per level.

"House rule an additional 1 or 2 or 3 skill points per level for everyone."

This is treating the symptoms, not the cause. The Cause of this is int-being hugely beneficial for certain casting classes but being too divisive in importance for non-casters.

"Start putting some RP penalties on characters who have dumped INT "

That is entirely antithetical to the concern this thread has raised, it is going to entirely favour Wizards YET AGAIN. RP penalties for something like that is terrible game design, it will make character development stressful for classes like fighter who have enough plates to keep spinning in term of ability score.

"put in some uses for INT based skills (codes that makes linguistics useful) - so they don't see INT as a dump stat."

This is so biased in favour of Casters who unequivocally can have many dump stats with insignificant consequence but Fighters need to be strong everywhere and to get less out of it.

"These are all much easier alternatives than moving the bonus skill points away from INT."

They are actually all far more complicated. Just use Wis_mod for skill ranks instead of IntMod. It's that easy. Yes, classes like Inquisitor get buttloads of Skill ranks, but that would depend on anyone playing inquisitor. More importantly is Cleric isn't terrible.

"The corollary of the post is pretty much "Why bother with int as a stat, lets just get rid of it. Wizards could use Cha or Wis instead.""

As a balance for the strongest classes like Wizard who get SO MUCH from Int.

Int is also the bookworm stat, it's for academic and item knowledge. See you might actually get players talking and interacting with each other, Wizard has the Informative Intellect for knowledge checks, he's the walking wikipedia, but the Fighter-type classes have the practical skills and knowledge.

Wizards should NOT use other stats, that would again be making wizards EVEN MORE POWERFUL. Importantly it doesn't leave wizards so able to operate independently.

"Actually going back to my list above, if you put 1 and 3 together - disallow INT dumping, but give everyone extra build points, then I think your basic problem would be solved."

Greeeeeeeat, Fighter spends their extra point buy just to bring their Int up to the required amount for a trivial change to skill-ranks per level, Wizard uses their extra point-ranks to buff everywhere else where is really matters. Not only is this more complicated and less flexible but it doesn't solve the problem and bodges it with +1 sprinkling. It's easy for the GM to sprinkle +1s only at the cost of the class rules having much significance.