Arknath's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. 49 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 2 wishlists.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber


Thank you so much for your quick response and your guidance!! A very pleasant experience to be had from an unfortunate event.

I will send a picture of the damaged book to you, though it appears that the USPS is to blame, the box was incredibly mangled and the book itself looks like i was stepped on in the middle.

Thanks again!

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber


I received this order today (Horror Adventures) and was disappointed to see that the box (and the book inside) had been horribly mangled. How can I go about getting a replacement?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:

1) nowhere it say "you don't smell the people inside".

2) the people inside are behind an opaque shield, not invisible. There are differences. An animal has experience with items behind opaque obstacles, from bushes to rocks. He would try to bypass the obstacle or move away.

3) yes, it is fairly powerful if used in combat against dumb opponents.

1) True, but the point is you generally have to be within 30' to smell them because you can't see them...which is the same as invisibility IMO

2) The spell grants the party total concealment and renders you practically immune to targeted effects. As invisibility, this gives you 50% miss chance and no line of sight. What other differences (besides having to stay within the hut thus you're not as mobile) are there between this and invisibility?

Your second point is an argument made by my players. My question is: upon being attacked from within the hut, would it seem unrealistic that an unintelligent creature would a) realize that the attack came from the hut and b) charge the hut to attack those that it figures "inside" it, since the hut looks nothing like what its used to seeing?

3) This seems unbalanced as one party member can render an encounter with unintelligent creatures over before it ever begins, especially at high levels where damage is dealt quickly.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hi all!

Had this come up in my game the other day and couldn't find a suitable answer on Google, so I'm here.

Typical question regarding this spell (it seems): PCs used the spell to camp out during a battle and wreak havoc upon their enemies. For below, keep in mind that our games are usually not combat-centric; meaning we try to play the creatures with some sort of intelligence/instinct instead of a "to the death" encounter.

Points of debate:

1) Spell gives area of effect "greater invisibility" to up to 10 allies. Understand that it's a fixed area, question how it would work against unintelligent creatures (would they attack it? would they stand around confused since it's opaque? etc)

2) If the spell is a utility/rest spell, what's the purpose of the "opaque" distinction? If the spell does not allow for the caster to camouflage the outside appropriately (make it LOOK like it's a natural part of the surrounding area) then it would seem out of place to anyone passing by. This questions whether or not a low-intelligence creature would approach it in a combat situation. One might guess that the better disguised the hut, the less likely a creature will be to attack that area. (Dumb Creature to self presumably w/o scent or more than 30' away from party: "I am being attacked, but can see/smell no enemy. What do i do?).

My argument I guess is this: Tiny hut is not a spell designed for combat, even though it provides protection as good as (displacement) or better than some other combat spells (protection from arrows: immunity to targeted ranged attacks vs. 10/magic vs ranged; mass greater invisibility), albeit for a fixed area. Put these benefits into practice against creatures that are below 7 Intelligence or so...and it can become highly imbalanced.

Example encounter: 4 PCs vs. a Retriever (Int 3; not targeting the PCs specifically, but an NPC, so discern location is not applicable) and zombies + skeletons. All unintelligent creatures.

Question is 3 part:

1) Does Tiny Hut give too much of an advantage when used in a combat situation?

1b) And does this advantage increase vs. unintelligent creatures enough to render the party nigh invincible to unintelligent foes?

1c) And why, if all of this is ok, would my players not create a wand of Tiny Hut and just cast it at the beginning of every combat to negate any type of targeted ranged attacks? (AoE spells notwithstanding - a foil for this tactic to be sure - but when the threat of magic assault is minimal to nil, this becomes a lot more beefy)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber


Just a quick summary of what this is: starting a campaign and my wife would like to play a plant-focused druid. My attempt at an archetype is very rough so my questions to you all are:

1) Is this balanced?

2) Would this be fun?

Here it is:

(FYI, the "plant companions" rule I'm referring to is from Dragon Magazine #357 Class Acts; Short summary is a 1HD plant creature that evolves with selected powers as the druid becomes more powerful, much like an animal companion)


Greenlords, or if they are female - Greenladys, are druids that prefer the comforting presence of plants to the unpredictable behaviors of animals. They believe their power comes from the vegetation that surrounds us all. The Greenlord has the following class abilities.

Nature Bond (Ex): Greenlords and ladies may not select a domain at first level and must choose to have a plant companion. This ability makes use of the plant companions rule.

Nature Sense (Ex): Greenlords gain a +4 on Knowledge(nature) and Survival checks when the check is made to identify navigate through or other situations regarding plants.

Plant Affinity (Ex): The greenlord gains Plant domain and all its granted abilities. This ability replaces Wild Empathy and the ability to spontaneously cast summon nature's ally spells.

Spontaneous Domain Casting: A greenlord druid can channel stored spell energy into domain spells that she has not prepared ahead of time. She can "lose" a prepared spell in order to cast any domain spell of the same level or lower.

Wild Shape (Su): The greenlord gains this ability at 6th level. The greenlord or lady may not use this ability to transform into an animal shape, but can assume the shape of a plant the same level she gains this ability. At 18th level, the druid can change shape into that of a Gargantuan plant. If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you assume those abilities: Damage Reduction, regeneration 10, trample.

Gargantuan plant: If the form you take is that of a Gargantuan plant, you gain a +16 size bonus to Strength, a -4 size penalty to Dexterity, a +8 bonus to your Constitution and +8 natural armor bonus +8.

Awakening (Sp): At 13th level, you may cast the awaken spell as a druid of your level once per week on a plant target only.

This casting is slightly different than the spell, as follows:

1) The plants are under no obligation to serve you in any way and have their own free will to do as they choose. 2) The disposition of the plant when awakened is left up to the DM based on several factors like environment and recent events that have occurred around the plants home.

For example, a tree that has witnessed a humanoid starting a destructive forest fire recently might react with hostility towards a greenlord or may react with friendliness and a sense of unified vengeance upon those who harmed its kin.

This ability also requires a small amount of upkeep. Each month, during the new moon, you must be able to call and hold a meeting - called a moot - with your awakened plant friends. As they have their own free will they are under no obligation to you to answer the call. The physical location of the moot is unimportant, though it is best to hold it in a natural surrounding.

If a plant agrees to become a bonded partner with the greenlord it provides the druid with a faint sensory connection with each plant you awaken in this fashion. You may not have more awakened plants bound to you in this way than half your greenlord level at any one time.

The sensory connection conveys upon the druid a 360-degree sight and sound upon concentrating on a particular awakened friend's life force. The plant is aware of the "intrusion" and can allow or deny the druid to access this ability as it wills. The ability works as long as the druid is on the same plane as the plant in question and the plant is standing on a natural earthen surface (rocks of any kind will forfeit this ability working).

This replaces the thousand faces ability

Any comments and criticisms welcome.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hey all,

Been a while since I've been on...not that any of you should know me...but, at any rate :)

I have a question regarding the new Bestiary 2. It would be great if someone in the know at Paizo is able to answer.

I was going over the book with my fine-toothed comb (as I am wont to do) when I came across the entries for the Centipede (both Whiptail and Titan) and I ask myself "Where have I seen these before?"

So I tells myself, "Look at the first Bestiary". And I did, and I found the entry on page 43 of the first Bestiary as a single line.

My question is...what was the reason to flesh out two creatures that were not worth more than one line each in one book and keep two new different creatures from being put in the new book?

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cosmo wrote:

I'm very sorry that your Bestiary didn't ship when it should have. And it should have. I have refunded you for the PDF.

For some reason, your subscription did not generate the order for the GM Screen, either. I have manually generated this order and, since it should have shipped with the Bestiary, I have knocked $5 off the shipping and handling fee.

the next item in this subscription doesn't come out until May, so we should be good for now. However if, at that time, you don't get a confirmation email when the book is released, let me know.


WOW....thanks a bunch!! Excellent customer service is doing the customer right even when he's a dummy. Much appreciated Cos, glad to know I'm a little less insane than I thought. go put another loyalty weight on the old scale...Huzzah for Paizo!!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Not sure what to say here, but let me preface my inquiry with the phrase "I'm an idiot". Not an idiot in the traditional sense, mind you, but on how this whole Pathfinder subscription thing works.

Let me show you what I mean.

I eagerly signed up for my subscription to all Pathfinder core products back in August/September (right after I received my core rulebook...I was so happy). I was looking forward to getting my Bestiary sometime soon after it's release in October, but it never came.

Life got busy, and I decided that, well, I don't want to BUY the Bestiary in case it comes in the mail and now I've bought and paid for two copies where I only needed one. So, the easiest solution (and thus the reason for my post today) is to buy the PDF. I wasn't going to get one with my subscription, and it was instant gratification.

All was happy until three days ago when I went to see why my hardcover book still hadn't shipped. It seems that I had to manually tell the subscription service to ship it once the book was released, I thought it odd, but maybe the subscription was just waiting for me to start the first shipment before it sent all the rest as expected.

Well, after paying for THAT shipment (which I should be receiving in a few days) I noticed at the end of the order that I would get the PDF for free as a result of my subscription!! Well...I have a dilemma. I'd like to not pay for something I was gonna get for free if I don't have to (I mean, $10 is $10 after all) but, if as a result of my own stupidity (impatience?) I paid for a copy of the PDF when I was eventually going to get it for free after all.

My question is...Is there any way to get a refund on the PDF I purchased for the Bestiary since I subscribe to the subscription service?

Long story long, I know...but just wanted the facts out there.

Thanks to any and all concerned :).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Elf_NFB wrote:
I would like to be able to fill out the blanks and save it using Acrobat Reader.

Try Foxit Reader--it's free.

Mairkurion, is there anything special that has to be done in order to edit the file? I've downloaded the sheet (being an avid user of Foxit Reader already) and I am unable to edit the fields. Any help or an editable sheet would be great!

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Is anyone having any trouble using the interactive sheets with Foxit Reader? I get the bar at the top that says "Highlight interactive fields" but I can't edit the fields.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I really like this setup. I've been going back and forth in another thread and this seems to me by far a better system. The presentation and application are well done and well thought out. Some playtesting needs to be done, of course, but I think the cap and the level based abilities should do the trick. No spells per day for casters, but higher caster level and other such abilities from other classes. Very nicely done, Kae.

Two questions I do have though...can you tell me why, with this system, I would want to stick to a single class other than to get the 20th level abilities?

And: With the increase in number of feats gained, is an "improved multiclassing" feat going to be enough "cost" compared to the gain?

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dennis da Ogre formerly 0gre wrote:
You have not answered the question of why the Wizard 10/ Cleric 1 advances in clerical power faster than a normal Cleric 1 either (after 10 levels a Wizard 10/ Cleric 10 has CL 15/15).

Then I will answer it now. Pure and simple it is looking at the bigger picture than looking at a multiclass character's individual parts. If you have a major and a minor in college, you are not seen as having two separate knowledge bases to work from, it is one. This is the same difference. I'll say it again: A multiclass character is not made up of separate pieces in the game world, the mechanical pieces are used to illustrate the whole character.

Dennis da Ogre formerly 0gre wrote:

Sneak attack==Class specific power

Spells == Class specific power

Class specific powers do not increase when you multiclass unless you use a PrC that specifically allows it to. That is what Wizards "Deemed". If you want to have one class specific power scale with level then you should have parity.

We will have to disagree on this point. I have made my case several times and several ways and you do not provide examples. I will not continue to argue my point with examples when you simple say "this is what WotC meant to happen" and do not give examples to the contrary. If we all agreed with WotC we would not be in this forum right now. So, thank you for your feedback on this.

Dennis da Ogre formerly 0gre wrote:
???? What ???? There is no 1 to 1 equivalence here. By reverse engineering give me a break.

Wait...are you disagreeing with WotC? Make up your mind who's side you're on. There is a 1:1 equivalence here. Whether a wizard does the same damage in one spell as a rogue who can use his sneak attack many times a day, albeit in smaller amounts...the total damage is the same. A fifth level wizard can cast at most 2 fireballs a day (unless he's got some ungodly Int, but we're not talking about 22 Int at 5th level here). So that's 10d6 to multiple targets. So he blows his wad in the first battle so the rogue makes up the difference within swinging his short sword for 4d6 damage when flanking.'s a matter of when and not how the damage is dealt. And if you're telling me that the wizard is not balanced with other class abilities, then you're throwing your whole "WWWotCD" (What Would WotC Deem) argument out of the water. We have to operate on the basis that these classes, for the most part, are balanced.

Dennis da Ogre formerly 0gre wrote:

There is no equivalence because the powers all work completely differently.

You want equivalence? There is no more rage/ day mechanism, rage points determine how many rounds a barbarian can rage. Under your idea a the multi classed barbarian's rage duration is fixed forever while the duration of Bulls strength for the wizard would increase every level. Similarly the number of rounds per day a cleric can use Divine Power increases under your system and again the...

The difference on minute per level spells is laughable. I've not been in too many encounters where the duration of Bull's Strength came into question. But, I digress.

Ok...let's see if a compromise can't be reached. How about, as a core rule, we allow caster level to progress in the way I suggested, but it only effects caster level checks? These would be spell power effects and not variable effects such as damage and duration.

After that, it can be house ruled to include variable effects as well.

What does everyone think?

Caster level increase at 1 for every two levels not taken in that same class (and affects things like duration, damage, etc.)


Caster level increase at 1 for every two levels not taken in the same class (and only has effect on caster level checks, such as Spell Resistance and Dispel checks)

What do we think?

P.S. As an alternate rule, we institute a mechanic similar to one Zynete talked about earlier. Create a caster level bonus (CLB) that each class has (like a BAB) and use that to track this effect for ease of use.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Selgard wrote:

BAH. freakin thing ate my post. *grumble!*

Apologies if I sounded condescending, as that was not my intent. I meant to only point out that this isn't something Paizo did off hand, nor was it a side-decision made in 3.5, but rather it's been something relatively pervasive in the game rather than an accident. If my phrasing or word choice made it come across as condescending then you have my apology as I did not mean for it to be so.

As to the meat of your post, I seem to have been mistaken as to your original intent. (actually i got it confused with some of the other posters- my fault and not yours).


I was hoping it was the way I was reading it and not the intention behind it. So we can put it behind us with no offense taken. :)

I thought you and I were on the same side, but I wasn't quite sure. So, your final opinion on this? It sounds like you are in agreement, but I'm not quite sure...

Oh, and I always do a CTRL + A then CTRL + C on my text for a post...what happened to you has happened to me WAY too often. :)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dennis da Ogre formerly 0gre wrote:

Why should caster level increase when the power of Bardic Song does not?

If caster level increases due to continued use shouldn't a rogues sneak attack continue to increase as well? And before you break out the pointy stick argument assume for a minute that he's multi classing with Wizard.

Addressing this (again) as well.

Caster level does not equal sneak attack damage as a class ability.

Caster level does not equal rage ability uses per day.

Caster level does not equal bardic music uses per day.

The things you are pointing out are, in fact, deemed by WotC to be the equivalent of a new level of spell access plus more spells per level. Look at a 5th level wizard and a fifth level rogue. A fifth level rogue ONLY receives a +1d6 sneak attack damage and a wizard gets access to 1 new spell level and no more spells per day (not counting the one new for 3rd level). So, to counter the fact that they do not receive an increase to spells they receive a feat.

In fact, if you look at the rogue's progression (SRD) there are only two levels where the rogue actually receives another bonus ability other than trapfinding/trap sense increase. So, by reverse engineering, we can surmise that a +1d6 to damage when flanking is pretty beefy and equivalent to a spellcaster level.

Again, as I've stated before...I don't know the rage points ability but from a "usage" standpoint it is the same (in the SRD) weight as sneak attack which we have already determined that is the same is full spellcaster level. Same goes for usage of bardic music. Same goes for any class ability that gets better with additional levels in that class.

I offer you this comparison

rage = bardic music = turning = wild shape = smite = sneak attack = stunning fist = full spellcaster level.

Not a 1:1 comparison but they are either offered more times per day (1/level/day in the case of bardic music and stunning fist) or a limit is put on them per so many class levels (in the form of rage and wild shape and smite) to make up for the fact that some of them are stronger than others.

Caster level is not a class ability that is given. It is a derivative of a class ability. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is a poor mechanic for determining the effectiveness of spells, which is what this thread is trying to fix. It is fine at lower levels but it breaks down severely at higher and higher levels when SR and NPC spellcasters (who have the luxury of being single classed spellcasters without much fuss) increase at a faster rate after say 10th level.

It is the only mechanic that we use to determine the effects of a class ability vs. another character's mechanics. Rogues are not 10th level sneak attackers nor are paladins 8th level smiters. And nothing prevents the use of a rogue's sneak attack or paladin's smite ability that is based on level or power of the opposing mechanic. Caster level vs. spell resistance. Caster level vs. dispel magic. Sneak attack vs. ??? Smite vs. ???.

There are my thoughts on why those classes shouldn't be allowed to advance on their class abilities. Because they would be undoing the balancing we are working towards (tipping the scales back to being unbalanced) if we did that.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Selgard wrote:

The problem is:

what you want is something for nothing.

Mystic Theurge (sp? butchered that one, i know) only gives + spell casting for 10 levels to two classes.
It does Not pregress anything else for the classes.

Bonus feats? No
Familiar? No
Turning? No

Your proposition is to give for free something that a 10 level prestige class currently doesn't give.

Since you didn't quote anyone and you mentioned original post, I assume you're talking to me. So, based on that assumption...

I don't even know where to BEGIN to debunk the first part of your post. Either you haven't read the entire thread, which is your fault, or I haven't been entirely clear in my purpose, which is mine. Either way, I feel that I've had to explain it several times in this thread alone. Regardless of that, here is one LAST time I will explain my position. After this it's up to the individual reader and I can't - in good faith - read anyone who gets it as wrong as you have again.

The addition to rules I'm suggesting affects caster level only. Not spells per day, not new spell-levels gained, not spells known, not bonus feats, not familiars, not turning...NONE of that. ABSOLUTELY NONE of those would increase with multiclassing.

My suggestion is only to increase the arbitrary number used to determine a spell's effects: dispel magic effects, variable damage and SR checks, JUST TO NAME A FEW.

That's it! Real simple. I'm not mimicking a 10 level prestige class that gives you a full caster level (increased spells per day, new spell levels, etc.) at every level in two classes. I am unsure of your basis for that statement unless some miscommunication has taken place. But the funny thing is...

Selgard wrote:

The original phrasing of your post, about the first half, had me thinking you were going in another direction and I'll post what I think of that here:

The problem with caster multiclassing is overcoming SR.
Therefore I would accept a rules change to multiclassing that allows a character to add 1/2 of other classes to their caster class *for the purposes of SR checks*.
A 10/10 wiz/cleric combo would shoot SR checks at 15th caster level- a boost to both but not overpoweringly so.
I would further limit it that such bonuses can't exceed half the actual caster level in the caster class it applies to.
(so 2/18 would yield CL of +1). seem to understand it here. This is exactly what I'm talking about and you nailed it to a "t".

I don't think a cap is necessary seeing how caster level isn't an overpowering thing when you don't get new spells and spell levels. In fact, and I may be wrong on this, I don't think it's mathematically possible - sans feats - to have a caster level higher than 15 for a multiclassed spellcaster character.

Practiced spellcaster is a band-aid along with all the classes like the Mystic Theurge and, with this new system, it should probably be up to an individual DM to allow or disallow it as they see fit. IMO, the thing that those classes and that feat are trying to fix is exactly what we're addressing in this thread. After all, we're tweaking rules for a stand-alone system...there's no way we can keep track of all the thousands of content pieces available to D&D gamers.

SR isn't the only thing based on your caster level. Dispel magic uses it to determine whether or not you can turn off someone else's spells. Even if you are a 10/10 cleric/wizard, it's my opinion the character knows a bit about magic and even though he's not as powerful as a 20th level character in a single class, he's got more ability to dispel magical effects than a 10th level caster.

So, I'm confused as to what you're nay-saying. I'm against giving bonus feats and class abilities for multiclassing same as you it seems. So some explanation would be wonderful as to where you're coming from.

Selgard wrote:
You are correct in saying that you do not get as much for multiclassing as you do for staying in one class. This is not an omission or a mistake or an accidental oversight. It's been this way in 3.0 and 3.5 and in Paizo. It is a specific design philosophy that Paizo has taken to the extreme by introducing MORE class features. Class features that explicitly help you make the choice to STICK with one class rather than multiclassing out.

The first part of this appears a bit condescending. I have played D&D for over 15 years and I helped playtest 3.0 when it first came out so I'm not a novice to this game. Just to let you know where I'm coming from concerning my gaming and rules experience.

Regarding Paizo's decision to decrease multiclassing by giving more class options, I applaud their efforts. I can't wait to play my first single classed character to 20th level ever using this new system. However, that doesn't mean that there will be absolutely no multiclassing in the game. We're fixing broken parts in 3.5 but as long as there is more than one core class there will be multiclassing. So why not take the opportunity to fix that when we can? This is all brainstorming and all the feedback that has been put on this to date is a result of open discussion. :)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Raqel wrote:
If 1/2 progression was put in you get abberations like a 5 Wizard/ 5 Sorcerer/ 5 Cleric/ 5 Druid, drop in 4 practised spellcaster feats and you got 4 casting classes all at CL 16 and god knows how many spells a day. I see that as a bit over powered in any game.

Well, IMC without a REALLY good background story, this combination wouldn't be allowed. I mean, I guess we have to build the system for the lowest common denominator but I mean, come on. How many different situations are we going to need to plan for when someone tries to min/max his or her character? First there was the fighter19/wizard1 then some point DM fiat has to come into play.

Having said all that, this is the exact thing the new system would allow. This character would have access to all 5th level spells of each class (save sorcerer) and have a decent caster level to affect the world around him. However, having to spend 4 of 7 feats just to do that...well, it's not my taste I'll tell ya that.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Repairman Jack wrote:

You're right in that there's no concern for any mechanic other than caster level. No boost for sneak attack, rage points or bard music from other classes; just caster level.



It is because there is NO NEED for these bonuses. I still have yet to hear your argument (other than "You're not giving the same thing to all classes so it's unfair") for NOT giving caster level to multi-class spellcasters. I'll break down my argument for you:

Caster level affects: Duration, damage, targets, range, spell resistance penetration. (There may be a few things I'm forgetting but this is the main group)

Increasing these effects are not unfair to other class abilities. I'll be honest, I'm not familiar with Rage Points but bardic music, sneak attack and everything else that gets better is the equivalent of a full spellcaster level (new spells known and more spells per day) and not the equivalent of caster level by itself. If a rogue gets a d6 more sneak attack, it has been put forth that that extra d6 is worth two new spells and a new spell level by a wizard (because they get no other ability at those levels). Caster level affects level-based variable effects and not level-based static effects, a very important distinction.


A wizard 10/cleric 10 fights something with a 25 SR (pretty standard for 20th level). Instead of rolling a d20 and adding 15 (which would be a small amount less powerful than a caster of equal level) they have to add 10. Also, any 5th level spell that allows for more damage than 10 dice or doesn't allow for as many targets makes the multiclass wizard/cleric FAR less influential than his other 20th level nonspellcasting counterparts.

A fighter 10/rogue 10 still gets his 4 attacks per round. He misses out on a few +1's but he can still swing and do damage with the best of them. Plus, there are about 10 times more items and spells that augment a fighter's chance to hit a creature than there are to improve a caster's spellcaster level.

Repairman Jack wrote:
To say Fighters GAIN from a SLOWER BAB progression, so Wizards should gain from NO caster level progression is illogical. Fighters are penalized from a slower progression, so Wizards should be penalized from a total lack of progression when advancing in other than Wizard.

Illogical? is not the addition of +1 every other two levels a "gain"? Doesn't the little symbol in front of the number indicate that it is a move in a positive direction? This argument of illogical mechanic is silly. Of course they gain, albeit at a slower rate. You still have not provided any non-mechanic justification about how a wizard even HAS a BAB progression.

If your campaign looks at things so black and white that you can't see the bigger picture, that's hardly a reason to call others' arguments illogical. I would say the incremental study of class abilities is the most illogical thing I have heard. Multiclassing is not "first I do this, then I do this, then I do this some more, while totally ignoring the other stuff I do, even though I use it every day". It's the mechanic of leveling that puts it in that perspective, not what is actually happening in the story. Open your eyes and see the bigger picture here.

Finally, prestige classes are not meant to fix poor rules design. Simple as that. Anyone who thinks that the Mystic Theurge and all the classes like it are "just fine, thankee" for "fixing" the multiclassed caster problem, are fooling themselves. They could have done just what was suggested here and made a 20-level progression class and been done with it. No reason to take 5 levels of divine/arcane then actually get the character you were wanting.

I must agree with Kaisoku. There is a Base Attack Bonus class feature for all classes, there should be a Base Magic Bonus (or something similar) for all classes as well. I think this is an excellent way to illustrate the issue at hand. If Pathfinder doesn't put this in their book, then I might install it into my house campaign.

Needless to say, I think something needs to be done about multiclassing spellcasters. Multiclassing as a whole is fine...but if you want to cast spells of more than one're pretty SOL as far as being a viable character. Just my opinion...

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kaisoku wrote:

When you gain a level as a Wizard, who does not physical and weapons training whatsoever (in the roleplaying sense), he still gains the following:

BAB increases at a 2:1 ratio
Fort save increases

What does a Fighter get that's non-physical when leveling?

Will save increases

See? This is where you could consider tossing the non-casters a bone (without needing to spend feats or Prestige class levels).

I honesly don't see the point you are trying to make here.

We're not talking "physical" vs. "mental". We're talking class abilities vs. multiclassing.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:

It would be interesting to try running a campaign with both gestalt and normal characters, with the normal characters using the Fast Prgression on the experience chart and the Gestalt ones using the Slow Progression.

== Dennis

As long as the distance between the party level and the multiclassed character...that would be a decent playtestable solution. However, what would keep someone from multiclassing? Just playing devil's advocate here.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zynete wrote:
Repairman Jack wrote:
What justification would you propose for a Fighter level increasing your Wizard's caster level?

The character is not training as Fighter, the character is training as a Fighter/Wizard? He is not some character who one day drops all his martial training to hit the books, then next week completely forgets about wizardry to train his martial skill.

Prestige classes should not be used that way in my opinion. It makes them less prestigious when they are required if you want to multiclass significantly. Besides I should have to leap through hoops and go through a huge library just to find something for my Barbarian/Druid. I should be able to do it easily and without having a giant library. Prestige classes should be special and optional, not required to make your class combination work.

Well, I could not have said this better, Zynete. I agree with you 110% on this.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Repairman Jack wrote:
You seem to be comparing a martial class multiclassing with another martial class to a casting class multiclassing with a martial class. Of course the benefits are going to overlap for martial/martial and not for caster/martial. The benefits for caster/caster often overlap, usually when done with prestige classes.

Maybe this is the base miscommunication. I'm comparing the multi-classing mechanic as a whole. If I multiclass as a martial/caster, I still get BAB when I go up in my caster class. This still benefits the martial class, albeit at a slower rate. I could ask you the same question you asked me, but in reverse: What does training in a caster class do to benefit a martial class? If giving caster's more power makes you uncomfortable, then do not allow caster classes to give BAB to martial classes. Maybe that shows my point more.

[quote"Repairman Jack"]Caster/caster with core classes would not have overlapping benefits, but there is Mystic Theurge that gives the casting benefits of both arcane and divine, only giving up special abilities for the core classes. Wizard/sorcerer mixes are a pain and often confusing. Druid/cleric is sometimes a good combination, but usually just weakens both facets.

So I can multiclass martial/martial core classes and they are stronger class builds than martial/caster or caster/caster? Doesn't that sound one-sided to you? I mean, there are four pure martial classes in the PH and there are 7 caster classes. Caster-level based parts of spells that change do not strike me as terribly powerful esp when the caster's lose access to higher level spells that do that same damage. So, it's just making multiclass spellcasters viable at higher levels.

Repairman Jack wrote:
I could possibly see a caster level increase for mixed arcane casters, half level to each other. Or with mixed divine casters. But definitely not with arcane/divine mixes or martial/caster mixes.

I could get behind this but for simplicity's sake, why not just say it's part of the person's overall spell casting "energy"? Their force of will or their ability but the ability manifests differently for different reasons. A sorcerer/cleric could be driven by part blood, part divine power. I don't see this as far from the realm of story and characters who are sorcerers worshipping a magic god or goddess.

Repairman Jack wrote:
I just don't see what a martial class contributes magic-wise to the character; it should contribute martially not magically.

Then - again - I ask what does a caster class gives martially to the character? Yet they still get BAB...

Repairman Jack wrote:

If you want both, find a prestige class that does both. There's plenty of them. ... In general however, and for core rules, I think this is unneccessary and overpowered.


Sure...let's band-aid a system for a sub-set of characters when the system works just fine for other characters, even though they are fewer in number. Sounds perfectly balanced to me. :)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zohar wrote:

Attempting to refine the idea I originally had:

Spell Shaping Points
You gain points based on your Caster Level. There are magic items and such to improve that so that could satiate anyone wanting to maximize their potential in the usage of metamagic.

I absolutely love this idea, except one thing. Lose the spellcaster level requirements. I think the cost alone will be prohibitive enough. If I want to quicken a magic missile I shouldn't have to wait until 12th level to do it.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Repairman Jack wrote:
What you propose is exactly the same thing as Practised Spellcaster; filling in a weakness. You just want it for everyone and with no cap.

Not entirely true. Yes, it's filling in a weakness but at no cost to the character. And there is a cap, the multiclass caster will never be as good as the pure-class caster because they would not get spells like a pure caster and at 10/10 they'd at most be a 15th level caster.

Repairman Jack wrote:
When you first multiclass, you're choosing the features of a new class over the one you already have. Each time you advance, you make the same choice; one class over another.

This is only partly true. If you're a martial class, when you choose a separate class to take, you're gaining that classes abilities true. However, you're also increasing your BAB which is your bread and butter. All I'm suggesting is that we treat BAB and CL similarly. A 10/10 martial character can find ways to be better and a viable character because they need not overcome things like SR and saving throws. The mechanic of a spell's power being based on caster level decreases every time you take a level in a class that doesn't increase your caster level. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't completely stop the growth, only slow it, like base attack bonus.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Robert Brambley wrote:

My point is - since Swash and Knight are not SRD - I'm hoping to create a system where splat books are no longer needed.

I wouldn't want to steal thunder from the other core classes however. Which is why i didn't include an archer theme. (leaving that to the ranger) or an unarmed theme (leaving that to the monk).

I have never been a fan of splat books, never used their classes - and the reason the splat books were created (aside from generating revenue) was to create or splat together two different existing ideas into one which inadvertantly made them more appealing to many players.

Well, I am sure I'm not alone in saying that I enjoy the splat books. Of course (and this is a discussion I've had with many people) WotC had to do something like this cus the Core books wouldn't sell enough to make the product a profitable one (and I, for one, don't buy adventures at all, so they had to do something).

I have heard around the boards that the reason for Pathfinder is to keep 3.x alive and make ALL of our books have value. I think your suggestions make too much of an imposition onto "base" classes from splat books to warrant those classes be viable continuing choices.

Although, I will say that you are probably correct that any changes to the fighter would probably end up stepping on the toes of the other classes. Unlike you, though, I hope we can keep off of those other classes as much as possible.

I like the concept of the fighter as a master of weapons and I do think that it will take some real creativity to make him different. Here's to hoping we can come to a compromise...cus I'm not the only one who bought the splat books! :)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
tribeof1 wrote:
I favor something like this, if for no other reason than it reduces the need for (flavorless) prestige classes like the Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge. Instead of making it an actual rule change (which bumps into backward compatability) what about making a couple of feats that do the same thing, but with an extra lil flavor built in. Something like these examples:

Well, here's the question that bothers me about that (which is a concise solution for a character option).

When I think of a feat...I think of "adding" to my character to give it cool new abilities that others can't do (usually). So, if I can establish that as where I'm coming from, my next statement might make a bit more sense.

The feat that I can think of off the top of my head that is the worst culprit for not really "adding" something to the character is "Practiced Spellcaster". In my mind, what this feat does is it brings your character up to a level on par with the rest of your party if they didn't have a feat at that level.

Hmmmm...trying to find a good way to explain this. If I get Two-Weapon Fighting, I gain the ability to be more effective with my attack actions in combat. Taking Practiced Spellcasting just feels..."Well, if I DON'T do this, my character's power is below others in the group". If that makes ANY sense at all.

I've put it like this before in other threads I've been a part of (both here and other sites): Feats should be used to add to a character, not to fill a weakness in the character design.

Does this make sense to anyone but me? :)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gaz Errant wrote:

So, I've been looking through the forums and I can't discover whether Jason has addressed this or not - is multiclassing even being looked at for Beta? Or are we gnashing our teeth and arguing for nothing?

*hopes that multiclassing is being looked at*

Well, after looking at the forum message for "Races and Classes" I moved the topic over to the "New Rules" forum since it would be a new rule, technically. This forum is supposed to be for current rules so it kinda belongs in both...but...I dunno. :)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber


I like the idea of theme based fighters too...(what can i say, anything is better than the current solution we have in 3.5 :D). My question to you is...would you say the new fighter should not step on the toes of other classes that are similar? That list include, but is not limited to:

Swashbuckler (Complete Warrior)
Knight (PH 2)

There might be more, but it's just a question. I think your defender and swashbuckler classes borrow from knight and swashbuckler classes quite liberally.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This is a proposal that was originated in the "Races and Classes" forum. I noticed the message at the top of the forum said "New rule proposals" should go here and smacked my forehead. Well, here's something that isn't my original idea (sorry for whomever I'm stealing this from on the boards) but presented for the consideration of the community:

Multiclass spellcasters get the shaft on level-based checks. Caster level checks for penetrating SR is the biggest culprit to this. A multiclassed caster that is 10/10 between one or more spellcasting classes has very little chance on earth to even beat an average SR check like 20 and has no chance to beat anything higher than 30.

This has lead me to think that the caster level of spells cast by a multiclass character needs some sort of boost. The formulas (for simplicity sake) are as follows regarding multiclass spellcasters.

Each same class spellcaster level counts as +1 spellcaster level (SCL)
-- This gives the normal benefits such as additional spells per day and spells known

Each different class spellcaster level or non spellcasting level counts as +1/2 towards the SCL of the other spellcasting class
-- This gives a 5/5 rogue/wizard 7 SCL. This only applies to things such as caster level checks, duration, etc. The same for a clr5/wiz5...they would have 7 SCL for each class.

May not be perfect, but that's what I'm here for. Your thoughts.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
You are the one suggesting a change. You you "Prove It is required". I merely suggest that any change made should affect all classes equally, it's called game balance.

Firstly, I don't even pretend to know what "You you 'Prove it is required'" might mean. I would ask that you clarify and, to expedite our further conversations, at least reread your posts and edit them for communication purposes.

That out of the way, I did prove how it works to some extent. In fact, from my own view, I've proven more for my side than you have for yours. All you have done is said it "won't work" and that I'm overpowering the multiclass spell casters when, as I read up through this thread, there are several people who are even suggesting that CL = Character level (which, IMO, is TOO much). I'm on the "for" side of the argument for this issue. You are on the "against" side of the argument. Therefore, as the representative of that side (so it seems), it is you who must provide the "dissenting opinion". It's called a debate. :)

I am very well aware of game-balance and it is in the name of game-balance that I'm even proposing this issue. So again, as I finished my last post with... If you think it doesn't work, provide your side of the argument in a similar way that I provided mine. Simply saying "Well, you're the one wanting the change" is neither helpful for discussion purposes nor does it benefit the topic at hand in either way. If you want to discuss, let's discuss and respond in kind. If you believe that the current system is fine, then say so and we will move on from that point.

If you cannot or will not continue the discussion, I won't keep running around in circles trying to prove my point to you.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Domains were always a cool way for PCs to add flavor for the god they worshiped. I think - as do many according to my msgboard experiences - that the cleric is the most powerful class in 3.5 and domains are a part of this reason. An extra two abilities (domain powers) that are the equivalent of feats, plus moderate BAB and two good saves, not to mention two more spells per level (on average) than any other "memorize" caster. Pretty powerful.

I think the new domains will spread that power out over several levels. I haven't read all the domain powers yet, but I say that as long as they are relatively powered, the new domain format should be fine.

As some have voiced, the only issue is backward compatibility. If nothing else, Paizo would do well do include some sort of PF Conversion Manual (a la the 2E -> 3E manual WotC did back when they changed to 3E) on how to make domains from other sources maintain their flavor.'s more work for them, but a tool to help me convert my old books would make the PF hardback MORE than worth the asking price.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
My point was and still is that any unilateral change to multi classing should affect all classes, not a small subset. Your contention is that somehow casters are the poor stepchild of the game when it comes to multi casting. As far as I'm concerned you have failed to prove otherwise.

I think I have proven my point most succinctly. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that raising the caster level would unbalance the game so. Your examples have failed to prove your point and, in some cases, prove my point all the more (as stated in my last post). It seems you have not played a high-level multiclass spellcaster before for that is the only reason I can think of you think the system isn't broken.

I don't believe unilateral changing of class abilities is warranted and I am even arguing that that would defeat the entire point of the proposed system. Classes that rely on base attack bonus receive them if even at a slower rate than they normally would. Spellcasters who multiclass receive bonuses that are completely useless to them most of the time. Base attack bonus being the main culprit.

Ogre wrote:
Your theory about synergies falls apart when you multi class with Ranger/ Monk, Paladin/ Rogue, Paladin/ Monk, Rogue/ Wizard, or Rogue/ Cleric. Your 'solution' is tunnel focused on solving a specific problem and ignores the impact the change has on the game as a whole.

It's one thing to say it and another thing to prove it. If you really believe that, give examples of how synergies break down. All of those combinations - with the exception of the rogue/wizard or rogue/sorcerer which was previously talked about - benefit from the main culprit in multiclassed caster's suffering: BAB. Good BAB classes who multiclass with Moderate BAB classes still get 4 attacks a round to do whatever they can do. Moderate BAB that multiclass with Poor BAB suffer in that way. Ranger or Paladin/Rogue? Smite/Sneak attack or TWF/Sneak attack anyone? Paladin or Ranger/Monk? Better attack bonus for Stunning fist including the aforementioned Smite/TWF/Favored Enemy bonus? Cleric is easily the most powerful class in the game, so it's sort of quirky when you multiclass cleric with anything, IMO. Clerics make everyone better, so it might actually break down there a bit. However, the new PF cleric might not be AS powerful. Besides, even a rogue/cleric loses the ability to do a lot of things if they are wearing heavy armor.

There, I've given some examples for why I think that the BAB is a common mechanic that makes multiclassing a non-caster that much better than multiclassing a spellcaster (sor/wiz, drd/sor, brd/drd). My challenge to you, good sir, is to punch holes in the "caster level for multiclass spellcasters" theory regarding it's power vs. the BAB mechanic. I leave you to it. :)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sprain Ogre wrote:
While the new fighter is way cool, I think they still lag a little in way of damage output. While I don't know how well it would work, I was thinking maybe alter the Weapon Training ability to provide a +1 to hit, and a +1 to the damage die of a weapon (for example, a long sword would now do 2d8+mods in the hands of this fighter). While this does get up to 6d8 (with the longsword as an example) at max level, that's still less then a fireball, by dice alone, and not what a rogue is doing in a single hit with sneak. Yes, yes, there are many other factors here, attacks/turn, ability to always use it, would it scale up with crits (20th level fighter who's done all his work with great axes, and now has 6d12 for damage with a x4 crit...), and so on. Alternatively, it could just be a pool of dice, like sneak, that the fighter dishes out on cool factor. Potentially broken? What the fighter needs? What do people think?

I like the original idea which kinda fits into the fact that I like the second poster's idea (Btw, does Monte have a BOXMII? I've only purchased the first one, or am I missin somethin? :) ).

Sprain Ogre, I like the concept of this and it's something I've been trying to figure out in my games as well. I've always thought that, on the whole, the fighter-types (particularly the fighter) don't do enough damage. Paladins have smite evil, barbarians have rage, rangers have favored enemy...all as class skills. What do fighters have? The Weapon Specialization tree? Well, yeah, but they have to take those as feats. Why not do something like you're suggesting and turn the Weapon specialization feats into fighter class abilities (or give them the feats in addition to their bonus feats at certain levels)? The only thing that I can think of immediately that scares me about your suggestion is - as you said - number of times per day. 6d6 4 times per round is WOW...but you already took that into account regarding cool factor. Maybe some "Metacombat" feats for fighters, a la metamagic? Sacrifice X to do extra damage.

One of the things that I've always thought about fighters is "Yeah, they get more feats than anyone...but their feats that require other feats to use are reduce that number of feats". So, I think it takes 4 feats to get to the Weapon Specialization that gives you a +8 to hit. Well, great...I've got +8 to hit with a certain type of weapon...meanwhile, my only class ability of "greater number of feats" has been reduced by 3 because those other feats are useless now. Which is really weird because you have to have a certain level of fighter to qualify for those feats anyway.

So...more feats aren't the answer. How about, as a special bonus, or in addition to styles, fighters have the ability to "stack" feats? I take Cleave at 3rd level (or whenever I qualify) and when I qualify for Great Cleave, I replace Cleave with it AND get another bonus feat? I dunno..just brainstorming. Dead feats bother me. :)

One other thing I would like to add here. A while back, Dragon Mag did an article (I think it was just after 3.5 came out) on fighters with variant skill lists. I think this is VERY pertinent to something like a "style" or "theme" mentioned above. I would like to see fighters have the ability to have access to acrobatics if they are strictly a "finesse" type style. Again...just brainstorming.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
Arknath wrote:
Without trying to be to snide, it is what it is. Unlimited is unlimited. It means "no limit" which is to say it's "more times per day than a spellcaster has spells".
Um... no it isn't, it's limited by the very real fact that everyone in the party can do only so much in a given day. Casters run out of spells, barbarians run out of rage, rogues run out of hit points and the party cleric is out of spells. Evaluating an ability based on a theoretical limit == infinite is ridiculous, you need to evaluate what impact it will have on normal game play.

I believe that the above is an incorrect statement. Not only are all but one the abilities listed in your statement have a number of times per day they can be used, but again you are basing this discussion on what is "normal" and what is not. I've had groups run 9-10 encounters a day and I've had one run 1-2. Obviously each class (without ANY modification) has advantages and disadvantages in both scenarios. IMO, if you have an ability that is only useful in certain situations, it is in your best interest to see that those situations are more - and not less - frequent.

In addition, you've managed to completely ignore what I said in my previous post about 1/4 of the spellcaster's abilities being - either - completely negated or the damage done being halved by saving throws or spell resistance. So what if I can cast a 5th level spell that does 15d6 damage if all the target has to do is make a roll of 10 or higher on a d20 (save DC 20 without spell focus) and it turns into a 7.5d6 damage spell? Or, better yet, I fail the caster level check because I only have 10 caster levels and the creature has SR 32?

There are only three ways a non-spellcaster's attacks can be completely negated: DR, Healing (fast or otherwise) and missing the target. Every class gives a nonspellcaster the ability to decrease the chance of missing the target, and given enough attacks and/or money you can easily overcome the DR and healing aspects. What can casters do but take feats (granted, more readily available in PF) to overcome SR/Saves? Very few magic items exist to increase the ability to do either. Which leads me to your next point...

Ogre wrote:
So now you are assuming certain synergies... what if it was a rogue/ wizard? Suddenly there are no 4 attacks per round. Plus... who hasted him?

Um...of course! We ARE talking about 20th level characters are we not? There are far more options available to non-casters to increase their AB/Damage than there are for spellcasters. Of course, we could go around all day long about which multiclass combinations would be stronger than which, but as a general rule, I think it's futile to discuss that ad nauseum. You simply cannot remove a non-caster's magic items from him to try and compare him with a spellcasting character of equal level. I don't know ANY 20th level non-spellcaster (save MAYBE the monk) that would be able to close the distance with a wizard and win in a fight before he was simply roasted. This is the fault of the system because spells are numerous, varied and powerful in what they can do. So yeah, you have to assume that a non-spellcasting character has abilities passed what is given in his class table. Without it, the spellcasting character would win every time.

As a side note, the example you give is the exact thing we are attempting to fix!! A rogue with 10 levels of wizard isn't particularly strong at ANYTHING. Yes, he will have two attacks but he will also be able to cast a decent spell that will likely penetrate SR or make the target fail a save. I think the build you are suggesting is a weak build in the current system, compared to other class combinations. So I don't disagree with you there.

I think the weakest build I could think of here is wizard/sorcerer. At most two attacks per round (if that) and two different spell levels. Just because they are similar classes, doesn't make them unplayable. I could think of at least a few reasons a person, storywise, would want to play such a character. But that's me :).

0gre wrote:

Screw it. I've made my point. It's clear neither of us is going to convince the other and this conversation is going in circles.


Finally, I will disagree one last time. I do not believe any point was made here and the discussion was nearing at least an understanding. Obviously you don't feel that way and that's your prerogative. I - however - think the idea has merit and deserves to be at least playtested. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, but the theory needs testing before it is summarily dismissed as a "bad system". If you think you have a better way to handle multi-classed spellcasters, then I think you should share it. Or you may be fine with the way things are, but that would certainly explain the vehemence with which you've seemed to disagree with the preposal that I'm making here.

I think the system needs to be fixed and we're at a key opportunity to do it.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
"Unlimited" sounds so impressive. Let's look at how unlimited it really is.

Without trying to be to snide, it is what it is. Unlimited is unlimited. It means "no limit" which is to say it's "more times per day than a spellcaster has spells". So, while you may or may not be correct in your assumption of how groups outside of the ones you've been in work, it still means that when the wizard forces the party to rest, the rogue can get to do what they do without resting.

Ogre wrote:
Personally I think that's being generous, maybe you think it's not. In any case 12 is a much more reasonable assumption than "infinite" which is what you seem to be implying. So 12x3d6 = 36d6 damage output increase for the rogue (assuming he never misses)

I don't see how you are making a case for a multiclass wizard under my new system (which is the equivalent of a 15th level caster) with the damage that a rogue can do at 5th level (which is when they do 3d6 sneak attack). If you're going to do a comparison, then I think you ought to be a little more fair than that. It shows your bias against the proposed solution.

And lets assume, for a second, that you meant a 10/10 ranger/rogue. So a rogue gets 5d6 sneak attack damage plus any other damage that stacks with that ability (maybe Favored Enemy or magic weapons or weapons or feats that help rogues do more with their sneak attacks). There is a rogue in my current campaign that is doing 5d6+5 damage every time he sneak attacks. It stands to reason that a multiclass rogue at that level at least gets 4 attacks per round on a full attack, and 5 when he's hasted, even more if he took - like a smart character - the TWF combat style.

So, even using your "12 sneak attacks per day" - which I think is not generous for a high level character like I'm saying because of the extra attacks - 48d6+60 = 228 average damage. Not to mention that base attacks and favored enemy attack bonuses mean that the rogue has a better chance of doing this damage than a wizard because of saving throws and spell resistance (which everyone has at 20th level). On top of this, my estimation is low, IMO.

Ogre wrote:
That's 6 spells out of 16... I don't see your case for "unlimited" sneak attack damage versus "limited" spell damage holding much water here.

To keep the ratio you're talking about, I think it increases to at least 12 of 16 spells to make it equal the damage of what an actual multiclass 20 level rogue can do. Also, you're still not taking into account the fact that at LEAST 1/4 of the wizard's spells will not break through SR or will be saved against for half or no damage (even worse under the old system). Also, the rogue could still have another unlimited number of encounters if he wanted to, whereas the wizard is done with one more encounter. If put in the proper perspective and given a fair, unbiased comparison, I think it is your reason not to adopt this suggestion that is unable to contain water, my friend. :)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
What you are suggesting is a change to the system which benefits the classes that are considered the most powerful ones in the game. Giving a rogue an extra 3d6 damage on sneak attack isn't as benign as giving a wizard an extra 5d6 on cone of cold? Giving the ranger an extra +2 damage for favored enemies is worse than extending the duration of every single wizard or cleric spell by 50%? I guess it isn't as benign to the wizard or cleric.

I will disagree with you on this point. You're statement about "most powerful classes in the game" only apply to spellcasters whose spell level equals their character level (straight spellcaster + prestige class with spell levels added). I would be shocked if you could find me a 10/10 multiclassed spellcaster as powerful as a character that has 20 spell levels. The shear power behind the "caster level" mechanic would outweigh anything the 10/10 character could do.

Ogre wrote:
The point is, any sort of multi classing changes should benefit all classes across the board, not just caster classes.

You're comparing abilities that the other classes have no limit on. Yes a multiclass rogue can "only" do 3d6 but he can do that an unlimited amount of times per day. Just because spellcasters pack more power in one punch than a non-spellcasting class that can do a more consistent amount of damage for as long as they are swinging a sword, I hardly think that compares. In fact, I would go so far as to say that increasing class abilities for non-spellcasting classes that multiclass would fly in the face of what we're trying to do here.

Btw, I would like to clear up what I'm suggesting (and actually I'm just echoing an idea I saw on the Alpha 2 boards).

Multiclass spellcasters get full spellcaster level for all spellcasting levels they have (base class + prestige class levels that grant spellcasting level). They get 1/2 caster level (changes to damage, duration, targets, rolls to overcome spell resistance, ability to create magic items, etc.). They do not receive any new spell levels, more spells known or more spells per day.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

Twowlves wrote:
Since the PRPG gives feats every other level instead of every 3 levels, the simplest answer to me is to make Practiced Spellcaster a core feat (or one very nearly like it).

Let me say one more time: I abhor the use of feats just for the sake of making your character on par with other characters in the game. If you have to take a feat to bring yourself in line with other PCs, then it's a real waste because for every feat you spend this way, that's another feat (power, ability) your party members have over you.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
The problem with your simple theory about advancing casting levels is that it leaves other classes in the dark. If you have a Rogue/ Wizard should your Rogue skills and class features advance as your level goes up? Should a Barbarian 10/ Sorcerer 10 have Rage points as a Barbarian 15 and cast as a Sorcerer 15? How do spells known for the sorcerer work?

I'm not going to pretend to know (b/c I haven't read the PF rules completely) what rage points are but what you're suggesting isn't as benign as a caster level (only) increase. Your last question above gives me the impression that you're not really informed about what I'm talking about. Sorcerers would not gain additional spells known, only the caster-level dependent parts of their spells would be affected.

Ogre wrote:

What about a Ranger/ Rogue, one of my favorite multi-class combos, a lot of potential synergy there and it would be even more awesome if the Ranger 10/ Rogue 10 had the class features of a Rogue 15/ Ranger 15... maybe just backstab as a 15th level rogue and favored enemy advancement?

Taking your corner issue of casters only, how do you make a hard and fast rule that is fair to all classes?

-- Dennis

Again, I think your "improving class abilities" of class benefits would be the equivalent of giving a spellcaster more spell levels and not caster levels. What we're doing is giving the caster who multiclasses into two or more non-similar spellcasting classes a way to be viable. I don't think there is a need for an increase in other classes abilities because you're bringing multi-classed spellcasters up to par with the rest of them.

Make sense?

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Multiclassing spellcasters. Yeah...

First and foremost, I think it was said best in the Alpha 2 thread. A formula for gaining Caster Level (no new spell knowledge, but variable effects and spell strength for dispelling and breaking through spell resistance):

Same class = +1 caster level
Different class = +1 caster level/2 levels

So the aforementioned Wizard 10/Cleric 10 would be a 15th level spellcaster for both his divine and arcane spells. He would not gain access to 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th level spells, but his durations, ranges, caster level checks, etc. all would be higher.

This being said, some have mentioned that "the two magic types are completely different" and I would agree. However, two points must be made here.

1) Multiclassing 1/1 with another totally different spellcasting class should not net you all the benefits of those two singular classes, but it SHOULD give you a bit more bite than playing a character only as powerful as a single classed character in either class. This is a limit of the system, not the story-telling or role-playing genre.

2) As a spellcaster, you have an innate ability to control your own "power" or "casting ability". Like a muscle, the more you use it, the more powerful it should be. So, also like a muscle, if you don't concentrate on that one particular area, it won't be as strong as if you had.

On the thought of feats...I ABHOR the very concept of using feats to make your character viable in the system. Feats should not bring your character up they should extend your character. At least that's my opinion.

So, I say use the above formula. It's not perfect, but neither is a 10th level spellcaster throwing fireballs at a balor when that same character is supposed to be 20th level. ;)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Brit O wrote:

some feats, especially the newer skill feats and combat maneuver feats, they don't have bonuses high enough to feel effective.

Improved grapple's +4 in 3.5 still failed me numerous times for many embarassing moments when people would roll their eyes and ask me why I waste my attacks. Now I see that its been dropped to a +2, and against my opponents already high 15+modifiers.

Quite honestly, I think grappling as a size larger than you are (assuming you're a Medium or Large creature) and not provoking AofO's from trying to initiate a grapple is a pretty beefy feat. I don't think that's anything to laugh at. Dropping it to a +2 is probably making it less powerful, but I haven't read all the new grapple rules yet.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dean Kimes wrote:
Nope. Still don't. I mean, we don't have a walking skill either so why wouldn't the normal movement related skills apply to Fly?

I hate to bring this up, but in a way we do. It's not literally a skill on "walking" but a skill on ground movement in difficult situations. Acrobatics help to determine balance and the ability to remain on one's feet. Ride helps us determine the ability to stay on the back of a mount, regardless of where the mount makes it's path.

In all fairness, b/c I'm against fly as a skill on the whole, Fly is more akin to the Acrobatics skill than it is a skill based on whether you can fly or not. Everyone can walk, but not everyone has good balance so that's where Acrobatics comes in. Those that can fly can do everything that others who can fly do: move forward, backward, up, down, hover, etc. Some do those things (and special movements like diving or wingovers) better than others, and that's the issue the Fly skill is trying to deal with.

Ok...I'm back on the side of "no Fly". Just crossed over to make a point because there's a lot of that (no "walking" skill) going around as an argument, and I just don't see it as valid. :)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Pathos wrote:

Now apply that to a D&D game... very few fly spells available. Who would you trust to carry your halfling behind across the chasm? Joe fighter lumbering through the air? Or a practiced flyer?

I don't think you can make that mental leap from real life to D&D, for obvious reasons. Every time I (or someone in my group tries) it just ends up looking silly.

Your suggestions might work for those creatures who fly naturally, but as I said before, magic is magic. For those of us who need everything splayed out in front of us, an explanation or an analogy might be necessary, but there are those of us who prefer to just let magic be unexplainable. Paizo just needs to figure out which is the bigger group and go with that.

To make my point, I counter with an analogy of my own:

How did you feel when, in the Phantom Menace, you saw Qui Gon Jinn explaining what the Force was to young Anakin Skywalker? I prefer Yoda's explanation of it in Empire. And that may be where our differences lay. :)

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Pathos wrote:
Think of it this way... Did the students at Hogwarts automatically know the "ins and outs" of flight, the minute they jumped onto their brooms for the first time? Are the players of Quidditch chosen from those who are untrained and clumsy in the air? Or, are they chosen from those with real skill at flight? you hit on my weakness. Harry Potter. :)

I guess this is a matter of personal taste. I feel I have enough tricks up my sleeve as a DM to make sure PCs don't feel invincible during combat when they are flying. I'm ok with spellcasters having that sort of maneuverability even if it's for a little while (even an entire combat). Harry Potter I think tried to fit into some sort of "if this really existed, how would this happen?". I prefer a bit more...mystery as to how things work. Just because Harry Potter wizards are helpless without their wands, doesn't mean that's a part of their lore I want to adopt in my 3.5 games (that implement stuff is for 4E :) ).

For me, I'm probably going to keep the maneuverability rules from 3.5 in my game unless the Fly skill just overwhelms me at final print time.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

When I first read the title of the thread, I was like "WTF? Fly skill?"

After reading the various arguments for and against it, I have decided I'm on the fence about the issue (Yeah, I know...this is the equivalent of those people who call into phone polls to tell the poller that they are "undecided").

I do not like the confusing way that the flight system works now is laid out. I'm running a campaign that has our next session pitting the PCs against a dragon and I'm trying to figure out how the dragon's maneuverability and movement costs for turning, etc. It's a nightmare.

However, do we REALLY need to add logic to a spell? I mean, adding skill checks to a spell seems really "unmagic" like. There needs to be a way to decide how maneuverability works in the air (or, actually to be more specific, any 3-dimensional environment; i.e. water, earth, etc.) but I don't think skill points are the way to go. I almost want to say that the designers of the 3.x system thought of this too and said "Skill checks to use a spell correctly? Lame!"

I'm also of the opinion that this should not be a skill because of the usefulness of it at the beginning of a character's career. Skills, to me, imply things you can do without the aid of magic. They are the lowest form of "ability measuring" mechanics in the game, next to the actual ability scores. They are not feats and definitely not spells, which are the ultimate power in the game.

Then, I'm not sure who said it, but it IS like taking a nerf bat to the PCs. Races who have wings would automatically get racial bonuses to Fly would not be as affected as characters who needed it to take flight with any skill. Ok, so it's not realistic that a character who's never flown can automatically know the ins and outs of flying. But seriously, who needs (or wants) this level of realism to their fantasy D&D games? How about pretend that the fly spell, while active, acts like a "matrix cartridge" and tells us everything we need to know about flying without having to be trained in it first? I mean, do we need to squeeze all the fantasy and wonder out of a system before we call it fixed?

So, bottom line is... contrary to my earlier statement, I think I'd rather scour over the maneuverability rules than I would to take the wonder out of a magic spell that let's you fly.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with both of you and, in fact, not only should Concentration be made into a separate skill, it should no longer be based on Constitution but Wisdom or Intelligence. Just my opinion.

But Search and Concentration should be separate skills, Spot+Listen = Perception is good.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Andrew Phillips wrote:
I am happy to see them go. The problem I encountered with was in backward compatibility. With the many splat books and the Hundreds? of feats out there Combat Feats made way too many of the existing feats unusable or would have required that they be rewriten and/or reclassified. Also the build and tactics of most mid to high hit die monsters and NPCS would have had to be completely redone.

My question was "What made a feat a Combat feat?". Is someone going to seriously tell me that Power Attack is not a Combat feat? I would ask why? Yeah...fighters get the shaft at higher levels and you're going to shaft them even more by taking away the ONE ability their class grants them by limiting how many they can use at once? I didn't think that was in the fighter's best interests.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SirUrza wrote:
True, but a Wizard or Sorcerer has to give up quite a bit to Maximize Empower a spell.

Maybe, but even without that kinda thing it's still hard for fighters to compete. We all know wizards pwn at high level. (I'm looking at you horrid wilting)

Andrew Phillips wrote:
Combat Feats were the only thing keeping me from going all-in with the PFRPG. Now I don't need to cancel my pre-orders.

I'm so with you Andrew

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zaister wrote:

Jason: what do you think about Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might opposed tumble rule?

Basically the opponent who could make an AoO against the tumbler makes an attack roll, and that attack role sets the DC for the Tumble check.

In addition, IMC I've been using "counter Tumble" rules from the Song and Silence (I believe). Basically it is an opposed roll where the two involved have the skill. Not a permanent solution, but an option between characters that don't have high BAB.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am glad they're gone. My first impression resulted in some profanity and questions about sanity of certain people. :)

I feel no remorse in giving fighters something like a combo SirUrza suggests above. All I have to look at is some of the Metamagic feat capabilities of the arcane casters in the game and say "Yup...that's about right".

Good for JB. I was going to toss them out IMC anyway.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sebastian wrote:

I said this in the last thread, but add me to the chorus that hates these feats - not because players don't use them, but because they are a waste of space. Rather than trying to come up with a clever name to tie two random skills together, just create a generic Skill 2-Fer Feat or whatever you want to call it, and allow that feat to add +2 to two chosen skills. It's absolutely ridiculous to have to pore through books trying to find that one feat that gives you a bonus to two random skills, particularly when the names do not convey immediately what skills receive the bonuses. You might as well come up with a new flavor of Skill Focus for every skill (Crafty Potter - Receive a +3 bonus to Craft: Pots; Frogger - Receive a +3 bonus to Jump).

The +2 to two feats are lazy filler and should be dumped. There's nothing that irritates me more than receiving "20 new feats!" only to find out that 3 of those "new" feats are the same boring old stupid feats I've already seen a dozen times in the PHB.

WOW. I love this. Count me among the ranks of the "You're s***ing me?? 2 dozen+ feats that do the EXACT same thing? Does WotC think I'm THAT stupid?"

I created my own feat called "Skill Synergy" that basically gave synergy bonuses to skills that used the same type of ability score (physical/mental). It has worked well in my campaigns.

"lazy filler" indeed. This is a waste of space and I shouldn't, as a consumer of ANY product, have to sift through 20 of the exact same thing that is trying to be passed off as something different.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

From what I see, I think it was fine as is. I know I'm coming into this discussion late, but I don't think Cleave and Great Cleave are as viable as separate feats any longer. Like someone previously said in this thread, once you acquire Great Cleave, Cleave becomes obsolete. I believe, if nothing else, THIS is what should be fixed in a new edition as well as effectiveness at high level.

There are quite a few feats like this, things like Weapon Specialization/Focus, Spell Focus/Penetration, Two-Weapon Fighting. If the goal is really to give players more options that they can use on their characters, feats like this need a solution.

But I digress. As an old schooler, Cleave/Great Cleave was 3.x's attempt at simulating the old "Sweep" attack from 1/2E. The sweep attack was meant to drop one foe and fell the next one and the next one until you could no longer fell them with the same swing. I think having to give up all of your attacks just to have the chance to kill other creatures with the same swing is too high a price to pay.