The Paizo document reads: "If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score (or -10 if your Constitution score is 9 or less), you're dying." Argle-bargle. That's terribly written--rules-as-written, it's really, really hard to die because I need to have a negative HP = my Con score before dying. Since my Con score is always positive...well, I think you see the problem.
As it stands, it's a poor choice for any character: +5 damage at level 20. I vote we awesome the hell out of this feat, give it some usefulness along with some coolness. Here's my proposal: Arcane Strike
When you have a base attack bonus of +4, you do damage equal to your check result. When you have a base attack bonus of +8, you do damage equal to twice your check result. When you have a base attack bonus of +12, you do damage equal to three times your check result. When you have a base attack bonus of +16, you do damage equal to four times your check result. Prerequisites: Spellcraft 1 rank, base attack bonus +1. This, of course, hasn't been playtested, and I haven't really run the numbers through my head at all. Just a suggestion based on those Diamond Razor Emerald Ruby Mind Slicer things from ToB.
Chris Mortika wrote: "Just ridiculous." You know, this is just a guess, dude, but I'll bet you've never played GURPS. I sat down and counted 651 skills in full-blown 4th Edition GURPS. The SRD has 45 skills, after unbundling the Knowledge skill suite. All the splat books have taken great care to avoid increasing that list. in a game with over 500 Feats and 300 prestige classes, a list of 46 skills (adding "autohypnosis") doesn't strike me as ridiculous. Allow me to Godwin this thread while demonstrating how your rebuttal is not, in fact, a rebuttal: Some Guy: "You know, it's not right that Political Party XYZ supports the death penalty." You: "HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT WHEN THE NAZIS ACTUALLY KILLED PEOPLE? COMPARED TO THEM, POLITICAL PARTY XYZ'S SUPPORT OF THE DEATH PENALTY IS GREAT."
Chris Mortika wrote:
And that character is quite possible in Pathfinder. Chris Mortika wrote:
Yes. Ruining the game. Literally. All you have to do is use 3.5 character sheets to play your game that has dozens of unnecessary skills. The rest of us, however, have to make up our unique character sheets to do so.
Basically, I was working on a project to "rebalance" the Core classes in D&D awhile back, and then I realized it was pointless, so I stopped. However, I had the work saved, and the second class that I worked on was the fighter. Allow me to show you what I did--and before anyone b*&&$es that the stances are Tome of Battle, I would like to say that I was working on this prior to the publication of ToB. Also, I've no idea if this is actually balanced, as I never got to playtest/tweak it...but I figured that the ideas might help the Pathfinder developers. Combat Style (Ex) At 1st level, a fighter must select one of several combat styles to pursue. This choice affects the character’s Class Features but does not restrict his selection of feats or special abilities in any way. All the bonuses given stack with those from feats that give similar bonuses or abilities, such as Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization. Archery
One-Handed Fighting
Two-Handed Fighting
Dual-Wielding
Combat Stance (Ex) At 3rd level, the fighter gains access to several combat stances. Initiating a combat stance or switching to a different combat stance is a standard action. Aggressive
Defensive
Evasive
Tactical
Improved Combat Style (Ex) At 5th level, a fighter’s chosen combat style improves. The bonuses from improved combat style supersede those given by combat style. Archery
One-Handed Fighting
Two-Handed Fighting
Dual-Wielding
Improved Combat Stance (Ex) At 7th level, the fighter’s combat stances improve. The bonuses and penalties given by improved combat stance supersede those given by combat stance. Aggressive
Defensive
Evasive
Tactical
Greater Combat Style (Ex) At 9th level, a fighter’s chosen combat style improves again. The bonuses from greater combat style supersede those given by combat style and improved combat style. Archery
One-Handed Fighting
Two-Handed Fighting
Dual-Wielding
Greater Combat Stance (Ex) At 11th level, the fighter’s combat stances improve. The bonuses and penalties given by improved combat stance supersede those given by combat stance and improved combat stance. Aggressive
Defensive
Evasive
Tactical
Combat Style Mastery (Ex) At 13th level, a fighter’s chosen combat style improves for a third time. The bonuses from greater combat style supersede those given by combat style, improved combat style, and greater combat style. Archery
One-Handed Fighting
Two-Handed Fighting
Dual-Wielding
Combat Stance Mastery (Ex) At 15th level, the fighter’s combat stances improve for a third time. The bonuses and penalties given by improved combat stance supersede those given by combat stance, improved combat stance, and greater combat stance. Aggressive
Defensive
Evasive
Tactical
Secondary Combat Style (Ex) At 17th level, a fighter chooses a secondary combat style. This combat style does not gain the bonuses of improved combat style, greater combat style, or combat style mastery. Improved Secondary Combat Style (Ex) At 19th level, a fighter’s secondary combat style improves as though affected by improved combat style.
I don't think a +4 to AC would make-or-break that rogue's sneak attack, especially considering that the character wouldn't get the bonus while flat-footed. Also, NPCs with class levels alone will always have a tough time when place on equal footing with PCs--monsters rely on their strong stats and high HD to hit.
Heh, this sounds like a 4e thread. "My players had 3x their starting HP, and they were doing X! You should have seen them!" The only difference is that there aren't any angry anti-4ers coming in and telling people that their ideas are stupid :P. Being one who has always been a proponent of extra HP at first level, I'd have to say that I like the CON score + class HD at first level method.
I think that races ought to be pared down in terms of the bonus abilities they give; it's just so much to keep track of. Let's look at the dwarf: --Darkvision 60'.
That's a lot to keep track of. Personally, I'd like to see it pared down to something like: --Darkvision 60'.
What are your thoughts on this?
It just seems to me that it adds a ton of extra bookkeeping that doesn't really matter in the long run. For instance, let's look at the dwarf. --Darkvision 60 feet.
Now, it might just be me, but that is a LOT of things to keep track of. Personally, I'd rather see the races pared down in their abilities so that it's easier to keep track of. I'd prefer it if the dwarf, for instance, was reduced to: --Darkvision 60 feet.
What do you guys think?
LilithsThrall wrote:
Your writing is fine, but it certainly is far from "standard" D&D. I'm not sure whether players would want gnomes without a CON bonus...and, undoubtedly, a few whiners would complain loudly about how gnomes have been turned into a casting race.
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
I too am against ASF, and one of my first houserules was that it does not exist.
While I love the domain powers that clerics get, I'm a tad leery of their power level. With a d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, two good saves, and a strong spell list, clerics still remain extremely powerful. I'm also afraid that this might happen with the druid class. I think that the cleric and druid should both have a d6 HD, good Will saves, and 1/2 BAB. This would emphasize their role as casters while allowing the paladin and ranger to fill the role of spiritual warriors. What do you think?
While I love the idea of the bonded items, it makes no sense to me to give them charges. There needs to be a recharge mechanic in place or a charges/day mechanic. Also, I think that approximate wealth levels need to be considered--what's stopping the wizard from grabbing a wand of fireballs or polymorph or stoneskin at first level? Personally, I'd insist that the item is not magical to begin with but the wizard may give it magical properties later.
Jadeite wrote:
Yes, that would be the point--evokers ought to blast better.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
There's not a huge difference between 1d4 and 1d6 to begin with--one average damage and two max damage. I'd say "keep the versatility" but give them 1d6 and let their evoker's specialty bonus add to the damage. Also, as I mentioned in another thread--how does the extra damage class feature work out with things like magic missile and Split Ray?
15. The evoker's energy ray is still weak. As the spellcaster that is supposed to do damage, I think that the nerf was unnecessary. I like that he can choose multiple energy types, but I'm not sure that he needs a d4 damage die. Furthermore, using a d6 for damage goes with unifying the system (like with the HP: d6, d8, d10). Even if the evoker's bonus spell damage would stack with his energy ray (as I suggested earlier), that would only be a maximum of 21 damage at level 20 (assuming no energy resistance). My solution: Give the evoker back his 1d6 damage. (Again, sorry for posting so much...I just have a lot of ideas and I don't get them all down before the edit timer is up.)
Astute1 wrote:
Hmm...maybe start with rage 3/day and then +1/day every five levels? And that could be used with the paladin's smite, too.
11. Some feats are still woefully lacking. Even though Toughness grants +23 HP at level 20, it still isn't just that strong. While Improved Toughness was a vast improvement over Toughness in 3.5, it still wasn't incredibly popular. (This is somewhat remedied by characters having many feats.) Also, +23 HP feels...awkward to me. Additionally, all the feats that add a +2 bonus to two skills, such as Deceitful and Acrobatic, are rather weak. My solution: Change Toughness to give 5 HP + 1 HP/level, and give feats like Deceitful and Acrobatic a +5 bonus to using the skill. 12. There are too many Knowledge skills. Why do we need all of them? There are just so many, and so few are useful. They ought to be combined, I think. So many of the knowledge skills would be intertwined with one another in real education, too--what kind of history class doesn't deal with cultures, customs, geography, rulers, etc.? What religious studies don't deal with "the Planes" or "magic" (be they heaven, hell, miracles, etc.)? My solution: Combine Knowledge (nature) with Survival. Condense Knowledge (history, royalty and nobility, geography, local) into a single skill. Merge Knowledge (dungeoneering, architecture) into a single skill. Combine Knowledge (arcana, religion, the planes) into one skill. 13. Races are very complicated as-is because they have so many minor bonuses to keep track of. Is there any way that these could be pared down? I honestly can't offer a sure suggestion for how to fix this, but let's look at the elf, for instance. --Low-light vision.
That's just a lot to keep track of. Could anyone offer suggestions on how one might trim that list without compromising the elf flavor? EDIT: Just read the notes, so I'll take a stab at them. 14. A few comments on the fighter: --Would it be so terrible for the fighter's armor/weapons mastery not to have a listed limit? Unless there's some reason that you didn't want a +5 AC/-5 ACP in the ability, I just feel that a "round number" like five is better than four, and it would allow for the bonuses to accrue into epic levels. --The DR 5/-- still feels like "too little, too late" for me. Would it be possible to incorporate a gradual increase in DR over the fighter's career? --The fighter still doesn't have much of a reason to pick heavy armor like platemail over light armor.
(Just an idea for the design team.) The barbarian's rage ability leaves players with a lot to keep track of, both during and after the rage. The way the CON boost works also makes it extremely likely that players will die once the rage wears off. Personally, I believe that the barbarian's rage could be simplified into the following: 1. +2 to-hit/damage.
The bonuses would improve to +3-+4 to-hit/damage and +3-+4 temporary HP/level. Toss out the bonus to Will saves and the fatigued. I realize that these are there to force the barbarian to choose carefully when he rages, but it just adds a lot of bookkeeping and seems a nuisance to me. I realize that this probably won't go over well with a number of players because it's such a significant change to the mechanics, so I'd like to hear your suggestions on how we could tweak my idea to better fit how you'd like to see the barbarian's rage work.
(Sorry for making so many posts, but I keep thinking of things after the edit timer has expired.) 9. The enchanter 1st-level spell-like ability seems really weak in comparison to the rest of the abilities. Why should the enchanter have to make a touch attack to daze a target? That's incredibly dangerous for the poor enchanter. My solution: Make it an auto-hit power with a range of 30'. The evoker's bonus to spell damage is a bit wonky. First off, I believe that it ought to apply to the fire ray SLA because evokers are about doing damage--why shouldn't his SLA do more damage than any other specialist's? Second of all, how does the evoker specialist bonus work with magic missile if someone targets a number of creatures with magic missile rather than a single creature? My solution: Let the evoker's specialist ability apply to fire ray. Add rules clarification. 10. Clerics are still one of the most powerful classes. With a d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, two good saves, and their spell list, clerics are still too powerful, especially considering their new domain abilities. While I realize the changes I'm about to propose are drastic, please give them some consideration--and let the paladin do the fighting for his deity. My solution: Change the d8 HD to a d6, give them half BAB, and give them good Will saves.
The armor thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though. With a +14 in light armor vs. a +18 in heavy armor, light armor becomes even more preferable to heavy armor. Obviously, there is a reason why people would pick medium/heavy armor over light armor. 7. Minor nitpick: If gnomes are a "frail" race (as described in the racial HP variant), why do they get +2 CON? 8. How does the fighter's armor training interact with mithril armor (as it is considered one category lighter)?
Allow me to begin by saying that Pathfinder is such a step in the right direction that I can't even begin to express how happy I am with it. While I'm mostly converted to True20, I love D&D and fully support a 3.75 instead of 4e. Here are the things that I noted when going through the PDF. Before beginning, however, I'd like to take a moment to cover my ass. I realize that these forums aren't the friendliest place on the Internet, and I'm merely trying to help D&D as a hobby. If I say something stupid or incorrect, please don't scream at me; I assure you that such a thing was unintentional. I also would appreciate commentary on my ideas because maybe I'm just misunderstanding something that another poster could clarify. Furthermore, I apologize in advance if I'm covering ground that has been tread upon before. With that being said... 1. Humans are weaker as a race. Now that feats are more prevalent--thank God!--the humans' +1 feat just doesn't seem so hot. Furthermore, +1 skill isn't so great with the inclusion of more skills for all classes and the merging of some skills (again, these were all needed). On top of this, all the other races get a bunch of minor bonuses, like darkvision or stability. Overall, the human is slightly underwhelming. My solution: Give humans +2 to any two stats of their choice. 2. Dwarves remain very strong as a race. This is especially true with the inclusion of stability. Overall, dwarves are one of the best fighter races. While this makes sense to me, it makes them slightly overpowered, which is what Pathfinder is trying to remedy. My solution: Drop the stability bonus or reduce it to +2. 3. Fighters are still fairly "meh" when it comes to abilities. In addition, the "armor mastery" ability feels tacked on and "too little, too late" to me. Additionally, fighters have even more reason to choose light armor in favor of heavy armor--for instance, a chain shirt could have a total of +14 (4 AC + 5 armor training + 5 enhancement) AC and platemail could have a total of +18 (8 AC + 5 armor training + 5 enhancement)...and the chain armor wouldn't slow the wearer. The same goes for shields. My solution: Change armor training to the following: Light armor/shields: +1 AC
4. Minor nitpick: As written, I believe the rogue's bleeding attack is weakened by DR. If that's the intent, great; if not, additional text is necessary. If I'm wrong, just ignore this point. Minor nitpick: The rogue's master strike ability is useless come epic play. Yes, yes, I realize that epic play isn't Core and that it is inherently broken. However, changing the DC to a scaling DC would solve this problem for players wishing to create epic Pathfinder characters. My solution: Change the DC to equal 10 + 1/2 the rogue's class level. 5. Arcane bond is a cool and flavorful ability, but the "bonded object" seems pretty weak. First of all, I don't understand why the wizard has to make a Spellcraft check to cast when his bonded object isn't at hand. Second of all, it doesn't make sense for the bonded object to become functionally useless if its charges are used up. Thirdly, the rules for the bonded object casting spells are unclear--what spells does a wizard "know" (usually that term is applied to spontaneous casters), does the wizard lose the spell from his daily spells, etc. My solution: Remove the Spellcraft check. (At higher levels, there's no point to this, anyway.) Allow charged items either to recover charges per day or have a few charges per day that automatically refresh on a daily basis (or whenever the wizard rests). Clarify the rules regarding the bonded object. Abjurers and transmuters get kind of screwed with their abilities. Compared to the diviner's "act on the surprise round" ability, the abjurer's flat "resistance to X 10" at level 20 pales, and the transmuter's enhancement bonus to a stat seems kind of weak. With items, one can get a +6 bonus to a stat, and that's not going to cost one a school of magic. My solution: Give abjurers "resistance to X" equal to 5 + their class level, and give transmuters a +2 bonus to one physical ability score that improves by +1 for every three class levels they have. Minor nitpick: Is there any real reason to keep Arcane Spell Failure in the game? (Just wondering.) 5. Minor nitpick: Cleric undead turning/rebuking has a wonky formula. I realize that this is, in fact, an extremely miniscule aspect of the game, but the formula for damage/healing may be hard to remember for some players. (Aside from that, an excellent change.) My solution: Change turn/rebuke undead damage/healing to one-half one's class level. 6. Dodge and Point Blank Shot are still really weak. I understand that they are "entrance feats," but, since one has to choose between using them and another combat maneuver (or one has to use them to set up another combat maneuver), couldn't they be buffed a little bit? My solution: Make dodge/PBS constant bonuses that are only prerequisites for taking certain combat maneuver feats. (Of course, this would require tweaks to feats like Wind Stance.) |