Baquies's page

I think there is something to be said for adding a page to the end of the book with the printing number and/or date and a list calling out any RULES CHANGING errata/changes from previous versions and a pointer to the web site. No need for footnotes or anything within the text.

If you are the type of players who worries about it you will see the page, have your attention called to the changes and can do your homework accordingly.

If you are not that type, then you wont have *'s or anything cluttering up your books, and can blissfully go on playing the version of the rules you have in hand.

Would it help with the arguments if there was a disclaimer and version number in the beginning of the book? "

Pathfinder V1.2.3. The rules as presented in this book incorporate errata and supersedes all previous version of the PFRPG"

As for the service pack effect, I don't see that it is different if the errata is incorporated into the print run or released as an add-on. We all know errata will ever be forthcoming.

I did something similar with 3.5. Basically I made them all "readied/spontaneous" like AE does.
To differentiate the sorcerer more like the AE Witch giving them some "powers". Pathfinder bloodlines get you halfway there already.

Wizards had to have their spellbook in their hands to cast the spells in the same way Magisters need a staff.
Wizards could only ready spells that are in the spellbook.
Sorcerers still had spells known instead of spells readied.

I did something similar a few years ago. Originally I stuck with 4 classes Fighter Cleric Rogue Wizard and only up to 5 levels. Later we started adding in other classes and levels up to 10th.

For skills we just preassigned a number of skills equal to the class' skill points per level. SO for a fighter it said something like this "The fighter adds his level to ability checks involving climbing and jumping" "the rogue add her level to ability checks involving climbing, hiding, moving silently, Opening locks, picking pockets, disabling devices, Searching, and listening.

Feat we did the same thing, you only got feats as part of your class and preassigned. So a fighter got dodge, weapon focus, and weapon spec.

We cut the spell list down to only a hand full per level.

etc.

Would we be having this debate if the class was called "Berserker"?

Makes about as much sense as a Druid having Profession and doing book-keeping, etc.

Besides, it is not like a Barbarian needs to be primitive. He could be a street thug who loses his temper easily in a fight. I can see Profession (Sailor) being totally appropriate for the class.

I was afraid we would get caught up on the healing spell aspect of it. Yes, since clerics have healing spells at at spell slot level they get more bang at the same DC for the spot. But there are other types of spells that are shared but at different levels for two different classes, so we still have the DC issue in those cases.

All of this said, I don't have a solution that doesn't cause more problems than it solves.

Lathiira wrote:

Baquies wrote:

My only problem with the system as is, is in cases where two classes get the same spell at different spell levels. presumably one class get the spell at a later spell level because they are not as good that spell's "thing". But since said spell is higher level, the save is tougher to make.

An example off the top of my head, A Cleric's Cure spells vs. a Druids used on Undead. The save for half damage is tougher to make against the Druid than for the Cleric.

I hope I am explaining that right...

You are. And that's a perfectly valid point. And even better, it illustrates an innate problem with the current system: druids, who are poorer healers than clerics (but by no means incompetent), are actually better at making the undead explode with the positive energy of a cure spell, which is counter-intuitive at best.

Its not really. Mechanically, the cleric using the same level spell slot, will do more damage at the same DC (higher level cure spell). It actually bugs me that druids, as tied to life and the nature and all, are poorer healers than clerics (barring channeling energy of course) in one shot. The first thing I intend to convert over is the vigor line of spells (which actually makes sense for druids to use for healing, since it more accurately repreents accelerated natural healing) but still...

*Edit
Oh...and as to the topic at hand. I don't really have much of an issue with DC's as they are, since the increase (and cap) in damage dice accounts for level. About the time or a little past when a spell hits its cap, you get a new shiny spell that is higher level (and therefore higher DC) with a higher damage cap, better seconday effect and all. Much like the fighters and rogues and paladins need to keep up with having better weapons and armor, new spells (for the DC's and effects) are for the spellcasters. Otherwise, with your system, at 13th level, why bother with a 7th level spell (13d6 damage usually) when I can use a 3rd level...

My only problem with the system as is, is in cases where two classes get the same spell at different spell levels. presumably one class get the spell at a later spell level because they are not as good that spell's "thing". But since said spell is higher level, the save is tougher to make.

An example off the top of my head, A Cleric's Cure spells vs. a Druids used on Undead. The save for half damage is tougher to make against the Druid than for the Cleric.

I hope I am explaining that right...

He is in line behind the three-quarterling.

Flurry of bows?

Also, one thing I've noticed is that there isn't an iconic character with really big breasts. Please add one. One that makes Seoni look like a teenage boy.

Careful, we may end up with a 300lb shirtless male half-orc iconic.

I recall the chart from the DL books as well, I think the original DragonLance Adventures hardcover rulebook had it as well. It is packed in storage so I can not say for sure.

I don't know if I would classify it as a failure. I would say a Hell Hound with an Int 6 is smart enough to not fire off willy nilly, but not necessarily smart enough to grasp the whole energy resistance damage threshold concept.

Plus, the party may not always have enough energy resistance to go around. Honestly I like the idea of a dragon or similar creature having the ability to squeeze an extra one out if need be.

If anything I would think about just a flat recharge time with the creature having the possibility of using a lower powered breath weapon if they choose not to wait.

So a breath weapon takes 4 rounds to be reused, but if you try to use it 1 round later it only works at 1/4 strength.

Call me Crazy:

Caster level = HD, including the half caster classes.

It doesn't make full casters any more powerful.

It helps out multi-class, templated, and monster casters.

It also helps out the Paladin and Ranger little bit of spellcasting.

Where would you place addressing gaps in the system? For instance the duelist PRC seems like it was originally created to address the lack of a lightly armored swashbuckler archetype. Then the Swashbuckler base class came out, and I also believe that there were some swashbuckler/duelist type replacement levels created.

So in your mind, how best to address such a gap?

That or there will be a hoard of angry plucked geese lurking.

Well to sidestep the issue a bit, one idea I have been toying with is instead of unlimited cantrips I use the ability score bonus as a multiplier for 0 level spells. So assuming a 1st level Sorcerer, with a CHA of 16 you have 15 cantrips per day, should be plenty to get through the day.

Sorry no luck, I guess he keeps himself pretty busy these days. Best of luck though.

Maybe some sort of synergy to delivering inflict/cure touch spells with the sneak attack?

Any pathfinders in the Corvallis area (like within half an hour)?

I am not, but an old gaming buddy of mine is in the area. I can see if he is still looking to game these days.

Hmm... making two-handed weapons in general take longer to sheathe/draw sounds like a real "game fixer" to me regardless. Full round action if no +1 BAB, move action (can't be done while moving as a free action) if you do have +1 BAB.

I think I'll give this a try. Might help differentiate things and give people a reason to choose something besides longbow or greatsword/greataxe (currently universal favorites among my groups)

Problem is the shortbow is also a 2 hander.

It was mentioned above. Why not scrap it for attacks and spells and maybe replace it with a "Death by common sense" rule, it would apply to things like falling damage, submerged in lava, that sort of thing. So falling and lava damage of 50 points or greater triggers the check, and the DC is 10 plus the amount by which the damage exceeds 50 points?

Again the only time a use the rule is for the "common sense" scenarios.

Something we played around with.
dead at -(Con Score + Level)
We extended disabled all the way from 0hp on down to death, you lose 1d4 hp a round, and if you take a standard action, then you lose consciousness.
It allows for more staggering around half dead, last words and such.

Yes, I think a token cost should be associated with the club and other "free" weapons in order to differentiate them from improvised weapons.

Honestly the only time we use/remember the roll is for falling damage, its that last gasp at realism for falling several hundred feat

I am leaning towards the either/or model. If you do decide to go with the feat idea, some bonus feat slots in the cleric progression would be nice.

It is a shame we got of track here because I think there is an important discussion to be had about the differences (or lack) between "Improvised" vs "Free" weapons.

The problem is we already have rules for picking up a stick or random thing. They are improvised weapons, there are even feats related to it.

Grabbing that walking stick or random log are improvised weapons, the ones listed on the weapons table should be considered minimally crafted and have a cost to them.

Just to add an idea for what it is worth. Once we made a chart of various ability score arrays created with point buy. We then rolled to see which array we ended up with.

This whole topic is another topic frankly.

Laurefindel wrote:

... because the gods may not like that their spells are used as insurance policies, and that high level clerics may have something better to do than stroll around the king waiting for him to be assassinated.

So another set of special rules?

How many special rules should be required for something as simple as killing a villain or miscellanous NPC to advance the plot?

Laurefindel wrote:

Making sure a person doesn't get raised or resurrected should indeed be part of a good assassin's plan, but it doesn't have to be part of its class features.

Except it cannot be part of the plan without it being a class feature, or requiring some other set of special rules for causing "permanent" death.

Laurefindel wrote:

Fighters should be good at killing trolls. Yet they don't need an ability to prevent the troll's regeneration. They have to get the right equipment/strategy.

Regeneration as a special ability has its own issues.

Laurefindel wrote:

These are some of the challenges that players (and NPCs for that matter) have to overcome. It's part of the game and what makes it fun. Giving a class a feature that removes the challenge in the first place does not improve the game in the long run, IMO.

'findel

Which is why I dislike all class features that grant immunity or supersede other rules, including things like evasion. That is another topic.

Samuel Weiss wrote:

Making sure a person doesn't get raised or resurrected should indeed be part of a good assassin's plan, but it doesn't have to be part of its class features.
'findel

Yes, but, if making sure a person doesn't get raised or resurrected is part of a successful assassination, then such abilities SHOULD be part of an assassin class.

Otherwise, what is the point of having a specific Assassin Class. If we stick to mundane methods that any person can use, than any member of any class can be an "Assassin"

Laurefindel wrote:

Samuel Weiss wrote:

Fighters should be good at killing trolls. Yet they don't need an ability to prevent the troll's regeneration. They have to get the right equipment/strategy.

'findel

Fighters are good at "fighting", a more appropriate example would be if there were a "Troll-slayer" PRC. If a Troll slayer PRC does not have special abilities to thwart a Trolls regeneration, then what is the point of making it a separate class?

BY the same point is an "Assassin" class does not have class abilities that make it more successful as Assassinating people, then what is the point of such a class.

And again, there is a difference between assassinating, and just agreeing to kill someone for money, or just killing someone.

EDIT
If we are going to go the all mundane, equal access to countermeasures, route, I am fine with that. Make the Death Attack, and Poison Use, Rogue talents and eliminate the Assassin PRC, much like what was done with the Archmage. This will free up some space in the book.

It just seems to me that if we are going to have and Assassin PRC, then that class should grant abilities that make the person taking superior at the job of assassination than those who don't.

OK, what if the resurrection lock(s), whatever form it finally takes, is negated on the death of the assassin?

This way if it ends up being used in an encounter, but you ultimately defeat the Assassin, you can still resurrect the fallen comrade?

I would not mind something that helps keep divinations of the Assassins back as well, especially now with all their spells gone. Speak with Dead is a pain, though I suppose that if the Assassin did his job right, the target never saw him in the first place.

A magic poison, or a check made during resurrection are both fine with me. I am definitely not looking for an automatic soul-kill, but at least a chance to keep the target in the ground.

"But then again, if we're going to have a prestige class that excludes 90% of all sorcerer bloodlines, why not just admit it and say that the prestige class also excludes non-sorcerer spontaneous casters, too?"

Yes, that is what I was getting at, thank you for making the point much more clearly than I did.

Why keep the oddly worded spellcasting requirement for the Dragon Disciple?
"Spellcasting: Ability to cast 1st level arcane
spells without preparation. If the character
has levels of sorcerer, he must have the
draconic bloodline. If the character gains
levels of sorcerer after taking this class,
he must take the draconic bloodline."

As it stands, the only other class that could qualify would be a bard. Wouldnt it be simpler to just have the requirement be "must have the Draconic Sorcerer Bloodline"?

Yes I like that idea, the base sorcerer class for spell enhancing related bloodline abilities, and PRCs for crazy mutations and the like.

I totally realize that there are workarounds for the resurrection problem, heck there are workarounds for lots of the things we are trying to fix by changing the rules for PFRPG,

I just figure that if a class is going to be called the Assassin, and there are guilds of Assassins, and these Assassins live in a world of magical resurrections and divination, that they would have developed some sort of technique to deal with it, otherwise they are really just a "hitmens" guild.

It doesn't even have to be something easy, or able to be done once combat starts. Maybe it requires a 24 hour ritual beforehand and a piece of the kings hair to accomplish, I dunno. To my mind, some way to sever the soul just makes sense for the class.

Well on the topic of what should that Assassin ability be, I vote for something that helps the assassin deal with the fact that anyone worthy of being "assassinated" is wealthy or important enough to be easily brought back to life, or at least having their murder solved by divination. So some sort of ability to help deal with this some kind of "soul eater" ability would be nice.

I think a separate PRC for each bloodline would allow those PRCs to have more flavor included in them. If all the abilities for such a class had to fit into the description of a generic "base" PRC, it might limit what is possible.

I know it might be late in the game and all so to speak, but I would really like to see the Assassin get some sort of ability to deal with a world full of resurrection magic and divinations.

It seems to me that anyone worthy of being "assassinated" as opposed to just plain murdered, will have access to resurrection magic, and that Assassins in such a magical world should have a class ability or special access to materials, rituals, whatever that can help deal with these sorts of things. This way their victims can stay dead, and their identities can be harder to determine.

Maybe not a flat out no resurrection ability, but a percentage or some other mechanic.

Seems like most of the Dex based skills would require some sort of size modifiers.

If the character is that smart, and a linguist, and the two Druids in the party take to conversing amongst themselves in Druidic, I see no reason that the character could not have picked up the language just by benefit of exposure. You know, like that scene in the 13th warrior.

I am interested to see how the new duelist comes out since it seemed that part of its niche was co-opted by the d8 rogue.

Which has always been a sticking point for those Monk/Rogue builds.

What if we changed Quivering Palm to work like other Pathfinder SoD type stuff, give it a damage secondary effect for even the failed save or something like that?

Otherwise, why not make it a number of time per day equal to Wis modifier? and if you happen to be a monk with a 0 Wis mod, then it stays once a week?

Maybe change it to: The monk gains a bonus to CMB rolls equal to 1/2 his monk level. At 3rd level when the ability is gained, it is equal to what is in the beta, then at 6th level he exceeds the fighter, and he is superb at it come 20th level?

This may seem like silly question, but why keep the ranger's animal companion tied to the druid ability. Why can't the ranger have his own unique animal companion ability with its own Hit Die and special abilities progression totally separate and different from what a Druid gets? this way we are not stuck discussing if it should be 1/2 for full druid power level, make it its own thing entirely.

Im in Ithaca, so that puts me about an hour away.