Baramay's page

When and if Paizo decides to do something with psionics, we'll be handling it pretty much entirely in-house, using some freelancers to create some of the support material (said freelancers being chosen by us from those we've worked with before and whom we trust to do the job right).

Regarding what needs adjustment from the 3.5 incarnation of psionics, I'd say pretty much all of it. It'd be a complete revision and overhaul, from the classes on down to the powers themselves.

As for how to get involved in the project... you basically need to be an established Pathfinder freelancer when we decide to start working on it, which means you should start now by taking part in RPG superstar, start pitching scenario ideas for the Pathfinder Society to Mark Moreland, and start submitting ideas to other publishers like Open Design and the like. Start building up your experience and portfolio, and if we like what we see, we might just start asking you to work on bigger projects. There's a LOT of competition in that area, though.

Time is still on your side though. We're probably still a year or two from seriously...

Thanks for responding, much of the work I have done reflects on comments on Erik Mona's thread "What would you want from psionics?" or something similar it was posted in 2009. Most players would not want PP to go away, and there needs to be some strong differential for sorcerers or you could just play a sorcerer. Dreamscarred press IMO did not change enough and a complete overhaul ruins backwards compatibility, but could sway people if the powers are amazing. I propose a choice in the middle. I hope you will follow my thread and find you like what you see. I have 3 ideas for Pathfinder Society and will be submitting one soon.

Jaçinto wrote:

My DM keeps saying talking in combat is a free action whenever I try to interrupt a villain that is doing a monologue. How long do I have to sit and listen to said villain before I can interrupt with an arrow to the throat?

The way he is putting it, I can hold up combat for an entire session of I wanted to go into a speech and no one can stop me because it is not their turn in the initiative.

Back in Crimson Throne, I actually had to sit there for about ten minutes as a villain had a back and forth. Dm kept telling me to wait even though my round was next. Essentially what happened was a player dropped the hp low enough that the encounter is considered over, so the enemy started talking.

An encounter, however, should not be declared over until all participants agree. Otherwise someone could just say "Done" and walk away from a demon without any retaliation.

The rules say "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."

I'd say "How much you can say in about six seconds?"

Most communication spells allow 25 words or less per round.

James,

I would like to contribute towards a Pathfinder psionics book and have been working on restructuring for some time. I think the first issue is going nova (this only happens at 9th level and higher that is why so many people have different thoughts regarding if "going nova is a problem or not). I have addressed this issue by raising the PP cost for higher level powers (this then requires augmentations to be reworked, but that is a topic for another day) at 9th level you will pay 25 PP instead of 17, overall this will raise PP by about 100 at 20th level. The math should not be much more difficult than adjusting HP for a high constitution monster.

What else do you believe would need tweaking?

How could I get involved in a future project?

I am contemplating starting a thread and revealing some of my ideas and answering any questions regarding such changes.

What about honoring Ptolus by creating an urban campaign for one of the Golarion cities? Could we see this someday? Then everyone would have access to it.

When you think of psionics what sources do you think of?

For me it started with Escape to Witch Mountain. (ugh, showing my age)
Later, there were other movies; Scanners, Firestarter, and Dune.

Comic books offered many sources, notably the X-men.

More recently there have been movies returning to earlier sources, Race to Witch Mountain and the 3 X-men movies.

Well, maybe some. It would be pretty silly to have a fire elemental not immune to fire. Or a golem not immune to poison. When Sean Reynolds started working at Paizo, I thought this would be an issue strongly considered in Pathfinder RPG. I have yet to see it mentioned.

One of the first things that really impacted my opinion of 3rd edition was the saving throw for the cloak of poisonousness. Sure the DC is very high but there is a chance. Isn't that what everyone wants from DnD, to have a fighting chance. Isn't that what makes it fun. If you go into a fight and it is too easy or too deadly is it fun?

Well I have a bold suggestion, have touch (ranged or melee) spell grant a save but at -4. Some touch spells do allow saves some do not. Many of these spells come into question quite often: ray of enfeeblement, enervation, orb of (fire, cold, acid, etc). Otherwise, what reason is there to take feats such as iron will, and great fortitude. Why have a character with good saves?

If you have any other ideas for absolutes that should could be changed before the RPG is finished, please throw them out there.

We have playtested the adding your constitution score to hp. Adding the additional spells helps all spell casters quite a bit, as there are more encounters usually. Also the person who invests heavily (point buy) in their primary spell casting ability gets a little more in return to compensate for ability deficiencies elsewhere.

From what I understand from multiple posts, the problem was power creep in core and prestige classes. (i.e. players jumped at prestige classes as soon as they were able to leave a core class). You make a good summation of the core classes but splatbook core classes are easier to exploit with other splatbooks, feats and prestige classes. Take the swashbuckler/duelist you get int bonuses for additional skill points, AC bonus, and damage bonus. You now outshine the fighter.

Also the more powerful core classes are being chosen more often even if there are less of them. Some are just poor choices after being playtested. The scout for example has terrific defenses but the trade off was offensive umph. Our scout would run around the battlefield being mostly ignored by the enemy, then after the fight he would feel his character never did anything exciting during the fight. While his scout always seemed to come away unscathed, too many times the class was not fulfilling for the player. This may not be the case for everyone but I would imagine it would for more than half.

Keep in mind, James, Jason and the rest of the staff respond to posts quite quickly and often while working on projects. I have seen many posts where they are not elaborate as perhaps they might wish, because of time constraints. Later I will find more information posted going into greater detail. We have quite the honor of having them respond to our question (take Clark Peterson responding to contest submissions) I can only hope as the Paizo company grows, they continue to stay in touch with us as they do now.

I agree 3.5 lowered the buff time to avoid worrying about keeping track of them encounter to encounter and to limit all day buffing, a huge nightmare and probably where the name codzilla started.

I posted a suggested feat, which extends spell durations to a level between extend and persistent. You can find it by doing a search of prolonged spell. Sorry I am not a good linker. lol

I think it is perfectly reasonable to require Druids to choose whether they want to use Wildshape or have the ability to cast at any given time. I think spending a feat to let them do both at the same time is clearly much too powerful for a feat.

How do you feel about this feat. With the additional feats available in RPG this would be easy to incorporate.

NATURAL SPEECH FEAT

This feat allow a transformed creature to alter their transformation enough to allow rough speech. The included a druid's wild shape or a polymorphed creature. This feat does not allow the necessary vocalization to cast spells.

This feat could be a prerequisite for natural spell. Thereby bridging what many feel is too good of a feat.

AC bonus (monk)-a monk adds his wisdom bonus to his AC, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF HIS MONK LEVEL

Divine Grace (paladin)- a paladin gains a bonus equal to his charisma modifier to all saves, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF HIS PALADIN LEVEL

Uncanny Dodge-retains dex even if caught flat-footed or attacked by an invisible attacker,UNLESS THE ATTACKER HAS FOUR MORE LEVELS OF ROGUE THAN THE TARGET DOES.

One page 25 of the Second Darkness Companion, Luthier's Rapier is listed at a price of 5,020 gp. It is a +1 holy rapier that 1/day can grant a +4 sacred bonus to charisma and +4 morale bonus on saving throws vs fear, each lasts for 10 min.

Why is this so inexpensive? Is it a typo? Is it because if you use its other power it becomes a +1 rapier?

bump

I placed two orders today, a large one and the RPGXplorer 1.9 CD rom. Please combine the two so I only have to pay shipping once. Thanks in advance.

Thanks for replying LN.

Baramay wrote:

The problem I have seen in many of the "accessory books" is the dip/feat abuse. Swashbuckler is fine but combined with duelist it takes things to a whole new level.

Please explain how a Swashbuckler/Duelist "takes things to a whole new level". As far as I've ever seen or been able to determine, the only advantage the Duelist offers is to eventually grant a high AC, at the expense of absolutely everything else. As far as I can tell. Swashbuckler/Duelist doesn't do much damage, doesn't have good saves, and generally contributes lit

If you're going to say that Swashbuckler/Duelist is powerful, please support this, especially as compared to a charging power-attacking Barbarian or a wizard throwing around save-or-lose/die spells while flying and invisible.

"Dip abuse"...

Not looking to heap on, I just read the posts put out in the last hour, but I am a bit confused by your post. You ask me to please explain, then you insult me at the end. I have read most of your posts, many times you take offense at people attacking you. Why did you do this to me?

I am going to compare to the barbarian rather than the mage, because both he and swashbuckler/duelist are melee types. The swashbuckler and duelist are two dip classes they work as gateways to creating other more powerful characters. Better than the core. Using your character with a 26 int, as an example a swashbuckler 3/ duelist 1 would have +8 damage to each attack and +8 AC. The boost in AC would mean the power attacking barbarian would have a better chance of missing than hitting. The bigger issue is that the melee types best job is to keep the enemy occupied and this combination does that quite well. Add in max skill from the high int and you are hardly every surprised (as well as being very capable of spotting moving invisible mages), and have a +10 initiative.

In my eyes the PathfinderRPG does a better job of fixing issues than the ToB, because it addresses every class. Also having a 7th level manuever, (swooping dragon strike) use the jump skill as a DC or be stunned for 1 rd, does not fill me with confidence. There is a stance that give you +10 to jump, rings give +5 or +10, the 1st level jump spell gives +10,+20, or +30 and the thri-kreen has a +30 racial bonus to jump. I don't like to use the word broken but what else can you say?

WotC's Nightmare wrote:

I agree. The only base classes guilty of power creep were the Book of Nine Swords classes and maybe the duskblade. The main power creep from splatbooks came from feats, spells, and PrC's.

The vast majority of PrCs are terrible, too--people just tend to not remember those.

The Swashbuckler and Samurai are not "fighter builds"--they are vastly inferior to the Fighter.

There are some really powerful PrCs outside of core

I am looking at these two comments and thinking you might have said PrCs vary in power from strong to weak. Do you agree?

This is off topic but you in another post you mentioned about see invisibility not being appropriate for a magic item, comparing it to dimension door and some 9th level spell being usable all day with magic item if that was the case. Well, there are two magic items in the Magic Item Compendium that allow casting of see invisibility. They are the Corsair's eyepatch-3,000gp and dragon mask-4,000gp.

Spellcasters should be nerfed *and* melee classes should get better. You gotta understand--stuff like a very weak Will save, dependency on the Full Attack, etc are problems for melee characters not because of spellcasters (except NPC ones), but because of monsters.

Also, ToB classes are vastly more fun to play, in combat and out of it.

I addressed the weak saving throw issue at high level in an earlier post, it seems we are in agreement. Also I brought up the problem of save or lose spells, before I every heard of a Logic Ninja. Again a subject you feel very strongly about, so why insult my input. I have read many, many post of you complaining about something being broken or wrong but never once have you chosen to voice a solution to the problem. Is this not your strong suit or did some rival company hire you to heckle the Paizo boards? I am sorry if this sounds harsh but I cannot understand why you spend so much time repeating yourself, yet have held back contributing.

Here is what I learned from Logic Ninja...

We agree that there are spells that make casters too powerful and they are the save or lose spells.

We agree that poor saves are too weak.

Ray of enfeeblement should be changed as divine favor was. (Max +3)

Metamagic Mastery still needs work. I suggest prepare a spell at (-1 spell level) if metamagic is applied. You may do this X times per day based on your caster level.

The magic item creation process still needs work.

What is a MW Tool (tumble)?

Wow threads have really gone off topic lately.

To the OP, I initially thought as you did, and you are correct. But since these are core classes they will be played and the new parts will quickly become part of common knowledge. The alternative is having 101+ prestige classes, often multiples for each character. That causes problems for GMs, who have to try and regulate what she allows into the game.

The problem I have seen in many of the "accessory books" is the dip/feat abuse. Swashbuckler is fine but combined with duelist it takes things to a whole new level.

High level will be addressed. I have am putting together my suggestions to present when Jason asks for that chapter.

Hi Ruth N. Here is what I would do...

1) Talk to your player as to why he wants the character to be nixed. Could he just be challenging you to TRY to kill is fantastic character? I don't know. Does he want to go out in a blaze of glory or would he want to retire him and have him as a possible contact for the PCs, effectively rewarding the player for showing up every game session, but not overly so. I would also thank him for being willing to play a cleric, but you should restrict him to certain spell sources. Not to punish him but because you have to be familiar with his spells also. I like PHB and spell compendium. Both are 3.5. and give lots of spells.

2) If you want to challenge a character you have to know their strengths and weakness. Just for you, I took a look at the lurk. Here is what I think... your lurk has an insanely high int. This works as a DC for augments, probably more than doubles his normal PP, and gives a huge bonus to initiative. Your player probably uses the augment-stun attack and then augments the DC. Here you need to limit him to his level as a maximum augment to the ability. Does it say that? No. Does it say a power cannot be augmented beyond one's level? Yes. On page 63 of the expanded Psionics Handbook. Even though it does not say the augment is limited it should work off the same principles as powers. I would stake a large sum of money that Bruce Cordell would agree. It might even be found in the errata. The same applies to "additional sneak attack", max 10 PP for additonal 5d6 sneak damage (remember this is only one attack) Next he should have only one 4th level power because at 9th level he has 9 max 3rd level and at 10th he has 10 max 4th level. Does he have one? If I was to guess what 4th level power he has it would be death urge. If so enforce the fact that he cannot augment the power because it is limited by his level (10) and to augment the power he would need to expend a minimum of 11 points.

The lurk's weakness is burning through PP and not having many to start with. (This is slightly mitigated by the insane int score) Here is how I would challenge him... give him plently of flunkies to take out. Preferably ones with good will saves. I suggest aberation, monstrous humanoid, or undead. Undead are not affected by compulsions so that negates many psionic powers and not affected by sneak attack damage either. Allow him to burn through his PP and then when the party decides to rest, attack with the leader, who happened to check on his minions and found many of them dead. A simple clairvoyance spell can do this and you would think an int enemy would check on his guards at least one/day.

I hope this helps.

Given the choices, I'd rather see just the +2 Str, or perhaps +2 Str, -2 Chr.

I do not think half-orcs should have an int penalty. Half orcs are supposed to be smarter than pureblooded orcs, and currently they are not.

I'd also like to point out that Classic Monsters Revisited states that half-orc/half-goblin and half-orc/half-hobgoblin have the same stats as half-orc/half-humans. So half-orcs should not necessarily be related to human stats.

I just want to throw in my agreement here. If you need two + abilities then I choose constitution it helps every class. In my mind a barbarian with the wisdom bonus is scarier than the constitution bonus. With rage bonuses it is that much better at resisting spells, constitution is nice but the new toughness feat easily trumps it at low level.

I want to try to dispel the myth that having a tough life breeds wisdom. You hear many athletes who get into legal trouble talking about their tough youth. Did it help them avoid trouble later in life? If you throw out wisdom bonuses to 1/2 orcs because they are outsiders to humanity, should not male drow get a similar bonus. I mean really if given the choice to live as either one, which would you chose? I'd take the 1/2 orc in a heartbeat, and count my blessings.

I think the divide here is keeping the races the same, and keeping with history. Should not we choose the later.

In a similar choice 4th edition chose to change classic demons and devils to streamline them, I heard many Paizo staffers were disappointed with this, so why change 1/2 orcs?

To the original OP. There are a few things that have not been touched upon. Mages and sorcerers have a shortage of hp and it is more expensive to increase their AC. This leaves them very vulnerable to archery type fighters, who are able to get their full attacks off. Since most very good defensive spells have a short duration (displacement, invisibility, mirror image) an archery who wins initiative(a good chance with his high dex) will lay quite a hit on the mage. A rogue hiding will lay quite a bit of damage on any character, but loses most of the time going face up against a melee fighter. Clerics and druids do very well but should not have the same damage output of a mage or sorcerer, by looking at the damage output on p.36 DMG. This is an issue still to be completely addressed by PathfinderRPG.
A suggestion I brought up was at higher levels when save disparity increases there needs to be some change. Whether it is a new feat or a change to poor save progression, I leave that up to the Pathfinder team.

Spells that take enemies out of the fight, whether by incapacitating them or save or die are more powerful than damage spells, even the new save or die. The reason is the increase in hp. PathfinderRPG still needs to address this.
Another issue I am going to address in the nicest manner possible is that with the flexiblility of magic it is often the most often abused. When wording is poor or the editing process just failed to perceive the length to which feats and prestige classes can be abused.

Fake Healer- If your mage was using sculpt spell to increase a 10ft radius spell to 20 ft. He was following the wording of the feat but manupulating the spirit. I say this because it would be circumventing the widen spell feat which costs +3 against sculpt's +1. I can understand why it caused problems. I would not allow it in my campaign for said reason. It is not in Pathfinder Beta so if they introduce such a feat it would be best to word it as "any spell with at least the same dimensions as the choices, can be sculpted."

Logic Ninga- Are you sure you want to waste empower on ray of enfeeblement? It only multiplies the variable amount which is 1d6. So the most you can get is +3(on a roll of a 6). You get +2 (on 4 or 5) and +1 (on 2 or 3) and nothing on a 1. The average increase is 1.5. This could be beneficial especially against a power attacking two handed fighter but I find it expensive.

To the original OP, agruing about spellcasters to melee types is too vague of a topic to give any true definition of their differences. If you feel one is too powerful look for the reason why. Then offer a suggestion to Pathfinder RPG as a solution, they have done very well with the changes thus far. Although they have recently stated there will be many more changes to come.

Baramay wrote:

Alpha 3 changes to buff magic items might preclude having one (they cost more) with a dex and con bonus.

Nonsense. They just standardized the physical/mental slots. The cost for an out-of-place item is a whopping 50% more. There are TWO physical stat slots (belt and shirt), so this doesn't even arise in the case of desiring both Dex and Con.

Baramay wrote:

For those arguing against my suggestion could you please show me the characters you feel are going to do well against Karzoug's DC fort 31 wail of the banshee spell. For the most part you only need to worry about the sorcerer or the thief, since they have the poor fort saves. You may only use Alpha 3 rules and the SRD since my suggestion is for PathfinderRPG.

Johnyboy, the halfling rogue seriously dropped the ball. Despite his prodigious stealth and impressive initiative modifier, he found himself investigating his left nostril when the nasty, evil mage attacked and ended up flat-footed and unable to shut the nasty, evil spellcaster down or activate his Ring of Spell Turning to make that nasty, evil spellcaster REALLY sorry! As a 20th level rogue, Johnyboy has managed to collect 700,000+ gp worth of magic items. He started off with 14 con, but being a frequent front-liner as a result of his Two Weapon Fighting style, chose to put 2 (out of 5 total) ability increases in it for the extra hp. At 20th level he still likes hp, so he's gone to the horrible expense (36k) of buying a +6 Shirt of Mighty Constitution.

So - Fortitude bonus: +2 base Con + 1 natural Con increase + 3 Con enhancement (Shirt of Mighty Constitution +6) + 1 halfling save bonus + 5 resistance (cloak of resistance) + 6 poor save = +18

Johnyboy needs to roll a 13 or higher to make that save. But wait! Johnyboy isn't COMPLETELY stupid, and after trying to front-line a horde of spectres earlier in his adventuring career (whose attacks grant 2 negative levels without save) decided to shell out the 38,000 "donation" to induce his...

Possible Spoilers for Rise of the Rune Lords

Shadowdweller I would like to thank you for putting together version of boosting saves for the rogue and sorcerer. I was looking for improvements on the 14th level characters in Spires of Xin-Shalast, but I was not clear on this. The only difference from your Johnboy characters would be neither of them are halflings and each has a 12 constitution at 14th level. This puts them two behind your rogue, giving saves of +16 for a roll of 15+ needed. You did have quite a few mistakes in your post.

For starters, items with no space limitation are x2 cost not 1.5. (p.285 DMG)

You mention a ring of spell turning but since wail of the banshee is is a spread, it is not turnable.

Unfortunately, not many magic items made the Alpha 3 download. Since the scarab of protection is based on death ward which has changed, it would be logical to expect this change in the Beta release. If they miss it, you present a needed change. So with the scarab (+4 morale bonus) the pregenerated characters move to a +11 each. Meaning there is an equal chance either one will die. Giving the characters with good saves the same equipment they need a 5 or better for a 20% chance of survival. If they were all in the spell radius.

Unfortunately for Harry the sorcerer the wail of the banshee spell does not target Harry it is a spread. So Harry is a dead. If the wording is changed then it would require the characters to all walk around holding hands for the teleport to affect all of them. Very Wizard of Oz-like to say the least. If you meant teleport circle which has a 5ft radius, that is a 9th level spells and not available for contingency (only up to 6th). Also everyone would need to not move to attack (except ranged weapons and spells) until the enemies cast a spell. So while everyone is waiting the Rune Giants are moving in and cleaving the party. Teleport is not possible in Xin-Shalast without Sihedron Rings or medallions (lower the above saves by 2). So unless everyone has one, only those who do have one will teleport away (perhaps not known to the party). But to where? I am sure the cautious party is not attacking before casting contingency again (a 10 minute casting time). So more than likely Karzoug would be the one using the teleport ambush. Would you really want your DM to play Karzoug as anything less than his 32 int? Most likely he will contact his minions, wish the better ones back from the dead, then attack the party with an even higher EL than the one they fled from.

I appreciate your list of magic items but please try to make less mistakes. Especially when capitalizing so much in your reply.

We imported Nelbin, my level 5 gnome ranger, to Pathfinder alpha 3. We used racial starting hit points so Nelbin's hit points increased from 29 to 43hp. But my loyal steed husky has only 13hp :(. I wonder should we add some hp to animal companion too and how much that would be for medium animal.

Any experience?

At 6th level your ranger qualifies as a 3rd level druid with regard to animal companions under current rules or my suggestion. This gives a +2 HD bonus, +2 natural armor, +1 str/dex adj, share spells and evasion. Until that time I suggest keeping him out of major fights and helping flank when facing many enemies. At 8th level your have some good spells to share like barkskin, healing and bear's endurance.

In Complete Adventurer there is a feat that allow you to add +3 to your effective druid level as long as it does not go beyond your character level.

For those arguing against my suggestion could you please show me the characters you feel are going to do well against Karzoug's DC fort 31 wail of the banshee spell. For the most part you only need to worry about the sorcerer or the thief, since they have the poor fort saves. You may only use Alpha 3 rules and the SRD since my suggestion is for PathfinderRPG.

I hear many people saying I don't like the idea, but why? Do you play a wizard and feel they will be getting the shaft again?

Alpha 3 changes to buff magic items might preclude having one (they cost more) with a dex and con bonus. Here is a breakdown of #1 by level...1st level no change 2nd level +1 to poor save, 3rd level back to no change, 4th thru 7th level +1 to poor saves. 8th level +2, 9th level +1, 10th thru 13th level +2. 14th +3 15th +2 16th thru 19th +3. Finally at 20th level +4.

Gamist. Simulationist. I'm the guy with the gun.

The problem is that you don't want everyone to be good at everything.

If you even out the saves then the monk loses something. He already has all 3 good saves. He's the only one who does.

Other PC races have to shore up that gap in other ways. Namely feats (and later, with epic feats, if the campaign progresses that high).
If the PC doesn't spend the resource to shore up the hole in their defenses- then they have a hole in their defenses. And Paizo just gives PC's more feats than they had in 3.5.

Instead, people ignore the save-increasing feats and then gripe that they have low saves.

PC's have the methods already to increase their saving throws. They don't need an extra game mechanic to shore it up automatically, they just need to utilize what's already there.

Just my .02.

-S

Unfortunately the divide becomes too great at higher levels. This is why many think spellcasters are too powerful. Against the DC 26 spell even if the characters have iron will or another feat. They only increase their save chance from 20 to 19-20. Add a +5 cloak of resistance and you succeed only on a 14-20, a 35% chance of success when you have done pretty much everything possible to resist magic. Karzoug has a DC 31 wail of the banshee spell. At 20th level what chance does a character with a poor Fortitude save have? Not much if you are only using the SRD. Is not one goal of the PathfinderRPG to make classes viable without other sourcebooks?

The first step to fixing high level play is to fix the disparity between good and poor saves. In Pathfinder 6 the pregenerated characters are 14th level. Each character has a poor save of +5. The two spellcaster's DC for their 7th level spells are 26 and 24 respectively.

In 2nd edition saving throws (DCs) were static they did not change so as you gained level you became better at resisting magic. At 5th level your hold person was more effective against like leveled enemies than finger of death at 13th level. Third edition has gone the other way, as noted above. In 2nd edition damage spells where the best choice because at least you did 1/2 damage and hp were not too high. In 3rd edition incapacitating/death spells became the best choice because a caster has such a greater chance that an enemy will fail their save. Pathfinder needs to find the happy medium. I have two suggestions.

1) Change poor saves to the same formula (+1/2 levels) rather than the current (+1/3 levels) method. This has poor save trailing good saves by +2 at each level. This should be easy to calculate and thus backwards compatible.

2) Add +2 to all poor saves, this give +2 at 1st level, +5 at 10th and +8 at 20th. Again since you are only adding +2 to each poor save they are not hard to rework.

Let me know if you like either suggestion or if you have one of your own.

I like changing from d6 to d10. That changes the avg damage of a 200ft fall from 70 to 110. This stays consistent with the hp increases from 1st/2nd edition to 3rd. It is an easy mechanic and allows for pure luck (come on no wammies, 1s and 2s). Using Spires of Xin-Shalast as an example only Valeros (at 14th level) has in excess of 110 and then his 123hp could easily disappear if enough high numbers are rolled. DnD has always had a player friendly physical environment, total immersion in lava...20d6 damage.

Am with hogarth here it really is overpriced for how rare it works

It is not that rare. An 11th level fighter with boots of speed (you would want to have these 12,000 gp items with a vorpal sword) and you have a 20% chance of an instant kill. No save, no need to hit (20 is an auto hit). Therewithin lies the problem. Also if it was more reasonably priced players could have it at a lower level. I imagine most campaign don't run to a level where an NPC could have a vorpal weapon, we did. A few lucky rolls (yes only 20s) and nearly 50% of the party lay dead. No saves, no stabilization checks, put your dice down and start thinking about your next character.

I like your idea Fatespinner.

With spells changing from save or die. What should happen to the vorpal weapon? I have two suggestions.

1) A vorpal weapon automatically acts as a coup de grace on a natural 20, granting a saving throw although a high one.

2) A vorpal weapon does x3 normal critical damage, on a natural 20. So a longsword would be x6 total. A greataxe x9. A scythe x12.

Since neither of these is quite as powerful as the weapon stands now, the cost could be lowered to at least +4.

Thoughts?

Even with limiting shapes for druids and polymorph, is being able to cast spells in a form that normally does not permit spell casting too powerful?

bandit 1 "oh my god, that brown bear just ripped Joe's head off"
bandit 2 "Don't look now but I think he's starting to cast a spell"
bandit 1 "What can we do?"
bandit 2 "If we hide for 6 hours or so it should wear off"

Now is the time to chime in so changes can get made, what are your thoughts?

This feat allow a transformed creature to alter their transformation enough to allow rough speech. The included a druid's wild shape or a polymorphed creature. This feat does not allow the necessary vocalization to cast spells.

This feat could be a prerequisite for natural spell. Thereby bridging what many feel is too good of a feat.

So, does that mean the Universalist wizards will be able to pick any spell, or that they won't get any bonus spells. I'm hoping for the later....

I would prefer to see the opposite. Universalist wizards getting any spell and not the most powerful special abilities.

Animal companion gets favored enemy bonus now which will help him a lot versus favored enemies.

I really like the sound of this. Your companion learn to hate those who you hate. But the real problem is the defense of the companion. At 20th level ranger the best offensive companion you could get is a polar bear. 8HD and CR4 68hp. I see the problem being hp(what out for area spells and saves. Additional HD would help a great deal. At level-3. A 20th level ranger could have a dire tiger 16 HD CR8 and 120hp. Nothing that is too earth shattering but the tiger would have a better chance at survival. Also to put this in perspective a 20th level druid (or 17th for that matter) could use a summon nature's ally IX spell to summon 2-5 (d4+1) dire tigers. A 20th level mage (or 17th again) could summon 1d3 fiendish dire tigers.

I noticed the ranger's animal companion is still 1/2 level= druid level. Is there any chance this can be changed to level-3= druid level? Here is why...

The character in Pathfinder RPG are a bit stronger. The enemies with level will be a bit stronger too. What about animal companions? Nope. Now I do understand that it could make for great roleplaying..

You killed Nightwing XIII, prepare to die!!

But I would imagine it would get old quickly.

Anvil many of the complete books etc, have added feats that when chained can get pretty crazy. On thing I saw from Paizo was their feat to allow a sorcerer to cast spells more quickly had a drawback of fatiguing him. (This is in the current Pathfinder AP for the mage's guild in Korvosa,2nd or 3rd book, I think, I loaned my books out) In the coplete books there was no such hindrance. I prefer the Pathfinder feat. After the RPG comes out I expect to have more feats that are like this one. I am not saying the Paizo staff will not let any accidentally fall through but I think they are more conscientious than the WotC staff was when putting out accessory books.

So what has been addressed by the Pathfinder RPG? What still needs attention?

Would it work to do away with a few magic item slots, and slide previous magic items into other slots? The new PathfinderRPG states that new characters are slightly better in combat so it should be a push. Do we really need profane/sacred or insight bonuses? Page 21 of the 3.5 DMG lists bonuses which ones could we do without?

I hope this doesn't sound rude.

But have you tried reading 4th edition?

I don't think your reply is rude. I do think you missed my earlier post. I stated I do not have the 4th edition books and I am skeptical about getting them because so many comments I have read from designers do not have any substance. James Wyatt says 4th edition fixes the problem of 3rd edition but does not give any examples of how this is done and what exactly caused these problems? So I asked, for those who have played 4th edition how are these problems resolved? By knowing what 4th edition did right I could better answer the OP of what PathfinderRPG is doing. I did not get any answers. So if you can help please do so.

After months of jargon without substance (cool, better than 3.x, etc) from 4th edition designers, I cannot help but be skeptical.

Baramay wrote:

Therefore, please enlighten me about how 4th edition streamlines the sweet spot.

Making high level feel almost like mid-level and making low-level feel almost like mid-level.

Reading 4E manual it seem that they have killed level progression

I don't think you answered my question. Assume I am not very bright, how specifically does 4th edition do this? What problems with 3rd edition did 4th edition fix, specifically regarding "the sweet spot." I feel more skeptical than ever after reading this post because Mr. Wyatt did not site examples and noone else has either.

In truth much of what I have heard regarding 4th edition has the same feel as Mr. Wyatt's comments. I feel like I am on a used car lot.

me "how is the gas mileage on this car?"
salesman "its great"
me "what is it?"
salesman "you won't have to fill your tank very often"
me sigh
salesman "its much better than any car you will get across the street"
me "how can you say that?"
salesman "you'll be thrilled you bought this car"

I hope you see my point. I have heard cool, better, and more to describe 4th edition. The more I hear of this the more I feel that Hasbro (the dealership owner) has told the salesman (designers) to move these cars off the lot (4th edition) and they are trying to do their best with propoganda tricks. I am not trying to say that 4th edition has not fixed some problems. I have done so myself with house rules, but their claim of a fix seems impossible.

Here is why. Often a character sheet is known as a character build. When you build anything it becomes more complex. Adding of feats and special abilities to make high level special make it more complex. So by this reasoning I don't believe PathfinderRPG or 4th edition have or can "fix" this problem. They can provide tools to make it less difficult. I firmly believe you will see that by Paizo.

I have not chosen to purchase the 4th edition books, instead choosing to spend my hard earned money on Paizo products. Therefore, please enlighten me about how 4th edition streamlines the sweet spot. To me higher level requires more time to create a character(or NPC), more choices for said character (magical or special abilities), and more magic items to add to the character. While some headway can be made regarding these issues, I find it difficult to see how 1st to 30th level can have an even sweet spot as suggested by Mr Wyatt. I am just a bit skepical.

A DM can easily police abuse of rules in a home campaign. He can limit the number of base classes and prestige classes if he so desires. If home games were all there were, no real changes would need to be made to the rules. The real problems arise in things like Living Campaigns. You are giving standards with which to create your character but no DMs have any say in what you do. If you want to abuse Munchkining, you can. This is why something needs to be improved in the rules set. After playing for almost three years in a Living Greyhawk campaign, I saw some 'afflictomatic' characters that were only possible because of base class and prestige class hopping. Hopefully something can be done to fix this.

Well said Garry.

I also want to include when one goes to a "con" event to play, they have a new GM to run things and a good ruleset goes a long way. GMs should spend more time developing adventures and less drafting house rules. Garry, I know LG went a long way to restrict or disallow certain spells and the like, have you and fellow LGers presented these ideas to the PathfinderRPG team?

Here is something I came up with to help limit the dipping. I had posted it in the Alpha 2 area by mistake.

I have searched and found some ideas for saving throw changes and most of them are in regard to multiclassing. I have my own suggestion. I would like to state now if it has been mentioned earlier, I appologize. My computer has been down and I tried to do a quick search.

At first level each character receives +2 save in good and bad saves. Then if it is a good save he receives +1/2 per level rounded down (just like hp). A poor save gives +1/4 per level rounded down. This is slightly skewed to help the lower level individual in his bad save. Also multiclassing only adds to the equation (no more +2 at 1st again) It looks like this...

Level...Good save....Bad Save
1.......+2...........+2
2.......+3...........+2
3.......+3...........+3
4.......+4...........+3
5.......+4...........+3
6.......+5...........+3
7.......+5...........+4
8.......+6...........+4
9.......+6...........+4
10......+7...........+4
11......+7...........+5
12......+8...........+5
13......+8...........+5
14......+9...........+5
15......+9...........+6
16......+10..........+6
17......+10..........+6
18......+11..........+6
19......+11..........+7
20......+12..........+7

If the good save collumn looks familiar it is because it has not changed. The bad save now adds +2 but progresses by 1/4 rather than 1/3. This gives less of a descrepancy for the bad save and does not allow one to easily size up an opponent. Oh a giant, will save. Oh an animal, will save. Fighter, will save again.

For a multiclass character just multiply and add +2.

A 5th level cleric/4th level figher will have Good fortitude saves in both so at 9th level he has +6. Reflex save will use 9 levels of bad progression, +4. So will is the only one we need to use math on. 5 level good that is (5/2)+ 4 levels bad (4/4)=3.5+2 rounded down to +5.

The Pathfinder RPG could also limit divine grace and the wisdom bonus to AC monks receive to one bonus/level, much like the AC bonus of the duelist. That way you have to take more levels to gain the most out dipping.

I know many DMs that require one to finish a prestige class before continuing in another. After all, why do you want to be a duelist or arch-mage?

I have searched and found some ideas for saving throw changes and most of them are in regard to multiclassing. I have my own suggestion. I would like to state now if it has been mentioned earlier, I appologize. My computer has been down and I tried to do a quick search.

At first level each character receives +2 save in good and bad saves. Then if it is a good save he receives +1/2 per level rounded down (just like hp). A poor save gives +1/4 per level rounded down. This is slightly skewed to help the lower level individual in his bad save. Also multiclassing only adds to the equation (no more +2 at 1st again) It looks like this...

Level...Good save....Bad Save
1.......+2...........+2
2.......+3...........+2
3.......+3...........+3
4.......+4...........+3
5.......+4...........+3
6.......+5...........+3
7.......+5...........+4
8.......+6...........+4
9.......+6...........+4
10......+7...........+4
11......+7...........+5
12......+8...........+5
13......+8...........+5
14......+9...........+5
15......+9...........+6
16......+10..........+6
17......+10..........+6
18......+11..........+6
19......+11..........+7
20......+12..........+7

If the good save collumn looks familiar it is because it has not changed. The bad save now adds +2 but progresses by 1/4 rather than 1/3. This gives less of a descrepancy for the bad save and does not allow one to easily size up an opponent. Oh a giant, will save. Oh an animal, will save. Fighter, will save again.

For a multiclass character just multiply and add +2.

A 5th level cleric/4th level figher will have Good fortitude saves in both so at 9th level he has +6. Reflex save will use 9 levels of bad progression, +4. So will is the only one we need to use math on. 5 level good that is (5/2)+ 4 levels bad (4/4)=3.5+2 rounded down to +5.

There it is quick and easy, what do you think?

I was hoping to get some feedback on this idea. Any thoughts?

Which should factor more into a classes benefits? For example, the paladin can lay on hands which heals level times chr bonus. The divine grace ability gives a save bonus equal to chr bonus, regardless of level. Should the benefits of class abilities be more dependent on level rather than ability score? Or at least have a limit based on level as the duelist does with its canny defense ability?

The new combat expertise and power attack are dependent on ability scores regardless of level.

I have searched and found some ideas for saving throw changes and most of them are in regard to multiclassing. I have my own suggestion. I would like to state now if it has been mentioned earlier, I appologize. My computer has been down and I tried to do a quick search.

At first level each character receives +2 save in good and bad saves. Then if it is a good save he receives +1/2 per level rounded down (just like hp). A poor save gives +1/4 per level rounded down. This is slightly skewed to help the lower level individual in his bad save. Also multiclassing only adds to the equation (no more +2 at 1st again) It looks like this...

Level...Good save....Bad Save
1.......+2...........+2
2.......+3...........+2
3.......+3...........+3
4.......+4...........+3
5.......+4...........+3
6.......+5...........+3
7.......+5...........+4
8.......+6...........+4
9.......+6...........+4
10......+7...........+4
11......+7...........+5
12......+8...........+5
13......+8...........+5
14......+9...........+5
15......+9...........+6
16......+10..........+6
17......+10..........+6
18......+11..........+6
19......+11..........+7
20......+12..........+7

If the good save collumn looks familiar it is because it has not changed. The bad save now adds +2 but progresses by 1/4 rather than 1/3. This gives less of a descrepancy for the bad save and does not allow one to easily size up an opponent. Oh a giant, will save. Oh an animal, will save. Fighter, will save again.

For a multiclass character just multiply and add +2.

A 5th level cleric/4th level figher will have Good fortitude saves in both so at 9th level he has +6. Reflex save will use 9 levels of bad progression, +4. So will is the only one we need to use math on. 5 level good that is (5/2)+ 4 levels bad (4/4)=3.5+2 rounded down to +5.

There it is quick and easy, what do you think?

Baramay wrote:

Looking at the 3.5 orc we see that it has the following ability score adjustments

str(+4)dex(0)con(0)int(-2)wis(-2)cha(-2)
Humans have (0) across the board

By looking at the reincarnation spell in Alpha 2 release it still has
the same physical ability scores and I would imagine the mental are not going to change

Now with humans now having +2 in one ability, I don't see how the 1/2 orc suddenly has a +2 wisdom. To me this is being done only so each race has a +2 in a mental ability, even if it does not seem as though they should. Changing things to make them "fit" (all devils having humanlike form, and ignoring previous material) is a problem strongly expressed about 4th edition.

Logically a 1/2 orc should have +2 dex or +2 con, maybe even a +4 str.
The best choice in my opinion would be a +2 con. 1/2 orcs are more muscular than humans and often constitution comes with that. Just look at bonuses for increasing size.

The majority of things in the Alpha release have been well thought out and will help the game. Please don't make the 1/2 orc "fit".

I posted this back in the Alpha 1 comments on half-orcs, but I think part of the problem warming up to this might be that people are focusing on "this didn't come from the human parent or the orc parent," but I think that this is something unique to half-orcs.

Half-orcs that survive to adulthood in orc society have to be cunning and patient, and half-orcs that survive in human society have to know how to look for the right oppourtunities so that they can contribute without reminding people too much of their heritage. I think it makes sense if viewed in that light, but I can understand how it might be a shift in thinking for people, and it might not feel right to some. For me, it works.

I am sorry I missed your post in Alpha 1, my computer was down. I think you view of having to make their way while making sense, can be used for so many races you should have to start changing the whole monster manual. Male drows have an incredibly tough time, in a martriarchal society. The majority of smaller humanoids are mistreated by larger humanoids (ex. goblins by hobgoblins/bugbears.) Often being anywhere from slaves to cannonfodder. What about an orc raised in a human monestary. He suffers no mistreatment, should he have a procivity to be wiser than the humans he grew up with?

These are the reasons I see this move as "making it fit" and not something good. If you try to make pieces fit when doing a puzzle you always end up with pieces laying around at the end.

I don't see what the really big problem is here. Yeah, they Wisdom boost is to make them fit within the racial stat format they have, but so what? In the system they have set up, they have to have one boosted mental stat and and wisdom is the ONLY one that makes sense.

People who want them to have just physical boosts do so presumably because it makes them more "orc-like" or better barbarians which most of them inevitably are. Having the +2 Wisdom helps with that because it governs the skill set that barbarians have as well as those of druid/ ranger which are the most taken by half-orc characters. It helps them but just in a different way. (As a side note, I agree with those that think Druid should be the other favored of half-orcs. It just makes more sense.)

About half-orcs and humans. Humans have large, established civilization that allow for intelligence and charisma to flourish while orcs are savage brutes, but half-orcs are outsiders, but still usually living in more primitive societies and as such more so rely on having keen senses of perception, knowledge of the wilderness, and all those other "instinctual" sorts of knowledges and skills that help you to be more self-sufficient. They don't have just physical boosts because they don't just come from orc stock. Their greater ability to adapt and succeed in the face of being a semi-orphaned minority in most settings comes from their human side, in my opinion and all this reflects why they are generally more "wise" than either orcs or humans "usually are" based on the stat spread.

It's just hard to take the all physical boost argument as anything other than munchkin behavior. I think this stat spread really takes the race right out of the shadows of "worst race"-tied with 3.x half-elves. If all else fails, just house-rule yours to have +2 con instead or something. This has been discussed for hours and hours, and it doesn't seem to go anywhere. I'm glad this race now has the potential in play to be more than it used to be.

When 4th edition was introduced many of the Paizo staff express a strong dislike for the "making it fit" combination of succubus and erinyes into incubus and all human-like fiends were now devils. A reason was given (to make things easier for new players) but in the end I think many perceived it as an unnecessary change, of someone wanting to put their "stamp" on DnD. Erik Mona has stated many times it is important to build on continuity and make changes when necessary. Why, because continuity is important.

I am not sure where your view of 1/2 orcs being outsiders in orc society comes from? In my readings 1/2 orcs have risen to promient roles because they are more wiser than orcs, thus making better clerics.

I find it interesting that you label a +2 con as munchkin behavior, but when you point out the "worst race" you don't list the race that has a con penalty. In our campaigns the elf wizard is the least likely to be played.

I find the +2 wis to be a boon over the +2 con. When confronting a giant what to you attack? (will save). When confronting an animal what do you attack? (will save). When confronting a strong fighter what do you attack? (will save.) This is the far more logical approach and avoids hp altogether.

My point is "making it fit" is heavy handed and does not help with continuity.

Looking at the 3.5 orc we see that it has the following ability score adjustments
str(+4)dex(0)con(0)int(-2)wis(-2)cha(-2)
Humans have (0) across the board

By looking at the reincarnation spell in Alpha 2 release it still has
the same physical ability scores and I would imagine the mental are not going to change

Now with humans now having +2 in one ability, I don't see how the 1/2 orc suddenly has a +2 wisdom. To me this is being done only so each race has a +2 in a mental ability, even if it does not seem as though they should. Changing things to make them "fit" (all devils having humanlike form, and ignoring previous material) is a problem strongly expressed about 4th edition.

Logically a 1/2 orc should have +2 dex or +2 con, maybe even a +4 str.
The best choice in my opinion would be a +2 con. 1/2 orcs are more muscular than humans and often constitution comes with that. Just look at bonuses for increasing size.

The majority of things in the Alpha release have been well thought out and will help the game. Please don't make the 1/2 orc "fit".