Brett Blackwell's page

Considering there is a pathfinder trait that increases your caster level by 2 (up to character level) and a 3.5 feat that increases it by 4, it is pretty easy to attain these feats as early as 3rd and 7th levels, respectfully.

My bigger issue with the feats is the swift action requirement. That requirement seems completely conterproductive when used with an Eldritch Knight. The benefit should be an "always on" feature IMO.

Themetricsystem wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Is "I wish we were all teleported back to Magnimar" a lazy wish?

No, but it fails to define who "we all" is. Say you are using it to escape a great wyrm green dragon...

If I'm casting a frakking 9th-level spell, I'd expect the magic to know who "we" are. I guess we just have a different play style; I don't think it's fun to twist what players say when (1) it is obvious what the player intends, and (2) the magic is a neutral party not out to screw the PC (unlike a demon, efreeti, or cursed item, which wants to mess with the PC).

I have to agree with this viewpoint. Wishes became "unfun" back in my 2nd-ed days when we realized that we needed to plan and write out the wish in a 3-page legal document to avoid the DM twisting things around in a way that we didn't want. Wish was later removed from our game sessions because the DMs didn't want to pay attention to the whole 5 minute explanation, would try to twist it around, then the players would say "nope, I specifically worded it against that"....

For the "cursed object" issue... why don't all magical items (or normal items for that matter) stick with the Eidolon when it dies or is dismissed? Is there a reason that the "cursed items" really need a seperate cause? If the character spends the money to equip their Eidolon, why have to carry around the equipment when it isn't available? This also gives the added benefit that if the character gives their Eidolon a magical item with the intent of helping it in one battle, and the Eidolon is taken down, that item is unavailable until it can be summoned again...

For the summoning... Limiting it to one SLA at a time is fine... but as others have mentioned, please bring back the extended duration and reduced casting time... This is the "Summoner" after all :)

I don't have a huge problem with it, but I would be okay with making the duration 24 hours from the time of summoning (roughly). In other words, you summon it in the morning and the next morning you have to summon it again. Alternatively you could restrict the summoning to a certain time per day. My only issue is that I don't see a good RP reason for this sort of limitation.

Wizard all the way. I just can't make myself go with the sorcerer. Slower progression and limited spell selection. Yes, I know that most wizard characters prepare/cast the same spells almost every day but I just can't give up the "illusion" of flexibility ;) Generally I prefer Transmutation or Conjuration specialists.

In all honesty, if they dropped the spell progression down one level to match wizards, or added 1-2 more known spells per level to the sorcerer.

So, if a wizard takes a ring as a bonded item, but it isn't enchanted, does it count against the 2 magical ring limit that a character can wear and benefit from?

For example, a wizard has a bonded ring but has not been able to enchant it yet. He then attains a ring of feather falling and a ring of protection +1. Do all three rings function?

Summon Monster at 1st level generally isn't that spectacular... kinda like Magic Missile (for that whole 1d4+1 damage).

I will go against the grain a little and suggest picking up leather armor at 1st level. Sure, the AC bonus isn't as much as Mage Armor, but it lasts all day instead of just 1 hour. With only a 10% spell failure, that means only around 1 out of 10 spells will fail. Once you get to 3 or 4th level then you can drop it for Mage Armor (or preferably and Extended Mage Armor). My experience is that a 1-2 hour Mage Armor just isn't worth it when you consider an 8-hour adventuring day (unless your group has all their encounters close together).

I've always been personally fond of transmutation and conjuration specialists, though I usually find a way to shorten the Summon Monster spells to standard actions instead of full-round casting. Evocation just doesn't do much for me because the damage doesn't scale well with monster HP. Between saving throws, energy resistance, etc. direct damage spells become sub-par very quickly.

I'm still having a really hard time justifying a familiar over a bonded object. I know some recommend letting them use magical items and such, but for some reason that seems a little "cheesy" to me and I just can't bring myself to do that.

While I would have liked to see some rules for "attuning" to found spellbooks, the significantly reduced prices for scribing spells helps to make up for these missing rules..

Keep 'em coming... now if we could just get the following...

Color Spray
Protection from Evil
Magic Weapon
Shield

Then I would be set for gaming this weekend ;) I'll have to scour
"teh interwebs" to see if I can find you any artwork :p

I'm curious, how do people use/anticipate using spell cards such as these? Maybe I'm having an old dog moment.

Well, personally I like to have all my spells easily accessible without having to page through the PHB (or PFRGP core book). My current DM also requests that you have all your spell information at hand so we can keep the rule books away from the table as much as possible (though it isn't really enforced much since we are getting used to the new rules anyways).

For me it is easier and quicker to sort through a small stack of spell cards than it is to flip through a book.... though I'm still tempted to create a small 5x7-ish sized book with a cover and everything as a "fake" spellbook to bring to the table....

These are really great. The old spell cards for 2e were one of my favorite purchases back in the day... always having my spell info handy without having to sort through a book.

In the past I've done everything from hand-writing, copy-paste to a document, copy-paste into a PDA note, and attempted to print information out on plain 5x7 cards. Which reminds me.. instad of 8x6 how about standard 5x7 size cards? It's a little tighter fit, but you can buy cheap index card holders at supermarkets and office stores.

I do have to say that I really like these and I'm eagerly awaiting the finished product :)

Brett Blackwell wrote:

Of course slightly off topic...with the rules of having to hold or wear the bonded item to suffer Concentration checks, why would you ever pick anything except a ring or amulet????

Does wearing a bonded weapon in a scabbard count?

Nope, if I remember correctly it specifically states you have to be weilding a wand, staff, or weapon. Only amulets and rings count if you are just wearing them.

As to enchanting the items, I understood that when you paid half cost, but with full cost crafting and still having to meet the feat prereqs that staff can't be enchanted until 12th level, you will likely have a magic sword before 5th, and that wand requires you to drop your weapon to cast a spell since you need at least one hand free...

I dunno, some of those Improved Familiars (like the Faerie Dragon from the beta Beastiary) had some awesome abilities that compliment your arsenal.

Pseudodragons have a poison effect, Mephits have breath weapons, and they all have their special abilities scale with level since they're treated as having the same HD as you, regardless of how many levels you have in Wizard/Sorcerer.

Hmm, where do you read that they are treated as the same HD as their master? Maybe I'm missing something... but that is one of the reasons I've never been a fan of familiars because they just don't scale well with the wizard... unlike the animal companions for example.

To the original question... ANYTHING!!! :)

Honestly, in our last campaign I probably used the bonded object more for offensive spells than anything else.

3rd level - Gaseous Form, Tongues, Wind Wall
4th level - Dimension Door, Lesser Geas

Of course slightly off topic...with the rules of having to hold or wear the bonded item to suffer Concentration checks, why would you ever pick anything except a ring or amulet????

Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

So at this point I would actuallu suggest that we add both the skill of choice and the "Ambition: Humans gain both a skill point and hit point for each level they take in their favorite class." abilities.

I do not like this, it basically gives Humans +2 skill points per level in 90% of cases. Almost everyone will play humans for single class build or single class +prestige.

Hmm, you mean like most people will play the half-elf for a multiclass characters so they can get their favored class perks 90% of the time? Or the large number of people that will pick Elf for a wizard character if they don't plan on going into a PRC with a lot of Feat requirements?

I still like the idea because it gives the human race something they excel at... focusing on one class objective.

Our group compromised and made the Ambition ability into a racial trait that the player can choose to take at 1st level. Each character can choose two traits and 1 occupation (from Tome of Secrets). Still not my ideal situation... but at least it gives the Humans something even if they have to use a trait.

Brett Blackwell wrote:

The Swashbuckler's "Find the Mark" ability says it stacks with any other affects that increase the crit range. Does this include feats like Improved Critical that specifically state that they don't stack? If so, what is the order for the stacking?

I would assume you would apply the improved critical feat first then subtract one, as doing the reverse creates a larger crit range (and only gets worse with "Improved Mark").

Improved Critical specifically does not stack with itself, when taken multiple times. It can, however, be used with Find the Mark -- and yes, the effect of the feat is figured first, and then the class ability.

Well, our issue is the last paragraph of the Improved Critical feat..

This effect doesn’t stack with any other effect that

expands the threat range of a weapon.

The earlier paragraph also states that it cannot stack with itself..

You can gain Improved Critical multiple times.

The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it
applies to a new type of weapon.

I just wanted to make sure since most feats and spells (like Keen Edge) specifically state they don't stack with other effects that extend the crit range. I'm perfectly happy with this being an exception to the rule as long as it is applied after the original stacking effects...

I know this one is probably pretty obvious, but it was asked in our gaming group and I thought I would try to get an "official" answer.

The Swashbuckler's "Find the Mark" ability says it stacks with any other affects that increase the crit range. Does this include feats like Improved Critical that specifically state that they don't stack? If so, what is the order for the stacking?

I would assume you would apply the improved critical feat first then subtract one, as doing the reverse creates a larger crit range (and only gets worse with "Improved Mark").

I enjoyed my DM's ruling on humans. They gain Ambition

Ambition: Humans gain both a skill point and hit point for each level they take in their favorite class.

Now that is a possibility :) It gives the human race something back for thier loss of favored class benefit, keeps the Paizo goal of sticking with the base class viable, leaves the half-elves their focus on being multiclass kings, and gives the humans the new role of being very focused for their short lifespan :p

There are advantages that aren't simply mechanical. Most campaigns are humanocentric. The bulk of the population is human and probably react more favorably to humans. Half Elves and Half Orcs are percieved as (and probably mostly are) bastards. Misfits in any society, especially your typical quasi-medieval culture which stresses legitimacy. Dwarves, elves, gnomes and halflings, while not unknown, are unusual and somewhat "alien" which can generate some difficulties. Good old human bigotry. Halflings probably have the easiest time of any of the other races fitting in to human society. Their small size and harmless appearance would go a ways to balancing the "alien" factor. Of course, that's not saying the other races don't have their own prejudices and are probably going to exercise them where they are the primary racial group...

Of course this is subjective and certainly not true of every campaign, but reading the racial descriptions in the core book it seems fairly reasonable. A good example of it in literature is the Garrett PI series by Glen Cook. Violent para military right wing groups develop from social stresses after the end of a war. Extreme racial prejudice is part of their ideology. My own game doesn't go near that far, but it does reflect the fairly common racial prejudices of typical fantasy games / settings.

So, by that logic the Half-orc really didn't need a bonus to Intimidate... the book just needs to say that half-orcs are scary monsters and most people wet themselves when they see one charging :)

Non-mechanical bonuses/penalties just don't do anything when it comes to game balance, IMO, because of the fluctuation in gaming types like you mentioned. Maybe the campaign is set entirely within an elven land and humans are treated like diseased dogs... being put down at first sight :p

If the Favored Class bonus is such a problem, why not just remove Favored Class all together? I can understand why they got rid of specific racial Favored Classes when theyy gave a bonus to Favored Classes, because it railroads you into one specific character type. Say I come up with a concept for a Dwarven Sorcerer, I'm already taking a suboptimal build. Now, if my Favored class is restricted fighter, I now get hit twice. Even if I choose to take Barbarian, I still take a hit for playing a little outside my stereotype. Yes it is a hit if I'm not taking advantage of anavailible bonus and not multiclassing. If I can choose my favored class then I get a little back for taking the suboptimal choice as my favored class.

So I suggest getting rid of it altogether if it doesn't make you happy. That way no one you solve the problem and don't penalize players who want to try something different.

Well, I personally liked the concept of the old favored class system... if not the mechanics. Yeah, I liked the stereotyping of the races, so sue me :p However, I can see the benefits of the new system, it just really irks me when people dismiss the human as only gaining abilities and not losing anything.... they did loose one of their main benefits (even if it was the lowest one because groups didn't implement the XP penalties).

Heck, back before Pathfinder we used to set everything in Greyhawk and even modified the human race to grant a +2/-2 stat adjustment depending on the human subrace/culture (Baklunish, Suel, etc.) to even the playing field. We still had elves/dwarves/half-orcs in the party???

I fail to see that they could have not got the +2 , yet every one is waveing it off. They lost nothing. Not one single thing did they loose

How many people even used the xp penalty? I mean really it was not all that great anyhow. They have lost nothing

I'm not waiving off the +2 bonus, it is a boost. But at the same time, the Half-orc and Half-elf also recieved it, while the other races gained a "lesser" version. However it does seem a lot of people are waiving off the favored class "benefit" loss.

BTW, we used the XP penalties for multiclassing.. if that helps you understand my side for the loss of the old human favored class "perk".

Humans got everything they got before, plus +2 to an ability score. Where's the nerf?

The nerf would be the loss of their favored class benefit. The +2 is a wash since all races gained a +2, two gaining the same +2 benefit as the human. While they changed the favored class rules, they still kept favored class (in a fashion) but the humans lost their "special benefit" that used to be there. To me, and apparently others, that is a "nerf".

If you grant the same benefit to all races but don't give the one class that originally had a "perk" based on the benefit a "perk" in the new rules... that is a nerf in my book.

Just thought of another, though it is a missing option instead of a true dislike...

I really wish some sort of rules had been included for multiclassing at 1st level like in 3.0. That was one of the things I never understood when they dropped it from 3.5. Being able to start at 1st level as a true wizard/fighter instead of having to come up with some silly idea that "yeah, I've been trained in combat and magic... I just don't use magic yet" (or "I just can't swing a longsword correctly yet") was really nice, and never overpowered in my opinion.

The revision to adding spells to your spellbook! It is about time the wizard can add additional spells without taking a second mortgage on his summer home....

I'm not crazy about death spells doing damage. I know people don't like dying because of one failed save and that is understandable. I was thinking of housing death spells to do continual damage until the save is made. Slay Living used to kill you. Now it does 12d6+1/CL. Not bad when you can start casting it at 9th level but ends up getting weaker as you level up. Flame Strike is about as good at 9th level and way better at higher levels. Plus, straight damage eliminates the flavor. Makes it feel like another type of energy damage. Death spells will be scary again if you know another 12d6 is coming if you don't save next time. It would also allow your friends to try to help save you if they know what is happening. "Hey, thanks for that Death Ward. I really needed that."

Got to agree on this one. The neutering of "save or die" spells is my only real complaint. And it wasn't just the "save or die" spells, there seems to be quite a few other changes to the magic system.

So far the only other minor complaint I have is that I still think the Humans took a hit they didn't really need, but the details and arguments for that are for another thread :)

I think the human is a quite viable race choice. The bonus feat and skill points are quite useful to nearly any character type, not to mention the +2 to any ability score.

We cut the weapon proficiency for a variety of reasons, the largest being that it made for some strange changes to the game world. Every farmer being proficient in greatsword was not something we wanted to see. I realize this is the most extreme example, but it is still valid. To top it off, we realized it was a bit redundant. If that is something you desire for your character, you still get a free feat.

Anyway, every race will not appeal to every group. If the human does not work for you, by all means, play a different race.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Thanks for the reply :) I completely agree with the loss of the free weapon proficiency... it just never made sense to me anyways :) However, I've never seen the Human as being the "must have" race that so many others seem to think it was. I'm okay with agreeing to disagree though :p

That bonus feat may not seem like much, but the fact that you get to choose what that benefit IS (as opposed to having a feat-equivalent racial mod) means you can tailor your human down any path, and they will be 1 step closer (2-3 levels closer) to meeting that PrC's entrance requirements (especially good for those old PrCs that had a throw-away feat requirement like "Skill Focus: Basketweaving) or that cool endcap to a feat chain.

Well, the basket-weaving option is null and void becuase the half-elf gets that feat free too :p I won't argue with the rest, because it is one of the reasons I like to play humans, and also because it completely depends on the PRC. If even one required feat is Skill Focus, the half-elf wins out.

Sure, it is "just" one +2, but it you can choose where to put it (so you will get the right bonus for your concept, no matter what that concept will be). And you don't get a penalty, either.

As mentioned, no different than Half-orc or Half-elf... so yawn....

Say you want to be an archer using ranger. The elf might have +2 dex, but so does the human. He doesn't have the +2 int, but so what? Free skill point to even it out. And you don't have to boost your con as much. And then, when your elf archer friend misses because he has to fire into melee, you hit because you got precise shot at first level!

OK, I'll play that game :) Say you want to be a wizard. The human gets +2 to INT, so does the Elf. The Elf also gets a decent ranged weapon, a +2 DEX (for better AC and better hit with ranged touch and his bow), basically a free Spell Penetration feat (which stacks with Spell Penetration if he wants).. and I can't say I've ever seen a wizard that didn't take at least Spell Penetration at some point in his advancement. The elf does suffer from -1 hp per level and -1 to Fort. Then the bonuses to Perception and saves and low-light vision are just icing on the cake.

I think in my game I'll let Humans count all base classes as favored. That should level the field, as they will always get +1 additional HP or the +1 additional SP which really makes them versatile, and I don't think 20hp or skill points is going to upset balance.

My only problem with this is it takes away the half-elf's one special benefit... getting more than one favored class. That seems to knock them back down to the "low man on the totem pole" status of previous editions...

How about a house rule that allows Humans to make one PrC a favored class?

I think this is the nicest option. It gives the Human something to strive for (since they are already slightly better at attaining PRCs due to the extra feat. However, it seems to fly in the face of Paizo's concept of making it a viable option to stay with the base classes....

Unfortunately, I don't have a good idea for a solution, but I still feel that something is slightly off when our group of 6 has 4 players seriously considering half-orc characters :p

Also, if you go beyond what is on the paper and look at the in-game benefits humans also usually come out ahead. A lot of races come with "baggage" that the humans just don't have. It is common to come across NPC's that HATE half-orcs, dwarves, elves, etc. It is rare for a human to be singled out in a campaign due to race. Plus smart humans also get to choose any language as a bonus. In some game worlds this will also be a pretty good advantage.

Well, as has been stated on most RPG boards many times, roleplaying-only benefits and disadvantages are not really valid when it comes to balance because of the differences in campaign settings. I'm not sure when the last time was I ever played in a group that we suffered from someone being a half-orc/elf/dwarf/etc. other than a little back-talk, derogotory comments, etc. Nothing like additional service/equipment costs, isnta-attack, blah...blah...blah.

As for the flexibility, humans aren't the only ones to choose which stat to improve (both Half-orc and Half-elf now have this). I'll concede skills and feat, but that is it and honestly I can find an ability in almost every class that equals a feat (even if it is a mediocre feat like Skill Focus :) ).

Somehow I must also be playing a different game than a lot who think the Human was the catch-all race in 3.0/3.5 because we've always had players that picked elves, dwarves, halflings, heck even half-orcs....
The only class that was pretty reliably human was Wizard and even that class has had a couple elves over the years...

Frankly I think the reason that the at-will damaging powers were largely removed was so that the cantrips would see use again.

This...

We already saw it in our games. With 1d6+x at will, the damage cantrips were useless and everyone instead used all the "utility" ones (Daze, Detect Magic, Light, etc.). At least now a wiz/sorc has a choice to make whether they want to be able to deal damage every round or keep the lights on in the dungeon :)

Hmm, I have to agree that the changes to humans kinda irritate me. Basically, most of the other classes gained something during the conversion, but the human actually lost.

+2 Stat - everyone gained an additional +2, with the half-orc and half-elf gaining the exact same benefit as the human, so that is a wash

+1 feat - already had that in previous editions

+1 skill - again, already had that in previous editions

Preferred class - Everyone now gets one class as preferred, with no restriction. This used to be one of the perks for the human and now everyone has it, and the half-elf goes one step better...

Heck, in our current group a lot of players are actually thinking the Half-orc looks better on paper... same stat bonus, free weapon proficiencies, one less skill point and 1 less feat, same preferred class rules, a weaker version of Diehard (about equivalent to 1 feat since Diehard actually requires two feats), Darkvision, and +2 to Intimidate (okay, that one isn't that spectacular :) ). Heck, darkvision is worth at least a feat by itself in a lot of campaign settings (I think there was even an old 3e Dragon Magazine feat that granted limited darkvision for the cost of a feat....).

Yeah, I'm actually looking at it for a character going towards Eldritch Knight. Between that and the Arcane Armor Training feats I can actually create a caster that can wear armor and make use of the caster's shield ;)

Quick question here... does the bonus from Arcane Strike stack with a magical weapon's bonus? I don't see any sort of bonus "type" in the feat description, but there isn't a reference either way to determine if it would stack. Considering it requires using your swift action for the round and only increases the damage, to me it seems to be pretty similar to Power Attack (trading the swift action for the penalty to attack, with a lesser bonus damage), so it seems like it should stack...

Eh.. I always hated the d4 hit points for wizards/sorcerers. Any class that can be brought to unconsciousness by a housecat is just pitiful. Really we are just talking about what, an average of 1 extra hp per level anyways???

I will say that we have stuck with the old standard of max hp plus CON mod for 1st level. We felt that the additional HP options in the Beta provided too many hit points for 1st level otherwise.

Unfortunately, our group rules that the NPCs don't get the "death at -10" rules :( I think the stabalize orison would be very beneficial for my cleric, especially when trying to stick with a "lawful" alignment of turning the bad guys over to the authorities....

I'm all for this! I never liked the fact that a light shield and a buckler both gave the same AC bonus.

there was 0th level duel classing rules in the 3.0 phb. They would allow you to play just 1 class at 0th level .

I always thought those multiclass rules rocked for character creation. It always made more sense to start as a 0/0 fighter/wizard than to start off as a fighter and spontaneously pop out the ability to cast magic missile :(

I really wish they hadn't dropped those rules in 3.5.....

Personally, I really like the idea of including the option of affecting only one target for maximum healing/damage as part of the standard channel energy rules.

In our current campaign, one character tends to take the most abuse and I find myself using channel energy mutliple times to heal the whole group or wasting a spell slot for a healing spell just for him.

It would also help when it comes to fighting undead since the damage is pretty pathetic. At 1st and 2nd level it would take two average channel energy bursts to take down an undead with average HP. At least you could focus your divine power against the undead leader that way.

I like the Energy Substitution idea but would expand it a little. Allow them to choose one energy type at 1st and choose an additional one every 5 levels. This would give them the ability to choose between 5 different energy types by 20th level, effectively ignoring Energy Resistance with their spells by changing the type at will.

This, combined with the idea of giving them the ability to reduce Evasion at 8th level and the Evoker actually starts to look a little more interesting.

Of course, then you would have to give them something else at 20th level. Maybe grant them an automatic Maximize or Empower for their Evocation spells a couple times per day?

Instead of a single use both damaging undead and healing allies, what about the player choosing which effect as needed (and thus only one effect per round)? I've read in people's playtests that Channel Energy allowed players to defeat undead that should have been significantly more challenging very quickly. This would cut down on the power of the ability while still maintaining the versatility. Thoughts?

I can't comment on higher-level campaigns since we are currently only 2nd level, but as for low-level it doesn't really do squat on undead encounters from my experience.

During our last session we got to fight some zombies. With 2d12+? hp, my turning attempt for 5 whole points of damage was pretty....ho hum. I actually had more fun playing with the CMB rules to bullrush the zombies off a ledge :) Sure, I could burn another turn attempt or two, but with only 6 per day and this being the first encounter, that would have been using a lot of resources. Heck, with zombies having 2d12 hp, that means 4 turning attempts at max damage (per standard rules) to take them completely out. That seems like way too many resources for one encounter.

Honestly, if one turning attempt doesn't do very significant damage, spending more just isn't worth it. So I don't see any reason to seperate out the turning from healing benefits. But of course, I see the Beta turning rules far from "overpowered"...

Actually, Magic Missile is sortof a rarity in this case. I specifically remember it being stated somewhere that an Empower Spell affects the whole damage of Magic Missile because the +1 is part of the random number and not modified by caster level. I'll have to dig around to find where I read that....

So far we like the new rules as they are with one slight change....

We add the caster level to the damage/healing with the channel energy. The group quickly found that the amount healed was so random at low levels it needed a slight boost and this was what we decided to try out.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

We will be releasing some of the rules, as needed to make sure that we get solid playtest results. The revised barbarian rage mechanic is one example of this, and there are more on the way.

Good stuff - particularly if the revised Barbarian rage mechanic is the quality of revision we can expect - well done on that one.

Where can one see this "revised" mechanic? Is this in a post somewhere on the boards that I just can't find?

I would just like to say that if changes are made, at least create a "sticky" that shows these changes on the boards until they are released in a pdf update or however they are going to be released. That way we could quickly look at the class playtest forums and figure out what has been changed and what hasn't.

I still fail to see where people feel that the new mutliclassing rules are a "penalty" any more than a human fighter would be suffering from a "penalty" because he doesn't benefit from the free martial weapon proficiency. Or a Elven fighter because he doesn't benefit from the bonuses to spellcasting.

Both of these examples are not gaining a certain benefit because of their race/class combo, just like the favored class rules, but they are not having something taken away because of it.

I personally like the new favored class rules and would be very unhappy if they were cut for the idea that someone is being penalized when really it is just someone being rewarded for picking a certain race/combo.

Personally, I like the new favored class rules and so does my gaming group. We like the benefits provided to encourage stereotypes in the characters.

Honestly, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that not getting these benefits is a "penalty" of any sort. I know this is a stretch, but bear with me....

John and Mike have the same education and career (let's say IT for example). John works for a company that focuses on this career and pays really well, but eveyone does the same thing. Mike, on the other hand, works for a company he likes but which has a different focus (like healthcare) so they pay only the national average.

So, from the "it's a penalty" crowd, I'm assuming Mike is being penalized and repressed becuase he doesn't get paid as well. I guess Mike needs to go running to John's employer and complain that they shouldn't pay as well because it isn't fair....

Of course, this really just brings up my irritation with the current push to make everything balanced. Life isn't balanced and I don't need everything in my games to be balanced. Amazingly, we've had plenty of players in our group that have been happy playing fighters, monks, and rogues when others were playing the "unbalanced" classes like cleric, wizard, and druid.

Overall, I'm actually pretty happy with the new domains. Sure, there is some tweaking that needs to be done as far as powers (make them balanced with each other) and the extra spells (some just don't really fit the domain as well as the old 3.5 ones did).

Of course, we started a new campaign using the rules, so there isn't any conversion required from old characters.

The one major area we have is with bonus domains granted by PRCs. For example, I really wanted to run my cleric towards the Eberron Soveriegn Speaker prestige class. The problem is the class gives an extra 9 domains. Under the old rules, this would have just been 9 extra first level abilities and then extra choices for my domain spells. Under Pathfinder.... we couldn't come up with an adequate solution. Even if we used the PRC level for abilities, that would have been 9 first level abilities (at 9th level ability), 36 (9x4) first level spells, 9 2nd level spells, and 9 8th level abilities (at 9th level). Looking at that we had to say "Nope, that PRC doesn't exist. There are no Soveriegn Speakers in Eberron".

I realize that is an extreme example, but there are several cleric PRCs that grant 2+ bonus domains. It also means that PRPG completely nullified a major campaign-specific PRC with just this one change in the rules. Before, the PRC had been more flavor than anything as it mostly gave you choices. Now the PRC is completely unmanageable.

I think I would be fine with the idea of spending a feat if the number was increased slightly. Right now for example, my cleric with a 12 CHR would get very little benefit from the feat as written (oooh, ignore one enemy). If instead the feat was at least 2+CHR modifier I could see the feat as being useful to my character.

OK, so I'm one of the minority. I'm cool with that :) It's not the first time....

While we are on the topic of selective channelling, has anyone else had the opinion that the number is too low? Possibly something more like 3 + CHR mod maybe? Unless you really focus on boosting your Charisma, that is a big area of effect that would likely encompass several more opponents than your average cleric Charisma score would handle.

As for Soul of War, your version is a bit too much. My suggested tweak (full BAB with dieties favored weapon) seems perhaps a little too weak. Perhaps a +1 to damage as well, with an additional +1 / 6 levels or something (max +4 at 18th Cleric level)? Would some skill go well with war, is there a Knowledge (tactics?).

I like this idea but would probably make it a +1 damage plus +1 every 4 additional levels (5,9,13,17) for a total of +5. I don't have a great reason other than going by the BAB charts, the increase in BAB with the favored weapon would be equivalen to the weapon being a +1 weapon at 1st level, +2 at 5th, +3 at 9th, etc. These levels also coincide with the cleric's substantial increase in power from their deity (every 2 spell levels) while falling on levels that don't represent an increase in their domain powers.

On a similar note, I would like to see the 8th level War ability changed to ignore prerequisites. Considering you are limited to rounds/cleric level I don't see then need to require the cleric have the prerequisites.

Just seeing how others feel about requiring a feat to selectively exclude enemies from the healing of Channel Energy?

Personally, it seems to me that almost every cleric with a moderate Charisma would end up taking the feat at some point. If so, then why bother having it cost a feat?

What I would like to see is that the selective feature be integrated into the basic channel energy ability. With the idea that you are channelling positive energy at your deity's will, would your deity really want you healing your enemies also? I'm also not sure I like it tied directly to the character's Charisma. Possibly instead have it start at excluding 1 character at 1st level and increasing by one every time the amount of damage/healing is increased (2 at 3rd, 3 at 5th, etc.)

Thoughts? Or is everyone else happy with the way it works now?

I really like most of these, even the ones you have toned down :)

For example, my current cleric has both the War and Good domains and honestly I'm not looking forward to trying to keep track of who I've granted a bonus for damage (though only two characters in the group use my deities favored weapon) and who has gained a bonus from the Good domain. With your changes to the good domain for example, it makes more sense for those who want a bonus to stick close to my character. Of course my question is if this is an "always on" ability?

Artifice - 1st level ability seems a little... weak? Clerics already get Mending as a orison which can be used at will anyways. I'm just having a really hard time thinking of a better option since I agree that the Beta rules are overpowered....

Good - Overall I like the change and it makes it much easier for bookkeeping, but personally I would like to see the bonus increase over time... perhaps +1 every 5 levels (5,10,15,20)?

Healing - I actually like the Beta benefit better. Like Artifice, clerics already get Stabalize as an orison usable at will. Being able to grant some minor healing to those at "death's door" is more useful IMO.

Knowledge - I REALLY like your idea of including dead creatures. The idea of touching a recently deceased enemy to find out if there is an easier way to dispose of similiar beasts is a cool idea.

Sun - I'm really not fond of the Sun ability. A touch attack against undead that doesn't really improve enough to be effective at high levels. I would rather see something like....

1st level - The cleric is exceptionally good at channelling energy to damage undead. When determining damage for turning undead add +2 points of damage per cleric level.

Travel - while I agree that the Beta version is overpowered at low level, a +5 movement bonus is pretty ho-hum at mid to high levels. Possibly increae it +5 feet per 5 levels? Even at 20th level they still wouldn't come close to matching the speed of the monk, so I don't see it as stepping on anyone's toes.

War - I think even a 1/2 caster level to much, especially if it is unnamed. I think a +1 at first level and an additional +1 at 5,10, 15, and 20 would be adequate for an "always on" ability that would stack with Weapon Focus or spells.

We did something similar in our playtest in that we gave Smite Evil (and similar cleric domain powers like War) a flat 3 round duration. If an attack is successful during those three rounds, the power is "activated". If for some reason all attacks miss during this time, the power dissipates and the use is expended.

The only reason we went with 3 rounds was the precedent already in the cleric domains that many of the abilities can be "held" for 3 rounds.

No paladin to test it with, and amazingly when I created my cleric I figured longsword would be fairly popular but only 1 out of the other 5 players decided to use one???

Hopefully I will have a chance to try out this houserule before too long with my cleric....

The houserule that we've come up with is to allow the smite (and similar cleric domain abilities like War) to last a flat 3 rounds. Basically, the "Smite" ability "charges" the weapon with holy energy which is released on the first successful attack. If no attack is successful during the 3 rounds, then the energy "dissipates".

Of course, we don't currently have a Paladin in the group....

I have to admit that the power is extremely tempting. I thought about taking the travel domain for my cleric, but it just didn't fit the character flavor. If "powergaming" was my only consideration I wouldn't have hesitated.

I think limiting it to a "line of sight" requirement and changing it to a move action would be ideal for our group.

On the "lowest common denominator" comment, I took the post as referring to the need to "clear things up". I found the power description to be about a clear as water and all 7 members of our group came to the same conclusion as to how it works. 10 feet per level, can be split up as much as you want as long as it is in 5' increments and no more than 10' per level. Taking additional people along costs additional for each person.

Of course, maybe I'm just looking at the positive side and don't see the negative that everyone has gotten alarmed at.