Brian Brus's page

Meh. It's a spell like ability, not the ability to cast arcane spells. If you want to get really persnickity Arcane Strike also says "spells" as in the plural and you can only "cast" one as in singular from the rogue talent.

It is a spell-like ability that clearly states that the user gains an ability to cast a spell. Not an either-or dichotomy. Ta-da!

And regarding persnickity: cast once, cast twice = pluralized for the day. Alternately, augment rogue talent with major magic and you have two spells. Either way, it answers your argument.

Also worth noting that other feats specify caster *class* levels. Not so with this feat.

Which chapter of the book addresses the designers' reasoning for not including a squirrel familiar? Do they apologize profusely? Is there any hint of a release date for the follow-up Squirrels As Familiars game supplement?

An animal companion with 4 intellect at level 1. Additionally because of this all feats open up to them. There is nothing like an adopted Bison with Nonchalant Thuggery and World Traveler.

This made me actually laugh out loud.

This argumentative discussion is somewhat amusing, considering that so many players on this board have never liked the familiar anyway and consider them to be a waste of space at *any* level.

The phrase is, "I could NOT care less." It implies that the issue is already so far below your interest that there's nothing more that you could give up. Anything else in the world is more important than what's being discussed.

"I COULD care less" is just the opposite -- you actually care to some degree now.

Brian Brus wrote:

There are many who believe in the divine nature of mankind's capacity to do good without necessarily ascribing that attribute to a specific, named deity. The tenets of social justice, for example, aren't necessarily limited to one religion.

Yes Brian, but that's an extremely modern concept. In midieval times for instance, it was conceivable that one could read a book silently, verbalising what you read was an automatic part of reading. In a millieu that predates the Enlightement the concept of Atheism was practically unheard of. The concept that an Atheist would expect to receive divine spells would be unheard of.

Selective comparison fails. ... We're already dealing with a LOT of "modern" innovations in our delightful little fantasy world here. To argue against my suggestion for that reason is a no-starter. Sorry.

There are many who believe in the divine nature of mankind's capacity to do good without necessarily ascribing that attribute to a specific, named deity. The tenets of social justice, for example, aren't necessarily limited to one religion.

"Dammit, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a miracle worker."

I'm probably in the minority here as a casual consumer of Pathfinder product who actually has an interest in certain limited-utility aspects of the game often disparagingly referred to as "fluff" -- specifically, companion critters. Truth is, when I project myself into a character concept, I like to take pets along with me. I've enjoyed the dogs and cats and guinnea pigs and horses and snakes and whatnot in my life and I like game systems that allow some representation of such animals as more than just specialty weapons that can be easily reloaded or replaced.

To that end, I am sincerely interested in details about Ultimate familiars. Even a simple list would be enough to please me and possibly prompt a hardcover purchase. Can you toss me a bone, please?

Also, a spellcaster of the beach or desert...

Anyone? Go ahead.

The "winter" patron isn't a bad idea. But I was hoping for compass direction patrons to provide the opportunity to play a wicked witch of the west, for example.

Squirrel familiar, yes?

Has this question been asked yet?

My point: I don't actively play the game anymore. I have the players handbooks I and II on my shelf and I occasionally browse through them for fun. If I've got $40-$50 to spend on my limited budget, I could just as easily pick up the next Starman hardcover omnibus (DC Comics) instead of a Paizo product. ... UNLESS some sort of enticement or anticipatory excitement tilts the balance.

We're a month out. I think at this point you know whether or not you want the book, and have already pre-ordered, so you'll get it before the release date. I don't see why they'd post anything more about it, since it will all get loaded onto the SRD and fan websites when it comes out.

You have a crappy, dismissive attitude. For all the chat that takes place here, picking apart every little detail about class "balance" and wish lists, THIS is the sort of response a simple listing request deserves?

Your assumptions about my decisions are off base, too. I had no idea that Paizo was releasing these new books until about a week ago when I randomly surfed to the site. So don't prattle on about knowing already whether I'll buy the damn product. Consumer enthusiasm drives purchases, and I'm sure the hell not developing any tonight.

I'm looking for a little more teaser material, please. Something else to look forward to. As a big fan of arcane familiars, an advance list of some of the critters would be cool. Or sorcerer bloodlines?

Nothing, huh?

I'm looking for a little more teaser material, please. Something else to look forward to. As a big fan of arcane familiars, an advance list of some of the critters would be cool. Or sorcerer bloodlines?

3.5 had some awesome options, like Lyric Thaumaturge, Arcane Hierophant, and the Dragon Magazine PrC, Green Singer.

I'm not sure I would use "awesome" as a descriptor when a majority of the 3.5 splatbook prestige classes were so out of whack or generally broken.

:-) Set, I was thinking the same thing.
But seriously: Yes?

Lovin' it. Thanks oodles.

Particularly tickled about the riding dog art. I showed it to my wife and she said, "That's obviously a happy dog who knows what his job is."

Can we expect optional familiars? ... And squirrels?! There's gotta be squirrels.

When you're dealing with a character's abilities that allow him to lend benefit to another creature (wizard divination school "diviner's fortune," for example: "touch any creature"), can you also use it on the character himself?

How will we know when/how the bookmark-corrected pdfs will become available?

Mine also.

Has it been explicitly clarified yet whether a multiclassed wiz/sorcerer can have a bonded animal *and* object? Or, for that matter, two bonds of any type, even if they're both familiars or weapons? (Each progressing under its separate class track instead of a single with stacked levels.)

Rather than trying to come up with a clever name to tie two random skills together, just create a generic Skill 2-Fer Feat or whatever you want to call it, and allow that feat to add +2 to two chosen skills. It's absolutely ridiculous to have to pore through books trying to find that one feat that gives you a bonus to two random skills, particularly when the names do not convey immediately what skills receive the bonuses. ... The +2 to two feats are lazy filler and should be dumped.

This has been suggested several times, and I'm actually surprised that it wasn't implemented in the Alpha-Beta evolution. By offering a player-defined +2/+2 skill feat and naming it "Synergy," you would save a lot of page space in the feats section AND answer the old WotC D&D skill synergy issue.

What are some of the changes that have been made between Alpha and Beta? Or where might I find such information?

I don't see any mention of the addition of squirrel familiars, a key element that a majority of playtesters demanded.

Balance is far more than 'does the Thief fight as a good as a fighter'. Its more "Is my Thief as important to the party as the fighter is". In recent years theres been a huge blurring of what makes a character important or not. ...

I agree that "importance" is found in the eye of the beholder. A relative sense of PC importance is derived from a good GM's interaction with the player, both of their styles of play, and the solidity of the player's concept for his PC.

When I was a kid playing 1st or 2nd edition D&D, I never had a problem feeling important in the game, regardless of the class I played. There were many games in which my illusionist still had spells left over or my thief/cleric spent an inordinate amount of time *avoiding* combat and trying to convince the party members to pay for his healing services. ... Balanced? Didn't know, didn't care. Fun and sense of importance? Yep.

In this era of MMO pseudo-RPG systems, it feels as though too many gamers have narrowed their perspective of the experience to pure combat scenarios. And if that's what they're focused on, "balance" between classes becomes ridiculously important and skews the original D&D experience.

Hate to sound stupid, but I'm willing to take the shot for anyone else who's afraid to ask for the same reason...

What's the difference between the print products for alpha and final edition?

Fighters can access acrobatics if they want -- they just won't get a +3 default class bonus. (Nor should they.) It's no biggie. Just invest in the skill focus feat if it fits your character concept.

Well plus the animal domain has other abilities beyond the domain creature.

That's my main concern. Both critter types are about the same, but the domain serves it up with whipped cream on top. Extra abilities. Seems to be the better option, and clearly so.

I've jumped past the discussion in this thread to post my gut feeling without getting lost in the argument: The gnome description is good; I like the crazy fey nature trickster aspect. ... The *mechanics* of the race might need tweaking.

An even ability trade?

As you continue to refine and playtest the game, I'd suggest that you decide on a default perspective in regard to the (oft-overlooked) feats that provide skill bonuses.

Approaches that have been adopted in various other sources include:

* Basic skill focus: +3 bonus to Skill X.
* Related skills: +2 Skill Y and +2 Skill Z, with short explanation of why Y and Z are related. A limited number of such skill pairings are specified in the rules.
* Additional points: +Q points to spend on any skill(s), but may not exceed normal level-rank limits.

The simplest approach would be to offer a single feat that allows a +2/+2 bonus to any two skills -- chosen by the player -- as long as they're logically related and approved by the GM (ex: Sense Motive and Bluff, or Acrobatics and Stealth, but unlikely Appraise and Swim). Allow stackability. One feat written in an open-ended manner would save page space and provide flexibility. ... This would effectively eliminate the need for Skill Focus, of course, but that's not a big deal except in the case of prestige class prereqs.

Alternately, I would suggest the "additional points" option, which allows a player to swap out a feat for skill points. This would be a reasonable avenue of approach for the fighter to build his scrawny skills base - he already recieves a bunch of fighter bonus feats, so he could afford to give up a standard character leveling feat every so often if that's the player's concept.

The difference between those two should be obvious: The former provides a *bonus* that can raise a skill ability above the level-rank limit, while the latter reaffirms the character level glass ceiling for ranks. They both have their advantages, depending on your perspective. I'm sure you have an opinion for game mechanics reasons.

(Pesonally? I opt for the +2/+2 bonus option, as it has more of a sense of the lost synergistic skills element from previous 3.x rules. ... You could even name the feat "Skill Synergy" and kill two birds with one stone.)

Thanks much.

I have to say that I won't be pursuing the Pathfinder RPG.

... So, farewell, I think.

Thank you for announcing your departure.

I'll miss synergies -- they made me feel like I was getting an award for caring about skill development. A secret feat, almost Easter eggish.

But I don't think the game will miss them now.

In their absence, though, I *would* like to be able to stack skill focus feats. I don't think it would unbalance the game -- what player in his right mind is going to waste more than a second feat for something like that?

I'll hush up about it now.
Thanks.

The difference is that instead of just calling them "feats" they are instead abilities (talents) that fighters (only) can learn that build upon what they already do - and give something for the fighter to call his own and allow him manuevers ...

The difference is class abilities are for that class (alone) and feats are usually more freely accessed.

Since the fighters really only claim to fame is their number of feats they can take - what they "already do" is up to player in what feat direction he's taking - thus the talents are designed to build upon those - as thats what the fighter "does".

Yeah, but ...

And in the same vein, a specific BAB prereq pretty much ensures that a fighter has access to it long before any other class. Again, it might not *seem* exclusive to fighters, but the end effect is the same. (This is true even in the case of other high-BAB progression classes, because they simply don't have the same number of free feats to invest, even with the appropriate prereq.)

I really think that if the existing fighter feats were relabled and/or rewritten to hide the "redundant" scalability facade ((see previous post in this thread)), it would serve the same purpose without changing any of the game mechanics.

You've already got a lot of what you want -- it just doesn't *look* that way.

Yeah, an anthromorphic panda race is just too darned silly to even consider. What a load of hooey!

A bushytail squirrelish people, on the other hand ... Well, that's another matter entirely.

Paraphrase: We love Robert's proposed talent progression. It's creative and adds variety.

With all due respect, guys, those 'talents' are just more feats.

(stuff)

I gotcha.

Brian Brus wrote:

After reading through the 4th edition PHB, I'm disappointed at the lack of subtlety and nuance in character design. I'm sure it's a lovely team combat system, but it's clear they stripped the additional "roleplaying" mechanics and flavor text to nearly zilch -- which leaves the PCs resoundingly two-dimensional and very computer gameish. I know the arguments: No rules should *force* a gamer into characterization. But at least in previous editions you had a sense that the PCs could develop other interests in their "lives" beyond the best Navy SEAL strike force compositiom

But do you need rules to develop roleplay? If your character has a yen for advanced basketweaving, do you need rules to express personality. Coming from a background in the various Storyteller games from White Wolf, I could see where the emphasis has been shifted to cinematic flow combat. But the roleplaying aspects can and should be left to the player and the GM.

My personal assessment stands on its own. I had already addressed your counterpoint. ("A lovely team combat system..." and "I know the arguments...") Additional bickering is unnecessary -- it's my firm opinion that 4th edition rules are lacking a subtle, organic feel that I appreciate. Period.

But as for another issue you raise: What exactly is "cinematic flow combat?" And how is 4th edition actually cinematic? I can see computer game design components, but the cinema is missing. I'm guessing it's likely a toss-off cliche and assumption that no one has closely examined.

Brian Brus wrote:

This is very similar to the effect Wizards have had to deal with as well -- the redundancy of low-level spells as they gain in power. There are several other class abilities that succumb to the same "utility evolution" issue. ... I don't want to dismiss this as unimportant, but it has been a standard element of class design across the board, not just fighters.

There is a level of truth to this sentiment. Summon Monster 4 when you reach 7th level makes Summon Monster 1 nearly moot (except for sending mass of fodder down hallways to spring all the traps...)

... Once Great Cleave is taken, Cleave is moot and never again used. Once Greater Weapon Focus (or specialization) is taken their predecessors are moot and never again used.

What some have suggested (specifically with the weapon focus and specializations) that the feats scale for fighters in that they automatically increase in value for fighters so as to not require another feat to gain the ONLY class feature that a fighter had that no other class could do (specialize and greater focus). ...

Robert

It's very easy to lose sight of the final effect by getting hung up on the facade of leveling labels. Primary example: Rogue sneak attacks.

Every other level a rogue gains +1d6 sneak attack. You know the progression. Seems like a scalable ability. 1d6, then 2d6, then 3d6, etc. ... But the same result is achieved by declaring each level ability by a separate name and adjusting the descriptions: Sneak Attack (1d6 damage), Improved Sneak Attack (2d6 damage, replaces sneak attack), Greater Sneak Attack (3d6, replaces sneak attack and improved sneak attack), etc. In the latter examples, the latest ability makes previous abilities seem redundant and useless. But the end game effect is exactly the same.

Fighter feats are just that way. The greater/improved feat that comes later does not make earlier feats redundant; it's just that the feat incorporates its scalability within its description. The redundancy is an illusion and players are being suckered by that assumption.

Fighters have the added benefit, though, of opting to pick a totally different feat/effect, unlike our rogue sneak attack example. Does the rogue necessarily want +5d6 "Greater Improved Super Sneak Attack" (and the redundancy of +4d6 two levels earlier)? Possibly not, but he doesn't get a choice. The fighter does.

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

This is very similar to the effect Wizards have had to deal with as well -- the redundancy of low-level spells as they gain in power. There are several other class abilities that succumb to the same "utility evolution" issue. ... I don't want to dismiss this as unimportant, but it has been a standard element of class design across the board, not just fighters.

you do realise that this is the ALPHA draft? not even the Beta, and a far cry from the Final Draft? Paizo won't be changing things every week. its an open playtest. People work with what they have presented, give their feedback, and they tweak/ajust etc. What you have in your hands, even if it is the Alpha3, is still just exactly what it says: the ALPHA release. Even in the alpha release some things have been changed twice or removed. You just need to be patient as far as whatever will end up the 'true final decisions'.

What you suggest here almost sounds like something I've only heard whispered about in dark alleys: "Patience." A mythical state of being watchful and waiting. A fairy tale for children and superstitious folk.

Don't. Please don't spread false hopes and crazy suggestions like this. It only ends up hurting the community in the end. ... Patience Does Not Exist.

It would be beneficial to include more familiars so that players have a wider range of mage benefits to choose from. A squirrel familiar, for example, could be associated with a +3 bonus to acrobatics, and a small dog could be associated with a +3 bonus to diplomacy. As it is now, there are only 10 familiar choices and associated benefits, two of which are save bonuses and one which provides hit points. If your mage concept doesn't fit well with those options, that aspect of the familiar is totally wasted. A +15 percent bonus on a d20 skill roll is too valuable to throw away. Put in some more critters, please.

pg. 22, Domain Powers:
First, "Each cleric must choose a deity..."
Then, "If you cleric is not devoted to a particular deity..."

Obvious correction: misspelled "you cleric" for "your cleric."
Less obvious correction: Explicitly stating that a cleric MUST be linked to a particular god, but then allowing for those clerics that don't. Clarify text, perhaps, "Each cleric SHOULD choose a deity..." or "MOST clerics choose a deity... HOWEVER, a cleric who doesn't choose a particular deity still..."

...while I appreciate that 4e is not the game for you, I wish people would stop acting like this should be obvious and that only the Pathfinder RPG is the heir to D&D. ... I wish people wouldn't act like not liking the new edition should be obvious.

No biggie, really. It's just the nature of the beast -- which is to say, the market ... or possibly just being human.

For months and months now I've seen the same sort of comments -- and concerned responses like yours, K -- on the flip side of the coin. The 4th edition luvahs couldn't heap on enough praise for every tiny advance news nugget. And the still accuse anyone who doesn't share the same perspective of being a (blankety-blank-blank). At best, you're accused of being a malicious "threadcrapper" for admitting a less-than-positive perspective about 4th edition.

"It's obvious!..."

Same song, different choir. Just learn to live with it.

bugleyman wrote:

But in the end it will be a loss for everyone else: Both Paizo, their fanbase, and ultimately the RPG industry as a whole. :-(

bugleyman, I think you're being a bit over-dramatic. I, too, have run several 4E games. From that experience, as well as being a 4E player, I can confidently say PfRPG and 4E will attract two different crowds that can easily co-exist with each other. To reiterate: Paizo is not trying to "challenge" D&D 4E. Instead, the company's offering an alternative path for those who are happy with the 3.5 SRD. Period. End of story.

From many of Bugleyman's comments here, I get the feeling that he's operating from a perspective of "If You're Not With Us, You're Against Us," literally expecting everyone to move as a group to a particular product (4E). And those who don't stick with that group are somehow threatening their cohesion and success. The underlying assumption is probably that there are limited market resources available, and only a single entity can survive on those consumers.

I, like many others here, don't buy into that concept.

After reading through the 4th edition PHB, I'm disappointed at the lack of subtlety and nuance in character design. I'm sure it's a lovely team combat system, but it's clear they stripped the additional "roleplaying" mechanics and flavor text to nearly zilch -- which leaves the PCs resoundingly two-dimensional and very computer gameish. I know the arguments: No rules should *force* a gamer into characterization. But at least in previous editions you had a sense that the PCs could develop other interests in their "lives" beyond the best Navy SEAL strike force composition.

Other major glitches for me: No bard class. No gnomes. (Three elf races?!)

I loved the 4th edition art. Good stuff.

But overall the layout and structure of ability descriptions in each class seemed sort of clunky and lacking in organic flow.

I'm enjoying the Paizo Pathfinder refinement of the previous edition much, much more.