Brit O's page

Under the rules for mechanical traps, the second paragraph read to me as if everyone gets a free perception trap right before the trap is activated. Am I reading this correctly?

I'd like a clearer set rules for crit fail. Since we're including it, it seems like a better explanation of what should happen be included. Just an example set of what could happen for the DM to pick from instead of it seeming like the DM is just screwing with his players.

I for one, always call them on the fly but one idea i had is to include weapon damage on the list of possibilities. Something like accidentally hitting a rock that kinda blunts the blade. The biggest reason I'd like this is that equipment damage only comes up after fighting an opponent that sunders things, and you encounter something like that once every 5th campaign.

Including it as the result of a crit fail would be interesting, especially since it'll increase the likelyhood of non-sundering experts to go "Oh, his just cracked his axe haft. This could be worth a shot." and trying for it. To often I see players think "well I could sunder his weapon, but by the time I was finished I may have just killed him already." If damage occurs naturally as a part of combat it'll make it a bit more viable and exciting.

Anyone think this is a good idea, even as just a variant?

For a few select feats, like awesome blow, I hated that there was a size requirement listed as a prereq.

Remove the size requirements, since the size is required by the effect anyway. This applies to almost any feat, and I'm not aware of any feats that are just "Oh, you're large. +1 to natural armor"

For example, Awesome blow requires the target to be at least a size smaller than you. Well a medium character can still use it on Goblins, so why does he need to be large to get the feat? The large prereq only told me that players shouldn't have it, but that's boring.

The mechanic for being woken by different noises and stuff are already covered in the core rules, but are so often overlooked because the -10 modifier just reads as "Impossible" to players.

Adding this rule to core adds a cool character ability people can pick up and that will make the rule appear more in gameplay and also let people worry a little less about watch at night knowing that they MIGHT get woken up by something.

As a note to this request, I'd like to mention that I had an encounter where the character on watch was attacked and managed to put up a fight. Mid-fight one of the players remembered this rule and asked for a roll. I allowed it excited that the remembered the rule. He rolled it, applied the penalty and failed. He wasn't even untrained, just cross-classed into it with a poor roll. Eventually everyone woke up but that penalty is just so big it'd be nice to apply this rule every once and awhile.

For anyone who doesn't know this Feat I'll include it and make the listen to perception change:

Light Sleeper
Prerequisites: 1 Rank Perception
While your character is asleep he takes a -5 penalty on perception checks based on noise.
Normal: -10 penalty to perception checks while sleeping.

I've heard this chant a dozen times in the WOTC forums, and I'm hearing it again in these forums for the Pathfinder RPG and I'd like to hear more reason's for and against it.

I've always understood that there was some confusion about why they were given the weapons at all. To clarify:

They are weapons that can be enchanted, don't hinder the monk's flurry of blows when held (this actually applies to all weapons but...), and they also all give bonuses on certain special attacks.

A monk can grab any of his special weapons and become twice the field controller he already was. With them he can disarm and waste a NPC's whole turn trying to get it back, trip the baddies to give all his allies a +4 melee modifier, and sunder an opponents armor to ruin his high AC.

I have seen this done. I have play tested it, and it works very well.

On the flip side, they are practically reprints of weapons already in the book with this tiny +2 modifier added on. They are not the monk's (current) best option for damage (since right now monk's unarmed damage is strictly unarmed).

Any more observations either way in this argument?

In my playtest this was the biggest problem I had when people wanted to trip, or bullrush and such.

A person who is good at CMD is practically impossible to have something done to them. If two people have the same CMD, then the attacker has to roll at least a 15 to tie the opponent. Thats only 1/4 of the time. Even worse, when you have a fighter getting tripped by a wizard, the fighter CMD is so much higher then the wizard has probably NO chance at pulling off a maneuver.

4th level fighter CMD = 4 + str = 7 or 8

4th level wizard CMD = 2 + str = 2 or 3

so its at least 2, probably 4 points different assuming the figher has +2 strength modifier higher than the wizard.

Fighter vs Wizard is +7 vs 15+3 so he'll probably succeed 50% of the time. 11 average + 7 vs 15 + 3.

Wizard vs Fighter is +3 vs 15 + 7 so he'll probably succeed of 5% the time. 11 average + 3 vs 15 + 7.

some feats, especially the newer skill feats and combat maneuver feats, they don't have bonuses high enough to feel effective.

Improved grapple's +4 in 3.5 still failed me numerous times for many embarassing moments when people would roll their eyes and ask me why I waste my attacks. Now I see that its been dropped to a +2, and against my opponents already high 15+modifiers.

I'd like to see some of the combat maneuver's get a higher modifier, and in some cases special abilities to help make those maneuver's seem more worth my time. Bullrush needs an automatic extra 5 feet or so or else it seems like I need to pick on halflings just to move them a decent distance. i'd like to see all the combat maneuver feats get a boost to give the maneuvers a boost. They're hardly used as it is but make for great combat scenes.

Also, why change combat expertise? Making it based off the int stat means that I need to start maxing my stats based on feats? the old days when I needed a 13 to get an intro feat seemed bad enough but to need an 18 to get +4 to my ac seems weak.