Christina Morris's page

We're seeing a lot of topics pop up with concerns about proficiency scaling issues for anyone trying to step even a little bit outside of what the class provides (Bards and Medium Armor, Wizards and a Martial Weapon, even things built into the class, such as a Dragon Sorcerer's prof with their claw attacks).

I've also noticed that since every class is so heavily tied to it's class feat options, you really can't adopt a playstyle that wasn't built specifically for the class. If you want to TWF as a Barbarian, for instance, you just can't as the feats that make it happen aren't available to you (yes, you can "technically" TWF with regular MAP attacks and two different weapons, but we aaaall know that's not what anyone means by TWF ;P ).

There is certainly a lot of new and interesting things with the new edition that are improvements over the old, but I'm getting the feeling that Classes specifically are essentially so rigid that you either play the way the rulebook tells you or you struggle to keep up, by design.

That seems anathema to D&D-esque gameplay.

How do others feel?

This is my biggest issue with the system on a personal level now that we have the final rules. Fighting style and weapon choice is a lot more rigidly attached to class in PF2 due to the shift from general combat feats to class-based combat feats, and it's already lead to stumbling blocks for me while trying to put together a few older characters to see how they'd feel in the new system.

There's a lot I like in PF2, but given the way I play and create characters, this is actually a big enough issue that I'm stuck either substantially house-ruling PF2's feat systems (to have general combat feats again) or trying to make the elements I do like (such as ancestries, heritages, and backgrounds) work for PF1. I've not yet decided which path I like better—I'd prefer not to have to make the choice at all!

So... yeah.

This feat somehow slipped through as an older version. It is supposed to only apply to the weapons that you can use with Weapon Finesse. That said, I am still a little worried about the balance on this one. Obliviating the need for Strength was not the intent, although even with this revision, assuming the right character build, that might still be an issue.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Please don't neuter the feat so DEX-based characters aren't left entirely shafted. It's true that DEX is more powerful than STR in terms of what it affects, but the system has very little support for characters that don't rely on Strength in melee. As is, the DEX-based melee has to spend two feats that the STR-based melee does not. As long as the feat is limited to weapons that can normally be used with Finesse, it shouldn't get to the point where it's an issue. Most such characters will also still need a moderate (i.e., 13+) STR to handle Power Attack, so they're actually wasting points, in a sense, that the entirely STR-based character doesn't necessarily need to worry about.

Even with the Agile weapon enchantment, it's often better to just go full STR anyway, since it frees up feats and enchantment resources you could use for other thing instead.

I agree that there is some room for improvement on the Trickster and you should not be surprised if I steal a few of the ideas that have popped up in this thread. Keep em coming.

(although on an anecdotal level, looking at some of the rest of the content I have gotten for this path, some of these are already covered.. they just did not make it in time for the playtest)

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Any chance of an updated playtest document prior to the release of the book next fall? I don't know if I can wait to use the rules as standard for my games, but I don't want Trickster folks to feel like they're getting less bang for their buck.

The sketches are one of my favorite parts of the document, and that's saying a lot.

I want more of them, for every iconic, to be honest.

That's about how I feel right now. Jason has said there will be more path abilities in the full release, but the Trickster seems to be lacking for the playtest. This is problematic, because the Trickster's going to feel weaker than the rest of the paths, by and large, in the playtest, even if the abilities in the full book make them equal to everyone else.

I'm crossing my fingers for an updated playtest release with some more options for them.

To avoid dissociated mechanics, I suggest that you can only hit as many creatures as you have throwing weapons.

In the RAW you could use 1 normal Dagger to hit all creatures in a 30ft cone.

That does feel to much like one of the 4th edition mechanics that are really cool technically, but can not be explained rationally.

So i suggest to add: You can only attack as amny creatures as you have throwing weapons (e.g. if you have two daggers, one throwing star and one javelin you could attack up to four creatures).

Firstly, this isn't really a dissociated mechanic, since it actually does account for the sorts of throwing weapons you're carrying (the example is packing 20 masterwork daggers).

We're not supposed to be explaining Mythic rules rationally, and this is a big part of the system. Mythic characters are supposed to be doing things that aren't realistic.

It's fine. If somebody wants to Xena a chakram between 30 enemies, let them.

Some text in a sidebar could specify that's how it works, and also suggest allowing a mythic character that becomes a vampire to trade their mythic tiers for equivalent ranks in mythic vampire.

I agree that it's easily the best thing in the whole playtest document. And that's saying a lot because there's tons of awesome stuff in here.

This guide is pretty great. The role-playing tidbits actually did a lot to help me get outside the narrow view of the class the APG paints, and I'm now playing an archer inquisitor that I'm having a blast with.

Also, Garuda-Blooded Aasimar are simply awesome--I hadn't seen them before this guide. :)

Speaking as someone who regularly services an entire party of meat shields with naught but a bag of wands and a small handful of class abilities even at 14th level, I think your bard build will be fine. Other posters have pointed out the drawbacks related to ability score damage and negative levels, and there's not much to be done about that unless you have an alchemist in your group to fill that niche (as we did at one point).

However, you're going to spend a pretty significant portion of your loot share on wands that can keep up with the damage your allies will take, especially at higher levels when you need to be able to sling around CMW and CSW to put a dent in the high max HP total a typical fighter or barbarian will sport.

If your comrades are willing to chip in for that expense, all the better. If not, you'll either have to suck it up, or get... let's say creative about apportioning treasure (or Sleight of Handing small valuables when no one is looking).

Haha, with the extremely chaotic and temperamental half-orc rogue, I'm not sure swiping treasure would be wise.

But otherwise, the higher level experience is very helpful. That's mainly what I've been worried about, as I've no clue how long it will be before there's an opportunity to make a cleric or oracle (which is what I'd originally been planning to make after the death of the first witch).

Both Alchemist and Bard will be pretty strong, I think--considering how much trouble our lack of Diplomacy and Sense Motive have gotten us into, the Bard's Charisma focus and skills may end up more useful than the Alchemist's better healing kit.

Since your GM is allowing Dreamscarred Press' stuff, are you guys allowed to use other third party stuff too? Is so, there are some useful tricks such as Super Genius Games Feats of Mulitclassing that allow you to grab a single Oracle's Revelation that they could take at level one, counting as your level -3 for how effective it would be. It takes two feats to do it (You need Skill Focus in one of the Oracle's Mysteries skills) and, technically speaking, it's probably of divine origin...but that might be fun to roleplay in your campaign. And the Life Mystery has such lovely things as Channel Positive Energy.

There's also the Mystical Healer third party feat from Rite Publishing, which can enhance most healing effects. It does work better if you have some caster levels, but it'll certainly boost a bard's abilities somewhat.

There's probably some other tricks, if I can be bothered to go check out the various bits and pieces of half remembered stuff floating in my head, but those two are what instantly spring to mind and there's not much point in researching something your GM won't allow.

Third party stuff is generally not allowed, and actually, nothing from Dreamscarred except for the Soulknife is allowed, either.

Weirdo wrote:

Kevin Morris wrote:

You would assume incorrectly. The DM doesn't design encounters based around one particular party composition or another.

Even when he dictates party composition? That's... harsh.

This is seeming more and more like a 'set them up to fail' situation, as the restrictions accrue.

I asked for folks to stop judging the table, but it's still happening, so I'm going to break it down.

The situation we're in is actually the PCs fault, not the DM's. At the start of the game, most of the standard classes were allowed (with notable exceptions being Summoner and Wizard, which were banned for various reasons mechanical reasons). I elected to try out a hedge witch for a healer, as it fit the concept I had best.

After several sessions, we got in over our heads and attacked a dragon way out of our level range, completely of our own accord. Two of us died, including my original witch.

One PC used a Hero Point to convince the dragon to stop long enough to talk. Long story short, this resulted in two things: the PCs leading the dragon to an embodied god, which it killed, and the dragon turning the remaining two living PCs over to the dragon kingdom, which, as I said before, is at war with the gods.

We were given the option to either continue playing the game or to end it. We were informed that divine classes would not be allowed. We were all interested in the story that had unfolded up until that point, though, and so now, our characters are working for the enemy and hoping to find a way to break out of their control (which is partially supernatural, making it more difficult than just running away).

The DM did not "set us up to fail." We, the PCs, did. As a table, we are all committed to going where the story takes us, and if that means certain character types will not be available until some other time, then so be it.

My second witch died in our first adventure in service of the dragon kingdom, again, completely of my own accord. To make it a cliche, he took a bullet for a six year old girl. It was an in-character decision, and I made it knowing full well it would mean death and a new character.

Considering my original question was about the experiences of others in regard to healing with wands and dedicated healers, I'm surprised this has in part turned into a discussion about how unfair the DM is being.

Let's leave that discussion aside now, as it's almost entirely irrelevant.

Kevin Morris wrote:

Cleric, Inquisitor, Oracle, and Paladin are not allowed for the time being because we are working for an organization that is hiring (or enslaving, depending on how you look at it) us to kill members of any and all faiths and anyone that draws power from the gods. They're in a war with the gods and trying to kill all of them.

"Philosophy" clerics don't exist on this world, either.

The party has a gunslinger, a soulknife (Dreamscarred's version), a monk, and a rogue.

Given that the two best healers are forbidden by campaign concept I would assume that the DM intends for you to be able to play through this campaign without a dedicated/optimized healer.

Do you still have access to magic items that provide healing (scrolls, wands, etc)? Are cleric/oracle-only scrolls restricted?

You would assume incorrectly. The DM doesn't design encounters based around one particular party composition or another.

Magic items are fairly rare in this game, so counting on getting scrolls and wands beyond starting equipment isn't a good bed.

I've never actually played one. I always end up choosing another class when I sit down to hammer out how I want the character to be portrayed. If I had to pinpoint why, I think it's in part their lack of skill points, which I tend to make a big point of my characters.

You said that oracle wasn't allowed, yet you have a gunslinger in the party. Why is oracle not allowed?

Also, what is the party composition?

Cleric, Inquisitor, Oracle, and Paladin are not allowed for the time being because we are working for an organization that is hiring (or enslaving, depending on how you look at it) us to kill members of any and all faiths and anyone that draws power from the gods. They're in a war with the gods and trying to kill all of them.

"Philosophy" clerics don't exist on this world, either.

The party has a gunslinger, a soulknife (Dreamscarred's version), a monk, and a rogue.

How does your GM feel about the Leadership feat? I'm currently running a game with no dedicated healing class. The PCs just hit 7th level, and one of my players took Leadership and created his follower to be a pure heal bot, with no other real combat capabilities. I have some reservations about Leadership (I won't go into details, you can find plenty of other posts related to the subject on these boards), but in this case, I allowed it just so the group had more healing capabilities beyond simple wands.

The player also built an elaborate backstory into his follower so it makes sense to have this heal bot following the party around, which certainly helped my decision to allow it.

Other than that, I would agree with the notion that wands can only get you so far, especially at the higher levels. I think that without a dedicated healer, the party just has to go with a multi-discipline approach to healing. When they next level up, encourage the other players to boost skills and take feats that help them heal themselves and others. It will take the whole party pitching in to make up the difference.

Leadership is banned for the game, based partly on feedback I provided drawn from the last game I ran, where it was allowed.

The group does already have a Monk focused on battlefield control (he's using some combination of archetypes I can't remember), so we've got a decent foundation to rely on that, as well. That's part of what makes me think I can go half-caster or something and succeed here.

You really do have the right to play the character you want to play. I understand you don't mind and don't want to upset anyone, but if you're not having fun because you're expected to fill a role, or if your party is in serious jeopardy because you've decided not to fill a role, something needs to give and it looks like you've been giving.

This keeps coming up, so I want to reiterate something:

I am the only person making a new character. The DM's games often have a wide variety of situations and challenges, and healing is generally necessary in some form or another. If I do not make a character without access to at least some healing, the group will not have one, we will all very likely die, and we will not have a game to play. I would rather play than not play, and I think the rest of the group would agree with me. I want to make sure my character has access to healing, accordingly, but I want to look for different options than I'd been employing previously. So, I made this thread to ask about others' experiences, especially with respect to wand-based healing, as it's often been said off-the-cuff that wands of cure light wounds are all you really need.

Please stop insinuating that my group is terrible because we're in a situation where we need a healer, and I am the only person in a position to fill that role, as the other characters are pre-established. This thread should have never been about the character of the players involved in the game.

Kevin Morris wrote:

Part of my problem is that I find the idea of bardic performance somewhat...difficult to swallow, I think. I actually think it fills a very great role in a party and love having a bard around, but I have a hard time zoning in on a concept that involves someone singing, orating, or dancing in combat.

But I have trouble making Fighters, too, 'cause my ideas never seem to aim that way (though the 2 skill points/level doesn't endear me toward the class either).

If bardic performance poking your suspension of disbelief a little too roughly, consider an archetype which alters or all but eliminates it.

Another option it so not think of it as performance, but as of coordination. The bard forms the backbone of a group's tactical effectiveness. He's shouting warnings, pointing out an enemy's weakness and otherwise keeping the team informed of what everyone on both sides are doing. Mechanically this is represented by a bonus to attack and damage rolls and against fear effects. Visually it's represented any way you want. You don't actually sing to use Versatile Performance to make a Bluff check, so you shouldn't have to actually sing to use Inspire Courage.

I've done the battlefield strategist once before (as a Battle Herald). It still slightly rubbed me the wrong way. I know it shouldn't, but it does. Alas, alas. Maybe I just hate bards. I blame the 3.5 iconic.

Kevin Morris wrote:

And I will, ultimately, have fun no matter what I play because I'm playing with some of my oldest friends. Even so, of course, I'd like to optimize that fun, as a character that contributes well will be more fun for me and more fun for the rest of my group.

The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Well said, sir.

That being said, I hope that next campaign you will choose your character first, and let the others form around you. I say this only because I often find myself in the same boat as you. :)

I try to! My biggest issue is that I'm the sort of player that waits to have good details on the setting and also at least some members of the party, so I can create a character that blends well not only with the group, but with the world at large.

Since those concepts sometimes take time to bake, I usually lose to the folks who made their class decisions before really talking to the DM.

Thanks to Infernal Healing being on their spell-lists, a Magus or Summoner could do a little backup healing in a pinch, if the party doesn't have a moral problem with detecting as evil for a brief time.

I noticed that Oracle isn't on your forbidden list, and an Oracle of Life can apparently make a decent healer.

It sounds like your group is a bit melee heavy already, so I'd definitely consider a Bard. Between performance and CLW on the spell-list (and likely a decent UMD score for wands of lesser restoration, etc.) that should cover a few bases, and if you get to play with some fun spells that a cleric type wouldn't necessarily have, like charm person, grease, sleep or lock gaze.

The more melee attacks going on, the more those bardic inspiration bonuses are going to stack up and change the tenor of the fight. I usually go with oratory, just because I'm not a fan of music-based bards, and prefer the notion that my 'bard' is a master strategist, offering good tactical advice to his allies (or a religious zealot, preaching from a holy book and inspiring righteous zeal in his allies), instead of strumming a zither.

Actually, that's my fault: Oracle isn't allowed, either. If it was, things would be so much easier for me! ;)

I'm definitely leaning more toward Bard at the moment. Inspire Courage and Haste would be pretty big with the current party make-up. The hope, of course, is that we'd be able to kill much faster and therefore need less healing.

But I have to admit I'm nervous about that working in theory! This DM's games have often proven my theory (and the common wisdom) quite inadequate over the years.

The big issue i find though isn't the hp healing its the restorations ext. which are a little harder to do without the divines.

Alchemists can make infusions of restoration also the alchemist is able to use wands therefore as a non healer healer they are possibly the best choice.

The lack of restoration kept me from going with a bard with the previous character, actually. We're only 7th level, so even a wand of it for UMD would be a decent chunk of my funds.

Bard would definitely help this group out more than a Alchemist would for things beside healing, though, so I'd say it's still on the table--especially now that I've been pointed to the Thundercaller.

Thundercaller doesn't give up Inspire Courage thankfully, neither does Arcane Duelist. But Arcane Duelist works well as a support melee character and it sounds like your party has quite a bit of that how is.

Yeah, Thundercaller does a pretty good job of getting rid of performances I'm not interested in and keeping the ones I like. Incite Rage looks like it would be pretty fun against enemy spellcasters, too.

Kevin Morris wrote:

Dust Raven wrote:

Play a bard. Everyone loves bards.

Except me! I can't stand them--well, actually that's not really true. I just think the flavor is far too specific, which makes it difficult for me to come up with a concept I'm excited about.

However, bard would also cover another thing the party's really been missing: a good face. We've gotten ourselves into some major trouble with our stupid mouths so far!

Being the group face is always a nice position to fill. Bards can be any flavor though. Traveling minstrel to cheerleader to master orator to warrior skald to just about anything else you think might sound inspiring. My wife played a gnome bard who functioned as an Indiana Jones style treasure hunter, using oratory and acting to "draw fire" or "bark commands" (either one actually being Inspire Courage or Inspire Competence).

Part of my problem is that I find the idea of bardic performance somewhat...difficult to swallow, I think. I actually think it fills a very great role in a party and love having a bard around, but I have a hard time zoning in on a concept that involves someone singing, orating, or dancing in combat.

But I have trouble making Fighters, too, 'cause my ideas never seem to aim that way (though the 2 skill points/level doesn't endear me toward the class either).

Dragons love bards. They make the most interesting crunching noises.

Especially since you seem like you might not be starting at level 1, this might be interesting to you: Ogre's Mr. Hyde build This lets you make a true heavy hitter while still being able to use extracts. Might want more int than the suggested amount though. Since extracts are based on your stats while preparing them, rather than using them, you can easily go for large amounts of strength without worrying about your intelligence.

I particularly like the idea of vivisectionist, and it stacks with chirugeon. It would definitely free up your discoveries if you did not go for bombs, and you would have less int with this build, so maybe sneak attack is a better option. It really takes advantage of the three natural attacks (thus three attacks at full bab) of feral mutagen.

The guide was released before some of the things such as spontaneous healing though, so a bit of discretion is needed.

I'll probably stay away from a melee alchemist since the group already has three melee (and one close-range gunslinger), but I've seen that guide before. I've got a Hyde-type on the list of things to play...eventually. Sometimes I wish I could play in a different game every day just to get through all the characters.

Kevin Morris wrote:

Dust Raven wrote:

Play a bard. Everyone loves bards.

Except me! I can't stand them--well, actually that's not really true. I just think the flavor is far too specific, which makes it difficult for me to come up with a concept I'm excited about.

However, bard would also cover another thing the party's really been missing: a good face. We've gotten ourselves into some major trouble with our stupid mouths so far!

Check out the archetypes then, they are a great way to change the default flavor and pick up some new abilities along the way, and theres some great bard archetypes! Archeology, Arcane Duelist, Dervish Dance, Dirge Bard, Water Singer, Thundercaller and many others.

I've never liked giving up Inspire Courage (which a few of those do), but Thundercaller actually looks pretty cool. The game hasn't been using anything outside the main line of books, but I might shoot that one at the DM and see what he says.

Play a bard. Everyone loves bards.

Except me! I can't stand them--well, actually that's not really true. I just think the flavor is far too specific, which makes it difficult for me to come up with a concept I'm excited about.

However, bard would also cover another thing the party's really been missing: a good face. We've gotten ourselves into some major trouble with our stupid mouths so far!

Kevin Morris wrote:

TheRonin wrote:

Play whatever you want. When someone dies from lack of a healer highly suggest they roll a class with healing spells of some sort.

I have a hard time being that vindictive at the table. :P

I understand, but there comes a time to break the cycle. You are as entitled as anyone at the table to have fun.

And I will, ultimately, have fun no matter what I play because I'm playing with some of my oldest friends. Even so, of course, I'd like to optimize that fun, as a character that contributes well will be more fun for me and more fun for the rest of my group.

The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Another weird thing you could do as an alchmeist is to take the spontaneous healing and healing touch discoveries. Together, at level 20 you get 100 hp per day through a fast healing 5 that could be used to save you from death, or you could give them in 5 hp increments to allies as a standard action. Not too useful in a fight unless you are stabilizing a dying character, but it could be useful to lessen the amount of time you'd put into extracts and wands.

Plus it makes it easier to tank if you are going for a Hyde build.

I was considering those discoveries on an Alchemist before I made the witch that died last night, actually. The Chirurgeon would go well with that, too, since they get Infusion for free.

It's one of the most interesting options I've seen so far, and it's probably on my hypothetical list somewhere.

Play what you want, you shouldn't be forced to play a healer. And if you are being forced to heal, maybe you should find another group to play with.

Why do people say this? What business is it of yours who I play with? For the record, this group is one of friends that I've had for over a decade. I volunteered to play the healer initially, and after my death, it's not as though someone else was going to abandon a character they like to take over that role for me.

Thanks for the bit about the mid-levels, though. That's the kind of stuff I was looking for.

Your going to get a hundred different opinions. Its all up to your group, play-style, and DM.

How long do your fights take?
How much damage does the party usually take in an encounter?
How much healing do you have to do on your healer during combat?
What are the other characters in your party?
What tactics/CC do you have in the group?
Does your DM throw alot of status effects at your party like negative levels, disease, poison, ect?

All of these questions factor into whether loosing a dedicated healer is a big deal. You can do without a healer... but only if your group is set up for it.

Oh, I understand all that. Don't get me wrong. I'm just curious about the experiences others have had, so that I can hopefully contextualize my experience in the game so far and decide how far I need to go on the healing front.

Play whatever you want. When someone dies from lack of a healer highly suggest they roll a class with healing spells of some sort.

I have a hard time being that vindictive at the table. :P

In one of the games I'm playing in right now, I've been the party healer, and won't be likely to get out of that role anytime soon. I've had two characters each specialized to varying degrees in healing and control, but I'm a bit tired of playing a dedicated healer and would like to try out something different.

It's somewhat popular wisdom that a dedicated healer isn't necessary, and the power of cure light wounds wands seems to be well-known 'round these parts. My experience with wand-based healing is all tied up in 3.5, however, and I can't speak much as to how effective it is in Pathfinder.

Due to certain temporary campaign restrictions, I'm unable to play a Cleric, Inquisitor, or Paladin. I'm definitely not keen on playing another witch (both of the previous healers were hedge witches), and I'm a bit weary of playing a druid (as I played one as a healer in 3.5 and would prefer not to repeat that).

That leaves me with Alchemist, Bard, and Ranger as characters with some healing capability (with both Bard and Ranger being able to easily use wands). Off the wall options might include any character with a high Use Magic Device modifier, I suppose.

But I'd hate to doom the rest of the group because I want to play something different. While I should play what I want, if the group dies, I may not get to play at all (as it would likely mean a break in gametime for this group).

So, my questions, essentially, are these: In your experience, how much healing is really required? Have wands historically been enough for you? How much in-combat healing is enough?

I have to say that seems like an awesome idea. I've always wanted to play a Mystic Theurge, but I've never been in a group where I could afford the hit to higher level spells.

Good luck!

I'm actually quite happy not worrying about the APs and other products for my games. I use the main print books, and that's it, and I have a robust number of options at my table.

Pathfinder's also much better on my pocketbook than 3.5 was!

I really dislike the summoner's eidolon rules. They're borderline broken right out of the box. They don't require the sort of smart play that a God wizard does. You can build an eidolon that gives the fighter a run for his money by answering simple questions like "Does it have the maximum number of attacks for my level?" and "Is it Large yet?" That's slightly hyperbolic, of course, but the ease of building a very good melee eidolon becomes a big problem when you add in the summoner's very powerful spell list and his own feat selection as well.

Currently, I don't allow them in my games because everytime I've sat down to make one for someone else's game, I've felt bad about how powerful the eidolon was.

Leadership has very similar problems and it's also not allowed in my games anymore as written.

Someday, I will get around to house ruling both of them.

Oh, and I think Acrobatics is too powerful as written relative to other skills. The 4E approach of Climb, Jump, and Swim a single skill (Athletics) feels much better to me.

Forgive me if this has been done before...for I have never seen it in published form. Ok, with the constant concern about class balance on these forums I have a new/old idea.

Back in 2nd edition in the DMG they had this little, simple table for dms to create new classes. I greatly expanded on that table and birthed a campaign world my group quite enjoyed for a couple years. The idea was to be able to "build" your perfect class, the one that best represents your ideas and playstyle. (I know other game systems have systems like this, but I'm talking dnd or pf here)

I have done a similiar system for 3.5 Dnd, but with our current campaign entering its 8th(?) year I did want to disrupt our group atm. We have done some playtesting, but thats about it.

I doubt Paizo would be interested in such a venture ( and I have no desire to publish my own work for the masses to ridicule) so how about ANYONE out there taking a stab at a point buy character creation system for Pathfinder? I know most novices need their role developed for them at first, but I think many advanced players would be interested in such an idea. And I am not talking about a Skills and Powers approach here, but a true pick your options thing.

I suppose that wouldnt end all player complaints as folks would probably be argueing over "why does ability A cost this much while ability B, etc" but perhaps it would finally bring some true game balance for those seeking it. Additionally, some people (myself included) would enjoy building truly (or mostly) unique pcs.

Just a thought. Anyone know of anything like this still in print and thats any good?

This would be incredibly difficult to do for Pathfinder. When it comes down to it, none of the classes are truly balanced with one another. This goes all the way back to 3.0 because that's not the type of balance the original design team strove for.

You can certainly start from the ground up and work out something--many of the chassis elements of the classes can be quantified, and that's where systems like BESM d20 worked everything out.

But if you want the system to work directly with Pathfinder, there's just too much gray. How many "points" would wizard-level casting be? What about cleric? What about the witch, who has a weaker spell list than the wizard does, but is still a 9th-level spells arcane class?

Spellcasting is going to be the biggest problem, obviously, but similar problems apply to all the various "talents." Are rage powers worth more than rogue talents which are worth more than hexes? What about discoveries? And so on. Even simple races have issues, as mentioned above (*grumbles something about artificial categorizations and point values*).

Balance in Pathfinder (and 3.x) comes down to a lot of instinct and gut feelings, and much of that is incredibly hard to quantify. That's why the system in Unearthed Arcana (3.5) started with a simpler three classes--and you couldn't even really build the core classes with it.

For something like this, it's really better to scrap all the existing classes and start fresh. I'll second BESM d20 for one of the better examples of something like this done in d20. They did update that to 3.5 in the "Stingy Gamer Edition" that lacks all the art. You can probably find them second-hand online.

So.. can anyone post the link to this recent thread that Captain and CP keep mentioning? I'm quite curious to read the developer opinions on the issue.

I just dug through the Core Rulebook FAQ as well as the FAQ on www.d20pfsrd.com, and I couldn't find anything, myself. They may be referring to the old 3.x FAQ that Skip Williams handled--I vaguely remember it being addressed there.

Other than that, though, I'm not sure to what they could be referring.

That's fairly vague given the language we use here on the boards. Was it an alignment trap by the DM? Did the character have REASON to kill the creature, even if it was just self-defense? What I have from you so far is not enough to comment on.

I wasn't really intending to discuss why the character fell, to be honest--I just gave it as a bit of background information. The characters were herding neutral creatures out of an old lady's home, and they found one left when the paladin went back.

He killed it. It didn't threaten him or anything, he just killed it instead of herding it out of the house.

Clerics work for the deity, but Paladins are like ambassadors, and represent the deity so they are held to a higher standard. A lot of it also has to do with the paladin being a "knightly" concept so they have to always be virtuous. It has a lot to do with flavor.

I'm not sure I agree. If there's a Lawful Good of deity of Honor and Truth that holds her clerics to a code a lot like the paladins (no lying, for instance), why can that Cleric lie 144 times (to numerate it, though I think they don't mean "grossly" that specific) but the Paladin can only like once? The deity cares about the same thing, and really, in terms of power, gives the Cleric *much* more than the Paladin. Paladins don't gain Miracle after all.

How exactly did the character fall from grace?

He killed an innocent creature in typical adventurer style. The loss of his powers wasn't so much the issue as all the discussion that came after the group looked into the Code of Conduct in more detail.

I believe it was deliberate.
They increased Smite evil then made being a Pally harder.

I've heard nothing from Devs on either way.
3.5 was very leniet if you followed RAW (grossly means 144 times or very severe).

That's certainly true. What I'm not so sure on is why clerics don't have a similar issue. Why would a a god of Truth give her cleric the "grossly" allowance with lying, but a paladin doesn't have that same leeway?

It's odd that they changed one without changing the other, if it was deliberate.

A few days ago, a group of my friends had a paladin lose his powers in their game, and it prompted a pretty big discussion on how strict the code was between all of us. For reference, here's the relevant info from Pathfinder:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).

I personally hadn't read the section until we got into the discussion, as I assumed I knew what it took to lose paladin-hood. I found many of their complaints strange, as I didn't remember the code having been so strict. That prompted me to take a look at 3.5, as that's what I was probably remembering.

Here's the relevant info from the 3.5 SRD (emphasis mine):

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).

The section in Pathfinder removes the word "grossly," which really changes the meaning of the passage. Even a minor fib causes a violation of the code of conduct in Pathfinder, which is a bit different from 3.5, where it required a "gross" violation (a lie on par with using poison, for instance).

It's also interesting to note that the ex-clerics section in both Pathfinder and 3.5 has the "grossly" language as well.

Has there been any commentary on the change? Was it due to human error or was this a deliberate means by which to make the paladin's code more strict?

And thanks for the guide! You've definitely helped me decide on where I'm going with this character :)

You're welcome. :)

I was planning to play a Spellslinger myself (before deciding on Gunslinger instead) for a campaign I joined about a month ago. I was looking pretty strongly at Gunslinger 1/Spellslinger 5/Eldtritch Knight 10, until the DM confirmed that he does use the ruling that prestige classes don't grant any spells known for wizards.

You should be more than fine with that build, that's for sure. :)

This isn't a very comprehensive guide--in fact, you might say it's little more than the ramblings of someone who thinks about D&D too much, but here are my thoughts on the spellslinger:

http://kcmorris.hubpages.com/hub/A-Guide-to-the-Spellslinger-Pathfinder

I don't mention Dazing Spell in the guide, but it's actually a really solid choice. Otherwise, the general trick with the spellslinger is to remember that you're still a wizard, and that you shouldn't shoehorn yourself into only blasting/save-or-die spells.

Achilles was a barbarian. The whole poem is about "the rage of Achilles," and his name's derived from a word that basically means "angry." Heracles was probably also a barbarian, as he had his own rage issues (though as mentioned before, some of them were stricken upon him by Hera). Theseus and Perseus would probably be a better examples of fighters if you want to go to Greek myths. Most of the "magic" stuff they do is from gear, even.

I'll second Corwin as a good example of a fighter (and obviously his brother Benedict as well), as well as Maximus. Most of Arthur's knights would have been fighters as well, though you could make an argument for cavalier, there, I suppose (but what is the cavalier but a variant fighter, in the first place?). Caramon was a fighter, as mentioned, but given that he was conceived of as a D&D character, that's sort of a given. (Tanis, Caramon, Sturm, Laurana, and Tika were all fighters as I recall).

I was having this discussion with a fellow DM just this weekend, and he's close to just removing the fighter and replacing it with the urban barbarian archetype, with a few tweaks. It's a quick fix, but it provides a broader skills base and access to rage powers (many of which give the character a good "supernatural" bent that doesn't step outside of their idiom).

Monte Cook said when they were designing 3.0, they intentionally threw in the bad options, to reward players who understand the system, and he said it was done to add something similar to the deck building aspect of Magic: The Gathering. He also said in hindsight, that it was a bad idea for an RPG. I agree with him. So thats one of the lead designers of 3e, saying that they included terrible godawful options on purpose, to reward the players with a good understanding of the system, who have learned to weed them out, and acknowledging that it was a crappy Idea.

Monte didn't say he thought the bad options were a bad idea. In the actual article, the bad options were listed as one of three things they borrowed from M:tG. The third one, "Ivory Tower Game design" is what Monte comes out against in that article. The ivory tower design is the deliberate absence of a lot of explanatory information to help players make decisions. Toughness, for instance, doesn't have text explaining that it's meant for low level Wizards (in 3.0 anyway), since it can probably come close to doubling their hit points at first level. Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't explain that you should have good sources of extra damage to make up for your otherwise lower damage per hit.

Monte's Ivory Tower article gets misconstrued a *lot* and it's a pet peeve of mine. For all we know, he might consider the bad options thing bad, but he hasn't come out and said it anywhere that I'm aware of.

For a special, rare race that flies or whatever, it makes sense to me to leave that in the realm of homebrew.

Homebrew's exactly what this tool's supposed to facilitate, though, isn't it? This isn't (as far as I'm aware), a tool Paizo's going to be using for Adventure Paths. It won't be allowed in Pathfinder Society. I may have just misunderstood what you meant, though.

I suppose I should have trimmed the quote a bit:

...most simply create whatever they might require for storytelling purposes with little concern for balance.

That seems like a pretty strange observation to me. There are a lot of GMs on this forum discussing the material here--I'd have to assume they're interested in using it from a balance perspective.

This seems a flawed premise to me. GMs have much less need for a systemic means for creating races; most simply create whatever they might require for storytelling purposes with little concern for balance. This book is largely for creating PC races, which most players will want to do themselves before then turning it over to the GM for approval.

What gave you that idea? I'm a DM and I'm very interested in having a system with which I can tweak and balance my homebrew races.

Seems that as a gunslinger its a long road feats wise.

Is it worth taking a level of fighter and getting point blank shot, rapid shot and precise shot and then going to level 2 (or even 3) as the gunslinger?

I'm playing a gunslinger (pistolero) in my weekly Saturday game right now. We're currently level 11 (with Up Close and Deadly being my Signature Deed), and at 13th I'll no longer worry about misfires. If it weren't for the archetype, though, I'd have probably gotten out of the class around 5th level as well.

As it stands, I'm actually looking at taking levels of Duelist after 13th, as one-handed firearms count as one-handed piercing weapons, which means they work alongside Precise Strike. It's either that or Fighter levels--I'm not convinced I need the extra feats, though.

Where I am coming from is... I see the bolded statements as contradictory. That is why it is coming off to me like you are confused. Either there is no reason or there are reasons you almost agree with.

I'm not confused, but I didn't choose my words well. What I meant, I suppose, is that I can understand that a lot of DMs would simply assume flight is too powerful, and Paizo probably does too, which is why the ability is "off-limits," but I don't agree with that. I don't think there's any good reason to declare the ability off-limits when you can use the point system to create the same general result while still letting a DM that cares to have a race with fewer abilities that can fly. It should be priced such that for a "typical" race, it's difficult to acquire it, but it should, in theory, be possible for a race to exist that has flight and has to give up a lot just to have it.

To illustrate what I mean: imagine that flight cost 8 RP. With the standard linguist array, a standard race would only have 1 RP to play with if they were Medium. Now, the race in my game happens to be small, and has a 20 ft. base speed. They also have penalties to both Strength and Constitution (and bonuses to Dexterity and Charimsa), which isn't an array specifically called out, but let's say it's worth -1 RP to be conservative. That leaves the race with a few points to gain a variant Gnome Magic (1 RP), and have room for a skill bonus or another pair of 1 RP abilities.

The Large size trait already works like this. It's available to races of all power levels for a huge cost of 7 points. There aren't going to be many races with that trait as a result, meaning that it's far from "standard," but a DM that wanted to could still build a Large race of the proper power level for his game, though they won't have as many individual bonuses as another race might.

So, in short, what I mean is that there's no good reason to classify abilities in tiers as Paizo's done when we already have a point system that can accomplish the same general purpose without also replacing our Legos with shoehorns.

Is that more clear?

But how is that possible? Anything I can think to compare flight to only illustrates how overpowered it is in comparison to the core races abilities. I’m not saying if I can’t find a way there isn’t a way. I’m no game designer either, but if I was going to demand something, I’d at least have some reasoning behind believing it was possible.

Flight's most powerful from about levels 1-7. After that point, it takes a sharp decline in power as flight becomes readily available to spellcasters, and thus to the rest of the party when necessary as well. My general reason for believing it was possible is that I've had this flying race in my game for about eight years now, and there have never been any grievous imbalances. I've played in other games with flying races as well and have found the experience to be the same.

That may only be the case for the tables I've played at, but it leads me to believe that flight should be available as a standard ability--this is why we have the points. Even if it costs 10 points to take, setting it at the "advanced" threshold, a race with weaker ability score modifiers, a xenophobic array for languages, or some weakness such as light blindness could have it and be on par with the core races. They're giving up a *lot* for the ability to fly (and they don't even get good maneuverability with it).

I think it is dangerous to compare racial abilities to class abilities in this context. What adventurers with character class levels can do is not balanced against what commoners can do. Do you really not see how a race where every bum off the street has the advantages of being a quadruped and super speed (I can only hope that is all they get. Tell me they don’t have claws too.) is not balanced with your average human or dwarf bum? I assume not, so I’m interested in hearing what disadvantages you implemented to bring them in line. Or maybe it doesn’t bother you which is fine too.

Races shouldn't be ultimately balanced according to NPC classes in the first place. Racial balance is important for the PCs relative to one another and relative to the challenges they will face as part of the campaign. Indeed, this could be said for balance across the entirety of the game.

I'll pull my litorians as an example (though this is judging by my previous attempts at balancing the races, without respect to the playtest rules). They have a standard +2/+2/-2 ability score array (0 RP); they're Medium (0 RP). They've got fast speed (1 RP, advanced); low-light vision (1 RP); +2 Perception/Survival (4 RP); variant stonecunning applying to runes like glyph of warding (1 RP); variant fiendish sorcery that applies to wizard/magus for their Intelligence (2 RP since it's broader than the base ability); and weapon familiarity (1 RP). They pay 1 RP for the standard languages array.

So, my litorians clock in at 11 points as an advanced race. Now granted, they have a couple abilities I'm pricing ad hoc since they aren't listed, but this is a race I wrote up a few years ago. Now, assuming, for instance, that the price of skill bonuses may change (it seems high), and the prices for languages may change (it's also inflated, to make sure humans hit that "magic" 10 point spot), this race would be about spot on if, say, fast speed was worth 2 RP instead of just 1 (if you doubled advanced ability costs, or something).

I've had one player play a Litorian (a ranger), and his higher base speed meant he was able to wear medium armor and keep up with the rest of the group. That's certainly a nice benefit, but it certainly didn't make him markedly better than say, a dwarf. Dwarves get a lot of racial traits (and most evaluations of them that don't attempt to shoehorn them into 10 points place them at 12 or 13 points), so I can't see how moving at 40 feet autmatically makes my litorians too good to play alongside dwarves.

Again I’m sorry. I wasn’t trying to make you feel bad. (Paizo was, but those guys are jerks. ;P) It seems to me you are a good homebrewer that, like I said before, doesn’t need or want to use the race guide, but wishes you did. That is part of what I didn’t get. It makes more sense now that you’ve explained how much of a fanboy (in the nerd-positive sense) you are.

Yeah, some of your races aren’t balanced with the established ‘standard’. Don’t feel bad about it. Paizo is most likely going to put out a book that isn’t targeted to you. Don’t feel bad about it. Really don’t let this make you reconsider playing the game. So your friend wants to use one of your advanced races? Just tell her you’ve found them balanced (except maybe the flying one :P) and let her group make their own judgment call.

My biggest problem is that there's no real reason I should need to feel bad about it. The standard/advanced/monstrous tiers as hard "don't cross this line" boundaries serve no real purpose that the point system cannot serve on its own.

Imagine instead a system that relied entirely on RP to determine a particular trait's power. That system would have a set of guidelines explaining that standard races range from 7 or 8 RP (the halfling) to 12 or 13 RP (the dwarf). Advanced races, by contrast, range from 12 or 13 RP to 20 RP (or some other number), and then monstrous races, things really outside the norm, tend to have 25 or more points (or again, whatever number, really, so long as the points take that number into account).

This gives DMs like myself the greatest freedom to design our races in such a way that fits our worlds, even if that might mean somebody has claws at 1st level (which, incidentally, is entirely possible for a 1st level natural weapon style ranger, which also means that there's no *good* reason claws should be worth more than the 4 RP cost of a human's bonus feat). It also allows DMs to decide that their races won't have claws because they don't feel it's appropriate to their world.

In both of those situations, each DM is working within the established framework of the system. In Paizo's system, the first DM has to essentially ignore the system to get what he wants, and that also means that the RP costs provided for the advanced/monstrous abilities are of no use to him when balancing his races. He is, in effect, relying on his own judgement, and this means that the system as a whole offers him no value.

Why is it wrong to want Paizo to produce a product that has value to both kinds of DMs? Removing the "do not pass" nature of the tiers does not prevent or make more difficult any attempts to create "standard" races, and it opens up the product to a whole range of potential customers that would find little use to it otherwise.