CyricPL's page

I was reading over the combat feats and while I think that it is a good concept for things that look more like maneuvers from Tome of Battle I really don't like the way they are currently implemented allowing the use of one per round. I can use precise shot but not point blank shot? Lame.

I really love what you have done in general but the combat feats need revamping

You must have the 1.0 version, this week's 1.1 update reverted point blank and precise back to their 3.5 versions, meaning you can use them at the same time.

To the earlier poster who mentioned not being able to use expertise and power attack at the same time: you actually can use them the same round, neither of them is listed as a combat feat.

I think some people have gotten a bit confused by the name. Not all of the feats that are used for combat are proper "Combat Feats." I do think a name change might be in order to avoid some confusion, but I can't think of anything else that isn't just as confusing right now :)

As has been mentioned a few times, the benefit gained in being a specialist should be an improvement in the specialist's abilities with spells in his craft; i.e., extra spells of the specialized school and an increase in caster level or DC (preferably caster level, especially if the DC formula is modified to include caster level as a variable).

While I do think that specialists should get an improvement in caster level, since I am a big fan of save DC being based on caster level as opposed to spell level, I'm actually against bringing back the extra spells per day. That's why I said that I think universalists should have the "weakest" chain of abilities, because I really like the current idea that the school abilities are what really defines a specialist. I agree that the game should be all about balance, hence the characters with unrestricted spell selection get a less potent chain of special abilities.

That said, I also believe that the current restricted school model for specialists should be changed to an out and out prohibition on two schools. I think that is easier to consider when trying to balance casters.

I just posted this in response to something on Combat & Magic, but it seems like it should be here:

That said, I think universalists should be given the "weakest" chain of school abilities.

(Saw that Jason said this might be happening, yay Jason!)

I also have to agree that the spell/times per day progression that is presently being implemented isn't exactly what I think we need. I would prefer to see the schools broken down like this:

Every school has two special powers. One ability that is flat or levels based on class levels, not subsequent school ability gains (diviners are never surprised, necromancers control X HD worth of undead per wizard level). The other ability would level in some way proportional to the school ability gain (evokers have a ranged force attack at their BAB+Int modifier that does 1d6 at 1st, 2d6 at 4th, 3d6 at 8th; abjurers create a ward that give them +1 to AC at 1st, +2 at 4th, +3 at 8th). One of the two abilities should be combat applicable, but both can be if it is school appropriate. Sure, the evokers would probably be more adventurer friendly than the diviners, but really, shouldn't they be?

BTW, I totally think the current Necromancer undead ability needs to be nerfed, I just picked it as an easy example.

- a specialist cannot apply metamagic to spells in prohibited (is "restricted" a better term?) schools, as well as the other restrictions

I think it should be taken the extra step and the schools should truly be prohibited.

That said, I think universalists should be given the "weakest" chain of school abilities.

I also have to agree that the spell/times per day progression that is presently being implemented isn't exactly what I think we need. I would prefer to see the schools broken down like this:

Every school has two special powers. One ability that is flat or levels based on class levels, not subsequent school ability gains (diviners are never surprised, necromancers control X HD worth of undead per wizard level). The other ability would level in some way proportional to the school ability gain (evokers have a ranged force attack at their BAB+Int modifier that does 1d6 at 1st, 2d6 at 4th, 3d6 at 8th; abjurers create a ward that give them +1 to AC at 1st, +2 at 4th, +3 at 8th). One of the two abilities should be combat applicable, but both can be if it is school appropriate. Sure, the evokers would probably be more adventurer friendly than the diviners, but really, shouldn't they be?

BTW, I totally think the current Necromancer undead ability needs to be nerfed, I just picked it as an easy example.

Perhaps drop design notes from any printer-friendly version you guys may make, but by no means take them out of the fancy version, they're an important part of the community dialog that's going on with this project, IMHO.

Actually, the weapon styles never bothered me, but I'd actually like to see the spellcasting go the way of the dodo. I feel the same way about paladins, though. I just prefer the "warrior" classes to rely on supernatural/spell-like abilities rather than actual spellcasting.

As far as the feats being changed on the archery path, I think that's a problem for everyone. Some of these feat changes are really not necessary.

The problem for paladins, AFAIAC, and one which became apparent when we first transferred our game from 2E to 3.0, is that they do not have the feats available to carry out their basic job.

Earlier editions either assumed that all characters could ride, or made it a single non-weapon proficiency. Once assumed to be a rider, all characters were then assumed to be capable of Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample, etc.
Forcing PCs to buy all these options up again as individual feats is very costly, when the default character gains only 7 feats over a 20-level career. Unless of course the paladin is multi-classing as a fighter, which is restricted, and leads to accusations of min-maxing or cherry-picking.

Maybe the paladin could be granted bonus Mounted feats, or gain the effects of such 'virtual feats' while mounted on his celestial steed (or an earthly steed he has bonded with)?

Good point -- total agreement.

If I read one more "lots of paladins, evil chaotic, whatever" post my head might explode ... Yes, I get where the people are coming from, and I actually agree ... except that it doesn't need to be core. All core needs to have is good, old-fashioned vanilla Paladins.

That said, my preferences for fixing the class, which is one of the ones that mos def needs fixing:

Drop the spells. I think supernatural and spell-like abilities are the way to go.

Don't drop the horsey, but make it part of a similar dynamic to the bonded item/familiar situation introduced with wizards. That, or go with the "any mount becomes special option" mentioned in earlier posts. I worry that it would be a little hard to balance, though.

Initially, I really preferred the idea of sticking with the d12, but now I have to concur with the idea of d10 + 2hp per barbarian level. It gives benefit for doing more than a level dip, especially since it should stack with toughness. Now THERE's a barbarian for you.

I've got to say, I already disliked chaining and I hadn't even thought about how bad it would be with multiple NPC fighters yet! Yikes...

Come on now ... this is getting ridiculous. Pretty soon there will be no distinction between classes any more as every class will have an option to swing a sword, pick a lock, cast a spell and pray to a deity just like every other.

If you want your Rogue to cast spells, then multi-class a level or two of Wizard or Sorcerer.

Rogues Should Not Cast Spells !!! Multi-Class Instead !!!

Classes are distinct and do what they do for a reason, and munchkin power-gamers who want it all-in-one be .. well ... I don't think it will let me post that word !!!

IMHO,

Rez

I can see where you are coming from, but in this case since it is part of a larger list of ability choices I think it is fine to have the rule for those who want it, and rule it out in your own game.

Edit: Does that mean I can just add 50% to make my ring an Apparatus of Kwalish? That could be interesting.

How could your ring be a large, lobster-like submarine? I thought it was a ring? ;)

I think the intention here is that you are counted as having the item creation feat only for the bonded item itself. So just because your bonded item is a ring doesn't mean you can make any wonderous item you want -- just the rings. And even then, only really one of them, because you only have one ring.

And perhaps I'm not entirely following, but why are you adding 50% back on after halving the halved market cost?

Jason, I haven't had time to think about suggestions for Paladins (in fact, I really should be editing :p ), but I thought this might be the right place to express that fixing classes like Paladin and Barbarian is really what I'm personally most looking for out of Pathfinder.

Hmm, well it looks like I'm in the minority in liking the 1 per round part, which opens up these feats to be more powerful, but not liking the chaining part.

I do think some of the feats need to be beefed up to justify one per round, but honestly I just find the chaining to be unnecessarily complex. It's not something I want my players to have to think about.

I'd have to say I agree with the spirit of "change very little." I do think that wizards need some sort of consistent magical ability to draw upon, and I think the idea of it being school based is interesting, but I think the version as it stands needs work. I like simplifying clerics and eliminating the need for domain spells. I like the fighter, period.

But I do think that the combat feat system, as it is, goes to far.

I think rewriting the core races goes to far.

I like the consolidation of some skills, but I think the rewritten skill system goes to far.

I do like Erik Randall's XP system...

Fix broken spells, tweak feats like power attack without rewriting the feat rules in general, only fix the classes that need some fixing (Rangers are fine!), and focus on fixing complex combat situations -- your version of Grapple is already a vast improvement! That's what Pathfinder should be.

Boo!

I don't like Deft Shield. Sword & Board should not fall into the "two-weapon fighting" trap. It should be treated as different style with its own progression that doesn't require you to take another feat chain to be effective.

I would have rather seen:

Shield Bash, Improved
Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency.
Benefit: When you perform a shield bash, you may still apply the shield’s shield bonus to your AC. You are also treated as if you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when making a shield bash for determining the penalties to attack rolls.
Normal: Without this feat, a character who performs a shield bash loses the shield’s shield bonus to AC until his or her next turn and takes the normal two-weapon fighting penalties for attacking with two weapons.

+1

The Fly skill, when first encountered, was 100% WTF.

It remains so.

Standard for compatibility, Toughness and Favored Class bonuses are good enough.

I like the idea of combat feats being a little more powerful, and therefore only being able to use one in a round.

I hate the chaining effect to use them. Axe it. Not necessary, too complex and restrictive.

I thought this was a nice addition. We've seen characters in movies do stuff similar to this, so I'm glad they conceptualized it into a feat.

As far as balanced, I'd say it is because of the feat sink and lack of shield.

I have to disagree. While you have a point about the cinematic style, in terms of rules I'll be disallowing this one if it survives the playtest process. Broken.

Any further alteration risks damaging the backwards compatibility of the magic system.

Ok, I realize me saying that its not a problem for me doesn't help the people it is a problem for, but I would like to draw your attention to the above quote. So far, any and all proposed solutions to the 15 minute adventuring day issue involve the sort of changes (like per encounter abilities) that begin to radically undermine the math of the system, leading to a game that is increasingly less backward compatible.

Ultimately, I think those who feel that the current "adventure day" is still a problem with the at-will abilities of the casters (and reserve feats, for that matter) will be best served by either 4th ed, another system altogether, or house rules. Anything else will change what Pathfinder is supposed to be too much, IMHO.

While I like the simplicity of making it damaging to undead, I'm not into the healing/harming living beings part. While there are also other mechanical issues to work out (such as how long or how many HD evil clerics can command), my initial reaction is to try a version where the dice are bumped to d8, but the effect of non-undead is dropped altogether.

Perhaps my style of play is less suited to butting heads with the current situation, but I've never really had this problem. In my case, the situation tends to break down like this:

Dungeon crawl: "Call it a day? And let the icky things reinforce this place? Are you crazy?" or "You know someone else could come along and grab all the loot, right?"

Wilderness travel/City adventure: To me, most of the time more than one combat encounter in a day seems a little silly.

Really, I don't see any need for the class/cross-class skill distinction.

Yes, it means fighters who choose to study the arcane will know just as much about it as wizards, or, as more mechanically crunchy example, they can be just as good at disabling devices as rogues (though without the trap abilities), but it allows for much more personalized characters. The limitation in number of skills alone is distinction enough between the classes.

Hmmm -- I like this.

Athletics: Consolidate Jump, Climb, Swim into one skill. Make it a class skill for Fighters.

Acrobatics: Tumble, Balance, maybe Escape Artist (or even put EA under theft)

I concur with this.

Also, perhaps add "unarmored" as an option for the (then ironic) armor ability that fighters gain? Allowing for a more swashbuckling fighter. Of course, there's no armor check penalty to go down, but since the PC in question doesn't need any equipment to use the ability it seems a fair trade-off to lose it.