DeadDMWalking's page

Hey all.

The dndarchive is having a competition to create a spellcasting or psionic NPC using the 3.5 ruleset. There are prizes being offered.

Check out the details
here.

The prize is listed as an amazon.com gift certificate. As a judge for the competition, I wanted to make it a Paizo gift certificate, but that doesn't work officially yet. Since I've been a frequent customer of Paizo, I know how accomodating the customer service is, so if you'd prefer your prize in Paizo credit, I'm sure that they can help make it happen.

We hope to see you there.

I would like to cancel my Adventure Path subscription. AP #14 is supposed to have shipped. I want to cancel my subscription after 14. I do not want to receive 15 or later modules by subscription.

Thank you.

It happens in 3.5 all the time. The wizard decides to cast a spell, takes a quick look at the description, and then has to look at a totally different spell in a totally different section of the book.

It happened to me in a Pathfinder Beta playtest last night. The spell was Minor Image. After looking up Minor Image I had to look up Silent Image. And of course I had to remember that there was a difference in duration that needed to be confirmed more than once.

If possible, a spell description that says 'see other spell' should reference a spell on the same page. To put spells of similar theme together, you could start calling the spells 'Image, Minor' and 'Image, Silent'.

This would follow the pattern set with 'lesser', 'greater', etc.

Flipping back and forth in the book and referring to multiple spells is a slowdown that I'd like to see eliminated.

Please cancel all subscriptions except the Adventure Path for me.

This includes:
Pathfinder Modules
Pathfinder Chronicles
Pathfinder Companion
Planet Stories

This is primarily due to the fact that in discussion of the Beta Rules Jason has said that the number of skill points for fighters is fixed at 2. Skills are my primary concern with the move to Pathfinder RPG, and I was hoping to see all classes get at least 4. I was tempted to cancel at several times earlier, but I opted to wait until it was more definite.

After Pathfinder RPG is released I will evaluate it and may consider resubscribing.

I've been looking forward to the opportunity to discuss the current barbarian in the Beta. In the game I'm playing in we have a barbarian currently, and most of what comes up is a direct result of our playtest. Since we're still in the 'low level category', some of the suggestions come from minor testing at higher levels. I'd like to lay out the real 'problems' that we've encountered, and what solution we've chosen to implement.

Problem 1 - The Barbarian is a Healing Sink
Our group has been struggling against the '15 minute adventuring day'. Having 'at will' powers for my wizard has meant that I feel that I can contribute even after I'm completely out of spells. Different classes have different resources that they manage in order to keep adventuring. The barbarian's primary resource that limits his ability to continue adventuring is total hit points. With our barbarian's low AC, he is hit with tremendous frequency. Since he has a lot of hit points relative to the other characters this works, but after combat he requires a lot of healing. At 1st level our cleric could convert her 3 turn undead into healing bursts and not restore him to full. Essentially, we have determined that the barbarian 'steals' all of the available healing.

Our Solution
We've decided to make the hit points granted by raging true 'temporary hit points'. That means that each time the 2nd level barbarian rages, he gains 4 extra hit points. If in the course of the fight he loses 4 hit points, he ends the fight without damage. So far he has not ended a fight with less than 4 hit points in damage. But it does mean that we save a bit on healing. Our solution makes a small difference, but does not eliminate the problem.

It remains a concern that the 'toughest' member of the party is constantly begging for healing after each and every fight. I don't think a 'self-heal' option is appropriate from a flavor perspective, but I'd certainly like to see more options to consider to reduce this problem in the future.

Problem 2 - Math HARD!
Our group includes people who are very good with numbers, and people who are not. The person who is not good with numbers cannot run the barbarian. That is not the problem that I'm concerned about. Instead it has to do with the possibility of 'recalculating bonuses' between rounds. Currently a high level barbarian can move between rage and greater rage. Since greater rage costs more rage points if there are no enemies in reach, a smart barbarian will drop from 'greater rage' to 'rage' to move into position, and then resume 'greater rage'.

In 3.5 a barbarian converts all of his 'rage' into 'greater rage'. Every rage has the same bonus allowing the player to track one set of 'rage stats'. Having 4 sets of stat at high level (no rage, rage, greater rage, mighty rage) is too much.

Our Solution
Greater rage costs 2 rage points /round (just like rage). Effectively a barbarian loses 'rage' and replaces it with 'greater rage'. There is no incentive to 'switch' rage types. The same is done with Mighty Rage. This also converts into more total rounds of rage at higher levels, allowing the barbarian to use more rage abilities.

Those two are the biggest problems we've encountered with the barbarian. We do not object to rage points (we think they're fun), so we'd prefer keeping the rage mechanic over going back to 'daily uses'.

I have 6 subscription items waiting to ship.

I had my option set at 'Hold for Monthly Shipping', but I thought it was ridiculous that it had not yet gone out.

So, I changed it to 'Hold for Adventure Path'.

Now it doesn't want to send the six items I have waiting (including two Adventure Path modules) and instead wants to wait until the next one is out.

Please ship my order ASAP.

I absolutely hate the shipping options we have available to us, and they're driving me absolutely crazy.

If I choose 'Hold to ship with Pathfinder Adventure Path', the printer gets delayed by almost a whole month, so I get no shipment.

If I choose 'Hold for monthly shipment', someone else decides when there is enough stuff and it seems like they keep deciding that since something else is supposed to be in in another week, they'll hold my shipment - and when the shipment gets delayed, well, either it holds longer or it finally gets shipped a week later than it could have, with no additional product.

If I choose 'Never Hold Anything', I get a whole bunch of monthly charges for shipping.

I don't care about when my Pathfinder Modules ship. I do care about when my Pathfinder Adventure Path ships (as soon as possible) and when my Pathfinder Chronicles items ship (as soon as possible).

What would make me extremely happy is if I can choose 'Hold for Monthly Shipment', but then choose 'SHIP NOW!'. That way, when I have three or four things, I can tell you to go ahead and ship it.

And maybe I have you ship twice this month, maybe three times, whatever. And then, one day a month (say the 15th), you always ship whatever is there at the time....

That would make me very happy. I just changed to 'Don't Hold Anything' because I have like 6 things waiting to ship, and now they can't ship until Monday. I'm very sad.

My group is starting a new Pathfinder Alpha 3.0 game this Sunday. While most of the rules will be straight from the Beta, we just can't leave well enough alone. I need a cleric domain related to rage (like a barbarians) or wrath.

Spells like 'Rage' certainly make sense, but how about a touch attack for level 1? If you were writing a Pathfinder style Rage Domain, what would you put in it?

Any suggestions you have will be greatly appreciated. And while the high level abilities may not be needed immediately, 1st and 2nd level will be needed in short order.

Thanks in advance for the help.

Edit - changed Beta to Alpha.

When you get a PDF of a Pathfinder adventure path that is broken up by module, you get a list like this:

001_PZO9009Title
096PZO9007AD
002003_PZO9009CreditsTOC
004005_PZO909Foreword
006059PZO9009Korvosa
0060065PZO9009Rakshasa
.....skipping....
backcover
backCoverInside
pZO9009Cover
pzo9009FrontInsideCover

I hate the fact that nothing is in order as it appears in the book. When I have time I reorganize the file names in the order they appear in the book. So, after some work, I have a list like this:

1 - Cover Front
2 - Cover Inside Front
3 - Credits
4 - Title Page
5 - Foreword
6 - Seven Days to the Grave
7 - Plague and Pestilence
8 - Abadar
9 - Pathfinder Journal
10 - Bestiary
.....Skipping......
15 - Cover Inside Back
16 - Back Cover

I hope you can see what advantages having the chapters appear in order offers. I think it would be swell if they were arranged in publication order when they are organized by file name. This can be done (as I have done) by putting a numeral before the file name, or it could be done with a page number (since 96 will always come after 65). But however it can be done, it should be done.

Is this something Paizo can do? It seems like it should be extremely easy to implement and it would save me (and I'm sure there are others like me) quite a bit of time in organizing those files).

Thanks.

I'm one of the significant number of DMs/Players that like the idea of a campaign taking a long time from the character's perspective. Perhaps it is the result of playing earlier editions of the game, but I don't have much fun when we level every session. And I know I'm not alone.

Playing a long campaign can be a lot of fun, and if the DM is good and level progression is not that fast, the character can do so much more than in a quick campaign. I know Paizo wants to help us support the game that we want to play, so I thought I would bring up one concern.

If each adventure expects the PCs to level more than once in the course of the adventure, it isn't really possible to slow that kind of rate of advancement.

My request is that in stand-alone modules the writers assume that the PCs will be the same level throughout. Since giving XP at the end of an adventure is pretty typical, it shouldn't be a difficult solution.

The Adventure Path is much more difficult to modify. I don't know if others would support, but even having each book have one set level and then a skip with the possibility of some time passing.

Thus, the first AP could assume that the PCs are 3rd level throughout (but the DM could start at 1st and advance to 3rd by the end, if so inclined). The next AP might start at 5th level (but again, a DM could start lower and advance).

This would tend to make the early challenges in the adventure tougher for characters that don't use slower advancement rules (since they'd wait to tackle the adventure until they've done other things to make it to 5th level). This would allow the DM to insert other adventure in the 'between time' from one AP to another. Even fast advancing DMs might prefer this since they can fit a little more in if there is a 'skip' of a couple levels between adventures.

Thoughts, comments, criticisms? I'll take them all with equal enthusiasm.

The order says it is for my Samarkand Solution. I decided to 'never hold anything' because I didn't want to wait a month for my Gazateer, but in the e-mail there is no assurance that I will get anything other than the Planet Stories sub...

I've been told that the Gazateer will ship with my next subscription shipment. Does that mean it is coming now?

PLEASE?!!?!?

The following numbers assume a Constitution of 16. Since many Barbarians advance only their strength score, we’re going to assume that remains a constant for the basis of comparison.

3.5 Barbarian
1st Level – Rage +4 Strength and Constitution for 8 rounds
4th Level – Rage +4 Strength and Constitution for 16 rounds
8th Level – Rage +4 Strength and Constitution for 24 rounds
12th Level – Rage +6 Strength and Constitution for 36 rounds
16th Level – Rage +6 Strength and Constitution for 45 rounds
20th Level – Rage +8 Strength and Constitution for 60 rounds.

Pathfinder Barbarian
1st Level – Rage +4 Strength and Constitution for 7 rounds
4th Level – Rage +4 Strength and Constitution for 22 rounds
8th Level – Rage +4 Strength and Constitution for 42 rounds
12th Level – Rage +6 Strength and Constitution for 31 rounds
16th Level – Rage +6 Strength and Constitution for 41 rounds
20th Level – Rage +8 Strength and Constitution for 25 rounds (2 rage points remain)

Variant – As Pathfinder but Greater and Mighty Rage cost 1 rage point/round
1st Level – Rage +4 Strength and Constitution for 7 rounds
4th Level – Rage +4 Strength and Constitution for 22 rounds
8th Level – Rage +4 Strength and Constitution for 42 rounds
12th Level – Rage +6 Strength and Constitution for 62 rounds
16th Level – Rage +6 Strength and Constitution for 82 rounds
20th Level – Rage +8 Strength and Constitution for 102 rounds

Analysis
Because Rage is not limited to a certain number of times each day in Pathfinder (it could be 1 round or 10 rounds at a time, assuming enough rage points) it can provide more benefit. At 1st level, even though it is one fewer total round compared to 3.5, a Pathfinder Barbarian may be able to use that over 3 or 4 encounters. If that is the case, the Pathfinder Barbarian doesn’t compare too unfavorably even at 12th or 16th level and is much better at 8th level. However, at 20th level the 3.5 Barbarian is clearly superior.

Because Rage Points are multiplied by barbarian level, Constitution is much more important to the Pathfinder Barbarian than the 3.5 Barbarian. Increasing the Constitution from 16 to 20 would have added (level x2 Rage Points). At 20th level, even with the 4/round to maintain a Mighty Rage, this would equate to another 10 rounds of raging.

Rage points are a ‘manageable resource’ that a character may use quickly or slowly. Without knowing how many fights will occur in a day, a player may either conserve or use them very quickly. Considering some abilities can cost 8 rage points/round, a 20th level Barbarian is very restricted from using the Mighty Rage. Elemental Fury (8pts) and Mighty Rage (4pts) would total 12 pts/round. At 20th level with a 16 Con we have 102 rage points. This would equate to 8 rounds of rage (remainder 6 rage points). Certainly at high levels the rage points can be spent very quickly, increasing the likelihood of contributing to the ’15 minute adventure day’.

In this sense, the Pathfinder Barbarian fails. It appears to provide more options, but they work to reduce the amount the character can use the signature ability. With the high cost of many of the rage powers, reducing the extra cost of Greater and Mighty rage make a big difference. Using the variant presented above, a 20th level barbarian using Elemental Fury would only expend 9 rage points/round. This would work out to 11 rounds of rage. The moral of the story is that no matter how Greater and Mighty Rage, rage powers need to be used sparingly and only in extreme circumstances should they be used every round.

This causes additional complexity in the game, as the barbarian constantly shifts from normal AC to a higher AC w/ Guarded Stance, or recalculates CMB with a bonus of Barbarian level to strength. Essentially, using many rage powers without having worked out the math in advance is a problem in a smoothly flowing game. At this point the calculations seem a normal part of playtesting, but I expect them to continue long after certain players have ‘mastered’ the class, depending on their ability to figure their bonuses in advance.

The major effect that Constitution has on number of Rage Points makes a big difference in the power level of the game. A barbarian with a 15 Constitution is much weaker than a barbarian with a 24 Constitution (5xlevel difference in Rage Points). I personally dislike having the ability so strongly tied with an ability score, since class level should be the primary factor in determining class abilities. A 20th level barbarian with a 15 Con has more Rage Points from Level, but a barbarian with a 24 Constitution has more than 2x as many from Con as from level. Calculating the number of rage points is a bit annoying since 1st level provides a different number. I essentially take the level, subtract 1, multiply by 2+Con, then add in the number gained at 1st level. Having a universally smooth progression will eliminate that minor wrinkle.

Suggestions
Reduce the cost of Greater and Mighty Rage to one rage point/round. This more closely emulates 3.5 where a barbarian that has Greater Rage does not use normal Rage. Having a single type of rage (+4, +6 or +8) will be easier than having to keep track of all 3, especially as you can move through them each round. This will also be true since a character that is in a rage will choose to maintain it with ‘rage’, but after moving toward enemies, switch to Greater Rage, then attack.

Change the number of rage points at each level to a universal amount. I suggest 4/level (maximum of 80 at 20th level). Removing the addition of Constitution to the number of rage points grants will bring the capabilities of different barbarians more in line with each other. Since Constitution should be important, I propose limiting a barbarian to spending their Constitution modifier in rage points/round. Thus, a 20th level character with a 15 Con in rage (23 while raging) would be able to spend only 6 rage points/round. A barbarian with a 20 Con (28 while raging) would be able to spend 9 rage points/round.

Suggested Barbarian Rage Rounds
1st Level – Rage +4 Strength and Constitution for 4 rounds
4th Level – Rage +4 Strength and Constitution for 16 rounds
8th Level – Rage +4 Strength and Constitution for 32 rounds
12th Level – Rage +6 Strength and Constitution for 48 rounds
16th Level – Rage +6 Strength and Constitution for 64 rounds
20th Level – Rage +8 Strength and Constitution for 80 rounds.

And that’s what I have to say about that.

Hey all.

I'm going to GenCon this year. It will be my first, and I'm already signed up for a few Paizo events. I figure you'll probably be selling stuff that I can't subscribe to (like flip-mats). I was thinking that if you were, I would buy all the stuff that I don't already have that you bring, but then I was thinking about buying it online with my subscriber discount.

The thing is, I don't really like purchasing online. And I'd rather tell you how amazing you are in person while I hire porters to carry away my Paizo purchases....

So, this boils down to - is there any way to get our subscriber discount at the con?

Cause that would be cool.

I personally don't feel that the combat feats are adding anything to the game. I particularly feel that combat feats that are feats that used to be in 3.5 are being changed unnecessarily. I think the restriction to one feat per round is an unusual limitation, since some feats have the previous feat built into their use as a specific exception.

For example, Spring Attack grants the benefit of Mobility when you use it, avoiding the 'one feat per round' rule.

The [Combat] feats have the same names as existing feats, but for the most part don't work as well. Other threads have been brought up about this, but Power Attack is one that I find particularly distasteful. If I have a +18 Strength modifier and a +12 BAB, I get a -12 to my attack and a +12 to damage. I cannot take a -3 to attack, so I can't use power attack to get a little more 'oomph' without giving up the chance of hitting. In Paizo adventures, frequently the villains will attempt to powerattack for full, then decrease the amount by 5 each round until they start hitting (I'm looking at you Papa Kreeg). This is an issue of backward compatability far more than the number of feats or the way the skill system works.

I'd like to put a loud vote in for 'NO' on combat feats. Those that are worth keeping can be made General Feats. Yes, you can use multiple ones in a round, but I don't see that as a problem. I don't see why Careful Targeting and Many Shot are such a powerful combination that they shouldn't be allowed in conjunction.

They may be better in the Alpha 2 than in the Alpha 1 (there they were so bad I didn't even want to go near them). But after giving them a fair shake in Alpha 2, they're still far inferior to the feats we had in 3.5. Please remove them for the Alpha 3.

I think the Alpha 2 Fighter is a noticeable improvement from the Alpha 1 Fighter.

1) I really like that Armor Training appears to apply to all armor types, not forcing the fighter to simply choose 1. Thus, if the fighter has scale mail at 5th level, but gets full plate at 8th, he doesn't have to 'lose' the +1 bonus he already spent. This is a good change, since it allows a fighter character to use this ability throughout their career without 'regretting' using it on the wrong armor type.

2) Weapon Training is also better for the same reason. The 'primary' group is going to be at +4, the second group at +3, the third at +2 and the fourth at +1. One quibble - again, at 1st level you might start play with a longsword, but at 6th level you find an axe that for various reasons (some story, some mechanical) is a better fit for your character. Since you've already spent your +1, I understand not getting the +1 with the axe until 9th level. I'm okay with that part. But just as the ranger can choose to 'start a new favored enemy' at +4 instead of increasing his existing bonus to +4 when adding a new favored enemy, I think that the fighter should be able to choose which weapon group gets a +2. I would phrase it almost exactly like the Ranger ability. I don't know if that makes sense, and I don't know how to phrase the ability, but I definitely would like something like that better. I'll keep thinking about it, but I'm open to suggestions.

3)This is just a nitpick. The section on bonus feats is poorly phrased. Specifically, the note regarding a fighter getting a bonus feat every level. Obviously a Pathfinder character gets a bonus feat ever odd level (1st, 3rd, 5th, etc). A 5th level fighter gets at least one every level (2 at 1st, fighter bonus at 2nd, normal at 3rd, fighter bonus at 4th, normal at 5th). However, a Rogue 1/Ftr 4 (for instance) will not get one feat a level.

They'll get a feat at 1st (normal) 2nd (ftr 1) and 2 at 3rd (normal and ftr 2), none at 4th, and 2 at 5th (normal and ftr 4). Obviously it works out the same way, but the way it is phrased, it sounds like a fighter should get a feat every level, instead of two feats at some levels as is possible with a multiclass character or a creature with odd racial HD.

4) The weapon groups are better too.

All in all, I like it. I do hope these minor points that I bring up can be addressed.

I really do like the new barbarian. This is a great example of more options without overcomplicating things. The use of rage points is brilliant, but I'm sure you already realized that.

There are a few typos, as pointed out by others. The Terrifying Howl's prerequisite is missed, and in the description it also refers to itself as 'Howl of the Wild'.

The only ability that I dislike is the 'Elemental Fury'. This seems to be a strictly magical attack. How does a normal human, no matter how furious, produce a shocking weapon? There is no explanation for the power, and I really don't think it is appropriate as a class ability. Does anyone else have thoughts on that specific issue?

Regarding barbarian hit points and rage, I do think that the loss of hit points after a rage can be a bad thing. If you have +24 hit points from raging, and you drop into the negatives, when your rage ends, you're dead. Hopefully, your friends will help keep you alive, but I'd just as soon see the Rage Hit Points be temporary hit points (that are lost first) so the barbarian isn't in danger of dying the moment someone casts 'calm emotions' on him. For a class that is supposed to be 'tough', they really are pretty easy to kill. Even if this replaced the bonus to Constitution (which has other advantages), I think it would work better than the current system, so that is the only 'major change' I'd like to have considered.

All in all, I think this barbarian is very exciting, and now that it is out, I'm going to have my barbarian player convert to the Pathfinder barbarian.

Through several threads there are two discussions that have been occurring regarding the skill system in Alpha. The first is regarding the nature of the skill point system, which most people seem to feel is very good, and needs just a little tweaking. At the same time, there are conversations about what the skill list SHOULD look like. The two are interrelated, so a change in one necessitates a change in the other. If you have a perfect ‘skill point allocation system’ but then combine skills so there are only half as many skills, it is necessary and prudent to also revise that skill allocation system to provide fewer skill points.

With that in mind, in order to have a meaningful discussion of what the skill list should look like, it is necessary to presume a skill allocation system so everyone is discussing the same thing. This thread is not a place to discuss what the skill allocation system should be, only what the skill list should be to match the ‘presumed’ skill system. For the purpose of this thread, I’d like to presume that the skill system is as Alpha, but classes that get 2 skills per level instead get 4 skills per level. That change seems to have a lot of support (though of course there are some who do not favor that, or instead favor a 3/4/5/6 progression) so if we can agree on that for the purpose of this discussion we can move forward on the skill list. Once a skill list is ‘finalized’ or ‘perfected’ for the 4/6/8 progression, we can look at what changes should occur to that skill list if we made a change to the skill allocation system (like to a 3/4/5/6), or how those other systems would interact with the balanced system.

Let me begin by laying out the original 3.5 system:
Appraise (Int)
Balance (Dex)
Bluff (Cha)
Climb (Str)
Concentration (Con)
Craft (Int)
Decipher Script (Int)
Diplomacy (Cha)
Disable Device (Int)
Disguise (Cha)
Escape Artist (Dex)
Forgery (Int)
Gather Information (Cha)
Handle Animal (Cha)
Heal (Wis)
Hide (Dex)
Intimidate (Cha)
Jump (Str)
Knowledge (Int): All skills taken individually.
Knowledge (arcana)
Knowledge (architecture & engineering)
Knowledge (dungeoneering)
Knowledge (geography)
Knowledge (history)
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (nobility & royalty)
Knowledge (religion)
Knowledge (the planes)
Listen (Wis)
Move Silently (Dex)
Open Lock (Dex)
Perform (Cha)
Profession (Wis)
Ride (Dex)
Search (Int)
Sense Motive (Wis)
Sleight of Hand (Dex)
Speak Language (N/A)
Spellcraft (Int)
Spot (Wis)
Survival (Wis)
Swim (Str)
Tumble (Dex)
Use Magic Device (Cha)
Use Rope (Dex)
You may have also included Control Shape Change (from the Monster Manual) and Autohypnosis (Expanded Psionics Handbook). There are also a few more that might have popped up in a third party supplement or a Dragon magazine, since adding skills was done with some frequency.

For the purpose of comparison, in the 3.5 Player’s Handbook there are 45 skills.

There are three Strength based skills (Climb, Jump, Swim). There are nine Dexterity based skills (Balance, Escape Artist, Hide, Move Silently, Ride, Open Lock, Sleight of Hand, Tumble, Use Rope). There is one Constitution based skill (Concentration). There are seven distinct skills that use Intelligence (Appraise, Craft, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Forgery, Search, Spellcraft) as well as Knowledge (10 of which are listed). Considering the Knowledge skills as separate skills, that yields 17 skills with Intelligence as the key ability. There are four Wisdom based skills (Heal, Listen, Spot, Sense Motive), and eight Charisma based skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, Use Magic Device).

Pathfinder Alpha 2 takes the 45 skills present in 3.5 and reduces it to 35 skills (22% reduction in number of skills). It does this by combining several skills, but adding at least one more.

They are:
Acrobatics (Dex) [combination of Balance, Tumble, Jump]
Appriase (Int) [expanded uses from 3.5 including Identifying items]
Bluff (Cha) [expanded uses from 3.5 including the old Innuendo (3.0), Feint, lie]
Climb (Str) [unchanged from 3.5]
Craft (Int) [unchanged from 3.5]
Diplomacy (Cha) [combines Diplomacy and Gather Information]
Disable Device (Int) [combines Disable Device and Open Lock]
Disguise (Cha) [unchanged from 3.5]
Escape Artist (Dex) [unchanged from 3.5]
Fly (Dex) [brand new skill for Pathfinder]
Handle Animal (Cha) [unchanged from 3.5]
Heal (Wis) [expanded use - treat deadly wound]
Intimidate (Cha) [demoralize or force someone to act friendly for a short time]
Knowledge (arcana) (Int) [as 3.5 but includes part of Spellcraft – identifying spell targeting you]
All other knowledges unchanged from 3.5
Knowledge (architecture & engineering)
Knowledge (dungeoneering)
Knowledge (geography)
Knowledge (history)
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (nobility & royalty)
Knowledge (religion)
Knowledge (the planes)
Linguisitcs (Int) [Decipher Script, Forgery, Speak Language]
Perception (Wis) [Spot, Listen, Search, plus use other senses to ‘notice’ things]
Perform (Cha) [unchanged from 3.5]
Profession (Wis) [unchanged from 3.5]
Ride (Dex)
Sense Motive (Wis)
Sleight of Hand (Dex) [unchanged from 3.5]
Spellcraft (Int) [All spell-casting uses of 3.5 Concentration, plus identify a spell as it is being cast or learn a spell from a spell book]
Stealth (Dex)
Survival (Wis) [Mostly as 3.5]
Swim (Str) [Unchanged from 3.5]
Use Magic Device (Cha) [unchanged from 3.5]

This gives us two Strength based skills (climb, swim), seven Dexterity based skills (Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, Sleight of Hand, Stealth), zero Constitution based skills, 14 Intelligence based skills (Appraise, Craft, 10 knowledge skills, Linguistics, Spellcraft), four Wisdom based skills (Heal, Perception, Sense Motive, Survival), and seven Charisma based skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, Use Magic Device).

Comparing the two systems, it is obvious that there are fewer skills in the Alpha. Some skills remained unchanged, some skills now include two old uses, and some include three or more. This has created a situation where some skills are clearly better than other skills. Acrobatics and Perception are the two skills that suffer from this the most, they become desirable not from a character conception point of view, but simply from a benefit-to-cost ratio. They expand your options the most for the least amount of input. It should also be noted that the rogue, particularly, has more skill points than necessary with the Alpha system. The 3.5 rogue has 29 class skills, the Alpah 2 has 21 skills. As an example, a rogue with 11 skill points per level in 3.5 has 37% of their class skills maxed, and 24% of the total skills. The Pathfinder Rogue has all those abilities and more, with 52% of class skills and 31% of the total skills available. Basically, it means that the rogue is getting a significant boost in the ‘spending power’ of each rank they have. Now, I personally don’t favor reducing the rogue’s skill point assignment. But I do think that the skills may be too far combined to make them truly useful.

My Proposal
Acrobatics (Dex)
Appraise (Int)
Bluff (Cha)
Climb (Str)
Concentration (Con)
Craft (Int)
Decipher Script (Int)
Diplomacy (Cha)
Disable Device (Int)
Disguise (Cha)
Escape Artist (Dex)
Fly (Dex)
Handle Animal (Cha)
Heal (Wis)
Intimidate (Cha)
Jump (Str)
Knowledge (Int): All skills taken individually
Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering)
Knowledge (History)
Knowledge (Nature)
Knowledge (Regional)
Knowledge (Religion)
Perception (Wis)
Perform (Cha)
Profession (Wis)
Ride (Wis)
Search (Int)
Sense Motive (Wis)
Sleight of Hand (Dex)
Speak Language (N/A)
Stealth (Dex)
Spellcraft (Int)
Survival (Wis)
Swim (Str)
Use Magic Device (Cha)

Expanation
Acrobatics (Dex) [Balance + Tumble]
Tumble is a good skill. Balance is not a very useful skill. Putting Balance in with Tumble ends up with a good skill, and the two benefits are certainly related (moving through dangerous terrain). I’d rather ‘give Balance away free’ with the purchase of a skill than see it stand alone and never be used.

Appraise (Int)
I have a problem with this skill as written in Alpha 2. I don’t think that it should allow the players to identify a magical item. I certainly don’t think it should allow an NPC to do so. I’d rather see Appraise help in getting a good price for an item. Usually DMs have someone make a Diplomacy check, but when money is involved, people don’t want to pay you more than something is worth, even if they like you. However, if you can point out all the things that make the item valuable, you should be able to get a good price for it. As a DM the most annoying thing I deal with regularly is saying ‘You find 15 malachite chips’ and then 3 sessions later, they’re trying to buy something and they’re like ‘hey, how much are these malachite chips worth that we found?’. At that point, I don’t know. So, I’d really like it if the appraise skill allowed them to know the ‘value’ of the item, so they could write it down when we talk about treasure or art pieces, but reason to take the skill is to get a significant portion of that value when they sell it. So, if an art piece is worth 20,000 gp, they might get 5,000 if they sell it, but with a DC 15 check, they’ll get 50%, and if they beat a DC 30, they get the ‘real value’. With a skill like that built into the system, I won’t be worried about treasure being ‘unbalanced’.

Bluff (Cha)
I like this one as is.

Climb (Str)
I like this one as is. With Fly and Swim being their own skills, I think this makes sense being its own skill as well.

Concentration (Con)
Every spell caster needs to be able to concentrate. I think this one can stand on its own. I understand removing the ‘skill tax’ from spell casters, but I propose doing that in a slightly different way. By keeping concentration, we keep the key ability as something that is important to every spell casting class without giving Intelligence based casters (wizards) a significant advantage. This will also provide a home for the ‘non PHB skills’ mentioned above – Autohypnosis and Control Shapechange. Adding in a new skill when a character suddenly contracts lycanthropy is a pain. Having it as a function of another skill (that most characters won’t keep ranks in) is good. I also like allowing a Concentration check to allow the use of another skill that normally provokes an attack of opportunity without that normal attack. For example, the battlefield medic will take Concentration to use the Heal skill in a threatened square without provoking an attack himself. In this sense, it would not be about ‘focusing on the task at hand’ but splitting your focus – doing what is necessary without dropping your attention from the rest of the battlefield. I’ve seen plenty of examples in movies – the medic is working, but seeing movement drops down, fires a couple of rifle rounds, then resumes work.

Craft (Int)
No problem for me. I like craft skills. The only thing I would suggest is fixing the way the time takes. Some things (like a house) just take way too long to build. If the Amish can raise a barn in a week, the craft rules ought to cover that kind of situation as well. Aid another doesn’t really do it, and maybe trying to break down a complex structure into multiple simple pieces (beam, door, stall) might, I think the system could be reworked so the time it takes to build an object is more true to ‘real life’.

Decipher Script (Int)
I think this one can stand on its own. The thing is, I understand that it is difficult to decipher something if you don’t speak the language. Giving free languages with mastering this skill, though, just seems wrong. If you show someone a language that they’re unfamiliar with, if they’re really good, they’ll be able to figure some of it out. For example, I don’t know French, but my wife does. When I ‘read’ in French, I look for proper nouns and try to understand who the script is talking about. I look for cognates, and try to determine if that works for figuring out the verb. I can decipher some French even though I speak only about 30 words. Not much, but I don’t think I’ve put a lot of work into decipher script, like certain archaeologists might. So, leave it as a stand alone skill.

Diplomacy (Cha) [Diplomacy + Gather Information]
I’m good with this as written. I like the combination of Gather Information into Diplomacy. It makes sense that people will be more likely to tell you things if you can make them feel comfortable with you.

Disable Device (Int) [Open Lock + Disable Device]
I like the Alpha 2 version, but I’d prefer to see Intelligence in place of Dexterity.

Disguise (Cha)
I’m good with this as well.

Escape Artist (Dex)
There is a major problem with Escape Artist in 3.5. It is really unclear when it should be used when dealing with creatures of different size. Paizo is guilty of this. Frequently there are modules where there is a chimney that a small character can move through, but a medium creature must make an escape artist check, DC 25. I’d really like to see Escape Artist as a good way for small and tiny characters with a poor BAB to escape a grapple. I was just using Dire Bears yesterday in Fortress of the Stone Giants, and whether we use the new or old grapple rules, the Barbarian at 10th level if okay, the gnome wizard at 10th level is not. I’d like to see a size bonus for Escape Artist checks that is the ‘reverse’ of the size bonuses for Grapple checks. If you’ve ever had a small pet (like a lizard) you’ll know what I mean. It isn’t that you aren’t strong enough to easily control them, it is that if you make even a small opening they ‘dart right out’. Then, when something requires an escape artist check, it will require it for everyone, small characters will just have a significant bonus over medium creatures. So, small creatures would get a +4 on Escape Artist checks, and Large creatures would get a -4. The rule would be simple, easy to adjudicate, and make small characters a more viable choice.

Fly (Dex)
I like this as a skill. It won’t affect that many PCs, but it will help define what a character can and cannot do in various flying situations. I like that.

Handle Animal (Cha)
I like this skill. I oppose the combination of this skill with Ride. However, I don’t like the druid’s wild empathy ability. If you’re a druid, what is the point of putting ranks into this skill? You can use your animal empathy ability instead. Your bonus won’t be quite as good, but you can do more with it. I think the animal empathy ability should allow you to use your Handle Animal check instead of a modified level check. Then someone with even a few levels of druid can make use of wild empathy (a la Beastmaster movie).

Heal (Wis)
No complaints, noble leader.

Intimidate (Cha)
The big debate with Intimidate is whether or not it should really use Charisma. I’m going to just go on the side that says, yes, it should. Sure, I understand that there are a lot of intimidating people that don’t have a good charisma. But I do think that it is more of a presence than anything else, so the fact that there are ‘goons’ with a lot of ranks, but a low key ability modifier doesn’t bother me that much. Combined with the Alpha 2 system of giving you a +3 if it is a class skill, I think it works just fine.

Jump (Str)
I think this skill can stand on its own. Since I’ve had monk characters with ridiculous jump checks, I know that you can do a lot with this skill. If it stands on its own, there should be more about allowing you to use it to bypass rough terrain. Jump really should be your skill to allow a charge when you might not otherwise be able to. If you can jump enough to avoid the obstacles, you should be able to get your attack. You might also be able to use jump to (as a move action) to gain a +1 height advantage for your attack. These kinds of uses would make the skill better, and it could stand on its own even against the Acrobatics skill.

Knowledge (Int)
There are 10 knowledge skills in the game, and this is the one category most often expanded (followed by profession). Just about anything can be a knowledge skill. Astronomy, Navigation, harrow readings. At some point it has to be pretty clear that we need a system that is expandable (adding more abilities into existing skills) or we have to make sure that it is defined what types of knowledge you can include in a Profession roll (probably astronomy and navigation could go in profession: sailor) pretty easily. Since there are 10 skills in this category, this is going to be a several paragraph explanation.

I propose cutting the 10 knowledge skills down to 5:
Knowledge (architecture & engineering)
Knowledge (history)
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (religion)

Knowledge (arcana). This skill should be eliminated. Spellcraft already allows for a character to identify a spell as it is being cast. Rather than retain this skill so we have a place to put in a ‘mysterious magical fountain’, let’s just roll that into Spellcraft too. Spellcraft should be the skill for recognizing any magical effects. Your friend is dominated – spellcraft. Magical fountain in the forest – spellcraft to determine what it does. You find a magical sword in the dragon’s hoard – spellcraft to determine what type of magical sword. I’d take the ‘identify magical items’ out of Appraise and put it in Spellcraft, and the identify spellcasting out of knowledge (arcana) and put that in Spellcraft. What do we have left? Identifying constructs, dragons and magical beasts? Well, we can put magical beasts into (nature) easily, and dragons into (history) without stretching believability. The constructs is a tough one because they’re created by arcane magic, but (engineering) needs a creature type. So there we go. Nothing left for Knowledge (arcana) so we eliminate it.

Knowledge (architecture and engineering) can be kept as long as we give it a creature (like constructs) to identify weaknesses in. All the other uses don’t really help much in terms of ‘mechanics’, so the only time I see this taken is for strictly flavor reasons.

Knowledge (dungeoneering) doesn’t make sense to me. Sure, there are oozes and some aberrations in Dungeons. There are also some in the underdark, and some above ground. Not all aberrations reside underground. Since I want to keep the identifying monster skills as ‘knowledge’ skills, aberrations and oozes need to go somewhere. I think oozes can go to (nature), and aberrations can go to (religion).

Knowledge (geography) doesn’t have any creatures to worry about. I know my geography pretty well. I also know my fantasy geography, and I know a lot about topography. I think that most of the uses of the skills are going to be part of survival (terrain, climate) and anything that is about a place can go into (local). If you have knowledge (local) Varisia, you’d expect to have a sense of what towns are where and and what the general geography is. So, I do think knowledge (local) to have a function should be regional, rather than specifically one town or one city. Since seldom does an adventurer stay in one place that long, having a single place you know a lot about isn’t usually very useful. It can be assumed that locals actually know about their locality without spending ranks on the knowledge (skill). Since most NPCs don’t have ranks in this anyway, but they can find the blacksmith just fine, I don’t think that would be a problem.

Knowledge (history) is an important skill. Throw in identifying dragons and you’ve got a complete skill. Since it already has ‘royalty’ as part of what it does, we can also eliminate (nobility & royalty).

Knowledge (Local) can do a lot. I’ve changed to Knowledge (regional) as per my discussion of knowledge (geography). And of course, it includes identifying humanoids, so let’s throw in monstrous humanoids as well.

Knowledge (Nature) will cover animals, fey, giants, magical beasts, plants and vermin as far as identifying creatures. This makes it a ‘big hitter’ in the identifying creatures category, but it certainly isn’t complete. I’m okay with that since most of the creatures that you fight are ‘natural’ creatures anyways. I pulled the monstrous humanoids and put them in with the Knowledge (regional) to avoid some of that ‘lumping’.

Knowledge (Religion) can safely cover everything that was in knowledge (planes) and in knowledge (religion). Identifying devils and demons seems more in line with religion, and since cosmology can and does vary from game to game, figuring anything that comes from ‘beyond’ is a religious matter is easy for me. What I really like about this is that it helps make the game more ‘flexible’ since there isn’t an inherent presumption that there are multiple ‘planes’. If there is a ‘river of fire’ and all the ‘native fire outsiders’ come from it in your game world, it would work to have this under (religion) or if you have a complicated system of multi-fire planes with conjunctions and cross-over points, it works as well. It becomes an abstraction I’m happy with.

And we already covered why we’d eliminate (nobility & royalty) and (planes). So, I think we’re good.

Perception (Wis) [spot+listen]
I like it without Search. I like the other perception senses being included as well. I don’t want a 6th sense here, since I think this is more about noticing surroundings – your actual ability to sense what is around you, not necessarily to interpret all the data.

Perform (Cha)
I like this as is.

Profession (Wis)
If we want to make some better economics rules, this is a good place to do so, but I’m okay with it as is.

Ride (Wis)
I like this standing alone, but I don’t really like armor check penalty. The research shows that armor doesn’t really get in your way that much. Sure, it is heavy, but it is designed to give you your full range of motion. So, I think we can put this skill with Wisdom, sort of an ability to understand what your horse is thinking – when to duck in your saddle as a low branch approaches, and things along that line. Sure, I admit it is an abstraction, but it clears up the whole armor check penalty without keeping it as an exception to the general rule.

Search (Int)
Here’s the deal with Search. You search for something when your senses tell you that it isn’t there. It isn’t like Spot, where you notice someone hiding in the shadows. If you pass by a secret door that is well manufactured, there should be no clue to its presence. Even the ‘line’ that defines the door might be set to follow the brick pattern, which every other brick might have as well. So, when you reach a dead end and see no sign of a secret door, you start looking for it systematically. I do the same thing with my watch. There are a lot of places I might take it off and leave it (unlike my wallet). I look in the rooms I usually leave it in, and hope to spot it. If that fails, then I actually have to search each room. It is a much more ‘thorough and organized’ endeavor. I like this on its own.

Sense Motive (Wis)
I’m glad to see it back. No changes.

Sleight of Hand (Dex)
Also glad to see it is back on its own. No changes.

Speak Language (N/A)
For a long time, people have gotten ‘free’ languages for their intelligence modifier. I am a very intelligent person, and though I’ve had Spanish and Japanese classes, I don’t speak either language fluently. I’ve known people who are much smarter than me who also only speak 1 language. Learning a language is a function of learning. Skill ranks best represent that. I don’t think that someone who does the CryptoQuote in the Daily Paper should automatically learn a new language every month, either. So, I think that Speak Lanaguage should lose the ‘exception’ for gaining automatic ranks equal to your intelligence modifier, and let everyone learn a language for the use of a skill point. If everyone speaks their native language only, they’re going to have a 1 skill point tax to learn common. I’m fine with that.

Stealth (Dex) [hide+move silently]
I like this.

Spellcraft (Int)
I don’t like Spellcraft taking over Concentration’s functions. I do like the skill as the one for identifying any spell being cast or any magical effect the party encounters.

Survival (Wis)
Throw Use Rope in here, and we’re good. Tying knots is part of trapping and hunting and every other type of survival skill. It needs a home, might as well be here.

Swim (Str)
Just like Fly and Climb, I like this one as a stand-alone skill.

Use Magic Device (Cha)
I like this one as is.

Analysis
Under my proposed system, there are only 34 skills, 1 less than Alpha. The major difference is that no skill includes more than 2 skills that were once 3.5, and most of the consolidation occurred in the knowledge skill department.

There are three Strength based skills (Climb, Jump, Swim), five Dexterity based skills (Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Fly, Sleight of Hand, Stealth), one Constitution based skill (Concentration), 11 Intelligence based skills (Appraise, Craft, Decipher Script, Disable Device, 5 Knowledge skills, Search, Spellcraft), six Wisdom based skills (Heal, Perception, Profession, Ride, Sense Motive, Survival,) ,seven Charisma based skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, Use Magic Device) and one with no key ability modifier (Speak Language).

Let me look at the Wizard as the example to most likely break the system. If we give the wizard 4 skill points + Intelligence modifier, we can certainly expect to see a wizard begin with 9 skills. By 20th level, having a permanent 30 Intelligence score is not unlikely, meaning 15 class skills. With 5 Knowledge skills, Spellcraft and Concentration, at 1st level our wizard is going to use 7 of his skills, but this isn’t too much different than 3.5. Instead of ‘spreading’ in knowledge skills, he can max them all. The other two skill points might go to a skill like Search or Acrobatics to give him some extra capability. If we stop giving away 5 languages for free at 1st level, though, he’ll likely save those skill points for languages. If he really wants to be a master of languages, he might even devote 1 point per level. With 15 skills/level (at 20th level) there won’t be much he can’t do. He’ll have the five knowledge skills, tumble and search, 20 languages, and still have seven skills left to max out. Of course, Knowledge (regional) is one that he can take multiple times, each time with a different region . It is probably going to be tempting to have a few of those. This really means that he isn’t greatly increasing his effectiveness. He’ll probably pick up some swim/climb/jump, etc. But even a ‘weak’ wizard who does a lot of adventuring should be able to learn these things. I really don’t see this as broken.

The rogue had the most skill points before. Assuming a relatively good Intelligence, let’s assume 11 skill points/level. Disable Device, Stealth, and Acrobatics are ‘must haves’. Search would be another ‘required skill’. Perception would be a smart choice. After filling out the core functions, our theoretical rogue has 5 more skills to use. Bluff would be a good choice, so would knowledge (regional) and Diplomacy. Two more skills left. These can be used to round out the character or give some extra mobility (jump or profession). This seems to work in my mind. Characters getting a few more skills to expand their options, but nothing game breaking.

The fighter with four skills a level will certainly not break it. The barbarian with four skills a level doesn’t seem to suffer in comparison. I like that the number of skills per attribute is more equal. I guess in the final analysis, moving Disable Device to (Dex) makes sense from that point of view. While I haven’t changed it, I could certainly support it after this analysis.

Assuming the 4/6/8 skill system, what would you like to see for the skill list?

What I like
I like that cross-class skills cost 1 skill point for 1 rank in the skill. I like that there is no multiplication of skill points at 1st level.

What I'm ambivalent about
+3 to 'class skills'. Down with +3s and up with +5s. Acutally, the whole level +3 is a little 'random'. Sure, I understand that the system started with a x4 at 1st level, and this keeps that up, but I just don't really care about it.

What I don't like
{restige Skills - I get a skill and it counts as a full rank for the purpose of the skill check, but not for qualifying for a prestige class? Sure, I understand trying to keep a class from qualifying earlier than necessary, but that's why every class should have a minimum of 8 ranks in a skill (or other restriction that keeps it to 5th level or above). To require 2 skills that aren't class skills for any 'core' classes doesn't consider the possibility of a non-core class. So, if a class had move silently and spellcraft as 'required' skills, that might work in the core rules, but you add a spell-thief and suddenly it doesn't. So, this is unnecessary since either there is an 8 skill rank requirement, and even if a 'straight fighter' or 'straight' something else could qualify for the class slightly earlier than in 3.5, I doubt it will break any games. Before making a needlessly complex rule like this, I'd like to see an example of a prestige class that requires this.

Classes that only get 2 skill points (+ Int). Even with combined skills, it was a joke in 3.5 and it is a joke now. If you want to make skills important in the game, you need to have characters that have skill points. If a Cleric has 4 ranks instead of 2, what do you get? Besides knowledge (religion) and Diplomacy, probably not much. I'd rather see them get Heal, and Knowledge (planes), and maybe Concentration... Maybe Spellcraft. Sure, they should have to make choices, but a few more skills will allow them to do things that are actually IMPORTANT. I've never known a cleric to take more ranks in Heal than are required for a Prestige Class since spells are more effective. That seems strange to me. A few more skill ranks and that might happen.

Some of the combinations. I won't dwell on it now, but keep it in mind. Really, the only things that REALLY need to be combined are the ones where you were rolling multiple skill checks in the same situation (hide/move silently) and (spot/listen). Any other skill combinations should be done carefully, based on whether they really make the game better. My personal preference - as above, but also keep Disable Device (disable device/open lock). Eliminate Knowledge (arcana) and put part of it in Knowledge (History) and part of it in Spellcraft. Eliminate Knowlege (nobility) and make it part of (local) and (history) (seriously - those skills need a boost anyway). Keep Concentration (this is a big one) but roll a few other skill uses into it (control shape, autohypnosis). I would be very reluctant to see any other combinations unless there was a very good reason for it in game.

What I propose
The one thing that I really did like about the Alpha, even though I didn't like the way it was done is that a class would learn a new skill periodically. I do like the idea of keeping all of your skills maxed, but every now and again finding you have enough skill points 'extra' to start learning a new skill.

So...

There is no multiplication of skills at 1st level. There is no bonus to class skills. Every class gets a certain number of skills at each level. Maximum Ranks = HD +5. Every class gets the Alpha 2 number of skills +4. All skills cost 1 point for 1 rank.

Example, a rogue gets 12 skills + Int modifier. A fighter gets 6 skills + Int modifier.

Effect - At low levels characters actually have fewer skill points than in 3.5. At higher levels they have more skill points at higher levels. If you max your ranks (meaning you have 2 more skill points than a 3.5 character could) you can still pick up an extra skill periodically.

Example - a 10th level fighter with Int 10 (non-human) would have 60 (6x10=60) skill points). At max ranks (10 HD +5=15) He could have 4 skills with max ranks. At 11th level he can keep all 4 skills maxed (4 skill points) and has 2 skill points to start a new skill.

Essentially, at 11th level he begins mastering a new skill. Take the same fighter at 20th level (6x20=120 skill points, max ranks =25) - he would have 4 skills at max ranks and the skill he started at 11th level would have 20 ranks.

Essentially you pick up new skills less frequently than in the Pathfinder Alpha 1, but you have to 'buy ranks' from the beginning, so there isn't the 'automatic pop'.

We've been playtesting this system, and it works very well. The real question is number of skill points based on how many skills are combined and how quickly you want to 'equal or exceed' 3.5 skill points.

If you would like any further clarification on this system, please let me know.

Is this feature available yet? If not, is there an expected release date?

If it is available, how will it interact with 'backordered items'? I'd like to order a bunch of the Pathfinder minis, but I'd like them to be shipped with my Pathfinder AP as they become avaialable, not holding up an order for x months while the order is completed. And I certainly wouldn't want them to ship one by one.

I'd also look to add missing item cards if this feature is available.

Picking up where I left off, I want to offer my personal opinion. While a number of systems that retain the CSS distinction have been proposed, any CSS system appears to have problems created by the CSS distinction. Any system so far proposed is less complicated when the CSS distinction is removed. Sometimes, though, simplicity is not better. An important part of the game for me is ‘realism’ or ‘simulationism’. Obviously skills are something of an abstraction already. As a modern human, you have a large number of skills that aren’t necessarily related. You might have unsurpassed knowledge of using Excel and Word, but know nothing about programming languages. Most skills assume if you know anything about the field, you know a lot about the field. If you’re good with computers, you’d be good with every aspect of computers from assembling hardware, installing software, using computers, and even writing programs. The point is, most of the skills aren’t skills as we traditionally think of them. Most of them are ‘skill suites’ – a number of related abilities that make you good at one class of thing. So, for example, a profession skill includes basic business management, knowledge of exchange rates, how to obtain and distribute your good or service, etc. A skill like Ride is more than just how to stay on a horse. It includes riding griffons and giant lizards, and performing difficult riding stunts like standing in your saddle and keeping the horse moving while you leap away. This level of abstraction is useful, and since it has already been built into 3.0 and 3.5, I’m not suggesting abandoning it in favor of a new system that is more realistic, but involves more work. For example, I don’t want to see Ride (horses) and Ride (griffons) and Ride (Gelatinous Oozes) as various skills – certainly the techniques might be very different (if even possible), but once you accept that that some abstraction is for the best, I think the rest of my argument makes more sense.
Let me begin by using two examples:
For my first example, please consider the rogue. The rogue is well-known for having access to the widest variety of skills. This is true in all the systems we’ve looked at, but let’s look at 3.5 for a moment. In 3.5 there are 45 skills. There are 16 skills that are not class skills for the rogue and 29 that are. Essentially, 2/3 of the available skills are available as class skill. Now, we know that even the most intelligent rogue will not have 29 skill points available. They would need a +21 modifier for their Intelligence, requiring a score of 51. That isn’t likely to happen. So, it is already accepted that a rogue won’t have ranks (at least not max ranks) in every skill available. But in the vast number of class skills available, let me focus on two that are not – Ride and Handle Animal. Now, on the surface it makes sense. Who has ever heard of a rogue that is a capable rider and trainer of horses? I mean, besides the classic western trope of the horse thief? The thing about rogues is that they fit in every setting and every society. If I’m playing a rogue character from a Mongolian setting, it would certainly make sense to allow me to have Ride and Handle Animal as class skills. They represent the types of abilities my character would gain in that society while doing the normal ‘rogue’ activities within it. Certainly the DM could allow me to ‘trade’ two of the (29-8, assume 4 Int mod = 17 skills I didn’t intend to get anyway) seventeen skills that I have access to in order to make my character concept work. Is that really necessary? Why not just make ride available to all rogues? Why take a character that has a convincing back story and force him to either take the skill as cross-class (making him not very good at it, even though his people are renowned) or take a level of a class that grants the bonus? It certainly doesn’t make sense for my rogue from a Mongolian horde to take a level of fighter first if my character background details how I was a rogue in the Great Khan’s Horde, working as a spy, infiltrator and assassin. I mean, maybe if you’re starting at 5th level, but certainly not at 1st.
Consider the following for my second example. My character is a fighter. Fighter’s have seven class skills available under the 3.5 rules (and 38 that are not). These class skills are Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, Ride and Swim. One of them (Craft) is actually a class skill for every class (and Profession is for every class except Barbarian and Fighter), but we’ll count it anyway. Now it is possible to begin as a fighter with 7 skills known under the core rules (human w/ 18 Intelligence) but it certainly doesn’t happen often. Now, one would tend to think of the fighter as a pretty versatile class. They can use any armor, any shield, any weapon (except exotics), they have a lot of feats – you would think that any type of fighter could easily be made with the skills available, wouldn’t you? I don’t. Swashbuckler wasn’t a core class, but it is closest to a fighter – basically a fighter that gets certain other skills. Don Juan De Marco was a great swordsman and a great lover. Tumble and Diplomacy would have to be added to his list. Zorro wasn’t a rogue, but he did know how to make a snazzy disguise (okay, I’ll give you that disguise was cross-class) and wasn’t bad at sneaking around. Inigo Montoya spent years training with a sword (sounds like a fighter to me) but he also seemed to have some Tumble ranks – more than you’d expect from a straight fighter. Queen Bodica was known as a warrior, and a leader. You would think that Diplomacy and Sense Motive would be on her skill list (and I don’t think she multi-classed as an aristocrat considering the time and place). So, if I want to make a fighter based on Queen Bodica of the Celts, how should I do it? Not with the fighter base class, apparently.
With both of the above examples, it should seem fairly reasonable to allow a player to have access to skills that aren’t normally associated with the class. This is a situation where allowing the player to create the character they envision will enrich their gaming experience without unbalancing the game. When the game is made more compelling for one player, everyone benefits. Now, as a DM anyone of us could make an exception for our player. That’s pretty common. Of course, not every DM is willing to make an exception. As much as possible, the rules should reflect what the DM should do – that way the DM isn’t forced to make a judgment call that may or may not be correct. There are also advantages to a game that everyone plays the same way when sharing or moving from group to group. Rather than put the DM in a position to ‘open’ the game, I’d rather see a situation where the DM has to say ‘that isn’t appropriate for my game’. Hopefully they can even provide a reason.
Now, if the CSS system is replaced with a ‘Universal System’, there are a couple of possible negative effects, and they need to be addressed. I’d like to lay out what they are, and then try to address each in order.
1) By allowing every class equal access to the skill list, certain classes will ‘lose out’ because their most important and special abilities will be the domain of every class.
2) Eliminating the CSS system will destroy compatibility with 3.5.
3) The CSS is necessary because it is logical that a class with a number of related abilities will excel at all of those abilities and a class that doesn’t use those abilities for ‘normal functions’ just can’t learn those skills as quickly.
Regarding Point 1 – There are only three skills in 3.5 that appear as a class skill for only a single class. Bard gets exclusive access to Speak Language (assuming aristocrat doesn’t count) and Rogue gets exclusive access to Open Lock and Disable Device. Nobody really seems to worry that bards won’t be ‘special’ if they lose their exclusive access to speak language, but there is a lot of concern over the rogue. Now, under a Universal System, the rogue does gain access to more class skills, but only sixteen, while the fighter gains improved access to 38 skills. The point is valid. Rogues gain less under the CSS than the fighter does. Does that mean that the rogue is now an obsolete class and nobody will ever play one? Certainly not. Even if you ignore the host of abilities that rogues get apart from skills in 3.5 (and even more abilities in Pathfinder), even if you ignore the fact that there are a lot of players that just like rogues (just like some players just really like the idea of a ninja) you’re left with one incontrovertible fact – the rogue gets more skills than anyone else. I fully admit that under the Alpha skills system this isn’t really true (since a Rogue 1/Fighter 19 has the same skills as a Rogue 20), but under just about every other proposed system (and certainly every proposed skill point system) this becomes a non-issue. A fighter with the equivalent of between 2 and 7 skills (assuming human w/ 18 Intelligence), Open Lock and Disable Device are not going to be popular choices. Even if a fighter had those skills, they’re not terribly useful without Trapfinding, which is a rogue class ability. I’d personally like to see it made a feat (like Track) and have it given to rogues as a bonus feat (as Rangers get track), but even if that is the case, the rogue is going to have the best access to those skills. The Fighter with seven skill choices is going to want to make sure they’re good at the things that they consider most important. This includes skills that are required for their preferred prestige class and skills that are most directly beneficial to them personally. Under the 3.5 skills this would tend to include skills like Spot, Ride, Jump, Swim, Climb, Tumble and probably Use Magic Device. Of course it could vary from one character to another, but the point remains valid. Most skills are useful to the classes that would typically take them anyways which is why they were originally offered as class skills in the first place. Players need no incentive to ‘optimize’ their character, and no disincentive to avoid it. Most players will put their skills where it is most appropriate for their chosen role, with perhaps a few skills used for background. Even if the other class tried to truly fill the role of the rogue, they would be doing it at the expense of other skills. If they use all of their skills to be the rogue they’ll still fall short because a true rogue could do all the things they can do, and a few more (2 more skills compared to a bard and ranger, the next closest in terms of number of skill points per level.) So, a change to a Universal system would not likely cause the feared effect, but even if it did, the ability of a rogue to pick a lock or disable a device are not their most iconic abilities. If that were the case, all rogues would have them. Since there are so many choices for rogue, there are certainly some that just don’t do traps. They might have spent most of their skill points on stealth and interpersonal relationships. Since a rogue that does traps and one that does not are both ‘rogues’ it is unfair to say that those skills are the most important or iconic abilities. All rogues have sneak attack (at least, under the Core Rules) and Evasion – those are signature abilities.
Regarding the second point and compatibility with 3.5, this is mostly a non-argument. A character that was prepared for 3.5 could be run ‘as is’ with no changes to skills and would work just fine. In the rare situation that the creature had ranks in a cross-class skill, he simply wouldn’t be getting his ‘full total’. This is somewhat unfair to the creature, but since we expect some conversion anyway, it is nice to know that if we do run the character ‘as written’, it won’t unfairly punish the PCs. We also know that if there is no distinction between racial skills and fighter skills and rogue skills and whatever other types of skills the character has, modifying it to the new system is a breeze. Calculate the number of skill points from all HD (race, level, etc). Determine maximum ranks in a skill. Determine how many skills can have maximum ranks. Assign skills in order of importance. If there are any skill points that are not used, assign them to the next most important skill. If a DM would prefer to assign them without maximum ranks, of course that would be an option as well, but it might require a little more time (but only enough time to figure out how many skills he wants ranks in). With a system of assigning max ranks, it should take less than 1 minute with a calculator, and can be done ‘on the fly’. \
If compatibility is so important that an easy to modify system like this does not work, then any change from 3.5 cannot be made. This would be unfortunate, because 3.5 skills have widely recognized problems when working with high level characters and characters that have lots of different classes (particularly for the DM).
Regarding the third argument against a Universal System, this one makes the least sense. If a class skill is a class skill because it is related to the other skills the character is using every day, wouldn’t you expect them to adjust automatically? If spot is closely related to what a rogue is doing anyway, why doesn’t it go up if the rogue doesn’t put ranks in it? Since even the smartest rogue doesn’t have enough ranks to ‘max’ all of their class skills, it is obvious that there are a lot of skills that rogues aren’t using every day. If a rogue isn’t using open locks, and at 15th level decides that he is going to start learning, why would he learn faster than a fighter who also started learning at 15th level? Assume the rogue only had the skills related to stealth and interpersonal relationships. How is that related to the ‘every day tasks’ of the class? They’re not. Learning a skill that is related to skills you already know is best simulated by a ‘synergy bonus’. Something is easier to do well even though you haven’t trained extensively in that particular field because it relates to something you already know. I know there has been a lot of talk about eliminating synergy bonuses, but cross-class skills can’t be explained as making sense by using the ‘related skill’ argument, since it simply doesn’t hold up.
What about the fact that the fighter is spending a lot of time doing ‘warrior stuff’ to justify his d10 HD and his BAB +1? If he is doing warrior stuff, he can’t spend much time learning to open locks. Again, this argument falls apart under close examination. While the fighter was doing his ‘warrior stuff’ the rogue was learning sneak attack and any other cool rogue abilities. The warrior spent more time on the ‘warrior stuff’, so he only gets a fraction of the skill points that the rogue gets (the rogue has more free time to learn new skills). Riding a horse or climbing a wall isn’t necessarily related to gaining combat experience or making yourself tougher. Of course learning to open locks isn’t either, but that isn’t the point. The number of skill points granted at each level is a much better indicator of how much time is available to learn new skills.
In summation, the very reason for cross-class skills to exist is tenuous at best. Their function in the game may actually be counterproductive. They restrict the choices that a player gets regarding type of skills (which is a very different choice than number of skills), often with no explanation. They fail to allow a player the flexibility to design a character based on oft repeated archetypes that don’t fit the ‘D&D mold’ – rogues who can ride horses, wizards who pick pockets, fighters who know how to dance. Removing them does empower players. Players might be tempted to ‘abuse’ the privilege by taking skills that aren’t appropriate to the character’s background – but the skills can largely explain the background and therefore become a powerful tool for shaping interesting characters. If a player makes a fighter that opens locks, there should be an explanation for how he learned that ability and what he used it for before he became an adventurer. The same criticism can be leveled at feats. An elf rogue in my Pathfinder campaign uses an Earthbreaker. It only bothers me because the player hasn’t explained why he uses it and how he learned its use. Unrestricted access to skills doesn’t make that a guaranty, but just about every skill can be ‘plausibly explained’ which means that this system is better than a system where any feat can be chosen as long as the prerequisites are met, even if they don’t make sense for the character.
A Universal system also has advantages in production (explaining the skill system is easier and shorter) and in play (one less thing to explain to new players). It doesn’t really increase the overall power of the game, because while you have some classes taking ‘non-traditional skills’, they don’t gain any more skill points. Some would argue that giving up a skill you had no intention of taking in favor of a skill that you prefer is ‘power-creep’ at best, or a ‘freebie’ at worst. I disagree. Since most players would LIKE to be able to do everything, making a choice, any choice, is a cost. Choosing to take Diplomacy and not having enough skill points to also take Decipher Script is a cost – though one the player probably thinks it is well worth since Diplomacy may fit his character concept better.
As I said in the original post, I’m very curious to see other opinions on class skills and cross-class skills (even those that I don’t agree with), but I’d also like to challenge those people who think they’re important to try games without them and see what happens. Try having your players make characters and just tell them that all classes have ‘universal access’ to all skills, and see what skills they take. Ask them why they did it, and ask them if it was better than the 3.5 system. Most of all, see how it works in play. Does it make your party stronger, tougher, or less diverse? I think you’ll find it works pretty well. If not, I’d love to hear why it didn’t work, and if possible a system that keeps cross-class skills but solves the other problems with them (from ‘pops’ to ‘extra math’ to ‘banking skill points that don’t show up in your stat block until you unlock them’).
And if you’ve made it this far, thanks for reading.

The thread I recently started is for proposed skill systems in a complete form. This thread is to make suggestions to modify any proposed system, weight the relative quality, and criticize aspects that you feel need improvement.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Minor correction - The typed text included the appropriate number of skill points for classes, but not for creature types.

Corrections
Type Skill Points Per Level
Aberration 6 + Intelligence Modifier
Animal 4 + Intelligence Modifier
Construct 4 + Intelligence Modifier (if Intelligent) or 0
Dragon 10 + Intelligence Modifier
Giant 6 + Intelligence Modifier
Humanoid 6 + Intelligence Modifier
Magical Beast 6 + Intelligence Modifier
Monstrous Humanoid 5+Intelligence Modifier
Ooze 4 + Intelligence Modifier (if Intelligent) or 0
Outsider 12 + Intelligence Modifier
Plant 4 + Intelligence Modifier (if Intelligent) or 0
Undead 10 + Intelligence Modifier (if Intelligent) or 0
Vermin 4 + Intelligence Modifier (if Intelligent) or 0

It is better to be a fighter or a wizard than a rat as far as skill points go.

The new skill theft combines open lock and sleight of hand. The only class that has it as a class skill is the rogue class.

Disable Device is another skill that only the rogue has as a class skill.

I personally think that Open Lock should not be included in theft. It should instead be included in disable device.

Many traps have a locking mechanism to allow bypass or activation. A rogue disabling the device may frequently be using 'open lock' anyway. A lock is a mechanical device not entirely unlike a trap (though usually smaller).

Someone who is adept at disabling a clock (a device) would probably do well disassembling a lock (another device - the major difference is this one doesn't move on it's own).

Since Disable Device is also the only skill that is a class skill for the rogue, this changes very little. Simply put, a rogue can choose to be good at opening locks and disabling traps or stealing from people in the market. For back story, one can certainly be more appropriate than another. For example, the dwarven locksmith will likely have a high disable device (open lock + disable device), but a low Theft. The street urchin might be the opposite.

And, petty thieves that try their hand at everything might be reasonably good at both.

The alpha version of Deception creates a situation where in order to be good at detecting a falsehood, one must also be adept at telling a falsehood.

Sense motive should not be included in deception.

The rules should help support the game we envision. Paladins who detect lies should be common. Paladins who are good at telling lies should be much less common. While several skills could and should be combined, I think that these should be kept distinct.

The Alpha version of Spell Craft includes a combination of Concentration and Spellcraft. The skill is used to maintain concentration on a spell being cast and to identify a spell while it is being cast.

I'd like to suggest keeping Concentration as a unique skill and combining Spellcraft into Knowledge (arcana). Knowledge Arcana already allows the identification of a spell that has been cast by observing its effects, and therefore is somewhat more similar.

Concentration should be expanded to include other areas of the rules that are somewhat 'arcane'. For example, the Control Shapechange ability that lycanthropes have would be a perfect fit in the Concentration category. Other effects that don't involve spell casting but do involve forcing the body to obey can be included. For example, Concentration might be allowed in place of Constitution checks to continue running, for instance.

Concentration would be an appropriate name for the skill.

After posting some initial thoughts on another thread, I thought that this might be sufficiently different to justify a thread of its very own.

I'm a big fan of the fighter class. I play a lot of fighters, so I'm very conversant with the classes deficiencies. I have a very difficult time taking fighter 5th because the level simply sucks. No feats, no ability score adjustments, no saving throw adjustments - only a measly +1 to BAB. The fighter in principle, though, is cool. It is a class that really takes advantages feats - and feats are arguably the greatest single feature of 3rd edition.

So, what is wrong with the 3.5 fighter? How does the Pathfinder Alpha fix these problems? How to make the figter truly worthwhile? I will attempt to answer these questions below, offering my opinion on the matter. And of course, I'm open to refutation, dialogue, and comments.

Problems with the 3.5 Fighter
1) Lack of flexibility relative to other classes in some aspects
2) Lack of signature abilties
3) Easily overcome by magic even from very low-level casters
4) Little ability to impact the game outside of combat
5) 'Combat Strait-jacket' - most useful ability is to perform full attacks as frequently as possible.

Further explanation follows:
1) The fighter is designed to be good at combat - but only in one way. A fighter has heavy armor proficiency and is designed to be most effective when taking advantage of it. A high-dex fighter doesn't work well when built as a single class fighter. Choosing the path of a fighter/rogue or swashbuckler is more effective, in large part because the fighter has few skills that offset the disadvantages of less effective armor. A rogue wears light armor, but makes up for the fact by having skills like Tumble that allow the rogue to avoid attacks of opportunity when getting into position or being forced to retreat. Without tumble or other method of protection or retreat, a fighter that enters into melee is almost always committing to a slug-fest - pitting his impressive AC and the damage from a full attack against the monster. Without the impressive AC that the fighter is designed to support, he quickly finds himself overwhelmed by creatures that are low CR but high strength and constitution - particularly creatures that have limited mobility and are easily dealt with by ranged attacks. While a fighter can be built with a variety of manners (ranged, disarming, tripping, etc) - no combination seems as effective as the heavy armor/full attack every round fighter build - at least overall. Compare this to the choices that other classes have. A cleric can serve as an effective front-line fighter with spells such as Divine Power and Bull's Strength, or as a healer, or as a conjurer bringing in allies to assist the party. The wizard can focus on battlefield control with wall spells, or direct damage with evocations, or a summoner, or a generalist with a pocket full of tricks in every department. So, while clerics and wizards (and even the rogue) are faced with a variety of choices in combat - the fighter usually comes to the optimal choice - full attack. This is not to say that the fighter doesn't have choices, but most of the time the choice is suboptimal regarding survival for the party.

2) Signature Abilities - The 3.5 fighter has access to Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization. I always take these feats if I am of the proper level (but part of that is not having any better choices at that point). None of these abilities seem particularly special. Worse, (and I'm not alone in this), many houserule giving other classes access to these abilities since they're only feats, and don't seem particularly 'tied' to the fighter class. If weapon focus represents training with the weapon in the first place, why can't a rogue or cleric or wizard continue to train with that weapon and achieve the level of success that the fighter can? At the same time the fighter is working on specialization he is also working on blind-fighting, or improved trip, or great cleaving - how is that different from the cleric praying more fervently for spells? While feats are nice, they don't seem unique to the class. Compare to the rogue, who gets evasion at 2nd level, trapfinding, uncanny dodge, and the sneak attack progression (usually considered equivalent to feats - UA offers a rogue variant that trades sneak for feats on a one-for-one basis). And the abilities for a high level rogue are awesome. My point here is that feats, while cool, don't feel special since every class gets feats, but not every class gets an animal companion, or spell-casting, or evasion. The small number of fighter only feats aren't equivalent to any of the other classes special abilities, so we're simply weighing the number of feats gained versus the number of feats and special abilities that other classes have.

3) The fighter has an achilles heel - low saves. A fighter usually doesn't have the ability scores to have a high wisdom. Choosing between a 13 Int (combat expertise) and Wisdom (+1 Will Saves) is a tough choice. Let's agree that it is a rare fighter that has an ability modifier of better than +1 in the Will or Reflex save department. Let's assume 5th level characters for a moment. The fighter has a +1 or +2 Reflex and Will Save. The DC against a 3rd level spell is probably 17 (10+spell level +4 for ability modifier). A simple Hold Person spell has a 75% chance to disable our fighter - rendering him helpless. The fighter will frequently sit out battles if targeted by effects that reduce mobility or enchant the target. Confusion, dominate monster, etc, are extremely scary to a fighter (and the rest of the party). The smart wizard dominates his fighter at the beginning of the day to allow oppposed checks when trying to force him to act against the party. This is not fun for the player.

4) Outside of combat the Fighter is useless or worse. He can't be stealthy (at least not in armor), he can't gather information or make diplomacy checks (at least not well). He has no knowledge skills, and even with maximum ranks in swim he's afraid of drowning. The armor check penalty for heavy armor is usually enough to overcome his ability modifier - and if the DCs are in line with challenges for the party, the fighter usually has to suffer. Of course, he can take off the armor and he'll really shine when climbing the cliff - until he is attacked. I think it is pretty obvious that if you're not killing something and the DM isn't allowing good role-playing to replace skill checks, the fighter is fairly useless. The most un-even match is having a fighter type try to guard something - anything. Without spot and listen as class skills, a 3rd level rogue will usually be able to sneak past a 10th level fighter without difficulty.

5) Full Attacks or useless - This isn't 100% true, but usually the damage you deal on a full attack is the most useful function you can perform. Disarm attempts, etc, can be useful, but at the risk of losing your weapon? The only thing more useless than a fighter outside of combat is a fighter in combat unarmed. Even with spiked guantlets none of the feats or abilities they've chosen are likely to be of use.

Pathfinder Alpha does fix some of these problems. At least to a degree. It gives the fighter class abilities that are distinct from feats. The use of combat manuevers makes some actions that weren't as good better choices. The weapon training can certainly increase the damage potential. However, I don't think it goes far enough.

What should the fighter be?

The fighter should have some choices. Do all fighters need heavy armor? If they don't use heavy armor could they have some other special ability? What kind of special abilities could they have without giving them magic or abilities that shouldn't be available to other party members.

The first thing that should be addressed is skills. Most skills aren't particularly related to combat. Why do fighters know how to climb, but not know how to dance? If it is simply being strong, that is represented by the ability adjustment. Somehow all fighters were shoe-horned into a narrow mold on skill selections. That should be revised. Rogues have TONS of skills and TONS of skill points. They can do a bunch of things well. I don't think Fighters should be as good at as many things as a Rogue is. But I do think that the fighter should have more choices. If you increase the number of class skills but do nothing with the number of 'skill points', you create variety in the fighter rather than a strait-jacket. Now, 2 skills per level is probably too few. I think the fighter should have at least 4. (Heck, most classes should have at least 4. Wizards especially, even with the high intelligence, they want to put a lot into esoteric knowledge, and they should). I'd actually like to suggest 6 skill points for the fighter, and +2 skill points (or the equivalent) for every other class. And allowing a few more class skills won't hurt. Nothing to step on anyone's toes - but Acrobatics for sure, Diplomacy, Perception, even Stealth. Not every fighter will choose these skills, but there will be less 'cookie-cutter skill choices'.

Without addressing the achilles heel, we can't go much further. Fighters are too weak to magical opponents. They can't see invisibility, they can't resist saves. They need to have a signature ability that deals with this. I'd suggest giving them two bonuses - the first is a bonus to one saving throw of their choice. This would work like the Swashbuckler's Reflex bonus (they end up with a +9 at 20th level, instead of a +6 or +12). Why isn't there a 'medium' save? This would make the fighter a little better at avoiding becoming disabled, and the fighter wouldn't always be the choice for any spell that doesn't require a fortitude save.

I think that SR of some kind while wielding a weapon would be a cool signature ability and deal with this problem quite well.

The abilities that Paizo has suggested - weapon mastery and armor mastery - do well to increase the damage that the fighter can deal. Why not just give them a bonus to damage with every weapon - they are fighters after-all. After looking through feats, why not allow a fighter to treat any weapon they are proficient with as though it were one die higher (so a d6 shortsword does a d8 for them). That would be a signature (non-feat) ability to make some other classes jealous. To avoid cherry-picking, you could instead make it a blanket +1/3 levels, without tying it to a specific weapon. They would be good with EVERY weapon, not just one.

This would also address the problem of a favored weapon. A fighter doesn't want to use any other weapon they find once they've chosen their weapon focus feat. If the bonus to damage applied to any weapon, but they had other 'signature abilities' with their chosen weapon, I think it would work out well.

I've certainly gone on too long, and I certainly have more, but let me step aside, let others step in, and then I'll come back after work tomorrow.

I have had a few of the map packs, but today I bought nine at the same time. This had the unfortunate effect of making me realize how cool some of the art is on the packaging. Unfortunately, it isn't the type of thing that I can easily save.

Can we get the art on these kinds of products made available as a download? The cover art on this particular piece might be perfect for the character of one of my players.

Ever think about doing some kind of 'art cards'? I know I always liked to buy those kinds of things. Haven't seen any in a while, but I've probably not been looking in the right place.

Hey all.

I'm running Rise of the Runelords right now, and I have to say that the single most frustrating thing is trying to remember what volume references what material. I remember their was an artile on Desna, but which issue?

This is one of those problems that will get worse as we get more and more APs.

To that end, I'd like to suggest putting in an index in the final volume of each Pathfinder arc. Would this be possible?

Some of the trouble will be 'fixed' when I have alternate sources of material. For example, the calendar is something I can't find at the moment, but it will probably be covered in the Guide coming out in the near future.

I'd like to give the characters a chance to do some adventuring apart from the main AP. To that end, I have a side-trek in mind for Riddleport.

I expect that Riddleport may be more fully developed later. Until then, would my Freeport material fit well in Riddleport? Or is Riddleport much smaller?

The PCs will most likely be heading to the city to track down slavers who have kidnapped some members of the Sandpoint Community. There may be some additional 'distractions' when they arrive.

Does anyone have any information, thoughts, or ideas that I can use to flesh out Riddleport in conjunction with these adventures without creating too much 'conflicting material'?

Thanks in advance.

DeadDMWalking wrote:

Since I'm quickly running out of Paizo products to buy, I'm thinking about demanding that my players start buying random things from you. I think that you're a little heavy on the DM side of things now. So, if you have any ideas for 'must haves' for players, you should publish them. Because then I'll have no excuse not to bully them into buying what will soon be their favorite gaming purchase *ever* (until I make them do it again next month).

Your wish is eventually our command!

My players want to know what items they're going to be able to buy when you fulfill my wish. It sounds like I may not need to bully anyone into buying stuff, cause they may already be on board.

So, help me start getting them excited. What can they expect to see in the future?

I, along with a number of other posters have indicated that they won't be switching to 4th edition at any time in the forseeable future.

A number of other posters have implied that the first group is either lying, if not as individuals, at least as a collective. Most of the people are lying, even if some individuals are not.

The crux of the accusation is that we've seen this before, with the switch from 2nd edition to 3rd edition, and from 3rd to 3.5.

I believe that while it is a good thing to try to draw lessons from history, it is a bad thing if similar events make you blind to how the events are really different. While there are certainly similarities (edition changes), there are clearly differences.

So, if you're in the group that isn't planning on switching to 4th edition (assuming you're playing 3.x now), why is this conversion different? Did you say the same thing when 3rd came out and/or when 3.5 came out?

For myself, I never said I was not switching editions before the release of 4th. That alone makes this different. If you're like me, what makes this different? I have my own answers, and will certainly offer them shorty (though I must leave now).

I may sound like an idiot, but something wierd seems to be happening with my Rise of the Runelords downloads. I have the full download, and they work just fine.

I set up the multi-file download for #1, #3 and #6 and they worked just fine.

#2, #4 and #5 prompted me for a password, which I didn't remember doing. I deleted them, repersonalized and redownloaded, but it did it again.

Now #1, #3 and #6 want a password as well (not that it matters since I had previously unzipped them). Is there something that I'm doing wrong? Did I enter a password before and just forget about that stage? If there is a password, why doesn't it seem to interfere with the single file download?

Any help in this matter would be appreciated. I don't really use the PDFs, so it isn't critical, but I'd at least like to try to understand what the problem is.

Hey Paizo staff.

My credit card that I have the subscriptions being charged to is about to expire. I've been issued a new card, and everything is the same except the expiration date (now 2/11). I don't see any way to update that in my account settings. Can you update with the expiration date I've provided, or must I call in to give you the number over the phone? I'd prefer not to e-mail it.

Thanks.

Dear Paizo Staff -

I know that you have been wrestling with whether to switch to 4th edition and/or when to switch to 4th edition.

While I eagerly await news on that front, I do have a request. Is it possible that a determination for AP#3 be made and announced before the first volume of Pathfinder #2 ships?

This would be of great benefit to me. Thank you.

I know that this is an upcoming feature. There are several items I've been holding off on purchasing in anticipation of taking advantage of this option.

Obviously there have been a lot of other features that have been implemented with higher priority, but I was wondering what the status of this particular feature is.

In your best estimation, will it be more than 3 months down the road? Very soon?

Any unofficial non-binding guess that I won't hold you to would be nice.

With a number of modules, the encounters are dynamic, meaning certain creatures may be encountered in their lair, or wandering around the dungeon or ruins. When these creatures are named (meaning only one of them) it is easy to keep track of them, but when they are just a 'normal' monster, knowing how many there are supposed to be gets more difficult.

For example,

I would certainly appreciate a quick summary of the monsters in the module with the total number appearing listed in parenthesis. This may also allow a DM to quickly prepare the minis needed for the session with little difficulty. And most importantly, as the minions are killed off, the DM has an accurate idea for how many more are left, particularly if the PCs decide to leave and come back later.

If this is done, it might also have the 'starting location' of each monster so if they are mobile, we don't count them twice when we see them in the room description.

Is this a possibility?

Just a quick question. I currently have all my subscriptions set to 'Ship with Pathfinder'. A week ago I received the e-mail that my order was ready to ship (technically six days ago) and today received confirmation that the order has shipped.

A friend I recommended the subscription to received his copy of Pathfinder #5 well before mine even shipped. I want to receive my Pathfinders as soon as possible in the future. How can I assure that? Must I cancel all other subscription products?

I appreciate the high quality of your products and customer service. However, as I am running a Pathfinder Campaign I want to avoid any delays in the future. Even if it is possible to get the PDF at the subscriber 'ship date' so I have it available for review.

Thanks for the help.

Hey Paizo staff.

In another thread Vic was talking about how far out print runs were set. Since it is several months ahead of the release of the product, I thought as a 'good customer' I should ask for this feature.

If Paizo goes with 4th edition, I intend to let my subscription lapse for the Pathfinder products. However, I will want to purchase each product up until that switch via subscription. If I know ahead of time that an AP will be 4th edition, I'd like to cancel it so you don't include it in the calculations for how much to produce.

Of course, if you switch well after 4th edition is released, this may not matter in my case. After the product has been out for a year, if it is truly amazing I would consider switching - I simply don't see that as likely. I won't subscribe to 4th edition products unless I decide to switch, in any case. And since that won't be for a long time, there would be a time, at least, where this feature may be greatly desired by the Paizo staff.

Per Erik Mona's suggestion, I'm posting this here.

When I added the Planet Stories Subscription, it didn't update my tags or the subscription section of my account.

I had the same problem with the chronicles subscription, but it looks like it was fixed manually.

I don't know why it happened a second time, but if it can be fixed, I think that would be cool.

Thanks.

Hey Paizo Staff.

You've done a great job of making a number of products available to me via subscription, which I think is great. I've taken advantage of Pathfinder, Chronicles, Planet Stories, and Gamemastery. As far as I know, that's 100% of what you currently offer.

The only thing you haven't offered me (which I would like) is a way to leave a deposit from which to pay for my subscriptions. I know that you can't guarantee the price in advance, so you can't simply charge me a fixed cost per month.

One of the advantages that a subscription typically offers is to make a large payment at a convenient time so you don't have to worry about expenses in inconvenient months. For example, I pay my 1 year Renter's Insurance in September, my Auto Insurance in February and August, Car Registration in July, etc. These large 'fixed expenses' make it imperative that I carefully budget for those months. Some months (like March) involve a large annual bonus from my employer and has none of these large fixed expenses.

In March, I know that I would have an easier time making a large payment to you rather than continuing to make monthly payments in periods where money may be tight (like near Christmas).

I know one advantage of subscriptions for you that are charged monthly is 'income smoothing', but having 'unearned money' on hand seems like the kind of inconvenience you should want to have - if nothing else it means you can earn interest on the money.

You've given me just about everything else. Do you have a way that I can make a single large payment to you and have you deduct each subscription product from that amount? This would also be convenient for people who want to give me gifts. Since I have all the Paizo products I want (almost) it will be easier for my friends and family to make a 'donation' to my subscription fund, rather than deal with inconvenient monthly charges to their credit card. It's nice to have a gift that keeps on giving, but not so much to give a present that requires you to keep giving.

What can you do to make my request a reality? If I did send a payment by check for, let's say, $1000, what would happen? Would you apply it to my account, or automatically refund it in full? Thanks for looking into this.

Hey all.

I ordered the subscription, and it shows up in my order history and I have a confirmation e-mail on it.

However, it doesn't show up in the My Subscriptions section, and it doesn't put a subscriber tag above my name.

Did I do something wrong? Can you fix it for me?

While reading the 4th edition Marketing thread, I had an epiphany.

It seems with the way they've been marketing D&D they're trying to get rid of existing customers. Many people have commented on how it feels like WotC just doesn't want our money anymore.

They don't.

You see, they've been accused of trying to release 4th edition as a simple moneygrab. Release multiple supplements that are basically identical to the ones we have for 3.5 at $35 a pop, and the money rolls in.

So, the effort to convince people not to spend their money is to show that they aren't just in it for the money. They're actually releasing 4th edition just for themselves, and they want to prove that they're really gamers at heart by making sure that they've made it clear that they don't want you to play.

Unless, they just have no respect for their customers and think that they'll take limitless abuse and still keep playing D&D because they have nothing else to do on a Friday night.

Oh. And I have my Gamemastery modules holding to ship with Pathfinder, so in this particular case I shouldn't be too badly affected by the delay.

Hello Paizoites.

One of the goals of 4th edition has been to make the choice of race more important for characters. Along that line, WotC intends to grant abilities as PCs gain levels.

This is actually something I've been considering for a long time, and I've approached it from a few different directions. One that I think might work is taking the concept of a Gestalt Class, but apply it to a race instead. So, a Dwarf character simultaneously gains the features of a Dwarf and his normal class abilities. So, a character could be a Dwarf 10/Fighter 10, or a Dwarf 10/Fighter 5/Cleric 5, etc. The 'Dwarf levels' aren't real levels, but at various points they grant special abiltiies.

Now, granting extra abilities increases the power level of a game. I've used gestalt before. Ideally this will increase the power level, but less so than the regular gestalt options. Since I know that more heads are better for a game design perspective, and I fully trust that the members of this board can make this idea work better than the current staff of WotC designers I thought I would put it out and ask for a little help. To shorten the post I'll drop any fluff text and focus on just the abilities. I'll also explain a little of why I was thinking about that and a few of my concerns.

Unless otherwise noted, this abilities replace the abilities in the PHB. They are not in addition to.

Here we go:

Humans
+4 Skill Points/Level. Bonus feat at 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 20th level.

This is the baseline for power comparison. While this can certainly be adjusted downward, I like the idea of giving people something at every level. A human fighter would get something almost every level, including level 5... With this a human fighter would get 26 Feats, a human without any bonus feats from classes would gain 15.

Dwarf
+2 Constitution, -2 Dexterity
Darkvision 60'
Stonecunning
No speed penalty for encumbrance.
Weapon Familiarity
+2 Racial Bonus on Saving Throws
+2 Racial bonus on craft and appraise checks related to stone or metal.
Bonus Feats
2nd Endurance
5th Diehard
8th - Weapon Specialization. If already specialized, gains improved specialization. Not required to meet pre-reqs.
11th - Improved Toughness.
Damage Reduction
DR 1/- at 3rd level. +1 every 3 levels to a maximum of DR 6/- at 18th level.

I like the idea of Dwarves getting tougher as they get older.

Elf
+2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, -2 Constitution
Immune to Enchantments
Low-Light Vision
Weapon Proficiency (longsword, longbow, shortbow [and composites])
+2 Spot/Listen/Search. Detect secret doors within 5' as though actively searching.
Spellcasting
Elves gain the ability to cast spells from a restricted list dealing with the elements (probably thinking from the Wu-Jen list, and probably at 1/2 character level.

I took away rapier since if the elves are known for swordplay, I think they should have an iconic sword. I also gave them blanket immunity to enchantments because I decided I don't like the situational modifiers. I did the same thing with the Dwarf and a few others. I hate people asking 'Was that a spell' after asking for a saving throw. Even worse is when four rounds later someone realizes that their racial modifier would have made the save they originally told me they failed.

Gnome
+2 Constitution, +2 Intelligence, -2 Strength
Small (attack, AC, hide)
+1 DC to all illusion spells
+4 Dodge bonus to AC
+2 Listen checks
Pass without trace (Su) self only
+4 racial bonus to hide checks (+8 in forest)
Speak with animals (su) at will as free action.
2nd Level - Animal Companion (as Druid of 1/2 character level)
Wild Empathy (as druid of half character level).
Spell Casting (probably thinking Illusionist w/ level = to half character level).

I wanted gnomes to be an attractive class for spell casters since they don't see much use in our games. Basically the elf would make a real good fighter/mage or wizard with some melee ability, but the gnome is great for a real defensive character. Combined some forest gnome/svirfneblin traits. No tinkers, these.

Halfling
+2 Dexterity, -2 Strength
Small (as Gnome)
+2 racial bonus on Climb, Jump, Move Silently
+1 Racial bonus on saving throws
+2 Racial bonus on listen checks.
Lucky 1/day a halfling can use an ability like the Luck Domain power. He gains one extra use at 5ht level and every 5 levels thereafter (to a maxium of 5 at 20th level)

I'm not real happy with this. I'm concerned the ability becomes too powerful with many uses per day. Also of concern, this doesn't seem as flavorful as the other races. Halflings just don't seem very 'interesting' to me, since they're basically just small humans. They don't have enough stereotypes to build abilites off of. That said, they were extremely 'lucky' in the JRR Tolkien books... So, it might be appropriate...

Half-Orc
+2 Strength, -2 Charisma
Darkvision 60ft
Orc Blood
DR (as Dwarf)
Rage - At 1st level the half-orc gains the ability to rage (as barbarian). He gains one extra use at 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter (10th, 15th, 20th).

Half-orcs really suck as a race in the PHB. I'm concerned that additional rage abilities aren't very useful if the character is already a barbarian. Having the ability to rage 11/day doesn't make much sense, but perhaps with rage feats that would balance out. Maybe there are some rage fueled abilities I could add in to the mix to make sure they're comparable to other races. I took away the Int penalty. I think that compared to other races, it was simply unnecessarily cruel. Since the 3.5 PHB Dwarf has 'unbalanced ability adjustments' and is so much better than the half-orc, I figured I could give it that and it would be okay. In fact, I'm thinking it maybe should get a +4 Str like a true orc.

Thoughts, suggestions? Other races you'd like to work up? One advantage is that high ECL races can have abilities spread out a bit, and since these 'gestalt levels' incresae the 'ECL' of the character, more of them could be playable races easily.

Just finished reading J1 - Entombed with the Pharohs.

Overall, I really enjoyed the art. However, there is one MAJOR oversight.

One of the 'bad guys' was supposed to try to 'infiltrate' the party. The only picture of said bad guy was in a group shot with all the other bad guys.

How am I going to show the PCs how the person looks without 'revealing' an association with other NPCs?

There are a couple of solutions.

1) Make a PDF available with individual shots of each characeter that gets some screen time.

2) Make a huge picture with everybody who appears in the module.

3) Just offer a stand alone portrait for important NPCs (my choice). I think that this particular NPC would have been a better choice for a portrait than the Mithril Scarab based on their direct party involvment.

Hello Paizo folks.

I recently ordered GameMastery Critical Hit Deck, GameMastery Critical Fumble Deck, and the GameMastery Module TC1: Into the Haunted Forest.

I mistakenly believed that the Critical Fumble deck had already been released, but it doesn't come out until January. Can I remove it from my order so that the products ship a little sooner (this month)? Then when it gets closer to January I'll throw the Fumble Deck in with whatever else I need at that point.

I've got my Pathfinder subscription and my gamemastery subscription. I'm expecting Entombed with the Pharoahs to show up tomorrow.

I see two more modules expected for November: Carnival of Fears and Into the Haunted Forest.

While I only want to receive one package per month including my Gamemastery and Pathfinder subscriptions, I want to stay current on both. Can I have these two added to Pathfinder 4?

Is it just because of the delay with Pathfinder 2?

What can I do to get my subscription on Gamemastery modules caught up?

I'm going to start an adventure soon. One player wanted to make a cleric to Tritherion (god of summoning). Any ideas on a Golarion equivalent? I didn't see anything that really fits in the Player's Guide, but I assume there are more gods (like Droskar).

I'd prefer a god with ties to this world, but I could just include him as well.....

Someone suggested that when 3rd party publishers receive the 4.0 rules to review in order to begin working of projects, they might not be allowed to say that they have them. I can certainly understand how some people would want to 'bug' 3rd party publishers with constant questions about the rules that they aren't getting answered directly from WotC.

That said, is there any chance that Paizo will be able to say when they've been given the ruleset to review?