Evanta's page

Trailblazer rules, like only 2 iterative attacks, and incorporating magic BAB, would be good. Spells can be re-worded and re-written after all these years, to exclude situations where DM has to debate for an hr with PCs over what can/cannot be done with spells.

Just those 2 changes are significant enough that it can warrant an entire new edition.

I feel that spells need to be re-worked a bit so that the SoDs allow 2 or 3 saves, sorta like phantasmal killer but with some penalties.

e.g. Flesh to Stone, 1st failed save = slowed for 1 rd, round 2, fail save = stunned, round 3 fail save = petrified.

or say Finger of Death, 1st failed save = -1 hp, round 2, 2nd failed save = death.

There could be death on the same round too, like Death Ray, 1st touch AC to inflict a big penalty, then a save to avoid death.

I'd usually consider stuff like Dominate / Hold to be SoDs, could use something like the above.

This allows:
1. Deaths to be less likely, but SoDs to still be quite effective in battle. (in terms of actions at least)

2. PCs understand that they need to get their saves enough that they have a reasonable chance of passing 1 of the 2 saves, or high enough to have a decent chance to make the 2nd save when allies buff them with contingency +save spells.

3. Less anti-climax situations where BBEGs drop dead in 1 spell or PCs drop dead in 1 spell.

This way you solve the 'I need him to stop', and still allow PCs a chance

BTW In the exact same vein, I hope to see Neutralise Poison granting a large save bonus (like +5 to your saving throw) instead of auto-removing poison. Makes it more fun and gives people reasons why assassins can still kill with poison at high levels fairly well.

Probably will get ignored, but anyway...

The main issue with 3.5 power attack is that some powergamers will bring out their tables and figure the most optimum number to declare before they make their attacks. This could take a long time. Even worse are those who try to access their laptops to input all the required values... especially when up against BBEG fights, where they take forever to discuss what movement to do too.. -_-;;

Neverwinternights "fixed" power attack to a static number. Which I think is good. I'll support a static fixed number for power attack(e.g. -3 to hit for +3 for 1h /+6 for 2h like Neverwinter Nights), it simplifies the maths needed for the powergamers.

I think the OP's suggestion seems reasonable. Maybe only for spellcasters. Otherwise you get the rogue 1/ranger1/paladin1/fighter 6 having the abilities of a 5th rogue (3d6 sneak attack ++) a 5th level ranger, a 5th level paladin and a 7th level fighter. Scary.

I had thought about this before too. Even for just casters, a Fig 18 / Wiz 1 / Cleric 1 seems slightly broken with 10 levels of wizard and cleric casting levels with just a small dip.

I would also add the addedum that the amount bumped cannot exceed twice the class level of the affected class.

So that the above Fig 19/Wiz1/Cleric1, for example, would only get lvl 2 wizard and cleric spells.

Meanwhile a Cleric 10/Wizard 10 would be a lvl 15 cleric/wizard caster, which seems balanced, while a Fig 4/Mage 16 would be Fig 4/Mage 18, which is much better balanced vs a Mage 20.

Ok, so most ppl here who post like the complexity.

IMO by level 12, the game still breaks down due to having too many options, so PRPG doesn't look like it'll fix the high-level problems.

My other concern is that with the current system, multiclassing will be a *huge* mess of abilities.

Oh well. Guess I might as well not allow any PRCs to keep things simpler.

See the above.

I mean, why is it that they simplified some things, and made the rest awfully more complicated?

The 11 classes alone take up way more space than they used to. This also means that there are a LOT more rules you have to read through. I for one could do with a sorcerer with just maybe 3 bloodlines (maybe leave infernal to the warlock for example), or a standard barbarian with just a few changed abilities.

As it stays the amount of stuff for the classes are overkill.

I love how the combat rules and skill rules and feats are simplified. I playtested with the new combat rules (it rox), but none of my players were willing to read so much crunch to playtest the classes themselves.

Please continue in that vein for the classes please, keep it to 3 pages per class...

Please make them viable alternatives to needing a Cleric in a party. As it stands now, you are trying to give more incentives for every party to have a cleric; I propose that the Druid and Bard can be made viable healers as well. Probably not as well as the cleric, but at least well enough that the party isn't gimped if one of them took a druid / bard instead.

I like flat 10 + normal hp/level. It evens out multi-classing as well.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Evanta wrote:

A Minion gets +3 to attacks and AC.

I'm still not real clear as to why not just use a weaker base creature (instead of going through all the work of nerfing an existing one), and then give the BBEG an ability/magic item that gives all his followers +X to attacks/damage/AC/whatever? It seems a lot easier and more straightforward, and then you only have to adjust the BBEG's CR, not the CRs of every mook.

There is a very real good reason why not use a weaker base creature. That is story.

Quite simply if the rules cannot tell the story, then the rules are broke...

But then sometimes the BBEG is not "inspiring", or even has a magic item which is a problem. And if it's a magic item, the PCs will have their hands on it.

Well, I have my own minion template for my campaign.

A Minion has the same CR as a normal creature of it's kind. A Minion template is used only if the CR of the monster is 5 or less than the party average. (i.e. for a lvl 9 party, minion template can be applied to monsters with CR 4 or less.)
- It has only half hp of a standard creature.
- It dies on a critical hit.
- It can never score a critical.
However
- It gets +3 to attacks and AC.
- It gets +2 to all saves and has Evasion.

This change directly stemmed from Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. In those, the vampire spawn and werewolves weren't even able to hit most of the PCs except on a 20. The only exception being a caster who had mirror image on anyway.

I would rather that they die quickly and be able to have a decent chance (20+%)to get 1 hit in if I have to roll that d20.

a note:
Please do NOT give players incentive for a low score. The 7 (usually CHA/WIS/STR depending on the char) should give 3 bonus points at max.

and a comment:
I kinda like how the system gives more incentive for a few more odd numbers to appear on a character, instead of the usual straight-evens with the 3.5 buy.

My breakpoints:

Breaking point 1 - Whether 3.5 players and PF players can sit at the same table, with few problems. You can use the splatbooks w/o worry about the power levels.
- obviously this is not going to happen, everyone would need to mug the PF rulebooks to understand the intricacies of the system. Some feats from splatbooks definately should not be allowed...

Breaking point 2 - whether I can run 3.5 adventures using pathfinder rules, without needing to modify NPCs/Monsters/Encounters.

This is the one I think Paizo should definitely stop at.

Breaking point 3 - NPCs/Monsters require minor modifications, perhaps adding 1-2 feats, some adjustments, a skill change or two. Definitely nothing more than that.

Anything past this point is no longer even remotely backwards compatible.

I think that the reason you haven't gotten a think tank for clerics till now is because people are pretty much statisfied with them as is. Me personally I think they're dandy and only want the domain abilities with ranged touch attacks gone cause it steps on the wizards toes.

I think though, based on prev. experience, it's more of there isn't an adequate interest in them...

To simplify and nerf the turn resistance, just give them the same bonus to saving throws and DR. I.e. turn resistance 4 = +4 to saves, DR 4/- vs turning.

Keeps it simple, preserves some power for turning UD.

The healing battery part seems a little broken. I would prefer if they gave the option of expending the turn to either heal all living or damage all undead, not both at the same time.

I think the cleric can use a think tank approach too.

I love the change to turning (now Channel positive energy). I'm quite sure the majority are in favor of the change.

However the new domain powers are quite.. bleah.
1. They don't do much. They completely fail to alleviate the old problem of having clerics look pretty much alike. The powers are too minor to make a difference.
2. They introduce a whole new dimension to book-keeping for cleric. I think we now have to track a lot more special abilities, along with the spells, than any other caster (save the druid)

(replicated from previous post)
IMO, the domain powers should really:
1. Be a significant factor in distinguishing between clerics (rather than just being a she-bang of abilities)

Basically envision them as powers that are at-will (like orisons) or allow spontaneous conversion of certain spells.

2. Kept simple, usually 1-liners abilities that can be written clearly and concisely like most of the old domain powers.

E.g Glory Domain
Lvl 1 Power - Positive channeling adds +3 damage vs. UD
Lvl 4 Power - At-will: Disrupt Undead
Lvl 8 Power - Spontaneously convert any lvl 3 or higher spell to Searing Light.
Lvl 12 Power - Spontaneously convert any lvl 5 spell or higher spell to Holy Sword
Lvl 16 Power - Grow wings
Lvl 20 Power - Become outsider

E.g 2 War Domain
Lvl 1 Power - Smite 1/day
lvl 4 Power - At-will: Magic Stone
lvl 8 Power - Spontaneously convert lvl 4 or higher spell to Divine Power
lvl 12 Power - Smite 3/day
lvl 16 Power - Spontaneously convvert lvl 7 or higher spell to Powerword: Blind
lvl 20 Power - Permanent +3 to hit and dmg?

More suggestions?

My 2 cents.

It slows down game play at high levels like power attack does, i.e. the barb player takes a wee too long to decide on the optimum usage of his rage.

And flavour-wise, it somehow doesn't suit the barbarian. I think it'll work better as a monk thing (Using Ki to achieve near-supernatural feats a few times a day) than a barbarian thing, as it requires some thought which somehow doesn't fit what I'll imagine the barbarian to be (fast acting and fast playing)

I think barbarian would be better suited to switch to encounter powers.

The other option I can think of to reduce book-keeping, is to change the cleric to a spontaneous variant.

As a mainly cleric player, I heartily agree, I would greatly prefer if there are other classes that can help with the healing from time to time.

I believe bards can have a class sub ability that allows them to sing to heal others ('song of aid'), as well as full access to all the cure spells (Cure Minor and Heal included)

Hmmm no one's a fan of clerics?

I'll like to see most rds/lvl and mins/lvl buffs to be changed to 1 combat duration.

Long-tern could be 1-2 hrs (dungeon crawl), or 12 hr buffs (24 hrs with Extend Spell)

As a guy who has been playing the cleric for most of his D&D life, I'm not sure that I like the way the domain powers are done.

I just recently started stating out a lvl 12 dwarf cleric for a playtest, and I'm already seeing issues.

IMO, the 3.5 cleric already has enough book-keeping to do with spells, racial abilities, turn UD, and 2 domain abilties.

The new domain powers DRASTICALLY lengthens the amount of stuff I can potentially do in my round. Considering I already have to keep track also of health status of team mates, as well as my own spells etc, I think it's a wee bit too much.

I can see where you guys are going with the cleric, I dun mind the nerfing, but can you guys simplify the cleric instead of making it more complicated?

IMO, the domain powers should really:
1. Be a significant factor in distinguishing between clerics (rather than just being a she-bang of abilities)

Basically envision them as powers that are at-will (like orisons) or allow spontaneous conversion of certain spells.

2. Kept simple, usually 1-liners abilities that can be written clearly and concisely like most of the old domain powers.

E.g Glory Domain
Lvl 1 Power - Positive channeling adds +3 damage vs. UD
Lvl 4 Power - At-will: Disrupt Undead
Lvl 8 Power - Spontaneously convert any lvl 3 or higher spell to Searing Light.
Lvl 12 Power - Spontaneously convert any lvl 5 spell or higher spell to Holy Sword
Lvl 16 Power - Grow wings
Lvl 20 Power - Become outsider

E.g 2 War Domain
Lvl 1 Power - Smite 1/day
lvl 4 Power - At-will: Magic Stone
lvl 8 Power - Spontaneously convert lvl 4 or higher spell to Divine Power
lvl 12 Power - Smite 3/day
lvl 16 Power - Spontaneously convvert lvl 7 or higher spell to Powerword: Blind
lvl 20 Power - Permanent +3 to hit and dmg?

It is good that clerics are nerfed. Powers are in general worse than the extra spells and abilities from the domain of the old cleric.

In my opinion however, the domain powers really dun help to define a cleric, i.e. be a significant factor.

You cannot know when a creature is about to die, but you can know that the opposition before you is no match for your blows. An 8th lvl barbarian with Str 20 and a magical 2-handed axe can make an educated guess about how he can Great Cleave his way through a unit of rank-and-file troops.

I know Whirlwind is another tree, what I see is that the new Pathfinder Cleaves make the distinction blurry... The original Cleave was based upon the damaging capacity of a character, not only in attack chances. Even if you are a finesse fighter, it seems easier to cleave your way around with a greatsword than with a rapier. I would personally keep Cleaves outside Combat Feats. In my campaigns, they have never felt like a "maneuver", but like the result of a warrior's savage onslaught, and also highly dependent on opponents' resistance (or rather lack thereof).

Don't know about you, but I believe the new feat seems to work just as well for mowing down lvl 1 enemies?

I greatly prefer the new versions.

Eh, while it's an interesting twist, I seriously think the feats are not exactly very usable atm.

Power attack is currently very low-utility for PCs (pretty much only a all-out focus on STR like fighter and barbarian will use it, paladins and rangers can't), while auto-hit monsters like giants/dragons (who miss only about 10% of the time even with the current power attack changes) lose very little.

I think I like the compromise in Neverwinter Nights, that the +/- be a flat 3. i.e. -3 attack for +3 damage(+6 for 2h)/ +3AC. The feats would nerfed from the 3.5 versions, but would still be highly useful.

Got cut off. Wonder why.

Anyway to continue:

Arcane Strike is also missing a statement, I think it should be a statement that it is a swift/free action too?

page 26 under Heavenly Wings: Did not specify whether this is a std / free/swift action. Looks too weak to be a std action, and it does sound like it works like boots of speed.

Noticed that this is also the problem in a few areas.

Arcane Strike,

Samuel Weiss wrote:

First, why does a multi-classing caster have to get something? Versatility has to have a price somewhere along the line.

Yeah, I'm not really sure why a spellcaster that takes a level of fighter, or a fighter that dabbles in spellcasting, should be nearly as effective as someone that actually stays in one class their whole career.

I'm played a few Mystic Theurge characters because we've only had a three person party, and I never really expected to be able to hurl Chain Lightnings and Raise Dead spells at easily as if I had stayed a straight sorcerer or cleric.

You guys are hitting a straw man, the straw man being 'Multi-class characters should be as powerful as pure-class characters'.

But seriously, no one in the entire thread has that stand. NO ONE. Everyone here agrees that versatility has a price, it's just how much that should be sacrificed that is the question'

1. Like I said, I would prefer to integrate the fix into the base class themselves rather than use PRCs, so that from lvl 2 onwards (or even lvl 1) you can start playing a gish and enjoy it, and not have to wait until level 8+, and be complete suckage for 8 levels, before you do so.

2. There are some PRCs that what I term 'band-aid' PRCS. Namely they are there only to fix the mechanical issues with multi-classing. These are namely the Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theuluge and the Arcane Trickster. IMHO it would be a lot better if we can remove the need for these band-aids in the first place.

3. Powerwise, I'm basically looking at something like Fighter 5/ Wizard 15 to be comparable in power to a Fighter 2/Wizard 8/ Eldritch knight 10. The difference is that the power is better distributed throughout the level process, instead of being back-loaded, i.e. catching up after lvl 8+.

4. Pushing the PRC requirements down would work, but then Paizo needs to push the band-aid PRCs out fast. But this basically means they failed to fix one of the most glaring mechanical flaw in 3.5.

Hogarth is correct here. We could not go with a per day usage, because many of these powers are not as valuable as going into a rage. If the name is that disturbing to folks, I am, as always, open to suggestions.

I would ask that folks reserve judgement on the system until seeing all the rules.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I can see where it's going, and it's something interesting, but anything resembling spellpoints with a pool bigger than 10 drastically increases book-keeping errors / cheating from experience.

The other thing is unfortunately, my desire to keep sacred cows... the "where it ain't (really) broken, don't fix it!" idealogy. The reason we want Pathfinder over 4th Ed is really that way of thinking.

Personally, I think multi-classing works just fine the way it is. I don't think a Fighter/Wizard should be as good at fighting or casting spells as a fighter or a mage and if you want to be nearly as good then you should take one of the prestige classes mentioned above that allow it.

And also at Samuel's reply

Look, the fighter/wizard, DEFEINTELY WILL NEVER and SHOULD NEVER be as good at fighting or casting spells.

But having exactly half of the power doesn't work, due to the way challenges are scaled.

I'll be satisfied if a Fig/Wiz will have ard 70%-80% of the power a pure Fig or Pure Wiz will have, in order for these multi-classes be able to meet the demands adventuring will require of them. Currently with the existing rules, it stands at 50-60%.

Well bards can grant Fate bonus, which seems more, all encompassing.. :P

But I think it is more or less in general agreement.

IMO what I envision multi-classing eventually does is that a fighter/mage in Paizo RPG will have the equivalent stats of a fighter/mage/eldritch knight in 3.5. Simlarly a cleric/mage in Paizo will be what a MT will be in 3.5.

Why do I dislike using PRCs as a quick fix? Because the cleric/mage and fighter/mage types will suck between lvls 4-8, just before / while taking the first few levels of their respective PRCs, which is the usual start of the sweet spot for everyone else.

Somehow, I've always liked the way multiclassing worked in 2.0, I've loved cleric/mage and fighter/mages, but 3.0 made them suckage till quite late in their adventuring lives.

Another concern is that we're not even sure Paizo will support PRCs. I'll prefer to get the mechanics integrated into the base game itself if possible. I see it as a mechanical flaw in 3.5, that can be corrected if given some attention.

Lich, anyone?

Eh, change the lich to DR 5/physical?

I quite like the idea of picking the best tool for the job; I started D&D with the 1st Edition Weapon vs Armour modifiers, and so I guess I'm used to it.
It was always a laugh to see some swashbuckling fool completely fail to hit an enemy in full plate, since his razor-sharp rapier simply slides off.

...

Otherwise, if every weapon performed the same, or one weapon became the no-brainer choice, there's no reason not to plow all one's funds into a +10 Sword of Super-Freaking Awesome, and we go back to being bored to death.

Um I'm not adverse to carrying a spare weapon or two, with a ranged weapon for a total of 3-4 weapons.

1. The problem I wanna avoid is people carrying a Guisame (to trip people + reach), silver morning star (Blugeoning, Piercing), 3 greatswords (silver, cold iron, adamantite), spiked gauntlet, javelins, blah, blah, a total of 8 or more weapons.

Now THAT is stretching it a bit. Esp when the casters don't have to do the kind of rubbish that is neccessary for a fighter his job, just doesn't seem fair.

2. The other thing is that it doesn't really prevent ppl from focusing on 1 single weapon later on, the golf bag is for lower levels. I've seen Barbarian/Fighters who just powerattack through everything, DR be damned. At the higher levels, the Blungeoning/Slashing/Piercing DRs are really just speed bumps that complicate the game more and cause a lot of stops cuz the DM or the PCs keep fogetting to add all the modifiers.

Eh seriously, most of the time, the cleric won't have the time to cast buff spells in combat. Although it's the few rounds before combat part where clerics can gay up.

The problem is the bonus types, it has allowed the cleric to almost infinitely buff up from different sources.

Reduce the no. of magic bonus types, and the cleric can't do it anymore.

It's not about spellcaster levels, it's also the spell progression that I'm concerned.

I'll go edit the opening post so it makes it clearer.

I'm not so sure about the feat one, it doesn't help properly. Probably if it gave +2 spell levels per feat used.

Wow, talk about overwhelming support. :D

Here's my idea about the list of dmg types/bonuses named:

To address the other posters
Dmg Types:
1. bludgeoning, piercing and slashing
- Um, I only remember about once or twice in my playing of 3rd ed. D&D where this matters. It's either skeletons, zombies, or underwater. All are low-level concerns that are completely bypassed later on.
- These only encourge the 'golf-bag of weapons' syndrome, which imo is something I do not like.

2. Anxiomatic / Chaos
- Same as above, little use, unneccessary complication. There is a lot of emphasis on Good/Evil, but so few Chaos/Law that I think they can go without much crying.

3. Sonic
- How does sonic deal dmg? By dealing dmg to eardrums (which should be a DC to avoid deafening effect) and perhaps 'wind' of the sound? (which then can be listed under Physical/Force).

Bonus Types:
I forgot about Armour and Shield so I'll put it in.

Armour (self-explanatory)

Shield (self-explanatory)

Magic (Sacred, Deflection, Enhancement, Profane, Resistance -> Sorry, they are all magic now)

Competence - mainly bonus from feats/skills

Fate (IMO a better term than luck) - racials like halfling luck, and non-magical bonuses can be put here.

So 6 types of bonuses.

If neccessary, we can split magic into Force and Enchancement: one creates something to help you (Force), one acts on something you already have (Enhancement). I think there isn't anything that can't fall into those 2 categories.

Include cirumstance bonus (DM dictates) and we have a nice 8 total type of bonuses.

Anyway, this is only a rough outlay, I hope sincerely Paizo will consider limiting the number of bonuses. It would help a lot to balance the spells so that they don't endlessly stack.

I'm sure we're all aware that 3.0 D&D had a problem with casters multi-classing (restricted mainly to PRCs), while generally the melee / skill classes could do whatever they want.

Hope that Paizo will remember to do something about it.

I do have a suggestion, to integrate the spellcasting levels into the base classes.

i.e. if you multi-class from a wizard/cleric into another class, you get +1 caster level and spell progression (but no other benefits) at each 2nd or third level of another class. This cannot exceed the no. of levels that you actually take in your nominated spellcasting class.

e.g

Fighter
lvl BAB, etc, Caster lvl & Spell progression
1 +1 ... -
2 +2 ... -
3 +3 ... +1 to one existing class
4 +4 ... -
5 +5 ... -
6 +6 ... +1 to one existing class
7 +7 ... -
8 +8 ... -
9 +9 ... +1 to one existing class
10 +10 ... -
11 +11 ... -
12 +12 ... +1 to one existing class
and so on.

-> This will hopefully remove partially the need for 'band-aid' Prcs like Eldritch Knight / Mystic Theulage, and allows a fighter/mage hybrid to be more feasible at early levels. But maybe better fixes are possible?

I believe power attack would do better with a hard cap of say, 3? rather than a scaling cap.

A -3 to hit for +3 dmg / +6 dmg would be used for more situations, and makes combat less swingy, than say -BAB for +BAB dmg.

I like the Pathfinder system, but would like to simplify it further.

Trained Skill
- Ability mod + Character Lvl + Racial Mod

Cross trained skill
- Ability mod + 1/2 Character lvl + Racial Mod

You can choose to focus on a skill instead of picking another skill at subsequent levels.(adds +3 to the skill)

As for starting skills, I would suggest that a character begins with 2 base skills to pick for training.

Picking a rogue or multiclassing into it later, would give +4 bonus skills, wheras the other characters would not have any additional skills if multiclassed.

I believe a pet peeve of mine for D&D 3.5, is that players can never keep an accurate count of the modifers in combat with all the buffs / magical effects / racial bonuses etc.

I would suggest to keep the number of stacking named bonuses and things like damage types down.

1. Dmg types
Just 8 will do pls - Holy, Unholy, Fire, Acid, Lightning, Cold, Physical, Force, and re-classify everything else into those types.

2. Named Bonuses
- Rather than the she-bang of Enhancement/Magic/Luck/Morale/Sacred/Deflection/Competence/Whatever crap;
- reduce it to just, say, Competence/Magic/Luck. Reclassify everything into those categories. Allows less things to stack, which is good IMO as it allows for better balancing.

3. Racial Modifiers
- Do we really need to keep track of so many racial abilities?
- Can we keep it to, say, 4 abilities max per race? Make them significant, but reduce the number. I really don't think bonuses vs. racial enemies are neccessary, esp. if the characters are a non-martial type anyway.
- Would like to see something clean like
e.g. Dwarf
Bonus 1: +2 CON, +2 WIS -2 DEX
Bonus 2: Darkvision 60'
Bonus 3: Hardy; +2 to all saving throws vs. Magic and Poison
Bonus 4: Can pick 1 dwarf racial feat at lvls 1, 5, 10(which allows proficiencies in axes, etc, dwarf-like things the player actually wants his dwarf to have)

But ya, imo book-keeping must go down if possible. Having less mods flying around would be a good place to start.