Godwyn's page

Low light is pretty common at low levels if at least part of the group is human, or another race that does not get darkvision.

That said, the impact is relatively minor compared to the difference between darkvision and not having it.

Just a minor correction. Boba Fett survives the Sarlacc.

Godwyn wrote:

The Ant Man movie that came out ran afoul of this problem horribly. I still enjoyed it, but much less so than I could have. I can accept the pseudo science that lets him wear a suit to shrink. Fine. But when the movie tells me his mass remains the same, which is why he seems super strong when small, but then completely ignores this any time it is inconvenient for them, it forces me out of my suspension of disbelief.

How did you ever read comic books then? It helps if you remember that Ant Man and the Marvel movies aren't science-fiction, but live action comic books.

Or as Issac Asimov once said about Star Wars. "Park your brain outside and enjoy the movie."

Simple, I never really read comics.

But that is the thing. I don't mind them making up whatever science they want. But if they tell me how it works, and then don't follow that, the writers are either lying to me, or too incompetent to maintain consistency, or understand how their own stuff works.

In the same way I don't mind characters above X level being 'more than human.' It works fine for me if the game doesn't tell me why they are. The rules show clearly that they are, the DM of any particular campaign can determine the why. If the ruleset works and is internally consistent, the DM can provide the flavor.

Terry Pratchet does it well. He makes up some crazy creative stuff, but keeps it internally consistent. And his worlds are memorable and fun.

I hate it when verisimilitude is broken. Realism is a factor I require only when necessary. The last mid level campaign I ran the characters had an airship, and the barbarian would love to jump out of it and free fall to the ground. Makes for a pretty impressive entrance, and I always gave a bonus to intimidate with it. To me, there is no break in verisimilitude because every being in the world is treated the same, if they have the HP, they can do so. Its a point in the world that varies from ours by exception. People still fall, it is dangerous, but particularly powerful beings can survive it.

The Ant Man movie that came out ran afoul of this problem horribly. I still enjoyed it, but much less so than I could have. I can accept the pseudo science that lets him wear a suit to shrink. Fine. But when the movie tells me his mass remains the same, which is why he seems super strong when small, but then completely ignores this any time it is inconvenient for them, it forces me out of my suspension of disbelief.

I have no problems with a completely mundane character being mostly useless at high levels. In a high magic world, they would be. Compared to the modern world of high technology. What is more useful on the battlefield, a soldier in modern gear, or the guy with a sharpened stick. The problem that feeds the martial/caster disparity is that WBL, and therefor access to magic through gear, is independent of the classes. If access to magic gear was instead part of a class, like the legendary weapon referenced earlier, a lot of the balance problems go away. Sure the wizard can cast fly, while the fighter gets boots of flying. This is only a problem when the wizard also has the same money to instead buy something else.

A system that does so is Silver Age Sentinels (uses the tri-stat system mostly) designed specifically for superhero games. A character is built with build points, and wealth is part of it. Players also choose how an ability works. If they take flight, it may be magic, or rocket boots, or part of a suit of armor.

Part of the problem with PF and realism, and it stems from its origins, is the extreme lack of application of physics, ever. This is often why martial characters cannot do interesting things without ridiculous feat chains.

30 strength enlarged fighter he can easily carry a ton. For some reason it is impossible for him to move a 30 lb. kobold more than 15 or 20 feet. He wields a sword the size of small car, but hitting a 3 lb rat doesn't move it at all. Unless the fighter instead does a reposition, which doesn't hurt the rat at all, even if he repositions it 20 feet into a wall, cause he could probably throw a 150+ mph baseball, but throwing a 3 lb. rat does nothing to it.

So, my response I guess boils down to PF is never realistic, which I am okay with as long as it provides good verisimilitude, which it does inconsistently, but good enough.

The more I read this ability, the more I agreed that it was problematic. The page for Perception lists hearing the sound of "battle" as a -10 check. I wouldn't call it battle until at least two people are fighting. Not alerting the guards outside is your reward for stealthing up to somebody and taking them out before they can act, not something you have to pay a tax for. (Especially not a class-specific tax further restricted to a quarter of that class.)

So much this. The game needs far less miniscule feat taxes that keep making it impossible to do basic tactics unless you have the feat. Its getting to the point that to do anything interesting you have to take multiple feats for it, at which point you can do nothing else.

...

Part of the current issue is that, in social mode, the Vigilante has basically no abilities. Which I guess is why there is no penalty for violating it. Social mode already has the same features as a fallen paladin.

If there were actual trade offs, action abilities in action mode, and good face abilities in social mode, a decent change time might actually be acceptable.

As is, except for when you have to be in social mode for some reason, there is never a reason not to be in action mode. People talk most about dual identity protecting action mode, but it works the other way to, you can stay in action mode the majority of the time, and switch to social only when absolutely necessary.

I'd even be okay with 5 minute change times if I could switch between the Vigilante modes. Sure I might have to prep 4 or 5 character sheets, but that could be fun to be able to do, and have a different ID for each one. Which leads me to think, how do people think this would play out. Too OP, or too easily leading to too much bookwork to be worthwhile. It sounds fun to me.

It should probably be a touch attack at least. How do you slam a foe into someone you can't even manage to touch? Makes the most sense as a combat manouvre, but I am not sure it would be worth using at that point.

A really strong issue is that wizards can carry over prepared spells into a new day, and the rod is refreshed. This would, with enough prep time, let them use a single rod an unlimited number of times in preparing their spells. I think this is one of the major reasons it is required at the time of casting.

While a simple fix for this would be to not let the rod be used again until those spells are cast, and to make the rod a material focus for any spell prepared using it, such is not currently the case.

While I agree that prepared casters get an unneeded boost from rods, and spontaneous ones are penalized for being spontaneous, that is the intent of the rules.

A possible alternative is to take a look at the playtest for the Vigilante Stalker.

It may do some of what you want.

Which is one of the main reasons PF specifically changed all the visions to a simple Darkvision, because actual Infrared is tremendously more powerful, and doesn't have silly limitations like 60'.

Pulling from my thoughts in another thread, this ability needs to be reworded, or possibly reworked.

Silent Dispatch

This ability needs some way to work with Pull into the Shadows!

This ability needs to be reworded very much so. As is, it applies only to sound, and as such is nearly useless. It also runs into horrible timing problems.

Example: Surprise round Stalker acts, Guard does not. Stalker is also higher in initiative.

Surprise round: Stalker attacks Guard. Damage is not enough to drop him, and he makes his fort save against Mighty Ambush.

Round 1: Stalker acts, and successfully drops Guard unconscious from damage. Silent dispatch now kicks in because Guard was dropped before his first action in combat. Suddenly, the surprise round attack is silent also. But we do not know this until the result of Stalker's actions in the next round.

If the Stalker is unable to drop Guard in round one, then suddenly the surprise round strike wasn't silent.

Even if Guard is higher in initiative, so would go first in Round One, Stalker uses Leave an Opening. We again do not know if the first attack was silent until the start of Guards turn if Stalker can drop Guard with the attack from Leave an Opening.

My suggestion would be to require Hide in Plain Sight first. And remove the part where it only works if the target is completely taken out in the single attack. Basically, turn it into a melee version of sniping.

This does limit it a bit more, as is, it currently could work with a full attack, despite the wording referencing a single attack.

I would like to see it function with Pull into the Shadows somehow. It is obviously supposed to align with the ability mighty ambush, but it would be nice if they could all work together. This would give the Stalker some more synergy among the abilities that it sorely lacks. And just the mental image of the stalker rushing out of the shadows, dropping an opponent and dragging the unconscious body out of sight before anyone can do anything is wonderful and needs to work.

Any other thoughts on this?

I don't think it requires a move action. Nothing in acrobatics says it requires a move action, and I think it is something you do as part of movement, not an independent action on its own. Otherwise you would be able to take a 5 foot step, and then acrobatics out of the remaining threat areas.

The wording of Up Close and Personal does say, "When the stalker vigilante attempts an Acrobatics check to move through an opponent’s space during a move action," but I would read that as the more general rule. I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time anything possibly good for spring attack was disallowed.

It was brought to my attention I missed the dual swift actions from Hurtful and Up Close and Personal.

So 3 attacks while moving up to speed, for a good bit of investment. Seems good. I am always happy with more ways to make spring attack useful, instead of it being pounces less useful cousin.

Unfortunately, Hurtful and Up Close and Personal eat up the single Swift action you get each turn.

I was thinking it was a free action for some reason. Still, 3 attacks at level 4 is not too shabby.

It does need rewording. The problem is that the wording to make Foe Collision make sense all the time might be too difficult.

Replace the Dretch with an Ice Mephit. As the mephit has DR 5/Magic, its natural attacks count as magic. Conceivably hitting the Shadow Demon with the Ice Mephit could work. It would be an interesting use of the ability.

Wording it to allow such an alternative way to bypass DR or Incorporeal. The easiest way may be to reword it to disallow it.

Quote:

The Vigilante Stalker is a good rogue archetype; it is a bad full class on its own.

I do agree at some level. However, that ship has sailed. It's going to be a class, not an archtype. So lets give feedback to make it the best class possible.

Fair enough. I recently began playing an unchained rogue, and have attempted to remake them as a Vigilante Stalker. The most striking problem I find is the lack of dexterity to damage, making strength stalkers the best go to for damage just as it used to be for rogues. This thematic problem was finally addressed with the unchained rogue. A Stalker Talent giving dexterity to damage for melee would go a long way to fixing this. Make it an option so that ranged stalkers aren't forced with something they don't want to use.

As for the current talents, I will follow up in the same way as the OP with my thoughts on them.

Another Day

Very thematic, very situational. Could be really good in a narrow niche of campaigns. Pretty decent in those rare circumstances, and good to have as an opportunity.

Case the Joint

Thematic, good utility, too much setup and too vague. The theme is obviously the vigilante mingling at a party hosted by the evil villain and casing the joint. Why only vigilantes can case a joint and not a rogue is another issue, but I will try to restrain my bitterness for the rest.

At least an hour in a location. How big a location? An hour to case a single room or an entire labyrinth are both problems. The ability to gain multiple floating rerolls is pretty powerful, but I think the cost is too limiting. Nor should it be limited to just the social role. A vigilante hidden in the shadows observing a villainous meeting is somehow unable to study her surroundings anymore?

I would either tie the time necessary to the size of the place being cased, only minutes for a single room, scaling up for size. And the Vigilante gets to choose how much to study. Perhaps she knows the throne room will be the most important part and studies just it to be prepared for the final confrontation, and is willing to accept just their regular checks to get there. If she wants to be prepared for a larger area, it reasonably takes more time.

Or

Tie the study time to the number of rerolls available, again starting probably at 5 minutes for a single reroll.

If a character spends a limited class feature for an ability, and that ability takes an hour of prep to use, and is only usable in a specific location, the payoff better be worth it. A few rerolls is not, except in campaigns tailored to it. Which can be fine, but this talent could be much more versatile.

Expose Weakness

This should just be a core rule. Failing that, adding options onto dirty trick is interesting, but this seems very weak. It is designed for teamwork, but at almost any time you can do this, the Stalker would have added more damage to the creature by simply attacking. The only exception is if there are enough others attacking the same creature, and none of those attacks can otherwise bypass the DR, that adding +10 damage to each individual attack is more damage than the Stalker would have done attacking.

Foe Collision

Looks to have some fun synergy somewhere. I believe someone else has already mentioned pairing it with whirlwind attack.

Hide in Plain Sight

This should be (Su) just like the shadowdancer ability. It is practically invisibility. Vanishing just being near shadows, even in the middle of an empty room is not (Ex).
Asides from the bitterness of this still being denied a core or unchained rogue. (Unless there is a clause that lets a rogue take Stalker talents. That would make me happy and almost instantly buy this book any other problems notwithstanding).

Leave an Opening

An integral combo to the 4 full BAB attacks at level 4 Vigilante Stalker. The best mobile melee combatant Paizo released yet.

Mighty Ambush

An ability well worded to give preference to a Strength based or Dexterity based Stalker, but almost no other ability actually synergizes well with Dexterity. Making it the odd one out, but a solid ability on its own.

Mockingbird

A 0, and two 1 level spells granted unlimited use, minimum level of 4 to get. Seems useful and fun for the character that really wants it. Another solid thematic choice that characters without it can work around by using the spells.

Perfect Fall

All slow fall abilities should just be replaced with this.

Perfect Vulnerability

A standard action to hit flat footed touch ac, so usually in the 10-15 range. An almost auto hit for a standard action. I am unsure on this one. It seems to focus on the Stalker getting that initial strong burst, and combined with mighty ambush or something else debilitating on hit could be good. It would be interesting to see a build focused on it, too bad it can't work with vital strike as they are both their own actions.

Pull into the Shadows

I see every scene in a horror movie where a crowd of people are running, and creatures are pulling them into the darkness further panicking the rest of the crowd. Perhaps far more use for the GM most of the time than a player, but GMs need fun toys to.

Rogue Talent

Oh look, a class with uniquely (probably) available talents that steals all the rogue's talents without remorse. That said the Stalker can greatly benefit from access to them.

Stalker as a rogue archetype would, in fact, already have access to them.

Rooftop Infiltrator

Strictly better in every way than the Climb skill unlock. This ability is much more how it should be.

Shadow’s Sight

An easily accessible way for races without to gain darkvision without relying on spells or items to do so. Great for those that want it.

Silent Dispatch

This ability needs some way to work with Pull into the Shadows!

This ability needs to be reworded very much so. As is, it applies only to sound, and as such is nearly useless. It also runs into horrible timing problems.

Example: Surprise round Stalker acts, Guard does not. Stalker is also higher in initiative.

Surprise round: Stalker attacks Guard. Damage is not enough to drop him, and he makes his fort save against Mighty Ambush.

Round 1: Stalker acts, and successfully drops Guard unconscious from damage. Silent dispatch now kicks in because Guard was dropped before his first action in combat. Suddenly, the surprise round attack is silent also. But we do not know this until the result of Stalker's actions in the next round.

If the Stalker is unable to drop Guard in round one, then suddenly the surprise round strike wasn't silent.

Even if Guard is higher in initiative, so would go first in Round One, Stalker uses Leave an Opening. We again do not know if the first attack was silent until the start of Guards turn if Stalker can drop Guard with the attack from Leave an Opening.

My suggestion would be to require Hide in Plain Sight first. And remove the part where it only works if the target is completely taken out in the single attack. Basically, turn it into a melee version of sniping.

This does limit it a bit more, as is, it currently could work with a full attack, despite the wording referencing a single attack

Sniper

Unlimited range on sneak attack. Rogue jealous much? Especially the Sniper rogue archetype. Again, if this exists it should be a rogue talent.

Strike the Unseen

I have a character already built around getting these feats. Asides from the characters' theme, getting all 3 feats was usually weaker than spending them on something else.

I think it should exist, and perhaps shows that the Blind Fight feat chain is 2 feats too long to begin with.

Or maybe the perception skill unlock could have done it?

Surprise Strike

Static to hit bonus for a 3/4 BAB class. Generally considered a necessity to actually participate effectively in combat.

Throat Jab

Why can this affect a target only once? Perfect vulnerability I can understand. As a rider on sneak attack, preventing speaking and verbal components is potentially useful. Usable once on the same opponent every 24 hours is less useful. And makes no sense.

Twisting Fear
With Cornugon Smash, or being level 11, this is effectively +50% sneak attack damage on anything not immune to fear or subdual damage.

At level 11, Whirlwind attack + Foe Collision + Twisting Fear sounds fun. Or Cornugon Smash earlier.

Unfortunately, just the existence of Cornugon smash makes any intimidate/fear effects better for a strength based stalker.

Up Close and Personal

The other integral part of being the most mobile melee combatant ever. Combine with spring attack to safely ignore the AoO for movement. The acrobatics check doesn't even have to succeed, and then you get Spring Attack + Up Close and Personal + Leave and Opening. Or less safe at level 4 when you probably don't have the feats for spring attack and Power Attack + Cornugon Smash + Hurtful for a fourth attack, but you have AoO risk.

I really like it, but it should perhaps require the acrobatics check to be successful, and this would greatly limit it. So many creatures have disgustingly hard CMDs that it would be less likely to succeed.

The talents are pretty solid. Many of them I would take on my unchained rogue if I could. (And in my opinion the rogue should be able to).

8 level 8 Stalker NPC's attacking from invisibility with mighty ambush, surprise strike, and perfect vulnerability decimated a level 12 party. There is more going on the bad guy side in the scenario, but I was just interested in what changing out level 8 rogues for level 8 stalkers could do. This class has SO much potential for both challenging and interesting villains.

That goes to the problem I keep seeing. 8 rogues with those as talents would have done the exact same thing. The main feature of the vigilante is the dual identity. And had any of those 8 been using their alternate identity, they could not have used any of those 3 talents.

The Vigilante Stalker is a good rogue archetype; it is a bad full class on its own.

The only reason Vigilante seems to be a full class is to weirdly and poorly combine 4 different archetypes into a single class. Built one way it gets a full BAB, built another it gets 6 level spellcasting, built another it gets sneak attack and rogue talents.

If it had shown up in Unchained along with 2 other classes, that can build different ways to make different roles in an attempt to recombine the disparate classes, I could see the point. But it isn't. There are a lot of Core and Base classes that each part could be grafted onto.

Its does seem that the combo of Up Close and Personal and Leave an Opening allows for one of the best mobile combat options ever put out by Paizo. It continues to hold up even against a hasted pounce.

At level 11, Frightening appearance lets you use Hurtful as part of the combo for 4 attacks at full BAB, all qualifying for Hidden Strike. Cost, 2 feats, 1 class ability, 2 talents. If you don't want to wait for 11, you can do it the normal way with Cornugon Smash at 6. And why not, as that is 4 attacks at full BAB at level 6. Really, really good, even if that full BAB is 3/4.

Or, combine Up Close and Personal with Spring Attack, fail or succeed at the acrobatics doesn't matter as you aren't taking an attack of opportunity anyways. Safer approach, but delays Cornugon Smash/hurtful combo as it takes 3 feats.

Overall, this is one of my favourite things the Stalker Vigilante can do. The main issue I have is why are these not just rogue talents. Practically all of them should be. It is sick and tiring to see classes designed to steal what the rogue can do, including gaining a talent to get rogue talents, when the rogue itself can't just steal their talents.

It's actually rather hard to mundanely identify an item as magical rather than just masterwork. And even if people do have detect magic, my vigilante has a wand of magic aura.

And that is a significant part of the problem. What does being a Vigilante add, that isn't already covered as well or better by a few skills and spells.

Especially, what does the vigilante gain for losing access to the majority of its class features. If there was a decent gain in being in social mode, it would be a risk v. reward decision, which is good design. At the moment, the social mode can do almost nothing that action mode can't do just as well.

I think it very telling that in the playtest posted by Thrawn007, the action mode vigilantes were just about as good in every scenario that is supposed to be for social mode. Because action mode still has the 6 skill points a level, and has options if things go wrong.

Good points. That would let the stalker keep dex as a main stat, which the current vigilante is actually really bad at. Stalker especially works better with strength.

The more I have looked at it, the more this class really seems like a mashup of archetypes from other classes. Splitting it apart actually works really well.

Vigilante Stalker - Rogue archetype for Unchained rogue. This one especially, it trades out features almost level by level, and not one of its talents shouldn't already be a rogue talent. One of the Vigilante Stalker talents IS rogue talents. It even gets Hide in Plain Sight, an ability that Paizo has consistently denied rogues in any useful fashion. Given in whole for a single talent. As abilities, it has many that I want on a rogue, but gains nothing meaningfully unique (except a good will save, LoL again Unchained rogue is already being surpassed).

Avenger Vigilante - Ranger Archetype. Same base skill points, Full BAB, saves change a little (good fort instead of will).
Level 1 - Trade out favored enemy and animal empathy for dual ID and social grace. Let them keep track, it fits the flavor just fine.
Level 2 - Talents for combat style. One of the talents is combat feats, so it would change progression little.
Level 3-Renown for Endurance. In its current form it has little enough impact that it is easily equivalent. Keep the favored terrain, it suits the class well enough, maybe make the first one required urban ( and then let the bonus from favored terrain apply on the environment weapon in some way).
Level 4 - Replace Hunter's Bond for a talent.
Level 5 - Favored enemy replacement Startling Appearance
Level 7 - Loyal Aid replaces Woodland Stride

I will post the others tomorrow. I lost track of time going through these. But it seems pretty clear that the class lacks focus. It tries to have too many options compared to the other classes, and seems like it should be split up into archetypes of those classes.

To me it feels like it is built a lot more like a 5th edition class than a 3.5/PF class. Which is not a bad system, but I feel it doesn't fit well on its own alongside the others.

As I also look at all of these, I continually wonder "why these are not all rogue talents?"

Actually, make them all base rogue talents. Then make Stalker Vigilante a rogue archetype. Does pretty much everything instantly.

Level 1: Trade finesse training and trap finding for social grace and dual identity.

Everything else trades on a nearly 1 for 1 except level 7.

Godwyn wrote:

For a feat, though, it is great. In that sort of focused campaign, everyone spends their first level feat on it. And Voila, we have a Power Rangers team, or Batman and Robin, any number of the Sailor Scouts. As a feat, this ability works, as the focus of a class it does not.

If "everyone spends their first level feat on it," even if only in specific types of campaigns, it's OP. A non-OP feat always has people thinking, "Should I take this feat, or is it better to take this other feat?"

I agree on the other hand that it's definitely too weak to be the focus of a class.

The way it becomes "Should I take it or not?" is if you need to take a chain of feats to get all the benefits.

It's true that no one would take Secret Identity, even as a single feat, in a hack and slash campaign with no intrigue. But in certain kinds of campaigns giving all the benefits in one feat is way OP.

BigDTBone already answered perhaps better than I could have, but I will attempt to also.

Being the best tool for a specific job does not make it OP, that is kind of supposed to be the point of taking a feat, because it is the best option to do that specific thing. Most builds can spare a feat for something with enough thematic flavor like this. But 2 or even 3? Many builds will barely be functioning at that point, and to gain almost nothing whenever they are actually with a group, unless the entire group takes the same feats. At that point, why not just make it easy on the group.

+20 is pretty odd though. Perhaps, instead of a +20 bonus at level 1, it provides a scaling bonus. Or just the same +10 as most of the disguise spells. The only reason I can see for the +20 that early, is that somehow the Vigilante is supposed to be able to hide from higher level characters. It think that approach is flawed. The level system is an integral part of the overall system. Higher level characters are supposed to be better, even if that means a level 10 bard, ranger, oracle, whatever, can figure out the secret identity of a low level vigilante.

These do look pretty good. Shadowdancer is one of my favourite prestige classes that still has not been replicated in a class. Going sorcerer should not be the best way to gain Hide in Plain Sight. As such I would love a full class option for it.

That being said, the problem I see with stalker, and its the same problem that often occurs, is that if it gets everything the rogue gets, and then more, what need of the rogue.

Also, lowlight vision doesn't have ranges, as you just treat available light as twice as bright. Lowlight of 30' would then have some really weird interactions with even a common torch.

Shadow blend and shadow merge seem a bit too powerful. Near permanent concealment is very good. 75% miss chance constant is too good.

Lets ask the inverse though, would anyone, except in a specific campaign type that calls for the dual role, take a feat to get a slightly improved disguise self spell, that also sometimes protects against scrying, that takes 50 rounds to cast?

Which is a point to consider. It does not make you immune to scrying, it makes it so you don't show up as the other identity to be scryed. But someone hunting the vigilante form, can scry them any time they are in that form.

And for a team game, it does not work well either. It has no synergy. Anyone looking for anyone else in the party will find the party, and the vigilante no matter what identity the vigilante is in.

For a feat, though, it is great. In that sort of focused campaign, everyone spends their first level feat on it. And Voila, we have a Power Rangers team, or Batman and Robin, any number of the Sailor Scouts. As a feat, this ability works, as the focus of a class it does not.

So, I'm going to assume that Ultimate Intrigue is about the same size as Ultimate Combat. Which means that Vigilante isn't enough to fill the whole book.

I'd have to guess that the rest of the book will be filled with ways to add Intrigue to your game. Where you need to make an argument to the Emperor's guards that they should allow you in for an audience, and 'I attack them' will be answered with 'they kill you'

If this sounds like your thing, if you enjoyed reading the Goblin Emperor, or the Amber series, maybe vigilante is a great class. If you can't imagine why anyone would trade combat power for social power, well, you're probably looking for a different style of game.

And it's not right or wrong, it's just different. I'm willing to at least give the rest of the book a look. Maybe that's needed to fully understand.

I already have that in the campaigns I play in, incorporated into skills, spells, and roleplaying. That seems the intrinsic problem with this class, is that it is trying to codify roleplaying opportunities into class features, with a lot of the mechanics already covered by other things in the game.

If necessary, I support the dual identity being a feat. Or maybe an additional bonus for having disguise and bluff skill unlocks.

As a quick question, while altering a lot of the primary source material this much, is the PF rules set the one you actually want? Is it just a want for a d20 system, if so I am sure there may be a 3rd party product that has a lot of what you are looking for.

Otherwise, off the top of my head

Kitsune
Catfolk
Tengu
Ratfolk things
Grippli
All the goblinoids as mutant/human descendants

Or let the players be humans. Rarity is not really that much of a concern as far as player characters go. It just helps them stand out. It could be a pretty fun campaign if they were representatives of the last human village going out into the world.

Rolling stats and hit die? It's not fun or interesting. You either have a godlike character that dumps on everything, or one so weak you might as well do better things with your life. I seriously left my last 3 games because of it then the GMs wasted my time asking why. *sigh* I just want to play the game without being completely crippled by stupid, arbitrary rules from a bi-gone era that force me to either waste my time completely or leave, still having wasted time on it in the first place. The worst part is when the game isn't advertised as such so I show up with no idea it's going to be bad.

What about the GM and group whose time you wasted? The arrogance, disrespect, and lack of self awareness. Rolling for stats is, and has been, a common stat generation method for many many games for many many years. You let your own misconception cause you to walk away from a game, and then denigrate the DM for asking you why. Then for two more games, when its obviously such a deal breaker for you, not ask how stats are generated.

One of the reasons I continue to play Pathfinder, and not, say, Fate or other story variants, is because "stupid, arbitrary" dice rolling, is kind of the point.

I will play and GM either.

I also see point buy v. Rolling for stats helping set the tone of the game. If everyone does it as a group, rolling for stats is a lot more fun, it encourages people talking about what they rolled, figuring out what classes it can work for, and everyone builds a group together. There is often more organic character growth as well, the charater isn't planned for 20 levels, and then built using only what is available at that particular level. The players also tend to be more prepared for the character to die, as they know going in that randomness is going to play a key factor in the story, and that can include death. Point buy pretty much encourages people to maybe ask what class/role people plan to cover, and then everyone shows up with a finished sheet. Players also tend to expect more long term for the character, as it is usually stated out and planned for most of the levels the character will ever gain.

There was a discussion on how one would develop a backdrop economy (or different types of economies for the players to interact with at different game tiers) back during the Alpha discussions.

High Level Economics in D&D

Wrecan summarizes how it might be implemented on the second page here

Kirthfinder takes some of what was discussed there and manages to make the game mechanics and magic item rules work alright for that simulation of the game world

Kirthfinder

Note that you need to request a copy of the latest version of Kirthfinder. The ones in the opening post are several years out of date.

A fun reminder :). Sadly, I moved shortly after that and lost all my city statistics. Perhaps I will attempt it again and finally finish the calculations.

Maybe see what is different with some of the Unchained additions, though I have heard they break easily.

dragonhunterq wrote:

I have to ask why is sneak attack on a full attack that scary? let's ban rogues as they are obviously OP <tongue in cheek>

Or is it really simply the wording of "one devastating punch" that is the sticking point? Because the rest of the feat seems to want to treat it largely as a "normal" attack routine. would you come to a different conclusion if that line wasn't in there?

I am curious as to whether it's an issue over perceived power or unfortunate wording (or maybe it's a mixture).

Wait, this is the Rules Question forum, right? Because people asked how Pummeling Style works and I answered it, providing support from experience, rules on attacks versus attack rolls, and existing precedents.

Yes, I do defend the flavor of the feat for many reasons. Another reason has to do with damage reduction. If you successfully make the argument that sneak attack multiplies with Pummeling Style, then you made the argument that damage reduction applies multiple times against Pummeling Style. If the feat was 100% exactly like flurry of blows, then it doesn't really need to exist (aside from feat tax for Pummeling Strike). Because of this, I think it's completely stupid to suggest Pummeling Strike should work exactly like flurry of blows and count as multiple attacks (instead of a single attack with multiple attack and damage rolls). That's not how the ability was written nor intended to work. Power has nothing to do with it.

Single attack: with multiple attack AND damage rolls. That is kind of the point. If sneak attack does not apply to each roll, does power attack? You mention furious focus, but as an initial premise you have no problem with power attack adding to each roll? Even though its one attack? Maybe it should just be weapon damage rolled each time, so its a single scaling vital strike. After all, what is normal damage anyways.

http://rustyandco.com/comic/level-7-79/

I like the classes that don't cast spells being able to do amazing things. If at level 5 the wizard handwaviums 2 fly spells and 7 feather falls, why can't a level 12 fighter simply be tough enough to survive the fall? By ignoring this, people ignore a lot of what is supposed to be class balance. Falling into lava, the wizard is allowed to live simply because he can cast resist energy (utilizing a class feature), but for some reason it is unacceptable for a fighter to survive simply by having enough hp to survive (more hp is a class feature to).

That seems to be the same mentality that consistently limits any non caster class from doing anything that is necessary at mid/high level play. Like the new unchained skill bonuses, that with a few exceptions, come on line 5-10 levels after a spell can do the same thing, and the spell still does it better.

Mundane adjective
1.common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative.

While there are other definitions; no high level character should be able to be referred to as entirely mundane.

Godwyn wrote:

You don't add 1.5 strength on all damage rolls with dragon style. From Dragon Ferocity "While using Dragon Style, you gain a bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls equal to half your Strength bonus."

It is very inconsistent to rule that something applies to every portion of pummeling style, but sneak attack doesn't just because for once there is something good for sneak attack. If anything sneak attack is still the weaker option to use with it instead of power attack or anything else, because it does not multiply on a crit, whereas other damage sources do.

That, for me, makes me really think it should add. Each attack has to hit individually to do any damage anyways (otherwise its a limited pounce available to more builds at the price of 2+ feats). And Sneak Attack does not multiply on a crit, which is what made Pummeling Strike so powerful, multiple opportunities to get a threat for all of the damage, which benefits sneak attack not at all.

Dragon style makes the first unarmed strike of a round deal 1.5str for damage. Dragon ferocity increased all damage by half your str and isn't being discussed here.

Since all of the pummel attacks are your first unarmed strike then they'd all get the boost from pummeling. And the people that advocate this approach say that sneak attack is only once by very nature of it only being one actual attack. Those that allow sneak attack on all attacks don't allow 1 mirror image to absorb the hit, even though it's only one punch.

I understand now. I would disagree with that ruling, but I understand the argument now.

For myself, I allow sneak attack on each, but also one mirror image would negate all of it. I would probably not allow 1.5 str on each roll from just Dragon Style. It exists in a weird rules area where it is a single attack, applying the damage as if it were multiple.

You don't add 1.5 strength on all damage rolls with dragon style. From Dragon Ferocity "While using Dragon Style, you gain a bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls equal to half your Strength bonus."

It is very inconsistent to rule that something applies to every portion of pummeling style, but sneak attack doesn't just because for once there is something good for sneak attack. If anything sneak attack is still the weaker option to use with it instead of power attack or anything else, because it does not multiply on a crit, whereas other damage sources do.

That, for me, makes me really think it should add. Each attack has to hit individually to do any damage anyways (otherwise its a limited pounce available to more builds at the price of 2+ feats). And Sneak Attack does not multiply on a crit, which is what made Pummeling Strike so powerful, multiple opportunities to get a threat for all of the damage, which benefits sneak attack not at all.

David knott 242 wrote:

Well -- let's take a wizard with slightly above average charisma. The bardic knowledge bonus is great for this character, and even the bardic performance feature is a decent feature. If I could stop there, the Bard VMC would be a no-brainer for this character. But then we get to Versatile Performance -- and that feature doesn't look so good.

I think it look amazing and find it to be one of the biggest features of the Bard VMC. At level 11 you get to be instant face. I imagine most wizards with those aspirations will take the skill focus (linguistics) and orator feats but this give you 3 full skills in one.

If your group dosent use social skills or generally mostly kill the guys you meet it is ofcause less amazing.

That also showcases one of the problems of the VMCs though. At level 11 you get to be an instant face. What did the group do for the other 10 levels? It is such a delayed benefit that it serves very little use the majority of the time. The most noteworthy exception being starting off at higher level.

The important thing about sniping to note is not that you can hide after attacking, which you can always do even without the sniping rules, but that if you successfully snipe someone, it is as if you never became revealed at all.

An alternative way to use the ABP mentioned above is letting it coexist with the Big 6. I did similar in a previous campaign and it worked pretty well.

Often, characters are content to wait for their level bonuses, but some times characters want to advance faster. Weapon attunement +3 at 14, or spend money earlier to get a +3 weapon knowing it would be free later anyways. This way characters have a choice if they have the money and want to prioritize faster than the ABP.

I also saw a lot more saving/using of the more interesting magic items that don't normally get used. There was far less urge to sell them automatically since they did not need every spare penny to get the required items.

Arachnofiend wrote:

graystone wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

Diviner Wizard? +2 Perception, +14 Initiative, always act in surprise rounds, auto nat 20 on initiative. And some other minor tricks to boot. Yeah, I'd trade five feats for that.

You missed something.

"If any of those powers grant an extra effect
at 20th level, the character does not gain that extra effect."

"At 20th level, anytime you roll initiative, assume the roll resulted in a natural 20."

Wizard is still a very strong VMC despite that, though. I could easily see a martial character VMC'ing for the Teleportation school.

Yeah, the natural 20 on initiative is gravy. The meat of the school is the ability to act in the surprise round, with a nice side dish of getting to probably go first too.

Teleportation school's Shift power is certainly nice too. It does have the issue of not enabling full attacking very well unless Dimensional Agility is picked up, which requires being able to cast dimension door (or getting a fairly reasonable houserule made that dimension door like abilities count for it's prereqs).

Admixture also lets sorcerers be blasters without suffering greatly from resistance/immunity to fire, although it does have the issue of being int based (but eh, between face skills, UMD and spellcraft many sorcerers need a decent int anyway).

Really though, the reason the wizard VMC is good is that a)a familiar for a feat is a really good trade and b)some school powers are obnoxiously strong. If the Foresight school and similar high-powered options were on the same level as the Universalist school there would be a lot more complaining about how weak the wizard VMC is.

A lot of this goes towards another discussion that often appears, the power of a feat compared to the power of a class ability.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Given I have heard in this one thread that magus is the best VMC and one of the worst, I think it's safe to say that in total, we haven't had these to play with for long enough to come up with a conclusive judgment. One thing that takes a little while to kick in (for instance in the case of the magus, which I agree is a very powerful one) is the ability to look past one ability that is less useful for that many characters (spellstrike) and toward the abilities that are worth an extreme amount more than a feat but only sub out one feat (arcane pool) or just generally more than a feat, if not by an extreme amount (arcana). The same is true for wizard, another of the ones I've seen said to be both quite strong (I agree with that side) and weak, the latter judgments due to fixation on the 11th level ability being not as useful.

Even if every ability for every class were better than a feat (they're not) the system would be bad because there's no flexibility.

To take your magus example, the soul of the magus is the spell combat spellstrike combo. If you were using magus with normal multiclassing that would be the important thing. The VMC magus gets some peripheral stuff that isn't really important. Arcane Pool is a BAB compensator and not a very good one. It's not enough to make a wizard-magus work and it's redundant for a bard-magus or bloodrager-magus. The arcana is still not what makes a magus a magus. At level 11 the magus VMC finally gets one of the things the multiclasser actually wants from magus, but it's the one that doesn't work alone because it's only useful in melee, but it's not the one that lets you safely cast in melee. It doesn't matter how great you think arcane pool or arcana are. That's not doing the job.

In general the actual abilities people might want from a multiclass are too frequently delayed until level 11 in a game where the reality is that most campaigns fall apart before level 10. That does not a useful system make.

It's the old...

As I think about it more I have noticed something similar, that is not entirely a problem with the VMC if regular multiclassing is also allowed. Oft times, the character that wants to multi class for certain abilities does not want the VMC options. The characters that can use VMC options the best are the ones that didn't plan to multiclass, but can use it as an opportunity to trade out feats for nifty class abilities that may help the character fulfill a concept.

Why would attack bonus be bounded but ac could not be? I will grant I have not thought of a good boundary for it.

50 is easily reachable. In the proposed system bab is applied outside of the cap. A level 20 character can be rolling d20+50. This is without applying any debuffs to the opponent.
Adding in more focus to debuffs instead of purely pushing your own numbers as high as possible could be a good tbing. Conversely, it could lead in just the opposite direction, mass focus on dropping opponents numbers as low as possible instead of increasing your own.

Simplifying things is good. That's what PF originally did. Now we have things like a 5k gold helm that gives +1 luck ac or +2 if you have the right trait.

This discussion is solely for purposes of discussing and arguing how they could work applied to the PF system, not whether or not they should be included in any version of PF. If you dislike the very premise of it, that is fine so long as you provide a decent criticism of the system to go along with your opinion.

I thought of this while reading the bounded accuracy thread, and also saw others propose similar later on in the thread. Sadly it got closed before I had an opportunity to post as well.

Sample system I have been thinking about. The bonuses on a roll can total no more than 10+level. Specifically though, the base skill or BAB would not be part of that limit.

An example attack would be a raging orc barbarian at level 1. BAB 1, 24 str for +7, masterwork weapon +1 height advantage +1. Total bonus to hit over BAB is +9. This character can receive only a max of +11 from any number of sources. This leaves the barbarian able to receive only +2 more on the roll no matter what modifiers get applied.

Things I see

Pros:

1. Players know at what point they do not have to worry about trying to squeeze out more and more bonuses. At a certain easily discernible point, more bonuses really do not help at all.

2. Balancing CR becomes (maybe) slightly quicker. Certain CR opponents/challenges are obviously impossible.

3. Leveling and choosing what you level (BAB or where to put skill points) matters more than finding the right splat book. A higher level character can succeed on a challenge that a lesser character truly cannot, no matter what weird race/trait/random splatbook #2345 a player finds.

3a. The goal is to narrow the gap between the utterly optimized and the just well optimized. NOT to bridge the gap between the optimized and unoptimized. A character not designed well to do something should not do that something almost as well as a character that focuses on that task.

3b. Just because of a glut of resources a character should not be so much better than another well optimized character that simply doesn't have access to those additional source books as to render an otherwise well optimized/designed character ineffective. It can be fun to find a way to get +30 to diplomacy at level 1. It should never be necessary or expected. This is not the same as a character being superfluous simply because the need for the task is already covered.

4. Continuing on from 3, this allows players to reallocate resources. There never needs to be a worry about an arms race with the GM (which the GM can always win). Players and GMs know what can be easy/medium/hard and what is impossible for a given level, no matter the degree of optimization.

5. Many spells give bonuses that already vastly shoot over these limitation. This could lower the power of some until higher levels when a character can make use of them, or invalidate some of them entirely.

Cons:

1. Could disincentive teamwork. In the above example, if a rogue provides flanking for the barbarian, he would become unable to benefit from a bard in the party using his inspire courage (for the attack at least, not on damage). Heavily optimized characters could instead get less benefit from having party members help.

2. Massive rebalancing could be necessary. Given the setup above BAB +10+level or Skill+10+level lets characters have decent success (often gauranteed) on any level apprpriate challenge I checked, but I have not had time to check them thoroughly.

3. Corollary to 3 above, finding just the right combination to make something work can become less effective. Delving into the resources and working out combinations is just fun for some people, myself included.

4. Many spells give bonuses that already vastly shoot over these limitation. This could lower the power of some until higher levels when a character can make use of them, or invalidate some of them entirely.

Most obvious low level spell is true strike. +20 to hit would max out a characters bonuses even if they have no bonus at all. Could be good or bad. Good: Useful for a character with a poor to hit to get a decent value. Bad: Becomes limited to ignoring concealment to anyone that has decently focused on attack.

Another idea was tying the bonus you can receive directly to BAB/skill ranks. The better you are at something, the better you could utilize things that make you better. Limit being 10+BAB or 10+Ranks.

There is a single niche for alchemist VMC that is quite good, and that is the Underground Chemist rogue taking it. Underground Chemist lets the rogue deal sneak attack damage with splash weapons. And then bombs for reliable targeting of touch ac.

One major problem with the VMC is that they do not give some of the most basic functionality that taking even a single dip in a class provides. Primarily either martial weapon proficiency and armors, or the ability to use spell completion items. This is also what makes the fighter VMC so much less useful. Weapon and Armor training are good, but despite being a MC Fighter, you qualify for no fighter only (+a bajillion other classes anyways) feats.

The three most useful in my opinion are Magus, Wizard and Oracle. Oracle revelations and curses (which are often quite beneficial). Runelord Apologist called it pretty well I think with the ones that give you access to a choice of abilities being far more useful.

Roan wrote:

I read these rules too, and my thinking was that if you combined the business rules with Unlocked Profession skills you could make an obscene amount of money. Something like 6,000gp profit per day.

That appears to be correct, although you need to be pretty high level for the daily stuff. Something else to do the math on. Since it's a skill unlock and you need to have 20 ranks, you can project 27,000 gp/day from the rank 20 business. Not just 6,000 gp/day. I guess that makes this book more broken than Ultimate Campaign since your income can be 365 x 27k gp per year if you're a rogue, because let's face it, most of us are letting the rogues use skill unlocks.

So, basically, the rules provide a way for a rogue to actually be like Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark. Hes not Superman, or Thor, or even the Hulk, but if it can be bought, he can buy it.

Though slightly off, as the gp/day comes online at the level 15 unlock. Which may be where the original estimate came from.

Took a look at the VMC options. Barbarian seems one of the worst to me for what I actually took the dip for. I would not get anything I particularly want from it. No fast movement, no Martial weapon proficiency which I require for the ECB or I would have to spend another feat on that anyways.

That said, there are some tempting ones. Oracle, with the revelation giving martial weapon proficiency and the clouded eyes curse fits the character quite well.

Magus for an arcane pool and some arcana would be beneficial. 11 would be a waste though.

Maybe inquisitor for flavor.

Other than that none really do what I want for the feat trade out (for this character).

I had not looked at the VMCs much, I will have to do so.

Obscuring mist on party could be pretty problematic. There are a lot of good options though. May default it back to chill touch for things that are hard to hit, or vanish. Blend sadly ends on an attack, otherwise it would be excellent.

I like skill points, and it wasn't too much investment with the elf +2. If I really felt the points hurting anywhere I could drop it, but I am pretty satisfied with the stat spread.

Free edges are good. Free stuff is rarely bad. The problem with most of the edges is that the abilities are tiered far too high. If they were instead unlocked at 1, 5, 10, and 15, they would almost be decent.

Lets look at climb as an example.
5 ranks no longer denied dex while climbing. Adequate. Available the same level a wizard gets fly.

10 ranks to gain a climb speed of 10, but only on DC 20 or less. For having to be level 10 that is almost laughable. Gaining other modes of movement is hard, so maybe? Except wait. Take a barbarian at level 10. 10 ranks +3 class +6 Str = +19 to climb, at 1/4 speed which for the barbarian equates to 10 feet, the same as the climb speed from the edge. The barbarian can auto succeed the climb check to do the same thing the edge lets you do. 15 ranks to get a climb speed that lets you climb better. Is a climb speed of 10 (1/2 the speed of spider climb, a spell available at level 3) the same difficulty as limited wish?

Gaining a climb speed at level 5 would be useful. A climb speed that can only be used on DCs under 20? At level 5 a 20 DC has a reasonable chance of failure so the edge becomes pretty useful. At 10 ranks? You have to be able to almost auto succeed the DC which lets you climb it anyways.

There are a few good ones. Intimidate, Sense Motive, and Bluff most notably. But for every decent edge, there are many skill edges that are horrible, and some that would be okay 5-10 levels lower.

It just saddened me that a lot of my favourite skills lack anything good from skill edges. It felt like an area with a lot of missed potential.

Sorry I got derailed. The skill edges have been particularly bothering me.

Imbicatus wrote:

The feat doesn't need to say you can make attacks with your unarmed strike if both your hands are full because the CRB combat chapter already does.

Except it doesn't. It is specifically lacking the language that you can make an unarmed strike while your hands are full. It doesn't even mention making attacks while you are wielding another weapon. Only the Unarmed Strike ability of the monk (and similar entries) have the language of being able to make unarmed strikes while their hands are full.

Are you serious? The first thing I would do to any DM that tried this is to pick up the rulebook, and then kick him.

While the unchained rogue disappoints me in many ways, especially the rather lackluster skill edges, it adds just enough new options to try building a character concept I have tried to get off the ground before but was never satisfied with. So here it goes again; advice regarding the actual playability of some of the selected abilities would be great.

Kaylea Octavius V NG Elven Unchained Rogue (Scout) 5/Unchained Barbarian 2
Currently Building at level 7
Str 13
Dex 15 (+2)(+1)
Con 14 (-2)
Int 14 (+2)
Wis 12
Cha 8

F: 5
R: 8
W: 2 +2 v. enchantment from Elf

BAB: 5
Feats
1: Weapon Focus (Elven Curve Blade)
3: Power Attack
5: Furious Focus
7: Blind Fight
Rogue Talent (Minor Magic) (Acid Splash or Ray of Frost)
Rogue Talent (Major Magic) (Obscuring Mist) 2/day
Rage Power (Scent)
Rogue's Edge ? Undecided on Intimidate, Sense Motive, and Perception
Eventually will have all 3, but not until late.
Other Non optional things included to.

Attack with a masterwork weapon at level 7: +11 for 1d10+12 +3d6 with nothing else boosting the damage.

Thoughts going forward were Edge to Intimidate then Cornugon Smash and Hurtful.

Also considered spring attack into circling mongoose as a very thematic darting in and out of the fog sneak attacking each attack.

One Goal is to get Greater Blind Fight, so that concealment will never prevent sneak attacking, not even invisibility, and with only a 20% miss chance with a reroll. Part of the character concept, and seems fun if you can get everyone blind, such as by deeper darkness.

Will save is weak. Still hard to do anything about that on a rogue. Attack bonus is a bit low as well, still same rogue problem as usual.

Democratus wrote:

So it's your contention that you stop flanking if you make an Attack of Opportunity and have none left for the remainder of your turn?

No, because at some point during your turn you WERE able to attack that square. With Total Defense, at NO point in the turn were you able to do so, thus not meeting the requirement to threaten.

But that clearly is not accurate. Since total defense is a standard action, if you take a move action first, during this entire portion of your turn you do threaten. Take a swashbuckler with opportune parry and riposte. The swashbuckler can move, provoke an AoO, parry it and riposte expending an AoO, and then go total defense.

I'd like to add:

10) If the Scorpion Whip has reach and threatens, how does that reach and threat range change with size? What if the wielder uses a Scorpion Whip that is inappropriately sized?

These are actually easy to answer from the basic rules. Even if nonsensical. Reach changes with size based on size. A reach weapon extends an additional 5', and normal weapons never get reach. A large size greatsword is on the order of 10' long, but has no reach. Actual weapon size and reach are completely divorced from each other under the rules.

The problem is when players act appropriately before the so-called start of combat.

I.E. the PCs are stalking a group of goblins they saw from mile or so distant. The PCs know combat is coming and they are prepared for ot, but being so far off, the counting of rounds is pointless just yet. The goblins later end up geting lucky and notice the PCs before the PCs are in combat range, and both groups continue advancing forward.

At what point does the first round of combat come up? Who would count as flat footed and why?

If neither side decides to attack, both knowing they are there, whoever wins initiative goes first. The system works fine as is.

Say the players finally are tired of just following them, and decide to attack thinking they still have surprise. But those sneaky goblins did know they were being followed and were watching for the changes in behaviour that signal a change from following to attacking. The goblins then spring a trap on the surprised characters. (Player initiated but goblins win initiative).

The goblins, knowing there are far more of them back at their camp, keep going along content to be followed until they have overwhelming odds. Finally near their camp, the goblins decide to start a fight knowing their reinforcements will quickly come running once they hear sounds of battle. Noticing the smirks the goblins begin to give each other, and the slight adjustments and reaching towards weapons, the characters open fire. Almost without sound, arrows silence all the goblins. (Goblins initiate, characters win initiative).

I can continue to write a decent narrative for any possible initiative situation there. Until the dice let me know what has/is actually happening, I do not have a preconceived scenario that the dice MUST follow. A lot of the problem, to me, seems to be that you want to determine what has happened, and then roll dice, and run into visualization issues when what the dice determine don't mesh with what you were expecting.

I am also a much bigger fan of incorporating skills into it as well. Let the goblins make bluff checks to lure the PCs into a trap. If they succeed, goblins get a surprise round. If they fail, they don't. Perhaps an enterprising PC who speaks goblin decides to talk to them for a bit, providing a distraction for the others to set up an ambush. BLuff for the PC. Incorporating skills into the situation often leads to much more interesting results. It often is not RAW though. It is pathfinders handling of skills that has left me the most disappointed.

In regards to the bell scenario. Is it a countdown to a bell, where both have to truly prepare knowing exactly when the bell is, or is it both standing around waiting on the bell that could be at any moment.

In the first scenario, what tends to work most thematically and allows for all the scenarios people usually want, is to start initiative, and then the combatants ready actions. At that point initiative doesn't matter, it all becomes reading the opponent and readying the proper action. The downside to this is it can lead to a bit more metagaming, and can be difficult to manage with lots of combatants involved, and so simply rolling initiative at the bell is good enough usually.

In the second scenario, normal rules work just fine. Yes they are both waiting for the bell, but unsure of exactly when it will be, yes one of them will react faster and get that first quick hit in. Having been in exactly this sort of situation the rules model it well enough.

1. Point deductions, just like buying the stat up, occur before the racial modifier. So if your charisma is still at the base of 10 (-2 for dwarf), then you are dropping it from 10 to 9 (7 after racial).