Hafi's page

Well, humans are basically good at learning. If you want and elf (dwarf, whatever) sage, put more points in Intelligence. By the way, why do you want to be a learned person (having many skill points) with a basically not to intelligent character? Interpret the rules as if you are not born with high Intelligence (learning ability), you are not supposed to be a sage. You can master (max out) a few (2) skills or learn and later improve the basics of other skills (not maxing 3-4 skills), but you have to focus your attention on other things to became a member of your class. If you have better learning abilities (higher intelligence stat) you can master more skills or broaden your knowledge by learning (putting skill points into) a lot more (6-8) skills.

Besides, the priest class of Pathfinder RPG is not the learned sage of the church's library, but the man of action, who defends the worshippers and takes the teachings of the god to the heathens.

On the other hand, if you wanted to play a scholar/sage type priest in my campaign, I would let you rid of the armor and shield feats for +1 skill point / level. So a priest without any armor and shield feats would have 6 skillpoints per level. Another one with ligh armor and shields would have 4 skillpoints per level. And so on.

I think the easiest way to solve these problems is to use a few house rules instead of making new classes.

If you think that Clerics have few skill points, consider the following:

Humans: +1 skill point / level

Human favoured class - any: +1 skill point / level

Human ability boost: +2 on any ability - Intelligence

Even with an average Int of 12, you would have (2+1+1+1)5 skill points / level. That's nice for any cleric.

You should also consider the fact that non-class skills are not that strict now, you don't need to invest double points to increase them and all that you lose is a flat +3 bonus that can be substituted with a Skill focus feat.

In my point of view - as it was mentioned before - the cleric is the protector of his gods herd, by spells and weapons. They fill multiple roles within the church (making the church service, marrying people, doing the funerals, etc.) and they are capable of defending the humble worshippers of the faith. Paladins, on the other hand, are the striking force of the organised good church. They rarely do ceremonies, as their duty is to find and destroy the enemies of their faith. In my campaign, the guards of a church are not paladins, they are fighters or warriors who have deep faith, but they are not as dedicated to the cause as paladins and lack the years of studies of priests. But they are indeed capable combatants who can rely on their church's support. (They are also known as fanatics. :) )

Beckett wrote:

I honestly don't see why a Wizard, who is traditionally locking themselves away in towers and schools most of their young life should be tougher to kill than most commoners who have to work hard their entire life.

You see this has not been true since 3.0

All it takes to be a first level wizard it seems is a week , a spellbook and a level...the week is optional

Why should they be weaker just because they are wizards...if it was hard to become one sure the d4 might be justifiable but any one with an Int of 11 and a new level can be one

So the wizard spends all his young life becoming one is a joke, the ages should be redone or multi-classing into wizards limited

Well, I think becoming a wizard depends on the DM. I wouldn't let any character becoming a wizard by leveling up. Maybe after a level up and 8-10 years of studying...

The most annoying in the rogue is it's huge damage with Sneak Attack and the fact that rogues can Sneak Attack very easily by flanking. This makes dead meat of anyone who is not immune to Sneak Attacks. In the system that I use now, Sneak Attack is limited to 5d6 at 9th level and there is no flanking. The rogue must make up the opportunity for her Sneak Attack. I allow her to use the ability when she wins initiative over the foes or when she starts from a hiding position, but she most work for other opportunities or must see the chance - like in the case when the party's wizard blinded a foe with Color Spray.
I think making Sneak Attack more difficult to do would turn the rogue back on the thieves' way.

Hm, I think I'm getting off topic? Where can we continue this conversation?

I think rogues were made to do tons of damage when rarely-useable Backstab from AD&D was changed to the often-useable Sneak Attack in D&D. Even the name change from Thief to Rogue indicates that they are not ment to steal things anymore, but to be light-armored, cunning warriors. Someone must have thought that there is no game value in a class that can't kill effectively...
So, if you want something similar to the Thief class in AD&D, don't look at the Rogue - create a new class.
For the light armoured, sneaky fighter who can disable traps, look at the Rogue!

I don't think d6 HP instead of d4 (or d8 instead of d6) would make any character more badass. In a system, where anybody with an above average Strength (14) can deal 5-15 damage with a two-handed sword, this slight difference doesn't make anyone more tougher at first level. You will see the difference after a few levels, but damage is also getting bigger: imagine a 4th level fighter as the bodyguard of a priest, enhanced with Bull's Strength either from potion or spell. With the same Strength score, he can do 10-20 on a hit! Even if you use my method for HP rolling (mentioned above), this can lover the HP of anyone with poor BAB under 0 at 3rd level.
I also run low-powered games, but I think the HP change is a nice cut to make the game more standardized.

The change in the type of HD is not that serious. With massive melee damage, the d4 and d6 hit dice is a bit low. Raising them seems to be an equal change with two handed weapons causing 1,5*str. mod. damage.

I don't like the more HP at 1st level rules, they make daggers (and magic missile :)) silly.

What I do use in my D&D3rd ed. for HP in higher levels, is the following:
Every class has a base HD of D4. This is the random part of the hit die for every level. Additionaly, all classes get a fixed amount of HP at every level. Classes with good BAB get +6, classes with average BAB get +4 and classes with poor BAB get +2. The barbarian get another +2 HP every level as a class bonus. Every character adds her Con. mod. to her HPs every level to.

Let's see some examples:

Cwell, the Fine reaches 2nd level as a Bard. He gets d4 HP for gaining a level and the player rolls a 3. Cwell gains +4 HP for getting a new level in a class with average BAB. Unfortunatelly, he has no Con. mod. to add, so he end up with gaining (3+4) 7 HPs after level up.

Rupert reaches 2nd level as a Fighter. He also gets d4 HP for gaining a level, resulting in 2 on the roll. For the level up in a class with good BAB, he gets +6 HPs. Ruperts Con. mod. is +2, resulting (2+6+2) 10 HPs after level up. If he would be a barbarian, he would also get +2 as a class bonus resulting in 12 HP at level up.

The idea behind my changes is the fact that players always whine about low HP rolls. No one would ever like to roll a 2 or 3 for a character who does a lot of melee. The barbarians d12 for HP rolls is only a slight chance to have a bit more HP than other melee warriors who wear better armour than they. With the changes, there will be no bad, low rolls for any characters.
The system is a bit changed in the case of non-player characters. Common npcs (with npc classes)and not-that-important monsters use the old hit dice. They deserve no more, but some of them are promising enough after having a lots of HPs due to good rolls. Important monsters' HD is converted as the players HD, just as npcs with player classes. The most important npcs ("bosses", if you like) gain maximum HP on all HD.

What do you think about this method?

My experience with the summoning spells is they are quite a time-sink. I had a summoner druid in my 3.5 party, who was summoning dire badgers from 3rd to 7th level. With a full attack action, they attacked three times in a round, but only hit on a high roll, sometimes only on a 20. After 2 or 3 combat rounds, the druid had some 9-20 additional attacks AND his own action.

Summoning is a powerful tool, but you can waste a lot of game time with it and even more, when the summoner doesn't have his creature prepared and has to count it's stats on the fly. (That's why I have the can-summon-only-what-you-have-prepared house rule.)