Headfirst's page

Hey gang! I've finally began the process of formatting my notes on the new classes I've been designing. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what I have so far. Thanks!

Pathfinder Expanded Classes

A little copy-editing and a couple of suggestions for a sentence or two, that's all.

It looks great!

Thanks for the edits. Here's the new version!

Great feedback, lily. I'll clean the document up and repost it tonight. Thanks!

Here's something that might help: Adventurer Starter Class

Headfirst, did you ever write this up? There's another thread here where someone is asking about inviting a friend to play for the first time.

Sure, here's the updated class along with a starter guide I made to help new players get into the game. Let me know what you think!

Adventurer Starter Class

why not just give all the PCs an extra starting level in an NPC class, preferably one with a different focus than their “real” class?

I'm afraid that would lead us back to the bloodrager/slayer problem of having to learn two classes at once, not to mention all the calculations involved of stacking up BAB, saves, HP, etc.

At the end of the day, I'm thinking the adventurer could be a set character sheet where a player just fills in a name, allocates attributes, and circles the gear or spells they want from short lists of options. Hopefully, they can get right into playing the game in just a few minutes. Once they level up, perhaps after a few adventures, they'll have a better idea of what they want to play, which is why they can retrain from scratch.

Note: The adventurer class may only be chosen at 1st level, by a human character with ability scores of 13 across the board and the human bonus added as +1 to two abilities of the player's choice. At second level, the character undergoes a massive transformation. The character's race may be changed, new ability scores are set, a new hit die must be rolled, skill point totals must be calculated afresh and assigned anew, spells (if any) chosen, and so on. The special abilities disappear, but 1st-level feats and possibly traits get chosen. The PC retains all wealth, gear, and experience accrued, except that the starting weapons and buckler may be sold at 100% of value. The character also gains the difference in starting wealth (if any) between that of the Adventurer class (70 gp) and that of their new 1st-level class.

Good call, switching to human only, though I'm not sure about the attribute dispersal. I need to leave some customization in place. :)

I'd prefer to have specific items picked, rather than force a newbie to consult tables right away.

Good point, going to solidify the starting gear list.

Seriously, all of them. The player will pick their class skills with their skill points.

That skill list was specifically chosen to prevent new players from making bad choices. It's to ensure they pick things that get rolled often or are very useful to most adventures. I don't want a new player feeling bored or useless because they dumped all their points into Appraise, Knowledge (nobility), and Perform (comedy).

A simple fix to account for the lack of armor.

Remember: The point of this class is to teach new players about different aspects of the game. Armor is a big one, so I want to keep that in.

I'd simply add Note that these replace all starting traits and feats.

I like where you're going with this, but maybe just cut out traits and give them a choice between three pretty standard feats: dodge, improved initiative, and toughness, maybe?

Great feedback, thanks!

Make them commoners and then give them free retrains into a class of choice.

That would achieve none of my design goals.

But really most players even newbies have at the very least a vague idea of what they want to play.

This has not been my experience with new players. More often than not, they ask things like: "what's the best class" or "what should I play?" These are questions with either no answers, really cheesy meta-game answers, or answers that would railroad them into playing something they might end up not really liking due to having no experience with the game.

The best way to introduce folks that new to roleplaying is still the Beginner Box.

This is not always available for new players. Also, when introducing a new player to an existing group of veterans, it might not be something everyone is interested in. The adventurer class bridges that gap by helping new players without hindering an existing group.

Great feedback, everyone!

I'm implementing most of the comments here, but there's one in particular I want to call out as a non-starter for me: that the bard/bloodrager/ranger/slayer are better "starter" classes than the adventurer.

While they certainly cover a lot of bases and some people would prefer them, I think simply being named what they are imposes a sense of duty on new players they're not quite ready for. "Oh, I'm the bard? What does that mean? What does the party need the bard to do?"

And, on a personal note, I'm just kind of creeped out by the thought of sitting a brand new gamer down at the table and telling them they'll be playing a BLOODRAGER or SLAYER. "Uhm, what's a bloodrager?" You reply, "he's a cross between a sorcerer and a barbarian." The player then asks, "now I need to learn two classes instead of one?"

You get where I'm going with this, of course. The intent of the adventurer is to get someone into the game as quickly and easily as possible, let them sample every play style (melee, ranged, arcane, divine, skills, social, etc) before making final decisions, and be able to contribute in just about every encounter or situation.

To begin, I love the idea.

Thanks! Hopefully it does what it's intended to do and helps newbies better understand the game.

I would let them cast spells in light or medium armor, but I would give them either three cantrips and one 1st level arcane spell (Sorcerer/Wizard) or three osirons and one 1st level divine spell (Cleric/Oracle) usable 1/day @ 1st and an additional time @ 3rd, based on Charisma as you currently have it. That will give them a better 'taste' of magic to see if its something they want to pursue.

While those would certainly be helpful, I don't want to make the class too powerful. A good selection of cantrips and orisons is a great introduction to arcane and divine spellcasting.

Add Profession to the class skill list and give them a bonus feat at 2nd level with the idea being that 3rd would be the maximum level for this class.

Good catch on the profession skill, but I don't want to increase the class to 3 levels.

Let Second Wind heal for 1d6+CON hit points. That's my 2cp.

Great idea, done and done!

Okay, the consensus seems to be increasing the BAB to +1, which is fine with me. I'll leave everything else as is in terms of stats.

As for Minor Magic, how about just giving the class the normal cantrips and orisons class features?

So now the adventurer class feature would read:

Minor Magic
You may prepare 3 cantrips, or 0-level arcane spells, and 3 orisons, or 0-level divine spells, each day. These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again. The Difficulty Class (DC) for a saving throw against your spells is 10 + the spell level + your Charisma modifier.

Would it be too complicated to negate arcane spell failure only for light armor, giving adventurer's the choice between wearing light armor, moving fast, and casting cantrips and orisons or wearing medium armor, moving slowly, and only being able to reliably use orisons?

The purpose of this class isn't to be powerful, but rather to expose completely new players to several aspects of the game before making a choice on what actual class to play.

For groups of varying experience levels, I didn't want to make this class so powerful that even the veterans would gravitate toward it. Do you think it would still be effective, but not too powerful, if it received a single 1st level arcane and divine spell instead of two cantrips/orisons?

Over the years, I've taught a lot of people RPGs. The one thing they inevitably ask is, "What should I play?" Of course, this is a difficult answer because it's entirely based on important information they don't know enough of yet to form an opinion.

To remedy this, I decided to just make a class anyone can play at 1st level. The catch is: This class ONLY has one level. Once you reach 2nd level, you convert into a 2nd level character using "real" classes from the books. The adventurer is really just a "sampler" class that gives them a taste of how the game works without forcing them to learn all the systems beforehand.

Let me know what you think!

The Adventurer
When it comes to adventure, everyone has to start somewhere. You've got what it takes, though: sturdy gear, a variety of skills, a few tricks up your sleeves, and just a bit of luck. Note: The adventurer class may only be chosen at 1st level and must be replaced with a level in another class upon reaching 2nd level.

Role
The adventurer has a very diverse skill set, which means they can aid and assist every major role, but not really excel at any one. Their primary goal is to experiment with different tactics and commit to a role after earning a bit of experience in the field.

Alignment
Any

Hit Die
d8. You begin play with 8 + Con Modifier hit points.

Starting Wealth
3d6 gp (average 11 gp.) In addition, adventurers begin play with a one-handed melee weapon, shortbow, 20 arrows, shield, suit of light or medium armor, and a pathfinder's kit.

Class Skills
Climb, Craft, Diplomacy, Heal, Perception, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Stealth, Survival, and Swim.

Skill Ranks Per Level
4 + Int modifier.

Base Attack Bonus: +0

Fort Save: +1
Ref Save: +1
Will Save: +1

Weapon and Armor Proficiency
An adventurer is proficient with all simple and martial weapons, light and medium armor, and shields (except tower shields). An adventurer can cast spells in light or medium armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance.

Special: Adventurer's Luck, Minor Magic, Second Wind

Adventurer's Luck
Once per day, you may reroll any one d20 roll you just made before the results of the roll are revealed. You must take the result of the reroll, even if it's worse than the original roll.

Minor Magic
Choose two 0-level spells from the cleric/oracle spell list and two 0-level spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. You may cast each of these spells once per day. The Difficulty Class (DC) for a saving throw against an adventurer's spell is 10 + the spell level + the adventurer's Charisma modifier.

Second Wind
Once per day, when reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, you are instantly healed for 1d6+1 hit points.

Definitely paladin/bard. Full BAB, d10 HD, all good saves, 6 skill points, loads of class skills, arcane casting, divine casting, cast in light armor, proficient with all martial weapons, heals, songs, ranged or melee, charisma-based class with all social skills makes a great party face!

Just popping in to remind everyone that E6 fixes most of these problems. Carry on. :)

Switch to E6.

If the GM is fudging in favor of his bosses, then I would expect an equal amount of fudging in favor of the players when a TPK threatens.

This is a good idea that could actually be codified into a game mechanic. It would be like the penny jar at the gas station.

If the GM wants to save a major villain from a save-or-die spell or lucky massive critical hit, they have to put a penny in the jar. At any point thereafter, a player can use one of those pennies to prevent their character from dying against one of those same effects.

Maybe that kills two birds with one stone, eh?

Headfirst wrote:

Taking out villains with single high-level spells? Just another issue that can easily be fixed by switching to E6. Cheers!

I'm running an E6 game with 10 point buy. After spending time to build a badass thrower (despite all the age penalties of being 101 years old), the level two fighter came in and landed a crit with his scythe. Over 70 damage.

Something like this happening and a high-level spellcaster killing a high-level villain with one spell are two very different situations. A lot had to happen just right for your story to take place: The fighter had to have a certain build, he had to score a critical hit with a low crit range weapon, and had to roll really well on damage.

Contrast that with a high-level game where a wizard can just cast a save-or-die spell and the villain gets one chance on 1d20 to survive.

All-in-all, E6 is much easier to manage, and it's much easier to give your villains survivability.

Skyrim, Pillars of Eternity, and the new editions of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 have been the highlights of fantasy RPGs for the last few years.

Taking out villains with single high-level spells? Just another issue that can easily be fixed by switching to E6. Cheers!

Want to contribute outside of combat? Fit this into your build:

Traits
Adopted (halflings)
Helpful (halfling)

Feats
Fast-Learner
Improvisation
Improved Improvisation

Now you're an aid another MACHINE. The one drawback is that you have to bump Int up to 13, but that opens up a bunch of good feats anyway.

I love Pathfinder because it feels like playing 3.0/5 with all the house rules and custom homebrew content my group came up with years ago.

I was in a rotating DM E6 game for over two years and it was probably the best gaming experience I've had in 30+ years. We each had a few characters (only one at a time, though) but some of them got up to E6+10. We did bonus feats beyond 6th level at 3xp each (1xp per game session, like FPS does it).

Here are the two things I enjoyed most about it:

1) It vastly simplified, streamlined, and sped up the game. We got two or three battles in each session on occasion!

2) It gave us all a new appreciation for high-level magic. Most people don't realize this, but E6 doesn't mean all spells of 4th level and above disappear; they're just not available for players to have reliable, easy access to. As a DM, you can still hand out scrolls, potions, and even stuff like wands with high-level spell effects. Doing so just keeps them limited and valuable. We must have carried around that scroll of raise dead for six months of real world time before we finally had to use it!

Thoughts? Suggestions? Concerns? Looking forward to hearing your input!

Here you go!

... you stumble across the unlocked computer of Lisa Stevens, CEO of the company. You suddenly recall a memo they sent out a while back: "Once Lisa announces it, it's official no matter what." Figuring it's now or never, you seize the opportunity to push your own agenda for Pathfinder.

Using her account to make whatever you say the actual, legitimate direction for the company and the product, what do you announce as Paizo's next book?

"We've got too many classes and we know it. However, people love the systems and mechanics we've put in place, so we don't want to lose those. We need you to cut 10 classes out of Pathfinder by absorbing them into other classes. Keep as much of the flavor and mechanics in place as you can, though!"

Well, theorycrafters and aspiring RPG designers? What 10 Pathfinder classes would you squish into others?

Headfirst wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Headfirst wrote:

Want to GM a PFS game at your local store? You'd better be familiar with just about everything or your game is going to suffer.

Not even remotely true.

... are you serious?

350+ tables serious. You need to know the core rules and the rules the scenario uses. Trust your players to know their characters and everything will be fine.

So your argument against my statement that inexperienced GMs are going to have a tough time with Pathfinder (because of all the bloat) is not true because you have 350+ tables of experience and you don't have trouble?

All right, man. :)

It's pretty easy to not be intimately aware of how every mechanic works

That's not really what I said though, is it?

Headfirst wrote:

Want to GM a PFS game at your local store? You'd better be familiar with just about everything or your game is going to suffer.

Not even remotely true.

... are you serious?

Personally, I don't think the issue with bloat is that there's too much to buy; it's that there's too much to know, especially as a GM. Want to GM a PFS game at your local store? You'd better be familiar with just about everything or your game is going to suffer.

So once again, we know we don't have to buy everything. We know Paizo needs to sell books to stay in business. I think a lot of you are getting off on those really obvious tangents instead of staring the main problem in the face: bloat.

That's why I asked the original question and, from what I've seen in this thread so far, it sounds like a limited crunch, extended setting RPG could survive, but it couldn't support a company as big as Paizo. Is that a fair assessment of this thread?

Before this picks up any more steam, let's just assume that everyone here understands that businesses need to make money to stay open, okay?

The original question was whether or not non-crunchy material would be enough to keep Pathfinder afloat, not how long the game would last if the company shut off the lights, locked the doors, and never touched the product again.

it would drastically slow growth most likely.

Well, let's think about that. Would it really be a bad thing? Maybe slowing down the pace a bit would add to the longevity of the product overall.

Stop buying stuff you don't want in your game.

This is a very good point and definitely solves the bloat problem for your personal home games. However, bloat still rears its ugly head at conventions, in home games you don't personally run, and in Pathfinder Society.

To be clear, I know bloat is basically inevitable. What I'm looking at here is a way to keep Pathfinder alive and bursting with new content without watching it, like so many games before it, get suffocated under the weight of its own rules bloat.

So let me word this question another way: Would you play and continue to support a game system (let's say, for the sake of argument, it's as good as Pathfinder) that started with a really robust system with lots of customization options, but never added to those base rules? Instead, they would only publish campaign settings, adventures, monster manuals, and maybe novels?

From what you guys have said so far, this might actually work, at least for a while. Thanks for the input!

Here's a quick question for all the Pathfinder fans out there:

How long do you think Pathfinder (and Paizo) would stay in business if they stopped publishing "crunchy" rules material (races, classes, feats, spells, etc) and instead focused on "soft" material like expanded settings, modules, and adventure paths?

I almost can't imagine anything lower than 25. I asked the DM why he'd settled on that and politely explained that the game might not be for me.

So you're going to miss out on what could be a great game, making some new friends, and playing an AP you've never finished just because... it's 15 point buy?

Maybe it's not just that particular game that's not for you. Maybe it's Pathfinder in general or all RPGs for that matter. If such a minor inconvenience is a deal-breaker, maybe this isn't the hobby for you.

I've always just allowed players to choose if their character is ugly, average, or beautiful.

If you're average, there are no modifiers. If you're beautiful, you get a +2 appearance bonus on Diplomacy and -2 on Intimidate. The ugly modifiers are the exact opposite: +2 on Intimidate and -2 Diplomacy.

The fun part is that sometimes these bonuses are negated or even reversed. Trying to negotiate with the goblin chieftain? Good luck, pretty-boy elf. He's only going to listen to your companion, the butt-ugly half-orc!

Using this really simple system has yielded wonderful results in my game.

how this affects the use of the Bestiaries?

There are three ways to handle monsters in E6, in my opinion:

1. As you said, just throw out all the high level monsters. This is the easiest way, but by far the least recommended.

2. Modify all the high level monsters by tweaking their numbers so they're viable in E6. While this method works, it's really time-consuming for the DM.

3. The best way, as I see it, is to keep the monsters as they are, but introduce other elements into the game that allow the players to take on larger challenges. Your 6th level party needs to take on a red dragon? Before they charge into its lair and try to take it on, maybe construct the adventure so they first have to find several scrolls or limited use magic items that bolster their defenses or allow them to overcome the dragon's resistances. Maybe you forego all that and just challenge them to setup some traps (like the dwarves did in the Desolation of Smaug). Maybe they convince a gold dragon to help them out (so the E6 characters really only need to take on the red dragon's minions and maybe jump in to assist at the very last moment against the main enemy).

A lot of people tend to think of E6 as limiting because of all it cuts out of the game, but I think it adds a great new dimension to Pathfinder, forcing players to use their wits and plan ahead instead of just relying on their mountains of hit points, arsenals of magic items, and reliable access to crazy high level magic.

The Spheres of Power version of the Druid gets at-will shapeshifting at level 1 (although really, anyone using SoP can get at-will shapeshifting at level 1.) Of course, the SoP system dramatically changes how magic works, so it might not fit what you're looking for, but I'd recommend checking it out for inspiration at least.

I've not had the chance to play in any games using SoP, but these boards are full of people raving about how great it is. Does at-will shapeshifting ruin a lot of games using SoP?

You're talking about gaining the power of a third level spell at will, at first level. And the only thing you're giving up (Wild Shape deoen't count since you're not giving it up), is nature bond.

Sort of. You might want to read through it again. I think a lot of you are reading "at-will wild shape" and you're getting triggered. Let's read the whole thing, including the restrictions. :)

And for the rest of you who seem to think that shapeshifting is a game-breaking ability, I think some of you have a vastly different DM style/experience than I have.

At no point in my 30 years of gaming has this ever happened:

DM: "You arrive at the tower of Villainy. On the top floor is the McGuffin you were sent here to get for your quest. Before you stands the door to the first level."

Player: "I shapeshift into a bird, fly in through the top window, get the McGuffin, and return to the party."

DM: "Oh, snap, good move! Okay, everyone, adventure over. Let's watch a movie tonight instead."

Has this, or something like this, happened to you guys? If so, I argue that the problem isn't shapeshifting...

Unchained Druid
Most class features and stats remain the same, except as follows:

Removed Class Features:
Nature Bond
Wild Shape

Added Class Features:
Nature's Gift: At 1st level, the druid chooses one of these three specializations:

• An animal companion from the usual list of choices available to druids. Additionally, at 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter, the druid may add +2 to any of her animal companion's ability scores.
  
• Two domains from the following list: Air, Animal, Earth, Fire, Healing, Plant, Travel, Vermin, Water, or Weather, including animal and terrain domains.
  
• Wild Shape with the following restrictions: The druid gains the ability to wild shape at-will, though she only has access to one animal form at 1st level. At 2nd level and every level thereafter, she may add another animal form to her list of those available. At 7th level, she may choose a form with a fly speed, but not before. This ability otherwise advances as per the usual druid Wild Shape (tiny or large forms at 6th level, elemental at 8th, etc.)

Thoughts?

if an ability is too versatile ... it makes the ability less fun for the player

I'm really struggling to figure out how you could possibly believe this. I challenge you to find a single other person on these forums willing to come here and say, with a straight face, "I don't like abilities that give my character too much versatility." :)

Okay, all that aside, I've heard some great points in this thread. Give me a second to write everything up and I'll show you my idea for an unchained druid class.

The problem with balancing wildshape is that

1. Turning into any animal is immensely useful for multiple reasons. It's basically like a swiss army knife except YOU become the tool.

What if you only got to choose one form at 1st level, plus a new form every level (or two) after that?

2. Turning into an animal is not a 1st level ability. The fact that the druid can do it before 5th level at a duration of 1 hour per level is already fairly strong. A large part of the what balances it is that druid can't just turn into any animal whenever they want.

Meh, disagree. Lots of classes have more powerful abilities at earlier levels, plus almost all arcane and divine spellcasters can mimic a druid's wild shape (other than the duration) at 5-6th level anyway.

3. Beast shape can replicate many good abilities and spells. And making such abilities at-will at 1st level becomes incredibly problematic.

On a side note, it's interesting that you said almost the same thing (wild shape is too powerful/versatile) three times and tried to make a list out of it. In response:

1. It's not a very good way to present an argument.
2. There are better ways to argue your points.
3. This method of presenting your arguments isn't very effective.

Ha, okay, back on topic:

For example, making you have to choose which forms you can take at the start of the day or saying you can't use the ability to gain a fly speed until 8th level.

Hey, those are great ideas! Not sure on limiting flight until 8th level, though... that's actually kind of late compared to when other classes (and some races) get it. Love these ideas!

I like that ability is once per day but has a very long duration.

Personally, I despise "per day" abilities. "Here's what your class was designed to do, what the whole class fantasy is based on, but you only get to do it once a day, so choose wisely!" That's lazy design, in my opinion. It's why you end every game of Skyrim or Final Fantasy with an inventory full of super potions. "Is now the right time to use my special ability? What if there's a bigger monster in the next room?" I hate how Pathfinder has slowly moved in that direction with stuff like grit, panache, luck, martial flexibility, bane... it's just game design shorthand. "Okay, we made this sweet class-defining ability... how do we balance it? Triggers, toggles, conditions? Ahh, screw it, just make it x/day and let's go to lunch."

It forces you to commit to your transformation without trapping you in the form and makes you carefully consider what form is ideal for the day's adventure. This commitment makes the forms you take more engaging. If wildshape can be done at-will without any commitment, then the shapeshifting is basically just a combat buff that lets you solve a large array of challenges without any preparation, investment, or effort.

I disagree that committing to a wild shape form is a positive feature in a class that's designed to be versatile. Wild shape is supposed to be a toolbox where you're turning into a dolphin to swim one minute, a hawk to fly the next, and a wolf to fight later on in the adventure.

Let me put this another way. Right now, using all the rules as-written, I could roll up the following character:

A strinx druid with a wolf companion, which gives me unlimited flight at 1st level (60ft speed), superior action economy with an animal companion and spontaneous summons, full 9-level spellcasting, and a grab attack.

What I'm hearing is that trading in the wolf companion to be able to turn into a wolf at-will is broken. So... turning off flight, not being able to cast spells (without another feat), losing the second character (animal companion), and having to go into melee myself, instead of just sending my replaceable companion, is broken? That doesn't make sense to me.

Still, IMHO, way too powerful to be balanced. A first level character with 50 foot movement speed, scent, and an automatic trip ability any time she enters combat? That's a superb skirmisher and it only requires one form (wolf).

How is this more powerful than a regular druid just picking a wolf as her animal companion at 1st level? Isn't that actually more powerful, since you get all the awesomeness of a wolf plus all the perks of being a full druid on top of the action economy of having basically two characters?

The druid is also a near perfect observer/spy with the ability to turn into any number of domestic animals (goat, sheep, pig, dog) and to become more or less invisible. Simply by picking your form right, you can become better at combat maneuvers than the monk or brawler,....

Again, a 1st level druid can do all of this right now and it doesn't even cost them their action each round (they just make their animal companion do it).

... and it's available from a single one-level dip. So now my wizard/druid can buff herself and her senses to her heart's content and then shapeshift so no one knows she's observing everything. My monk/druid can use unarmed combat or her own natural attacks as she sees fit. My rogue/druid has a form (deinonychus) giving her four natural attacks and sneak attack damage on all of them, turning her into a veritable food processor. (Whirrrrrrrrrr!)

Sure, all of this seems really powerful in the 2-6 level range, but after that it kind of evaporates. I don't think a 13th level wizard is going to take a 1-level dip into druid, sacrificing a caster level, to pick up an ability he got at 5th level with a 3rd level spell? Or that a 9th level fighter is going to put away his +3 adamantine greatsword so he can get a sweet grab attack in wolf form? Or that a 10th level monk is going to forego four attacks at 1d10 damage so he can get a single 1d6 bite attack?

A one-level druid dip will become almost a no-brainer decision for any character of any class.

Full disclosure: I'm a min-maxing power-gamer, and there are actually very few builds that would justify a 1-level dip just to pick up at-will small or medium, non-flying shapeshift. Maybe there are a few really, really gimmicky low-level builds you could make (like a sneak-attacking dinosaur), but most of them are either silly or actually kind of gimped. Honestly, you just give up way too much for an ability that's situational at best. You do much better damage with almost any basic martial build with a two-handed weapon, losing your thumbs eliminates most skill use, and not many casters have a spare feat (and Wisdom 13) to pick up Natural Spell.

If I had my way, I'd redesign the druid class with three specializations. At 1st level, you choose between:

• An animal companion (with a few additional buffs as the druid levels up)
  
• Two domains (from the list normally available to druids)
  
• Wild Shape (at-will)

To properly balance Wild Shape, I'd put a limit on it at lower levels. At 1st level, you can only turn into small and medium animals that don't have special movement modes. At 4th level, this restriction is removed.

Maybe at 10th level you can choose one of the other options, then at 20th level, the capstone ability is to get the last one so you have all three.

Thoughts?

How would you tweak the druid class so that it gets at-will wild shape at 1st level? What would the class have to give up to make this work and be properly balanced?

Headfirst wrote:

Isn't this exactly the kind of thing 4th Edition D&D tried to do that everyone hated?

No. 4th Edition got rid of saving throws entirely with exception to on-going effects that force you to roll a natural 10 or higher each round to end them. Instead of saving throws, you essentially have four Armor Class scores and all offensive effects have attack rolls. So casting a fireball requires the wizard to make an attack roll against the Reflex of each creature in the area.

Heh, alright, man. :)

I prefer a system that treats metamagic more like combat maneuvers. You can always try them, but doing so requires a caster level check (modified by the level adjustment of the metamagic feat). Then, if you actually have the proper metamagic feat, you can do it without a caster level check (using the feat normally) or on the fly with a +2 bonus.

My group is still tweaking the numbers, but it seems like a solid idea. Kinda fun to watch a wizard panic and try to maximize a fireball on the fly to try to save the day.

How is he being a jerk?

Thanks, but don't sweat it, RDM42. This is pretty much how every thread I'm involved in goes: Someone has a problem or idea, I reply with a suggestion or opinion, someone accuses me of being a jerk, I defend myself, then Chris Lambertz rolls in and deletes all my posts and/or bans me. ;)

But seriously (and back on topic), I'm aware that E6 does not technically "fix" high-level Pathfinder, but it would solve the root problem OP has (which I see happening A LOT on these forums). Yeah, you could comb through the entire product line and try to address each issue with a band-aid fix or errata tweak, but that's a never-ending and quite honestly tedious endeavor.

Trust me on this one. I'm in a 3-year-long E6 campaign and it's awesome. We have epic battles, we fight dragons, visit other planes, and have the same globe-spanning, save-the-world style adventures. The only difference is we do it with less math, fewer game-breaking spells, and a vastly reduced dependency on bookkeeping and accounting.