The one thing I would change is unified class mechanics. Many class mechanics are unified (base attack bonus, saves, spell progression charts) to help make the game easier to play and run. Please do the same with other class mechanics. Selectively unifying class mechanics should assist with game balance and not lead to a vanilla 4th edition like game.
Specific examples (that might be considered more than one thing) are included in the spoiler below.
Spoiler:
For example:
Barbarians, Monks, Rogues and Warriors should each have a pool of class specific abilities (Rage Powers for Barbarians, Disciplines for Monks, Tricks for Rogues and Tactics for Warriors) they select from when they advance. These unique abilities would hopefully eliminate the need for some class specific feats and allow for a more customized Monk. This would also make it easier for the Paizo staff to add setting specific Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Warrior abilities (the same way they add setting specific domains, spells, and prestige classes).
Druids, Paladins, and Wizards should each have to chose between only two special "bonds" (school or animal companion for Druids, mount or weapon for Paladins, and school or object for Wizards) The Wizard choice eliminates the need for the Universal school (its arguably over-powered benefits could be rolled into the more vulnerable object).
Druid and Ranger animal companions, Paladin mounts, and Wizard familiars should advance using similar mechanics.
Monks and Paladins should each have a “power pool” (Ki pool for Monks and Holy pool for Paladins) to draw from that start at the same level and progress similarly.
Monks and Rangers should each have to make a fighting style choice (Unarmed or Weapon style for Monks and Ranged or Two-Weapon style for Rangers) at 2nd level. All Monks in existing source materials would be Unarmed style (or could be converted to Weapon style for a bit more work).
Having spent way too many years dealing with the military's and the government's love of renaming things or giving things vague names I find the term Load Units amusing.
If it's meant to be a measure of encumbrance then call it Encumbrance or Encumbrance Units.
I read the books but never played the adventures. I completely forgot about the Tasslefoot and his hoopak. More proof that all the ideas have been thought before and creativity really is dead (except for those rare and isolated cases).
Just expanding on the idea that Halflings are good with slings I came up with...
Halfling Staff Sling: Cost -, Dmg (S) 1d6, Dmg (M) 1d8, Critical x2, Range Increment 80 ft., Weight 4 lbs., Type Bludgeoning. Your Strength modifier applies to damage rolls when you use a halfling staff sling, just as it does for all thrown weapons. The halfling staff sling is a two-handed weapon. Apply 1 1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage rolls for attacks with this weapon. Loading a halfling staff sling is a move equivalent action that requires two hands and provokes an attack of opportunity. You can hurl bullets or flasks with a halfling staff sling, but usually stones are used. When using bullets an attack deals damage as if the weapon were designed for a creature one size category larger than you. If using a flask, or attacking a target closer than 40 ft., you suffer a -1 penalty on attack rolls (the penalties are cumulative). With the sling stowed, the weapon functions as a quarterstaff.
It's simple, cheap, has historic roots and I guess larger races could theoretically use the standard halfling staff sling as an exotic, 1-handed, extended range sling or they could use an appropriately sized one normally.
Effective level does not grant additional spells per day
Object limited to amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon
Can add additional enchantments to object at 1/2 normal cost
Increase number of times per day and effective Wizard level bonus by 1 for every 4 levels beyond 1st (or 5 times per day and +5 effective levels at 17th level)
Destruction of object results in -1 penalty to all spell related DCs for 1 week
Requires 1 week of preparation, 8 hour ceremony, and 200 gp per Wizard level to bond with new item (voluntarily or after destruction or loss)
This brings the Arcane Bonded object in line with the Paladin's Divine Bonded object.
The School: Forms bond with school to focus and manipulate arcane energy
Select 1 School to bond with and 2 Schools to ignore
Receive +2 bonus on spell DCs, spell penetration checks, dispelling checks, and Spellcraft checks for spells from bonded school
Can ‘drop’ a memorized spell (except from an ignored school) to cast a spell from bonded school
Receive -2 penalty on spell DCs, spell penetration checks, dispelling checks, and Spellcraft checks for spells from ignored schools
Memorizing a spell from an ignored school takes a spell slot 2 levels higher
Activating a spell trigger (i.e. for a rod, scroll, staff, wand, etc.) for a spell or spell like effect from ignored school requires a Spellcraft check with a DC 15 + caster level.
Add a Feat that lowers penalties to -1 on DCs and checks and spell slot only 1 level higher.
This gives the arcane caster a spontaneous casting option that falls in line with the Cleric's and Druid's spontaneous casting options. Well I guess to make it fall in line the Specialist should pick one specific School spell per spell level that they can spontaneously cast.
Regardless, what needs to be added to the rules is some mechanism to prevent a wizard from just using 'down time' to create scrolls and wands that replace spells from their prohibited schools that they get to use at no penalty.
When I woke up this morning I had the following thoughts.
Druids get a Nature bond and chose between a Domain or an Animal Companion.
Paladins get a Divine Bond and chose between an Animal Companion or an Object.
Wizards get an Arcane Bond and choose between an Animal Companion or an Object.
So why not shift things a bit? Switch Arcane Bond to choosing between an Object or a School. That way every Wizard can still have a familiar. Or better yet, having a familiar becomes a Feat that other characters can take as well. The Feat discussion is yet to come so I’ll go back to the main point.
Arcane bond becomes forming a powerful bond with a specific object or a specific school. What would be the benefits?
Object: The wizard can release stored arcane energy to increase his spell casting ability. At 1st level the wizard selects an amulet, ring, staff, wand or weapon to bond with. Once per day, he can call upon the object to increase his equivalent caster level by 1 for 1 minute. All spell DCs, spell penetration checks, and dispel magic checks use the equivalent caster level. Starting at 5th level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the wizard can call upon the object 1 additional time and the equivalent caster level increases by 1, to a maximum of 5 uses and 5 levels at 17th level. The wizard does not gain any additional bonuses from the equivalent levels.
If the object is destroyed the feedback from the uncontrolled release of the arcane energy causes the wizard to suffer a penalty of -1 on all DC and Spellcraft checks for 1 week or until he gains a level. After 1 week, the wizard can bond with a new object by conducting an 8-hour ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level.
School: The wizard can manipulate arcane energy to focus his spell casting ability. At 1st level the wizard selects a school of magic to form bond with and two schools of magic the bond prohibits. He excels when casting spells from his bonded school and suffers when casting spells from his prohibited schools. All spell DCs, spell penetration checks, dispel magic attempts and Spellcraft checks for the wizards bonded school gain a +2 bonus. All spell DCs, spell penetration checks, dispel magic attempts and Spellcraft checks for the wizard’s prohibited schools suffer a -2 penalty. Additionally, the wizard must use a spell slot two levels higher when preparing a spell from his prohibited schools. Finally, he can “lose” a prepared spell in order to cast a spell of the same level or lower from his bonded school. He cannot lose a spell from his prohibited schools.
This is just a first draft. The energy released from the destruction of a bonded item may conflict with a retributive strike. Heck, does Pathfinder even allow those? The ability to spontaneously cast any bonded school spell may be too powerful. Maybe the wizard should be limited to one or two spells per spell level. Does it walk on the toes of the Sorcerer too much?
The only thing that strikes me as odd is that the 17th-level ability is remarkably specific. Otherwise, this is great!
I think he was trying to emulate existing spells:
- Speak with Animals
- Speak with Plants
- Tongues
- Stone Tell
The earlier abilities were something and something else so he expanded the 17th level ability to cover fire. I guess you could make it earth and water (sort of like the body and blood of the world) but I wouldn't recommend earth and air.
The only 'speak with' spell not suggested was Speak with Dead. You could go there (with a limit per day most likely) if you consider the ancestor worship aspect of some asian cultures.
If only they knew that you're closer to the other end of the scale. :-P
They should really be asking...
- What outer plane are you from?
- Do you take extra damage from cold iron?
- What is your favorite minion?
- What is your favorite curse?
- What is your favorite plague?
- How many human souls do you consume a day?
Those sort of questions.
Come to think of it, I imagine your favorite curse is the one where you make everyone look like an anime character.
All hail F. Wesley Schneider, the Dark Lord!
(Not to be confused with the Dark Schneider character out there. He goes by a nickname that means his father never married his mother).
Once fascinated it should be easier to make a suggestion so why not simply put a penalty on the second check? Maybe the Bard's CHA modifier? That way the mechanics stay divorced of a perform check and the Bard gets the benefit of the target being under an effect already.
Just have their ki pool start at level 2 (by which point the special abilites of other classes have already started) and then add ki strike at 4th and so on. The monk can use the ki pool for a couple of levels before having glowing fists of fury.
That way it looks like the pool grows into a generic ability that's always available.
Velderan, I think you and I both were remembering the much more serious consequences of losing a familiar in the older version.
Losing some money is an inconvenience and, if as many people say, the familiar is really just a role-playing thing and not a useful game mechanic losing access to it for a week is also just an inconvenience.
So it's still not a liability just an inconvenience. Unless of course during the Sorcerer/Wizard review Jason realizes the loss of familiar side-effects were omitted by accident and puts them back in (the Paladin mount is the closest thing to a familiar and they suffer a penalty when it dies so it seems natural to me a Sorcerer or Wizard (or potentially Rogue) should suffer a real penalty).
I beleive he means there weren't several other things sneak attack could do. So there wasn't any issue of Crippling Strike stacking with other things at the same time on each sneak attack.
Once they get iterative attacks and can do these multiple times (and they are a LOT more likely to hit multiple times since the target is denied it's DEX bonus) I think it becomes quite over powered.
The rogue Dennis described is doing this not only once a round but twice.
I can live with 'giving them a bit of magic' but I do think that Dispelling attack is over powered and honestly I don't understand how it would work.
How does a rogue as dabbler in magic learn to dispell a magical effect with a melee attack? To the best of my knowledge the full casters haven't even figure that out.
If minor and major arcana have limits on use why doesn't dispelling attack?
Hrmm I seem to have gotten off topic. So to close on topic...
I don't think these talents fit the core rogue either. They seem to be stuff added during an adventure path or in a supplement to the game. These are neat tricks but aren't part of a core rogue class.
Regardless, as Roman pointed out popular opinion (well the popular opinion of the people that actually post on this topic who represent a tiny minority of the 10,000+ independent downloads of the rules) seems to be to let them stay.
I do agree though that there are WAY too many threads on this topic. Funny how that seems to happen in each forum. I also enjoy watching the ebb and flow of topics in general. How they rise to the top then are pushed off by another.
Hopefully Jason will provide some insight as to which way he is leaning.
My point isn't that he doesn't want to dip because it's too much of an investment, but because it's not what he's looking for. He doesn't want to be a caster who happens to use Ray of Frost a lot. He wants to be that rogue who knows a nasty trick.
I doubt anyone would confuse a character with a single level (or even 2) of an INT caster along with nearly 20 levels of rogue as a caster.
Most would see him as a rogue that dabbled in magic at some point. And that's exactly the image I thought you're player was looking for. A rogue with a neat (and maybe nasty) magic trick.
Magic tricks don't just happen (well I guess they do for bards and sorcerers but that's not the point of this thread) they take some training.
And yes, some of the rogue talents are better than others. Some are equal to a full-fledge feat. But that is true of rage powers and domain powers and even the feat system in general.
If you want Pathfinder THAT balanced then it won't be backwards compatible. And actually a game that balanced already exists. The Hero System is probably the most balanced game out there. I even played Fantasy Hero several years ago (many more than I care to think about actually).
My feeling is just that I'd rather err towards more options that the DM has to reign in than less options that the DM has to figure out a way to rule.
I agree. Options are good. And when I did get to play more than I do now I loved options. Of course I had a great DM and everyone that played was creative, mature and reasonable. Reading these forums I realize how lucky I was. How lucky we didn’t have a rule book lawyer. How lucky we had a DM committed to making the game fun for everyone (himself included).
Options are great but like many things they end up abused. If I have to choose between a new option that could lead to trouble or an established mechanic that is understood, I’ll take the latter in this case. I’d rather err on the side of caution and do something to make it harder for anyone to say “But the rulebook says it’s OK” or “That’s not what the rules say”.
Psychic_Robot wrote:
Some of us enjoy having familiars because we like them. Not because of any power brought to the character, but because they're an RP thing.
I agree. Role-playing – to me – is what an RPG is about. Honestly though Psychic_Robot few of your posts have ever lead me to believe it was important to you. I’m happy to be proven wrong in this case.
My one comment though, is that to the best of my knowledge there is no penalty for having your familiar die in Pathfinder. It used to be pretty severe but there is nothing I ever read in the Arcane Bond write up to suggest you suffer the hit point damage and other side effects anymore. From what I read ONLY the Paladin suffers when their special, hairy friend is lost.
Note: Just to make sure I just went over the Familiar section of the Wizard class and I still can’t find anything to suggest the old penalties are in effect.
So with that in mind, I’ll answer your questions:
1) Never. I’ve wanted to play a wizard (well a sorcerer really) but never got the chance. The party was always short of healing and I enjoy playing clerics.
2) From what I’ve read in Pathfinder they can’t be any more of a liability then an animal companion. If there is something that makes them a liability, please point me in the right direction.
3) A single +2 or even a couple isn’t unbalancing (I prefer that to over-powered). But a +2 on every skill means that a rogue can save a few points from many skills and use them to raise a couple of skills to unusual levels. I’m sure we’ve all had to deal with the rogue with WAY too many points in hide in shadows and move silently. And now with the skill consolidation rogues have even more points to spend. Hopefully, like you, they’ll be role-players and will spend them on that aspect of the game.
Ack. Well, if a green dragon leaves Absalom going at 80 MPH and a red dragon....
42! And...
Velderan wrote:
I just don't feel that it's fair for some players to dismiss the potential option for others because 'it just doesn't feel like a rogue thing', which amounts to 'I don't like it.'
Well honestly that's all both sides of the argument are. Yes, you can show that letting a Rogue take a familiar helps them and adds some diversity to the game but in the end neither side of this argument can prove whether a familiar is or isn't a 'rogue thing'.
Add to this that none of us can say whether a familiar for a Rogue is over powered or not since we haven't gotten to the chapter that covers them.
The animal companions and the Paladin mount got an overhaul, I have no doubt the familiar will as well.
I imagine this issue will go unresolved at least until the Sorcerer and Wizard review happens and probably until after the feat review happens.
So for now hopefully we can all agree to disagree on the topic until we have a few more answers.
no
you can't just force the bard between his 2 class skills that make the bard
either Knowledge or Perform is wrong... it needs to be both Bardic Knowledge & Bardic Perform
agreed. completely.
Robert
Well I didn't mean they pick once and forever like the current Bardic Knowledge is. They could put them wherever they wanted. But we'll get to that in the end.
If we go back to Robert's original idea - drop the Perform requirement from the Bardic Performances we probably need to drop any Perform based effects from the Bardic Performances as well. Fortunately there's only 3 or 4 and Jason seems to be good at reworking stuff.
So if Perform had no measurable impact (except possibly as the Bard equivalent to Spellcraft for concentration checks) then a Bard wouldn't need to keep Perform maxed.
Would many? Yes. Would many even keep two types maxed? Probably.
So to prevent the Bard from becoming a virtual 4 + Int modifier skill class we can give the Bard a second free point to put into a Perform skill of their choice.
But will this end up as limiting as Bardic Knowledge? Will Mr. or Ms. 1st Level Bard have to make a decision not only about what Knowledge they wish to master but what Perform skill as well?
On the Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger forum I recall discussions about the Weapon Groups. And how a 1st level Fighter was forced to guess what weapon he or she would be using at 20th level so that they would get the best benefit out of their class ability.
Is the Bard doomed to the same? Does the Bard with ranks in Perform (stringed instrument) end up anguishing endlessly when the +3 Drum of the Smackdown shows up?
Do they even need to anguish since Perform skill is only marginally required? But I digress.
So choice 1, free Perform points. Choice 2, something like the other half of Bardic Knowledge. Basically that a Bard can add 1/2 his or her level to any Perform check. That would mean that as long as the +3 Drum of the Smackdown dropped by level 10 the bard could still have Perform (percussion) 20 (10 from ranks and 10 from 1/2 the level) at level 20.
Of course most DMs wouldn't frustrate their players so. But some would.
Right now a 20th level Bard ends up with +30 to a single Knowledge skill, +10 to every other knowledge skill and the feeling they need to spend 40 skill points for +20 to two different Perform skills.
Most people are advocating a free 20 skill points for a single perform cutting the final cost in half.
I propose we give the Bard an ability that gives them 1/2 Bard level to all Perform checks and we widen Bardic Knowledge so that the Bard gets a free skill point at each level to put in any Knowledge or Perform skill.
That way a 20th level Bard ends up with +10 to every Knowledge skill, +10 to every perform skill, 20 points to spend on whatever combination of Knowledge and Perform skills they want (we'll say it all goes into one Knowledge making it +30) and by investing 20 skill points they end up with two other skills (say Perform skills) +20 in each.
It's almost a wash with the idea of the Bard getting a free skill point for Perform but this way the Bard also gets +10 in every other Perform skill and the flexibility to switch their Knowledge and Perform focus.
Sorry for the long, rambling post. It's been a long week.
Trap information in general starts on page 307. Trap designing information starts on page 312 (but you’ll need information for the earlier pages to design the trap). The Craft (trapmaking) DC table is on page 313 and the craft DCs for mechanical traps information is on page 314.
Oh yeah and the description of a mechanical trap is...
Mechanical traps include pits, arrow traps, falling blocks, water-filled rooms, and anything else that depends on a mechanism to operate. A mechanical trap can be constructed by a PC through successful use of the Craft (trapmaking)skill (see Designing a Trap and the skill description).
I'd love to see what you come up with by working yoru way through the design process.
If he's not a caster, then he shouldn't be able to choose Minor Magic at all. But since it was decided that he's enough of one to do so, then it should be at the same value as any other caster (at-will).
Pathfinder makes it clear there are different values of casters. Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, Wizards and all their various splat book PrCs. Just because a Rogue may get the ability to pop off a copy of a spell naturally doesn’t mean he should be able to do it as well as a true caster.
BlaineTog wrote:
Second, why shouldn't it be a major tool if the rogue wants it to be? What's wrong with a rogue wanting to make a name for himself as that guy who sneak-attacks people with ray of frost?
Absolutely nothing.
BlaineTog wrote:
He doesn't want to be a caster, so a dip isn't really appropriate.
Then he must not want the name bad enough. No snark intended. But you want your cake and eat it too. Of course you already offer a valid solution. He can just go buy wand after wand of whatever minor spell he wants to be known for. The movies make us believe that’s what other assassins do. They use the same signature weapon. I’m sure they break or have to be destroyed or left behind sometimes. So your signature Ray of Frost sneak attacking rogue will just need to find a good supplier. Heck, his party member can even do it for him, at a cost savings.
Gul Kai Ruk wrote:
Rogues, IMHO, are dabblers.
I always thought the Bards were the dabblers. That’s probably why they already get to cast spells innately and the Rogues have to settle for use magical device and Ray of Frost wands.
BlaineTog wrote:
Surely a rogue talent should be harder to duplicate than a mere 375 gp?
I’d like to think so too. But reading the Cleric, Druid, Paladin forum it seems many groups replace the Cleric with a wand of cure light wounds pretty quick. Was does one of those bad boys cost? What ends up being the cost of replacing one of the primary roles of the Cleric class? And if you get one from China or Taiwan it probably costs half the usual price!
If Minor Magic, Major Magic, and Dispelling attack are going to stay (and I honestly don’t think they should) they should stay at the ‘flavor’ level (which makes me think Dispelling attack should have a limited number of uses per day if it stays in the game). They should be a gee whiz, occasionally useful sort of thing. The classical Rogue is about skullduggery, intelligent maneuvers, and deftly sliding a blade into the right place.
Other Rogues may have done things before, during or after their skullduggery careers and so won’t end up able to do everything a classical Rogue can do but they will have their own specialties to make up for it.
Leave the Rogue the way he is and just multi-class in the flavor stuff you want for your character concept.
I agree. Using your brief sentence works for the majority of the rational players.
But every now and then you get one of the others. I can already see the request to clarify or explain why the Bard needs spellcraft to play a performance.
That aside, the only cases that would need to be added are the DCs for doing something during a bardic performance since the full casters can't do things like cast a new spell while concentrating on an existing spell.
Question: Can they use a rod, scroll, staff or wand while concentrating on a spell?
Honestly, it's very common for a rogue to have some magical aptitude.
I have no doubt many players take a level or sorcerer or wizard for spells that they think will make them better rogues. I also imagine many players take a level or two of many classes to make themselves better in some way.
That's where we got the term level dipping right?
Most of the time that phrase has a slightly negative connotation. Players tend to level dip to focus on the G part of RPG and min-max their characters. I think it’s great that some players level dip for the RP part of RPG. Either case is why the game has multi-classing rules. To creat a mechanic that lets the players customize their characters so that the game can appeal to the largest audience possible.
Jason posted…
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Although I can see the thought behind this idea, I do not think that a familiar is appropriate for the rogue theme. That said, I am open to debate.
And I agree with him on this point. I don’t think a familiar (or a familiar like companion with a new and improved name) is appropriate as a class feature for a rogue. I think is appropriate as a feat, as a multi-class benefit, as gift from the god of roguery, as a house rule, as the result of black mailing your DM, and many other game mechanic or role-playing things.
I’m glad you (and it seems other DMs) have players that think outside the box and bring fresh takes to base classes. But the BOX is the rogue class and the familiar is outside the box.
Velderan wrote:
And, again, if people don't like it, their rogues don't have to take it.
I agree. That’s why I said…
Honorable Rogue wrote:
If the talents stay great. If they go great. Regardless many people will just house rule them one way or the other.
This is why I like the suggestion made above about giving the bard 1 skill rank/ level in perform. Then all bards have the powers but the ones who want to focus skill ranks on them (or who have a higher INT) can have more bardic performance uses.
What if we just do this...
Bardic Knowledge: At 1st level, and every bard level thereafter, he gains 1 bonus skill point to place in a Knowledge or Perform skill. In addition, he adds 1/2 his bard level (minimum 1) to all Knowledge skill checks and may make such checks untrained.
Ideas for making the Perform skill check useful:
I could see the possibility of making a perform check to be able to cast a spell while doing a bardic performance however (kind of like the old concentration skill for casting spells). A perform check could also be warranted if the bard is harmed while doing an on-going bardic performance... if he makes the check, he can continue the performance, if not the performance ends.
Robert had these in his first post (I missed them too in my earlier post). But we are all in violent agreement. So we end up with...
Starting a bardic performance effect is a standard action. Some performances only last as long as the bard concentrates on them. Concentrating to maintain a performance is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If something interrupts the bard’s concentration he must pass a Perform check or the bardic performance ends. Casting spells, activating magic items by spell completion (such as scrolls), or activating magic items by magic word (such as wands) during a bardic performance requires a Perform check.
Under Perform we add...
Play defensively (avoiding an attack of opportunity).....15 + 1/2 performance level
Cast a spell during a performance.....10 + spell level + 1/2 performance level
Activate a magic item by spell completion.....10 + item spell level + 1/2 performance level
Activate a magic item by magic word.....10 + 1/2 performance level
Continue a performance if you are damaged while playing.....10 + damage dealt + 1/2 performance level
Continue a performance if you are taking continuous damage.....10 + half the damage dealt + 1/2 performance level
Continue a performance if you are distracted by a non-damaging spell.....Distracting spell’s DC + 1/2 performance level
Continue a performance while on a moving mount or vehicle.....10 + 1/2 performance level
Continue a performance while on a vigorously moving mount or vehicle.....15 + 1/2 performance level
Continue a performance while moving violently (earthquake, falling).....20 + 1/2 performance level
Continue a performance while entangled or grappled.....15 + 1/2 performance level
Continue a performance during extreme weather.....10 + 1/2 performance level
Performance level is the minimumn level required for the bardic performance.
The only other carrot I had for the perform skill relates to Countersong and Distraction...
Each round of the countersong, any creature within 30 feet of the bard (including the bard himself) that is affected by a sonic or language-dependent magical attack may use the bard’s Perform skill bonus in place of its saving throw bonus if the Perform skill bonus is higher.
Each round of the distraction, any creature within 30 feet of the bard (including the bard himself) that is affected by an illusion (figment) or illusion (pattern) magical attack may use the bard’s Perform skill bonus in place of its saving throw bonus if the Perform skill bonus is higher.
So this equates to perform skill ranks plus the bards Cha modifier.
Thanks to no limit on cantrips the bard gets to use 4 to 6 of these as spell-like abilities as often as they want each day.
Sure, they're not a specific bardic ability but they should come in handy (especially summoning the instrument both at low levels - when they can be hard to afford or at high levels when you've been captured or lost all your gear).
And I imagine if a bard wove some of these into a performance (sort of a medieval rock concert) it would give them some pluses.
Dancing Lights: Creates torches or other lights.
Daze: Humanoid creature of 4 HD or less loses next action.
Detect Magic: Detects spells and magic items within 60 ft.
Flare: Dazzles one creature (–1 on attack rolls).
Ghost Sound: Figment sounds.
Know Direction: You discern north.
Light: Object shines like a torch.
Lullaby: Makes subject drowsy; –5 on Perception checks, –2 on Will saves against sleep.
Mage Hand: 5-pound telekinesis.
Mending: Makes minor repairs on an object.
Message: Whispered conversation at distance.
Open/Close: Opens or closes small or light things.
Prestidigitation: Performs minor tricks.
Read Magic: Read scrolls and spellbooks.
Resistance: Subject gains +1 on saving throws.
Summon Instrument: Summons one instrument of the caster’s choice.
I could see countersong becoming an immediate action.
Isn't Pathfinder supposed to encourage NOT multi-class dipping?
I think the Pathfinder folks want to stop level dipping for min-maxing characters and prestige classes. They want to make the base classes attractive enough to take all the way.
In this case, the dipping wouldn't be for min-maxing (unless Dennis is right and the rogue gets aid bonuses on many skills - which are really their own skills that they've somehow magically shared with their animal friend).
If a player wants an intelligent friend as a role-playing or character development trait I think that's great. All they need to do is take a level of sorcerer or wizard and off they go.
Some rogues in lore, stories, and video games have been portrayed as having a magical aptitude. So there is a minor argument for the talent (and the other magic talents) but most rogues are merely highly skilled mundane folk.
I personally don't see the need for the talents when a mechanic exists to give the rogue similar abilities - they'll just come at a more significant cost. If the talents stay great. If they go great. Regardless many people will just house rule them one way or the other.
To me these are as thematically incorrect as the barbarian's elemental damage. Some people think they're on the mark, other's think they're not even on the target.
I didn't go through all 295 entries so if this was asked I apologize...
Under the new smite mechanic, against evil outsiders and undead a Paladin does smite damage equal to a rogues Sneak attack damage. I think that's great.
But does the smite damage apply to every one of the paladin's iterative attacks? If so, that can but quite a large amount.
Based on the PRPG write up, it seems that the sneak attack damage applies to every one of the rogue's iterative attacks but something in the back of my mind said ‘no it didn't’.
What if the bardic performance abilities became ONLY level dependent (like barbarian rage powers). The perform skill determines the performance requirements (line of sight, understand language, able to hear).
And then we use the perform skill like the spellcraft skill?
Most bardic performances continue over several rounds. If the bard takes damage or is effected by some non-damaging effect (like being blinded or deafened) they need to make a perform check to continue the performance.
It makes the selection and upkeep of perform skill important (since it determines if the bard needs to be up front dancing or in the back singing and how rough a crowd they can maintain their composure in front of) but not required (or no more required then spellcraft for a cleric or wizard) especially since perform is an untrained skill and bards will have a good CHA, some CHA enhancing items.
As much as I like the class, right now, there is no reason to play them. That is the problem, and that is what I want to fix.
Virtually every design forum has had a line like this on several posts. Many of us are attached to our favorite classes and have a desire to polish the potential we see.
Unfortunately what we see is biased.
Jason and others have made it clear they want to fix errors and problems and would love to bring new possibilities to old parts of the game. But I think they want original possibilities. Not transplants of abilities from other classes.
Looking at the changes made in the barbarian and paladin they focused on improving existing things.
The bard is about performing and knowing a little about a lot of things. I'm all for usefulness until level 20 but, to quote an Army friend, it needs to be in their lane.
By all means tone down the dependence on their perform skills if you like but focus on the knowledge aspect of their jack of all trades and not literally trying to squeeze all trades (or classes) into them.
What if we extend their knowledge mastery to things besides skills? What if they can pick up weapons and suffer reduced non-proficiency penalties? Some people proposed feat-swapping for the fighter. It seems to me that falls more in the realm of the bard.
Of course the adaptability runs counter to the bard’s inability to swap out high level spells.
There was a show called The Pretender. The main character truly was a jack of all trades master of none. Maybe the bard can be moved in that direction. The ability to cram feats or skills?
However it turns out the bard needs his or her own identity and not be a shallow reflection of the other classes.
I don't think the talent is a good idea (nor do I think the minor and major arcana talents are) as it further blurs the line between the rogue and the bard class.
They already overlap enough as it is.
I agree, almost anyone would like a companion they can communicate with telepathically. Traditionally the familiar has been the purview of the pure arcane casters. If you wish to grant that ability to a dabbler that sets a precedent for granting other abilities for other instances of dabbling.
I believe that way lies madness, or 4e.
Of course you do propose a steep cost, 30% of the rogues talents. Arguably, many of them are not worth taking but 30% is still a significant portion.
Should a fighter be able to give up 30% of their bonus feats for something similar? Should any class be able to give up 30% of their unique abilities for something that traditionally belonged to another class?
Again, that's what I thought multi-classing and prestige classes were for - diversity and expanding abilities and possibilities both for min-maxing and for role-playing.
The way I see it, the more magic options you give rogues the more it blurs the lines between rogues and bards. If a rogue would like a 'familiar' a bard would probably love one.
A monkey in a fez to go with his +1 grinder box of charming. He could use his perform and bardic songs (augmented by the familiars picking of pockets) to make tons of money. He'd never have to adventure.
I agree some fantasy rogues have had magical abilities but I would venture more have not. Options are great but blurring the lines between the rogue and an already ill-defined class doesn't seem like a good option to me.
Especially when there are rules for multi-classing and prestige classes.
Special attacks that effect status. Like nerve or pressure point strikes that interrupt the flow of ki in the target. They might cause:
- Blinded
- Dazed
- Deafened
- Nasueated
- Paralyzed
Or maybe they could prevent the use of an arm (forcing off hand strikes) or hamper movement. Tactical strikes that impact the battle in ways other than massive damage.
Oh the distance (and any damage mitigation) can be calculated as you suggest or however Jason wants. I just thought adding the ability to move up the walls to the ability to move down the walls would make Slow Fall more useful.
I also like the idea of ki spells. It reminds me of Big Trouble in Little China.
If Jason is willing to go that far great, but if not the monk still needs some customizability and hopefully some expansions.
To that end (and with backwards compatibility in mind) I came up with the following progression.
1 - Bonus feat, flurry of blows, unarmed strike
2 - Combat style feat, evasion, ki pool (magic)
3 - Maneuver training, monk discipline
4 – Ki strike (magic), slow fall 20 ft.
5 - High jump, monk discipline
6 - Combat style feat, slow fall 30 ft.
7 - Monk discipline
8 - Slow fall 40 ft.
9 - Monk discipline
10 - Combat style feat, ki strike (lawful), slow fall 50 ft.
11 - Monk discipline
12 - Abundant step, slow fall 60 ft.
13 - Monk discipline
14 - Combat style feat, slow fall 70 ft.
15 - Monk discipline
16 – Ki strike (adamantine), slow fall 80 ft.
17 - Monk Discipline, timeless body
18 - Combat style feat, slow fall 90 ft.
19 - Monk Discipline
20 - Perfect self, slow fall any distance
The big changes are:
At 2nd level the monk decides to go open hand or fight with a weapon (there are many examples of martial arts to support these two, it mirrors the ranger dual track and the proposed bard dual track).
Also at 2nd level, the monk gets her ki pool. Barbarians rage starting at 1st level. Clerics channel positive energy at 1st level. Paladins smite at 1st level and lay on hands at 2nd level.
At 3rd level the monk starts to gain disciplines (this mirrors the rogue talents). The current monk abilities would be lumped into pools of disciplines available at certain levels. This way the existing monks are fully backwards compatible (just not very original).
The monk abilities that didn’t fit into the discipline progression were high jump, abundant step, and timeless body. The first two are staples of many Kung-Fu theater movies. Martial artists flying through the air (and often continuing their fight as they fly). The last stayed because I only propose one monk discipline at each odd level and 19th level had two. Of course the ageless martial arts master is also a staple of many movies and stories.
One monk ability that I think should be modified is slow fall. In another thread it was pointed out that this is a very situational ability. In that same thread I proposed that in addition to falling a fixed vertical distance the monk should be able to climb half the same distance as a move action (limited to their base movement rate of course). That way a monk could chase a flying wizard up a wall (or run up the wall and then leap off towards the flying wizard - making a charge attack and then the acrobatics roll to lessen the fall).
The baseline is the Druid animal companion. Just as with Jason’s idea, Ranger’s use Level-3 to calculate Druid level for their animal companion. Paladins and Wizards progress mostly the same as before.
Also like Jason’s idea, I combined the lists of available animals and special abilities. Each class retained a few unique special abilities for their animal companions.
What I was shooting for was all three classes starting at the same point but having their companions grow in different ways. Druids and Rangers needed a pure combat companion. Paladins needed a smarter combat companion. Wizards needed a smarter companion. And they all needed to be as backwards compatible as possible.
Here’s the list of available companions.
1st Level Companions (only available to Druids, Rangers and Wizards): Badger, Bat, Camel, Cat, Dire Rat, Dog, Eagle, Hawk, Heavy Horse, Light Horse, Lizard, Medium Shark, Medium Viper, Monkey, Owl, Pony, Porpoise, Rat, Raven, Riding Dog, Small Viper, Squid, Tiny Viper, Toad, Weasel, Wolf
5th Level Companions (Druids, Rangers and Wizards have their level reduces by 3 when looking at the improvement chart ): Ape, Black Bear, Bison, Boar, Cheetah, Constrictor Snake, Crocodile, Dire Badger, Dire Bat, Dire Weasel, Heavy Warhorse, Large Shark, Large Viper, Leopard, Monitor Lizard, Warpony, Wolverine
3-5____+2____+2____+1____7____Deliver Touch Spells, Improved Evasion (Diminutive or Tiny increase one size)
6-8____+4____+4____+2____8____Speak with Master (Small increase one size)
9-11___+6____+6____+3____9____Scry on Familiar
12-14__+8____+8____+4___10____Spell Resistance (Medium increase one size)
15-17_+10___+10____+5___11
18-20_+12___+12____+6___12
All companions can still ‘speak’ with animals of their own kind. Druid and Wizard companions will only increase one size category ever. Paladin mounts never increase in size (since they arrive pre-sized for the Paladin). If a DM wants to let a Paladin have an adventuring pal instead of a mount they also only increase one size category ever.
To illustrate how this plays out we’ll look at a set of identical triplets. After years of being confused they each embark on a different adventuring career. One becomes a Druid, the second a Paladin, and the last a Wizard. Years later they meet up. It turns out they each took a Heavy Warhorse as their companion (funny thing, all three horse came from the same mare).
Here’s their companions:
Druid: 14d8+42 HP, AC: 27, STR: 23, DEX: 18, CON: 17. Aside from the common stuff, it can do 7 neat tricks on command, is Devoted to the Druid and can Multiattack.
Paladin: 14d8+42, AC: 24 (when it’s not wearing its barding), STR: 23, DEX: 13, CON: 17, INT: 11 (it might even be smarter than the Paladin). Aside from the common stuff, it’s pretty smart, makes Saving Throws much more often and can Command other horses in and out of battle.
Wizard: 14d8+42, AC:27 (higher if it had barding but it spends most of its time polymorphed or in the tower), STR: 18, DEX: 18, CON: 17, INT: 12. Aside from the common stuff, it’s a bit smarter than the Paladin’s horse, so smart that it can actually Talk with the Wizard, delivers Touch Spells and acts as a Scrying focus.
Of course there would be feats that let each class get better companions. I spent time yesterday looking through the SRD monsters (and starting the long process of calculating and comparing the companions for each class). I haven’t finished the math but on first blush these are the ideas I had for improved companions.
Druid and Ranger: Hippogriff, Shocker Lizard and Worg
Paladin: Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, Griffon, Hippogriff, Pegasus
Wizard: Arrowhawk, Blink Dog, Homunculus, Imp, Medium Elemental, Mephit, Psuedodragon, Quasit, Xorn
Some of the Wizards magical beasts could cross over to the Druid and Ranger. The only issue is that they have an INT above 2.
Also, within each campaign (or source book) the list of companions can be changed. The 1st level companions are up to CR 1. The 5th level are up to CR 2. The Improved are CR 1-4 (the 1’s would need to be upped a bit, the 3’s would be available at level 7 and the 4’s would be available at level 9).
I’m still trying to look at the numbers for a lot of this but I wanted to get it out there.
Oh yeah here’s a copy of the full table. It’s separated by commas. So just paste it into word. Highlight it all. Go to Table and select Convert Text to Table (make sure you pick Commas at the bottom).
Spoiler:
,,,,,Druid/Ranger,,,,,Paladin,,,,,Wizard
Level,HD,NA,STR/DEX,BT,Special,HD,NA,STR,INT,Special,HD,NA,DEX,INT,Special
1,-,-,-,1,Alertness Empathic Link Share Spells,,,,,,-,-,-,6,Alertness Empathic Link Share Spells
2,-,-,-,1, ,,,,,,-,-,-,6,
3,+2,+2,+1,2,Improved Evasion,,,,,,+2,+2,+1,7,Deliver Touch Spells Improved Evasion
4,+2,+2,+1,2, ,,,,,,+2,+2,+1,7,
5,+2,+2,+1,2, ,-,-,-,6,Alertness Empathic Link Share Spells,+2,+2,+1,7,
6,+4,+4,+2,3,Devotion,+2,+2,+1,7,Improved Evasion Share Saving Throws,+4,+4,+2,8,Speak with Master
7,+4,+4,+2,3,,+2,+2,+1,7, ,+4,+4,+2,8,Speak with Master
8,+4,+4,+2,3,,+4,+2,+2,7, ,+4,+4,+2,8,
9,+6,+6,+3,4,Multiattack,+4,+4,+2,8,Command Creatures of its Kind,+6,+6,+3,9,Scry on Familiar
10,+6,+6,+3,4,,+4,+4,+2,8, ,+6,+6,+3,9,
11,+6,+6,+3,4,,+4,+4,+2,8, ,+6,+6,+3,9,
12,+8,+8,+4,5,,+6,+6,+3,9,,+8,+8,+4,10,Spell Resistance
13,+8,+8,+4,5,,+6,+6,+3,9,,+8,+8,+4,10,
14,+8,+8,+4,5,,+6,+6,+3,9,,+8,+8,+4,10,
15,+10,+10,+5,6,Spell Resistance,+8,+8,+4,10,Spell Resistance,+10,+10,+5,11,
16,+10,+10,+5,6, ,+8,+8,+4,10, ,+10,+10,+5,11,
17,+10,+10,+5,6, ,+8,+8,+4,10, ,+10,+10,+5,11,
18,+12,+12,+6,7,,+10,+10,+5,11,,+12,+12,+6,12,
19,+12,+12,+6,7,,+10,+10,+5,11,,+12,+12,+6,12,
20,+12,+12,+6,7,,+10,+10,+5,11,,+12,+12,+6,12,
HD = Bonus Hit Dice NA = Bonus Natural Armor BT = Bonus Tricks
I spent most of the day working on an alternative system as well. Mine merges animal companions, familiars and paladin mounts into one. I'll try and finish it up tomorrow and post it.
Even though the first tier pets vary from CR 1/3 to CR 1 it's still less than 1 CR variation. All of the tiers have a 1 CR variation (except for the Elasmosaurus). Where they vary more is in HD but the CR system is supposed to take all parts of the creature into consideration.
Couldn't generic just mean a single starting list? What if a druid wants an ape as a companion. Or a paladin wants a hawk as a companion and not a mount? What if a wizard wants a horse as a familiar?
It's not where the companions start but how they advance. The druid and ranger companions advance to help with combat and scouting. The paladin mounts advanced to help with combat and movement. The wizard familiars advanced to help deliver spells and enable scrying. And their improvement mechanics reflect this. HD, Armor, STR, DEX, tricks, INT, special abilities. Some overlap, some don't.
So it seems that natural divine, martial divine, and arcane energies alter animals differently.
We don't need to assign animals to specific classes we just need a basic list to start with, some additional lists for higher level play and lastly a list for what you get when you spend a feat.
We don't want to limit we want to add options. That way the role players and the gamer theorists are both happy.
All the abilities can be wrapped up into channeling (which means the Paladin has to be able to channel at level 1) or they can be wrapped up into something else. Say something like:
Holy Blessing: The Paladin is touched by her deity and gains a pool of divine energy she can use to accomplish amazing feats. A paladin's divine pool is equal 4 + her bonus at 1st level. At each level after 1st, her pool increases by 1 point.
By spending 1 point from her divine pool, a paladin can make a smite attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. In addition she can spend 1 point to give herself a +4 bonus to a single save.
Since this includes a basic smite attack, we need to redo Smite Evil.
Smite Evil: When making a smite attack on an evil target the paladin adds her level to the attack roll and deals +1d6 additional points of damage. For every three levels beyond 1st, the paladin does an additional +1d6 points of damage to a maximum of +7d6 at 19th level.
These same points would be used for Lay On Hands and all of its variations starting at 2nd level.
Doing the math, a level 20 paladin gets 7 smites a day and 10 + CHA bonus Lay On Hands a day. Using Holy Blessing there's a total of 23 + CHA bonus uses a day. Not a huge change but it does let each paladin decide if they want to hurt or heal more.
None of this is especially new or revolutionary. Like the monk (and formerly like the barbarian), it gives the paladin a pool of resources to use as they desire.
It doesn't fix the 'After the smites are gone the paladin is just an NPC with a few more spells' but it does provide some symmetry across the classes and gives the paladin a bit of burst damage against evil.
If this has been said before I apologize to the original poster. There are too many 'improve the paladin' threads and I have too little time to read them all.
Come to think of it, does this mean there will be a unified set of bonded object rules for the Paladin's sword and the Wizard's item? Well as unified as they can be considering they require different bonuses to help each class.
Hopefully this will bring all aspects into some sort of line.
- Companion advancement
- Feats to improve them
- Penalties for loss
There should still be variation in what the companions do for each class since existing companions function as combatant, enhancer, and/or scout to varying degrees.
I too am looking forward to seeing what Jason comes up with.
I see this as that fighter intentionally focusing on (and practicing with) a group of weapons to become more proficient at their use.
So maybe it should be called Weapon Practice (which you eventually master at level 20).
Without intending to hijack...
And seems odd to me they gain benefits with entire groups but eventually only master one weapon. I would suggest the level 20 bonuses apply to an entire group. Additionally, the basic attack and damage bonuses should increase one final time to +2, +3, +4, and +5 (since you don't add another group at level 20).
Of course, I also think there should be a way to reorder the bonuses so that as a fighter changes which weapon they use most often (due to the nature of random magical drops and specific crafting) they can get the most benefit out of it. At each level they add a new weapon group they should be able to reorder which group gets the +1 bonuses, +2 bonuses, and so on.
some cases these bonuses might be built into the feats themselves
Do you plan to have the feats do more for everyone or just for Fighters? Possibly add an extra paragraph at the bottom of the feats covering the extra benefits for Fighters?
Ok we’re not at skills for everyone so I’ll couch my response in terms of the Fighter.
The 2 initial skill points in pathfinder (whose rolls gain a +3 bonus if they’re spent on class skills) does equal the 8 points from 3.5 but only if you spend them in class skills. If you spend them in non-class skills then you come up pretty short.
** Suggestion 1 **
So we can add more skills points (possibly to classes beyond Fighter) or maybe we could say “Level 1 characters are considered trained in all of their associated class skills”. That way the +3 bonus applies to every skill on their list and it ONLY applies to the original class a multi-class (or prestige class heavy) character starts in.
That means the Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger would end up with 30, 27, and 39 virtual skill points. Sort of overkill (and worse for Bards and Rogues) but at least that way the classes with very few skill points per level would have some skill use breadth.
** Suggestion 2 **
As to actual number of skills, if we look at the classes with the fewest and most ‘unique’ class skills (meaning I only counted a single Knowledge skill per class), Wizards get 7 unique skills and Rogues get 20 unique skills. Now looking at the number of skills an ‘average’ member of class gets at each level (meaning I’m not adding any extra skill points for a high INT), the Wizard gets 2 skill points and the Rogue gets 8 skill points.
Now I’ll make a HUGE assumption here (Yes, even bigger than saying the average Wizard has an INT of 10 or 11) and say that all classes should be equally knowledgeable in their class related skills. Using the 2 and 8 skill points per level and 7 and 20 unique skills, Wizards are designed to master 2/7 or 28.6% of their skills and Rogues are designed to master 8/20 or 40% of their skills. So Rogues are designed to master a greater percentage of their class knowledge pool than Wizards.
Ok, I can already hear keyboards clacking in response. To head it off, Yes I agree that it’s more important for a Wizard to master spells than all but one or two of their class skills. So at this point I’ll switch away from Wizards and use the class with the next fewest unique skills. We can pick from Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, or Sorcerer.
So we’ll pick the Fighter (see it really DOES tie into this thread). With 2 per level and 9 unique skills, the Fighter is designed to master 2/9 or 22.2% of their skills.
Hrmm, barely over half of what the Rogue is designed to master. So let's standardize skill mastery across all the classes. We have 3 choices (just like public schools):
- We target mastery at the lowest level
- We target mastery at the highest level
- We target mastery at some point in between
Realizing that swinging low or high will likely affect the most classes (but won't conflict with the typical public school strategy), we’ll pick a point in between. Combining the fewest and most and averaging we get [(2 + 8)/(9 + 20)]/2 or 34.5%. To make the math easier (hopefully) we’ll say that every class should be designed so that an ‘average’ member should master 35% of their skills.
Since this is the Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger forum their new numbers would be…
- Barbarian: 10 x 0.35 = 3.5, which rounds up to 4 and is EQUAL to what they have now.
- Fighter: 9 x 0.35 = 3.15, which rounds down to 3 and is one MORE than they have now.
- Ranger: 13 x 0.35 = 4.55, which rounds up to 5 and is one LESS than they have now.
Looking towards the future, the number of skill points for the other classes come out as:
- One Less: Rogue
- Equal: Bard, Druid, Wizard
- One More: Cleric, Monk, Paladin, Sorcerer
Therefore, 2 classes would lose a skill point, 4 classes would stay the same, and 5 classes would pick up a skill point. By picking some point in between, 7 classes would change. Picking the lowest would also cause 7 classes to change (all of them at least one point LESS). Picking the highest would cause 9 classes to change (1 of them one point LESS and 8 of them at least one point MORE).
I was going to include that in my post but I got distracted. And you could even stretch it to say, why aren't the Monk abilities just Monk talents and make them Monk-only feats.
Of course this path may lead to madness. Because what it could produce is a 'Generic' class template where focusing on a different stat has different effects.
And who knows, maybe Second Edition Pathfinder, you know you want to see one (especially if 5th Edition alienates the same way 4th Edition did), will be able to fix the majority of everyone's issues.
Yes, it appears that it is just renaming Bonus Feats into Fight Talents/Tactics or whatever but the difference is that the Talents/Tactics can be placed with the Fighter write-up to make it easier to select them (the same way the Rogue talents are) and would hopefully allow some degree of closure on the Fighter improvements without working our way through the Feats chapter. Also, the general structure of the Talents/Tactics could allow Fighters to skip some pre-requisites (the same way Monks do).
Making Fighter Talents/Tactics might also prevent the dilution of originally "Fighter-Only" feats in the unstoppable stream of house rules and probable splat books or Paizo articles.
If the goal is to make and keep the Fighter unique and viable then they need something unique. Since backwards compatibility is a core goal, and Paizo has demonstrated that adding rules and options is considered backwards compatible, adding Fighter Talents/Tactics allows a simple mechanic for adding many of the proposed armor feats, combats feats, weapon feats, stances, ability to swap feats out and who knows what else as Talents/Tactics.
All I have to offer at the moment is a framework. It will take everyone to help populate it.
