Here's the thing; in practice, #3 is the same as #1. Pathfinder does most of their business through published adventures, whether that's APs or PFS or Modules. The DCs in those adventures for anything that actually matters are going to be set such that they're a challenge to specialized characters of the expected level, just as they always have been in prior content.
The critical failure on spell saves is probably the first rule I'd remove from a game I GM. Those sorts of effects always disproportionately affect PCs, and I've never seen a fumble system that increases fun for the players. Leave that sort of thing for games like Blood Bowl.
EDIT: Honestly, in general, critical failures - especially when tied to chance of success - have the effect of discouraging players from trying heroic, low odds things under duress, which is another thing I don't want. Just really not a fan of this system in general.
If the player has to pre-prepare the stat block, it becomes just another vector for min/maxing rather than any kind of flavorful chaotic randomness.
I mean, if we're throwing out spurious analogies, presumably you also wouldn't want to play on a baseball team where everyone else on your team gets issued a baseball glove, but you have to play outfield with a pair of mittens.
A more or less level playing field should be the default for a whole host of reasons.
Assuming that humanoid monsters *have* classes; they may be 4e/5e style things like 'hobgoblin soldier' or whatever, with enumerated special abilities that make them function *like* a class, without having to burden their stat block with tons of minor class abilities.
So you think that(presuming you are unskilled at basketball) there is actually a non zero chance that you won’t be embarrassed and humiliated?
What I think is, we accept a certain amount of uncertainty into the outcome of die rolls. That's literally why die rolls are in the game. We don't say, "well, the big bad guy is 5 levels above the party, we'll just say he wins because he's better at fighting than they are." What is it about the skill system that makes it any different from how we resolve anything else in the game?
Nathanael Love wrote:
This doesn't come close to matching my experience with 5e. Not even a little. At our table the paladin significantly outperforms the barbarian in terms of dealing damage, whereas the barbarian is able to TAKE way more damage, while also giving everyone advantage. It's a flip of their expected support vs. damage roles in other editions, to be sure, but the idea that a 5e paladin is 'useless' is completely ludicrous.
Frozen Mustelid wrote:
This is only true of checks that require proficiency to attempt in the first place, like, say opening a lock. In which case the example doesn't apply at all, because the barbarian could never make his own check after the rogue failed.
Frozen Mustelid wrote:
Perhaps I'm veering off topic, but the skill examples you gave here are not really how 5e is supposed to work. Your trap-checking example, for instance, should have been resolved as 'the barbarian helps you search, which gives you advantage' - so you'd have had 2 rolls at +9 rather than a roll at +9 and a roll at -2.
The takeaway for the larger discussion, I guess, is that you can't really discuss 5e's bounded accuracy/DC system without accounting for the effects of the advantage/disadvantage system.
I mean just the ticks and burrs alone...
I'm padding out the content of the adventure to put it on the medium XP track instead of fast, so my plan is to have a lead from the fishery take them outside of town to a nearby village for a couple days, then they can come back to Les Miserables barricades already in progress and have it make a bit more sense.
Large and reach is just asking for trouble, especially in a dungeon. He's not only going to trivialize some encounters, he's also going to get in the way of other players, etc. Perhaps he should look at options that are less crazy race point wise, like an ifrit with the enlarge person SLA or whatever.
Magic vestment does not give an enhancement bonus to AC. It gives an enhancement bonus to the armor bonus of the thing it is cast on. It takes the bonus and increases it, THEN you apply stacking. So you have a shirt with a +5 armor bonus and mage armor with a +4 armor bonus. They don't stack. The enhancement bonus does not go directly to your AC.
Nope, regular alchemical splash weapons like acid and alchemist's fire do a defined amount of splash damage, not the minimum. Acid does 1 point of damage to the splashed creatures, the end, it isn't doing 1 because 1 is the minimum roll on 1d6. You can see this is especially clear with holy water (2d4 damage on hit, 1 damage on splash.) It's also, by my reading, not a 'damage roll' which is what Weapon Specialization explicitly refers to.
I don't think we can successfully read the tea leaves on intent from a parenthetical phrase in a spell from the campaign setting line.
AFAIK poltergeists don't 'hold' the items they're attacking with, they just use telekinesis like the spell. As long as the object is in range and fits their weight restrictions they can shoot it at people. There's certainly no reason an object being manipulated via telekinesis would have to be in the poltergeist's space.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Nah, they resize, and the inside front cover of Animal Archive has guidance on which animal shapes have wrist slots to use (most of them.)
It works OK, especially if you stick almost entirely to a single form.
The iconic barbarian isn't getting reach out of the deal, which is where this one gets people's hackles raised. I probably wouldn't allow it, myself.
I'm not really seeing something like, for example, 'the social side of your renown talent stops working on people who both know your vigilante identity and are opposed to it' as being a "brutal punishment". That's the kind of thing I would expect to see happen at my table or the other tables I play at.
Also - I think the ultra-specific pigeon-hole-y design of the class is completely deliberate.
EDIT: With regard to the masked performer, it's not clear to me why it even has the ability. It has basically no mechanical impact on the archetype, since while you can only use Social Grace in your social identity, none of your abilities require the masked identity. I would thus hesitate to use it as an example for anything on either side of the argument, it appears to serve no purpose at all.
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
It seems pretty clear that the intent is that you shouldn't just drop the vigilante class in as a regular option for every game:
So yeah, in a game where there's no story impact or importance to the presence of the vigilante as character-with-secret-identity, then there's not necessarily going to be much of a reason to care if the identity gets out. The book pretty much tells you to not even use the vigilante in games like that, though.
I would, personally, rather let the consequences of the secret getting out be mostly in my hands as a GM rather than a particular mechanical representation that might not reflect what's going on in any given game.
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
If Luke Cage doesn't have a secret identity that needs mechanical representation, then by Pathfinder standards he should probably be playing a brawler.