Istovir's page

Feats are not core (never forget).

Point buy isn't core either.

I really don't think that "core" matters a lot here. Synthesist summoners aren't core, stuff from the Book of Nine Swords isn't core, and stuff from random Player Companion splatbooks isn't core, but in my experience there will be a giant argument if a player wants to use any of these but the DM doesn't want it in their campaign. I don't think, as a practical matter, any significant number of people are going to be told they can't take feats in 5e games.

I don't think it is a big deal because I expect errata (as I can't be the only person in the world that has noticed this stuff).

My understanding is that the plan is that they'll issue a rules module that covers combat on maps in great detail. (For example, I vaguely remember reading comments about plans for rules for shield walls.) Then the people who would want errata for this will use the module while the people who aren't interested in the module probably won't care about this issue.

Aaaaaaaannnd... allow me to say once again: I don't like that 5e is designed around minimizing player choice (at least compared to earlier [editions]).

I don't agree that it has less player choice than earlier editions in general. I think it has about the same amount of choice as 4e and it certainly has more than 1e or 2e. It's only "limited" by comparison to 3e.

The big problem I have with 3.xx in general including Pathfinder is what happens when there's a significant divergence in system mastery in a group. Then, unless the DM spends a lot of effort building encounters that have a place for everyone in the group, the players with system mastery play the game while the other players basically watch them. This makes on the table tactics and teamwork much less meaningful, because if player A's character is 5x more effective in combat than player C's, what does it matter what player C does?

Now, if you are lucky enough to play in a group where everyone has a high level of system mastery, this isn't an issue for you. But if you're not, the difference in character building mastery levels hurts the tabletop game for most if not all people at the table.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Oh, totally. Which is why the Feat is brokenly good. But it's not "By taking this Feat I win the game." good.

Becoming near invulnerable to effects which require saving throws is a significant step to "winning" at PF. Well, as much as you can "win" an RPG, y'know.

Well, it's certainly a no-brainer if you're playing an Oracle. But you need at least a 14 charisma to make it worthwhile, and if you're not a divine caster you'd need a three-level dip in a divine caster class, no? (I don't have the new book so maybe I'm wrong about the prerequisites.) So the characters it's really powerful for are quite limited.

One thing that sticks out to me is that the classes that "should" be a race’s “favoured classes” is a completely subjective decision. Why do half-orcs get druids as a favoured class, for example? it makes no sense to me - fighter or rogue seems to me to fit them better (based on the way they’ve been portrayed in previous works). Even the elven wizard as an archetype isn’t so obviously the only one: I see elves as people of enchanted song that create magic effects as a result of their inherent nature, whereas I see gnomes as the sort of folk who always have their nose in a book. Therefore IMO elves are the natural bards and gnomes should be the ones with favoured class wizard.

The point is that reasonable people can disagree on what a race’s archetype “is”. It’s very arbitrary. I think it’s also very likely to get houseruled: at least, I know I would houserule it if I were DM’ing, and I expect most of my friends would houserule extra favoured race choices if they were DM’ing and were given a reasonably sensible rationale.

So I think that Paiso should just take the rule for humans/half-elves (pick any class as your favoured class at level 1), extend it to every race, and just make it an incentive to stick with a single class (i.e. not to “dip”).