IthinkIbrokeit's page

I actually have two characters I was hoping for comment on. I also wanted to seek advise on the daring champion build I am running.

I am looking for some help with some characters for a Curse of The Crimson Throne Pathfinder campaign. The game is played with friends and I would say its a low to moderately optimized game. We are currently on the second adventure "Seven Days to the Grave" and everybody is Level 5. The party is a Daring Champion Cavalier, a Vivisectionist Alchemist, an Inquisitor and a Sorcerer. I am playing the Daring Champion and I am helping the person playing the alchemist with their build (they tell me what they want their character to be like and I try to make it happen). The DM has told us that the AP runs to level 15-16.

I have a good amount of experience with pathfinder, and for d20 rpgs in general I have typically found it important to have a pretty firm idea of the long term plan for each character/build if you don't wnat your character to end up being ineffective.

The Alchemist player selected the vivisectionist because they were not a big fan of bombs. They like rogue types (has played a rogue, bard, and now the alchemist). They were not interested in the beastmorph/natural attack version of the vivisectionist at all. They wanted the extracts, sneak attack and to dual wield daggers. The build below is what I have thus far.

Cavalier (Order of the Lion)

Ability Scores (20 point point buy)
S (10) D (16) C(14) I (8) W(10) Ch (15)

Race: Human (+2 Dex)

Skill Points / Level: 5 [class (4), Int (-1), Race (1), Favored Class (1)]

Skills (max each): Perception, Intimidate, Performance Combat, Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Nobility)

Traits: Missing Daughter, Threatening Defender

Feats (level): Weapon Focus [Rapier] (Human) Fencing Grace (1), Combat Expertise (3rd), Combat Reflexes (5th), Weapon Trick [One Handed] (6th level bonus feat), Extra Pinache (7th), Dazzling Display (9th), Hero's Display (11th), Performing Combatant (12th level bonus feat), Disheartening Display (13th), Extra Pinache (15th)

Tactician Feats: Precise Strike (1st), Broken Wing Gambit (9th)

Ability Score Increases: 4th (Char), 8th (Dex), 12th (Dex)

Obviously, as this character is not a spell caster he is a lot less complicated than the alchemist above. However, I think they pair together pretty nicely. This cavalier can push his damage with his pinache abilities and challenges while at the same time he can achieve a very high armor class and take a pounding with his high hitpoints. He pins baddies in place and alchemist can then flank and sneak attack.

I choose order of the lion because it adds some good defensive capability to the challenge mechanic while also providing this build with a pair of descent party buffs it can use. Precise strike is basically the mandatory 1st level cavalier teamwork feat. Broken wing gambit will pair well with the high armor class this build will have from stacked dodge bonuses. I use the rapier because it allows you to recharge your panache a lot faster than using the long sword would. Obviously this build wants a rapier with the "keen" property. Since Daring Champion Cavaliers don't get "opportune parry and riposte" I took weapon trick for the "stylish riposte" ability. That actually pairs better with the other things this build does anyway (although its limited to once a day per target).

What I am wondering about with this build is basically what to do after about level 10. As set up, I went down the performance combat tree. I have long really liked the concept of that tree but have never really had a build that had feats enough to do anything with it. Even in this build, I am worried because you start taking feats for it at level 9, but it takes until level 12 to get it to where you can use it every combat as a swift action. Until the demoralize is a swift action it just seems like a waste of an action. Even as a swift action, this build is pushing the action economy. Challenge, Precise Strike, and the "For the King" ability of the order of the lion are all swift actions. Meanwhile, tactician, Lions Call (Battle Cry), and actually fighting use up standard actions.

Would this build be better off going for improved critical and then something off the improved critical tree? Maybe pick up dueling cape deed?

As with the alchemist above any help is greatly appreciated.

I am looking for some help with some characters for a Curse of The Crimson Throne Pathfinder campaign. The game is played with friends and I would say its a low to moderately optimized game. We are currently on the second adventure "Seven Days to the Grave" and everybody is Level 5. The party is a Daring Champion Cavalier, a Vivisectionist Alchemist, an Inquisitor and a Sorcerer. I am playing the Daring Champion and I am helping the person playing the alchemist with their build (they tell me what they want their character to be like and I try to make it happen). The DM has told us that the AP runs to level 15-16.

I have a good amount of experience with pathfinder, and for d20 rpgs in general I have typically found it important to have a pretty firm idea of the long term plan for each character/build if you don't wnat your character to end up being ineffective.

The Alchemist player selected the vivisectionist because they were not a big fan of bombs. They like rogue types (has played a rogue, bard, and now the alchemist). They were not interested in the beastmorph/natural attack version of the vivisectionist at all. They wanted the extracts, sneak attack and to dual wield daggers. The build below is what I have thus far.

Alchemist

Ability Scores (20 point point buy)
S (10) D (16) C(10) I (16) W(10) Ch (10)

Race: Human (+2 Int)

Skill Points / Level: 10 [class (4), Int (4), Race (1), Favored Class (1)

Skills (max each): Craft Alchemy, Acrobatics, Bluff, Disable Device, Knowledge Arcana, Knowledge Nature, Perception, Spellcraft, Stealth, Use Magic Device

Traits: Family Honor, Slippery, River Rat, Reactionary [Note: DM allows selection of 2 Traits, 1 from the campaign players guide, 1 of players choice. I have also taken the "extra traits" feat see below)

Feats (level): Weapon Finesse (Human) Extra Traits [River Rat/Reactionary] (1), Two weapon fighting (3), Weapon Focus [dagger] (5), Flensing Strike (7), Improved Two Weapon Fighting (9), Extra Discovery [Promethean Disciple] (11), Improved Initiative (13), Greater Two Weapon Fighting (15).

Discoveries: Spontaneous Healing (2nd), Bleeding Attack (4th), Infusion (6th), Enhance Potion (8th), Crippling Strike (10th), Greater Mutagen (12th), Spell Knowledge (14th)

Ability Score Increases: 4th (Dex), 8th (Dex), 12th (Dex)

Most commonly memorized Extracts:
1st: Adhesive Spittle, Heightened Awareness, Shield
2nd: Barkskin, Cat's Grace, Invisibility
3rd: Channel Vigor, Heroism, Fly
4th: Stoneskin, Dragon's Breath, Freedom of Movement
5th: Elemental Body II, Grand Destiny, Spell Resistance

This build is planned through level 15. As I said, the player was not interested in the Feral Mutagen/Beastmorph options. The player also really likes undead and wants to build a flesh golem/Frankenstein's Monster which is why I selected Promethean Disciple. I think the feat selections are pretty strong, however I could not find anything that really supported the build very well for level 13. Improved Initiative is a go to for sneak attackers like this build but level 13 seems rather late for that feat. I was thinking that by that level it would be pretty for sure that we could get this alchemist two daggers with the agile property and then take "double slice" instead.

Similarly without bombs there is a real lack discoveries to take. Bleeding attack isn't great but its something. For the last discovery I took Spell Knowledge but I am not even sure what spells would be good additions. I am also worried that "Enhance Potion" won't get a lot of use just because of the players level of experience. That's also why I am not focusing on extracts like Alchemical Allocation and Amplify Elixir.

Any advise, comments, help or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Every attempt to fix the fighter has to start with what it is exactly we want to fix.

If the goal is to get the fighter back to combat relevancy at higher levels, Then one thing that can be done is to scrap the "full attack" action and just let everybody make all their attacks with a standard action. This helps all characters who are not spellcasters.

Second thing that could be done to help fighters be more relevant in high level combat is make it so you cannot cast a spell if you withdraw and make it so that casters can't just back up to cast a spell. If you used something more like 2nd edition zone of control and withdrawl actions then it would make it much harder to avoid combat with fighters/fighter types.

These fixes focus on fixing what is wrong with combat, they do not address issues with who can fly, turn invisible or any of that other stuff. They also don't fix the fact that the fighter has terrible saves, is amazingly MAD for one of the 4 core roles, and don't fix the fighter classes direct issues

Or you can try and fix the fighter by playing with his saving throws, giving him more feats, changing the content of feats. Fixes like this help with the some of the core issues of the fighter himself but don't help that the game basically assumes that "fighter" is the class of bad guy mooks you are fighting.

Nether of these fixes the fact that a high level wizard can, on a whim, rewrite creation with Wish, or otherwise change the face of the game world so that it is totally different from what was published. To fix that requires giving high level fighters the kind of powers that start fights on boards like this.

We know what the problems and solutions are. To many people just don't like them.

I never kept up with the playtest so I don't know what to expect in the PH other than mire choices. I think more choices is a good thing. I hated how little choice I saw in the free PDF.

I know it would be unfair to judge the system on this.little bit released so far. While I am willing to examine more, I was extremely disappointed at what u saw so far.

It looks to me like it is really designed for absolutely brand spanking new people who can only be shown so much before their eyes glaze over. At least the first 2 levels seem to be training wheels like a tutorial level or 2 like in many video games. This could be helpful for experienced players who want to introduce tabletop to people who never played before. I understand the best way to make sure somebody learned nothing of a subject is to give them goo much of a data dump that their brains cannot handle. So a slow curve us needed for brand new people. I also understand the masses of experienced players will just start at 3rd level as so many if them already do.

I really hate the restriction on ability scores, both not being able to buy past 15 and capping at 20. I think it is an attempt to prevent characters being particularly effective. This will extend the.length of flights, decreasing how often a fight ends before the weakly built pc gets to take a second turn. That would greatly reduce how many players wine that they are irrelevant compared to the player next to them.

I hate the basic games lack of flanking and the removal of five foot steps. Also very turned off how attacks if opportunity work, or are so unlikely to ever get provoked in the first place. Yes, I know removing 5' steps should thus allow mire AoO but when a person can dance all around you in a single turn, that does nit sit well with me that they can move about so much without. provoking.

I hate how they seem not to know a way to make the ftr look good st fighting so it looks more to me like they choose to make everyone else suck at fighting instead. For example, nearly all...

Its so strange that I could not be more opposite.

The game looks to me to be actually designed by somebody who actually understands how system complexity works, like the MTG desingers as opposed to 3.x which has a lot of needless complexity for almost no gain and lots of trap options that frankly shouldn't be in the system in the first place. I like that choices in next are actually playable at the table. I think that P2E could really take take this to heart. Don't put options that are tedious at the table in the game.

The game has flanking. It has flanking in a system that is designed for miniatures less play (YES TO THAT, the longer I play the less I think minatures are worth the time and effort. In the playtests I ran attacks of opportunity were provoked quite a bit, especially in the way that they were first invisioned, if you want to try and move around an armed comatant you get hit first. P2E would do really well to remember that and make it easy (even easier than 5E) for people to take a lot of attacks of opportunity. Quite frankly you CANNOT move past an armed person no matter how much of a threat the person behind them might be. Anybody with even rudementary levels of martial arts or fencing knows this.

I really like the restriction on ability scores. Honestly, when 3.X came out WOTC should have done a much better job of saying a 12 is a good score, 14 is a very good score and a 16 is the most you can start with. If you play that way, so hat it takes 20 level to get a +5 stat P2E math works a crapload better. in d20 games 16s should have ALWAYS been thought of as being the new 18's. (I wonder if 3d6, drop lowest add 4 would be a better way of making stats as well).

The fighter still has some problems but he is really better than everybody else at fighting especially at higher levels where he can bust out 6 or more attacks. I have long thought that the fighter needed a B09S remake but I also know that this won't happen because to many people want a fighter that can only do the things the next one does
a) make attacks b) be strong/fast they have at least added c) don't get hosed by saves constantly so thats nice.

I really like what they did to the spell system end to end. The spell scaling is one of the WORST examples of linear warriors/quadric wizards around. By tying spell power increases to spell slots it pushes the wizards back towards linear power scaling.

It doesn't change that if they don't have adventure paths or good expansion content I won't play but seriously a lot of the core ideas are ones that should be examined for P2E even if they choose a slightly different implementation.

I have read through the basic rulebook and there are actually a lot of things I like in the system.

I like advantage/disadvantage instead of lots of modifiers. I like hit dice, the revised vancian system they use, multi-attacks at full
attack modifier. tying skill modifiers to class level seems like a fix that should have been obvious when 3.5 came out.

I am intrigued by things like archtypes, backgrounds etc and would like to see more of them before I make any sort of real decision.

I wonder about not having a touch or flat footed AC, but then I realized that it shouldn't be needed because there won't be quite a huge variance between attack rolls as there is i 3.x.

However, for all these system changes that I like, they really won't have ANY impact on if I choose to switch or not. That will depend ENTIRELY on the level of adventure support that WOTC provides.

If they can write interesting adventure paths that let me easily run players from 1-high level and those adventure paths are well written and have events that actually matter in their campaign worlds I will probably pick up the rulebooks and run the adventure paths that I think are good in the 5E system.

If they do what they do what they did in 4E and give up on the idea of linked adventures because they couldn't find authors who were good at it. Or if they put out crappy adventures where the players are "in" a favorite setting but don't get to do anything that interesting because "status quo is god" then even if 5E was the perfect system I wouldn't play because I don't have time to write my own adventures any more.

Auxmaulous wrote:

- Alignment mechanics - I will bring them back, but to 1st ed/2nd ed levels, not the crazy that is PF/3rd ed games

Not to start an alignment thread, but what do you see that's so crazy different about alignment mechanics between AD&D & 3.x?

Having been an Avid 2E player the differance between 3.x alignment and 2E alignment is that 3.X alignment is a suggestion and 2E alignment is a straightjacket.

2E includes rules for EVERY CHARACTER suffering experience penalties and other kinds of frustration for daring to not guess exactly how their DM interprets each box of an arbitrary and self selected personality test.

As I remember there were generally more rules in 2E related to alignment particularly violating alignment than 3E has total verbage on alignment at all. If somebody really wants more of that then more power to them but its not the sort of game I would ever want to play again.

D&d 5e has some really good design ideas, some poor design ideas and some things that are kind of meh.

The real issue for me is that wotc still has not figured out that in the internet age content is king. There model is still clearly based around selling hardcovers and neglecting adventure paths. Until they show that they will have an adventure path equivalent and show that the stories are worth participating in it will be a non starter with my gaming groups.

Anyway if you want a rundown of interesting/good ideas

Advantage/disadvantage is really smart, simplifies book keeping and is an improvement to giving small fixed bonuses for good conditions.

The changes to vancian casting are interesting. Some parts, like memorization and casting methods already have a similar rule in pathfinder with the arcanist. Others like having a single save dc for all spell levels is something that could help make it easeier to play but also has issues.

In many ways I think that if this game had been released in 08 AND wotc had not kicked all the 3rd party publishers out of the d&d sandbox there probably wouldn't have been an edition war

Ganryu;

I think we said the same thing. My post pointed out that the major complaint with both 4e and book of 9 swords was that the resource management schemes for magic and non magic effects were to similar.

That's a fundamental problem because it means that the obvious way to balance characters is not available.

A pathfinder 2e would need to look at solutions that are likely to have more hidden problems than putting everybody on the same resource management scheme. That could result in a fix that is insufficient or otherwise broken.

137ben wrote:

Nice interview.

Now, I'm curious how all the people who think spellcasters are perfectly balanced in 3e will rationalize away Johnathon Tweet as not a "real" D&D player.

I dont think the majority of us see them as "perfectly" balanced, at least not full casters. Balance is also not all classing being able to have the same affect. It is more like everyone has a job that they can do, but as full casters get more power they have the ability to replace other classes. I think the game's power level could have stopped around level 15 and been fine, but there were a lot of legacy things that came from earlier editions and were needed to bring the fanbase over. Pathfinder had to do the same thing to a large extent to get the 3.x fanbase over.

This is the sort of thing that starts fights.

There are serious issues with caster/non-caster balance. The Obvious way to fix that is to make the resource management for all classes more similar, and to give level appropriate powers to everybody. The powers that 4E characters have are actually VERY different from each other, honestly they are a lot more different than the sort of powers that pathfinder characters get. However, because the resource management system is the same they don't feel different to the player (this is also the issue that many people have with Bo9S). Its also VERY clear that balancing the game by equalizing resource management doesn't resonate with players.

There is a big difference between wanting "perfect" balance and wanting each class to be able to contribute meaningfully at all levels of play.

The other issue that will continue to be a concern for any publisher is what does it mean to put out a new edition.

WOTC tried putting out a new edition that didn't make big changes but incorporated a lot of little changes and it was generally felt to be a money grab.

When WOTC and White Wolf put out new editions of their games that were really new games they also found players unreceptive.

On the other hand, 3rd edition and OGL D&D was a big change in system that was massively well recieved. It is sort of the model for why a company would be willing to take a big step away from a solid existing product.

This leads to a wierd dynamic where it seems like the you have the same risks for making big and small changes to your system but if the big changes pay off they pay off a lot better than the small changes.

Again, the warpriest does the main things that the paladin does.

However, you really want a straight all alignment replacement then just remove the alignment restriction from the paladin. It changes exactly nothing about the game. Have paladins who are evil have a negative energy chanel.

Let paladins who are evil have a touch that inflicts wounds and the ability to spread disease. Honestly, both these powers are much less useful than curing those conditions.

A better power than lay on hands would be a lifesteal where an evil paladin gets health back while inflicting damage.

However, the paladin really ought to look more like the magus: He should have 6 levels of cleric casting and not quite a full BAB. The warpriest does this better, and has a number of powers that are very similar to the paladin.

Pres Man

There is a class that acts as a replacement for the paladin, its the warpriest. It is what the paladin ought to be.

I do theater of the mind for combat as well.

I houserule any feat with a movement aspect so that it remains useful. If we can't agree on what it should even do we just don't use that particular feat.

Something like step-up should give an opportunity attack against casters and archers who try and get out of melee with people even if they use the withdraw action. That may be a little more powerful than the feat as written but a slight buff to feats woudn't be bad in pretty any case.

Channel Smite (Combat)

** spoiler omitted **

SOOOO you can channel into one attack or you can good bomb a 30' radius. Why on earth would anyone ever take this feat OTHER than it's a requirement for Guided hand?

Its not that great a feat. Especially when you consider that this feat "replaced" the divine might feat and its like. Its honestly one of the few things I think is not an improvement in pathfinder over 3.5.

Also, why are so many old threads comming up?

I thought that a character with spider climb was allowed to move freely through an area affected by a web spell. However this does not show up in the crb or the srd.

Is there errata or a feat or something or Was this a 2e thing or was this something for a video game?

Are there other spells like this that seem like they should have a unique and complimentary effect but don't?

The infinity engine shows that you can actually make all those goofy modifiers for weapon speed and casting time and petty much every other combat optional rule work.

Not only that they made them work in REAL TIME. A 1 time bonus weapon speed initiative modifier might be good, except I think it might be abused by players starting the combat with daggers then wanting to switch to something else immediately.

I do agree that one way to help balance spells would be to make some of the more abusable ones take full round or multi-round actions.

Solution that should make everybody happy:

- Allow PFS players to roll for their stats.
- Any stat array over a 20-point buy equivalent is thrown out, and must be re-rolled.

People who like rolling get to roll for their stats. PFS play balance is maintained.

I love Win-Win solutions.

I don't think you have really thought this out. By doing it that way any roll that does not generate ability scores that are EXACTLY 20 point buy would be needlessly weak. If you roll less than exactly 20 point buy you should remake the character as a 20 point buy character.

Second, no character you could make with this system could ever NOT be made by a 20 point point buy. If you for some reason wanted a score lower than what is normally allowed in 20 point point buy I am sure that PFS would let you have that score as long as you didn't want extra build points in return.

Could be some truth to that. I remember my AD&D days with nostalgia and I know it wasn't love of a well-designed system that brings on that kindly glow.

On the other hand, when I first opened the 3.0 books, I said, "Huh! Wow, they sure cleaned things up! Look at all the stuff the players can do now! Look at all the stuff the DM can do now!"

And when I opened the PF core rulebook: "Huh! Well, they sure fixed those problems - and those! Look at all the extra stuff players can do now! Look at all the stuff the GM can do more easily now!"

So I won't say that I'm not glad of the last fifteen years of change.

2E was fun in its time. It was a pretty good game, although especially by the time they revised the 2E books to the ones with the Black Covers the game was starting to seem dated. It felt like an 80s style game in a world that was becomming dominated by White Wolf type games.

d20 is simply more PLAYABLE. The game is just easier to manage.

Also, anybody who says that 2E was fun because the combat was FASTER than 3E was probably not playing it RAW. Unless you are possibly comparing playing without mini's in 2E to playing with minis in d20 and counting the set up time.

2E has a double action iniative system EVERY ROUND. First everybody says what they are going to do, then you roll, then you resolve in init order with people acting faster able to change their action slightly based on hearing what the other characters are going to do. Also, there are lots and lots of "optional" rules that are not optional because they are actually freaking vital for game balance, like varying armor class against different types of weapons. On the other hand their are optional rules that even the designers didn't like (see weapon speed factors). Unless you were using absolutely none of them and were dumping half the basic rules besides combat was not really faster round to round than d20

Crossbows are good weapons for characters who don't care to shoot their ranged weapon a second time in a combat.

Thrown weapons are good for the same thing but get your strength bonus...

Daggers/Short Swords/Rapier/Scimitar/Long Sword/Great Sword are the most common weapons I see PCs use as the default pathfinder weapons. Basically, they use the best of those they can. Players who play golf bag fighter types also tend to grab a battle axe and a warhammer.

I only ever see exotic weapons if the proficiency is given for free. However, this started around when 3.5 came out and people started realizing that trading a long sword for a bastard sword was like taking a feat that occasionally offered a +1 to damage.

As a direct answer to the OP:

Point Buy gives slightly more freedom than an array while still making sure that all PCs feel like they started on equal footing. While some DMs may not want that, in my experience most players do. I have used point buy methods since the begining of third edition.

Prior to that, we had used ever sort of rolled method printed in the 2E PHB or any 2E suppliment. Eventually, for 2E we got to where we just let everybody choose there ability scores and before we played everybody had to show their scores to the group and the other players would decide if the character was fair.

In my experience rolled characters are almost always have more higher stats than point buy characters. Also, note how even the defenders of rolling have a slew of house rules for covering when a player can roll, how often, if other players can or can't use those scores and all sorts of of other stuff needed to make sure people don't feel like one character is the hero and the rest are his sidekicks.

Point buy eliminates all of that. You tell people and number and you know that they will have been the ones to choose their stats.

Although, I do sort of think that if you use point buy that racial bonuses should be removed in favor of class based bonuses. That would lower the total points needed for the point buy and wouldn't hurt MAD classes as much as point buy normally does.

2E D&D was a very good game, but like any other rpg it was a product of its age and lineage.

2E AD&D was built as a successor to 1E. 1E D&D came out before GURPS and Shadowrun and the other middle 80s games that were built on the idea of a unified game structure.

2E D&D was instead just tried to have a rulebook that updated the 100s of subsystems that had been created for 1E to allow D&D adventures in weird environments or under odd conditions. There were already games that had "skill" systems but instead it had an updated version of non-weapon proficiencies that had first appeared in dragon magazine.

Then there was the fact that many of the rules were arcane, and not in the way that D&D players would actually like. They were dense, many didn't make ANY sense on first reading. The game was not something that anybody was expected to pick up at the games store and just get into. Its whole culture was like 70s and 80s wargames where it was expected that SOMEBODY would teach you the game before you invested anything in it or tried to read it for yourself.

Because there were so many rules, and so many subsystems you could get tables that played very differently. Figuring out which ones were really needed to make the game function was tedious.

While the game was slated with levels 1-20 the game really was playable from levels 1-10 or maybe 1-15 for rogues, 1-12 for clerics and fighters, and 1-10 for wizards. After that the game played more like what was labeled for d20 D&D as "epic" play. The games math was a lot LESS variable after level 10, and the only class that was still getting new interesting thing was the mage.

The power of the 6 attributes was a LOT different and they were considerably LESS equal. In 1E it had been figured out that fighters need a larger advantage than they were getting from strength so the 18/** system was born. High Dex is good, but nowhere NEAR as good as high dex in d20. Even when wielding a ranged weapon. Clerics basically got bonus spells similar to what they currently get for wisdom above 13 and it helped your saves but Warriors had saves good enough that they simply didn't care. Int determined how many spells a wizard could know per level effectively acting to LIMIT the abuses of well prepared wizards in d20 D&D. and Charisma was a dump dump dump. In 2E paladins and bards were the ONLY classes where people had ANY charisma at all.

AS you can tell from these stats, there tended to be two schools of play. The first was were people rolled characters 2-3 times and ended up with lots of 9s-15s. These ability scores would let people play various most classes but with almost NO bonuses to ANY roll. You relied on your class progression and therefore each class was very different. Also you NEVER saw paladins when playing like this.

The other way people played was to assume that you needed at least 18 to be relevant. Warriors NEEDED 18 strength otherwise they missed out on one of their few class abilities. (They also needed at 17 or 18 constitution or would miss out on their bonus hit point class feature).

Rogues needed an 18 dex or they would forever suck at their rogue abilities.

Clerics needed an 18 wisdom or they wouldn't have enough bonus spells to memorize both curing and buffing spells.

Wizards needed an 18 int or they would fail to learn a lot of the spells they tried to learn, would have significantly curtailed numbers of spells available per level.

This dichotomy generally resulted in the first group thinking the second group were nothing but childish power gamers and the second group thinking the first were boring old stooges who didn't want anybody to ever have any fun.

Generally, classes didn't gain much except statistical gains after 1st level.

2E did have some good features:

It had a functional multi-classing system that actually allowed people to play real hybrids in a way that mostly worked with people also playing single class characters. (Note that dual classing, however, was either broken because it was too good or broken because it was too awful.)

Spells didn't actually dominate the game the way they have come to in d20 D&D. In part because warriors (fighters/paladins/rangers) all had quite good saves against spells and things like dragon breath. Also with the NUMBER of hit points on monsters and PCs in 2E it was often harder (and scarier) to face wizards loaded down with evocations.

So why don't people play it anymore?

D20 D&D WORKS better. The subsystem is always the same (roll a d20). The classes are more interesting even IF they are less balanced. The game also has a lot more player choices during character building. Although, it doesn't really have many more choices once you are actually playing.

yes, and that is how I play it. Weapon Finesse, Dervish Dance, Piranah strike and you can then go all dex to your hearts content.

A great deal of the power of a caster comes from easy it is to perfectly target things in D&D. If casters had to guess ranges or hit allies like old school warhammer or other table top miniatures games they wouldn't be able to perfectly target their spells to only hit enemies. This would do a great deal to make them weaker. Anything like this that makes a caster less able to get a guanteed perfect result from their spells.

Similarly the tactical grid hurts fighters and makes them less able to be defenders because contrary to the way any sort of real fight with anything from fists to firearms fighting in D&D is pretty static. You get into the right position and sit there because moving makes you suck. This also means you cannot defend your allies unless they stand right next to you.

I no longer use the combat grid for basically the same reason I no longer play 4E. The combat grid is to slow. Playing TOTM combat with our house rules helps martials at my table quite a bit because we let them actually defend the rest of the party. However, nobody gives 2 squats about my houserules.

The things about the caster martial disparity is that it can show up even when people DO NOT TRY or even specifically try not to. A few games where the big bad goes down to a single save or suck or where a fighter character is spends the whole fight under the effects of hold person will quickly change minds.

So, I revised the feat trees based around combat expertise and bodyguard to be a little more dynamic and fun and to actually something that I think people might use. I gave them all unused feat names so that they are just new feats even though I think they would effectively replace those trees. I am just looking for thoughts on if these feats are interesting, or terrible or too good.

Defensive Expertise
Requirements: Str 13
Perquisites: None
Description: While wielding a one-handed weapon or shield. You may take a -1 penalty to hit to gain a +2 bonus to AC until the begging of your next turn. The penalty to hit increases by -1 and the ac bonus increases by +2 for every 4 points of base attack bonus that you have

Threatening Stance
Requirements: None
Perquisites: Defensive Expertise
Description: While using defensive expertise you gain 1 extra attack of opportunity plus an additional attack of opportunity for every 4 points of base attack bonus that you have. Additionally, whenever a foe that you threaten attacks an ally he provokes an attack of opportunity from you. Multiple attacks from a single enemy against a single ally provoke only a single attack of opportunity.

Punishing Counterblows
Requirements: None
Perquisites: Threatening Stance
Description: While using defensive expertise you gain a damage bonus to your attacks equal to the armor bonus gained from Defensive Expertise.

Impregnable Defense
Requirements: None
Perquisites: Punishing Counterblows
Description: While using defensive expertise you gain a +2 bonus to AC and +1 bonus to reflex saves for each successful reflex save you make and each attack that misses you. This bonus to AC lasts until the end of your next turn.

Warding Defender
Requirements: None
Perquisites: None
Description: As a swift action while using a shield you may reduce your armor class by 2 to increase the AC of an ally within 10 ft. by 2. For every 4 points of base attack bonus that you have you may give an additional 2 points of AC to that ally.

Step In
Requirements: none
Perquisites: Warding Defender
Description: If the target of your Warding Defender is struck is struck in combat you may redirect the damage to yourself.

Receive the Blow
Requirements: none
Perquisites: Step In
Description: When the target of your Warding Defender is attacked you may let them use your armor class, reflex save, or fortitude save instead of their own.

Ultimate Core Rule Book

IF its not called "Ultimate Mythic Advanced Core Rulebook" I am not buying it. :)

Way back in 3.5 Skip Williams or Monte Cooke said that the reason for making all the feat requirements Odd numbers was to give players a reason for even having odd number stats.

The idea was that the even number would give you the raw numerical benefit, but the odd number was required for you to make use of that modifier as a qualifier.

I think there is even a dragon magazine article from 1999 or 2000 (when they were discussing what 3.0 was going to be like) where soembody says that they were considering requiring you to have the Odd stat for bonus spells too.

Anyway combat expertise and its chain are not bad, I just wish that the chain didn't become all about maneuvers like sunder and trip.

I wish that the chain was more like this:

Combat Expertise: NO Stat requirement, take -1 to hit for +2 AC, penalty increase by -1 bonus increase by +2 for ever 4 bab. Must be be wielding a 1 handed weapon or shield.

Threatening Stance: Requires combat expertise, While using combat expertise gain 1 bonus attack of opportunity for every 4 BAB. Additionally, foes whom you threaten that attack an ally provoke an attack of opportunity from you.

Punishing Counter Attack: Requires Threatening Stance: while using combat expertise your regular and opportunity attacks gain a damage bonus equal to the AC bonus from combat expertise.

Impregnable defense: While using combat expertise you gain +2 to AC and +1 to reflex saves every time an opponent misses you with an attack or you make a successful reflex save.

Those 4 may not be as powerful as the trip-star but they better capture a defensive fighter.

As as straight up answer:

I have not seen a player choose to bring a single classed fighter or rogue to my table outside of very young kids playing PFS at my FLGS. I have not seen an experienced player select those classes since I have started running Pathfinder. I have seen barbarians, rangers, and paladins. I have had a person want to play a cavalier with a 3rd party archtype so that instead of a mount they got a "guard wolf" and basically have a druids animal companion instead of a mount.

This is true for every starting level of play and known campaign lengths of from 1 session to over 2 years.

no way. Someone playing 3.5 could pick up the advanced class guide and run the classes. Tomb of battle was an entirely new combat system.

This is just factually untrue. TOB worked JUST like magic only with different reset timers. It was no more something that a 3.5 player couldn't immediately understand than clerics and druids picking a time of day to refresh their spells while wizards and sorcerers need 8 hours of rest.

Otherwise, it was just combat themed magic with more abilities that were useful to people who wanted to hit things with swords than blow things up with fireballs.

The ACG, however, is not as focused a product as the BO9S was. I think fake healer is right, the ACG shows where pathfinder game design is headed. Lots more hybrids, lots more classes with fiddly lit bits and pools and expend X to do one of these Y things type abilities.

I pretty much expect for Paizo to make a "big" pathfinder announcement either at GEN CON or before Christmas. While I no longer think that they would want to risk putting out a "2E" I think that the hard back release next year will be a "changes everything when used" type book.

Arnwolf wrote:

You know what's more powerful than a group of caster? What is more powerful than a group of martials? The answer is a group of casters and martials working synergetically together.

Unless you have a Druid or Summoner or Magus filling the Martial role.

Beat me to it. The thing more powerful than a group of martials and casters working together is a group of casters working together.

Honestly, if casters were a little more powerful than martials but generally needed martials to complete adventures then this whole argument wouldn't matter.

The real problem is that plenty of casters can get to the point where they can basically solo most published adventures. There are so many ways for casters to get extra power or power beyond their level.

If the group that had both casters and martials had more synergy than other groups that would be good. To bad the greatest synergy is with a bunch of casters.

In PFS play I see about as many martials as casters, but I almost never see fighters. I do see rogues. I EXPECT to see fewer rogues and more swashbucklers and slayers.

The biggest issue I still see resolves around players getting lucky with save or suck spells on "boss" type fights. When players of martials see that happen more than once a campaign they tend to come back to the table with casters.

In my game with friends we currently have a barbarian, a bard, a magus, a sorcerer, a witch, and an inquisitor. The barbarian, magus and sorcerer players are just playing their favorite class without any regard to power level. The bard and witch have about half the experience of the rest of the party and are just trying new classes. Anyway, I am the one that really likes to play martials in my group anyway.

I can't find it right now, but he explained his group set up a bit.

7th level

Paladin with 18 cha and 15 str.
Druid who sits back and shoots flaming spheres, stays out of combat for the most part.
Archery Ranger who didn't take Improved precise shot and misses almost all his attacks
Then himself as a fighter who has more HP, deals more damage, and has higher AC than the rest of the party.

So, I would say this is the definition of a low optimization group. There is nothing wrong with that. In a lot of ways the published adventure paths play a lot better, a lot more fun with a group that is a little like this (although even low optimizers usually get things like precise shot because missing sucks)

On the other hand there are a lot of people who really like pathfinder masterclass play where combat takes place in the air between combatants exactly 16 ft. apart so that spell ranges are optimized and melee combat is impossible without help.

it sucks that so many classes are off limits in that kind of game.

See, here is the thing, each class does certain things, it's up to your GM to make sure each classes get their chance to shine.

This is true, the value of each class is highly dependent on the GM. Fighters and Martials do a LOT better in low optimization games and honestly, they do a TON better if your GM doesn't play with a combat mat so that you can actually defend your allies, players can make use of aid another.

Wizard sucks early levels if you don't know what spells to pick, or your team is unreliable. However, you get to bend the world while still be what you are. You don't have to chance, the world change for you.

This is just flat out wrong. The pathfinder wizard can use sleep to end pretty any much published level 1 encounter by himself. Low level adventures are usually set up with a large number of places where the party can rest because they don't have enough hit points or resources to do more than a couple of encounters each day. That means that the wizard.

Sorcerer, not too much better than wizard in low levels, but you get to change into things that you like. Also each bloodline gives your different stuff. Elemental immune to critical hit, Draconic a little more AC and blasting power. And they don't get scared by monk as much.

The sorcerer is just like the wizard only you don't get to change your spell selection each day you just PICK the uberspells and use them to dominate the game. Also you can do it more often because you are a spontaneous caster.

Rogue is not the best at anything except sneak attack. But when your group got imprison in the dungeon with guards, only rogue can get you our. Bard can't kill all those guards in one hit without them alarming others, only the best rogue can.

Bard can unlock the door with a spell and fascinate the guards while totally unarmed. Thats the basic bard out of the box with NO options selected. The rogue is really just a sneak attack delivery system and if your DM plays hardball then that is just NOT EFFECTIVE.

Ranger sucks when not fighting his favorite enemies in his favorite terrains, but what if they do? Enough said. PS: one of the best tracing class out there.

Well that's BS. The Ranger can simply out perform the fighter with his combination of abilities, spells, free feats and sneaking. So if you pictured your fighter as anything except a guy who wears the heaviest armor the ranger is just better than you.

Paladin only good when fighting evil things. But it got so much auras!!!! Immune to so many things with very good saves and some spells! Hardly anything evil can kill you.

The paladin is currently the games best heavy armored fighter (except the cleric and warpriest). Remember that the paladin gets his saving throw benefits, his lay on hands, his condition removal, his ability to add enchants to his weapon, and really everything except smite works against non-evil foes. Then you have smite which lets you devastate evil big bads. That's before spells.

Monk can't hit... What are you hitting? A full plate? Why would you even do that? Monk are one of the fastest, yet potentially the tankiest class there could be, only to be matched by few like Dragon Disciple with both Wings, class feat and bloodline. Have a monk charge 180ft and Quivering Palm you in the face is the scariest thing that could happen to any wizard. Also with those good saves and SR, how many spell can you use on them really?

Monks used to suck, now they are at least better than the fighter. Still inferior but not so bad they need kid gloves from level 1.

Fighter sucks. Yea? When your team now trapped in the room in the dungeon with only one door way, no way out. Outside filled with thousands of goblins. How suck can a fighter be when he is the only class that can stand in that door way all day long? It's not very realistic but I guess in fantasy, fighters train so hard they don't feel tried from fighting.

The crux of the matter. The barbarian is better than the fighter at EVERYTHING you describe to the fighter. A paladin who has expended EVERY SINGLE class ability for the day is still JUST AS GOOD at the fighter at standing in the doorway and exchanging hits. He will be better if people show up with spells because he has better saves and a save boost.

Perhaps if the fighter somehow had large extra bonuses to hit and damage you could give him this singularly crappy role (really good when everybody else is sucking) but he doesn't. He does not have more hit points or more attack bonus or more ANYTHING than the other +1 BAB classes. Further, the way feats work he can't actually get any of them faster or except for a really crappy damage bonus he can't get any feat that those other classes couldn't get as well. In the end there is no real benefit to being a fighter who can both trip AND disarm when you could be a paladin or barbarian who can trip OR disarm.

[quote
Druid is not good in spell...

This is really a P.S. but if this is what you think your players are unimaginative.

This book will add new characters that will show up in my games. I think that will be fine. I still think some of their hybrids are designed backwards but whatever. I think that the bigger issue will be Pathfinder society play where we will begin to see core rulebook characters show up a lot less. This won't be bad but will push the game further down the road to needing a second edition.

Marthkus' clearly plays in a VERY low optimization game. That is fine, I generally RUN a low optimization game where players tend to stay away from save or sucks and they tend to fight combats by reducing things to 0 hit points with attacks .

Based on this forum and others Marthkus does not generally see pathfinder or d20 played in the for keeps that results in the fighter being so worthless. I wonder if he will hold his opinions firm when his fighter gets to higher level and the party casters decide its not worth babying him anymore.

I have had plenty of games where the fighters all quit because the even casters who stumbled on some of the more powerful save or sucks were able to instantly and effortless overcome major opposition because unless they were loaded down with anti-spell effects they would fail at least 50% of their saves.

The most dramatic version of this is when casters take the gloves off on purpose. I once was GM for a wizard and a druid who completed 2/3 of a published adventure for level 12+ characters without ever leaving a lemond's tiny hut. The very next session all the other players came back having rolled casters or B09S characters so that at least they were relevant.

The fight is near useless when Pathfinder is played with casters who use fly to remain at the exact optimal range for their spells while being untouchable to melee characters. The fighter is near unless when casters use the item creation rules to supercharge themselves but not the rest of the party. The fighter is near useless when the casters optimize Half of how much he does.

However, if you play pathfinder the way the original d20 devs did, without pushing every aspect to or past its break point the fighter is not so much useless as...boring.

I think that the game is best played when ANY alignment can take any action. Alignment then is just the mental hoops that the person has to jump through (or possibly the amount of cognative dissonance created) when a person is then developing their own self justifications for why what they did was ok.

Your paladin can torture people because he believes that if he doesn't the terrorists will win. Your CE Orc warlord can spare the children of his enemies because he believes that their lives will be worse off for it. Eitherway you are holding your actions against the standards that character has internalized.

Done this way alignment can also be used more like stage direction and less like philosophy. Generally, alginment is less useful than a simple 2 or 3 sentence discussion of a things motivation anyway.

If you play pathfinder under expert expectations then all martials have serious issues compared to casters. However, the fighter is poor even compared to the other martial characters because his "unique" powers are all terrible. Weapon specialization, armor training, and courage are all non-scaling powers. His other power is to have lots of feats.... but it doesn't even let him select feats he wouldn't otherwise qualify for and he cannot select any feat any faster than any other class.

No feat chain is long enough that only the fighter can master it, and few feats work well enough together to justify needing more than one chain.

The only way the fighter will ever matter is for the feats in the game to be a LOT better. Easy places to start:

1) The fighter does not need to meet the ability score requirements for any feat selected as a FIGHTER feat.

2) The fighter may add his strength bonus to his base attack bonus for determining if he meets of the base attack bonus requirements of any feat.

3) Weapon focus, shield focus, combat expertise, dodge, and any other feat that add a flat bonus adds a bonus that scales at the same rate as power attack.

4) Any feat that involves reducing your attack bonus scales in the same way as power attack. (with at least +2 for every -1 taken).

5) Add Armor specialization feats that provide damage reduction in quantities that are actually relevant at the levels they are earned [at least 3 points at level 5 growing to 15 or more points at level 20]

6) Weapon specialization needs to provide a scaling damage modifier starting out at 2 points and growing to 10 or 15 points of damage by level 20.

]There's also a middle ground of more versatile options that aren't only usable a few times a day or based off of a point system or something.

That kind of a approach would work better for me than grit or a B09S kind of approach.

Feats kind of pretend to give you that, but in practice they don't seem to be able to do so.

There are LOTS of things that the developers of pathfinder could have done instead of grit and its like. Some of them would have been better, lots could have been worse or less well received.

The thing is, what HAS been done is grit. I think we are more likely to see more variations of grit than we are to see something all together different.

Some players really just want to put a total attack bonus on the sheet and charge then full attack with a static number rather than having to make a decision every round on which abilities they are using.

Again, interesting is a subjective term. A character who gets +20 to hit, +20 to all Saves, and can cast Wish and Miracle three times each every round infinite times per day can do everything every class in the game can do and more. But that would be far less interesting.

But thej player that wants to play like that can STILL play a gunslinger (heck they could play a warblade from b09s and be better than the fighter as well, even if they never really used the b09s powers). The gunslinger works for BOTH the player who just wants to right a large number on his character sheet AND the player who wants to have numerous options they can tinker with.

A class need not be "one or the other" if it has both then you can PLAY it in the basic way. Heck, who knows maybe one day that player may WANT to have the additional options. However, if they are always built with the minimal options then they WILL NOT GET PLAYED by half the player base.

Further this whole canard that interesting is subjective is silly because interesting is also relative. A class with more options is more interesting to more people than one with fewer options. That would seem to be a pretty basic and unchallengable statement. A class that does 2 things will be interesting to more people than a class that does 1 thing......

C47: While the rogue and the fighter are the ones in the need of the biggest upadate I honestly think that All of those classes could use some review.

Every time they add classes to pathfinder they have more abilities than previous classes.

The Slayer, Swashbuckler and Warpriest have charts that make the fighters look like a list of gifts for an orphan on Christmas.

The whole point of this discussion is where the game is going and will the core class be obsolete.

Let me put it this way. Which of these statements do you think is not factually correct:

Pathfinder produces 4 hardcovers a year.

They will produce more classes.

The ACG already has classes that open up the discussion of core classes being obsolete.

The pathfinder devs seem to like the grit type activity pools and have put them on a number of classes designed since the core rulebook

There will be more hybrid classes in the future

There will be more classes with activity pools in the future

The additional hybrid and activity pool classes will likely continue to push into the design space of the core classes.

Eventually, a hybrid or activity pool classes that serves the same function and fit the same design space as an existing core class will probably be created.

As I said above, I don't think that grit or its like is what I would have designed. However, based on the track record of the pathfinder DEVs I would say its most likely what they would do.

I'd be fine with both those archetypes existing though-- they probably should.

Someone will want to play Fighter with Grit or Panache or "Fight Club Points", and obviously at least one person wants to play a Gun using character without it.

But I think "IthinkIBrokeIt" is suggesting literally stripping out the core fighter and replacing it. . . and for the record PF Fighter has the same number of bonus feats as 3.5 Fighter-- it just got Bravery, Weapons and Armor Training added on top of those feats.

Edit: @Marthkus I knew that was coming sooner or later.

Exactly, the Pathfinder fighter has MORE STUFF than the 3.5 fighter.

The MASTER Pathfinder fighter has courage, bonus feats, armor training, class specific feats AND GRIT.

For comparison the Magus has 6 level casting, his sword fighting and casting abilities, armored casting abilities AND his arcane pool.

The "grit based fighter" still has tons of feats, he just has grit as well...

In theory a generic point based system has more options than any class based system. Is Hero System thus inherently more interesting (and better?) than any D&D variant?

Or, moving out of character design and into actual play, is a character who can do literally anything more interesting and fun to play than a more limited character?

To the first point this is not theortically true. If the a point based design game gave characters unlimited points it would be true at the limit of character design. However, level based games have generally resulted in giving characters more defined option for interacting with the gamespace than point based games of the same generation. 2E D&D compared to gurps of that edition. Similarly, 3e/d20/pathfinder characters generally have have more powers than non-montey haul hero system characters actually end up with.

As for the second point, again this is true at the theoretical limit of the design space. Playing the genie from Aladin (post freeing) would probably be extremely fun for the player. Probably not so much fun for the rest of the party...

The pathfinder fighter was given more class features than bonus feats because they were neccessary to keep the class even remotely interesting compared to other classes. Further, MOST of the archtypes take away bonus feats and pathfinder society play has shown that almost no one plays a fighter without finding SOME archtype to play because feats are generally terrible and the fighter gets more than he needs anyway.

Finally, you could change every reference to "dexterity" in the list of grit and panache powers to "strength" change the name of the pool to "courage" and slap it onto the fight RIGHT NOW without him giving up a SINGLE feat and he would still not be anywhere near overpowered. Honestly, the Gunslinger and the swashbuckler both have lots of bonus feats AND lots of class powers BESIDES grit/panache.

Sure some people might continue to use core versions of classes if they published a "master players guide" or something similar. Especially if they found something these could cheese really badly, but anybody who is actually looking at this logically realizes that options, power creep, and game evolution tend to push people toward newer options and out of older ones.

I have never met a player that liked to play fighters or paladins that mocked book of 9 swords. Nobody EVER said BO9S was not Interesting. They didn't like the Aesthetic it gave fighter types. It is DEFINITIVELY interesting from a game design perspective.

Honestly this is getting silly. The addition of options does not prevent you from playing a character who just full attacks every round. Although even 2 pages back people were talking about how DMs who don't do everything in their power to punish rogues who manage to get their sneak attack every round by flanking are not playing tactically and ruining the game.

Seriously if you are trying to argue that "has mechanics to accomplish fewer things" is MORE interesting than "has mechanics to accomplish more things" then you have crossed over into the realm of straight logical fallacy.

The math on this is simple. There are plenty of people who would like to play a do more things fighter or rogue. However, there are clearly also players who want these characters to be based around doing one thing all the time like full attack or backstab. Honestly that's fine and can ALSO be accommodated with the "more options" character because you can just DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE DOING BEFORE. A grit based fighter can full attack every round too. He didn't LOSE full attack as an option.

However, all of this is secondary to the point of the thread. ACG classes, and all Pathfinder class design shows an EVOLVING game. One where the classes generally get more intricate and not less. Its one where Hybrid classes replace multi-classing basically completely. Eventually, the designers will want to revisit the core gamespace and make those classes align with their current design standards.

I was thinking that this would mean a second edition of the game. However, as I think about it more and more I think that pathfinder is more likely to do it under some sort of Advanced/Expert/Master label where they could say "these are revisions to the classes for more experienced/compotent players." They could get most of the advantages of a new edition without actually having to do a new edition.

Further, the fact that pathfinder society and organized play includes everything with a pathfinder label on it would mean that "Master Pathfinder" would be the defacto normal. It would be a new edition but without people complaining about having to buy "everything" again.

Actually, your own example fails exactly because it is not mechanically useful.

ANY mechanically useful ability is interesting. The ability to give your self additional penalties for no gain is not interesting exactly because it is not mechanically useful. However, any ability that lets you do something definite within the mechanics that you otherwise would not be able to do, even if its minor like adding 1d6 to a skill check, is mechanically interesting because it means that you have greater agency. You KNOW that you can do thing X and it is likely to accomplish or increase the chance of accomplishing thing Y. That makes thing Y something worth considering.

Again, because of the way systems like spell casting or grit work you can build your character to where they cannot ever use them if you don't care. However, that does not mean that they are not interesting. You have already shown a level of interest in them by choosing not to have them as functional parts of your build.

Regardless of if you like them, or if they are the system that I want them to be, or how much you try and debate the "are they interesting" angle, the direction of class design has been to give MORE classes "action" pools from which they pick a few special abilities at a time and earn more as they level. The end result of that is that we will either have a new edition that adds those features to existing classes, or we will eventually end up with a book that creates classes that fill the same roles as the core classes, possibly with the ability to make use of their Archtypes, that have a design philosophy matching later pathfinder classes. If there is not a new edition it will be presented as and "Expert" level player book.

As somebody has pointed out, you can make a ranger who sucks at spellcasting. You can make a gunslinger who doesn't have a large grit pool and then when you are at the game table just not do things that earn you grit.

However, having those abilities gives those players more options, allows them to solve problems that they otherwise couldn't through thoughtful REGULATED play (like pathfinder society or with a "by-the-book" GM). Further it helps balance the expansion of the game because you can add new grit powers just like you can add new spells. That means that theoretically, every new sourcebook won't have to be another 100 reasons why casters are better and martials suck more.

So yes, I think that a person can reasonably say that having grit/panache is more interesting than not.

Grit/Panache/arcane pool and the like are not really the system I would personally implement for either the improve non-casters or give non-casters more agency. However, the gunslinger has basically earned his place in pathfinder and most of the protest against him had more to do with his weapon emphasis than his abilities in or out of combat.

The core pathfinder classes need updates to be more like the arcanist/slayer/swashbuckler. I fully expect that even if a pathfinder 2nd edition is not announced within 3 months of 5e, that we will get get a book in the near future that is a "Master Player's Guide" that updates the core classes with later features so that they are more similar to later character designs.

Honestly the pathfinder problem is not rules bloat. The archtypes do not result in anywhere near the same clutter as the prestige classes. Additionally, so many prestige classes existed so that NPCs could have levels in an organization or some other setting specific group and those prestige classes were usually terrible. Each archtype, however, is generally written as though somebody might actually want to play it.

The pathfinder problem is that they are both cursed and blessed to have slowly figured out ways to cover up d20s warts. Hybrid classes are better than multi-classing and usually results in more interesting characters and happier players.

Systems like grit, rage powers, and the other "fiddly" elements like the magus arcane pool show that people ENJOY having a number of things to tinker with, even novice players like this stuff.

The blessing of this is that they have done a good job of giving the game the things it has needed to patch over the things that people knew were not working.

The curse is that things from the first round of fixes, the core rulebook especially, now looks like the first draft of where the game actually is now.

The ACG classes do marginalize a few of the base classes. The slayer is better at doing most of the things players play a ranger to do than the ranger. Similarly, the Warpriest is in almost every way a more interesting version of the paladin, only without the ability of your GM to take away all your powers because you are not playing exactly the way he wants you to (and if their that kind of dm they probably like the warpriest more anyway because it means that they can "trick' you/your party with evil NPCs.

The bigger problem with ACG though is that it shows how much pathfinder really needs a second edition.

The swashbuckler shows what could be done to make the pathfinder martial characters a lot more interesting. The grit system started out as something to make the gunslinger unique and had some resistance but now it looks like it or something like it is one of the things that can be done to make martial characters have more agency in every part of the game.

Heck the swashbuckler being a melee character makes him pretty much directly transferable to the fighter. Rename his panache ability "courage" and give it to fighters and cavaliers and they are 10 times more interesting.

Similarly the Arcanist really looks like what the wizard should be in pathfinder 2.0.

ACG is an excellent book, but it really shows that pathfinder either needs a 2.0 or an "Advanced" pathfinder that recognizes that the game has evolved beyond much of the material in the core rulebook.

As people have pointed out, Charisma in d20 is not beauty. Sorcerers are not beautiful people. Paladins and Bards are not good at what they do because they are attrictive. Its force of personality and the innate power of spirit.

Really, there ought to be an "exceptional Beauty" feat. I don't even think it should have a charisma requirement.

Pathfinder is fantasy escapism, your character ought to be able to look how you imagine them. If that is as a beefcake or smokin' hottie thats fine. If you want a mechanical advantage from it that seems more like a feat than a stat...

I don't have Numenera. I bet it is probably something similar to this but the idea here is to have very little difficulty incorporating anything with a standard pathfinder layout.

I just got done running the first part of "Snows of Summer" using the above and it worked great. I was able to run each of the combats for a party of 6 in about 15 minutes an encounter. Players had turns often enough that nobody was disengaged and there were no concerns that anything was OP/broken without the grid.

I just wish I could figure out how to post tables, that would clarify a lot.

Actually, this system eliminates miniatures as well. The system above is more like final fantasy combat. Its not just grid-less its representation-ally minimalist. No miniatures, no spaces, no absolute tracking of distances.

So these are some house rules I developed for combat without using the combat grid. Basically, you use the map to give a description of the fighting area and players can incorporate the scenery.

Combat Adjustments for Grid-less Combat
Think, when we talk of horses, that you see them
Printing their proud hoofs i' th' receiving earth,
For ’tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings,
Carry them here and there, jumping o'er times,
-Henry V, Shakesphere

Zones
Instead of tracking where individuals are in terms of 5 foot squares, we keep track of a simple relative positioning system. Each Side of the combat (normally only the PC’s and whoever is opposing them, but possibly more if there are combatants who are not associated with either) has 3 zones.
Melee: Where the core action of the fight is taking place.
Near: This is where people who are involved in the combat but not trading blows toe-to-toe are.
Far: These characters are only marginally involved in the combat at all.
Each player identifies which zone there character is in. If there are no enemies in the melee zone then players in the melee zone may make full attacks against enemies in the near zone. Players in the far zone may flee from combat by taking a run movement action.
Actions
Players still receive 1 standard, 1 move, and 1 swift action each turn. Players may use their actions exactly as in combat with a grid. However, when they attack with weapons or spells use the chart below to determine where they can attack.

Attacker Zone Action
Full Attack Standard Attack Reach Attack Ranged Attack (Thrown) Ranged Attack (Non-Thrown Spell
Melee Melee Melee, Near (1) Melee, Near Melee (1), Near, Far (3) Melee (1), Near, Far (-2) Melee (1), Near (1), Far (1)
Near None None Melee Melee, Near (2) Melee, Near , Far (-2) Melee, Near
Far None None None Melee (3) Melee, Near (2), Far (3) Melee
Notes:
1) Causes an Attack of Opportunity
2) -2 Range Penalty
3) -5 Range Penalty

Other Adjustments
Attacks of Opportunity: When a player performs an action that provokes an attack of opportunity and they are in the Melee zone one player of an opposing side in the melee zone may make an attack of opportunity.
Movement Between Zones: Players use the rules below to move between zones.
A player can move from the Melee zone to Near zone. A player in the Far zone must first move into the Near zone. A player in the near zone may move into either the Melee or Far zone. A character who moves out of the melee zone provokes an attack of opportunity.
Movement Category: Players have a movement category based on their speed as per the chart below.

Movement Speed Movement Category
0-5 ft. Lumbering
10-15 ft. Very Slow
20-25 ft. Slow
30-35 ft. Normal
40-45 ft. Fast
50 ft. + Very Fast

How many move actions it takes to move between zones, what zones you may fight into when you move into the melee zone, and what zones you may fight into when you charge are determined by the table below.

Movement Category Movement Actions
Move Between Zones Moved into Melee Charge into Melee
Lumbering 2 Move Actions None None
Very Slow 2 Move Actions None Melee
Slow 1 Action Melee Melee, Near
Normal 1 Action Melee, Near Melee, Near
Fast 1 Move action to any zone. Melee, Near Melee, Near, Far
Very Fast 1 Action to move to any zone Any Any

New Combat Actions
Encircle: You can encircle your opponents. A player must be in the melee zone and it takes 2 move actions to encircle. Encircling provokes an attack of opportunity. After completing the encircling action the combatant becomes a new Side that treats its encircled opponents Near zone as the melee zone and the melee zone as the near zone. Encircling a second time undoes this. Players may attempt a tumble check
Overrun: An overrun, pounce, or ride-by attack has the effect of encircling foes after the attack. Players may choose to count as encircling their opposition after any of these attacks.
Lurk: A player may lurk in the melee. This takes 1 move action but the lurker cannot be attacked except by the last person the lurker attacked. Players must make a stealth check or Acrobatics check to lurk in close combat. As long as there is at least 1 other allied player in the melee zone a lurker may count as flanking any target they attack.
Shift Combat: This move action can only be taken in the melee zone. It requires 1 move action. The player may shift the close combat towards some terrain feature or obstacle of their choice. They may use this to establish higher ground or make use of some other beneficial terrain feature.
Take Cover: Players may take cover or concealment in their surroundings. If you take cover in the melee any target that fights you will have the same cover. This takes 1 move action.
Flying: A player who can fly can attack enemies in any zone. They can be struck back foes they attack until their next turn. Players can only attack a flying foe by charging or with ranged weapons.
Burrowing: A burrowing creature can go back to lurking after attacking without making a check.
Swim/Climb: If a combat takes place in or underwater or while climbing, or with all combatants flying recalculate movement category based on this new movement type and run as normal.
Spells
Range
The range of spells effects which zones they can be cast into.
The table below is for Offensive spells.
Attacker Zone Offensive Spell Listed Ranged
Touch Close Medium Long Unlimited
Melee Melee Melee, Near Melee, Near Melee, Near, Far Any
Near None Melee Melee, Near Melee, Near, Far Any
Far None None Melee Melee, Near Any

The Table below is used for the range of beneficial effects
Attacker Zone Offensive Spell Listed Ranged
Touch Close Medium Long Unlimited
Melee Melee, Near Melee, Near Melee, Near, Far Melee, Near, Far Any
Near Melee, Near Melee, Near Melee, Near, Far Melee, Near, Far Any
Far Self Far, Near Melee, Near, Far Melee, Near Any

Spell Area
Without absolute positioning the area a spell effects is abstracted. Spells can be aimed at targets based on the range rules above.
Cones: A cone cast from the Melee zone may target only foes. A cone cast from the Near or far zone must target 1 ally in the melee for every 2 enemies targeted. A cone may target 1 person at 5 ft., 3 people at 10 ft, 6 people at 15 ft. Etc.
Burst: A burst targets 4 people for every 5 ft. of radius. A burst must target 1 ally for every 3 enemies target. A burst may into any range into which it can be cast.
Line: A line may affect a number of foes equal to its length (Subject to DM discretion). However, if any enemy in Melee is targeted the line must also target the last person to attack that target.
Shapeable Spells: Shapeable spells never need hit allies.