The masked superhero with a secret identity. This is the concept behind this class. Yet it fails to take into account the world in which that character exists. The masked superhero don's a mask to rise above the world around him. But what happens when the world around him has heavily armored juggernauts wandering the streets accompanied by people who can call down lightning bolts from their deity and people who can warp reality to imprison someone in a block of ice - and seeing them walk down the street means it is Thursday? A flying lizard the size of a house just landed in the middle of town? Oh, that just means it's the second Tuesday.
Ok perhaps I exaggerate a bit, but the fact remains - PCs and giant monsters are not that uncommon. And the Vigilante is meant to join the ranks of the PCs. How does he fit in? The answer is not very well at all. Oh sure, in his masked persona he can pass as one of them, maybe even be mistaken for one of the other PC classes. But he's not quite on par with them. There is a reason for this - he leads a double life. He is not just a PC, he has a Dual Identity. He had to trade off some of his ability as a PC in exchange for this power.
[Dual Identity] is the defining feature of this class, and at the same time the Achilles' Heel of this class as well. What it grants you is a divination shield, protecting you from the various divination magics that instantly reveal your secret identity (a mechanical patch to make the whole secret identity thing work). However it does so by turning you into NPC Man - a pale shadow that inhabits the background of the PC's story. No, really, this guy falls somewhere between commoner and the other NPC classes.
As if that wasn't bad enough, it also suffers from netrunner syndrome where this ability becomes it's own little side game that doesn't include any party members that it doesn't apply to. ("I'm going to change into NPC Man now, the rest of you can go out for waffles, and don't forget to bring back take out for me and the GM.")
Oh, and as has been pointed out numerous times by others, while you can freely change between identities, it takes 5 minutes until level 13. Which means unless you are in your masked persona, you are sitting out the action (or are stuck trying to survive it as NPC Man).
Honestly, the best way to sum up this class as written is "NPC who moonlights as a PC".
The divination shield is a necessary feature for enabling secret identities, but it could have worked better as a feat.
The concept of living 2 lives has merit, but in a world where PCs casually walk among the masses forcing one of those lives to be NPC Man is immersion breaking. I get that giving the Vigilante 2 full PC classes would be overpowered, but this class would be much cooler (about 20% cooler) if you could do things like Paladin by day and Vigilante by night. (it would also justify 5 minutes to change identities since you would need to change out of your easily identifiable Paladin armor). Maybe it could be done:
"A vigilante picks a second class (PC or NPC) for his secret identity. When in vigilante identity, all features of the social identity class are lost and replaced by those of the vigilante class. When in their social identity they retain only those vigilante features that specify being available to the social identity."
(note: this could result in some power creep, especially in the from of a BAB boost, the skill boost should probably not be too disruptive)
Final point: I have not gone into detail about the Vigilante specializations. This is probably infuriating the Devs as I suspect they had intended this playtest to focus on assessing and balancing them. They are weaker than their full base class equivalents, but that was already known. The problem is that determining how much weaker they should be is dependent on what one is getting in exchange for the trade off. At worst we have a vague "stuff" and at best we have an "NPC secret identity that cannot be uncovered by divination". I say worst and best because the worst gives no basis for comparison and the best is what has been clearly defined. It's like evaluating the fighter without access to any feats. You know there is more to the class but it is and undefined value of "and stuff". If however there is no "and stuff" for the Vigilante, then they are clearly giving up too much for too little.
Sidenote: This class makes an interesting proof of concept for replacing the multitude of base classes with a single customizable class.
You fixed the worst of the issues with the class. Making Lightning Reload standard instead of a feat tax was greatly needed. The cost side of things is handled much better. The recharge mechanic is now effective. The side bar for different levels of availability was much needed. All the other changes look good as well.
There is a change I would still like to see:
Pistol Whip - Change it from costing 1 grit to "as long as the gunslinger has 1 grit point" with the free action CMB check to knock the target prone costing 1 grit.
Additional comments:
While likely beyond the scope of this playtest and current design/rules, I would like the Targeting Deed to have been something not restricted to a single class or limited to firearms only. I know that this is unlikely to happen. I understand that the being tied into the Grit mechanic is what makes called shots viable without running into AC by target location. Still I had to say it.
Also I'm still not happy with the "touch AC in the first range increment" part. I understand that it's part of the firearms rules from the Inner Sea World Guide and unlikely to change. I also understand that it is supposed to model armor penetration which the rules do not really handle. It's the whole binary all or nothing nature of armor that I am not liking about it.
Still overall I am pleased and the class is now looking mechanically sound.
Would anyone care to explain why I wouldn't want to take 1 level of gunslinger, sell the gun/ammo and use the money for better gear to start out with? I mean after all, at 1st level everyone pretty much sucks equally, and an extra 1000-1025 gp buys a hell of a lot of edge. (masterwork Breastplate, Greatsword, and Composite Longbow without touching your starting gold, or cut back on the weapons and armor and get a wand or scrolls for one of the casters).
Too much of the gunslinger is workarounds for overly prohibitive firearms rules. To really fix things it is necessary to fix the firearms rules. Otherwise the gunslinger is relegated to being a collection of (in some cases clumsy) workarounds to make firearms playable.
This playtest has been one of the most controversial and critical. While I am usually one of the more critical posters during playtests, this time I feel I need to hand out some praise.
The Samurai is the best of the 3 playtest offerings mechanically. If left as is for the final release it would be just fine. There may be room for tweaking, but not much.
Oh, I do have an issue with this being an "alternate class" when it is just an archetype and two new orders bundled together with oriental wrapping and called Samurai, but mechanically it is outstanding. Truly one of the best out of the gate playtest offerings I've seen.
The title pretty much sums up my question. Are there plans for another round of playtesting for Words of Power? If so, do you have a time frame for when it might be other than "when we have the material ready"?
The Broad Study arcana still does not clearly state that it does not grant the ability to actually cast spells from other class spell lists, but merely allows a Magus who can otherwise cast spells from another class spell list to use those spells in conjunction with spell combat and spellstrike.
I like point based magic systems. I prefer them to the existing Vancian system. Why then am I saying there is "No point to points"?
The answer is that points add bookkeeping overhead. Points work well when their benefits (flexibility added) outweighs the bookkeeping they add. Otherwise, the general rule is more bookkeeping is bad. With Words of Power, the points (much like the goggles) do nothing. They are bookkeeping that adds only bookkeeping. The reason for this is that each individual spell is its own point pool. All the points do is bookkeeping to tell you if the spell needs to take up a higher level slot. This could be easily accomplished by replacing the point cost with a level cost/adjustment.
Here is an overview of how this same system could work without points:
Target words add +n levels to the spell level (some will add +0). Effect words add their minimum level to the spell level if the primary effect, or add +n levels if boosted or are used as secondary effects. This greatly simplifies the bookkeeping.
The only hiccup in this is the Word Burning feat. This is the only bit of WoP where the points add flexibility and it is extremely limited. It would actually be better to go to level adjustment cost and drop this feat entirely from a game play perspective.
In addition to limiting the bookkeeping, this change also removes another problem with the WoP points. If the point total of a spell comes up to less than the maximum number of points for its level, then the player may well feel cheated, that they aren't getting everything they should out of the spell. Going to a level adjustment removes this since it becomes a binary question of "does this spell equal this spell level?". This also eliminates the time wasted as the player sifts through their words looking for a couple more points to fill out that spell level.
If closing if you are going to keep a new magic system as similar to the existing Vancian casting system as you have, do so by keeping it strengths such as simplicity rather than its peculiarities which are what many looking for alternate casting systems are trying to get away from.
Picking up from my previous post I will now delve into the meat of the class - the class feature special abilities. This is where a class is truly defined.
The first thing to note is the lack of dead levels. Every level grants you something. This is always an auspicious start. At first glance, everything fits thematically and supports the flavor of a martial arcanist. There are options for customization in the bonus feats and the magus arcana which keeps with the design philosophy of Pathfinder. Lets see how well they hold up under scrutiny and a mechanical breakdown.
First of you get spellstrike. This is the only ability you get at 1st level aside from cantrips. What it grants you is the ability to deliver a touch spell with your melee weapon. Sounds good, doesn't it? Let's take a closer look, shall we. Touch AC is generally lower than normal AC since it ignores armor, shield, and natural armor bonuses. At first level this is usually about a 2-4 point difference, but it grows to a considerable gap at later levels. You are in essence making it markedly harder to hit your target to deliver your touch spell. In addition, since casting the spell is a standard action (which for touch ranged spells includes a free touch attack) and attacking with your weapon is also a standard action, you cannot make the attack with your melee weapon in the same round you cast the spell (unless you have the 2nd level spell combat ability which I will get into next). Now, let's look at what you gain from this ability. The most obvious gain is if you miss with your initial free touch attack, you can use regular melee attacks and deliver the touch spell instead of choosing between the two. When you deliver the spell through a melee attack, you also get to add your normal melee damage. In addition you get to use your weapon's critical threat range (although the spell effect only receives a x2 multiplier regardless of the crit multiplier of the weapon damage). Additionally, if you have a weapon that grants you reach such as a whip (spellcasting still requires 1 free hand for somatic components, so 2 handed weapons are problematic), you gain reach with your touch spells (note that the whip is an exotic weapon and will require a feat to use effectively). This means that about a half dozen weapons gain you a benefit when using spell strike.
Let's take a look at that again:
You get to hit a higher AC.
You gain economy of action if you miss your initial touch attack.
You gain reach if using a whip.
You gain an increased threat range if using one of a half dozen weapons.
This ability works in your favor only in a limited number of edge cases. Otherwise it is actually a penalty. Every other base class gets more benefit out of their first level ability and in the case of the magus, this situation doesn't really get any better. This ability either needs to be reworked to be beneficial more often, additional first level abilities need to be added to bring 1st level up to par.
Moving on to second level we come to spell combat. This is the big move toward melee/spellcasting synergy. As a full round action you get to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action (or less) and make all of your iterative melee attacks. Pretty big, especially for a 2nd level ability, but it comes at a price. You must cast defensively at a -2 penalty and take a -4 penalty to hit on all of your attacks that round. Still it is a huge jump on economy of action, especially from 8th level on when you start getting iterative attacks. At low levels when every +1 counts, this is pretty rough.
I'm going to jump ahead here to improved spell combat (8th level) and greater spell combat (14th level), as they are progressions of this ability. At 8th level when you get your first iterative attack you also get improved spell combat which reduces the penalties to -2 on all attacks that round and -0 to your concentration check. This really opens up the ability and makes it look a lot more attractive. At 14th level, just before you get your third iterative attack, greater spell combat drops your attack penalty to -0. Not a huge gain, but it is something.
Getting back to the basic 2nd level spell combat ability, there is much debate over the penalties. For a class focused on combining spell casting and melee a penalty to casting in melee (casting defensively) seems counter intuitive. The penalty to attack is also quite harsh at low levels, especially for a class without full BAB. Is this balanced? There has been a lot of number crunching done that I won't get into. The fact is that you are getting a bigger jump on the action economy than an additional attack like two weapon fighting or flurry of blows at low level. There is no denying that this is a powerful ability and if it remains at 2nd level should incur an appropriate penalty. Were this ability to be mover to a later level I would definitely say the penalty was harsher than necessary.
Is this penalty overwhelming? Not necessarily, but overcoming it is a penalty all it's own, and an unsavory one - the dreaded feat tax. With a human (bonus feat at 1st level) I can take Combat Casting (+4 to casting defensively) and Arcane Strike (+1 to attack and damage), which combined with a masterwork weapon (+1 to hit) which I should easily be able to afford by level 2. I've canceled out the -2 to casting defensively and cut the -4 to hit in half. At third level I can pick up Weapon Focus for another +1 to hit. Please note however that this only works when playing a human for the bonus feat at first level. Another drawback to this approach is Weapon Finesse. If your Dex is higher than your Str you are likely to want this. Weapon Finesse only works toward offsetting the penalties if your Dex mod is at least 2 higher than you Str mod. Otherwise the additional +1 to damage from Arcane Strike is a better choice.
While there is nothing in the rules requiring the scribe scroll feat to scribe spells into a wizard's spellbook, it almost seemed to me like there was a connection. I felt that the reason they got scribe scroll for free at 1st was because it was related to how they added spells to their spellbook. Again, RAW makes no mention of this and it is just my reading into things, but it has a certain logic to it.
Because of this I found it odd that the magus uses a spellbook like a wizard but does not get scribe scroll for free at 1st level. I can understand that not including it is another way of differentiating the magus and wizard, and there is no requirement in RAW.
Well, I've spoken up about it which satisfies me with regard to the issue. It really is a minor flavor point.
Ok, this odd thought crossed my mind and I doubt I'm the first to think of this approach, but I don't recall having seen it discussed so I decided to toss it out there. While I know it will probably not be embraced by the majority and highly criticized, I suspect it may appeal to some.
The Vancian system we know is based on static spell fomulae which are ranked by level and one is limited to a certain number of spells of a given level per day. What I am thinking is - what if instead of a certain number of spells of a given level per day, one had a certain number of points worth of spells that could be prepared per day. Spells would still be prepared before hand as in the Vancian system, but the limiting factor would change. Higher level spells would cost more than lower level spells of course. As for metamagic, the level increases would translate directly into increased point cost.
I see two major changes for prepared casters, both of which can be considered power increases. First is that it becomes possible to load up on your highest level spells. A serious increase for novaing if you have few opponents/fights per day. Second is one could load up on more spells of lower levels that are still effective. This could extend the duration of the adventuring day as casters have more useful spells available, but has the risk of min/maxing efficiency (not having to use a 6th level spell when a 4th will do) of spells so that each encounter is made easier and you can do so more often.
There is also a secondary factor of bookkeeping. This increases from picking x spells of n level to adding up point costs for your prepared spells and refiguring each change trying to get the most for you points.
On the game balance side this definitely favors casters as their lower level spell allotment for the day becomes more effective and they can load up on the big stuff.
In exchange for this your casters become a bit more flexible and can become less of a factor toward the 15 minute adventuring day, unless of course they only pick the highest cost spells.
I'm not advocating this as a needed replacement but more as an option that could be considered.
I recently had an idea regarding defending another character from attack. Currently the rules don't give much in the way of options for this. Here's the idea I came up with, I was hoping to get some feedback on it.
-----
Defend Other action
This is a move action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
You designate an ally who is adjacent to you. Whenever a melee attack targets this ally you have the possibility of intercepting the attack and taking the damage in their place.
The attack is compared against the ACs of both you and the intended target. If the attack would hit the higher of the two ACs, the intended target is hit and you fail to intercept the attack.
If only the lower AC is hit, you intercept the hit and take the damage.
If neither AC is hit, the attack misses both of you completely.
In the case of a critical threat, the confirmation roll determines who takes the damage. If the hit confirms against the higher AC, the intended target receives a critical hit. If the lower AC is confirmed, you take the critical hit instead. If the threat fails to confirm either AC, resolve the hit as normal.
Special: In cases where a natural 20 hits with the attack roll result below either AC (rule of 20) and the critical fails to confirm, then you takes the damage instead of the intended target.
This action cannot be used in conjunction with the total defense standard action.
-----
So far the only thing that I'm seeing as questionable is that the confirmation roll of a critical can redirect a hit from the intended target, but it was the only way I could keep critical hits from only hitting the intended target and not the defender.
Granted using this would only make sense if the defending character has a higher AC, otherwise they are pointlessly taking hits that would miss the targeted character (with the possible exception of criticals).
The Oracle being a spontaneous divine caster lends itself to a comparison to the Cleric much as Sorcerer does to Wizard.
Looking at the overall balance of the oracle vs cleric:
BAB - equal
Saves - Cleric better Fort
Skills - Oracle
Weapons and armor - Cleric gets Medium armor and Deity's weapon.
Cleric's get Channel Energy. Oracles get Focus Revelations. I'll call this about even between flexibility, usefulness and power.
Oracle's curse balances out about equal to domain granted abilities.
Clerics get 2 domains to pick bonus spells from but only get to cast 1 domain spell per day. Oracles only get bonus spells from one focus, but can use all their slots for that level to cast them. Close, possibly slight edge to Oracle.
Spell casting -
Clerics get entire spell list known but fewer spells per day - Oracles get more spells per day, but limited spells known.
Clerics get spontaneous cure/inflict. This is actually a big plus for the Cleric because while the Oracle is a spontaneous caster, they must choose cure/inflict spells for their limited number of spells known to cast them.
The Cleric's flexibility of spell selection (boosted by spontaneous cure/inflict) really offsets the Oracle's spells per day advantage and puts them clearly ahead on the spell casting
The biggest weakness I see in the Oracle class is a combination of the spell list and limited number of spells known. The Cleric spell list is chock full of very situational spells. Tying up one of your few spells known on something you may use 1 in 15 encounters is a major drawback.
The extreme solution would be to allow spontaneous casting from the entire spell list, but this would be too good. What I would propose is to allow the Oracle to select a number of spells known each day as per the current table selecting from the entire cleric spell list. I understand this would make them more flexible that the cleric, but would fit in thematically with the whole "oracles see the future" concept and the idea of Oracles (battle focus excepted) being less martial than Clerics.
As for the lack of certain types of spells that are needed for the benefits of some of the foci, I recall Jason already stating that appropriate spells would be added. Granted, depending on the number and nature of the spells added, the limitations of the Cleric spell list may become a moot point.
I won't nitpick options based on my own preferences and play style. I find the class playable and consider the spell selection the only outstanding issue with the class, and even that is not quite crippling and relatively easily addressed.
I really wanted to like this class, and at first glance I did. The class abilities seem to be headed in the right direction. Mix stuff together and drink it to make you better or throw it at a target to affect it, make and use poisons, pretty much delivering what is advertised.
Then I took a closer look.
The class does several thing and does none of them particularly well. A caster can blow stuff up bigger and more often. Maxed out mutagens and extracts still make you weaker than any primary melee class. In fact melee wise you are at best equal to a cleric without domains or channel energy and who only focuses almost exclusively on self buffing spells. At best it can specialize at being second rate at something. Below are my suggestions as to where the class needs work.
Make Extracts, Bombs, and Mutagens Extraordinary Abilities rather than Supernatural (removing the "infusing with magic" preferred). They should bypass SR, but still work in anti-magic zones.
Change mutagen to alchemical bonus instead of enhancement. Stacking with magical enhancements shouldn't prove game breaking and fits better thematically.
Change mutagen Charisma damage to penalty to charisma based skills except for Intimidate with duration equal to double the mutagen duration. The penalty is too high for the benefit gained and while under the effect of mutagen the alchemist should be more intimidating rather than less (as Intimidate is Charisma based).
Reduce prerequisite of Greater Mutagen to one previously learned discovery (becomes available at 8th level), keep Grand Mutagen as is (becomes available at 16th level). Brings it more into line with Barbarian rage progression and keeps it the benefit more level appropriate.
Split the bomb discoveries out and have them chosen at every other increase in bomb damage 2d6 (3rd), 4d6 (7th), 6d6 (11th), 8d6 (15th), and 10d6 (19th). The bombs are weak as they are and the class cannot afford to split focus between bombs and self enhancing mutagens/extracts.
Make retrieving the catalyst for bombs a free action or an automatic part of preparing process. As written it would take over 1 full round to use a bomb and provoke 3 attacks of opportunity.
Remove the AoO from preparing a bomb as the ranged attack already provokes and the move action for preparation precludes a 5 foot step.
Placing a delayed bomb should provoke and AoO.
More alchemical items, especially ones that are useful at higher levels.
Remove extracts that are offensive spell effects targeting other creatures (such as Eyebite and Nightmare).
I know various points above have their own discussion threads, this is merely my overall summary of where I think the class is and where I would like to see it go. Of the 6 classes, this one in my opinion requires the most revision.
Re-reading the section on bombs, it seems like the process for readying and using a bomb is:
1-Retrieve a vial of catalyst (move action - provokes AoO)
2-Infuse catalyst with magical energy (move action - provokes AoO)
3-Throw bomb (ranged attack - provokes AoO)
Worse yet:
Bombs are unstable, and if not used in the round they are
created, they degrade and become inert—their method
of creation prevents large volumes of explosive material
from being created and stored.
Which means the stored item (catalyst) must be retrieved on the round before the bomb is readied and used (if not earlier).
This makes them a highly undesirable option for the Alchemist to use (two move actions and standard provoking 3 attacks of opportunity). I would recommend adding in something stating that retrieving the catalyst is a free or at the very least swift action and possibly have preparing the bomb not provoke AoO.
I hate replying to bump my own question but there has been no response.
I would think clarifying whether or not swift alchemy and instant alchemy reduces the time to create extracts, bombs, and mutagens would of interest to someone besides me.
I suspect the intent is that they do not, but would like official confirmation on this.
The discussion of the Witch's familiar acting as a spellbook got me to thinking that a Wizard's familiar could have more practical magical use as well. I came up with the idea of having a Wizard able to store spells in a familiar as if it were a virtual scroll. Here is my initial draft:
Familiar Spell Storing:
A wizard may store up to 5 levels of spells (1 5th level, or 1 4th level and 1 1st level, or 5 1st level, etc.) in his familiar as virtual scrolls. Doing so requires that the wizard has the Scribe Scroll feat and has the spell to be stored prepared, and requires the same material components as scribing a scroll. The inks are consumed in a ritual that stores the spell in familiar. Casting the spell from the familiar is a standard action which provokes an attack of opportunity. Casting the stored spell requires the wizard to commune with the familiar in order to "read" the virtual scroll. Casting a spell in this way cannot be done defensively unless the wizard is in physical contact with the familiar. Once the stored spell is cast it is effectively erased just as if casting from a scroll. No one except the wizard can cast the spells stored in the familiar.
A new spell may be stored overwriting an existing spell, however the spell being overwritten and it's cost to store it are lost.
Witches or Sorcerers who have a familiar may also use this ability.
Any suggestions or concerns regarding this idea are welcome.
This is a conversion for the Scout base class from Complete Adventurer. Since this is the fist conversion I've been working on that I consider done I thought I'd post what I did as a guide for others.
Medium BAB and d8 HD already.
Changed class skills to the following:
Acrobatics, Climb, Craft, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (nature), Linguistics, Perception, Ride, Sense Motive, Stealth, Survival, and Swim.
Trapfinding works same as rogue.
Changed referenced to Hide skill in Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight to Stealth.
Bonus Feats: Removed Agile and Track, added Wind Stance.
No dead levels to fill.
Blindsight at 20th (plus the increase to Battle Fortitude and a Bonus Feat) seems equivalent to a capstone to me.
At this point it is fully playable and compatible with Pathfinder.
The only addition I would (and did) make is an ability that allows the scout to move 10' with a 5' step, allowing them to use their skirmish with a full attack. This can be done at any point from 8th level up. I called the ability Quickstep and added it at 12th. (the choice of 12th level was personal preference based on what the class got at various levels. I basically liked how it fit into the progression there.)
This is how I did it. Feel free to use, modify, or ignore it as suits your game. If you have any questions as to how or why I made certain changes I'll be happy to reply, but most of it is based directly on the Pathfinder Conversion Guide.
As the clock winds down on the open beta, I feel the need to express my feelings on the whole thing.
First I would like to thank everyone at Paizo for giving us, the community at large, the chance to participate in the development of Pathfinder. I am honored to have been a part of this project, even if only as one small voice among many. This glimpse behind the scenes of game development has given me a new understanding of why the rules are the way they are.
I would also like to thank everyone who has contributed to these forums as part of the beta. You have given me many new ideas and different perspectives to consider.
Will Pathfinder be everything I had hoped it would when this began?
No, I don't expect that it will, but this is a good thing. Each of us has a different idea of what Pathfinder should be, and to match any one persons expectations completely would mean that others will be sorely disappointed.
Will Pathfinder be an improvement over 3.x?
Based on what I have seen here, I feel confident in saying YES. There are likely to still be some rough spots (nothing is perfect), but I am convinced that as a whole Pathfinder will be a better rule set than what came before it.
I come away from this experience with a new appreciation for the design aspects of the game, as well as a treasure trove of house rules for crafting a custom tailored campaign. This alone is worth the price of the book (which I WILL be buying).
I will miss the in depth discussions that have been such a part of these past months. Hopefully some will carry into to the future, but I suspect many will be less motivated once the chance to add their input into a published product is gone.
I look forward to the success and enjoyment of Pathfinder.
While Jason has stated he wishes to cut down the number of small modifiers including the one for weapon size, for some Combat Maneuvers how many hands you have on your weapon could make a difference. Because of this I put forth the following:
For Combat Maneuvers involving a weapon, primarily Disarm, Sunder, and Trip, a character wielding a weapon in both hands may add 1/2 their Strength Bonus to their CMB. This is in addition to the normal Strength Bonus included in CMB calculation. Defenders whose weapon is being targeted also may add 1/2 their Strength Bonus to their CMB to determine the DC. You do not get this Strength bonus when wielding a Light Weapon with two hands.
This is based off of the 1-1/2 Strength Bonus to Damage for wielding a weapon two handed.
The only serious negative I see so far is that it could cause confusion as to whether the character should be using their normal CMB or CMB + 1/2 Strength Bonus.
Is this added complication worth it? Would ignoring the effects of wielding an item in two hands to simplify game play make a better game?
This topic was brought up back in the Alpha discussion and got no official response.
Is the Bonus/Penalty to Disarm checks (and Sunder checks for that matter) for 2-Handed and Light weapons gone? If not, is it still the same as 3.x?
There is no mention of it in the Beta. In 3.x there was a +4 for 2 handed and a -4 for light weapon modifier to disarm and sunder checks.
Also, what is the correct DC to disarm an item held in both hands (such as a 2 handed weapon)?
While it states that a successful roll causes the target to drop "one item it is carrying (of your choice)", it then proceeds to say that if you succeed by 10 or more then the target "drops the items it is carrying in both hands". This could be taken to mean that a 2 handed weapon (or any item held in both hands) requires you to succeed by more than 10 to cause both hands to drop it.
If, as I suspect, this is NOT the case, could the wording be changed for the sake of clarity from:
Beta p150 wrote:
"If your attack exceeds the DC of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands)."
to something more along the lines of:
"If your attack exceeds the DC of the target by 10 or more, the target drops an additional item it is carrying in another hand (maximum two items if the target has more than two hands)."
Could someone please check on this order, it was placed October 29 and is still showing as pending for all items. If there is some type of backorder situation going on I can understand the delay, but would appreciate some notification. If my order managed to get itself sidetracked, I would appreciate it if someone would track it down and send it off in the proper direction.
Thanks.
(Would have mentioned this sooner, but got a bit sidetracked myself and hadn't realized how overdue it was.)
I propose renaming this skill to something more fitting such as Knowledge (Cultures).
By dictionary definition, local means : of, relating to, or characteristic of a particular place : not general or widespread.
The Knowledge (Local) skill however states:
Beta p66 wrote:
Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)
No mention of it applying to a particular place, area, or region (a locality if you will).
My biggest problem comes from the fact that by definition of Local, each geographic area should require it's own skill and points spent in knowledge for one should not be applicable to another. Max ranks in Knowledge (Local) for Korvosa should be useless for Knowledge (Local) checks in Riddleport. Some DMs do this, but it is a house rule. According to core, Knowledge (Local) is one skill, not a header for multiple sub-skills.
Local knowledge should be limited to a specific geographic region, for example Paris or France or Europe. Cultural knowledge could easily cover those topic listed in the rules and can have a comparative component to know differences between cultures. It can encompass general similarities between humanoid societies so characters can know who (someone wearing a chain of office) or what (a town hall) to look for. Famous figures and notable events would likely be talked about within the region and to some degree outside as well so that aspect would be covered as well.
Yes, this is a bit of a nitpick, but it really does bother me enough to bring it up.
I think there is too much emphasis on offense for improving the Paladin. I have suggested in other places increasing both the effects of Smite Evil and the number of uses per day. I have supported adding effects to Smite. I have even proposed a new per battle ability that gave a bonus against a designated evil creature that would stack with Smite. Only so much can be done with regard to offense without overlapping other melee classes.
Perhaps a new direction. Defensive capabilities that work to keep a Paladin in the fight longer.
For example at 8th level give them Spell Resistance 15 + Paladin Level (the base of 15 is because I am considering house ruling Fighters getting 10 + Level at 11th and felt there should be some difference between them).
Also, starting at 5th level give them Fast Healing 2 increasing to 3 at 10, 4 at 15, and 5 at 20. They would no longer need out of combat healing leading to "Tend to the others, they need it more than I".
These two changes would give the Paladin better staying power (arguments about fights not lasting more than 3 rounds aside).
There has been much hating on Rage Points. I just do not understand it. The bookkeeping is the same as HP. NO, it is easier because hit points adjust both down (damage) and up (healing) while rage points only adjust down and reset once a day after 8 hours sleep. For multiple NPC Barbarians, unless they are likely to survive (with the party or possibly Named opponent), they rage, maybe use a power at a dramatic moment, and die. Who cares how many points they died with. Unless they are likely to run out mid fight there is no need to keep track. As for complexity, options are added and this is a good thing. There are still significantly fewer than any spell list, so Barbarians are still simpler than any spellcasting class.
As for changing the Rage Powers to always on, many would need to be nerfed as the point cost is what keeps them from being over powered. They are balanced as one off uses, but not constant. Unlimited no point cost use would result in the best powers being near constant because they would be used every round.
On limiting Rage powers to once per encounter, The result will be the Barbarian will "go nova" every encounter to get the most out of their abilities. The most restraint will be waiting till the boss for that encounter is reachable and go nova on him instead of wasting it on the intervening mooks.
The last two are especially important in that NPC Barbarians who won't survive the fight have no reason not to go for maximum effect of their rage powers. This makes them especially deadly against the PCs.
I could see certain individual Rage powers such as Low-light Vision becoming "until the rage ends" but wiht a one time point cost to activate. This would keep the simplicity of durations being 1 round or end of Rage.
I like the flexibility of the new point based rage and that flexibility works from both sides of the DM screen. The powers just need a bit of tweaking mostly in terms of cost. Ok, I think some of the more magical ones like Darkvision and especially Elemental Rage can go away and not be missed, possibly replacing Elemental with something that adds to weapon damage instead of magical powers.
For those who really hate the point system, perhaps you could give details of your problem with it other than vague bookkeeping and complexity complaints. What specifically is problematic other than the fact that it is different from what you have been using (I'm guessing most complaining that it is different also do not allow Psionics which is a point system).
A question has come up in my group regarding Disarm. What effect if any does a two handed weapon have on a disarm attempt?
In 3.5 there was a +4 bonus for a two handed weapon and -4 penalty for a light weapon on opposed disarm checks.
In Pathfinder, there is no mention of modifiers for two handed or light weapons. Is this because they are unchanged, gone, or was it just an oversight? If they still exist, should they be reduced as other modifiers (except unarmed) have?
Following on that, what is the correct DC to disarm an opponent who is wielding a two handed weapon?
There are 3 possible answers.
1. DC=15+CMB of defender, same as for one handed weapons.
2. DC=15+CMB+weapon modifier, similar to 3.5
3. DC=15+CMB(+weapon modifier?)+10, you need to exceed the DC by 10 or more to disarm both hands as per p77
Clarification of this in needed and would be much appreciated. I'm surprised this hasn't been more of an issue as I've checked the boards all the way back to Alpha1 (and the alpha rules themselves). There was only one thread about specific weapons with bonuses to combat maneuvers and the got little response other than equipment will be added in the Beta.
All the discussions about Monks have gotten me thinking about where the monk could use improvement. The one thing that stands out is their weapon selection and how it relates to their unarmed strike and flurry of blows.
By 4th level, a monks unarmed strike does more damage than any weapon she is proficient with and only gets better. The weapon selection is missing classic martial arts weapons like the spear and only and extremely narrow group of exotic weapons are usable with flurry.
My proposal has three parts, changes to weapon proficiencies, a feat, and a class ability.
Weapon Proficiency changes:
Add Spear, and Kukri. These 2 weapons plus handaxe can also be used with Flurry of Blows.
Feat:
Martial Training
A monk gains proficiency with any one martial weapon and may use this weapon with their Flurry of Blows.
4th Level
Ki Focus:
As long as a Monk has at least 1 point in their Ki Pool, they can add 1d6 damage with any weapon with which they may use their flurry of blows including unarmed strikes. This ability increases by 1d6 every four levels there after (8, 12, 16, and 20) to a maximum of 5d6.
The purpose of the Ki Focus is to keep monk weapons relevant as the monk gains in level as the Monk's Unarmed Strike quickly outstrips them in damage. The Unarmed Strike still has better damage, but the monk weapons now gain as well. This is more for flavor and preventing the players from feeling they are losing out by using weapons at higher levels which is why it mirrors the unarmed damage increase.
I am also in favor of handwraps allowing the monk to apply weapon enhancements and special abilities to their unarmed strikes and robes allowing armor enhancements and special abilities.
This skill has never made any sense to me. The main reason I have not commented on it earlier is that I have become so accustomed to ignoring it. Only recent discussions of Knowledge skills have brought it back to my attention.
Effectively it does nothing that the Gather Information aspect of Diplomacy doesn't do at the same DC. The only difference is the time factor, 1d4 hours vs. immediate.
As for useless, unless the party stays only in one town/city/nation(?) then any "local" knowledge should not apply to the new location. Knowing who the current mayor of New York is does not mean I know who is mayor of Boston. If the players travel to a new city then every point spent on Knowledge (local) is effectively wasted.
I understand the flavor such a skill may add to character background, but mechanically it is little more than a skill point sink.
The Pathfinder Fighter is a clear improvement over SRD. No question of that. I am one of those that still feel it is missing something. Something to encourage high level fighters instead of the BAB and Feat dip or Prestige classing for unique abilities. The usual approach taken to addressing this is to add class features. I favor a different approach. Why not build on their existing class feature. I mean of course feats.
Specifically I am suggesting fighter exclusive feats. Give them prerequisites of a minimum fighter level of 5 or higher since that is when the fighter most needs a boost.
The following are some of the ideas I've had that could be used for these fighter only feats:
* Allowing the fighter to make an opposed attack roll once per round to parry an incoming attack
* Building on the previous feat, allowing allowing a single attack (riposte) on a successful parry
* An insight bonus to AC for knowing what an opponents next attack is likely to be (knowing how to counter different fighting styles.
* A bonus to AC for wearing light armor for agile fighter types.
* Add Int bonus to REF save
* Add Con to WILL save
* Insight bonus to saves vs spells and spell like abilities. (fight enough wizards and you start to know what to expect)
* Ignore 5 points of damage reduction.
I know some of these feats would be well suited to other classes, but fighter get little that is uniquely their own. Weapon specialization set the precedent, so it is not unheard of. Also other classes get feats unique to them that have a class ability prerequisite. There is no reason not to have a set of Fighter Feats.
This could go farther than anything else to end the fighter BAB and Feat dip and can keep fighters relevant at higher levels. It would allow maximum freedom to customize the fighter without pigeon holing them into one specific concept like a MMOs and from the sound of it 4E. Best of all, since it uses the existing Feat mechanic it is 100% backward compatible.
