Juton's page

If WoP where being forced down player's throats it would be a bad thing, but if it can coexist with regular 3.5 style casting there shouldn't be a problem. A lot of players have a play style that revolves around 'Kill it with fire!', this system will give them a flexible way to kill things with fire and other energy types. So a good many players may never notice a lack of versatility.

A lot of the spells inherited from 3.5 are easily abusable, while I think one could go through and prune them, just creating a new system of magic can accomplish the same goal of assign effects to reasonable character levels. So maybe permanently blinding someone on a failed save may no longer be a level 2 spell, I'm OK with that.

Just to reiterate, this system will need to coexist with conventional casting, it will be a lot more powerful with spontaneous casters than prepared casters. So WoPs are going to have to walk a fine line between enticing players out of using the legacy spells while not being as abusable as those legacy spells. Maybe if prepared casters only had to prepare the effect words and could spontaneously add in the target words it would be more enticing.

The Witch (APG) is prepared spellcaster like a Wizard, except a different spell list and uses a familiar instead of a spellbook (among other differences). I've found that familiars are a little more death prone than a Wizard's spell book, is there a clarification that a Witch may take the feat Spell Mastery? The feat specifically requires one level of Wizard to take, but was written before the APG came out when there was only one arcane prepared caster.

Second question, Barbarians can choose an alternate class feature called 'Totem Warrior', what do is do exactly? The PFSRD says : 'The totem warrior is based entirely upon his totem rage powers. In addition to the totem powers themselves, the following rage powers complement the totem warrior archetype (depending on the totem chosen)'. But I don't see any totems listed, is this referring to the spirit warrior rage power, is this just a label you can use to describe your barbarian or does it have something to do with the Druid's totems?

It's easy if you get used to it. Usually the DM describes the room and where the enemies are relative to the party. It ends up abstracting tactics just a little bit because you end up just using distance and not a battle grid. I've found that it actually speeds up play quite a bit because you don't have to draw into a grid and players decide on moves quicker because you don't have decide the perfect square, you just decide how you want to move relative to the bad guys. It also make the game more fun IMHO because the DM and the players have to describe everything so the image I get in my mind's eye is a lot more vibrant and detailed then when I used minis.

I think the reason Gish has been so popular is that their isn't really a word for for Warrior/Spellcaster in English. The closest I can think of is Bard, but that's already taken. If we don't want to stick to English we could use the word Istar which is elven for magician. Since 1st edition elves where all fighter/wizards I think it could be a good choice.

Malisteen wrote:

Change for the better is good

Sure... as long as it has an actual, mechanical reason. That's not what the OP described. The OP boils down to, "I'm bored with the same 4 casting progressions, let's make a whole new one just because!". Now, he may have an actual mechanical reason for it, but he hasn't presented one.

No, I wouldn't say that.

Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner these have the same basic skeleton. That being 3/4 BAB, 2 good saves, mostly better skill points and 6th level spontaneous spells. Their spells available and class abilities will make a difference how each class plays. I just don't think the standard Bard progression 'fits' every class.

I think the Summoner's spells should be cast at the same level as a Wizard or a Sorcerer, but to make up for its Eidolon it should have drastically fewer spells per day and maybe spells known. No cheaper crafting and latter if classes or feats come along that let you learn spells from different spell lists then we won't have to worry about Gate being a 6th level spell.

The Alchemist already plays different then either a standard spontaneous caster or prepared caster. Why stick it with a default progression? You could leave it with a recipe book, like a Wizard's spell book but give it less or different spells to balance out the fact that an Alchemist's concoctions can be cast by other people.

Lastly with the Oracle, really it's time to give spontaneous casters new spells at the same time as prepared ones. I've played with this as a house rule and it never caused a problem once.

Change for the sake of change is bad, sure. But Pathfinder's new classes have changed what spell casters can do, so isn't better they get casting that is tailored to their new abilities, not just off the rack Bard/Sorcerer casting?

First off I really like the rules for making an Eidolon, I think their easy but allow a lot of customization. We tested them briefly, and like a few other groups after a little bit of time the player was mainly playing the Eidolon, not the Summoner.

A lot of players like Fighter/Wizards (aka Gish), they can go around a hit things on the head, but occasionally do incredible things like teleportation or shooting balls of fire. If a player had something like an Eidolon class they could pull that off without multi-classing and they'd get spell effects roughly at the same time as casters, they'd just have a lot fewer effects to get.

Eidolons also allow a great amount of customization for people with unusual character concepts. You could get flying Monks from 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' or you could get a demonic my little pony that belched fireballs. Typing that I realize there's a great potential for silliness which is inappropriate for some groups, but the potential for an quasi-standardized set for creating house ruled player classes is just too enamoring (at least for me).

Whether an Eidolon+Summoner is to powerful or an Eidolon itself is stronger than a Fighter should be discussions for other threads, I'm interested in whether you could make interesting and appropriate characters using a similar rule set.

The Inquisitor, Alchemist and Summoner gets spells like a Bard. A Witch gets new spells like a Wizard (minus the specialization spells) and an Oracle like a Sorcerer.

Pathfinder broke the mold in a lot of ways, why doesn't it keep doing so and get creative with spell progressions (or saves or BAB)? For instance the Oracle, since it only gets divine spells, which are generally less flashy than arcane, maybe it could get new spell levels at 3,5,7..., like a Cleric.

I think the Summoner would be better of having 9 levels of spells, but with a very limited spell list. It would get new summoner monster spells at the same rate as a Wizard, and if it made scrolls they'd cost the same as a Wizard. Summoners can craft certain spells cheaper because they are of a lower spell level.

Inquisitors and Alchemists may be fine with maximum 6th level spells, but would they be better (better being more fun but not overpowered) if they had 7th or 8th level spells, or even just 5th level (less book-keeping). Maybe an Alchemist should be able to keep an unlimited number of concoctions in his recipe book like a Wizard. Maybe an Inquisitor should get more spells known then a Bard because it lacks the versatility.

The point is why be married to the 4 basic spell progressions Pathfinder inherited from 3.5? Surely it wouldn't ruin the game if Pathfinder charted its own course and tailor made spell progressions exactly for each casting class.

You get balance not because the game is balanced, but because the players worked together to make a team that can work together and is balanced against each other. Sure, the urgrosh Fighter isn't going to be much good, but neither is anyone else on the team, so it's fine. Sure, the VDK loredrake kobold is ridiculously overpowered, but so is everyone else on the team, so it doesn't matter; they're all on the same plane, and they're all capable of working together as true equals.

To me that's exactly what's important about the Tier system. I've literally played a game where everyone was a Mage except for one Monk. Despite our best buffs the Monk didn't perform well, he didn't kick ass like the player wanted and ultimately that player had a rotten time while everyone else had a good one.

It's also good if you have players with a greater disparity of skill. You can take the really cunning ones and ask them to play Fighters, and let the ones still learning use something like a Warblade. It makes the DM's life a lot easier because the cunning players aren't wish-looping efreets and the learners get their quota of cool stuff to do.

Since the champion of Gwynharwf is essentially a paladin for barbarians base classes, I was thinking that it should get the upgrade of the paladin. Namely, the good Will save. As for other stuff, I'm not really sure. The rage would of course change to the new rules. They're fairly balance overall, but I admit that having such a low number of spells sucks. Maybe start them off with a single spell instead of 0 and them only gaining their ability modifier worth of spells? Or change it up so that they gain two spells a level faster as per the new paladin. That seems fair. The feats aren't all that great either, and since Book of Exalted Deeds feats don't really mesh too well with Pathfinder, maybe some new feats to meet the requirements instead. At least get rid of Knight of Stars for something better. Righteous Wrath isn't bad. A few more skills added in like Knowledge (religion), or other barbarian and paladin skills might be a nice addition.

What do you think?

I think in 3.5 the Champion of Gwynharwf was a pretty good choice for barbarians looking to multiclass. If you wanted to update it give it a Paladin's smite and let it stack with Barbarian for rage powers. Maybe let it give more rage powers, or maybe give it at a slower rate.

I'm curious to any changes they made to high level spells. Specifically does Gate still let you summon something with hit dice equal to twice your caster level? Does Timestop have any more restrictions other than you can't harm anyone? How does Mindblank work, it used to completely protect you from divinations, it is supposedly changed.

Thanks

I've played in a party that got to level 13 fairly recently. In it where a Monk/Cleric, a Fighter focused in Archery, a Beguiler, a Bard and a Int-based sorcerer/fighter. The monk had the biggest problems all the way through he was out shined at the lower levels by the Archer and he need all 3 of the spell casters to use multiple spells to buff him so that he could contribute in the fight.

What a lot of people gloss over with Fighters is that they really rock at lower levels, one swing with a great sword is instant death to most enemies. At the higher levels the fighter grew less and less satisfied, as he needed to wait until the casters buffed him or debuffed the opposition before he could act. Near the end it was quicker for the casters to handle things themselves, the fighter was relegated to dealing with weaker opponents.

Our DM likes to use spells that do other things than just direct damage, he's especially fond of mind control spells. He's also big on stealth, the fighter and the monk never really had any counter measures against invisibility. Some of you might be tempted to say that our DM was unfair to the non-casters but he use the encounters from the adventure path, just with smarter tactics and spell selection.

I think the perception of a Fighter's strength depends a lot on how dirty your fellow players play. And by dirty I mean use spells from the Pathfinder BETA. Our group just got 4th level spells, here's a few things we did to some generic fighters in our last game:

Solid Fog - This gave us 3~4 turns to get ready/buff/summon while the fighter waded through the fog.
Sleet Storm - The fighters didn't have good acrobatics checks.
Invisibility, Greater - The fighters had no way to see through our invisibility.
Fly - Most of the fighters where melee, we where safer in the air than on the ground.

Certainly a fighter could counter any one of these, but he's not likely to be able to counter more than one at a given time, in my experience. Fighters are limited to 'I KILL THINGS', they can even do it well but when faced with a more complex battlefield they are not versatile.

The reason I am "here" is because I would like to see Pathfinder do better. Pathfinder has the potential to do better, but it won't with this kind of attitude. 4e is not a good game system. It is boring. 3e is a good game system, although it is broken. Pathfinder fixes some of the larger "bugs" in the system, but it leaves the rest to be made into house rules.

Pathfinder's artwork is amazing. I would like to see a product that lives up to that standard.

Smiteasaur is playing nice, and as long as he (and everyone else is) they should have the opportunity to be heard. I too agree thats feats should be tweaked. For the simple reason that feats don't and spells do. For instance Barkskin gives 2 AC +1 for every three levels, while dodge give you a static +1. I think feats should be as powerful as spells, if spells improve as your character does then so should feats.

Thematically adding Shield AC to your Touch AC works as well. In my old Complete Warrior p.107 there's a picture of a Paladin deflecting a dragon's blast with her shield. In the old Conan the Adventurer cartoon the hero regularly deflected magic blasts with his shield. I really wish I could get a more literary sorce than an old cartoon but I don't remember any shields in LoTR.

Historically most soldiers used a weapon and a shield, our ancestors weren't fools, shields must have provided some significant advantage. For backwards compatability give shield users a new feat that lets them add shield AC to touch AC, and give them an additional bonus based on their BAB. I know that's strong for a feat but it would bring shields in line with fighting two-handed.

This sounds like what some people where suggesting for multiclassing. Basically that each class has a little blurb describing how some class abilities where based on total character level, not just class level. The balancing factor was it required a feat for each class you want this benefit to apply to and it was limited to twice the base class level (I think).

While the idea of shields granting cover is neat I think it might be to much of a change for most games. I definitely think you should lose your shield AC when flatfooted, that's how we play it now and it makes a certain amount of sense.

I would like shield users to have a bit of variety, I was thinking a feat like:

Skillfull Block
Pre-reqs : (Some Shield Feat), Combat Reflexes

Shield bonus is added to your defensive CMB. Additionally you get a +4 Shield bonus to AC when you are the target of an Attack of Opportunity.

This lets a shield user be more resiliant against special attacks and lets the shield user be a bit more daring because it lessens the risk for trying special maneuvers. Encouraging Fighters to do more in a round then just swing their swords makes for a more lively game IMO.

I think it would be easy to just let anyone search for traps. Rogues would still have a major niche in that they get more skill points than any other class and sneak attack and rogue talents and a laundry list of other special abilities. A low level group could go into a dungeon without a rogue and still expect everyone to come out.

NeoSamurai wrote:

Biggus wrote:

I would prefer the effects of shields be focus more on preventing attacks from actually striking the shieldbearer rather than lessing the effects of successful hits. I could see armor reducing damage or providing addition hitpoints before I would attribute those effects to shields.

I agree, if an attack hits the shield it shouldn't do any damage, I don't see any real middleground.

I'm going to play a Dwarven wizard specializing in Divination. Checking the section on wizards and the section on magic it seems to say all specialists lose two schools and gives no exception for diviners.

I do like the diviner's special powers, but I don't think their's stacks up to the other specialists, especially at lower levels because none of their powers do direct damage. I'm starting at level 1. Should I ask for a house rule that diviners only lose one school?

We already discussed (on another thread) about the possibility of the 'Shield Ward' feat (from PHB 2) to grant your shield bonus to REF saves and Touch AC in PF RPG. I don't think it should be a given that anyone can "parry" magical attacks with a shield, but it could be possible by spending a Feat.

In any case, I would rule that these bonuses do not apply against attacks from Incorporeal creatures...

If we brought in a feat like Shield Ward should the shield bonus apply to CMB? For those who haven't read the feat you can apply your shield bonus vs trips, bullrushes and overruns.

Shields where a historically popular form of defense but in D&D they aren't as effective as fighting with a Big Weapon. I think shields are fairly iconic in the fantasy genre so I'd like to see them improved to be more competitive.

Things I'd like to see happen with shields.

• Shield AC is counted as touch AC, fantasy has many examples of the warrior deflecting magic with their shields.
  
• Shields giving an extra benefit for a defensive warrior. Maybe provide 2x their AC when fighting defensively or using combat expertise. They provide 3x their AC when using total defense.
  
• Giving sword-and-boarders more options for damage, preferably through power attack or a feat that stacks with power attack. I'd like it if power attack would do 1.5 times the tradeoff in damage.
  
• The warrior's skill (BAB) should have an effect on the size of the AC bonus received from a shield. Not +1 per level but maybe 1 in 4, depending on shield size.
  

Intestinal Fortitude (Ex): When you are affected by an effect that causes you to be come diseased, fatigued, exhausted, nauseated, poisoned, or sickened, or when you have suffered a temporary penalty to an ability score (e.g., ray of enfeeblement, touch of idiocy), you may make a new saving throw as an immediate action to remove the effect. If the original effect did not allow a save, make a Constitution check with a bonus equal to your barbarian level, opposed by a DC equal to 10 + caster level + spell level (if applicable). If the check succeeds, the effect is removed.

I was going to post a power almost exactly like this, I approve!

I love the Barbarian's new powers, but it leaves them in an odd spot of being more powerful than a fighter but less powerful than a wizard at mid-high levels.

Depending on how you want to balance things either:
Make the really good powers available at higher levels.
or
Make the really good powers add 1/2 your Barbarian level, but take less rage points.

Just please let Strength Surge keep it class level to strength checks, because that's the most fun power I've used in a long while.

I don't think in roles, I think in tasks, where some classes are able to fulfill more than one, and some exceptionally bad characters fill none at all.

Out of combat tasks:
Interaction Skills
Finding Traps
Arcane Utility - E.G. Casting overland flight on the group
Healing

In combat tasks:
Taking Damage
Dealing Damage
Battle Field Control - In its simplist form giving the PCs and advantage or disadvantaging the opposition.
Status Modifier - The mirror opposite of battle field control, casting spells which negate any debilitating effects on other PCs.

For instance, Bards get a reputation for sucking because they can't do any in combat task better than another class, and what they do best in a fight (battlefield control) can be done so much better by a Wizard. In RP heavy games however a Bard pulls his weight a lot more because he can do a few different tasks.

Why not just let Humans reduce the penalty for laking weapon familiarity from 4 to say 2 for all weapons. It still lets wizards flourish a sword or an axe or whatever, but leaves an incentive to take a full weapon proficiency. It also lets a Human fighter pick up some exotic weapon they found as loot and use it if they need to.

hey i resent that! i did a rogue/cleric of a god of rogues... i had lots of fun
i did a cleric/wizard aiming for true necromancer... oh how she sucked at tacking... and here spells were weak, but i sitll loved her and loved how versatile she could be :D
i did a ranger/cleric aiming to hunt undead using arrows (yes there was a feat around there that let you made criticals to undeads, and we were planning to create a prestigue class that let me pt "disruption" (disrupting the flow of life or unlife energy) in arrows instead of hammers) came back home before that

i have seen a sorcer/wizard use his spells so well and so many that he was a warmachine, even if his DC were low, he literally could make rain fall from the sky in maximised fireballs!

I'm definitely NOT saying you shouldn't play what you want to play. I just want every pair of classes to be able to contribute, like your Cleric/Wizard should have spells almost as powerful as a Cleric or Wizard of equal level. I'd also like it if I didn't have to scrounge through multitudes of sourcebooks to make a combination work, like where would I find a feat that lets me crit undead.

veector wrote:

hogarth wrote:

#3: Prestige classes (like Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, or Unseen Seer) and (non-Core) feats like Practised Spellcaster or Ascetic Rogue do a good enough job, IMO.

Do you think it's better to put these into the PFRPG Rulebook?

Sure, and I think that's the intent (at least for Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge); they just ran out of time and room to put it in the Beta.

Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight are good because they are fairly generic (no specific feat chains or Gods worshipped etc). I think we need a better multiclassing system so we can handle odd ducks like a Cleric/Rogue or Bard/Barbarian (Bardbarian) without having to search through 9 different splat books.

The low Dex thing isn't an issue now. The Shield Bash tree no longer requires Two-Weapon Fighting in the Beta.

And few feats? How does any class in beta have only a few feats?

In my PDF both Shield Slam and Shield Mastery both require two weapon fighting, which requires dex 15.

There where a few big threads about this in the Alpha 3 play test. Basically there is a big group of people that would like to see using a shield rock a little more, taking the shield slam tree is a nice option but isn't good for low dex characters or one with few feats.

The ideas I liked best where feats that give a shield bonus that scales with level and a feat that lets power attack do 1.5 the BAB traded.

Juton wrote:

I had a few problems with 4e though, I found combat took to long to resolve, an encounter equal to our CR could take 1 hour versus 15 minutes in 3.5.

Wow! What's your secret? I would die for a 15 minute equal CR encounter in 3.5.

Our whole group (except for maybe one person) are generally good at remembering spells/powers or take good notes. We usually decide on an action very quickly and we have the dice set aside to resolve any attacks and damage. We can fit about 2 PC actions into a minute and the DM can get several enemies out of the way quickly if they do the same action (like all the Orcs attack with Great Axes). Of course there are exceptions with especially diabolical encounters.

Other than the tactical movement 4e wasn't that much slower, its just in 3.5 a battle lasted about four turns on average, in 4e it seemed to take upwards of 10.

I played in one 4e game to test the combat and 2 sessions of an actual campaign. I played a human Paladin all three times. We found that 4e combat necessitated a grid and miniatures, this allowed movement to be more tactical, it took us a few combats to figure our powers out and how to work together. As some of the previous posters mentioned 4e really fosters teamwork.

I had a few problems with 4e though, I found combat took to long to resolve, an encounter equal to our CR could take 1 hour versus 15 minutes in 3.5. Part of this was the extra time needed to plan your move on the grid, another thing was the huge increase in monster hp (the dire rats we fought had 38 hp!) and the slight reducution in damage output. I also didn't like the feel of some of the powers, like the fighter's mark ability, it may be a good mechanic but it comes off as kind of gamey.

From a role playing standpoint out of combat 4e is about identical to 3.5 for roleplaying, which identical to pretty much everything else aslong as you have good role players.

I'd recommend 4e if your group has a serious problem with power-gamers, as all the classes seem more consistent. That being said all 4e classes tend to overlap at low levels while 3.5/3.P not so much, it depends what you looking to get out of your game.

Juton wrote:

What about the daring swashbuckler-

Multiclass Bard/Rogue. Possibly straight bard. With Perform: Cunning Remarks and Banter.

Junton wrote:

-or nimble fencer

Rogue, use a rapier, take weapon finesse.

Would either of those work? Probably, but both probably couldn't stand up to a Fighter using weapon finesse and combat expertise. Why not just let the fighters Armour Mastery feature apply when unarmoured, maybe fighters get an extra +1 AC if their armour has no armour check penalty. It modifies a new rule, no new classes, fairly easy to keep track of, seem reasonable?

hmm... I just don't see why you wouldn't play a monk, use a human racial weapon training (if applicable) or your first level feat to pick up the martial proficiency in rapier or whatever you want to use, and go that route. Monks have 'dibs' on being unarmored fighters, I think. It might be suboptimal, but it could be done. For other unarmored fighty types try rogue, ranger, druid, or bard. All have armor prof., but often tend to have dex that is high enough that they don't wear it.

You could work it out with your characters to say that they are so good at defending themselves while unarmored, they get a +2 "armor" bonus to their AC, but don't have an armor check penalty, and can still move their normal speed, blah blah blah, which they can use with the fighter's armor training ability....! and give them padded armor without letting them know. The dex bonus is so high it shouldn't come up, and it's arcane failure is only 5%, if that even makes a difference.

Or you could give them glamered full plate. Hehe, ok, maybe something with a bit more of a dex mod....

Plenty of feats they could take to help themselves out, like Dodge, Mobility, (you know, monk bonus feats... heh), or Expertise.

You could simply have your characters buy a monk's belt.

Really, I agree with the poster who said there are a lot of options out there. No class is obligated to wear armor. If what you want is *bonuses* for running around naked, then play a monk.

I think if we talk about archetypes, then the heavily armoured knigh and the shaolin monk are represented. What about the daring swashbuckler or nimble fencer though? They're both different than monks or heavily armoured fighters. Sure someone who wanted to fight unarmoured could take a level of Monk or a Monk's Belt, but that feel's kind of like a hack. It makes sense that someone who is trained to fight without armour (either monk or fencer) is going to be better at it then a Knight

False Healer wrote:

"This power costs 3 rage points to use......56-3=..um......MATH HARD, ME SMASH!!!! "

That's nice. You don't have a problem. This isn't about you not having a problem, it is about me having one. Telling me that the problem doesn't exist doesn't actually help...anything.

Ok maybe False Healer could have been more diplomatic. What I do, for both rage points and hitpoints is I count up from 0 to my Rage point/hitpoint total. I find doing additions slightly quicker than subtraction. I haven't DM'd a large group of high level Barbarians, but if I did I'd probably just spam a few common powers to simplify book keeping.

This is also nice because with a Rogue in the party you eliminate the need to announce you are looking for traps, he or she is always passivly looking for traps.

That right there is ample reason for this change. I've played a rogue and it's tedious to say 'I search X for Traps' every time your party decides to go into a new room. I'd like search to handle finding traps and the feat to give an automatic check, but then with my DM a rogue is never weak or useless.

If there was one thing that irritated me most about 3.5, it was prepared spells. Making NPCs, or even managing a single high-level character turned out to be a huge organizational task.

Now, I understand that changing the magic system would not be backwards compatible at all, and I don't advocate doing so. But at some point might we include an (optional) alternative system that would be relatively balanced with the existing system?

My group has been experimenting with a Magic Point system. Rather than try and make something original, we tried to parallel the Hit Point system as closely as possible. This is the result:

Characters with a spells per day table roll the following mana die type, adding their relevant ability score, at each level. As with Hit Dice, the first level is automatically the maximum.

d6 Paladin, Ranger
d8 Bard
d10 Cleric, Druid, Wizard
d12 Sorcerer

All casters are subject to their class's Spellbook/Spells Known restrictions.

Casting a spell costs Spell level times 3 in MP, except where noted for Cleric Domains and Specialist Wizards. Cantrips, Orisons, and all zero level spells are now At-will Spell-Like Abilities.

Cleric Domains and specialist School spells cost to cast SL* 2 in MP. Prohibited schools for specialist wizards cost SL * 4 in MP.

At zero MP, a character is Fatigued, but may continue to cast until -10mp, at which point the character is Exhausted and cannot cast any more spells.

-------

Now, I don't consider this an authentic suggestion for inclusion in the Pathfinder RPG, but it is what I will be using during my playtests, so I'd love any feedback from you all.

EDIT:

There are a few anomalous effects: in general, casters can cast fewer spells over all, and they can often cast more of their highest level spells than the Vancian system would allow. However, there isn't any way to mitigate this beyond tracking MP per spell level, which I think is too much paperwork. So I tried to strike a balance: more higher level spells possible, trusting...

Does a Cleric know all the spells on the Cleric list? Being able to choose from 40+ spells to cast at first level seems too powerful. Does a class know there normal spells per day but as spells known?

How often do we get to roll d12s anyways? Just let Barbarians roll d12, it doesn't break anything in the system and it gives them something special.

I like the changes to shields, those seem reasonable enough. Would helments add armor AC or a special helment AC, do their enchanments stack with armour enchantments?

Taken together any knightly character could get a 28 AC (10 base, +8 Platemail, +6 Tower Shield, +4 Helm) for around 2-3K. That's good AC for even level 10, let alone level 3. While fighters need a boost I think that's too much too early.

+1 Wiglaf's and Doug's ideas.

If you wanted a static AC bonus why not have the AC provided by a shield increase with BAB. For instance a heavy shield would grant 2 AC + 1 per 4 BAB. A Light shield grants 1 AC + 1 per 5 BAB because it has a smaller area to block with.

Brit O wrote:

The DC 15 is too high, and I'll tell you why.

If I want to hit an opponent with a +4 modifier to his CMB (pretty low level) and I have a +8 CMB (Either really high for low level or 4-6 level) I still need to roll at least an 11 to hit. Thats a pretty big gap between levels.

I would not think that a close to 50% chance to execute a maneuver which potentially harms or disadvantages an opponent is too high.

Let's look at this from the perspective of a first level character.
Your typical, medium sized opponent with STR 12-13 might have a +2 CMB (from BAB and STR) - this already beats most low-level monsters like Goblins and the like, which tend to have even lower CMBs. So you need to roll a (15+2=)17 to make your maneuver work. Let's say you are of a combative class with a good BAB progression and a decent above normal STR (12+). Note: most characters who intend to make frequent use of the CMB would likely have higher STR scores.
This gives you a 25% chance to succeed - which is 1 out of 4. I honestly don't think that this is too high. Just imagine: if the chances were significantly higher, everbody would disarm the opponents in round 1 and finish them off in round 2. Okay, maybe I exaggerate, but using a CMB should not become standard tactic. I hope you catch my drift...

Thing is, if we strive for balance between Melee classes and Casters we should make CMs easier to pull off. A 1st level Wizard with an intelligence of 18 makes the opponent make a DC 15 check to not be put to sleep, tripped, charmed or lose their reach advantage (Sleep, Grease, Charm Person, Reduce Person). Most CR 1-3 monsters have at least one low save that would mean they have to roll a 13 or 14.

I think a Fighter's feats desperately need to do this to keep them competetive at higher levels. Some people really hate scaling feats because they add an extra level of complication, which I think is kind of nonsense because a Wizard's spell scale in damage or effect.

I am not that experienced in the higher end of the exp-table,

so how powerful/effective would an fighter10/wizard10 be,
if you would only use what you named "effectiv class level"
(so no distinction between class level and effectiv class level for some core features)

Meaning:

Is a fighter10/wizard10 WITH THE FULL POWER of a fighter15/wizard15 too powerful compared to singleclass characters at level20?

I kind of like the idea about effectiv class level, and consider using it.

It depends by what you mean by 'FULL POWER'

If fighter10/wizard10 means you cast like a 15th level Wizard (8th level spells and all that) and you fight like a 15th level fighter (15 BAB and fighter perks up to level 15). Something like that gets BAB 15 and Caster Level 15 with lots of feats and class features.

If that's the benchmark then yes, using all the splat books you can make a character more powerful. I'm thinking something like Fighter 1, Wizard 6, Spellsword 1, Abjurant Champion 5, Eldritch Knight 7. This gets BAB 17 and CL 18, but has much less feats.

I think the best way to do what Kae is think of is at some point, instead of PrCs you allow the Gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana (part of the OGL). Lets say you have to take 3 levels of each class and take an IMPROVED MULTICLASSING feat to Gestalt, you wouldn't be able to do it before level 7 which meshes with the majority of prestige classes.

If you had Fighter 3, Wizard 3 then Fighter 14+Wizard 14 you'd get BAB 18 and CL 17 but with more feats and HP then the prestige class version. It doesn't get the Spellsword's or Abjurant Champion's special abilities. This might be more powerful than the PrC version.

Maybe if you modify the Gestalt rules so you can pick the Class Features from only ONE class, things like Spells, Sneak Attack and extra feats. So in the above example you still get BAB 18 and CL 17 but at each level you have to choose between a Fighter's Saves or a Wizard's Saves and a Fighter's Feats or a Wizard's Spells. This makes a character of similar power to the PrC example, losing some of the more flavourful abilities but potentially easier to build. You only need the Pathfinder RPG book to level, no more searching through Complete this or Races of that to level up.

Juton wrote:

That is probably correct if a person takes 20 levels of just base classes.

It could easily be said that PrCs don't count for effective class levels. That would certainly make sense for multiclass solutions like mystic theurge or eldritch knight and for specialists like assassin - you're supposed to give up stuff when you take them, because you get other stuff along the very same lines.

Or every PrC could have a short entry with the classes it can work with.

Option one would definetly be easier.

Ok, I think I understand what you are trying to get at. So a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 would have a Fighter ECL of 15 and a Wizard ECL of 15. They'd cast like a 15th level Wizard but would they have all the Fighter feats of a 15th level Fighter?

How are BAB, skills and hit die handled? Are they directly from the original class levels or are they affected by the new ECL? Would each class have a blurb stating what is and isn't effected my multiclassing?

Juton wrote:

2) It makes multiclass characters more powerful. Multiclassing is already more powerful than single classing a lot of the time. That's why so many optimizers multiclass.

Not true. Multiclassing tends to be SUBOPTIMAL in most cases, and optimizers tend to only do it when a class is toploaded with a few synergistic and important abilities (and then only in dips) or when it is required for a prestige class.

That is probably correct if a person takes 20 levels of just base classes. I've nearly never seen anyone do that though in person, almost everyone past a certain point goes into a Prestige Class, even in role-playing heavy settings.

PrCs are in the SRD, which means by default Pathfinder is going to inherit quite a few of them. Instead of Fighter 10/Wizard 10 we'll see something like Fighter 2/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10/Archmage 2 which gives us 16 BAB and 17 caster level.

The only time I've heard of people sticking to just the base classes is with the synergy feats like Daring Outlaw and Swift Hunter from Complete Scoundrel. Those basically let you make something like Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 16 with 10d6 sneak attack and full Swashbuckler Dodge.

The down side to making a feat for every base class combination is that I think you'd need 55 of them to cover every pair of base classes in Pathfinder. The upside is that you can tailor the power of each combination to make it competitive.

I'd like to see sword-and-boarders get more love too. I also think there should be an option to fight with just a one handed weapon, like the 3 musketeers or Inyigo Montoya. I always thought something like +1 dodge AC per 4 BAB would be a reasonable trade-off.

Since humans get Favoured Class:Any, should they still get there extra skill point a level?

I agree there is no reason the Battle Sorcerer variant shouldn't be tweaked with an optional paragraph for PF mechanics when pages are being devoted to blood line abilities.

This makes a lot of sense. There is a genuine demand for this kind of class, the old optimization boards even had a shorthand word for it.

If they felt the need to make it stronger they could give it extra weapon, armour and shield proficiencies. It gives the class variant more versatility without making it overpowering.

4 + Int skills for all classes (and maybe the option to choose INT MOD class skills at character creation)

Please, Please keep Rage points, I like this mechanic so much I've been pestering my DM to try 3.PF just so I can bring back my favourite Barbarian. Having a lot of abilities useful X times a day or an encounter would be nearly as complicated. If you had to change it make it a flat bonus that applies when the Barbarian rages, for example, instead of auto-confirming a crit it's a +4.

I think 3.5e's multiclassing rules can use some improvement. I know I'm not the first to suggest anything in this direction, but more options can't hurt.

Basics:

Effective Class Level:
The effective class level (I'd abbreviate it with ECL, but that's taken) for a class is actual class level + (all other levels/HD)/2. Alternately, ECL could be capped at twice the actual level, like in Zynete idea.
Example: Fighter 6/Rogue 4 would have a Fighter ECL of 8 and Rogue of 7. If we use the cap, a Fighter 10/Rogue 2 would only be Effective Rogue 4.

Class Abilities, Class Level, Effective Class Level, and Improved Multiclassing

My idea is that for some things, you use the class level, for other things, you use the effective class level, and for another set of things, you use class level unless you have the Improved Multiclassing feat for that calss - then you use ECL for those, too.

Class Level
Some things should always depend on class level, and class level only. I'd say any spellcaster's spells per day and spells known should be among that list, and any bonus feats a class may grant. Also, the time when you get abilities, and when you get extra uses of those abilities, should generally be based on actual class level.

Effective Class Level
Generally, caster levels should depend on ECL. That means that your spells deal more damage, last longer, and will overcome SR more easily. Also, other abilities that have a power level based on your class level - like a paladin's smite, school powers, domain powers, that sort of thing - should be base don ECL.

Feat
There'd be a feat called Improved Multiclassing. You'd take it for each class you want to "unlock" further abilities of. You could take it several times, but only once per class. I don't know about prerequisites yet, but "have class levels" should definetly be in.

Feats and Abilities
The feat would enable you to get some stuff based on your effective class level instead of your actual class...

This is kind of interesting, it's like how the Tome of Battle classes raise there maneuver level even by multiclassing. I see two problems with this :

1) It's a bit complicated, especially if you try and juggle a Rogue/Fighter/Wizard.

2) It makes multiclass characters more powerful. Multiclassing is already more powerful than single classing a lot of the time. That's why so many optimizers multiclass.