Kayn's page

Hello all,

Wow, I'm impressed at the sheer amount of discussion here over such a seemingly small thing. Anywho, I figure I might as well throw in my thoughts.

I think the main difference with Charisma as opposed to many other stats is that, for instance, we can look at the Illithid's stat line. They have high charisma, but I think (man, I HOPE) that we all agree they're freakin' ugly. In fact, there are many bug ugly things in the monster manual that have high Charisma. What does this all mean? It means, simply, that though Charisma may sometimes include physical beauty, it clearly doesn't always do so.

So how about changing the line to read something like "...can include physical attractiveness as well..." Seems like a nice compromise that only adds a word or two.

Kayn

I have a fairly simple rule. I never kill PCs, I let the players do it themselves.

What I mean is that I never set up a situation in which a PC absolutely will die. I even cheat on die rolls so they don't die just because of random dumb luck. However, I set up many situations where they CAN die if they choose the wrong path. Now, by that I mean that if they're supposed to be heroes and they're taking the villainous path, then they will find themselves growing ever closer to doom. If they're level 1 and they encounter a dragon, it'll be sleeping. If they walk off, they live. If they poke around and loot the place, the chances increase that the dragon will wake up and eat them. If they decide to attack the dragon, then they're probably not going to like the outcome. And if they continue to fight him after the first character dropped in one or two hits, then there's likely to be a campaign restart soon.

Really, it all depends on the players. Some players want the danger, most want to at least feel like there's some danger even if there isn't. Some players are cool with their characters dropping like flies. Others are ok if it happens in an appropriately dramatic way. Yet others will scream bloody murder if their characters die.

Truthfully, I've yet to ever kill a character in a game I ran. Yet somehow I acquired a reputation as a terrifying GM. I don't quite know how that worked out.

But, if you want the best advice possible, I recommend checking out an article by Steven Marsh in Pyramid magazine. I wish I could remember its name... Basically, it compared games to adventure movies in general and Indiana Jones in particular. You know when you start the movie that Indiana isn't going to die no matter how grim the situation looks. But you don't know about other things. Will he win the fight and rescue the woman locked in the plane before it explodes? Will he be able fight through the nazis before the ship leaves with the all important MacGuffin? The death of a PC isn't the only thing that can add drama to a fight.

Of course, resurrection scrolls are cheap....

Hello all,

Just a few quick things off the top of my head:

Barbarian

*I think there should be alternate ways of recovering rage points (but I have a thread dedicated to that).

*Guarded Stance rage power. Guarded stance? How can one fly into a berserker rage and yet still maintain a guarded stance? Adopting a defensive posture is not going berserk. Just seems thematically inappropriate. Also, it means that a high level barbarian, instead of losing defensive ability in his rage actually becomes one of the highest AC characters possible. Just strikes me as a power that shouldn't be there. They already have increased damage reduction as a far more appropriate defensive power.

*Low-Light Vision and Nightsight rage powers: I'm so angry that I can see in the dark! Eh? Again, it's a nice ability, but I cannot understand how it thematically fits in with flying into a berserk rage.

Bard

*With all the versatility and options gained by monks, paladins, barbarians, and others, why not give that versatility to bards for their special abilities? Of course, powers would have to be tweaked to allow for scaling and whatnot, but it would really help to make bards unique from one another, and it would give players more options.

*There's a line that says bards can cast spells while using a shield, but then the next sentence says they suffer a failure chance for using a shield. That needs to be cleaned up, I think.

*For many ideas on bard versatility, I highly recommend the old 2nd ed. Bards Handbook. There were a vast number of very good kits there that I still cannot duplicate under the current rules. Maybe incorporating some of those abilities as options for a bard could help flesh them out as more than the merry minstrel.

Cleric

*Why remove initial powers from domains and yet give them to wizard specialist schools? It's fine with me, but I do find it odd. Other than that, I love clerics. They're good.

Druid

*I just don't know enough about the druid to say too much here.

Figher

*With so many feat choices, I wonder if there are enough feats in the book to keep fighters differentiated. Other than that, they look dang solid.

Monk

* "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." I hate this quote. The way the paragraph is worded, it sounds like the monk is constantly lashing out with any and every limb each with equal prowess. But it seems to mean that monks aren't allowed to make unarmed off-hand attacks. Sure, there's flurry of blows to represent many attacks, but you can use that AND off-hand attacks with kamas. So, shouldn't a bare handed monk get the same potential as a weapon wielding one?

*Ki Strike: Personally, I'd like to see some options with this one. Counting as magical and lawful make sense, but it'd be nice to be able to choose between, for example, adamantine or flaming or who knows what else. Just a thought.

*Ki Pool: I love it! I think there should be alternate ways of recovering points (but I have a thread dedicated to that). I'd love to see more abilities that can make use of the ki pool. Maybe add feats. It's very nice.

Paladin

*Wow. They seem very, very potent. But, I think everything in Pathfinder does. So perhaps they're balanced. It all looks good to me at any rate. That is to say that everything fits the theme quite well.

Ranger

*I still need to look more closely at theme before I can make any usefl comments.

Rogue

*Nice. They seem much more interesting than in vanilla 3.5. Though, since their the most skill heavy class, I'm not sure how all of the skill changes are affecting them.

Sorcerers and Wizards

(I'm lumping these together partially because I'm tired and partially because....)

*At first, I noticed the bloodlines and thought it was a great way to differentiate the two classes. Then I noticed the way specialist school abilities worked, and they seemed much more similar again. However, both work well, and though they are mechanically similar, they are thematically very good. It also gives many new options for sorcerers and their background.

*Infinite cantrips: Perfect! Now wizards feel more like masters of the arcane who are constantly performing minor, near-effortless magics.

*Infinite use attack power: This is good. There's a reason both Neverwinter Nights games give you an infinite charge minor damage wand. This certainly helps the mages keep up with endurance and avoid becoming a stone after their 15 minutes are up. One thing to consider, though, mages can never be disarmed....

Ok, so those are my preliminary thoughts. I hope they prove useful to someone.

Kayn

Hello all,

I was noticing another thread ([Think-Tank]Beta Classes) and got to thinking about rage points, ki points, and points like that in general. I was going to post there, but since this idea is only about points, I thought it best to start a new thread.

Ok, so first of all, I think point based abilities are great in that they allow a great deal of flexibility for a character and help to differentiate members of the same class. However, as many have pointed out, the problem comes in with "alpha attacks" and "shooting the moon" and all of the other phrases that means the character is likely to spend all his points in the first fight of the day, leaving him dead weight until he can rest. Well, there really is a simple solution to this. The simple solution is don't require a rest to recharge the points. Require something else.

For instance, barbarians use rage. Why do they get so angry by getting a good night's sleep? Wouldn't it make more sense if they could gain rage points by enduring things that make them angry? Failing rolls, or being taunted, or taking damage, or something that makes them angry. Then they wouldn't have to worry about spending all their rage points in one fight and being too darn chipper for the rest of the day.

Another example might be ki points. Now here resting does make sense as the monk meditating is a perfect image. However, even here there are some alternatives (or additions) that could be used. Going through ritual cleansing, or performing a specific kata, or a drunken master gaining ki by downing booze (hrm...interesting feat idea). Yes, all of these things could happen during downtime, but they could also, potentially, happen at many other times.

I think having alternate means to restore used points helps to avoid the 15 minute adventuring day as well as further distinguishing point-power based characters from spell-casters.

Just an idea for you all to chew on.

Kayn

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

This is what gets me also. It almost seems like the attitude is "Hey, the half orc is suddenly comparable to other races? Somethings wrong, break out the nerf bat and beat the half orc back into being to worthless race he belongs."

This

I swear to you all that I do not hate hal-orcs, nor do I ant them nerfed in any way, shape, or form. Indeed, I think they need to be improved. I just feel that those improvements need to be logical for the setting. Now what is logical for the setting is up to Paizo, of course. I am forced to run on existing and previous DnD material.

Now, as for a wisdom bonus, some people are for and some are against and I'm sure many don't really care. However, are there any folks who think having a wisdom bonus is absolutely wrong? Yes. Many. I'm one of them. Now, are there any folks out there who think half-orcs without a bonus to their wisdom is just absolutely wrong? I doubt if there is anyone on these forums who had been upset for years that half-orcs just weren't getting the obvious wisdom bonus they deserved....

Kayn

Here's the biggest problem with half-orc WIS bonus.

Orc:
Abilities: Str 17, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 7, Cha 6

QED.

If we're going to "re-imagine" orcs and half-orcs for Pathfinder/Golarion that's fine. But historically, orcs and to a lesser extent half-orcs have been disordered beasts. Even less "wise" than they are classically dumb.

In AD&D 1e: +1 STR, +1 CON, -2 CHA. STR 6-18, Int 3-17, Wis 3-14, Dex 3-17, Con 13-19, Cha 3-12.

I think they should get STR and CON bonuses. Is this a lot of "combat bonus?" Yes. But they get crap racials otherwise, so that's OK. Watered down ferocity and "orc blood?" Bah. And that's their deal! They're the brutes! <snip>

This is exactly where I'm working from. Orcs have never been portrayed as wise in D&D, nor have they been portrayed as wise in most fiction. But wisdom doesn't mean wisdom. Ok, as silly as that is, I have to say it's often true in D&D. However, even with that being the case, orcs have a low wisdom score and always have. In fact, they've always had a lower wisdom score than intelligence even! So, since intelligence has always been their highest mental stat, it must be the one to get a +2 boost...right? Well, I think most of us agree that that is silly. So why NOT give them +2 STR and CON? Sure, that pushes them down a more fightery combative path...but they're friggin' half orcs! Of course you are welcome to play a half orc wizard or sorcerer or somesuch, but how many folks out there think that those classes should be just as common and likely as half orc fighters and barbarians?

Ernest Mueller also said this: (As an aside, the WotC 4e-ers do have a point when they talk about artificial parallelism - I think that "every race needs one physical and one mental bonus" is an example of that.) And again, I have to agree 100%. This seems like designing for balanced game design rather than evoking a genre and setting.

Ok, but what of the arguments that say these are not orcs, they're HALF-orcs. They have a human side too! Well, that's true. But humans don't usually have a high wisdom either. The average human has a 10 in every stat. Now, the average player will have more, and about 1 in 6 players might take a wisdom bonus, but still, humans are not a particularly wisdom heavy race. It seems that orcs are generally portrayed (and have the stats to back it up) as very, very strong, and also durable. In addition they are a bit stupid, very unwise, and horrible at dealing with others. Now, humans are average at everything. So, the mid point would be half-orcs. That is, they'd be very strong, somewhat durable, a bit slow-witted, unwise, and very bad dealing with others. That sure sounds like a bonus to Str and Con with a Cha penalty to me.

Now, if Paizo wants to change all that and go with the Warcraft-esque "noble savage" orcs or whatnot, then it's no problem. But giving half orcs a bonus to any mental stat is, most certainly, a change from the baseline that currently, and has always, existed with D&D, and most other fantasy in general.

Kayn

You know, I think the real crux of the debate is that wisdom as a stat has very little to do with the word "wisdom". That being the case, it's pretty near impossible to discuss things in a manner which can please everyone. Over the years, wisdom has slowly warped farther and farther away from wisdom until it is now to the point where it makes sense to many that orcs and animals should have it at high levels. But rather than continue to warp the word more and more, I still think it would be better to not continue that trend and, if possible, slowly reverse it over the coming years. Just my thoughts.

Kayn

thelesuit wrote:

Kayn wrote:

Oh (sorry to rear my ugly head again so soon after that post), I just thought of an addendum...<snipped>

I totally agree with Kayn's point of view.

I think half-orcs should be handled in much the same way half-elves are. Give them a +2 to any one stat, darkvision, affinity for orc-ish weapons, and call it good.

CJ

This is the most interesting idea I have heard yet. To be honest, we went back and forth on the half-orc bonuses for a while before settling on the current mix. I am not sure any other mental stat bump for half-orcs works at all (Int and Cha) as both are decidedly "un-orcish" in many regards.

As for the druid favored class, this was done primarily for a "shamanistic" feel. Clerics are far too organized, in general, whereas druids seem like a pretty good fit (calling on the elements, using feral animals, shapeshifting).

These things said, of course, I am open to discussion. Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Actually, this sounds like a pretty good idea. Giving half-orcs a +2 to any stat kind of ties them into the half-race category of getting a choice of stat. Of course, this could easily lead to a half-elf with a strength bonus, and a half-orc with a charisma bonus...but I still find that being a possibility far less disruptive than a wisdom bonus being a certainty. ;) Again, I certainly agree that Int and Cha are even less orcish than wisdom, but wisdom still seems pretty unorcish. I mean, I think one of the defining features of orcs is that they are all brawn with no brain. In fact, in my mind, that is what an orc is: they are a representation of the mindless and savage side of the PC races. So it makes giving them balanced stats hard.

As for druid, I can agree completely with the shamanistic feel. But druids aren't shamans. Both are often portrayed as quite naturalistic, but for different reasons. Shamans are, generally, primitive and use nature because they either can't or won't use refined products. Druids actively seek to be in harmony with nature and protect it. Either way, if I recall, in 1st edition, orcs were affined with the assassin class. So maybe making rogue a favored class might work better? After all, half-orcs have many of the same tendencies as orcs, but aren't as big and strong, and so maybe sneaking around, stealing, and stabbing others in the back would be a more natural path for them?

Kayn

Oh (sorry to rear my ugly head again so soon after that post), I just thought of an addendum.

Many people in this thread have made numerous comments that can defend or justify this bonus. They have mentioned numerous ways that it might be logical. Folks have mentioned that it could lead to good RP hooks. This is all true. However, the fact that it MUST be justified is my point. No one would bat an eye at elves getting an intelligence bonus or dwarves getting a wisdom bonus...at least, I haven't seen posts about those bonuses. And I think if Paizo had given elves a charisma bonus, then no one (or at least very, very few) would have thought it odd at all. But a half-orc wisdom bonus must be justified...again...and again...and again. Some folks roll with it. Some folks cannot stomach it. That, to me, is an indicator that it is quite less than a perfect fit. As for it being a roleplaying hook, yeah, I would certainly agree. However, I've always found the best hooks to be things that are unusual for a character rather than things that were typical. A dwarf who is tough and has a long beard is, well, a dwarf. A dwarf who can't grow a beard and is really brainy...well, that's something that stands out.

And, as a final (really!) note, one individual mentioned that since half-orcs are spurned by all, that it would make sense for them to turn to the gods and become clerics. That's a very valid point, and makes for a perfect character story. However, it is simply not a standard in any setting that I've ever heard of. That is to say, it's not really a backwards compatible thing. Now, if that's how it works in the Pathfinder universe, no problem...but that then makes the Pathfinder universe a bit of an exception rather than the rule.

Anywho, I'm not trying to flame or attack anyone. I just feel a bit more strongly about the issue than I thought and I want to present a thorough discussion.

Kayn

Ah, I knew if I looked then I'd find a thread like this. :)

I remember my gaming days stretching back to the early 80's, and I can't count the number of wise orcs I've encountered there or in fantasy literature...literally...there's not a single one to count. Ok, ok, maybe in the Warcraft universe, or in a few fringe products. But seriously, when I first read it, I was certain it was a typo.

Now, of course, wisdom in the game mechanically adds to perception and whatnot, and orcs could certainly be good at those things. However, wisdom is also supposed to represent, well y'know, wisdom. Now, I just can't see all these people trying to figure out a pressing problem and saying something like, "We need to seek the ancient wisdom of the orcs to solve this dilemma!" Dwarves? Sure. Elves? You bet. Orcs? Are you insane? Also, wisdom represent willpower. Now I can easily picture the iron-willed dwarf standing resolutely against an army of undead when all the others are shaken, or throwing off a mind altering spell through his stubborn will. Now, an orc? Well, I can picture him fighting the undead too...but not because of will, but rather because he's so foolhardy. And throwing off the spells? Well, have you ever encountered the situation where the wizard's enchantments work fine on most things, but those danged orcs are just too strong-willed and unbreakable. It seems so odd to me.

Now, I realize the mechanical justifications here. I know they want to give a bonus to a physical and a mental stat. I also realize that wisdom mechanically aids perception and whatnot. However, it just does not fit the genre. Why not give them a bonus to two physical stats? Certainly that would tend to make them excel as fighter types and be duds at the mental classes, but that DOES tend to fit the normal view of orcs. As for being perceptive, you can do that just by giving a racial bonus to certain skills, and then it wouldn't come with all of the extra baggage. It just seems that the wisdom bonus was done with thoughts of it solely as a game mechanic with genre as a distant second. Granted it is not as bad a choice as intelligence or charisma, but it's still bad.

And then there's the whole druid thing. Ah, the orcs, guardians of woodlands, friends to the creatures of the wild. Really? I thought animals were afraid of them, and they wreaked havoc wherever they went? Now, of course, orcs aren't real, and so we can envision them in any way we please, but I do strongly believe that orc druids are quite antithetical to their normal portrayal. I can see orcs having savage shamans and witchdoctors, but those are more a kind of users of nature rather than preservers of nature. But, if they have wisdom high then its either that or clerics. Again, druid is the least bad choice, but it's still bad.

So what do I recommend? Well, there are a few things, but I'm a better complainer than I am a fixer. Still, I'll have a try. I'd suggest either giving the orcs a bonus to two physical stats (strength and constitution, of course), and then giving them a bonus to perception rolls. Frankly, they have the fewest racial abilities as it is, and could use a few more. Another option? Give them a big bonus to strength (+4) and a penalty to some mental stat. Frankly, I don't really care what is done to make them less useless than they are in basic 3.5, but please don't give them a bonus to a stat that is so terribly inappropriate.

Now, as a side note, I just did a little research on orcs, and it only strengthened my thoughts here. This is the stat-line for orcs: Str 17, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 7, Cha 6. Now, granted, we're talking about half orcs and not full orcs, but one would think that you'd kind of average the stats between orcs and humans to get their stats. I also noticed this line about orcs: "Orcs like scars and take pride in exposing them, whether they are of a victory or loss." Now, if one regards the value of a fight based on scars gained rather than victory or loss, should they be considered wise? Now I will give ground when talking about Eberron, but that is a rather non-standard setting, I think.

I guess I'm just saying that orcs as a race are generally viewed as cruel, brutish, destructive, and dim-witted. Half orcs are the products of these orcs mixing with humans. So they don't have to be the same as their orcish parentage. After all, you could put an 18 into charisma and still have a 16. ;) However, they would inherit tendencies of their orcish side, and all of those tendencies seem to class very sharply with a wisdom bonus. Now, if Pathfinder is trying to redefine orcs, that's fine, but it is a redefinition.

Ok, I've rambled enough. Feel free to read some other things about orcs at these enlightening spots though: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/Orc.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

Thanks for slogging through my ramblings,

Kayn

Hey there everybody,

Great discussion going on here... and I thought I would pop in with a few thoughts and comments.

Racial Preferred Classes in 3.5 were a way of discouraging rampant multiclassing, just for the sake of stacking huge save bonuses and cherry picking abilities. We decided to go with a bonus for playing "in class" for your race instead. While that has its benefits, I am not sure it is the perfect solution.

What if we look at this as an opportunity to enhance those playing a single class only. Giving some sort of bonus so long as you stick with one class. This, might then remove it from the realm of a "racial" bonus and make it a generic feature of taking levels.

Another option, of course, is just to kill it entirely. A number of changes made to the classes (which we will discuss later) were designed to encourage folks to stick with one class, which might make this entire subrule obsolete.

To be honest, I am leaning toward the latter... but I want to hear what you guys have to say.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Though I agree that rampant multiclassing purely for the sake of min-maxing is a terrible thing, I also feel that multiclassing in order to fit a particular theme or concept should be encouraged. I'm lucky in that I currently have no munchkins near me and so I don't really need a fix to this particular problem. Anywho, as for racially preferred classes, I think they run a serious danger of encouraging stereotyping while also encouraging theme. A double edged sword.

Now, the quote above suggests just removing the somewhat artificial mechanic since so much else has been done to avert min-maxing multiclassing. I think that's a pretty decent idea, really, but then what do you do with humans and half-elves to make up for the loss of more free multiclassing? And does Pathfinder want to encourage dwarves to be fighters and elves to be wizards? Perhaps the solution is to ALMOST do away with favored classes.

Perhaps what might work best (and this is just off the top of my head) is to give a small bonus, at first level only, to those who choose their race's favored class. Maybe something like a few extra skill points or a special feat like "Traditional Training" or somesuch. Or perhaps giving specific bonuses like "Dwarven fighters gain X hit points", "elven wizards gain an extra 1st level spell slot" or somesuch. Of course, this still leaves the question of what to do with humans and half-elves, but one thing at a time.... Anywho, just my thoughts. Hrm...maybe I'll use that in my games.

Anyway, if there is no desire to encourage certain race/class combinations, then I'd say to just remove favored classes altogether. However, just remember to shore up the loss for the humans and half-elves. And then there may be some issues with backwards compatibility, but I can't imagine there'd be any huge ones.

Thanks for reading my babble,

Kayn

Wow, there sure is a lot of debate here...and I'm a bit too tired to read it all. *cough* Anyway, here's my brief thought:

I don't mind combining some skills (spot & listen -> perception, hide&move silently -> stealth). However, I strongly feel that there must be a good number of skills available to both diversify characters and to justify classes with high skill points. That being said, if there are too many skills, then the skill points per level should be increased for each class. Overall, though, from what I've seen, things still seem to be mostly in balance. I think I stand somewhere between the original poster and Alpha 3.

Kayn

I've wondered at the purpose behind the favored class bonus. I figure it must serve one of two purposes. The first is to encourage classic archetypes (or, perhaps, stereotypes). If so, then I don't like the idea of a bonus at all, but if one is to be given, then 1hp seems as good as any other bonus. The second purpose I can think of is to either encourage folks to stick with a base class and/or to not go on massive multi-classing sprees solely to gain more power. Now, if it's the second, then I'm quite for it. However, I think giving a bonus when taking levels in the favored class will always cause the first purpose whether intended or not, and so I wonder if there isn't a different way.

What I came up with was the idea, then, of giving that bonus any time someone takes a level in the same class that they just took a level in. Heck, maybe even make the bonus grow if they do it enough times in a row. This, I think, would reward folks for sticking with a single class and being devoted to it. If that's not the real goal though...well, then please disregard this message. ;)

Kayn

Ok, here are my thoughts (for what they're worth):

Standard: Has worked fine for me since 2nd Edition days. However, it doesn't meet the goal of making 1st level characters any more durable really.

Double: I think it favors the fighter-ish classes too much. That is to say, those who really have a problem with low hit points don't get much of a boost this way, and those who naturally have less problems get a bigger boost. It seems to work a bit counter to what is needed.

Racial: It seems logical enough on the surface, however, it has some major flaws. Firstly, elves are double punished. They already have a lower CON to represent frailty, why give them less bonus hit points as well? Are they really supposed to be THAT frail? Secondly, it also tends to aid those who need it the least again. That is, races that generally go for high hit point classes or have a CON bonus get the biggest bonus, and they are the ones who need the bonus the least in order to survive those low levels. Thirdly, what if someone is playing a non-standard race from the Monster Manual or some other third party product? Of course the DM can probably guess what is correct, but there would be no "canon" hps for all of those races...unless Paizo wants to go to the trouble of defining them for every race that could possibly be a PC.

Flat: I find this one to be the most fair. If the problem is that 1st level heroes (especially the "soft" ones) need a few more hit points at first level, then just give them some. But make it fair and equal across the board. This effectively gives the biggest boost to the ones who need help the most, but by no means diminishes the bonus that a higher CON or a high hit die class provides. I like this one.

Constitution: This is like 4th edition. So, WoTC thinks it's good. I personally think it makes constitution overly potent, and again favors those who don't need the boost as much. After all, when one character is a dwarven barbarian with a 16 CON, he already has 15 hps at first level, this would put him to 31! Whereas the poor elf wizard with a CON of 10 has his measly 6 hps become 16. Though the ratio remains about the same (the wizard has roughly 50%), the actual gap in hps jumps from 9 to 14.

Basically, I feel that the softer targets need help more than the already tough ones. And I feel that any method that rewards those who already have high hit points more than those who start with low hit points only exacerbates the problem. For example, take the elven wizard and dwarven fighter above as an example. Any threat the DM wishes to throw at the party must be a credible threat to each party member (unless the party enjoys having the wizard as the designated monster bait). Now, as the hp gap widens, things that provide a consistent level of threat to the dwarf provide an ever increasing threat to the wizard. This isn't as much of a problem for level based hit points as wizards have spells to even the odds, but at first level, there is no such thing. That's basically the angle I'm coming from. At any rate, I hope some of this is useful to someone. :)

Kayn

Maybe the best way to preserve the spell (at least in name if not ability) is to limit it to finding a path only to places you've already been to. This would, certainly, change its utility, but it would not render it useless. It would mean that you'd always be able to find your way home. Not so powerful, really, but still "finding a path".

I have to agree with Paizo overall on this one. Discovery really isn't much of a game theme if casting a single spell removes the need to travel and search. And, really, I think that in many ways not having a spell to find paths is perfect for Pathfinder. After all, the game is predicated on the characters finding the path...not just casting a spell that does it for them. ;)

Anyway, I'm not sure if any of this has been said before; I really didn't read the many threads on the spell. I just wanted to add my two cents. I hope someone finds it useful.

Kayn