Frederic Gagnon's page

This thread is an example of why I'm not in favor of the racial changes in Pathfinder.

One of the goals of Pathfinder was to be compatible with 3.5 and not invalidate the books we've invested in. While this change does not, it creates alot of work trying to upgrade the races in all the different supplements (as well as monster manuals) with the extra +2 to a stat because of this change.

Now, not only do I have an extra book with Pathfinder but I also need to keep a notebook with all the changes it causes in all my other books. With "fixes" that cause this kind of work, I might as well go 4th edition. I can just work to adapt my 3.5 books to that system.

Yes! I am blowing this out of porportion, but it is to make a point. Certain changes are beyond the scope that I understood Pathfinder to be targeting.

I'm definately not for the total removal of iterative attacks but they do need to be looked at. In all my games, they've had two great impacts.

A) They slow down the game especially when you factor in that two-weapon fighting is quite popular plus all the different bonuses and buffs you can have (spells, bardic music, Power Attack etc.) Players are often coming to the session with complex matrices. Even with those sheets each players turn takes several minutes.

B) With the tendency of players to optimize for damage, the iterative attacks combined with some attack bonuses that hit on a roll of 2 on a d20 result damage output so high that no opponent can handle. This creates encounter balance issues.

Why would any fighter type do anything but close to melee then stay put for full attacks? Anything else is a gross loss of potential damage.

I propose a different approach to balance iterative attacks. Making the decision to do a full round attack should come at a price. There should be an actual decision to make. If making a full round attack were, to say, render the attack flat footed, denying them their dex bonus to AC and the ability to make AoO on that round and prevent them from fighting defensively, then maybe the player might consider just standing there and swinging away.

I'm still looking for the best way to do it, but I think there should be a risk to the reward of a full attack option.

What do we think?

Please ignore any mention of things that were addressed in the development notes. I only now realized these were available.

Thanks!

The following review is based on some limited play testing, in-depth evaluation and discussion among several player/DMs. It's a little long. Excuse me for that.

Races: Interesting changes, especially for the Half-elf and Half-orc (those that needed the update the most.) However, the problem with most of these changes is that they are no longer in line with the core races or the plethora of races from other sources.
Changes to races should simply bring the races in line.

Classes: These changes are also interesting but they are a bit deep and bring balance into question.
- The new domain powers change clerics but also part of the spell system.
- The fighter gains unneeded extra attack and damage bonuses. Fighters could be “fixed” with a far simpler increase in fighter bonus feats, perhaps granting them automatic weapon focus, weapon specialization and so on at the levels where they are gained (1, 4, 8, 12, etc)
- The rogue has enough new abilities that we will need a bit more time to render an opinion.
- I love the new school powers but I can’t help but feel that the change is too extensive. Specialists probably could use some better benefits but
Most spell casters have, in my opinion, always had a problem in the levels where they don’t get a new spell level. It’s like a dead level. I’ve taken to granting special bonus feats at every level where no new spell level is gained. It’s never broken any of my games (the barbarian still dominates) but it allows for great customization.

Skills: This system is far too much like Star Wars Saga Edition and the way 4e will be doing it. While it may work, it would require a bit too many changes whether on characters to NPCs to skill DCs. Plus, as many have already mentioned so far, removing skill points also removes a certain level of customizability.
The altered skills (combined) is a move in the right direction. We’ve already implemented the Stealth and Perceptions skills in my various games so seeing them here is comforting. Some of the other combinations seem a little hasty in my opinion.
I was disappointed to see that Tumble works the same as in the core rules. I dislike the fact that it’s as easy to tumble by a 20th level character as it is a first level character. Monte Cook has a good version where the DC is the targets Attack roll (or +5 to go through the target’s square.)

Feats: I will report back on this section when we’ve had more time to review this section. But I can say that feats that require that you’ve done something the round before, while interesting, only adds to the bookkeeping that bogs down 3.5.

Combat: - Was there that many problems with cover that we need a rule change?
- The CMB is a good idea overall. By this I mean there are good things and bad things in regards to the combat maneuvers.
The good relates directly to having one bonus to remember when trying to execute any of the affected combat options. A problem with 3.5 is that each of the different options (grapple, sunder, disarm, etc) were resolved differently. Unifying this is a large step in the right direction.
The not so good refers to the static target DC for these maneuvers. To hit 15 + the targets CMB is the same as opposed rolls where the target rolls a 15 on a d20. Why 15? Is there something wrong with opposed rolls?
Also, why change the size modifiers for CMBs?
I think this just needs to simmer a little longer before it’s ready.
- The new turn undead rules are still untested. That should be done in the days to come.

Spells and Magic: - While the content of the new Domains and School powers are quite neat, the changes seem too extensive.
It is my opinion that the changes should be simple and in line with what already exists. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
- Kudos on the unlimited casting of 0 level spells! It’s nice to see that in print.
- You did inadvertently hit upon a possible fix for a 3.5 subsystem that requires a good look: metamagic. The metamagic mastery ability (8th level universal power, pg 49) has a good take on the way metamagic should work. The “uses” per day could also serve as the same kind of resource that clerics get in turn attempts with all the feats that support that.

General: All in all, every idea has been good. They just don’t all fit. I appreciate the effort Jason and the gang have put in so far.
My suggestion would be to keep it all simple. Only change what needs to be changed and change it only as much as it takes to get the desired results.

Are there any plans to look at iterative attacks? Or multi-classing spell casters?
Have you considered partnering or consulting with Monte Cook? (Just a suggestion!!!)

Thanks Paizo for even doing any of this!

I'll just put it straight, I'm going to be buying the core books for 4.0. But that may well be my last purchases from WotC/Hasbro for D&D. If the game ends up being good, I'll slowly move over to the system. However, I'm already worried about some of what I've heard. What I'm most likely to do is mine these books for ideas.

To echo what's already been said by many, there are many books published for 3.5 (and I own too many of them) and I think it's a great waste to invalidate all the rules found within that amount of material. I've always hoped more for a 3.75 myself. Something that fixes the glaring issues, but stays close enough to 3.5 that a great amount of the existing material can be salvaged. 4.0 would have to be incredible for me to turn my back on everything surrounding 3.5. The fight starts uphill for 4.0, a steep hill at that. 3.5 has some big shoes to fill.

All that being said, Paizo has done some phenomenal work with the supplements and adventure paths. I can say that I'd be far more likely to continue buying Pathfinder if it remains 3.5 based. I'd be the first in line to buy a "3.75" Pathfinder RPG produced by Paizo.

However, if 4.0 looks decent AND Paizo ends up making the move then I'll seriously consider converting. I trust you guys for all the reasons the fans above have stated. I love that you even ask us what we think. Whatever happens, I'll back Paizo.