NekoMouser's page

Yeah... the use of the phrase, "sword and board" is what triggered the Warcraft card, to be honest. I'd never heard that phrase before WoW, and have heard it LOTS there... so therefore it's YOUR FAULT I brought up Warcraft! :)

Funny. First time I heard it called "sword and board" was in SCA, back before Warcraft 2 was a glimmer in Blizzard's eye. Nice to hear of it making the rounds, though. ^_^

Of course you would be. See points 3 and 4 above.

I swing the first short sword/dagger/moldy bag of cabbage noodles at an opponent, and he tries to block it. Taking advantage of his shift in position to block my primary weapon, I increase my ability to hit with my offhand short sword/dagger/carrot.

It's that simple. Again, it doesn't take into account a number of additional possibilities (like the opponent having 2 weapons also...or a shield), but that's the nature of the to hit/AC system. You could as easily say that the swing from your primary weapon caused you to shift in a circular fashion, building momentum for your offhand attack and thereby better enabling it to penetrate a foes armor. *shrug*

Now if your question is about which one is really the "offhand", that's certainly a valid concern. I'd say whichever you make your second attack with...which can easily provide for fighting styles where you jab and then hit 'em with the moneymaker.

I really miss the evil, depraved, R-rated Gygax "S&M" drow. I'm sick of the hordes of double-scimitar-wielding, whiny, emo, rated PG "good" drow. ** spoiler omitted **

It kind of depends on how tight you have the ball gag on...they are REALLY whiny. Honestly, I think this is the largest part of the drow's appeal as monsters. They're a race of dominatrix led confused emo/goth boys with a fetish for something that is arguably one of the creepiest critters in the animal kingdom (a creature which is also analogous in dream interpretation psychology with a mother figure...Freud was a freak). What about that would you not want to beat down with a bastard sword?

If you JUST have Two Weapon Fighting and Double Slice... you're penalty is -2/0. That seems REALLY odd and really wrong to me... why is there a feat that makes your "off hand" attacks better then your "primary" hand? That seems backwards to me.

If Double Slice is intended to reduce the penalty of Improved and Greater Two Weapon Fighting, it needs to be worded differently and have atleast Improved as a Prerequisite.

You were pimping this pretty hard over in the Swap thread, so I though I'd drop by and be neighborly.

I think the logic that goes into Double Slice works something like this.

1. The lighter weapon is generally the offhand weapon. Giving a bonus to hit with the less damaging lighter weapon isn't broken in comparison to ameliorating the penalties with both weapons. Thus, a lower prereq feat versus a higher prereq feat.

2. In the case where the offhand weapon isn't light (like a certain ashy elf emo boy and his scimitars or a Michelle Yeoh with a pair of Chinese Broadswords or even Conan with bastard sword and battleaxe combo), you effectively reduce the penalty for using two weapons if those weapons aren't light weapons.

3. Frankly, the real world logic is kind of behind this one. If I swing weapon A at you, you'll block it. If I swing weapon A at you while also swinging weapon B, you've got to move a little faster and more precisely to block B. The down side of this is that it assumes that you are fighting a single weapon user without a shield...but there is an overriding logic. Unlike Swap, which is merely a nod to a neat mechanic and nifty cinematics.

4. It adds a bonus which happens to alleviate a penalty. It doesn't just alleviate a penalty. This supports the "hold up weapon A and smack you with weapon B more easily" format. It also gets at the advantage of a hidden dagger in old swashbuckler movies without going to a feint mechanic.

Just my take on it.

NekoMouser wrote:

Not so confusing when you consider the WotC overreaction to Book of Erotic Fantasy in light of BoVD's Lich Loved feat. ^_^

Don't bring me into this sordid affair :)

NekoMouser wrote:

"Sex is bad, boys and girls. It doesn't belong in roleplaying games...unless you're having it with dead people. If you are having sex with dead people, you can pick up your nifty benefits package over there."

And has the added benefit of never being told "I am not in the mood". One must look on the bright side, that is my view.

Speak of the devil, and he will appear. ^_^

Sorry, but I ranted about that whole affair for a week straight after it happened. A scotch and soda or three later and I was right as the rain, but it still slips out every now and again. Not the Atari thing, though...that was just funny.

Little Old Lady in Homlet: Have you seen my lovely children?
Adventurer: No, ma'am. Atari sent CPS over here to have your children removed from your care because they heard I was Neutral Evil. You'll never see your children again. And yet you'll probably whine about them to every passer by, which will make suspension of disbelief kinda difficult.

And yet the inclusion of Angels on the side of evil and good deities in 4e hasn't blipped on the radar screen as something that will only end in more Chick tracts. Isn't the world a funny place?

Not exactly on topic, but I will never be able to mentally reconcile weapon swap with game-world reality. If you have enough time to change hands and make more attacks, why don't you have time to just make more attacks without swapping? It should be more efficient.

I get the value of the feat, and I get the mechanic, but it's one of those rules that seems like the world is bending to fit the mechanic rather than the mechanic is representing an action that someone would actually do.

It's entirely cinematic. I didn't get it either, until I watched Willow again. Madmartigan pops out of the tent, whips out a sword and basically juggles the guards to death with it. Fun to watch, but it's complete baloney. Which makes it the perfect thing to turn into a feat. Go figure. ^_^

Stereofm wrote:

Lawmonger wrote:

When are we gonna see some hellknight stats?

what have people been using to represent them til now?

How about Green Ronin's Anti-Paladin handbook ?

Not used it yet, but promising .... MWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA !

Hellknights aren't necessarily anti-Paladins though. They just aren't LG. As a LN organization, they still might do many of the sae things Paladins do, they'd just be open to doing something more akin to a Blackguard if that would enable them to uphold the law better. I think that the name Hellknight is deceiving in this regard, as they are not evil. Then again, from what I've seen of them so far, they seem to lean more that way then toward the good. But that might just be the Order of the Nail.

The LN alignment and the general tone had me thinking "Helm, with emo/goth overtones", actually. Wasn't there a prestige class for folks dedicated to Helm in FR Faiths and Pantheons? Might be worth looking at if you're like me and don't see "Hellknight" and think immediately of Ashram from Lodoss Wars. ^_^

The odd concept that it is okay to "demonic-fy" almost EVERYTHING from race to class to powers to soul-crushing dieties and monsters, but the potential dubious background of how the half-orc comes into existance is too morally sensitive a subject matter? (I'm still more than a tad confused about that one ...)

Not so confusing when you consider the WotC overreaction to Book of Erotic Fantasy in light of BoVD's Lich Loved feat. ^_^

"Sex is bad, boys and girls. It doesn't belong in roleplaying games...unless you're having it with dead people. If you are having sex with dead people, you can pick up your nifty benefits package over there."

They'd have been better off zipping it and just letting BoEF die on the shelf. But Nooooo. Atari's reaction to Temple of Elemental Evil was similarly retarded.

It's not your Perception check that's in question...it's what you get to do with Theft. ^_^ Ta!

I recommend to anyone interested in historical combat to take some kind of mainstream martial art as well. Most medieval western martial arts worked the same way; you start with unarmed combat and then build weapons onto those skills. quite often the weapons were just an extra lever for grappling with, even swords and pole-axes.

That's interesting...I discovered recently that a lot of eastern stuff works in the opposite direction, using the weight of a weapon to teach you what you'll do with your bare hands later. It's a pretty effective way to go to get to better form, if nothing else.

I'd also be interested in seeing a con demo. I have rather fond memories of Robert Aspirin and Joe Lansdale doing demo/seminars (demo-nars? Something from the back pages of Pathfinder?) at AggieCon years ago, and Aspirin's How to Write a Fight Scene bit was particularly fun. It's always fun to find out that the comics, novels and games we enjoy are written by people who haven't convalesced in an attic their whole lives.

On the other hand, some folks really like Emily Dickinson. ^_^

I suppose I'm a bit of an oddball on this, having had somewhat the opposite reaction as time went on.

Initially I was kind of cheesed off about the whole thing, particularly about the notion that despite everything else that had been said 3.5 was never more than an in between phase from 3rd to 4th meant to test a few new ideas and sell a few more books. That still kind of rubs me the wrong way, honestly.

I like a lot of the ideas presented thus far for 4th, although I say that with the full knowledge that the ideas presented may be baloney put out by PR that has nothing to do with what will actually be in the core books. I've got no dog in the fight as far as 3rd or 4th goes, as I've had to modify the hell out of 3.0 and 3.5 all the way along to be a game my players want. I'd likely have to do the same for 4th edition. I certainly had to do that with OD&D and AD&D, not to mention a number of other games I've played with this group along the way. That's one of the things I'm enjoying about the process of the Pathfinder RPG. Even if it doesn't all end up in the big book later on, it gives me a wealth of new possible modifications if I decide to continue with 3.5.

The real question is, of course, what the heck is actually going to be in those shiny new 4e books? Forgetting to be pissed off at WotC or Hasbro or the All Mighty for a few moments, and ignoring the Gygax worshiping fervor and "but it's just not D&D *sob*" for a bit as well, and definitely skipping all the baloney with mustard that's been spread by the WotC lads about what they "wanted to do with 4e" but may not have actually managed or been allowed by Hasbro. Will 4e be a good game? Not a good game for you, or for me, or for old St. Gary wherever he is, but will it be a good game for anybody? Will someone sit down to play and say "wow"?

I went a long way for that bit.

But seriously, what's the likelihood that WotC may actually have pulled off something that is really cool and different in the P&P RPG market?

I still don't have an answer to that one. No one really will until June, as near as I can tell. Honestly, I'm pensive about it. I'd really like to know what the actual game is going to look like, but the promotional material is filled to brimming with "but this may change before release" disclaimers. Sitting here saying "I love it" or "It's going to suck" seems about as random as making snap judgments about what Pathfinder RPG was going to look like based on the 1.1 Alpha Release.

Oh...wait. People have actually done that. ^_^

Certainly, this is a half-baked idea that has not been put into practice. Does anyone want to comment?

Half baked? Not been put into practice?!? What?!?!?!?

Kidding. I'm not really going to freak out on you. ^_^ This idea of XP for feats is actually in implementation (unofficially) for AEGs Spycraft and (officially as a campaign quality) for Crafty Games Spycraft 2.0. Mutants and Masterminds also uses what is essentially an xp for X system, with the understanding that you receive points to build your character at each level and accumulate xp to level. I've mortified my players with an alarming variety of xp buy systems from 3.0 to the present. There's a fellow on the old d20 modern forums who came up with something of this variety as well, breaking down every facet of d20 Modern and setting up a point cost along with a number of points received by level. Leroy Van Camp III, and the doc was called Custom Hero 1.0. Great stuff. Nice guy.

You've hit the really important limiter on the head by keeping the number of feats purchased per level down to something reasonable...not so much for the tendency to xp farm for feats, but rather because you don't really want to create a game where the PCs have a massive binder devoted exclusively to feats. Well, maybe you might, but it turns out I don't at any rate. ^_^

The trouble that a large number of additional feat slots can tend to create is one of sameness. My own group proved this time and time again, taking the usual class related feats and then stocking up on the general use feats. Rare was the PC without Run, Improved Initiative, Combat Reflexes and Dodge. This is great for a game where the PCs are either assumed to have similar training or are cross training each other, but far less desirable if you want to maintain a "niche-based" party. I've been on both ends of that, and can say only "let the buyer beware". ^_^

The principle troubles you get into with these things has to do with the feats themselves not being terribly well balanced, and the logical desire to purchase things besides feats with xp (i.e. if feats then why not skill points, etc.). The first part of that isn't really fixable within the scope of a single post. The second part is easier, but not much.

Let's shorten it down to a feat being equal to a +1 to hit, a +1 to AC (Pathfinder is more clear on this), a +2 to save, 3 hit points or about 4 to 5 skill points, depending on who you talk to. You can get two to four times the value out of those numbers if you include a modifier (like saves only versus a single type of stimulus), based on the stringency of that modifier. Once you decide what a feat is worth in xp, you've essentially defined the xp cost for those values.

Once you've applied that you're into a whole other problem...what do you do about the difference in effectiveness of builds? Welcome to the trials and travails of point buy. Enjoy. Seriously. Because it is fun, as long as your players are down with it. If they aren't, don't even try. If you have a group that has math trouble, can't normally build their own characters or simply thinks that skill points are far too much work, then take my advice and skip it.

My playtest group is currently using the Con base hp. They seem to be working well for us, that to say that a lone goblin probably won't accidentally kill us all. The feel of danger is still there in the opening of battles of Burnt Offerings, but it's more of an "OW...crap those little rusty pieces of crap are sharp" as opposed to "OMFGWDWD! We're all going to die because our cleric took a crit and is now visiting with Pharasma".

I like the idea of Con base and then just rolling HP (plus Con bonus) at all levels, but only if you are rolling attributes as well. If I have to point out stats, then I should receive average (round up and add Con bonus) HP at every level.

NekoMouser wrote:

I'm curious to know if the original poster has actually handed out XP using the table in Pathfinder.

Of course not, most of the complaints are from people that haven't tried the new rules. :P

Many of them certainly seem to be...I have trouble counting the number of posts I've seen that indicate that exactly. Haven't played it yet, but I hate it, etc. Pretty silly, forums are like fairy tale bridges that way.

The GM for my playtest group seemed to think it made life more simple than anything since the red box with the dice. ^_^ It's flat value, and has the xp already divided by group size on an uncrowded table the size of a coaster. The 3.5 tables are vast and complicated by comparison...well, to anything really. Those tables make going back to THAC0 seem reasonable.

I'm curious to know if the original poster has actually handed out XP using the table in Pathfinder.

Well, I wouldn't say I feel that strongy about it. But I can understand his feeling. Frankly, it's annoying to see player feedback destroy something good.

Especially when it isn't all of the players who want it gone, seemingly. I kind of like the new skill setup, and was already using a similar system in my 3.5 games (specifically the simplified skill system from Unearthed Arcana, which doesn't work as well as Pathfinder IMO). I certainly think skill point allocation is time I could better spend selecting feats. ^_^ I'm currently in playtest with a group, and thus far we're not having problem with the Pathfinder skills system as written. I can see where it might need tweaking for multi-class. I've previously proposed an idea to fix a problem I see with specialized skills like the Knowledges, Craft, and Profession and bring them more into continuity with the rules for Linguistics. Beyond my group hasn't had any complaints about skills.

Hmm. Maybe if in gaining a level (and thus that levels skill ranks), you only got 1/2 rank in a skill if it wasn't on the class skill list of the class level you just took. Skills would always be rolled with half levels rounded up. Just add up new skills in the same way, noting not having it as a class skill at 1st level nets you only 2 points instead of 4.

e.g. Eiji the 1st level rogue gets enough experience to advance a level. He decides he wants to get a feat, some more weapon options and another hit die. Taking that level of fighter means that Eiji only gets 1/2 rank in Use Magic Device, Disable Device and Stealth for this class level (leaving him at 4 and 1/2 ranks, rolled as a 5). He maintains for the rest of his career, switching up to medium armor and a greatsword. At 20th level, he's a Rogue 1/Fighter 19. His Climb skill is a whopping 23 Ranks, while his old rogue skills haven't faired quite so well due to lack of practice (4 +9 and 1/2=13 and 1/2, rolled as a 14). His Ride skill is only slightly less developed than his Climb (2+19=21).

That would maintain some of the old cross class skill structure without necessarily having to go back to individual skill points or make anything exclusive to Rogue or any of the other big skill classes.

I can't really argue with either of these assertions.

The problem is that there's little reason to progress as a Rogue.

The sneak attack won't be missed...

Mostly because they're silly. I also can't possibly agree with them. You've moved from arguing that the class should receive theft as exclusive to arguing that the class just isn't any good.

You wouldn't miss 10d6 Sneak attack damage. Usable long after the Wizard is out of spells, and probably hit points. Right. Pull the other one.

The dwarf gets the ability to treat weapons with Dwarf in the title as Martial Weapons (which as a Cleric or Wizard really doesn't get him anywhere) and handful of martial weapons proficiencies. The ability they receive is functionally similar to the one elves receive, and is only superior if you don't have access to Complete Warrior (which contains Elf specific weapons, which don't appear in the PH). The Elven Thinblade is easily in balance with a Dwarven Waraxe. Further, the ability to use racial specific weapons (which are normally exotic weapons) as martial weapons is feat equivalent, and in fact used to be a feat in 3.5. With that in mind, there isn't a thing unbalanced between these abilities of Dwarf, Elf and Human.

Your line of argument there is also a little flawed. You're comparing the balance of different abilities and different races taking the same class. Even if the vaguely similar abilities of the various races weren't balanced, the races can still balance out across the board.

The unbalanced feature we are discussing occurs within a single class, in a single sentence of text and on a single table with but one other set of variables. You've brought up those (the domains) before, and I feel that I've made my case on the attempts to make them balanced against each other. Each deity has 5 domains and can grant two among them to an aligned Cleric. No imbalance in the number or sort, really. Which just leaves us with the weapons. And it doesn't take a genius to work out that two members of the same race and class, receiving the same ability, should not get a different number of feat equivalents.

Let's put that balance in perspective. Two human fighters, each receiving the standard abilities of their classes. One decides his name is Bob, while the other names himself Ted. Checking the text, it seems that the name Ted grants a character the ability to use the Human Weapons Training ability twice. So while any Human Fighter with any other name receives the ability to take an exotic weapon proficiency (or the ability to use a dagger, which everybody already has but he might take because he's a good roleplayer), Ted gets two exotic weapons proficiencies.

Of course, naming your fighter something else doesn't effect the number of feat equivalents he has available. Neither does where he's from, or what gods he worships, or whether he bathes often. Why? Because it would be monumentally bad game design. You'd have to be working for Square Enix to do something like that. :P

Now the actual example. Two Human Clerics, both receiving the same racials, the same number of domains, spells, turning attempts. But if one chose Zon-Kuthon and the other Pharasma, they would receive a different number of feat equivalents. They even have some domain choices in common, but a different number of feat equivalents. That is broken.

I don't want Paizo to change all the weapon proficiencies. I think it would be more appropriate for Pharasma's clerics to use an aspergillum than a dagger, what with the comet for a holy symbol and the anti-undead associations. That's not what I'm trying to point out, though. You're right, and Nethys should have quarterstaff. It's entirely in theme, just as scimitar works for Sarenrae. They each receive an appropriate weapon. They do not both receive a feat equivalent. Proficiency with a martial or exotic weapon (or even Improved Unarmed Strike) are all feat equivalent. Proficiency in a single simple weapon is not feat equivalent, and the feat it would fall into (granting proficiency with all simple weapons) is already possessed by all members of the class. I don't mind the weapon selections made, as arbitrary as a couple of them seem to be. I agree with your assertion that the flavor of the game woud be different if every god used a wacky exotic weapon or a great sword or whatever.

My problem is with the balance of abilities they provide. And that's fixable without modifying the weapons granted. As was previously pointed out, minus the minor nitpicking on my part, weapon focus is a feat equivalent. If the character already possesses the weapon of the deity from another source (in this case, from the simple weapon proficiency provided by cleric), then a weapon focus feat for the appropriate weapon would be an equitable solution. Improved Unarmed Strike also (again minus my other observations about that feat) seems to be a good fit for the Irorians. I don't want that just "assumed", though. I'd like an actual clarification.

Maybe this can be balanced satisfactorily, and maybe it can't. But just saying that it can't, or that no one should bother because you can't balance everything is a pretty lame excuse not to try. And a clarification for Clerics of Irori, as pointed out in my initial post, would seem to be in order.

With all due respect, this is about flavor, not about balancing the clerics of various deities. This is something that hearkens back to the specialty priests of 2e. If you're going to do this, then every cleric should have War as one of their domains, since Animal (or Community) isn't as good as War. Or Diviners should get the ray attack of evokers, because their power isn't good enough. And then what's the point of having different deities or different specialist wizards?

If you you want proficiency in greatsword instead of a dagger, then play a cleric of Gorum instead of a cleric of Pharasma. But some people choose their deities based on character concept and roleplaying considerations, and proficiency in one weapon or not is not the most important aspect of playing a cleric, nor is it "broken."

1. If they aren't balanced, it is "broken".

2. This hasn't been 2e in a while. If it were 2e, I wouldn't be raising this concern. I'd still be playing another game. Loss of the sacred cows of older D&D iterations is something that began to set 3.5 apart, and something that seems to be continuing in Pathfinder. And not to any detriment I've noticed yet.

3. It seems a great deal of effort has gone into balancing the domains. The domains you listed are now much closer in power level than they were in 3.5, and I'd actually put my money on the guy with the Animal domain. Keep healing your companion and let him trash Mister "I can Battle Smite". Community makes a nice addition for anybody who plans to specialize in healing. The Diviner gets something that's actually still pretty viable at 20th level as a 1st level ability and only has to lose one other school, unless that's changed. The Evokers ray is actually the weaker of the two down the line, which is a way of balancing abilities I'm not always fond of...but it is a clear attempt to balance the schools of magic.

4. The great sword is not "better" than the dagger. It's bigger. Frankly, it sucks for people who have better Dex than STR once Weapon Finesse becomes available. Besides, the dagger has the ability to do slashing or piercing, making it far more utilitarian despite it's d4 damage.

5. This isn't about the statistics of the weapon. This is about being handed something that I already have all I need of and being told I'm getting something free. You're rebuttal to that notion seems to be that I should simply pick the "better" option or suck it up because I'm (by veiled assertion) a crappy roleplayer.

Which I think pretty much makes my point all over again. Here. I'll quote you line and verse. Page 3, Pathfinder RPG Alpha release 1.1, "I also worked to even out some of the choices", followed two sentences later with "These rules work to even out some of these choices". A paragraph down is "...I wanted to add more to all the classes, to give each of them a reason to be followed up through 20th level". Page 8, "The following modifications are designed to balance the player character classes". Page 18, "to create a more standardized system for for determining class Hit Dice". Ad infinitum. Is this sinking in?

One of Pathfinders stated goals is to create a more balanced version of the 3.5 rules set, even for those of us that suck at roleplaying. They certainly seem to want to create a more clear and concise rules set, which is not aided by "proficient with the favored weapon of their deities" in combination with "Favored Weapon Unarmed Strike", at least not without some further clarification.

Roleplaying decisions are for the game table, not the rule book. I don't plan on wearing much armor as a Cleric of Pharasma, and that's a roleplaying decision. I plan to use a dagger a lot, which is also a roleplaying decision (if my deities favored weapon was a comet shaped lump of knotted rope, I'd switch to that in a heart beat). But my roleplaying decisions don't effect how the game is balanced for all Clerics. Clerics everywhere can still wear Heavy Armor (except the Cloistered variety, if that makes an appearance at your table). What not all clerics get is a weapons proficiency that isn't already on their list under "Simple Weapons". Nor do all of them get to use Exotic weapons. Nor would it be particularly appropriate for them all to have "super secret star knives that are better than what you got" and spiked chains. What is important here is that some receive a feat equivalent, while others receive a good roleplaying award. And that isn't particularly good game design.

To the other poster...Weapon Focus looks like it might be a good way to fix it, but I'm not sure. A +1 to hit with a given weapon versus negation of a -4 to hit with a given weapon seems to still favor the proficiency on paper, while my canny intuition tells me that the guy with the +1 t hit with a dagger is 5% more likely to win a fight than his sun worshiping, scimitar wielding associate. I don't want to split hairs too fine, though. It seems like a relatively close fit. I'm still not sure it fixes the problem for Clerics of Irori, though. The obvious fix would be to give them Improved Unarmed Strike, but that does a lot more than a weapon proficiency or a +1. Looks good, but it may not be balanced well. *sigh* I guess I'll see if it can't be plugged into a playtest.

According to the text on page 8, under the heading "Weapon and Armor Proficiency", a Cleric receives proficiency with all simple weapons, and is also proficient with the favored weapon of their deity.

As noted on the table of Deities of the Pathfinder Chronicles on page 10, this is desperately unbalanced. It gets even more broken if you check out the reprinted table on page 7 of the Rise of the Runelords Players Guide.
While some receive exotic weapons proficiencies and others receive special new weapons (and Clerics of Abadar get a blanket proficiency in all crossbows or something...I wonder if that includes repeating varieties?), others get "freebies" they already have. In the case of Pharasma and Nethys, the weapons proficiencies are possessed by every class in the game. And what's up with Clerics of Irori? Do they pick up Improved Unarmed Strike, or do they just have hands like the rest of the PCs?

No dis intended to the dagger or the quarterstaff. They're good weapons. Nor am I against having proficiency in a deities favored weapon available to clerics. i think it's a great idea in principle. But if you are going to give away a free weapon proficiency (feat equivalent), then by all means give it away equally to all Clerics. Dagger, Crossbow and quarterstaff are largely useless "freebies": every Cleric receives these anyway. Give them all something equivalent or don't give it to any of them.

A search for Weapon of the Deity didn't turn anything up, so here's my take on it.

According to the text on page 8, under the heading "Weapon and Armor Proficiency", a Cleric receives proficiency with all simple weapons, and is also proficient with the favored weapon of their deity.

As noted on the table of Deities of the Pathfinder Chronicles on page 10, this is desperately unbalanced. It gets even more broken if you check out the reprinted table on page 7 of the Rise of the Runelords Players Guide.
While some receive exotic weapons proficiencies and others receive special new weapons (and Clerics of Abadar get a blanket proficiency in all crossbows or something...I wonder if that includes repeating varieties?), others get "freebies" they already have. In the case of Pharasma and Nethys, the weapons proficiencies are possessed by every class in the game. And what's up with Clerics of Irori? Do they pick up Improved Unarmed Strike, or do they just have hands like the rest of the PCs?

No dis intended to the dagger or the quarterstaff. They're good weapons. Nor am I against having proficiency in a deities favored weapon available to clerics. i think it's a great idea in principle. But if you are going to give away a free weapon proficiency (feat equivalent), then by all means give it away equally to all Clerics. Dagger, Crossbow and quarterstaff are largely useless "freebies": every Cleric receives these anyway. Give them all something equivalent or don't give it to any of them.

Since you asked so nicely :-) I thought I'd follow-up.

I don't know that what was asked was necessarily meant to be a question as much as an admonishment. A little silly on that posters part, but I'll try to highlight some of the reasons for that.

1. The Rogue is now missing the biggest pain involved in character creation under 3.5 rules. You no longer have to distribute skill points. That speeds everybody up a bit on character creation, but the skill heavy Rogue in particular. Never again will you have to distribute skill points on a random NPC. Unless, of course, some useless wanker convinces Paizo to change back to skill points.

2. You're assertion about the Rogues list of options on three pages seems ridiculous in comparison to the amount of space taken up by the spell lists of even one of the 3.5 spellcasting classes. And with more reason than ever before to play a specialist, there's more time to be spent digging through the spell list than ever before.

3. There's only one "option" available every even level. The fighter has one more "option" available than that. Of those Rogue options, only two have prerequisites apart from being divided into the talent and advanced talent categories. Both of those ironically concern magic use. See what I mean about the complexity of spell casting?

4. They're roughly feat equivalent and most of the rules bits are less than five sentences long. None of the abilities really seem all that complicated to me. Are we reading the same page 13-15? O L S E N? B I R D S? :P

4. Drop the scratch paper and get a character sheet. There are a number of good ones available on these forums, and they make creating anything faster.

5. Don't forget equipment and level appropriate magic items that fit within the expected wealth levels? Now it's my turn to ask a "how the hell" question. How the hell does that have any bearing on the specific speed of building a rogue?

6. I've been building a first level elven cleric off and on for the past week in preparation for a game on the 12th. There's a good bit of new material available for the cleric, and it's been a while since I played a cleric (or taken of the DM hat long enough to play much of anything). I've kind of been exploring the options. By contrast, when our two rules illiterate prats asked me to build their characters (a rogue and a fighter), I had little trouble completing the task in under half an hour. Admittedly, the character sheets helped. ^_^

I'm sure that you, not unlike myself, will get used to the rules changes and be up to speed in NPC creation in no time. It's just the newness of it that makes it seem complicated.

A fine line maybe, but to my mind the class you're describing isn't so much a rogue as a variant fighter - his abilities are focused on killing opponents and avoiding damage in battle. That works quite well if you're into repeated hack-'em-up adventures, but kind of falls short when the campaign also has heavy involvement in things other than combat. The Alpha 1 system gives you the rogue's core archetypal ability - skills - as a 1 level dip. Thereafter, you can be a fighter and get better at combat, or be a "rogue" and get better at combat. The stealth, trapfinding, etc. are a "freebie," not a focus.

It seems like you're still lost in the skill ranks systems, with no real awareness of the rest of the picture. Maybe this will help.

Stealth will likely be possessed by a number of classes. Over time, I think we'll see that Armor check penalties and necessarily higher Dexterity will leave the Monk and Rogue at the top end of the Stealth game. Multi-classing Rogue into a spellcasting class is far more desirable than Fighter based on ACP, I should think.

Trapfinding I've already touched on, but if it's still giving you trouble...there are a variety of additional classes with trapfinding in 3.5. In the PHB? No. Just Rogue. There's also no Swashbuckler. Just Rogue. No Assassin. Just Rogue. The Rogue wears a lot more hats than just the meatbag with Trapfinding. Any two Rogues, just like any two representatives of any of the four current base classes in Pathfinder, are likely to look extremely different characters. You might want to build a typical tomb robber, but I might be happy with the "variant fighter" feel. Rogue is currently a big enough class for both desires.

Further, as is the case with Stealth, the Rogue possesses an inherent superiority over the Fighter/Rogue in that he will likely have less ACP in the way. Also, as with Stealth there are attributes to consider. The Single class Rogue will likely not have focused his attributes on Strength (kind of necessary for the Fighter unless you plan to eat at least two feat slots switching to Dex, and then you're taking a beating on damage) or Constitution (kind of necessary for a number of different Fighter concepts). More likely choices are any combination of Int, Dex, Wis or Charisma: all of which bear heavily on his skill set. In point based attribute generation(which seems to be becoming the standard despite my disdain for it)the Multi-class fighter is going to have to make a lot of tough choices about what he wants to be good at. That's true of many if not most multi-class combinations.

Apart from these obvious notions, I'd call your attention to pages 14 and 15 of the Alpha. Trap Sense aside for the moment, if you'd care to create a greater focus to a specific skill possessed by a rogue, then you can accomplish that with Fast Stealth, Ledge Walker, Quick Disable, and Skill Mastery seem like pretty good ways of getting you there. They certainly aren't things you can pick up as a Rogue 1/Fighter 19. Rogue 2 for any one of those.

The idea of a many skilled multi-class character has one other hole in it. This is probably the biggest one, really. If the Fighter takes resources out of his pool to put into another ability set, he becomes less of a fighter. This is a nice balancing factor, but a better one is that a party with this Fighter and a single class Rogue is going to have a lot of Fighter aiding other for the superior abilities of the Rogue, or a lot of Fighter trying to do the Rogues job and not being as good at it. Frankly, the guy who aids is okay, if a little sad. The other guy is going to be the one who suffers a sneak attack fragging the next time he beds down for the night.

Multi-classing a Rogue in 3.5 can be very effective if handled properly. If not, it's just another munchkin idea that doesn't lead to anything but an angry munchkin and an amused DM. Pathfinder hasn't done anything to change that...if anything it has simply highlighted the Multi-class characters inadequacies in certain combinations.

As an aside, I'd point out that Rogue should be the most multi-classed from...think how many characters from fantasy literature started out as thieves, vagabonds or street rats. ^_^

Under the proposed skill system, Xyll's suggestion is about the only way to maintain rogue as a viable class.

By "only way to maintain rogue as a viable class", I take it you mean that no one would want to play a character with evasion, improved uncanny dodge, 10d6 of sneak attack damage that now works on more opponent types, and more feat equivalent abilities than you can shake a stick at...unless they also had exclusive access to something that's been a skill for the duration of D&D's 3rd+ edition? Seriously? Because they seem pretty "viable" to me at this stage without exclusive skill access to something a ranger should be able to do.

I'd certainly pay a feat slot to be able to turn for healing AND rebuke for damage. That would rock. There are even some deities that it would seem appropriate to...Pharasma comes to mind, specifically.

My own playtest goup kicks off this weekend, with 1st level Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric running through Rise of the Runelords. While turning as healing looks okay to me after just eyeballing it, I'll soon know a bit more definitely how it plays.

'Cause I'm the cleric. Buuuu-yah!

I'll be honest here. I love guns. I'm really keen on all the aspects of personal firearms technology. Guns are wicked cool. Unfortunately, period firearms can't be modeled in d20 accurately enough to represent the advantage they provide over a longbow or crossbow without creating a whole lot of additional complexity. Without something to represent the ease of firing (not loading or extended volley firing...just that first shot) and the relative simplicity of training when compared to a bow, there isn't any reason statistically to utilize a firearm rather than a crossbow.

The shock and awe effect? Gone. All that noise and smoke that scared the heck out of crossbow wielding Italian mercenaries in service to noble houses throughout Europe isn't going to get the same play with men at arms in service to fantasy nobles who've seen fireballs and dragons. And the shock and awe effect from early black powder arms in history was never without the repercussion of not being able to see your enemy (or hear them, either, really) after the first shot.

Reload time alone would be ludicrous in game terms. Even in the period where the Brown Bess was available, you're talking about one shot every third or fourth combat round in the best of circumstances.

The damage wouldn't work out to be much better than a heavy crossbow for all that in any event. Early calivers might or might not net you more damage, depending on powder quality and ability to create a uniform ball, but it's really not worth the production difficulty unless you just have gobs of money and a fetish for military innovation. I suppose Dwarves would be the most likely inventors based on that notion, but they'd suffocate or go deaf using blackpowder arms underground.

In my opinion, the real market for guns in a D&D game isn't in small arms at all, but in cannon. If the established material still has catapult and ballista as players on the field of war, the cannon would make a big splash (pun intended) particularly in naval and siege warfare. Nothing says "heave to and lower your colors" like chain shot to the main mast, and it has the advantage over a fireball of leaving the ship in a salvageable state. Cannonballs are likely a great boon against stonework, which tends to provide fire and lightning a bit more trouble. And for the perverse, there's always magically enhanced cannonballs, capable of doing anything from cursing the area they land in to dropping other damage dealing effects, etc. Ease of production when compared to a catapult or ballista is high, actually. It doesn't take much more to make a black powder cannon than a church bell (do not try using the church bell for a cannon...it will blow up and kill you, the clerics will raise you and kill you again).

And seriously, naval battles seem kinda boring without cannons. Or at least big jars of poisonous snakes...

Leave iterative attacks as written. It's a single element in a very simple yet dynamic combat system. Static combat in 3.5 is for parties that rode the short bus to school. Scouts skirmish ability, the advantages of Shot on the Run/Spring Attack when dealing with higher BAB opponents (with the maligned iterative attacks), shifting to flank (or avoid being flanked) either with or without sneak attack/sudden strike involved, assorted charge boosting feats and a constant desire to threaten spellcasters/archers all provide for an extremely mobile battle field. The exceptions occur in the natural places of course. Real medieval soldiers (the fighter model) should want to fight shoulder to shoulder or ground-and-pound more agile foes preferentially, and you shouldn't really see a spellcaster trucking across the battle field, bum and elbows, unless there is a dragon right after him. In my experience with 3.5, the most common cause of boring static combat doesn't have anything to do with the system, nor can the system be changed to account for it.

Nine times out of ten: if the party is bogged down in the middle of a room duking it out, it's because they haven't learned to do anything else. That's not always their fault. Sometimes the game master helps create that situation by not having the monsters more mobile, which encourages the PCs to be static. If your monsters move to flank (in those handy 5ft steps), then your PCs will either absorb a lot of hurt or learn to move to avoid flanking. If your PCs get hit from a flanked position very often, they'll start reciprocating. Players facing reach weapons (not big opponents with reach...players almost never get the message that way) will quickly figure out the inherent advantages of using them, and facing off against mobile archers will teach the party ranger just where he needs to be to safely put pain down range. Teach them and they will learn. Gripe about static combat and they'll tune you out.

NekoMouser wrote:

<snip>

I'm afraid I don't get the point you are trying to make.

That's because you are arguing rather than reading. Here, let's try again.

By my count, a specialist will get 15 feats between 1st and 20th level.

Really? I'm counting 14 between the Wizard advancement table on page 16 and the Character Advancement table on page 9. Where are you getting the other feat? Are you assuming Human? Are you counting Scribe Scroll? NM...doesn't matter. The cleric gets 10, the rogue gets 10 and the fighter gets 21.

Can you give an example of the problems having specialist abilities as feats will cause considering that?

I did, actually. But let's try this again with the numbers above. For the fighter, half the feats are class abilities necessary to do the job. Note that as a result the number of feats comes in better than twice what's available to the cleric. The cleric receives only 10 because their class variability comes from the selection of two domains and the cure/inflict and turn/rebuke options. The Wizard receives 4 bonus feats for the same reason the fighter does, but to a more limited degree. He receives only only one specialization (as opposed to two domains), arguably mildly more powerful than a single domain. He receives a reduced BAB, a more limited selection of armor and weapons. So he needs those four feats to stay viable. He also needs the specialist powers to stay balanced to the cleric, whose better armor, better weapon selection, better BAB, extra good save, increased number of Domain abilities and new positive/negative energy abilities make them the new power to be reckoned with.

I mean, give a specialist character concept which needs some specific 15 feats (and list those feats) in order to capture that concept such that specialist feats must remain off the table.

Diviner, Necromancy prohibited school. Quick on the spell, makes heavy use of conjuration, illusion and spell booby traps for crowd control. Shares a close bond with a powerful familiar. Is basically fearless and awfully hard to charm. Can detect magic at will.

Feat List: Improved Initiative, Toughness, Arcane Toughness, Arcane Consumption, Bonded Familiar, Augment Summoning, Combat Familiar, Endurance, Iron Will, Indomitable Soul, Spell Linked Familiar, Vatic Gaze, Earthbound Spell, Imbued Summoning.

I could conceptualize like this all day, but I don't actually hold the responsibility of burden of proof, as I'm not asking for anything to change. Aside from that, I'd ask you to name a single reason I'd want to spend a feat on something rather than receive it as a class ability.

If the tables of Specialization powers are amended to include more than one option (as is the case with some other templates in later 3.5 rules), I'd likely be supportive. If there are feats available to improve upon the abilities of the various specialties, I'd be happy with that. Create a system where my class abilities are all nothing more than feat prerequisites, without the presence of additional feats to support the change? I don't think I could get behind that.

The specialist -does- do something special, it gives access to specialist feats.

I've already made my point about the idiocy of new titles that grant nothing more than the ability to take a feat. But let's put it this way: where else in the system is there a mechanic that operates in that fashion? As pointed out previously, every mechanic that has feats available to modify it actually does something modifiable. I'm not aware of any class ability in the core system that provides nothing unless you spend a feat on it. Perhaps you can show me a similar mechanic?

Yay, specialist feats. Yay. Another way to make your character suck at everything by having to expend feat slots on things they should already be good at. Yay. Not. :P

As has already been posted in at least two other threads, a selection of two different abilities for any given level of where specialist abilities are acquired goes a long way to making different specialties seem less cookie cutter. Feats are not a good way to give abilities to a person with a class acquired specialty. If the class provides the specialty, the specialty should do something special, else it's not really a specialty but just a word to tack onto your character sheet in exchange for two schools of magic you have trouble using. This is the same reason that turn/rebuke undead is a class ability and not a feat. It's a specialty that exists in relation to the class, and thus grants an ability rather than just granting you a title and the ability to take a feat that lets you do something with the title other than put together a snazzy character resume.

Bob: Hi! I'm invisible Bob!
Joe: No you're not. I can see you.
Bob: Well, I'm waiting on a feat slot...*cries*

Now if you'd like feats that add onto the specialists powers, that's all very groovy. Enhancing specialization is what feats are designed to do (i.e. extra turning & improved turning using the above example). But characters simply don't have the feat slots necessary to be buying what should be class abilities with them. Having to do so would create exactly the opposite effect from what seems desired. It would eat up the feat slots the character could be customizing and branching out with by forcing you to spend them on a few limited choices of things to buff a class ability that otherwise doesn't do anything. And who wants that?

I've been mildly snarky due to the lateness of hour, so I'll include some example feats by way of apology.

Side by Side
You're rarely without companionship in your dimensional travels.
Prerequisite: Conjuration school, Access to Dimensional Steps ability, Charisma 13+
Benefit: When using the Conjuration ability Dimensional Steps, you may bring along one companion at no additional usage of distance.

Corrupt Animation
While others stick to mindless minions, you've mastered the hungry dead.
Prerequisite: Necromancy school, Access to Animate ability, Wisdom 13+
Benefit: When utilizing Animate, you may opt to create ghouls. Total number of HD summoned does not change. Skeletons, zombies and ghouls may be created in any combination.

Eh. Mediocre, but that's my first glance at it. I'll probably be more inspired by lunchtime. ^_^

I'd simply point out in turn that turn/rebuke as it exists in Pathfinder is entirely in keeping with other changes made to the system. If you're facing undead, the cleric is still good to have around, but the rogue is no longer useless. If you're not facing undead, the cleric now gets to do something besides twiddle his thumbs and heal fighters at early levels. The turn/rebuke mechanic works beautifully in conjunction with the cure/inflict dynamic to give the cleric a limited use AoE ability that will grow with their power level, keeping them vital against more than just undead. It also balances nicely with the Necromancy school abilities. Sure, the Necromancer can have 8 HD of the dead running around, but the Cleric can potentially heal their undead mooks. This sort of "de-specializing" of abilities is one of the things that really has me liking where Pathfinder is going. You can have different classes fill similar roles using entirely different ability sets, and nobody ends up just standing around when the opponent types change.

If a PC/NPC/monster should take a skill, it gains ranks up to its HD+3. This is a problem for high HD monsters as they automaticaly become better than low HD creatures even if the low HD creature should be better at it.

For example: lvl 20 PCs will be better swimmers than some a aquatic NPC at level 1 even through the NPC has a swim speed, and +8 racial mod.

I know that this a problem from skills being tied to HD, but Pathfinder like systems make it worse.

I don't mean to be a obtuse about this, but how are the level 20 PCs ever going to know that? Ignoring the specifics of the example (I'm probably only moderately better than the 1st level NPC at swimming when you factor in my Plate Armor of Sinks Like A Rock +5), how many times do you set up skill versus skill situations with characters 19 levels apart in your game? The level 20 characters stopped being able to even get xp for that guy more than half their xp total ago. NPCs appropriate to their level with swim speeds and racial mods will still likely own them in the water. I don't know about your players, but mine don't react well to being punked out in skill checks by things that don't provide them xp.

Using Knowledge skills may not have been your best bet to counter my "useless" contention. While a single rank of Knowledge is better than none in that it allows a check, most Knowledge checks in published materials don't start giving you information until DC 15, with information that would allow you to make effective decisions reserved for DC 20 and above. The Pathfinder adventures themselves have some DCs in the neighborhood of 40. Placing a few ranks in a Knowledge isn't really going to cut it for someone planning to build the dispenser of sage advice (pardon the pun), and as a Fighter or Wizard under 3.5 OGL a few is all you've got to go on without damaging your ability to get your job done in the party. Let's not even get into skills like Use Magic Device, which has DCs bordering on the ridiculous when you consider that it's designed to mimic something that earlier edition Thieves only dabbled in.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the idea of building an inefficient character myself. But that's because I'm an experienced player and game master. But in OGL 3.5 it's too easy for an inexperienced player (a type I deal with a lot) to create a many skilled gimp. There are some skills it's okay to have at lower level. But unless you know all the generic DCs in the game, it's very difficult for a first time or casual player to build a character to be good at what they want. Reduction in the number of skills helps that, but I believe that it would be even more helpful to either skip skill points in favor of the Alpha system or start changing the DCs to be entirely uniform and CR dependent. Of those options, Alpha would seem the easiest to me to work into existing material. And with the reduction in "kid in a candy store" time for those with lots of skill points (high Int rogues) at character creation, that's a clear win for creating a character and starting a session with the new players in a single sit down.

Glad to see the other idea finding fertile ground, though. ^_^

Jumping into this a bit late, but whatever. ^_^

I like the Pathfinder Alpha skills setup. Reduction of overall number of skills goes a long way to making stat blocks smaller and skill choices mean a bit more. The only thing I think I'd be seriously inclined to change would be the way Knowledge, Craft and Profession work. I'll get back to that in a bit.

I'm also fond of the trained class/trained cross-class/untrained skill point setup. It makes for faster character creation (number one complaint about gaming around my table. I haven't been allowed to run GURPS for years...*sniffs*).

It also results, as noted by a number of previous posters, in a greater number of skills at usable levels. Okay, maybe that wasn't how it was said, but that's what I got from it. Let's face it, putting three points in a skill along the way in 3.5 is not going to make for a broader character. It's just going to waste three skill points. You won't be able to do anything with that skill at later levels. By applying the Alpha version skill ranks, you get a meaningful level of ability at every level without having to go back and change DCs, which are far more core to the d20 skill system than actual skill points, IMO.

Oh..and here's a thought. Let's look at the effective fighter builds in 3.5, shall we? Two skill points per level...huh. Maybe if you're human. Hmm. Okay, Three. Now lets see if we can tag that to some medieval knight types. Ability to swim a moat in armor, that's one. Ability to ride a horse, two. Ability to intimidate peasants, a very important three. Ability to climb effectively in medium to heavy armor, oh...well, sorry. You'll have to raise you're Intelligence for that. Let's not get into Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty), or the ability to look after your own weapons and armor, or the ability to jump over anything higher than a drunken comrades comatose carcass. This doesn't make sense for a high level character, and it never has. Pathfinder Alpha's skill system allows for a character to grow into new areas without sacrificing core abilities. In this case, the Fighter wouldn't learn all those skills immediately but would develop new abilities over time, growing from a simple peasant with a sword into a legendary knight of unparalleled excellence. Miyamoto Musashi and Roland couldn't have gotten by on 2+Int bonus skill points, y'all.

Again, this opens up a better game with better characters without changing the actual skill mechanics which make up the core of the system. When you read that the DC to find and remove a trap in a part of Red Hand of Doom is 25, it's not going to be significant that you rolled that check with a skill bought Paizo's way or with skill points, any more than if that check was rolled with a skill called Disable Device or Theft. The DC is still the same. Honestly, I'd think the benefits of making more elaborate monster skill sets at higher hit die totals would appeal to more game masters as well.

Having beat that horse for a bit, let me get to my Knowledge, Profession and Craft problem. First thing I noticed about the Pathfinder skill list was a shorter list of skills overall, with a huge chunk of different knowledge skills taken out of the middle. It's one skill with a ton of different areas, not unlike Profession and Craft (or Perform to a lesser extent), save that the skill variants are all listed on the main skill list. I can empathize with the need to keep the various Knowledge specializations, and let's face it you don't want to roll all knowledge together as one big skill without specialization. What if you took a note from Linguistics, though? You get a new language every time you get a new skill choice. Groovy. What if we added the option to expand a Craft, Profession or Knowledge skill into another area of specialization in the same way. At levels where you get a new skill choice, you could either take a new language or a new specialty in a Craft, Knowledge or Profession skill (assuming you've already payed out a skill choice to purchase the skill itself). If Linguistics is about expanding your knowledge of language, then shouldn't the other skills relating to bodies of varied knowledge operate in a similar way? Of course, for Knowledge fields that aren't possessed as class skills by any of your classes you'd then be considered trained cross-class regardless of whether the first Knowledge specialty was class or cross class for your character.

That's got it nicely, I think. Thoughts?