Nerfed2Hell's page

I really wasn't commenting on the current state of the game, I was more commenting on the "x is too powerful" and "nerf this" threads. Our party suffered three casualties in Chimera's Cove, so, yeah, I know it's still deadly out there ;)

Meh. Its not that things are "too powerful," its that some things are too powerful compared to others. My problem is that some of those too powerful things are in comparison to stuff that Pathfinder is supposed to be reverse compatible with. Because of that imbalance, I don't see the point in "upgrading" yet. I've made my observations about this based on playtesting in my group, and further testing is pointless until I see significant changes. I'm still hoping that things regress a bit before Pathfinder leaves the beta stage.

The beauty of the new points system, though, is that it's broadly backwards compatible (same starting bonuses without the x4 at first level thing, for example).

Broadly compatible?

So if I pull a dweomervore from my Forgotten Realms City of Splendors: Waterdeep 3.5e sourcebook, how many skill points do I remove and from which skills to balance it out with the Pathfinder skill system?

Sure, the skills work the same way, but the compatibility aspect is skewed because older monsters and characters will have more skill points. Yes, one can remove skill points from the 3.5e stuff to be compatible with the Pathfinder game... but to me, that's not backwards compatible, that's forcing me to upgrade the old material. And yes, it is forward compatible, but I don't feel like or want to do the added work every time I want to use something from an older edition.

Mind you, this is just the skills issue. That's not my only hangup with the game, I brought it up as an example and its being re-examined at length here. There's too much work to convert between editions for it to be considered truly backward compatible... compatible yes, but not compatible enough.

Anguish wrote:

It's taken some getting used to, but I'm coming to like the PF rules for skills.

Here's why: it's easier to calculate. That's it. That's all. Creating a mid-to-high-level character is now a LOT easier.

For anyone who wasn't involved in the Alpha1/Alpha2 discussions, this is EXACTLY why it is the way it is. A lot of DM complained that creating high-level NPCs - with multiple classes and ability score bumps, etc. - was a nightmare. Getting rid of cross-class skills and x4 at 1st level, and adding a +3 bonus to class skills is all to make those high level NPCs easier to create. What they were 1st level doesn't matter, whether they took a skill classed or cross classed doesn't matter, when they bumped their Int doesn't matter; it's all just one calculation.

For anyone who really hates this, the actual number of points should work just about the same as the old way (1x4 or 1+3) but how will you handle cross-class skills? The old 2 points = 1 rank, or assign a -3 penalty?

As a DM, I never had trouble making mid- to high level characters, so this is why I disagree with the change. I'm sorry the people who had troubles before aren't especially math talented, but the change enforces doing additional math for those converting... making more math to reduce math is my real problem with Pathfinder skills.

If 3.x had been done this new way originally, I might like the new better... but its not how it was done, so the conversion annoys the hell out of me.

Thieves Cant is talking in innuendo so as unenlightened (non-thief) listeners wouldn't catch on to what the speakers actually mean. Technically, thieves cant would be spoken in whatever language(s) the speaker is fluent in, so an elf would speak fluent in elven, a gnome would speak thieves cant in its own tongue, and humans would speak it in their own language (whether it be Common or some regional language).

So, in essence, thieves cant isn't a language itself and shouldn't be considered one. I liked the 3e concept of using the bluff skill to communicate discreetly through innuendo.

I've done all the analysis I need to know I don't want to continue... especially when the issues I bring up are countered with essentially "the new way is better," such as with how skills are dealt with now. If skills were handled this way all along, sure, it might be better... but changing from the old skill ranks of 3.5e means that I have to do math everytime I use an older NPC or monster within the new rules. That's not simplifying skills for me, its making me do more math and I'm not satisfied with it or the reasoning.

I'm not a new Pathfinder player, I'm an old D&D player. Sorry, but its making more work for me --the DM-- in the long run and I'm not interested in that.

James Jacobs wrote:

It's true. You'll note that very few companies do huge Beta playtests like this. Had we known the mayhem that it would have caused, we might not have done it; we certainly didn't expect 35,000+ playtesters, for example (I was anticipating a number along the lines of 5,000 at the highest myself). And to be totally mercenary, if half of the 35,000 playtesters are disgruntled with the way it's working out, that still leaves us with a LOT more customers than I thought we'd get.

Of course, I hope that the number of customers we retain from the Playtest is as close to 100% as possible... but I know that's not gonna be the case.

Well, I think you're doing a bang up job running this show, Jacobs. I wonder where you get the energy (ginko biloba + cafeine + ginseng + maple syrup?)

Please tell us!!! :)

Well, I certainly wouldn't criticize the job they're doing. I was only stating my feelings about the direction Pathfinder is going and that I'm not likely to follow through with it in the long run. I prefer less conversion effort on the backward compatibility front. Little things, like adapting to the handful of combined skills, adding one to three feats to old characters (depending on how many levels they have), or using a new mechanic for old features is easy enough... but things like redoing skills for old NPCs and monsters, figuring out conversions for cleric domains that aren't presented in the Pathfinder domain, or recalculating challenge ratings because player characters are more powerful than before and older monsters now give too much XP based on a challenge rating that is too high for the reduced challenge they now present and other stuff like that is too much effort to be considered "easy." Its doable, but time consuming.

I'd much rather be able to just drop old characters into the new rules or new characters into the old rules with little difference in how they play. But from the month and a half playtesting my group has done, the new stuff is overpowered and inappropriate to casually mix and match like that... and considering the thousands of dollars of old books I own, I don't want to spend the time converting the stuff I use in my game (even bit by bit as I need it --especially not that way), and I definitely don't want to just stop using that stuff in favor of the newer, but more limited (for now?) one sourcebook.

Good job doing something and obviously making lots of people happy. Sorry I'm not one of them is all.

I have a question that I hope will not poke the bear to much, but I think it is a valid notion. For those of you who are starting to lose enthusiasm for PFRPG, How much do you think being involved in the creative process via this message board has created that situation? You see the impression I am getting is that perhaps the proccess of giving feedback has gotten your hopes up that the finished product will be a nice glossy hardcover of 3.5 with your house rules added in, creating what is to you an ideal product to which the actual result cannot hold up too. Its food for thought. Personally I love the idea of being involved in the process no matter how little of my ideas actually make the cut, but I can see in the tone and popularity of certain threads that some people are trying to create their perfect system, not a system that can be flexible enough to work for everyone with minimal changes to suit different tastes. To be clear this question isnt targeted at those who are upset at the amount of rules conversion that must be done to make the switch. I can see that as a very valid arguement(though I disagree). Its more aimed at the folks who sight things like ( insert my fav class ) is not powerfull enough, or "they need to nerf the chain fighter before I will buy it".

What I was hoping for from Pathfinder was that real problem issues (making grappling rules more simple, for example) and smoothing them out. I don't dislike 3.5e rules overall, and I don't want to abandon them for something similar but with lots of little changes that add up to a big change.

For me, its not about making things more powerful or less powerful. I know there's still plenty of time before changes are cemented and things can still change further... it just doesn't feel right for me. I'm just not liking it as a whole.

Montalve, I don't change how experience is given or how much. What makes the difference is that the players are more capable of stomping their way through challenge after challenge faster and longer than they could in the old 3.5e rules. More challenges, more often mean more XP.

A lttle clarification:

I don't intend to demean the great campaigns out there based on 3.5 amterial. Clearly a lot of us could play the game for a life time with no books at all.

But a lifetime of gaming needs players. Players need books, including new books. When I talk about RPGs needing a flagship company,I am saying that 4e might be bad for the hobby - I hope not - and stall and already shrinking market.

Since we as players aren't generally good about bringing people into the market, we need companies to keep the game alive, bring in new players, pump in fresh stuff, etc.

So, without trying to be too dramatic, my contention is that if a company like Paizo doesn't create a 3.5ish alternative to 4e, the hobby will dry up even more.

This bugs me. I love DnD, I love the intellectual properties I wanted to write about for my first novel. I love the memories and rooting for them in courts. But instead of spending $10 marketing the same game to new players, they spent $20 million fracturing the market and likely not acheiving lasting growth.

So, I'm all for Paizo, and the authors that carry on the spirit of DnD, publishing their vision for the game. It turns out I like their vision better than anyone else's.

Steven, I agree with you to a certain extent... but even if I like Pathfinder better than D&D 4e, I'm not going to play it just because its the only other active alternative. Especially not if I can't keep my players interested in it. Personally, I think Pathfinder is trying to change too much creates as many problems of its own as it solves from 3.5e's rules set. While its good to see that someone is continuing with something closely resembling the game I've been playing, I'm not so interested in seeing it become the new thing any more than I am for 4e. They say beggars can't be choosers, but I'm not begging anything. Sure, a game needs new books to keep things fresh. In the case of D&D, I think 3rd party publishers and internet resources are D&D's lifeblood at this point --not redefining the whole set of rules to make all that older stuff harder (but not impossible) to use.

For me, I've got books I've barely even cracked open. I've still got things on a wishlist that I can't afford at the moment, but will eventually. These, while not new, are still new to me. I pretty much gave up on D&D as a dying hobby when details about 4e started getting released. I evaluated what I have and have made my peace with what's still available and the bookshelves worth of material that I own is more than enough to keep my own games fresh for a good long time.

I mourn the passing of D&D into a pen & paper MMO, but I've come to the conclusion that Pathfinder is not the path that's going to save it for my group. If anything, trying to run Pathfinder with the problems I have with it would drive me away from the game altogether as I'm not interested in converting things that are supposed to be compatible so that they fit with the Pathfinder rules. If my players wanted to go ahead with those rules, they'd have to do it without me. Fortunately, we're in agreement that the changes are too much, so we can continue to enjoy our old gamimg stuff.

Two nights (approx. 3 to 4 hours each) a week plus saturdays (typically 6 to 8 hours with a break or two for a walk to the local convenience store for snacks & smokes).

Only one player reached level 20, there were two level 18s and a level 19 at that point.

I'm with the OP on this... I like Pathfinder as a concept, and my game group and I like several bits and pieces of Pathfinder Beta that we'll probably adopt as house rules to our D&D 3.5e game. But I don't think we'll be moving forward with Pathfinder and buying it as a rules book... and, as was mentioned by the OP, the reverse compatibility thing seems less and less workable (without extra work on the DM's part --and more work for me = no fun), so if Pathfinder adventures are published to work with the new Pathfinder rules, I'll probably not be interested in buying them.

For me, the compatibility thing is a big issue because I don't run a core 3.5 game. I use lots of third party supplements, netbook and other web created content, and a bunch of house ruled stuff. If I was a core game junkie alone, compatibility wouldn't be as much of an issue since I'd expect Pathfinder to update everything I need... but I don't feel like updating everything else I've purchased in the past to work well with the new game. One thing I hated was constantly having to re-evaluate challenge ratings of monsters compared to the Pathfinder characters, because the player characters were trouncing monsters easily and more frequently.

Then there's the "fun factor" to consider. Part of the fun for my game group is long term campaigns featuring the same characters. Our regular game that started in 2nd edition AD&D and converted to 3e at roughly 8th level. Those characters are now at about level 17 in 3.5e (and currently on break while we tore into the Pathfinder stuff). We've started something like a couple dozen different games since the Pathfinder Alpha testing began. When the beta rules were released, we had one game reach the upper levels (first character to 20 was a human paladin 10/monk 10). We did that in about a month and a half with a party of four characters, and we also had like a half dozen other one-night game sessions interrupting the regular one (advancing to about 5th to 6th level each). We started that main game using the medium XP advancement table, but switched to the slow advancement at about level 12. And we still reached the upper levels in under 2 months. It makes for fun one-night sessions, but that's not the kind of regular gaming we like or want to persue.

Okay, I've been quiet for awhile now, using the beta rules with my regular gaming group. We're very pleased with the way some of the changes work and the thought that went into those changes. We're all in agreement that we like the redefined skills list, combining some similar skills into new unified skills (such as stealth and linguistics) with a couple minor exceptions. One player doesn't like that rope use disappeared as that something he liked to incorporate into all his characters, and a couple are confused by lumping the old jump skill --strength-based-- into one skill with balance and tumbling which are dexterity-based. On the other hand, we all firmly agree that the changes to skill ranks seems unnecessary, like you tried to reinvent the wheel... and the new system isn't better, its just different. From my perspective, trying to maintain a game compatible with all my old D&D and third party D20 sourcebooks, the change to skill ranks means an extra step when adding prestige class levels. Its just an unneeded annoyance to have to look at the skill rank prerequisites and subtract 3. We went back to the extra skill ranks at first level (class + int modifier x4) as presented in the Player's Handbook. We also agree universally that the class changes are good all around, with special emphasis on barbarian rage... and we've been trying to modify the monk class to work in a similar way with Ki points. Its good stuff.

There are some other things that have slowed us down with debates and even arguements. For one thing, the class abilities are more powerful, and the player races also feel amped up... the two combined have given the players a decided edge. We started playing at the medium speed xp advancement, but around roughly 12th level, I wanted to switch over to the slow advancement. We didn't set anyone's level back, but they had to catch up to the altered xp table before advancing again. The early levels went fast because the PCs were just way tougher than the monsters and NPCs with the altered hit dice and different starting hit points. We started play with the racial hit point bonus. We had tried some side games, starting over with different characters using different starting HP & ability score method --occasionally with a different DM-- usually playing to about 5th or 6th level. As the primary DM, I found myself CONSTANTLY re-evaluating challenge ratings (a mechanic I hate tinkering with) based on how easily the players crushed monster opposition... and NEVER the other way around. Even having moved to the slow advancement XP table, everyone advanced way too fast, recieving too much reward for too little expended effort (in this case, effort being defined as hit points used per encounter vs available healing, spells and limited use magic items used, etc).

I'm sure the game as is makes a lot of gamers happy because the players moved from encounter to encounter, dominating everything like some kind of Hollywood or Anime super heroes. Considering we had players who reached level 20 in a little under 2 months, even using some game sessions to start and play entirely different characters, we're probably NOT going to follow up with Pathfinder's official release unless it gets majorly toned down... something that we hope happens but don't really anticipate. We had fun game sessions, and other people playtesting are probably having those same experiences, and I'm guessing the immediate fun is going to carry more weight than the long term stuff we typically enjoy. But our games aren't about tearing through opposition and levelling up fast in spite of a greatly hampered XP table. So, we'll probably borrow stuff from the beta and house rule it into our regular games from now on, but Pathfinder is not going to become our D&D replacement.

--------------------------
Our main playtest game consisted of a party of 4.
* dwarf fighter 8/cleric 11
* human paladin 10/monk 10
* half-orc barbarian 12/rogue 6
* elf sorcerer 18

Our side games included an all halfling party of a druid, a monk, a bard, and a wizard; an all fighter party consisting of an elf, a dwarf, a human, and a half-orc, and an "evil" party with a gnome cleric, a halfling ranger, a dwarf rogue, a human fighter/sorcerer, and a half-elf wizard.

Perception is convoluted and messy?

Having introduced a lot of homebrew cleric domains (and relying on numerous from various 3e and 3.5e from "official" and third party publishers), I'm not real fond of the change to cleric domains.

Maybe in time with continued play, I might be able to get used to it. However, I don't think I want to and will probably just house rule in the old domain powers stuff.

I'd go so far as to say make it so that the item only works for the caster who created it... and anyone using UMD with a significant penalty to the DC.

Occasionally, I like to use player creations against them. Taking a wizard's focus away is injury, using it against him is the insult I'd like to add. Of course, to prevent focus items from becoming disposable treasure to sell off for extra income, I'd say that an old focus loses its potency once the wizard creates a new focus.

I'm against anime style elf ears.

No playtesting here to back me up, I'm just sick of seeing it as the new style of elf. I'm an old school D&D player first and watcher of anime second.

That's not to say those ears don't have a place in my games... they just belong to a different race: half-fey, the feytouched, and those who have strong faerie bloodlines.

Nerfed2Hell wrote:

I'm all for characters remaining useful longer, but making everyone just tougher at first level reduces the usefulness of a cleric or druid for the first few levels of the game...

SirUrza wrote:

Really.. so you're saying clerics should only use their spells to heal people? More hitpoints means even less Cure spells, which means more casting the spells they actually prepared, which means they can actually output damage or prevent damage with offensive/defensive spells, which in my books makes them even more useful.

Are you implying that clerics shouldn't have to use their healing spells at all? If so, then why have them to begin with?

No, I wasn't saying clerics should ONLY use their spells to heal people, and I'll thank you not to read more into my words than what I chose to write. I said it reduces the usefulness of healer classes, not made them useless... because they aren't useless, they do have other things they can do. However, taking away focus from healing (to the point where they might not need to heal at all in combat) steals from the flavor of what those classes are and can do.

SirUrza wrote:

Did you actually playtest Alpha 1 or did just not pay attention to the fact that a cleric doesn't need to cast half as many cure light wounds?

Did you playtest it? Did you? Because I don't see you going on about how you did when you try countering my viewpoint by asking if I did. Glass houses, throwing stones, all that rot... you understand, no?

Nerfed2Hell wrote:

I noticed the Designer Notes concerning starting hit points and, after seeing all of the other changes, I really hope none of these changes to starting hit points are implemented. <snip>

I don't mean to derail this or make an attack on anyone, but posts like these are getting ridiculous. There is too much personal emphasis on what every individual wants for his Pathfinder RPG based on his preferences. This isn't directed solely at the OP, but his statement here is a very good example of what I've been noticing in just about every post I read in this forum. I can only imagine what it's like for the designers who are sifting through it all for a smidgeon of unbiased and ambiguous feedback and ideas. Discussion is good. Input is good. But all this conjecturing and speculation without any real playtesting of the proposed ideas is, quite frankly, non-productive. Sorry if that offends anyone, but I think it has to be said.

Why do you assume just because I stated a preference that I didn't playtest? Do I need to provide a detailed log of how combat went to back up my opinions? I understand how the playtesting process works and feedback explaining how scenarios were affected by the new rules could be improved or tweaked would benefit the overall process... but not including specific situations doesn't invalidate opinions.

Case in point (again, not picking on the OP but his statements are a good example of others doing the same thing):

Nerfed2Hell wrote:

I'm all for characters remaining useful longer, but making everyone just tougher at first level reduces the usefulness of a cleric or druid for the first few levels of the game... not to mention makes things seem unbalanced against monsters of equal level.

What exactly do you base this on? Can you be more specific? Have you tried this with an actual group to test it out? It wouldn't be that difficult to roll up some new 1st level characters and run them through some quick scenarios using the various options to see if it really does make the cleric or druid less useful, or unbalance the game. And then explain to us why it was or wasn't the case.

A few parties were made in which all characters were made using a different option each time. The characters trounced 1st level challenges every time with less and less fear of dying with each new batch of characters that had a higher hit point total. Because the threat of a lucky shot disabling someone was gone, the party healer didn't prepare a single healing spell (relying on Turn Undead as a spontaneous group heal, and it was only needed once). Victory was no longer a gamble, something the players hoped to achieve... it was expected, and it was pretty dull.

I will agree that keeping these ideas as options is a good idea since they will appeal differently to different individuals. However, I am also a strong supporter of boosting those critical hit point values at the first level. My favorite options, thus far, are the Racial...

And that was pretty much the basis of my post... keep them, but as options for those that want or feel they need them. Its always easier to tell players to add something positive to their characters, but if "standard starting hit points" were just an option, asking players to remove whatever bonus hit points that get added as the new standard would be harder to swallow and thus harder for the DM to implement.

So I like them better as options that everyone can use or not use as they see fit... this is based on both playtesting and past experience, and it didn't require a whole lot of either for me to come to that opinion. As for various preferences of the options shown, all the more reason to present them as options since --while seemingly the more popular choice, not everyone will want the racial option and a handful might want double their first level hit die and others may want to start with their constitution score.

Anyway, the real point of this post is no longer about the starting hit points issue, but rather the presumption that any post stating a concern, opinion, or outright disagreement with the way things should be is invalid and the poster needs to be called out with questions like "Did you playtest it?" Its fine to ask someone to elaborate on how they came to the conclusion, but don't presume they didn't playtest just because they didn't start out with a bounty of text stating specific scenarios.

I am not at all interested in the idea of limiting what kind of items can provide stat boosts... head = mental, belt = physical? Not a chance and it would be the first rule in the book that I take a pen to and scribble over vehemently.

I want my gauntlets of dexterity and gauntlets of ogre power. If I want to give someone an "Amulet of Health" that bestows a constitution bonus, then it gets worn about the neck and not the waist.

Limiting stat boosts to head and belt items only seems arbitrary and wholly unmagical to me, and I'll have no part of it.

Also not to thrilled with the way Wish works. :P

I have a question: What is the bloodline of Varisian sorceror and their Tattoos mark? Arcane? Destined? I don't see any that fit very well...

More bloodlines could be coming. The ones presented don't necessarily have to be the be all and end all of the bloodlines feature.

Good? No because it doesn't meet the PRC test. For every game that focuses on the flavor and fluff there are games that also place an emphasis on the mechanics. People playing in games that place an emphasis on being effective are not playing wrong.

There is still no real mechanical or fluff reason not to delay PRCing with a PF Sorcerer in any game that requires the PCs to be effective.

I don't know... some of the bloodlines high level abilities make me think that it might be worthwhile to skip PRC's entirely. The level 20 abilities in particular are pretty spectacular.

Like most I can make my PC flavorful without it coming at a mechanical weakness cost in game.

And many of us can find ways to make "mechanically weak" characters viable by focusing on something other than strengthening the weakness.

IMO a Bloodline should grant the Sorcerer Bloodline spells which differeniate him from other sorcerers. Not bat or dragon wings or claws things that physically tranform the PC into a monster.

Actually, I think it should be both. Meta-physical manifestations of your bloodline AND extra spells known available specific to your bloodline. Not a lot, but a handful of spells (maybe one at each spell level) that all sorcerers of a given bloodline share in common in addition to their other qualities. Such spells could (and probably should) mirror spell-like abilities common to critters of your bloodline (where applicable).

To many of the Bonus feats for the PF Sorcerer are limited and weak mechanically. Would the class be so strong if half or all of those bonus feats were open instead of limited?

Bonus feats weak? Alright, maybe there are some feats that aren't as spectacular as other feats that exist in the game... but you're getting them for free. Mechanically speaking, free bonus feats are stronger than no bonus feats.

Has the PF sorcerer really addressed the issue of no real reason not to...

As much as any other class, in my opinion.

CastleMike wrote:

David Jackson 60 wrote:

Well, you could probably change the fluff and just have it give you the ability to fly with the same stats I suppose.

A constant ability that cannot be dispelled that saves you a spell slot certainly has some benefits.

Constant Supernatural ability not even Extraordinary so it can be targeted in game like AMF.

Good point. Aside from the practical issue, wings that don't function in antimagic just don't make since.

Remember, the wings aren't a permanent feature... they are magically manifested, not a natural part of your body. The wings wouldn't just stop working in an antimagic area, they should cease to exist until you leave the antimagic area of effect.

Obviously, I'm not a fan of the current duration, both conceptually and practically. I'd rather see this as the next step of the Holy Avenger concept; a weapon imbued by the paladin's deity to smite enemies of his or her faith. Why would such a tool be limited in its use, especially when a wizard can permanently enchant a weapon at a discounted cost and reduced expenditure of resources.

Because then it lessens usefulness of wizards (and others who can enchant weapons) if yet another class can just create their own permanent magic weapon.

As for the brief duration, I look at it this way... the paladin is channeling divine energy and summoning a spirit serving their diety. Beyond game balance, why don't all of their powers function all the time to better benefit serving their god?

Maybe because channeling such divine power constantly is too potent for mere mortals. Perhaps its just an exercise in forcing the paladin to use wisdom and judgement in wielding the powers granted by his virtue. Perhaps divine spirits don't want to spend 24/7 waiting on a mortal warrior to invoke its power whenever it feels like because, like, maybe it wants to rest in peace rather than dwell too long in the world of the living.

However, I am a little put off by the idea that being disarmed can screw over your one use per day power.

I get that some people don't want to put time and effort into writing up a first level character only to have him killed off by a lucky hit... but wouldn't it be just as easy for people to start playing characters at 2nd or 3rd level rather than make 1st level characters uncharacteristically survivable?

1st level is supposed to be hard. Such characters are inexperienced and need to build themselves up through experience. It makes the experience of surviving to get higher level if those early challenges are, you know... challenging.

And using Constitution score as a bonus is the most challenge-robbing option I could imagine. A 1st level dwarf barbarian could feasibly start play with 35 hit points if he takes the Toughness feat. That's slightly more than the same character under standard rules with max hit points for two levels.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Far too many of you seem to be making strong claims without even having remotely playtested these rules. I ask that you try them out and see where they take you. I am not saying I do not want your speculation, but please, remember that some of these are brand new, and more than likely subject to change.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Here's the thing this is valid playtest feedback. I don't want to waste my time playing the current incarnation of the PF Sorcerer.

Like other posters I don't even need to play it to know it is an inferior spontaneous caster if I don't have to play in a game that restricts player class options: The games that don't allow Beguilers, Variant Spellcasters, Wizards, Favored Souls, Psionics and No PRCs.

And that's all well and good. Make suggestions, explain the reasoning behind it, and all that jazz... but there's a lot of negativity behind some of the comments in this thread right up front, and we still have a year to go. Telling someone "this sucks compared to" or "this is lame because" isn't really constructive criticism. Its borderline browbeating, telling them to fix what you don't like or you'll ignore it. Adding legitimate criticism and suggestions to improve what you percieve as broken to that kind of negativity doesn't diminish the negativity, either.

I'm not saying I'd advocate this kind of behavior, but if I was a developer working on the new Pathfinder rules and reading this kind of negativity, I'd set my preferences to ignore posters who respond like that which could have me missing out on useful feedback on other matters.

I noticed the Designer Notes concerning starting hit points and, after seeing all of the other changes, I really hope none of these changes to starting hit points are implemented.

Base hit dice have been increased for some weaker classes and healing has become much more readily available (especially with the cleric's channeling positve energy of Turn Undead attempts also healing characters within range).

At best (or worst?, I'd rather see these options maintained as optional rules in a sidebar as the are presented now rather than see any one of them set as the default. I'm all for characters remaining useful longer, but making everyone just tougher at first level reduces the usefulness of a cleric or druid for the first few levels of the game... not to mention makes things seem unbalanced against monsters of equal level. Making low level characters into comparitive super tanks isn't appealing in the least to me.

The only thing about this skill system idea that leaves me curious is how it will affect prestige classes with skill requirements. Under the 3.5e system, its based on number of ranks in a skill which could be a way of preventing characters from picking up a level in a class before a minimum level... Shadowdancer, for example, required 10 ranks of Hide (as well as other prerequisites) meaning that your character would have to have advanced at least 7 levels as something else before taking a level of Shadowdancer.

If skill prerequisites are simplified to just having picked a skill, players will be able to start taking prestige class levels much sooner than before.

Classes with fewer skills don't rely on them so much, and most of the skills they would normally take can be used untrained anyhow. And for fighters, they get so many bonus feats that they can afford to use their standard feat every 3rd level to gain Skill Focus to boost their proficiency in a particular skill... there's your added customization.

Sorcerers (and wizards, too) are often forced into melee combat when foes engage them... or when they desire to cast spells that have a touch range. It happens.

Noticed the class still doesn't get Diplomacy despite being a Charisma based class. Actually another yard stick of how useless the other class specials are in game that the PF sorcerer class doesn't pick up a skill (UMD) that doesn't cost PC resources to use effectively in game. UMD is nice but to really use the skill in any but a limited form costs the PC magical resources.

Diplomacy just doesn't fit the idea of sorcerers. They're innately magical beings... not social butterflies. To give it to them just because its a CHA based skill and sorcerer is a CHA based class is rather silly. By that logic, Perception and Survival should be cleric skills and Ride should be a rogue skill. Sorcerers who want to pick up Diplomacy should pick up a level in a complementary class that features it, such as bard or maybe rogue.

Use Magic Device, on the other hand, is a skill that was originally denied to sorcerers in the original D&D 3.0 release... which made no sense since they were charisma-based spellcasters with an innate control of magic. It may not seem like much to some people, but the skill fits with what the sorcerer class is.