Paul Johnson 245's page

I agree fully with the OP. At the current time, I consider the PFRPG to be inferior to straight 3.5 with reasonable houserules. The PFRPG, in my eyes, ignored that which was broken (melee characters, the multitude poor choices available), broke that which was balanced (races, favored classes, domains/specialists, CMB, granting more feats, nerfing melee feats), and needlessly altered what feels like nearly every aspect of the game to no benefit beyond having things work differently than they did before (sorcerer bloodlines, barbarian rages, skills, Fly, CR, many of the spells, magic item crafting, many of the feats, most of the PrCs, and much, much more). Change for the sake of change does not interest me, and yet that is what the majority of the PF "fixes" are. All in all, I am hard pressed to find a single thing that PFRPG did better than straight 3.5 which I can't implement as a small, one line houserule.

To me, it isn't about backwards compatibility. I agree that the PFRPG is decently backwards compatible. But what I want is an improvement in the 3.5 system. I want a 3.5 system that is simpler and more balanced, and, to me, the PFRPG is more complex and less balanced than straight 3.5. I would rather stick with what I already know than play with a set of rules that would require re-learning large swaths of the game with no actual benefit. And this is why I just do not see myself purchasing the final release unless Paizo does in fact trim off half the changes they made.

Firstly, i did not say that 'this was not the game for you.' I very nearly did say it, but i don't like that form of arguement. But since you've put the words in my mouth already, i will state MY ACTUAL views on it.

Yes, i do think that you might enjoy narrative skirmish games more than roleplaying games base from your statements, i am led to beleive that is how you play DnD. You might like Inquisitor, though i rather suspect that your love for 'balance' might get in the way of your appreciation for it. That said, if you want to continue to play DnD the way you do, cool, good on you. I never once said or implied that you shouldn't be playing the game.

In fact, i wish to see high level melee function better, i am sure we all do. But accusing reasonable, but selectively useful low level feats of being the cause is of it is silly.

No, what we need is better high level feats, ones which build on lower level feats. The cap stone shield feat should Double the total AC granted by your sheild so that tower sheild users. Their should be armor use related feats which functions like the new sheild feats, but for armour, again with a capstone feat which rewards taking the pre requisites. Aditional feats in the style of Combat expertise, which scale of strength, charisma and dexterity. Fighter specific DR feat chains, which provide stacking untyped DR. Small amounts in the upper low/lower mid, but increasingly large amounts at high levels, scaling on
More feats like, shall not pass which allow the fighter and other melee or ranged combatants to influence battle tactics will also help.

But saying 'rar rar rar, combat expertise is crap, yeah.' doesn't help

I agree that this isn't the only way to fix the problem. In fact, it isn't even close to the best way. The best way is to turn the default casting time for spells into 1 Round as opposed to 1 Standard Action and then changing the acquisition of new spell levels to once every three levels instead of once every two. (For 2nd level spells at 4th, 3rd at 7th, 4th at 10th, 5th at 13th, 6th at 16th, and 7th at 19th. The amount of spells per day would be increased to offset the loss from slower progression.) That would go a very long way towards balancing the full casting classes without having to rewrite very much of the rules at all. However, that has been taken off the table. And so, the theater shifted to class features and trying to get better ones for melee classes. That, too, has been taken off the table. And as a result, this has become the current theater of focus. Feats need to be fixed. The feats that are weak need to be buffed, significantly. New feats that are strong need to be made. Tools need to be given to the melee classes to allow them to function as equal to full casters. And yes, Combat Expertise is a feat that needs to be buffed to bring it up to par.

And yes, the new feats are not bad, but they still do not come anywhere close to the level of power necessary for this.

While I suspect that Jason actually doesn't care about balance, I refuse to give up until the full product comes out or Jason states for the record that he won't fix this problem.

'Two men are using identical desk top computers.

One man sits down and uses the computer as he finds it; he beleives it works.
While the other unplugs the computer and trys to operate it; he beleives that it is broken.'

If you push a game system to the point where it breaks, by playing at its extremes in all cases, you are not finding a fault in the system, you are making a fault in the system. If you build every wizard as a Intelligence 20 at creation optermised to perfection machine of destruction, instead of a character built with hobbies(represented by skill allocation and feat us), naturalistic unspiked attribute, ofcause the game will break down.

Yes, the game breaks down at high levels of optimization. This is a huge problem with the game. One of those things that... you know, needs fixing? Obviously the solution isn't easy, but it does deserve being fixed. It is not my fault the game was made poorly, as you insinuate.

I have no problem with this.

The character's power is still measured by total number of feats, so the upper limit is still there.

Having to remember when you took a particular feat does not seem necessary, as long as the character is still (somehow) a legal build.

For those who think this option may be too powerful, this is actually less abusable than a player bringing a new or replacement PC into an ongoing game, and having freedom to customise his PC to his heart's content.

Agreed entirely. Anything that encourages people to keep playing their current characters as opposed to starting over from scratch is a good thing.

About restricted access: How about every even level? This way, every odd level you get a feat, and every even level you get the chance to retrain.

Firstly, the choice of 'trap' is emotive, even if you don't realise it. To invoke the concept of being ticked and imprisoned by a choice is playing on emotional responses rather than reason. One should never use a term in its own definition. Making a choice which makes your weaker in combat is not a 'trap', it is simply placing another priority higher than effectiveness in combat. It would be accurate and reasonable to describe the choice as 'not being optimal' if the aim is always to be combat effective, but you choose biased and emotive language instead.

A trap is a weak feat choice is a poor decision is an item that you choose which permanently holds your character down is a rose by any other name. It is what it is.

All choice in life are not equal, you say that these choices should be improved, but you give no reason.

My reason has been given in every single post: The feat does not have an adequate effect to compete with other feats and is therefore a trap. By buffing it you elevate it to the levels of other feats and enter it into the realm of usefulness for those of us who choose feats for reasons other than cool names.

Despite the fact that they are currently useful to many builds.

They are useful to many bad builds. By improving the feats, those builds may not be as bad, and in turn, game system mastery is reduced.

At its most basic, this feat decrease a characters chance of being hit by 5%, this benefit can be taken advantage into the double digits of level.

No, that isn't what the feat does. The feat decreases your chance of being hit by an attack while removing the chance of being chosen as the target of an attack -- all at the cost of your offensive power.

Let me give you an example; I cut logs fairly often, we have a wood burning fireplace, so its one of my chores as it where. If I where to be given an axe, which cut 5% better across a 2/3 of my remaining years of chopping I would consider that a good axe. Even if the axe blunts and is no better than any other axe, it was still a good investment for 2/3's of my chopping. It becomes a better investment still, if i for instance know that I will stop chopping before I ever blunt the axe. So a fighter in a campaign which will end around 12th level, because that's when the group feels that the game stops being fun, will always gain the benefit of taking CE

Your example would be relevant if Fighters became obsolete at 12th level. They don't. By 5th level a well played fighter is overshadowed by well played full casters. By 7th level this same fighter is made entirely obsolete.

No, not everyone plays at that level of game system mastery. I know you don't. But the game should be playable and melee classes should function in this degree of skill. Half the classes in the core rule book should not be obsoleted just as the game actually begins. And this is why combat feats need to get the living bejesus buffed out of them -- to help make the game playable at high levels of game system mastery as well as to remove newbie unfriendliness at low levels of game system mastery. The buffing of these feats will likely have no change in your style of game. You will continue to pick the feats you already do and perhaps enjoy some more benefit from it. But for us who enjoy playing the game to the maximum, it will render the game playable and fix the single largest problem with 3.5.

They are both appliciable over a wide variaty of conditions, it is merely that your game style and preference, which bias your opinion do not include them. Also, the poster has just made the claim that power attack was useful in ever fight. The statement was a response to that.

One, I am that poster. Two, the statement is still true. Power attack, as a rule, is useful in every fight. Combat expertise, as a rule, is not useful in any fight. Rules are broken and exceptions exist, but as a rule, these are true.

On the topic of "gamestyle, preference, and bias", I can assure you they have nothing to do with this conversation. Even YOU admit that the best case scenario for Combat Expertise is one you've never seen happen.

No, here your understand of what it is to be a good roleplayer and the importance of words, fails to keep up with your arguement.

Good role-playing is accurately and persuasively playing your character, your character is based upon the attributes, skills and feats. All of your choices, throughout your characters progression inform what you are playing and how it should be played. If you have a low charisma and play the character as charming and witty, you are role-play poorly. Do not confuse role-playing with acting, they are separate skills. A good roleplayer will usually be a good actor(atleast at the gaming table) , but he does not have to be.

The words written down on your character sheet never have anything to do with your character as a roleplaying entity. No enemy will be able to scan your character sheet and know that you took three levels in class X, two in class Y, six in prestige class Z, this feat, that feat, and those skills. It will never happen. What you wrote down on your sheet will have nothing to do with how you roleplay your character. What matters is how your character functions, what effects he creates, what results he generates -- those things happen, those things change the world, and those things are what defines your character as a roleplaying entity. It does not matter how you came about them. In the case of the dashing swordsman, regardless of which of a million different builds that could be taken to build him, what defines him is his skill in combat, his daring, his panache, his forwardness. Therefore, to be a dashing swordsman, one must have those effects on the game. It does not matter if this character is Fighter20, Swashbuckler20, Rogue3/Swashbuckler3/Invisible Blade5/Duelist8/Nightsong Enforcer1, or Fighter2/Swashbuckler3/Warblade15. It does not matter if you took Power Attack or Combat Reflexes. What matters is that, within the game, your character acts like a dashing swordsman, both in personality and in action. How you build that is up to you.

The comment about commoner with a skill focus in basketweaving was intended to be an extreme example of this. I admit I didn't explain it well enough. And while I admit that it would be difficult to optimize a commoner as a precision and skill based combat specialist with a rapier, I have no doubt it is possible.

Oh god, do I have to debunk this again? I can speak with a degree of certainty on this subject because i studied Ethology through my university degree.

Lets deal with animal intelligence. Most animals will select a target and continue to attack it until driven of. This is evidenced by canine attack behaviour. If you hurt enough to get it to leave a target alone, you have hurt it enough to make its entire attack uneconomicial on a cost benifit analyses, which means it will flee. Simple intelligence work on simple maths, something is worth being injured for or not. Mating is worth being injured for, eating is not.

The baseline for unintelligent creatures is plants and slime molds, as they are real life examples of creatures that appear in DnD and deserve zero intelligence. Plants and molds behaviours are governed by tropisms and mechanical reflects. The not capable of reason, they move towards or away from specific stimuli or contact with specific stimuli trigger a single behaviour. Certainly, the behaviours expressed by zombies are more complex, but they are not capable of complex threat analysis.

In summation of this element, it is you who is miss understanding how low intelligence and unintelligent threats behave. You are guilty of Anthropomorphism.

There is no reasoning capacity necessary here. If one enemy does not hurt an animal, one hurts it fairly, and one hurts it badly it focuses on the one that hurt it the most. It has nothing to do with reasoning -- it is all reactive. You do agree that animals are capable of reacting, right? Or would you just roll a d3 and decide who to attack from there? Not that that would do you any good -- you would still be inable to guarantee the animal will focus on you.

Regardless, either an animal can choose it's target, and it does so to the best of it's admittedly low ability which is more than enough to realize the Combat Reflexes character does not pose as much of a threat as the others because he hasn't harmed it nearly as much, or, it cannot choose it's target and acts in ways that nobody can predict or benefit from. No matter what, the Combat Reflexes character is getting no use out of his feat.

Lastly, your entire argument is based on the assumption that Combat effectiveness is the most important thing. It is only one side of the coin and to a great many people, the less important one. You're biased by your play style and tastes, your offering advice on roleplaying, when from what you have said, you show your self as having fundamental misunderstood fairly core principles of what it is to role-play.

Forgive me for trying to make the game playable at high levels of game system mastery. Apparently this isn't the game for me. I should just accept that melee classes are completely and utterly useless and either play only casters or go play 4e, since apparently despite promises of balance in Pathfinder this isn't the game for me.

Oh wait, you aren't Jason. So you can't decide that balance is off the table for the things that PF is attempting to nurture.

To be less snarky, I am trying to make this game more playable for me. Yes, my play style is different than yours. However, your playstyle works more than fine with rules that utterly fail or with no rules at all. MINE DOESN'T. Mine requires a game that actually delivers balance and has meaningful choices. And yet, the changes needed to fix my playstyle have absolutely no change on your playstyle -- but you're still set against them for no reason beyond spite! Please, for those of us who enjoy combat just as much as roleplaying, stop trying to keep us from getting what we need to continue playing 3.5. All you are doing is damaging the Pathfinder product and guaranteeing that more people will emigrate to 4e which actually delivers these goals.

You know, I do have to say that after being here sense alpha it has become clear to me that two key things happend to melee classes in general. Melee classes got improved, sometimes slightly, while their key feats got nerfed in one of two ways; they drastically reduced the power in a flat nerf such as power attack, combat expertise, improved combat maneuver feats, etc. Or they got turned into an action and made slightly better producing an illusion of improvement, but really a nerf such as dodge, cleave, great cleave, etc.

Some of these feats might need to be nerfed, but not to the degree that they have.

None of these feats (or features) needed to be nerfed. Many of them needed to be buffed. All of them need to be fixed -- at least to return them to their viability in 3.5, and hopefully to buff them to the point of being worth taking.

Trap is an emotive term and based on your personal bias.

It does not add anything to the discussion to lable feats you don't like as traps. Because there are players for who, they are excilent choices, not bad.

Trap is not an emotive term and has nothing to do with personal bias. A trap is a trap -- it is a choice that is far weaker than other choices you could make with no payoff. There are no players for whom traps are excellent choices, there are simply players who think traps are excellent choices. This perception does not make the trap an excellent choice. It is still a trap. The feat is still weak beyond measure, people who choose it are still making characters weaker than they could be, and it still needs to be fixed -- and by fixing it, the players who think it is good due to their lack of game system mastery (which is a bad thing, mind you, for a game to have to rely on to be playable) are actually justified with it being good.

Firstly, power attack is conditional there are occations where an Antagonist's AC is to high to make power attack a viable option, so please don't try to say it can be used in every fight of a campaign.

And this is the exception as opposed to the rule. Yes, there are circumstances that nullify each and every feat. However, in considering two feats that have fairly equal effects, if one is applicable in nearly every circumstance but is nullified under certain rare situations and the other is not applicable except under certain rare situations, the second is still vastly inferior and is still a trap.

Secondly, my first consideration when choosing any element of a characters progression is not utility but how it relates to the characters concept. So it i am playing an avid fencer or a slightly cowardly scholar or any number of other options, i might take combat reflexs, over power attack.

And here you go off the deep end. You do not need Combat Reflexes to be a dashing swordsman. You could be a commoner with a skill focus in basketweaving and you would be able to RP as a dashing swordsman. Your feat choices, and, indeed, your entire combat function, is completely separate from your character. Just describe it better. Talk about your fancy footwork, and your decisive blow. This is what defines your character. Don't let your stats get in the way.

Lastly, threats which are likely focus on a single target are more common than you make out.

many plants, unintelligent undead, unintelligent constructs, Oozes, Most animals and vermin, other low intelligence creatures may such as hydra, NPC's with specific emotional reasons to select a target(insane jealousy for instance.), charmed companions and cohorts and numerous other threats. So to say an occations where raising AC to a level where it is almost impossible to be hit is might be useful, is a once in a campaign option is disengenous.

Unintelligent creatures react. If presented one target, they will attack it, yes. If presented three targets, one hitting hard, one hitting soft, and one not hitting at all, they react to the largest threat because even the least intelligent being has a sense of self preservation. Therefore, barring a DM who willingly abandons his monster's RP to justify your poor feat choice, unintelligent monsters will react to you just the same as an intelligent monster -- once it realizes you pose no offensive threat, it will ignore you.

In certain circumstances, yes, you can goad an intelligent creature into focusing on you and only you. If you hold a specific item that creature is focused on, or stand on a specific part of terrain, yes, the enemy may choose to focus on you and only you. But again, we reach a situation as above -- this feat is one that only proves it's worth once in a rare while, as compared to an alternative that proves it's worth in nearly every single fight. That the feat even functions is an exception to normal combat, as opposed to the rule.

I am confused as to why a damage focused build (archer) is doing more damage than a non-damage focused build (melee using longsword) is a bad thing?

Compare it to a greatsword wielder stacking strength and raging with proper feats, namely Overhead Chop and Backswing. The damage comes out the same -- the Archer has a +12/+12/+7 routine with 2d8+12 (21 average) damage on the first hit and 1d8+6 (10.5 average) on the second and third for a total average of 44, whereas the Barbarian comes out to +14/+9 with 2d6+15 (22 average) damage per hit with again a total average of 44.

The Archer is fine, leave him be.

From the new feats posted by Jason:

Disruptive (Combat)
Your training makes it difficult for enemy spellcasters to safely cast spells near you.
Prerequisites: 6th-level fighter.
Benefit: The DC to cast spells defensively increases by 4 for all enemies within your threatened area. This increase only applies if you are aware of the enemy’s location and are capable of taking an attack of opportunity. If you can only take one attack of opportunity per round and have already used that attack, this increase does not apply.

Spellbreaker (Combat)
You can strike enemies that fail to cast defensively.
Prerequisites: Disruptive, 10th-level fighter.
Benefit: Enemies in your threatened area that fail their checks to cast spells defensively provoke attacks of opportunity from you.
Normal: Enemies that fail to cast spells defensively do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

From the book "Miniature's Handbook":

Mage Slayer (General)
You have studied the ways and weaknesses of spellcasters and can time your attacks and defenses against them expertly.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 2 ranks, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all Will saving throws. Spellcasters you threaten may not cast defensively. (They automatically fail Concentration checks to do so.)

One, taken as a whole, provides a minor penalty to a spellcraft check a spellcaster can nearly auto-succeed even with the penalty, and if they fail, they provoke an AoO and lose their spell. The other forces the enemy to always take an AoO, and if you hit, they must make a much harder spellcraft check to keep the spell which they will most likely fail. One costs two feats and ten levels in Fighter, the other costs one feat, a +3 BAB, and two ranks in spellcraft. Oh, and the second gives a +1 to Will saves to boot.

In short: These two feats, which are supposed to be fighter only, unique, and powerful, are together strictly worse than a single lower level feat not restricted by class. This should be rectified. I would suggest copypasta'ing Mage Slayer, with a new name and a requirement of only "3rd Level Fighter". Otherwise, those of us who like to play with splatbooks will continue to take Mage Slayer and pass right by these new feats which really should add something to the fighter class.

Agreed entirely. I would be more than happy if the PHB2 retraining options were included wholesale. Wouldn't change anything at my table, of course -- we already use them and will continue to regardless of PF's endorsement -- but it would represent a large increase in the overal quality of the PF system. Just remember the restrictions:

- One item per level. One feat, class feature, skill, spell/power/ability known, or one substitution level taken.
- Whatever it is you're retraining to must have been a valid choice at that level. You couldn't retrain your first level feat into a new feat you just met the prereq for -- the new feat has to be something you could've picked at level 1.
- You can't retrain something that would break any prerequisites for something else. An example given earlier was that you couldn't retrain Weapon Focus: Longsword if you already had Weapon Specialization: Longsword because the second requires the first. You could, however, retrain the Specialization one level and the Focus the second.

Another vote. Power Attack, 3.5 version, should be the baseline of what a physical feat should be. It does not need a nerf -- the other feats need to be brought up to it's level. Assuming, of course, the developers want physical combatants to function at all at higher levels. If they don't, then they're doing it all fine and should leave it as is.

Completely agree on all points. Merging feats -- please. Traps should not exist. I see arguments about how this isn't friendly to new players... and I can't even fathom the concept. Trap choices are friendlier to new players than slightly more complex feats? Well, let's see. One permanently damages his character, the other... involves slightly more reading. Sorry, no competition. Trap feats are far less newbie friendly than more complex feats.

About the conditional nature of feats: Would you rather have a feat that is good in very specific circumstances, such as Combat Reflexes in a circumstance where you know the enemy will attack you and only you, or would you rather have a feat that is good in every situation, such as Power Attack? The choice, for me, doesn't even exist. One of those feats proves it's worth once in a campaign, the other every single fight. Therefore, the first is a trap, and needs to be fixed.

Re: 'Martial Weapon Proficiency'. As is, given the choice between a MWP or an EWP, an EWP is strictly superior in every single way. By rolling all MWPs into one feat, a choice suddenly exists -- you could become proficient with one excellent weapon, or with a large amount of good weapons. While I think most characters would still choose EWP, MWP would actually become an option. This is a completely excellent change and I hope it makes it to the final product.

Re: Toyrobot, and the concept that the PFRPG contains too much power creep already. Yes, PFRPG contains entirely, massively, too much power creep -- and in all the wrong places. Taken as a whole, melee characters are just as strong in PFRPG as in straight 3.5, but casters, especially Wizards, have become supercharged. I agree that this product needs to scale back it's power creep if it is to be anything more than a mockery in the D&D community, but this isn't the place for it to be scaling back -- this is the place to push forward. Combat classes need feats to function. They need good, strong, feats. Feats that define their characters and give them a chance to be as successful as full casters. This is the place to give them that.

What this project needs in order to succeed is two things -- one, all spellcasters must get toned down to the level of physical characters. Two, physical characters must be given feats that are actually feasible, good, powerful, and scaling with level. Power Attack, pre PF nerf, is a great example of such a feat. Take that... and make more. Dozens more. Keep them relevant to only physical characters -- the point that casters can benefit from combined feats is very true. But they need to exist.

It's simple, really.

Remove the Weapon Training feature. Roll it into base BAB. He loses the bonus damage, but gains iterative attacks faster. Most importantly, however, he qualifies for feats faster.

Removes complexity (Weapon Training is awfully complex and wordy), increases power level, gives the fighter something completely unique that no other class has, and synergizes with his feat-heavy nature. To me, a win/win.

The progression would go something like this:

1: +1
2: +2
3: +3
4: +5
5: +6/+1
6: +7/+2
7: +8/+3
8: +10/+5
9: +11/+6/+1
10: +12/+7/+2
11: +13/+8/+3
12: +15/+10/+5
13: +16/+11/+6/+1
14: +17/+12/+7/+2
15: +18/+13/+8/+3
16: +20/+15/+10/+5
17: +21/+16/+11/+6/+1
18: +22/+17/+12/+7/+2
19: +23/+18/+13/+8/+3
20: +25/+20/+15/+10/+5

Channel Divine Might: A number of times per day equal to your paladin level plus your charisma modifier you may channel divine might through your swordarm in an attempt to heal your ally or destroy your enemy. When you do, choose between two actions:
-- Smite Evil (rules text as per PFRPG 31)
-- Lay on Hands (rules text as per PFRPG 31)