Praetor Gradivus's page

MAybe poor Vakleros is suppose to block for the spellslinger in this case while said spellslinger starts throwing area affect spells.... or maybe the cleric can buff poor Vakleros...

ummm I suppose I did not express myself clearly at all on my opinion of the OPs opinion. My opinion is that it has already been dumbed down to the point of being useless. To reduce it any further would mean no one will ever even try to take the feat.

They didn't dumb it down as you put it (which implies they made it a simpler mechanic because we aren't smart enough to know how to use it).

What they did is prevent you from metagame thinking and figuring out the DPS of every AC and so choosing the most appropiate minus to use for the situation. Your character isn't suppose to be doing math computations while swinging his sword (though i guess you can argue that many tinker gnomes are do calculations during combat, but that's another story).

Why not give Monks proficiency with a limited selections of weapons, like those listed for the Sorcerer?

because the class isn't martial artist per say but rather a monastic who practices martial arts as a means to self enlightment... However, world specific monk orders could have different class features that would allow more latitude what weapons they could use.

and besides, the monk does have proficiency with a limited selection of weapons.... the monk weapons people are complaining about.

Of course, this is only my view on the monk... others have different stances on the matter.

I made the following changes to monk weapons in my game:

dropped kama -> use sickel
nunchaku -> becomes a light flail, martial weapon
sai -> no change, this is the only monk weapon that is mostly balanced as exotic
shuriken -> no change (though I'd prefer to use darts if not for the drawing issue)
drop siangham (WTF?) -> use punching dagger

I'm considering letting monks flurry with a dire flail, describing it as a 3 section staff, they wouldn't get automatic proficiency with it though, so would have to take the EWP feat.

You take the average 15th century european footman who used a flail and handed him nunchaku, he might not even recognize it as a weapon.

A siangkam is definetly not a punching dagger as it requires much more training to use properly. Skilled users parry and slash with it, not just punch with it.

And having practiced with a three-section staff in my youth, it is definetly not similiar to a footman's flail either.... though it might look a wee bit more like a weapon to those aforementioned 15th century europeans.

I am willing to concede that if my ideas are not popular then they will not make it into the product. However, we all need to concede that PFRPG is not simply going to be a reprint of the 3.5 SRD. If that is what you want, there are products that will give it to you. This is simply just not one of them.

I don't expect PfRPG to be a reprint of 3.5SRD...

But, anyway, that wasn't the purpose of my statement.
It was to remind you that telling people what they are discussing should be discarded for the more important things you believe should be discussed.

There are plenty of threads out there that i gave a once over and don't go back to them because they don't interest me. I don't tell those people to stop discussing and move to an other topic which is what you post seemed to indicate.

If I misinterpetted your post, sorry.

LazarX wrote:

If you really truly believe that much with the OP, then you're in the wrong board and playing the wrong game.

This just annoys me. I agree with the OP and I don't like being told I'm on the wrong boards. I have a right to my opinion, a right to express it and a right to try to influence the direction I think the product should go. It may not happen that it goes my way, that's Paizo's call, but please don't those expressing an opinion to go elsewhere because you don't agree.

For all its worth... we are all entitled to our opinions as long as we state them in an appropiate manner and the subject matter is in keeping with the forum/thread.

Lewy was discussing the subject of the thread, wasn't being rude/crude/crass and didn't go off topic about the ramification of last weeks elections in bohemia, so... i have to disagree with LazrX and say Lewy posted in the right board.

Agree to disagree... stop the hatemonging.

I think that rather than worrying about BWC or about straying into 4th edition, Paizo and the playtesters should focus on ways to pump up the awesomeness factor, because that is what will sell books.

Yes, quite so. Ummmm.....

But have you ever considered that the option that pumps up the awesomeness factor for you may be a bummer for someone else.

And who gets to come up with the list of things that are sure to pump it up so this is the list to choose your topics from?

People who keep straying into 4e concepts do so mainly because most of those concepts have been around in some form or fashion in other places. For example, the bloodied condition isn't exactly brand sparking state-of-the-art new. So are you saying that we shouldn't discuss a concept if it was included in 4e?

Take a look at the discussion on paladin or monks multiclassing for example. To me it seems like a given that the multiclassing restriction is part and parcel of those class designs. Yet, evidently, much to my head scratching, there are enough people out there that it's generating more than a few posts. The discusiion is pretty much just that to me as multiclass restricitions would stay in my campaign but I would never think of telling anyone stop wasting time and discuss something else that I think is more important. Because to them, that discusion is important.

So, "bloodied" isn't the debilitating condition it sounds like, unless you are on the business end of a Slaying Strike attack.

mostly it gives bonuses to the bloodied creature's opponents if they have feature that work better or sometimes only work against bloodied creature.

in the case of Dragonborn, bloodied gives you a minor benefit (+1 to hit)

Of course 3.5 versions of similiar ideas usually go the route of penelty to the person with the condition rather than bonuses to thier opponents.

Thx....so what are the game effects? Penalties to hit, AC, ???

The person who is bloodied has no effects per say... that is he fights and saves just the same as when he is not bloodied. However, there are various features that work because you are bloodied:

If you are a Dragonborn for example, you gain a +1 to hit when you are bloodied.

If you are thief with the Slaying Strike Attack which can only be used once per day, you'll save it until a real tough opponent is bloodied because that particular attack does (assuming a rapier/16str/16dex) 3d8+3 against an unbloddied opponnent but 5d8+6 against a bloodied one.

There are also some feats revolving around bloodied (Dragonborn can take a feat that adds +2 dmg when they are bloodied in addition to the +1 attack bonus they get as a racial ability).

Can somebody explain the "bloodied" condition to me?

In 4e, a creature is 'bloodied' at half hit points (rnd down).

There are certain racial abilities, class abilities and feats that work off bloodied (ie Dragonborn Fury which gives a +1to hit when bloodied or Slaying Strike which adds an additional str mod + dex mod +x2weapon dmg over it's base damage if the target is bloodied ).

KaeYoss wrote:

Note that Dragonborn aren't new in 4e. The fact that they're a standard race now, and being force-fed into everything, is new.

IIRC, the 3.5 Dragonborn are the result of a transformation ritual, and the resulting creature is sterile (a safety feature, to ensure that only good, adult creatures can become one, through a concious decision).

Can anyone confirm if this is still the case in 4E, or are they a race that breeds (and breeds true)?

Dragonborn are a true breeding species in 4e... much different background than the 3.5 version

Praetor Gradivus wrote:

I found this condenscending and it rather annoyed me.

Apologies right back. Sometimes I am crass in the way I post, it's something I try to work on but clearly fail miserably.

Praetor Gradivus wrote:

However, as my other post points out there are methods within PfRPG that widen the gap between 1h fighters and 2h fighters.

Maybe what I am saying is that, yes, we need some love for the one-handed fighter. (edited for brevity)

I think we're on the same thought here but I'm not entirely sure I agree. The feats you referred to don't exist in my game and weapon swap... will not exist in my game whether it gets put into the Beta or not.

Would you agree that Two Handed Fighting and Two Weapon Fighting are Ok as long as Sword and Board retain a significant AC bonus?

I'm not sure it's possible to plug all the holes though.

Weapon Swap is definitely not a good thing. And as long as the Sword and Board retains the AC bonus over the other two styles (meaning no cheesy feats that allow the buckler to be used while attacking 2-handed or 2-weapon) I have no problems with the balance between the three fighting styles in general. (Of course sneak attack and 2weapon style is another thing altogether).

JoelF847 wrote:

Actually 1st edition AKA AD&D had gnomes, half-elves and half-orcs, these were not added in 2nd or 3rd edition.

I am sitting looking at my 2nd edition Player's Handbook and I can assure you that there are no half-orcs.

I am looking at the June 1982 issue of Dragon #62... The Half Orc Point of View article by Roger Moore(Best editor Dragon ever had IMHO).

The Halorc was left out in 2nd edition which bothered enough people that it made it back in 3rd edition.

I'm sorry. I got from your previous comment that you would disallow any feat that removed the multiclassing restriction.

Those feats are pretty much an obvious choice for a character that multiclasses with Paladin. There is pretty much no reason not to take them. The other benefit you talk about is worth the feat itself even if the restriction is removed. In my mind they are basically Be Awesome feats that just happen to remove the restriction as well.

Multiclassing feats are useful for multiclassed characters, I wasn't saying they weren't. I'm saying the lines about the restriction (in the paladin and monk classes and the feats and the prestige classes) were a waste of space.

If you were able to remove that "you can now multiclass freely" line I think they would have been able to fit in another feat.

Also, what do you think is stopping a multiclassed paladin or monk from continuing training as a paladin or a monk? Is it their god? The order? Why would either of them all of a sudden take back their fallen breathren just because he learned more about combining the two?

Well, i guess it was two of because i originally thought you meant that the feats were wasting the space not the prohibition lines in the 3.5 monk and paladin class writeup... so now that we are on the same page.

For me, I see the monk class and the paladin class much like i view contempoary religous orders... people take the vows and are in for life or decide it isn't for them at some point and leave. The ones who leave rarely get the calling to come back. Also I am just plain set in my ways.... I am too influenced by the Gygaxian school of thought and just have too many preconceptions about Paladins and thier conduct that it isn't easy for me to see changes of things that have been pretty much from the beginning.

Really, if paladins aren't as restricted in your or your groups mindset that's fine by me. And if Jason does away with the multiclassing restriction it won't be a gamebreaker for me as that doesn't impact greatly on anything published before.

I won't even look askance at you 4e half elf paladin players that multilass into warlock to get two ranged encounter powers.

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP. Jump should be combined with Swim and Climb into a single Athletics skill. Similarly, I believe that Intimidate, Bluff, Disguise, and Diplomacy could be similarly combined.

What is so common about Diplomacy and Disguise that they should be one skill?

Then I think removing the restriction is better for those that really like playing RAW. Some people want to play multiclassed paladin's without keeping a record of the order they took their classes. So then they would be a feat that would just take up space for any organized games that have to play by RAW. Everyone else would not use that feat (either banning it or granting it automatically) making it a waste of space that could be put to better use in my opinion.

Yes, I don't allow free multiclassing for Monks or Paladins... I din't say they weren't allowed to take the feats that allow multiclassing...

So these feats aren't a waste of space IMHO.

And keeping track of your character's progression is part of the reponsibility of the player... so, keeping track of when you took a level other than paladin is not too much to ask. In organized play, keeping effective tracking of your character progression is mandatory.

Question: If a feat appeared in PRPG that allowed Paladin's to multiclass freely, would you houserule it away?

Pretty much yes.

Just like in some present campaigns, some DMs houserule the multiclass restriction away now.

It's just a matter of how you envision the Paladin. (Galahad in full plate for me... something else for other people).

I just think there so many actual problems with 3.5 that affect gamebalance that worrying about things that don't seems a waste of time to me. Again the emphasis is on me for the last statement, as maybe to some the multiclassing of Paladins is a serious issue.

If that is true, than why have monks always complained about not having ways to enchant their unarmed attacks? This ruling hands it to them no question.

I was only replying to the portion regarding how much damage a gauntlet does when worn by a monk...

as to why monks complain anyway...

they don't have simple weapon proficiency so not only do you lose the flurry with gauntlets because it is not a monk weapon... you have a -4 non-proficiency with it.

Of course you can always burn a feat for the proficiency.

However, I'll rather live with the fact that I can only afford a +3 Amulet of Mighty Fists when the fighter has a +5 Weapon and use the feat on improved natural attack....

This is a minimal change, and it changes pretty much nothing.

If it changes pretty much nothing then why make the change?

How about we just get rid of Animated Shields, I hate those things anyway.

As a DM, I have never had a single animated shield in any treasure that any party ever found. Cause I hate them too.

You criticized me for ignorance of rules which I do not own.

No bro... i am not critizing you for ignorance of rules which you do not own... i am not critizing you for quoting the SRD... i was critizing you for writing: "Maybe you should re-read the rule, I've added emphasis to help." I found this condenscending and it rather annoyed me. Had i waited a while before replying I would have replied in a more appropiate manner. So as to the tone of my post and some of it's content I apologize.

However, as my other post points out there are methods within PfRPG that widen the gap between 1h fighters and 2h fighters.

I personally do not like Weapon Swap because I feel it is too powerful.
I personally don't care for feats that allow bucklers AC to be used while using the offhand to attack or assist in attacking in some way.
I was just pointing out that these things exist in some form and if used means that 1handed weapon fighters are suboptimal.

Maybe what I am saying is that, yes, we need some love for the one-handed fighter.

I hope this post is more clear then the ones I posted before.

Praetor Gradivus wrote:

No bro... don't assUme about what i am referencing... i'm refering to feats like shielded axe and improved buckler defense... so there are ways of getting AC just 1 short of the sword and board.... Hope this helps.

Umm... I have no idea WTF you speak of. If you are referencing some non-core feats then you are on your own. I don't own the books which contain the feats you reference.

You can assUme whatever you would like but anything beyond PfRPG + Core is outside the scope of what Paizo can affect and as such outside the scope of any discussion here.

-- Dennis

BTW, the feats i refered to are all from WOTC products and allowed in RPGA events so it isn't like I was grabbing something outlandish from third party publisher that no one has ever heard of. If PfRPG negates the money I spent on these products, it doesn't really have any more appeal to me than 4e. I don't believe I am alone in feeling this way. If you choose not to use any non-core products, you are free to do so but every single DND player I know owns at least one splat book.

But...
Core + PfRPG only... okay: Defense property on my magic off hand weapon gives me the AC... Weapon Swap allows me to use the primary hand weapon for all my attacks... Or how about animated shield...

You are referring to this rule:

SRD wrote:

Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a -1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round.

Maybe you should re-read the rule, I've added emphasis to help.

Sword and board typically gets +2 to +4 for magic shields at higher levels. Even +2 is a good bump.

-- Dennis

No bro... don't assUme about what i am referencing... i'm refering to feats like shielded axe and improved buckler defense... so there are ways of getting AC just 1 short of the sword and board.... Hope this helps.

Praetor Gradivus wrote:

primemover003 wrote:

Porthos of the 3 Musketeers in other words...

Porthos may be the crudest of the Musketeers and very heavy into wenching, brawling and other low pusuits, however, he is not a barbarian in the cultural sense of the word.

Actually, the Dragon article mentioned him by name as the perfect example of a Barbarian/Swashbuckler. :P

And the author is automatically right because he wrote an article?

The 3.5 Barbarian are modeled on Viking Beserkers for the most part. That Porthos has a temper and is as couth as Popeye doesn't make him a Beserker...

Try reading Dumas in between Dragon articles :-PPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

The thing about "chivalry" in medieval Europe is that it only applied to other people who practiced chivalry, i.e., the noble class. I doubt anybody would want to bring that kind of ugly, elitist historical baggage into a fantasy game, but still that's a pretty good historical argument that the "code of honor" would not apply to relentlessly evil opponents.

And, as I tried to show with my earlier post, the paladin code of conduct is left vague by the core rules. A common problem with online discussions of things, like alignment and the paladin code, which entangle flavor and mechanics, is that people often assume that their interpretations of concepts like "good," "law," and "honor" are enshrined in the core rules even when they really aren't. It looks like the definition of honor as it applies to paladins was largely left up to individual GMs to tailor to the cultures of their campaign worlds.

That's why I said it's my own point of viewing paladin. And the core rule explanation of why a paladin can't multiclass has nothing to do with honor and everything to due with it being a class the requires more focused dedication than the other martial classes.

However, the point of this revision is to fix what's broken while doing the minimal change necessary. The multiclass restriction isn't broken per say so changing it would be done just for the sake of changing it. Any DM is free to lift the restriction if he so chooses, no need to make this change in my opinion.

And the multiclass restriction is just about not coming back to the paladin class after leaving it...if you want to go rogue 5 then paladin 15, you are free to do so you repenting backstabbing doggooder you....

There's always the "cheese" weapon/shield fighter that can significantly boost AC:

Take Deft Shield, Shield Mastery, Shield Slam, and Two-Weapon Fighting. Get a large magic shield with defending shield spikes and always attack with both your weapon and shield in a full-attack while applying the maximum defending bonus.

Yes, but i think the OP is stating that a 1h weapon and shield fighter should be as viable as 2handed or 2weapon fighters without having to resort to shield bashing. And under the current rules it is way underpowered unless you go the shield bashing root and still suboptimal to the 2handed fighter with a buckler if using the shield bashing.

Praetor Gradivus wrote:

Unless your talking about a tower shield, the differnce in AC between a 1hweap & shield vs 2hweapon or 2WF is only 1. That 1 point of AC does not make up for the loss in dmg output from the other two styles.

A heavy shield gives +2 to AC.

yes a heavy shield is +2.. a buckler is +1... a difference of +1... 2WF an 2hweapon fighters use bucklers and so are only down 1 AC...

I have to vote no too.

My reason being that the core races in Paizo should be the same as the core races in 3.5 PHB.

That's not to say that there shouldn't be new races... but that is a topic for a book after the Paizo PHB is done... and of course, since you brought it up, I am sure that someone or many someones will take a crack at Kung-Fu Panda race design.

The problem is that DND chose to use the word paladin instaed of holy warrior. A paladin in the classic sense is a Knight so my view of the Paladin has been forever molded as a Cheavalier... regardless of the change in name to sneak attack, I believe most longtime players like myself still view it as backstabing... While a LE Cheavalier may have no compulsions about stabbing someone from behind I do believe a LG one would not stoop to such a non-chivaric tactic. But again, this is just my own view of things. and people are free to envision paladins as something other than Knights.

As far as multiclassing and the people that keep bringing on the later in life scenarios... 3.5 allows you to start as any class and multi-class into the Paladin class... what you can't do is leave the Paladin class and come back to it.

I think by increased damage it means the +5 increase to the d4 he'd roll.

No... the answer indicates you use the monk's unarmed dmg (which is based on his level) but can then not flurry with it because its not a monk weapon.

I would have no problem with a feat that would have weapon finesse as a presequisite that would then allow Dex to be the modifier for damage.

But giving it as a free ability to any class is IMHO a little too powerful....

Of course, there are plenty who would disagree as there seem to be some who think weapon finesse should be free as opposed to being a feat choice.

So he's the son of a khan and chooses to follow the beserkgang tradition of his mother's people (keeping in mind that in horse nomad cultures like the Horde, women are little more than chattel) vs the warrior tradions of his father's people. Additionally, he dreams of Lancaster and Flynn while sleeping so goes off to be a pirate.

Now am I saying that a horse nomad couldn't think that naval is the way to go... well, the mongols tried it multiple times... didn't do them no good as thier naval commanders were still horse nomads at heart....

Sounds right to me, and I would go further: make some weapons (rapier, dagger, whip) always use the DEX modifier to hit. Require feats for fighters to use STR for particular ones (dagger) and for rogues to use DEX for damage (maybe call it Weapon Precision).

Allowing either STR or DEX for unarmed attacks makes sense.

I would argue that the DND rapier is an Estoc (It is piercing only; other rapiers have cutting points... discounting modern versions of course). It designed to punch through the mail and leather portions of Mail and Plate & Mail armors. Punching through chain and leather requires strength (It's nice to be able to hit the general area but you still need to push the bloody thing through).

If you start allowing rogues to you use Dex for damage, what is your justification for rangers and fighters not gaining that ability?

Porthos of the 3 Musketeers in other words...

Porthos may be the crudest of the Musketeers and very heavy into wenching, brawling and other low pusuits, however, he is not a barbarian in the cultural sense of the word.

First, not that it means anything, Robin Hood was a knight that fought in the crusades alongside Richard the Lionhearted and returned back to England... he's really a fighter that uses a longbow in addition to his melee weapons. He is most definetely not Mr Flynn the Ranger. Hollywood never gets anything right.

Secondly, I have to agree with the people who argue that if you want your ranger to TWF with plate then you need to buy the feat.

And being a follower of the Church of Gygax... mithral is an ultra rare metal mostly hoarded by the elves... why would the sell it to adventures. I find the notion of campaigns were mithral and adamantine are sold as easily as copper and iron to be rather strange. But hey... to each his own.

Unless your talking about a tower shield, the differnce in AC between a 1hweap & shield vs 2hweapon or 2WF is only 1. That 1 point of AC does not make up for the loss in dmg output from the other two styles.

Again, the difference between a buckler and a heavy shield is only 1. The bukler can get all the same defensive enchantments as a heavy shield.

Only charcter classes that can't concentrate all thier points on one melee stat should go 1hweap and shield after the first few levels.

i'ld like to point out that we have the technology to feed the entire world's population... we don't do it beause there is no money to be made from it... same thing with magic, yes you can feed everybody, but what money is to be made from it. More specifically, the people with the magical aptitude (which is less than 1% of the population) can make more money doing other things than producing free food for the populace...

This is on the list of things I dislike most about 4E.

I love the excitement of the confirmation roll.
I also love the latitude the 3E system provides for defining different weapons and characters.

I agree wholeheartedly... my ranger/rogue (who is getting dusty as i dm more often than play) uses a kukri in each hand (did i tell you I love improved critical) while my even dustier half-orc barbarian uses a Lucern Hammer (if you must ask, a Bugbear chieftain owned it before me and since it was +3 when I only had a +1 i started using it and got use to the reach and x4crit).

I thought those were vulcan weapons.

Yes, those funky star trek vulcan polearms are more suitable as monk weapons than the kukri is.

And the double half-moon polearm from the b-movies is a lajatang... you made me look it up and i'm lazy :-ppppppppp

If you want to add more weapons to the monk... how about three-section staffs or those funky half moon double-weapons someone always carries in kung fu b-movies. Also, there are a lot of wierd chain or rope combo weapons.

i think that the kukri should be on the monk weapon list.

What your opinion on this?

The kukri is a heavy, curved Nepalese knife used as both a tool and a weapon. It is also a part of the regimental weaponry and heraldry of Gurkha fighters.

Martial arts weapon it is not.

In my opinion, 20s had lost their luster. Seeing a natural 20 on the dice was a prelude to disappointment with critical confirmations.

I changed that to auto-criticals but with the critical range reduced by 1. Any effect that increases the critical range does so by 1.

So an 18-20 weapon, is now 19-20 autocrit.
A 20 weapon is still a 20 weapon.

The math provides pretty close averages over time compared to the original rule.

20s are a happy sight again.

You realize autocriticals help monsters out more than they do the PCs... meaning at low level an orc with a great axe basically drops a PC once every 20 swings while it was 1 in about 50+ or so (depend on armor class) when they have to confirm criticals.

It is perfectly reasonable for an underdark Dwarven Ranger to "stomp" around in mithril plate. Sure, he's taking some penalties for the armor, but he's a Dwarf, it is more iconic for him to have plate! I'd prefer to see the armor restrictions removed, so that the class is more versatile and works with more character concepts. It doesn't increase the power of the class significantly - the character will still need to do with the armor penalty on skills (but ooh now Fighter/Ranger might make sense for that Dwarf to reduce some of those armor penalties).

My 2cps...

The iconic dwarf (gimli)... chainmail

The hollywood knight... plate

The iconic dwarven metal... adamantine

The iconic elven metal... mithral

A Bard from the movies no one mentioned:

So they sent for a witch with a terrible twitch
to ask how my future impressed her.
She took one look at me... and cried,
"He, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, *HE*!
What else could he be but a jester?"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049096/

Danny Kaye is da Bard! :-)

Definetly need a Danny Kaye Prestige Class...

Another thing missing from the staves is the cost of one with less charges in it. Should it still be worth the max because it's rechargeable? It surely should not be worth x/10 of the price, but unless it is explicitly said some poor GM will get hoodwinked into selling one for that.

If he can get hoodwinked w/this, than in all probability his players run rampant on a whole lot of other exploits that are really out of whack so it doesn't really matter that much in that campaign.

Am I the only DM who allows my NPCs the -10 to die rule?

I usually go w/ -10 modified by CON bonus to die (ie 18 Con needs -14, 3CON needs -6 to die).

As to NPCs, they die at -1 (0 is unconscious) unless they have a PC class or are above 1st level of an NPC class.

So the majority of NPCs die at -1 but a very small percentage of them get to linger on a bit more.

If you ask me, your DMs suck. If I'm a monster and I just got hit for a lot of damage by someone I'm not facing, I'm going to turn around and make the guy pay. Intelligent or not, it seems like a natural thing to do.

Rogues have less hitpoints and a lower AC, or they should, then the fighter and paladin and aren't going to stand up to the attention of a monster.

The problem isn't sneak attack or flanking, the problem is monsters not reacting logically.

Any change to sneak attack effects every prestige class that uses or enhances sneak attack.. I can think of 3 right now, only one of which is OGL, the other two are Forgotten Realms specific. Not only does it have to remain in the game, but it has to be something with progressive damage.

If your argument is that sneak attack affects too many PrC to be changed than why aren't you arguing for 3.5 Sneak Attack as oppossed to Alpha2 Sneak Attack?

I like this idea, but without some stiff restrictions, these items could rival artifacts. +5 staff of quickening? Would that mean you cast your spells at +5 caster level and the spell is quickened?

Don't Forget your +5 Staff of Chain Spell + Quickening for all of your Finger of Death needs.

As an in-combat heal, turning is viable, but weak at level 20. 35 damage is nothing compared to what (mass) heal can do.

Yes, but you are comparing a power you get at 17thlvl (9th level spells) to a 1st Level Power (turning)... of course Mass heal should be significantly better than the healing you get fron Turning.

The healing from Turning in my opinion helps balance the slight reduction in Cleric power from the switch in Domains (The 3.5 Domain powers plus spells in many cases- but not for all Domains- are better than the Domain powers in Alpha2).

All in all, I like the Alpha2 cleric as is including the healing.

Or they could take the other Pathfinder two-weapon combat feats that can't be used in conjunction with this one, but are also really, really good.

Wow, they save ... gp. Game-breaking.

I didn't say gamebreaking, so save your sarcasm.

Wealth/level is a balance mechanism under d20... so if you you a 15 level rogue should have around 200,000gp in wealth. So a 50,00gp weapon isn't out of the question at that level... this feat if applied to a 50k gp weapon similiar to having two seperate 50k gp weapons for a character that uses two weapons so with the 50k gp that you didnt spend on a second weapon you have raised your expected resources from wealth by 25%. That's point one.

Point two is the rougue itself which I think is slightly overpowered (and I do mean slightly and it's just my opinion). So I feel a slightly overpowered rogue (optimized) using this feat becomes moderately unbalanced because of the increase in wealth resources it gives him.

So to reitterate my first post: my problem with this feat is in conjunction with an optimized rogue. It's not as big a problem as let's say the old polymorph rules in my eyes but it isn't well balanced.

I don't think the feat is as a big a deal in the hands of another character class for various reasons specific to each class(of course, saving final comment on ranger until it comes out but they'ld have to change the ranger quite a bit).