Psychic_Robot's page

564 posts. Alias of B.T..


1 to 50 of 564 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

KaeYoss wrote:
Sounds good. Avoids the "stuff that activates on crits doesn't here" and evens the field - since higher multipliers are rewarded, but higher ranges aren't.

That's what I was thinking (and presumably that's what Velderan was thinking).

Either way, I really like this feat because it gives characters the option to move and attack without sucking.

Sounds good, though I might increase it to quadruple damage at +16 BAB.

Epic Meepo wrote:

Ranks in Perception are like hit points. Everybody of every class wants them, and everybody of every class takes them whenever they can. In my experience, "2+Int skill points per level" now really means "1+Int skill points per level, plus a rank in Perception."

Back when Perception was several skills, there were some adventurers who were perceptive and others who weren't. These days, all adventurers are perceptive; a few don't get a class bonus to Perception, but Perception is otherwise maxed out for every character.

This, as I see it, is a problem. When a skill becomes so important that everyone want to take it, it isn't a skill anymore, it's just a skill point tax for something that everyone assumes an adventurer should be able to do anyway.

So things were better off when characters couldn't see or hear anything. Similarly, by that reasoning, rogues technically have 5 + Int mod skills ranks per level, since they're (probably) automatically putting points into Stealth, Perception, and Disable Device.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

The change to Power Attack was a quite intentional choice to scale back on certain abuses. The team here has found that Power Attack in particular shifts combat into an unbalanced arena. Allow me to explain.

With the Power Attack feat as it was in 3.5, Power Attack was the crutch that allowed the fighter to compete. By collecting every to hit bonus they could find, they could shift more and more into PA and still be effective. This lead to one of two situations, either too much got shifted, in which case the fighter rarely hit and felt useless, or too little got shifted, in which case the fighter dealt too little damage and felt useless. You could sometimes get it juuusssst right, but that required some knowledge of the monsters AC and a math degree (or a lot of trial and error). In either case, this was unacceptable and as we are trying to fix fighters from other directions, leaving this feat as it was just seemed like a poor idea. We wanted evaluation without PA's interference.

So... here are some thoughts. We are considering changing PA to a set scale, where you subtract X and add 2X to damage, regardless of your weapon or other factors (following KISS). X might slide up as you gain levels, but it would not be a variable, which causes too many issues. Here is my question... what should X be. My current thought is to start it out at 2 and have it increase by 1 for every 5 of your BAB. Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

To be honest, I'd actually implement it more like 4e's model: you take a -2 penalty and do +X damage. My personal suggestion would be that you would do an extra 2 damage, +1 damage for every two points of BAB that you have. While this would be significantly less damage on a single attack, I would hope that the greater increase in to-hit chances on iterative attacks would compensate for this.

Ross Byers wrote:

No. Just no.

Monks can buy magic monk weapons or Amulets of Mighty Fists if they need those bonuses.

If they need them so badly that they can't afford to pay money for them, then the solution is to give them a fighter's BaB, not dupicate the effects of stronger and more attacks via weapon properties.

(Also, your argument that Monks can't use armor is silly: They can use Bracers of Armor, which cost the same per bonus as magic armor.)

No. You don't kmow what you're talking about. Amulets of Mighty Fists are ridiculously expensive.

Arakhor wrote:
A fighter spending 40-50% of his expected WBL on his main weapon can't buy a magic weapon before 4th-level and cannot afford a +1 keen weapon until 7th, let alone the +1 speed weapon until 11th-level. I'm all for monks having magical attacks, but let's not have them outclass the fighter.

Yes, but monks still need multiple high stats to do anything. The fighter can dump them.

Again, why not just make it a set amount so that characters with short swords don't get screwed?

Your example is an extremely specific example that is wholly contrived. Mine involves, you know, dragons and sh*t.


Why would making a feat give multiple different abilities be any different than making several feats give one ability each? If characters got about ten more feats, I'd say that most things were peachy as-is. However, the majority of characters AREN'T getting bonus feats, so they might as well be merged.

Improved Combat Maneuvers: You can execute combat maneuvers without provoking attacks of opportunity, and you get a +2 bonus to your CMB.

That's a lot for one feat, I agree. However, what you must consider is that a) it's roughly 10% of a character's feats to take this, and b) why on Earth does it take a special feat to perform combat maneuvers without sucking? Personally, I think that the AoO should be removed entirely, but that's just me.

Quandary: It would be worth a feat for casters who don't want to lose a caster level.

JoelF847 wrote:

PR, it seems that your criteria for what makes a feat good are much, much higher than what feats are currently designed towards. Are there any 3.5 PH feats or PRPG Beta feats that you think are good as is? I read this and get the sense that you think all feats are too weak.

I fully admit that some feats are not equal to others, but think that a) there are many standard feats that are at a good power level as is, and b) that the gap between good feats and poor feats is relatively small. In fact, there is only one feat that I would never take (Combat Casting.)

Quicken Spell is awesome.

Jim Callaghan wrote:
Yeah, broken. And the guy with Combat Expertise still deals out a respectable amount of damage.

No. You don't know what you're talking about. At all. If it would be so broken to put all armor/weapon proficiencies in a single feat, then why can I gain all of that and get a bonus feat with a single dip into another class?

Furthermore, I must reiterate:

Monsters will ignore unhittable targets. They will move on to squishier things, greener pastures, all that jazz.

In addition, the guy who takes a -5 penalty on his attack rolls with Combat Expertise fails because he could be using that -5 to get +10 damage. A swing. And +20-30 damage on a crit.

Vital Strike/Improved Vital Strike are good ideas. Unfortunately, there are two problems.

1. They require two feats to use them. This is bad. They should be merged so that characters who don't have a million feats aren't boned.

2. They use base weapon damage instead of a flat value. Now, why is this so bad (and why is it the more important issue)? The feat's benefits are too lopsided: players with a large amount of base weapon damage are like, "Yay, Vital Strike" while players using short swords or daggers are like, "Wow, what a junk feat." For instance, suppose that one were to use a greatsword (2d6) and then get larger via enlarge person (improving damage to 3d6). Well, with Improved Vital Strike, you just got a bonus +18d6 damage, assuming that both your attacks hit. Unfortunately, the poor fellow stuck using a short sword (1d6) gets a whopping +6d6 if both his attacks hit.

Now, for monks, this gets into ridiculous territory. Let's take a monk with a base unarmed damage of 2d8. Since he probably has Improved Natural Attack (since that's kind of assumed for monks), his attacks do a base of 3d8 damage. At that level, he can use Vital Strike (assuming he hasn't multiclassed to get better BAB). Each attack that he does is going to do +6d8 damage. For the sake of argument, let's assume that his three attacks at +11 damage hit. Well, he just did +18d8 damage. That's okay, considering the power of the greatsword fighter. However, if the monk decides to get a +16 BAB by level 20--advisable--or do the TWF thing, his damage is going to skyrocket. If he gets Improved Vital Strike, his attacks are going to do +9d8 damage each. If he uses TWF, he's going to be getting a lot of attacks, each that does +6d8 damage each.

Oh, and at level 20 (assuming all monk levels)? +8d8 damage per attack.

We clearly have a problem. Very much so. This is what is known as a "bad thing."

Personally, I think that the effects of Vital Strike/Improved Vital Strike should be a median between the two extremes: dagger users don't get boned and big characters don't do infinite damage. I'd say something like a flat +2d8 to +3d8 damage per attack would work better.

Thoughts? People becoming proficient with weapons and armor is hardly broken. They're wasting a feat to become proficient in these things. For many classes, that's 10% of their feats.

The player who makes himself impossible to hit with Combat Expertise is going to be ignored by the monsters. The monsters will move on to squishier targets. The character with Combat Expertise can't keep up with the damage output of someone using Power Attack, especially not with the Pathfinder versions.

I'm surprised that no developers have been like, "My, my, what a great idea! This would surely shave several pages off the finished product!"

"Abusive to damage amounts"? That's the only way that melee characters could function. The problem came with things that multiplied this damage (such as Leap Attack).

They shouldn't. Having gimped feats in the game forces game mastery. By forcing game mastery, one is left with two possible outcomes:

1. Only "hardcore" players can function against level-appropriate challenges.

2. Players who know the system very well can tear through encounters with ease.

And that's the sad fact. Players who know 3e inside and out are going to dominate the game while players who are new to D&D are going to get pooped on (unless the former make characters for the latter). The end result? Lameness. One shouldn't have to be a veteran fatbeard to play D&D.

Unfortunately, one of the big problems with Pathfinder is that these sub-par choices still remain in the game. For instance, Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization: they're junk. When I was first introduced to D&D, I thought they were awesome because, well, they were fighter-only, which meant that they were obviously special and thus awesome for the fighter class.


Another example of this is the Lightning Reflexes feat. It's a +2 bonus to your Reflex save. Wow. See the barbarian who just picked up Power Attack? He can function. The guy who picked up Lightning Reflexes is crying himself to sleep because he just failed so hard that quantum physics imploded. (That doesn't even make any sense, but I don't care.)

There are a few options to making these sub-par feats up to par. (Please note that I'm not saying that they all have to be equal--they just shouldn't be crap.)

1. Merge feats. For instance, let's take Quick Draw. It's handy, yes, but is it worth a feat slot? Maybe. However, if we took Quick Draw, Lightning Reflexes, and Dodge, and we put them all in a nicely-packaged feat called "Lightning Reflexes," it would definitely be worth a feat slot.

Similarly, let's look at the various combat maneuvers. There are like four hundred different feats, meaning that only the fighter can adequately make use of them. Would it break the game if there was a feat called "Improved Combat Maneuvers" that let you use combat maneuvers without provoking an AoO? No. No, it wouldn't break the game at all.

As a final example, suppose we merged the martial and simple weapon proficiency feats with all the armor proficiency feats and all the shield proficiency feats. Would D&D thoroughly break if one feat gave you access to all of those? No. Not at all. People might actually consider spending a feat on that, then.

2. Make numbers bigger. This is viable, but I hate it when D&D heads deeper into CrazyTown. For instance, suppose we were to take Great Fortitude. Holy sh*t, a weaksauce +2 bonus on Fortitude saves. Well, suppose we made it scale to level: you get a +2 bonus to Fort saves, +1 for every five levels you have. Well, that's something that the wizard might consider taking now. Unfortunately, if the fighter takes it, it's only going to exacerbate a problem with high-level D&D: the "don't roll a 1" syndrome. As in, the only way you can fail your Fort save is by rolling a 1. That's lame. The feat works for the wizard. It doesn't work for the fighter.

3. Make feats scale to level. This is probably the best solution out of the three, combining feat-merging with a slight power boost.

Let's say you've got Weapon Finesse. That's great and all, but why not give that feat a little more "oomph"? When you have a +5 or +10 BAB, you can apply your Dexterity modifier to damage with finessable weapons instead of your Strength modifier. Maybe you can make an attack as a standard action that causes the target to bleed for a few rounds.

Or let's take Combat Expertise. It's a stinker. It serves as a prerequisite for decent feats. Now, what if we gave the user of Combat Expertise the ability to negate extra damage from Power Attack against him? Or what if we gave him the ability to improve his attacks with his Intelligence bonus somehow? Now players have both options and good choices available.

To summarize: bad feats are bad. Turn the crappy feats into shiny, new feats.

1. Untyped.
2. Yes.

Never! Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization are clearly overpowered choices! Surely they are worth at least seven feats, not a paltry four!

Basically, they all need to be combined. Why? It's retarded to force people to take seven hundred different feats so they can not suck in combat.

My apologies. I didn't realize that purposely creating sub-par choices was a design goal of the Pathfinder developers. I also didn't realize that we were using Weapon Specialization as a baseline--but if that's the case, I think we can agree that Skill Focus is overpowered and deserves a nerf.

It just ain't right-+5 damage at level 20? Monsters laugh that off. At the very least, it needs to be +1 damage per two caster levels. I'd go so far as to change each +1 to +1d6 (for a total of +5d6 damage).

hogarth wrote:
There's no need for separate feats like Persuasive, Stealthy, etc. They can all be replaced by a single feat that gives two +2 bonuses to two skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And they need them as part of their class features. Why? Because it's ridiculous to expect monks to give up magic weapons in exchange for a little extra base damage. Here's what monks need to help them stay competitive (learn from the soulknife's mistakes).

1. Enhancement bonus on attacks: +1 at level 2 and every four levels thereafter.

2. Automatic keen property. Around level 4.

3. Automatic speed property. Around level 8.

Why is this? Because monks can't wear magical armor (so they need to do offense). And they could be getting a lot more benefits by using special monk weapons, but monks are supposed to use their fists.

Where are the rules for starting hit points? I thought they were the same as in 3.5.

It would also help shield-wearers with touch attacks without taking a feat.

Vendle wrote:

I'm surprised this feat didn't catch any special comments yet. In effect, this feat seems to allow a medium-sized character to attack adjacent squares and squares ten feet away (or 10 and 15 for reach weapons). My questions are these:

A. Is this intentional? My feeling is that the reach should only apply to a full-round attack or single standard action on that PC's turn, but perhaps the penalty to AC is a balancing factor with more weight than I attribute to it.
B. Would you threaten all of the squares that you can attack with this feat until the start of your next turn? This is could have balance issues in the style of the spiked chain.

A. I should hope so. Fighters need reach to live.

B. It's not the feat that's the problem, it's the spiked chain. That thing should die in a fire.

Two differing definitions. One is standard per the 3.5 rules. The other says:

Pathfinder, page 137 wrote:
Exception: Extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit.

I'm guessing they forgot the word "dice."

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:
Master Craftsman: However, why not allow for a Spellcraft check to replace the required spells?
While I don't know for certain, I think the intention is to allow item creation by those who are not casters. Only casters normally have Spellcraft.

Yes, Aubrey. And, normally, only spellcasters have spells. That's quite the conundrum, isn't it?

Regarding "Shall Not Pass":

Clearly, this needs to be renamed, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS."

Anyway, I think that these expanded feats are a good idea, but there are too many of them. To be of any use--even to a fighter, who gets a billion feats--they need to be combined. For instance, why not give the benefits of all the "Greater [Combat Maneuver]" feats as an automatic bonus to characters with a high BAB (or for being fighters)?

Specific feats:

Fleet: This is very weak. It should be an automatic +10 foot bonus to your speed that applies at all times (no stacking). Why? +5 feet is rather useless for a feat expenditure.

Improved Greater Fortitude/Iron Will/Lightning Reflexes: Again, too spread out. This needs to be an automatic, "Three times per day, you can reroll a saving throw" thing for anyone to consider taking it.

Lunge: Why the -4 to AC? Seems too weak. Why not just make it automatic? There's no reason that characters trained in combat shouldn't be able to lunge without taking a penalty to AC. Even so, if you feel like keeping the AC penalty, drop it to -2. Less painful that way.

Master Craftsman: Awesome. However, why not allow for a Spellcraft check to replace the required spells?

As far as the rest goes, this is the kind of stuff that Pathfinder needs. It's a good start.

Shadowdancer is still ridiculously weak. That's a shame, really.

Clearly, the issue is not blade barrier but solid fog.

No, Velderan! That's completely overpowered! There's no possible way that the BBEG would have energy resistance, spell resistance, or a ridiculously high Reflex save! Noooo, you can't expect evokers to do damage! That would be BROKEN. I DEMAND THAT ALL CLASSES BE BALANCED AROUND 2[W]+STR DAMAGE OMG OMG

Of course, this ignores mounted/charging builds that can easily do more damage than the evoker. OMG EVOKERS BROKENED Or the fact that a second level spell grants energy resistance 30. OMG HOW DARE YOU WANT TO DO DAMGE ENEMIES Or the fact that a third level spell grants virtual immunity to an energy type. BORKENED HOLY SH*T HOOGE DAMAGES

One must remember that Paizo has changed the way that the CR system works.

Aside from homebrew monsters/dragons, I would like to see a list of monsters that can easily hit (>50%) a character with an AC of 40. (Not saying that anyone is wrong; just interested in seeing the numbers.)

I'm thinking that turning the spells into swift actions is pushing the game even farther into the "rocket tag" direction, which is something that is not good.

I'm in favor of Velderan's suggestions.

KaeYoss wrote:
+1 to every damage die seems more like it.

Psionics already tried that. It's not working out so well.

No. Evokers must be punished for wanting to do damage.

I was going to make a thread like this. Then you already did. Well done.

+5 damage at level 20? Come on, folks. That's nothing. Monsters feel that as a tickle in their ribs before they pummel the evoker to death for taking a loser school. Not only do evocations need to be ramped up in general, but the evoker needs some "oomph."

Here's my suggestion:

1. Evokers get a ray that does 1d6 damage of fire, electricity, acid, or cold. It does an additional +1 points of damage per caster level--and then it gets a +1d6 boost at fifth level and every five levels thereafter. Yes, you're then looking at the evoker doing 5d6+20 points of damage at level 20. At-will. And this sure seems like a lot, but then you realize that people thought the warlock was overpowered at first, too. And then you realize that the evoker could be beating the game by casting spells that do more damage, and then you realize that it's not overpowered.

2. Evokers do an additional +2 damage per die when casting evocation spells that do damage. This is grand because it makes evocations less bad.

Technically, this isn't the time, but...

The Eldritch Knight has Spell Critical, where he can cast a spell as a swift action when he confirms a critical hit. Devastating Blow (the name, I think) allows you to take a standard action to auto-crit an opponent. Do these abilities work in conjunction with one another as I think they do?

Psychic_Robot wrote:

Good news: Overall, this looks to be very promising.

Bad news: There are still some weak spots.

Guarded Stance/Rolling Dodge: Yay on being toned down, boo on them being separate. Mash ‘em together and you’ve got a rage power worth taking.

Increased DR: Too weak. DR 3/-- just ain’t cutting it. Make it increase the barbarian’s damage reduction by DR 1/--, and have it improve by DR 1/-- for every four barbarian levels the character has.

Elemental Rage: Still too weak. Converting half of the barbarian’s damage to energy damage would be better. At the very least, it needs to scale beyond +1d6. Twelfth level is too late for this ability—it needs to be selectable at around sixth level. Then you could have it improve by +1d6 for every additional four levels the barbarian has. (+4d6 damage per attack isn’t going to break the barbarian, especially if he’s smart and he trades out his other attacks for Vital Strike.

Low-Light Vision/Night Vision: Weak. Combine them into one ability, and then spice it up by giving the barbarian the ability to see through magical darkness at around eighth level.

Swift Foot: Very “meh.” It’d be better as a single ability that automatically improved.

Renewed Vigor: Scaling good, but still weak. If you’re going to leave it at a 1/day, it needs to be something with more “oomph”—like 1d8 + Con bonus + 2 HP/level. If you’re going to leave it weakened, it needs to be usable multiple times per day—perhaps 1/day at 4th level and then +1 time/day for every four levels thereafter.

Other than that, the barbarian’s abilities seem to be heading in the right direction.

Quoting because.

Calden wrote:

Well i think there should be one basic Class wich should fit into any roleplaying role you can think of.

Since Dnd 3.0 the bard has a unique Class Feature - his music. Its the sadest thing about that Class, becuase its negating roleplaying possibilities. I'll explain why:

There are lots of extremly specialized Classes & Prestigeclasses in Dnd, well most of them unplayable because they are too specific.

For me, roleplaying is about this: i think of my character, what is he supposed to be what i want to play in the next campain, and then i go and create my character.

As the ultimate versatile character, you should be able to build this character using the Bard class, cause there is no versatile class with some spellcasting at all. For me thats what the Bard is supposed to be.

We have the opposite of that: You play a Bard, then you are supposed to act like this.... play music during battle...

What the hell is that for? I dont want to be a Troubadix "#!?~@" I want to play exactly the role i want to play, and because the Bard(Jack of all Trades, master of none) should do that job. And no more.

Maybe there are some people who think it was a good idea to give something unique to the Bard, i'm not. For me it makes the Class nonsense.

I think there are lots of people who want a class where they can build whatever character they want, sure there will be specialist who can do things better, but maybe there is that specific Prestige Class missing for the role i think of. (Try to play a group healer in a stealthy Rogue Campain)

Uh...I'm pretty sure that you can use any Perform skill for bardic abilities. Use a weapon drill (introduced in CWar) if you want.

Otherwise, play a factotum or chameleon. The bard performs. Jason has already said that he's not going to give in to the whiners who are squalling about the 2e (crap) bard. I've already demonstrated how a "Jack of All Trades" is just an arcane trickster, so, really, you need to get over it.

Because it's completely unnecessary to do so.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Oh, I thought we were talking about the rules to the game, now you want my gaming resume? What exactly qualifies you as a gaming expert?

Incidentally the whole idea of internet credentials is so ridiculous it's laughable. "I've had 35 years of gaming experience, I helped Gary write the game...". Whatever.

From your posting habits, I surmised that you have had little practical experience with familiars. Since you continue to avoid the question, I will go with this assumption.

Dennis wrote:
Please... explain how much of a liability they are. I don't see it.

Well, Dennis, you see... According to the rules, familiars have 1/2 their master's HP. This means that the familiar's hit point total is much less than the master's--50% less, in fact. Any sort of area attack is going to leave the familiar in a significant amount of pain, unless it happens to make its saving throw.

Dennis wrote:
As I've said several times, if I have to explain how a +2 bonus to every skill in the book that stacks with nearly every other bonus available is powerful then it's a lost cause.

It's not really that powerful. Consider the skill check bonuses from spells and items--the huge bonuses available make a +2 bonus negligible. While a +2 bonus is decent at low-levels, at higher-levels, your stat bonuses and skill ranks go into crazytown, so it doesn't matter.

Dennis wrote:

Good to hear. Then you wouldn't mind a familiar that had skills that advanced in the same way the animal companions skills advance I assume?

No, actually, I wouldn't mind. I don't see the need for a nerf, mind you, but I wouldn't throw a huge hissy fit about it.

Dennis, I'm heading to bed right now, so I won't answer your questions in detail just yet. However, allow me to note that there are enchantments for armor that give a +15 bonus to skills in 3.5. This throws the entire d20 mechanic so far out of whack that a +2 bonus wouldn't matter.

Again, I'll add more tomorrow.

For the nay-sayers to the idea that the idea of a dilettante isn't an arcane trickster-ish character:

Rogue 3/wizard 6/arcane trickster 4/fighter 1/eldritch knight 6.

So you end up with a +15 BAB, 8th-level spells, +4d6 sneak attack, and decent saves all around. The only thing you're not doing so well with is skill points, but a high Int and the Pathfinder skills system helps solve that problem.

And while I agree that this could certainly be done more gracefully, it still works.

(If you go outside of Core, things get even better--unseen seer, spellsword, and abjurant champion to help round out the levels, turning you into a true "dilettante.")

What I think people are looking for is a class that can do a little bit of everything. I would suggest the following:

1. Factotum.
2. Fochlucan lyrist (hate that class so much).
3. Chameleon.

I suppose I'm not really seeing what, exactly, about the bard class isn't "dilettante" enough. It gets 3/4 BAB, a d8 HD, moderate spellcasting abilities, and a strong skill selection.

Perhaps someone could elaborate on this a little?

Oh, I agree that the bard's purpose isn't to "slug it out" with the enemy. However, bonus damage is not going to make that particularly possible--it will just enhance the bard's ability to function in combat. The rogue is still getting +10d6 (+35, on average) damage per attack. The bard would be getting +10 extra damage per attack. While this would be strong, it would not be particularly powerful when one considers that the bard has 3/4 BAB, a poor Fortitude save, low AC, and a very limited supply of feats.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
I am avoiding conversations where people attack me personally. You seem more interested in me than in actually discussing the topic.

Actually, Dennis, I have posted several times to this topic, and I haven't attacked you at all. I was merely commenting that you keep avoiding questioning. If you would mind answering Velderan's questions...?

To restate them:

1. How often do you use familiars?
2. Do you understand how familiars can be a combat liability?
3. How is a +2 bonus overpowered?

Dennis wrote:
Then a feat for example that gives a rogue +2 to all skill checks would be balanced? Why bother with a monkey, just a single feat. This would save a ton on the page count of the final game. Skill Focus (All)

Actually, Dennis, there two things you aren't considering.

1. Some of us enjoy having familiars because we like them. Not because of any power brought to the character, but because they're an RP thing.

2. Skill Focus has been revamped to be more powerful, eventually giving a +6 bonus on checks (so your statement is inaccurate).

Dennis, I'm noticing that you keep avoiding questions. Please stop this behavior, as it derails the thread and is counter-productive to discussion.

Would demonstrate how having a familiar is overpowered? A blanket "+2" on skill checks? That doesn't even matter. At low-levels, it gives the rogue an edge. At higher levels, it doesn't matter. 3e is all about things getting such huge check modifiers that a +1 or +2 isn't noticeable.

There have been several posts talking about making the bard more effective in combat. In particularly somebody suggested allowing the bard access to sneak attack--giving the bard additional bonuses to damage rolls would do something akin to this.

While one can go for the "specialized" route, it is [insert ego-friendly synonymous phrase for "patently ridiculous"] that the bard can be made unable to use his own class features because he hasn't put the skill points into two different Perform skills. It would be akin to the rogue being unable to use sneak attack because he hadn't put enough points into Stealth.

Also, I hardly consider "patently ridiculous" to be "snark."

Fact: The 3.0 bard was altered in 3.5 to give the bard class more skill points.

Fact: Forcing the bard to spend skill points on two different Perform skills effectively reverts the bard.

Fact: Downgrading in an attempt to upgrade is counter-intuitive and counter-productive.

Fact: Counter-productivity in an attempt to be more productive is ridiculous. Patently ridiculous, even.

I would appreciate knowing what constitutes "snark" to the Pathfinder moderators, similarly to how another poster wanted to know what the inappropriate phrase was in his post. Unlike that poster, I only hope that you'll provide me with an answer.

1 to 50 of 564 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>