Psychic_Robot's page

NOTE: Please read this entire post before responding. This thread is not about Weapon Focus; I am merely using it for illustrative purposes.

I was reading through a thread. Somebody had made the innocuous (but poor) suggestion that Weapon Focus should add to BAB in order to qualify for iterative attacks. Then one of the designers posted.

And then I learned that Pathfinder is being sabotaged from the inside out. Unintentional though it may be, at least one designer is cutting out Pathfinder’s guts.

Here is what he posted in this thread.

Frankly, feats and abilities that fade into the background as you grow more powerful are, I think, good for the game. One of the largest problems facing high-level play is the complexity. if EVERYTHING you ever gained as you level up remains equally useful at higher level then all of a sudden at 15th or 20th level or whatever, your character is suddenly way too complex.

The problem this developer has is that high-level play is too complicated. What he is saying (specifically) is that turning Weapon Focus into a feat that starts out at a +1 bonus on attack rolls and then increasing its potency so that, in the end, it encompasses the entire Weapon Focus line (+2 on attacks, +4 damage) is too difficult. This idea is mind-boggling: Pathfinder has given fighters more to keep track of (Weapon and Armor Training), and the system has increased the number of feats characters get across the board. Which means that all the classes have become more complicated. This thought process is counter-intuitive to most of what Pathfinder has done with the 3e system. (There are, of course, some exceptions, such as CMB and the skills system.)

That might be okay for some players, but it's not for others, and it's CERTAINLY not okay for GMs who don't have the advantage of growing used to a specific stat block's evolution and powers over the course of years of play.

Now the argument is vaguely about backwards compatibility. Pathfinder is backwards compatible in that it keeps most of 3e’s downfalls, fixes the bigger problems in the game, and leaves the rest to house rules. The CMB alone takes a dump all over backwards compatibility, and the new skill system worsens it tenfold. Backwards compatibility is loosely maintained, but not enough that one wouldn’t have to re-configure all the monsters in a module.

Abilities, spells, and feats that fall into the background as you grow more powerful and are replaced by more powerful options help keep the game from growing unmanageably complex at high level. And if at 15th level, you're bemoaning the fact that you "wasted" a feat at 1st level for a benefit that, at the time was pretty good, but is now a drop in the bucket, I don't know what to say.

What “more powerful options”? The fighter gets few. In core 3e, his option is Power Attack. In Pathfinder, he can trade some attacks for extra damage. Fighters don’t get options.

Furthermore, this entire thinking falls apart when one considers other feats in Pathfinder—there are a huge number of feats that stay useful throughout a character’s career no matter what. They also have few prerequisites, if any. Off the top of my head: Natural Spell, Quicken Spell, Improved Initiative.

Basically, this attitude forces players to plan their characters out over the entire 20 levels. With his thinking, you can’t spontaneously decide that you’ll take Weapon Focus because it sucks. But you might need Weapon Focus to qualify for another feat, which means you have to spend your 11th-level feat on a weak choice in order to suck a little less later on.

If the problem is the conception that fighters loose their oomph... keep in mind that ALL classes have things that start to suck at higher levels, be they self-obsoleting spells like cause fear, sleep, or circle of death, or be they racial abilities (at 20th level, does a gnome's ability to speak with burrowing mammels even count anymore? How about a dwarf's stonecunning?)

Invisibility remains useful at 20th level. You’ve got a way better form of invisibility, but that 2nd-level spell can still be used. Rope trick. Mirror image. Greater magic weapon. Haste. All this stuff remains useful. Weapon Focus? It’s always weak. A +5% chance to hit is worth less than Toughness.

But [feats] don't all cost the same. Something like weapon focus costs one first level feat for some folk, but for others it costs one 2nd level feat, due to the prerequisite. Likewise, a lot of the more powerful feats have prerequisites that make it more difficult to pick.

Incorrect. Natural Spell and Quicken Spell have no prerequisites. They’re the most powerful feats in the game. Feat chains are bad game design because they put a stop to organic character creation and force players to plan out their builds. Which is bad. (See below for more details.)

The alternate, that all feats are available at 1st level and are all equally powerful would make for a pretty anemic and dull system, I think.

Strawman and false dichotomy. This is not an EITHER/OR situation. There’s a safe middle-ground.

More important than all the counter-arguments I’ve given is the fact that this sort of design philosophy hinders the entire Pathfinder game system.

To reiterate: this is more important than Weapon Focus. The Weapon Focus thing is just an example I’m using because it highlights poor design thinking.

This developer’s ideas made me realize that Pathfinder is poisoning its own well—the system rewards the players who have mastered the system while punishing the neophyte players who don’t know any better. In 3e (and Pathfinder), you either optimize or die as a fighter. (Well, you die anyway, because you’re a fighter, but you’ll die less horribly if you optimize.) If you don’t know the system, you can’t play a fighter. You will end up sucking, and you will become an active liability to your group when they are wasting resources to keep you from dying (or raising you from the dead).

To play a good fighter in 3e, you have to have splat after splat and the willingness to spend a long while picking through the feats so you can set up a one-trick pony combo that will make you combat effective…at least until the monsters wise up. In Pathfinder, little has changed.

Keeping bad feats in the game is poor game design.

Players should be able to pick up the book, whip up a character that they want to play, and get started without worrying about whether or not their character is going to be “good enough.” With non-scaling feats like Weapon Focus in the game, they do have to worry.

Furthermore, mechanically weak feats prevent “organic” character development. While a class-based system naturally hinders this to some extent, the system should encourage characters to role-play, not min/max. With “traps” like Weapon Focus, this is extremely difficult. With those feats, a character can’t say, “Hey, I think I’ll practice with my quarterstaff in the months between adventuring.” Instead, he has to say, “Hmm, I can’t take Weapon Focus now because it will delay me from picking up Power Attack and then Vital Strike. Even though my character’s background has had him training with a quarterstaff for years, I can’t take that feat because it will cripple my build.”

And that’s ridiculous. At this point, we should have learned something from the mistakes of the 3e (and 4e) developers. Encouraging system mastery is stupid, it turns away new players, and it leads to a vast power disparity between people who understand the mechanics and the people who just want to play a fighter.

It’s time to get on the bandwagon: mechanically weak choices are horrendous game design, and they should be avoided at all cost. The 3e devs purposely implemented mechanically weak choices to encourage system mastery. This was an epic failure on their behalf—but Pathfinder can fix this, if the developers change their mindsets. Just like we changed the Gygaxian "no save, you die"/"DM vs. PC" game design, Pathfinder needs to change the "weak choices" game design.

Thanks and have a nice day.

--Your friendly neighborhood Smiteasaurus rex.

Bump.

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.

/facepalm

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.

They've experienced a huge nerf with the current changes. Why take the control away from the player? I realize that some players take twenty minutes calculating what penalty they should take, but that's when the DM should step in and tell him to hurry up.

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).

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.

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

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."

+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.

Bards having to spend two of their skill points on difference Perform skills is patently ridiculous, and it reverses the 3.0 to 3.5 change in bards. Instead of this, I'd recommend:

a) Combining the visual/auditory Perform skills into abilities that don't distinguish between the two. Having different abilities only adds needless complexity to the bard.

b) The bard gets a free skill point per level that is automatically applied to a Perform skill of his choice.

Since a lot of people seem unhappy with the bard's combat capability, why not bolster inspire courage for the bard alone? Normally, it grants a +1 moral bonus on attack/damage rolls for the rest of the party. For the bard, though, it grants additional damage on attack rolls equal to 1/2 the bard's ranks in Perform (up to a maximum of his bard level).

Spending two talents on this is very cruel, methinks. If they were combined into a single talent, I'm pretty sure that the rogue could better stomach the loss of a talent. While being able to cast true strike is nice, as is dispelling strike, spending a talent to cast cantrips alone is kind of like making the wizard spend a feat for his familiar.

There's no reason for them not to have it. I understand the whole "HD tied to BAB" thing, but it's just ridiculous to have someone who is supposed to be a front-line combatant having difficulty in keeping up with attacks because he's got 3/4 BAB. It is so much simpler to give the monk full BAB and leave him at a d8 HD than to make class features that are work-arounds to this.

People have been asking for monks to have full BAB for years. Let's be nice and give it to them.

So, with the new upgrade to the paladin class, we can all agree that the paladin has stopped sucking. However, the fighter is still down in the dumps.

So here's my main suggestion:

Fighters should get special things from feats. At a certain fighter level, they should get bonuses tacked onto their abilities. For instance, let's take Improved Trip.

Improved Trip
Blah-blah-blah, description.

Special: On a successful trip attempt, a fighter does 1d6 + his CMB bonus points of damage. This bonus damage improves by +1d6 for every three fighter levels he has.

Toughness
Blah-blah-blah.

Special: A fighter gains +1 additional hit point per fighter level.

And so on, particularly with the "Improved Combat Maneuver" feats.

Bump.

Bump.

The Paizo document reads:

"If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score (or -10 if your Constitution score is 9 or less), you're dying."

Argle-bargle. That's terribly written--rules-as-written, it's really, really hard to die because I need to have a negative HP = my Con score before dying. Since my Con score is always positive...well, I think you see the problem.

Here's a problem, y'see--the paladin's ability to call a celestial spirit to enhance her sword is no good. Really no good.

First of all, I don't know how long the ability lasts. Poor writing that can be corrected with ease--it's supposed to be 1 minute/level, but the ability just says that the weapon "shed[s] light as a torch for 1 minute/level." That needs to be cleared up.

Second of all--and more importantly--this is weak. Weak, weak, weak, weak, weak. A +6 weapon at level 20? And the enhancements that you choose don't stack with those of your current weapon? And the list is extremely limited? Urgh. Just not worth it. If the bonuses stacked, then the ability might be worth taking.

When the paladin uses this ability, he should become the ultimate evil-smiter. He should be able to tear through demons and devils like nobody's business.

Here's my suggestion:

The paladin uses his divine bond ability and he gains a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls, and this improves by +1 for every three levels the paladin has.

The paladin does an additional +1d8 points of damage to evil creatures. This improves by +1d8 for every four levels the paladin has.

The paladin's sword gives off light like a torch at fourth level. At eighth level, the sword gives off light as though casting a daylight spell; the spell level is equal to 1/2 the paladin's level (allowing him to dispel darkness spells), and it has a caster level equal to the paladin's level. In addition, any evil creature within the radius of bright light is dazzled.

(Basically, I'd like to see the paladin become what the shining blade of Heironeous should have been.)

Thoughts?

People are crying about animal companions in many threads now, so here's my solution:

Screw the current system. Drop it, burn it, throw it out back and let it rot. Instead, make it a generic creature. A druid would have an animal companion. It would have base stats, something like...

12 Strength
12 Constitution
12 Dexterity
2 Intelligence
10 Wisdom
6 Charisma

Then the player gets to customize the animal companion.

HD: 1d8.
Attacks: 1 bite or claw or horn or talon, 1d6 damage.
Speed: 30 feet.

Size:
Small: +4 Dexterity, reduced natural weapon damage size, -10 foot land speed, +10 foot swimming or flying speed (if it can fly or swim), +4 bonus on Fly checks.

Medium: Cannot take the flier template.

Large: +2 Strength, +2 Constitution, -4 Dexterity, increased natural weapon damage size, -10 foot swimming speed (if it can swim), cannot take the flier template.

Templates:
Aquatic: Gains the aquatic template. Choose another template to apply.
Bestial: +2 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.
Burrower: +2 Strength, burrow speed equal to land speed.
Hearty: +4 Constitution, +2 natural armor.
Riding: +2 Strength, two hoof attacks (1d4 damage), quadrupedal.
Swift: +2 Dexterity, +10 foot bonus to all movement modes.
Flier: +2 Dexterity, fly speed equal to triple land speed.

As the character progresses, his pet gets bonuses to its ability scores, natural armor, and the like as per the current druid chart. It gains bonus HD equal to ½ the character’s level.

At sixth level, the animal companion gains a second natural attack (1d6 damage for a Medium companion), or it can use its beginning natural attack twice in a round at a -5 penalty.

At eighth level, it gains evasion.

At eleventh level, the animal companion gains a third natural attack, or it can use its beginning natural attack a second (or third) time in a round at a -5 penalty.

At third level and every three levels thereafter, the animal companion gains a special quality:

Constrict: 1d6 + Strength modifier points of damage on a successful grapple check. Damage improves by +1d6 for every six levels you have.
Ferocity: Can keep fighting even when disabled or dying without penalty.
Improved Grab: As the standard ability.
Powerful Charge: Additional damage equal to 1d6 + twice Strength modifier on a successful charge attack. Damage improves by +1d6 for every six levels you have.
Rage: Gains a +4 bonus to Strength and Constitution, -2 penalty to AC, on its turn after taking damage. [/b] Gains an extra natural attack automatically when grappling (1d4 for a medium creature). At tenth level, gains a second claw attack. Otherwise as the standard ability.
Scent: As the standard ability.
Venomous Strike: 1d4 Constitution damage initial/secondary. Save DC equals 10 + ½ HD + Constitution modifier.

(These are just SUGGESTIONS, not a complete list.)

And before anyone gets started in on me, let it be known that I hate to do this. I loathe the very concept. It makes me ill to the core of my being. However, this would ensure a balanced animal companion at the cost of variety.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure why they can't.

As it stands, the current incarnation of "healing hands" gives the paladin more options, which is good. Unfortunately, the healing really got...well, it got nerfed into the ground.

For those not knowing, paladins can use LOH to heal for an amount equal to their level (sidenote: should probably say "class level," not "level"). Since paladins can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 1/2 their class level + their Cha bonus, this ends up being more healing overall than the 3.5 paladin. Unfortunately, the paladin's in-combat healing gets annihilated by these options: the ability to heal 20 damage per round at level 20 (ignoring the heal class feature for a moment) is very underwhelming. And then the heal class feature is sort of a saving grace, but it comes far too late in the game--clerics have had it for seven levels at that point?--to be useful. And you have to spend 80 potential points of healing (again, at level 20) to use it.

Paladins need to be able to save the day. They're holy warriors--that's what they do. The ability to heal someone for 1 HP/round at first level is very, very underwhelming. It also violates the principles of the economy of actions: why are you healing when you could be beating things with your sword? The monsters are going to do far more damage than you can heal anyhow, so why are you wasting turns being useless?

I have three possible solutions:

1. Paladins can expend a single use of LOH to heal for 5 points of damage/class level. At thirteenth level, they can expend three uses of this to create a heal effect.

2. Paladins get a healing "pool" similar to that in 3e. By expending additional healing from this "pool," they can produce effects like neutralize poison (which might take 10-20 points of healing or something).

3. Stick with the current system, but paladins can expend a single use of their LOH to create a cure light wounds effect with a caster level equal to their level. At third level, this gets upgraded to cure moderate wounds. At sixth level, this gets upgraded to cure serious wounds. At ninth level, this gets upgraded to cure critical wounds. At twelfth level, this gets upgraded to heal, and they can use mass CLW if they so desire. And so on this progresses, allowing them to keep pace with the cleric.

No touch attacks. It doesn't make sense to me that a dragon should be able to trip a pixie even though he might not be able to hit her (what with his size penalty on attack rolls and her size bonus to AC).

This really bothers me. I think that combat maneuvers should require a touch attack (and a reduced DC to compensate for having to hit twice).

What I don't like about this is that, unfortunately, it makes the system clunkier and requires two rolls. (This is bad.) Any suggestions on how to combine these two things into a more streamlined, more believable system?

After playtesting in a group with two rangers, it has come to my realization that the ranger pet just can't compete with anything. One character has a hawk animal companion and the other has a wolf companion. The hawk usually uses Flyby Attack and Spring Attack to hit once and keep going without dying, but the poor ranger with a wolf routinely has his pet knocked into the negatives.

Fighting against a fighter NPC (level 10), the wolf of a level 10 ranger got put down from a single full attack. The time before that, it was from a troll. A troll!

While I'm completely for making the fighter NOT outclassed by another class's class feature, the poor ranger gets the shaft with this. I'd recommend giving the ranger a pet that progresses at the same rate as the druid's.

I think that'd be a great way to do it. It'd keep options for the barbarian without all the book-keeping that the current incarnation has.

For instance...

Nightvision:
Level 1: Low-light vision.
Level 4: Darkvision 60 feet.
Level 7: Darkvision 120 feet.
Level 10: See through magical darkness.

Elemental Rage:
Half your weapon damage is converted to elemental damage of your choosing. The choice is permanent, or it can be chosen whenever you rage. (This automatically scales, so it doesn't need extra bonuses.)

Ignore Pain:
Existing damage reduction improves by DR 2/--, +1 DR/-- for every two levels you have.

Adrenaline Surge:
Fast healing 2, improves by +1 for every two levels you have.

Bestial Fury:
Level 1: Gain a bite attack, 1d6 damage.
Level 3: Bite attack improves to 1d8 damage.
Level 5: Bite attack improves to 1d10 damage.
Level 7: Gain two claw attacks at 1d4 damage.
Level 9: Claw attacks improve to 1d6 damage.
Level 11: Claw attacks improve to 1d8 damage; gain rend ability for 1d6 + 1.5x Strength modifier if you hit with both attacks.

Shriek:
Level 1: All enemies within 30' must make a Will save (DC = 10 + 1/2 your level + your Constitution modifier) or be shaken for 1 round/level.

Level 5: Range extends to 60'.
Level 10: Enemies taken a -4 penalty instead of a -2 for being shaken.
Level 15: Even enemies that save take a -2 penalty.

Thoughts?

I want to make one, but I've no real clue. Any tips? I could, theoretically, make the PDF from scratch, but that would probably be...inefficient.

As it stands, it's a poor choice for any character: +5 damage at level 20. I vote we awesome the hell out of this feat, give it some usefulness along with some coolness.

Here's my proposal:

Arcane Strike
As a standard action, make a melee attack. If the attack hits, you do not roll damage. Instead, make a Spellcraft check. You do damage equal to 1/2 your check result.

When you have a base attack bonus of +4, you do damage equal to your check result. When you have a base attack bonus of +8, you do damage equal to twice your check result. When you have a base attack bonus of +12, you do damage equal to three times your check result. When you have a base attack bonus of +16, you do damage equal to four times your check result.

Prerequisites: Spellcraft 1 rank, base attack bonus +1.

This, of course, hasn't been playtested, and I haven't really run the numbers through my head at all. Just a suggestion based on those Diamond Razor Emerald Ruby Mind Slicer things from ToB.

Unless my Control-F screwed up, these feats don't exist, but they are on the ranger's combat style feat list.

As it stands, the barbarian's elemental rage ability is severely underpowered. This ability is as follows:

Elemental Rage (Su): All of the barbarian’s attacks deal an additional 1d6 points of energy damage for 1 round. The energy type must be acid, cold, electricity, or fire. This energy damage does not stack with energy damage dealt by special weapon abilities if it is of the same type. A barbarian must be at least 12th level before selecting this power. (8 rage points)

At twelfth level, characters are entering into the parts of the game where many, many creatures have a form of energy resistance. As this ability does a maximum of 6 points of damage, even a paltry energy resistance 5 negates its usefulness most of the time. Furthermore, the cost of the power is far too high for its effects, given that +1d6 damage is not particularly impressive at high levels.

Some argue that a creature with an energy vulnerability makes this power useful. This is partially true. However, given that the barbarian using this ability is going to get a maximum of +9 damage per attack against something with an elemental vulnerability (and it is likely that he'll have only two attacks that will hit), it is still very weak.

Overall, this power has several problems.

1. High rage point cost.
2. Low damage potential.
3. Short duration.
4. High-level requirements.

There are thus several solutions to this problem.

1. Lower the rage point cost.
2. Increase the damage potential.
3. Increase the duration.
4. Make the power available earlier.

However, like with many things, I believe that a single approach to fixing the problem is a poor one. It would be like giving martial characters additional damage so that they could keep up with save-or-die spells--while the extra damage is nice, it doesn't address the other problems between martial characters and spellcasters.

Here is my solution:

1. Reduce the rage point cost to four rage points. This will keep it from being so prohibitive to the barbarians who wish to use this power.

2. Alter the way the power works so that half the barbarian's damage from his attacks are converted to energy damage. This allows the power to automatically scale with level, and it gives the barbarian the ability to bypass damage reduction. (This was Squirreloid's suggestion, so all credit goes to him.)

3. Increase the duration to being 1 round, +1 round/three levels. It's fairly lame to force a player to spend eight rage points--even four, with the reduced cost--every round to maintain the ability.

4. Allow the power to be taken in the 6-8 level range. It stinks to have to wait until after level ten to get a cool ability. It's better to give players access to weaker abilities and then to have those abilities scale, I think, than it is to force them to wait until the point when a lot of campaigns stop.

These changes would allow the elemental rage power to be functional for the barbarian throughout his career.

Thoughts?

Fellow Pathfinder players, I have a request to ask of you. It may not seem like a large request, or one of particular importance at first glance. However, it is incredibly important if we want to foster an atmosphere of intelligent discussion and debate that will allows us help the Pathfinder developers create the most revised, “fixed” version of 3.5 possible. Please, hear me out.

I would request that every poster not use any of the following arguments when discussing whether or not something needs to be “fixed” with the Pathfinder RPG.

1. "My players don't do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I house-rule it, so it's not broken."
3. "You can use Rule 0, so it’s not broken."
4. “I don’t care if it’s broken.”

While a lot of these seem to make sense at first glance, all of them fall short of being positive contributions for discussion, and they end up hindering intelligent discourse. Unfortunately, these seem to be common arguments on the Paizo forums, so I’m hoping that we can agree to avoid using them in debate.

Of course, I’m sure that you’d like proof of all these things that I claim and request—and who wouldn’t?--so I shall readily comply as a gesture of good will.

1. The first argument used boils down to, “I haven’t experienced it, so it doesn’t exist.” This, of course, is a silly line of reasoning, particularly when one considers the following: suppose one were to move to a country along the equator and then speak to the natives of ice falling from the sky. Undoubtedly, they would boggle at such a concept—unless they had seen snow, of course—and question your soundness of mind. Of course, we all know that ice does, in fact, fall from the sky. Thus, this line of thinking is invalid and based upon an argument from ignorance: just because one hasn’t seen the proof—i.e., experienced any broken aspects of the game—doesn’t mean that game isn’t broken.

For instance, there are a number of groups that apparently have not experienced the power imbalance between fighters and wizards. However, anecdotal, statistical, and mechanical evidences demonstrate otherwise. It would thus be an enormous error on our part to argue that the imbalance does not need to be fixed.

2. The second and third arguments are reduced to the Oberoni fallacy: the claim that nothing is broken because the DM can house-rule it. And while it is true that the DM can alter rules to suit him, the idea that one should not revise the rules because of this is mind-boggling. Rules revisions and re-balancing are a huge aspect of the Pathfinder RPG. To argue against them on the basis of house rules undermines the very principles upon which the Pathfinder RPG is founded. Now, we are all here because we love 3e and want to continue to support it even though it is technically out-of-print—and we all want to see the Pathfinder RPG to succeed.

For example, one can take away the druid’s ability to wild shape in 3.5, and the class becomes significantly less overpowered. This, of course, is a house rule. To argue that all groups should alter the rules to the point where the game functions better is, for lack of a better word, nonsense. Think of what it is to ask them to do such a thing: pages upon pages of class changes, spell alterations, and mechanics re-working. It would be like asking them to write a new edition! I think that we can see why this wouldn’t work.

3. The final argument is one that saddens me the most. I have seen it a few times, and it is a grievance of the worst kind against the Pathfinder team’s work. What one is arguing when one says this is that one’s opinion matters more than another’s—more than the developers’ opinions. The developers want feedback on how to make the game more balanced and playable at all levels. Simply because one “doesn’t care” about a rules exploit doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be fixed.
Suppose, for instance, that you are one who “doesn’t care” about the power imbalance between the fighter and the wizard. Or perhaps you are one who “doesn’t care” that gate could summon a powerful outsider strong enough to challenge a group of level 23 adventurers. Maybe it doesn’t cause a problem in your games. But to actively work against fixing a vast mechanical oversight—to encourage the existence of such—is to hinder the Pathfinder development team, as their purpose is to “fix” the rules. We want to work with them, not against them. Such a line of reasoning is self-focused, and it hurts the Pathfinder RPG.

We have to support the Pathfinder team by suggesting ways to move forward, not backward. Any sort of discussion is crippled by using any of the above four arguments, as they do not contribute anything positive to the discussion.

Please, let us stop using these arguments to fight a change in the game system. We need to work together—all of us.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."
3. "Use Rule 0."

These are the kinds of things that drive people who understand some of the more intricate aspects of the system away. We are forced into the situation where we are fighting an ever-incoming tide of ignorance and fail. Paizo cannot make a better game with this nonsense polluting their boards--what we will be left with is a shell of a game whose merit was blown because a bunch of "yes-men" dumped all over everyone who had good ideas.

Developer worship is bad. It's what caused a large number of problems in 4e--especially when the developers themselves took the stance that they could do no wrong.

Allow me to restate all this succinctly:

If you make these arguments, you are ruining the game.

Yes. You read that correctly. You are literally ruining the game for everyone who wants a solid, more balanced system than what 3.5 offered. You are literally ruining the game for everyone who wants to avoid a slew of house-rules that he or she had to adopt to make 3e function properly. You are literally ruining the game for people who see the potential that Pathfinder has.

Do you know why these arguments are fail-tacular? Allow me to show you the light by providing examples of each one.

1. "My players have never had a problem with the difference in power levels between fighters and wizards. Everything is fine; don't change fighters or wizards."

2. "I took away the druid's ability to [3e] wild shape and cast ninth-level spells, so the class isn't broken. Don't change the druid class at all."

3. "One time, one of my players was trying to use [3e] shapechange to turn into a choker to cast an extra spell in the round. I said that he couldn't, so it's not broken."

Please, for the love of the game, stop making these arguments.

(Just to let you know, I'm going to post this now. Then I'm going to post parts of it in the Beta sections when the appropriate game aspects are being designed. And then I'm going to post it again and again afterwards, until somebody pays attention to this.)

I used to be a regular poster around here. I used to look forward to all the updates we'd get. I used to look forward to the new releases. And I was filled with great expectations today, with the release of the Pathfinder Beta.

Then those expectations were brutally crushed underfoot as I went through the document.

I'm going to go through here and tell everyone what is wrong with Pathfinder. I'm going to be blunt. Tact requires a great deal of work that I don’t feel like devoting. I refuse to sugarcoat my words for problems that have yet to be solved despite my bringing them up time and time again.

I hope you’re reading this, Jason. I also hope you don't get offended to the point where you ignore what I'm saying. Sometimes criticism hurts. You might disagree with the tone of some of the things that I'm writing--and trust me, it's far nicer than what I had originally planned on saying--but I think we can agree that my advice is mechanically sound.

Barbarians

Bards

Clerics and Druids: Still broken but less so. I'm still an advocate of a d6 HD and ½ BAB, but that’s beside the point.

Fighters

Monks

Paladins

Rangers

Sorcerers

Wizards

Feats

Spells
Overall, a number of the spells have been fixed, but there are a few sticklers.

So far, Pathfinder looks to be a vast improvement over 4e. However, I see a problem with Pathfinder in that the design focus seems to be slathering on abilities like mayonnaise--and too much mayonnaise is gross. For instance, look at the ranger. The entire class table is flooded with text. Now, that's not a bad thing in all cases; I'm a big proponent of no "dead levels." However, I look at the rogue and see the same thing. And then I look at the monk, too, and I see an endless wall of text.

So here's my gripe: Paizo seems to be pushing "more abilities" rather than "stronger abilities." If the players have abilities that scale well with level, there's no need for a dozen of them. So, my proposal is as follows:

--Reduce the number of class abilities.
--Make class abilities more meaningful.
--Add back in some class abilities as necessary and/or make them feats.

I consider myself a individual of not-below-average intellect, but the sheer amount of abilities is overwhelming in Pathfinder. I'd like to see this altered so that the game is more streamlined.

I'm not sure why this hasn't been changed.

Elemental rage: +1d6 elemental damage for one round. 8 rage points.
Powerful blow: +6 damage at level 6. 4 rage points.

Am I the only one seeing an obvious problem here?

...I really like saving throws. And I can't bear to let them go. My question thus to all the people who are liking the sounds of 4e: how would you suggest combining the attack vs. [Save] with rolling a save (not using the 4e system exactly as it is; I just posted it here 'cause it seemed like the best place for it)?

Since polymorph absorbs armor, there needs to be a bigger natural armor boost to keep polymorphers from being squished. Since the spells are basically created with the intent that the user is going to go into melee, a little more AC would keep them from being smashed. Even with a d6 HD and favored class, a lone wizard isn't going to stand up to the punishment that an equal-CR opponent can dish out.

(Other than that, the polymorph changes are great.)

In the healing skill, it is written:

"If you exceed the DC by 5 or more, add your Wisdom modifier to this amount."

There ought to be a stipulation that one only adds one's Wis modifier if it is positive.

Bump.

It seems that it would make more sense for them to be "on" all the time.

And a bonus feat at fifth-level and every five levels thereafter. Why?

1. Paladins deserve a good Will save. It makes sense thematically (resisting temptation and all).

2. Reduction of MAD.

3. Bonus feats are good.

Reposted for your enjoyment.

Here are my concerns about spellcaster specialists, not in any particular order.

1. Diviners:

--Their abilities are far too powerful in comparison to other specialists' abilities. The ability to act on a surprise round is huge, and the ability to cast the equivalent of true strike on the fighter once per day is icing on the cake.

2. Abjurers:

--Resistance to one energy 10 at level 20 is kind of pointless. It either should be changed to resistance to all energies, or it should be increased in value.

--Protective ward is completely negated by rings of deflection, and the amount of time it lasts is insignificant with the time taken to activate it. Perhaps the time taken to activate it could be a move action or the radius could be increased or the bonus could be increased.

3. Conjurers:

--The bonus to AC is inconsequential, especially since it can't be enchanted. Furthermore, mage armor really shouldn't be a conjuration spell, as is the general consensus (I believe). Why not give a bonus to conjured monsters (as per the class itself)? For instance, they could have the ability to cast summon monster spells as a standard action rather than a full-round action, their monsters could get bonuses, etc.

--Acid dart: it just doesn't fit the conjurer. I realize that, technically, it is conjuration, as the acid is summoned from the Elemental Plane of Acidburning (or somesuch), but the "feel" of the conjurer is not nuking. Why not change this to the summon monster equivalent of the Animal Domain?

--The ability to cast summon monster I is very weak. With all the other specialist abilities, I could see myself using them. Magic missile, silent image, true strike, etc. However, summon monster I is just so bad that it hurts. Unfortunately, there's not a lot to choose from in the PHB in order to make a suitable replacement, so I'm not sure what to suggest for this one.

4. Enchanters:

--A +6 to social skills is okay, but enchanters will still be lacking in the social skills department. Perhaps Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidate could be made class skills?

--An enchanter actually trying to use dazing touch is a dead enchanter. This should be given a range, and the HD limit is really harsh. Perhaps this could be increased to HD+4, at the least (especially with the once-affected-immune-for-a-day limit)?

5. Evokers:

--The evoker's specialist bonus is pretty weak. It's like a crippled version of the warmage's edge. Considering the existence of save-or-dies/save-or-you're-screweds, this needs to be bumped up a little. My suggestion was to make spells that do dice of damage do +1 damage per dice. (Of course, even then damage spells are weak. It might be balanced to allow the +1 damage/die and the +5 damage.)

6. Necromancers:

--As with the enchanter, a necromancer trying to use this ability is a dead necromancer. I understand that it's supposed to "finish off" wounded enemies, but a range on it would be nice (especially considering that enemies don't really have a chance to stabilize).

7. Transmuters:

--The transmuter ability is outdone by items that cost 36,000gp. The transmuter's ability either needs to be changed so that it's more than +6 at level 20, or it needs something else in its place.

--The telekinetic fist doesn't make much sense for a transmuter. In fact, that seems more like an evoker thing (what with the punching force and all). Yes, telekinesis is a transmutation spell, but it still doesn't seem to fit. I think that it would better fit the transmuter to give him the ability to grow natural weapons--maybe one at level 1, two at level 5, and three at level 10? (His low HD and BAB would keep this from being too powerful, methinks.)

8. Why is the save for the abilities based on Charisma? I know they're SLAs, but come on, they're going to be pretty useless for a wizard if they have a Cha-based save.

(Why, yes, P_R, you are so very smart!)

It looks like a good solution to the "I have four attacks but only two are going to hit" dilemma. I DEMAND PLAYTEST FEEDBACK ON IT. Our game isn't starting until we get all the base classes, so somebody start going with it.

Rules-as-written, the fighter gets armor training at level 19 again even though the intent is to stop him at level 15. Stipulations, ahoy.

Repost.

Sorry to spam these threads like this, but I figure that I had best get my opinions in before Alpha 2 comes out and the boards are inundated with things about the other classes.

1. Weapon Training should give a +1 bonus to attack rolls and a +2 bonus to damage rolls. This serves two purposes. First, it fits with the Weapon Focus feat tree: +1 to-hit, +2 to damage. Secondly, it makes fighters that wear shields more viable--one of their biggest hindrances is their inability to do damage because of the 1-for-1 trade with Power Attack.

2. Damage reduction 5/- at level 19 is too little, too late for the fighter. This needs to be given out incrementally, probably with the armor training class feature.

3. Characters are still at a disadvantage for wearing heavy armor. In the grand scheme of things, that +3 to AC from wearing full plate doesn't matter that much compared to combat mobility. A mithril breastplate is light armor, and it's going to have an AC of 14 (5+5+4) versus the platemail's AC of 17. That's just not a big enough difference. I propose that damage reduction be incorporated into the armor training system:

--Wearing light armor grants a bonus of +1 AC and DR 1/- per armor training.
--Wearing medium armor grants a bonus of +1 AC and damage reduction 2/- per armor training.
--Wearing heavy armor grants a bonus of +1 AC and damage reduction 3/- per armor training.

This way, the heavily armored dwarf will play differently from the fleet-of-foot fencer. (Maybe this should stack with adamantine?)

Aside from that, I'm loving the changes to the fighter. It makes the "new player-friendly class" viable for twenty levels. As a final thought: Should the armor training bonus apply to unarmored fighters wielding a shield? I would say "yes," but that's just me.

Great flavorful changes to the class. Makes me want to play one.

I saw a number of good ideas on the Alpha Release 1 boards, and I'm hoping that some of them will make it into the game. Any word on this from Ye Olde Game Developers?

I don't think I like the rage points mechanic. As much as having the barbarian do something new and different is desirable in a new edition of the game, I like barbarian the way it is. Some of the rage powers are kinda cool, but the costs seem somewhat arbitrary (3 pts for +1/2 level to AC, but 6pts for darkvision for a round?).

If you want to keep rage powers, I would recommend putting Rages/day back the way it was, and allow the use of a number of rage powers/rage equal to the barbarian's constitution modifier. That is the houserule I will be using, if I use Pathfinder barbarian at all.

Still waiting to see what they do to my precious ranger. *crosses fingers and hopes for the best*

Yep. I'm a party-pooper. I noticed some just from glancing at the document.

Elemental fury: 12 points to get a whopping +1d6 elemental damage on attacks? That's awful. Why on earth would I choose something like that when I could use powerful blow, which is NOT lost if I miss all my attacks in that round (rules-as-written)?

Guarded stance/rolling dodge: 6 rage points/round, the barbarian can have a +10 bonus to AC.

Sorry to spam these threads like this, but I figure that I had best get my opinions in before Alpha 2 comes out and the boards are inundated with things about the other classes.

1. Weapon Training should give a +1 bonus to attack rolls and a +2 bonus to damage rolls. This serves two purposes. First, it fits with the Weapon Focus feat tree: +1 to-hit, +2 to damage. Secondly, it makes fighters that wear shields more viable--one of their biggest hindrances is their inability to do damage because of the 1-for-1 trade with Power Attack.

2. Damage reduction 5/- at level 19 is too little, too late for the fighter. This needs to be given out incrementally, probably with the armor training class feature.

3. Characters are still at a disadvantage for wearing heavy armor. In the grand scheme of things, that +3 to AC from wearing full plate doesn't matter that much compared to combat mobility. A mithril breastplate is light armor, and it's going to have an AC of 14 (5+5+4) versus the platemail's AC of 17. That's just not a big enough difference. I propose that damage reduction be incorporated into the armor training system:

--Wearing light armor grants a bonus of +1 AC and DR 1/- per armor training.
--Wearing medium armor grants a bonus of +1 AC and damage reduction 2/- per armor training.
--Wearing heavy armor grants a bonus of +1 AC and damage reduction 3/- per armor training.

This way, the heavily armored dwarf will play differently from the fleet-of-foot fencer. (Maybe this should stack with adamantine?)

Aside from that, I'm loving the changes to the fighter. It makes the "new player-friendly class" viable for twenty levels. As a final thought: Should the armor training bonus apply to unarmored fighters wielding a shield? I would say "yes," but that's just me.

I would like to hear the reasoning behind this. To me, they were fine the way they were, but I'd like to hear the devs' reasoning behind these changes.

With the invention of weapon groups for the fighter, I feel that Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, etc. should apply to entire weapon groups. This would give the fighter more versatility and goodness--things that he sorely deserves.