Ranishe's page

The issues that I've seen is that a Bomber alchemist can really burn through all of their prepared bombs in the day and then they're resolved back to shooting a crossbow. Which is what they tried to get away from in the first place.

Bomber alchemists do get unlimited (lower level) bombs at level 7, but that feels late.

A level 5 bomber alchemist also can pre-prep 27 bombs if that's all they prep. I've made it a point for myself in my next session to see exactly how many bombs my alchemist throws in a day compared to what he preps.

Post level 7 Quick alchemy + sticky bomb + calculated splash + a regular acid flask you made in the morning should be a solid amount of persistent damage that can all be applied in 1 turn. Increases again at 8 when you get the inproved calculated splash and 11 when you get item level 11 regular bombs.

My alchemist is frustrated that his damage using a daily resource is so minute (1d8 + 2 + 2 fire flask as a pyro goblin vs 1d12 + 8 raging dragon barbarian), and he doesn't get cantripesque bombs until 7. Bosses having high AC also makes attempting to use those resources feel wasteful. Add that life elixers are 1d6 vs the 1d10+4 of soothe and he doesn't feel he has much purpose.

Lightning Raven wrote:

My post supports that the difference is too small. Since you don't roll an infinite number of times, then you need to take into account dice variance, which makes the +1 not relevant

Someone want to do the math to determine how many d20 rolls it would take for a 95% chance of more damage with an 18 Str compared to a 16 Str? I'm sure it isn't infinite.

Assuming that there is a meaningful difference between a success and critical success and that the str 18 char would critical succeed on a 19 at worst, 29 str related rolls for a 95% chance of at least one result being different between the two characters.

Just in combat, assuming a char makes 2 attacks per round, 4 round combats, that's 4 combats to have a 95% chance that str 18 char did at least one attack noticeably better (obviously not counting damage rolls, and that could be a crit on a target with 1 hp left which isn'tactually meaningful).

Level 10 Paladin vs. Level 4 Rogue?

Rogue: +4 Proficiency, +4 from DEX, Expert in Stealth (+1) = +9

Paladin: +10 Proficiency, +0 to +1 from DEX, untrained in Stealth (-4), Armour Check Penalty from +2 Full-Plate (-3) = +4.

I think you need a lvl 15 Paladin to beat a lvl 4 Rogue (assuming it obtains a +3 Full-Plate).

And even without the armor check penalty, the Paladin is STILL worse than the rogue 6 levels lower.

Throw me in as another vote against the barbarian rage change. I get the theme of it, but it's fiddly, easily forgotten, and not very impactful until it kills a party because the barbarian's rage ended a round early.

Also, I'll agree that strength monks still seem like a trap (though I'm playing one currently). Dex is required for AC, which I'm not terribly opposed to, just something to be aware of.

Also also, do ki strike and ki rush have their spell point costs listed? Cause I'm not seeing them.

Also also also, just to clarify, ki strike and ki rush do NOT give you extra spell points if you take both, correct?

problem is then you're not giving a player the appropriate DC as per the DC chart

Well, obviously, the same way that you don't keep throwing an ever increasing apl party at a cr2 encounter. That chart is there to answer the gm asking: "I have a level 4 party. I want to craft a skill encounter that is difficult to overcome. What number should i target such that that is the case?" What that thing actually ends up being, the system doesnt care, but i believe it provides a few narrative examples (stormy seas and all that). The point isn't to prescribe what the party encounters at any given point, it's a tool to help a gm make encounters / challenges that are of a desired difficulty. It's no different than the cr tables in pf1, or spending experience for the same purpose.

Also, though not really material, i wanted to point out that proficiencies as is with the larger spread you sugges, a level 20 rogue or barbarian would hit a level 20 paladin on like a 19 with their first attack, and are crit fishing after that.

+Level and Proficiencies served as a means to quell that apparent disparity (since Martials are more inclined to rely on numerical bonuses compared to Spellcasters, who don't need to rely on if they have enough bonuses to hit a target more often than not). Removing it now just brings back more of the same frustrating PF1 playstyle that most people hated, and the dumb thing is people don't realize that. Proficiencies by themselves aren't enough to solve that issue, no matter what sort of crazy options you tag onto that.

I disagree. At least, in so far as you could remove +1 to level and give everyone infinite skill points, and mess with saves and dcs a bit to be at a similar place to now, while not technically being +level to everything. No i think the main draw of +level is that it contains the math while unifying a character's strength around its level. +level means the difference between legendary and untrained is smaller (-5 to +9 or so, not counting items, relative to level, rather than -2 to +60 or whatever people could stack). This also makes the chart above work. If the range of any given character's ability on a given skill can range by 30odd points, you can't have a standard for how hard a task is at a given level. Which means a gm just kind of has to guess at a dc.

Inflated DCs are a problem. You have this bloated chart, that you basically HAVE to reference or memorize, when it could be so much simpler. For example, 5e DC table: very easy DC 5, easy DC 10, medium DC 15, hard DC 20, very hard DC 25, nearly impossible DC 30. That's it. That's all you need to know from level 1 to level 20. Pretty elegant.

As a DM you need to justify increasingly massive DC numbers just to have a challenge. This then becomes a wash, because as you increase the DCs, everyone's skills also increase, so really it's just similar odds with bigger numbers. Treadmill effect.

That's because 5e has bounded accuracy. The difference in bonus to a roll between a level 1 character and a level 20 character in that system is 4 to a given check, + or - a few. A DC25 check at level 1 is nearly impossible, and only has about a 30% chance of success at level 20 (barring, for example, item bonuses). Do you feel that you get more powerful as a character in that system?

Re: the treadmill, the game is always a treadmill. Or it's static. Or it's ever easier. Pick one:
- Treadmill: As the party faces challenges and gets stronger, they're (in general) put up against even stronger challenges that match them.
- Static: As the party faces challenges, they grow stronger, though only marginally. Their challenges, not needing to rise much to meet their new power, stay more or less the same forever.
- Easier: As the party faces challenges and gets stronger, they're put up against...the same challenges. The stronger party starts to walk over everything they're faced with with minimal effort.

I'm not going to say any are right or wrong, but I know which one I'd most prefer to play.

While I like the fact that a level 20 demigod will not face any problems when trying to cross a calm river, I'm wary about the fact that designing skill challenges for high level groups could be a very hard task. What kind of situation you have to imagine to justify a level 14 swim check? What more should you add to make it a level 18 one? How many of those challenges can you design before you run out of ideas?

Did you not already have to do this? In pf1 if you wanted a skill challenge for swim, did you not have it at least in some way relative to the party's level? Or did swim DC never go up above 10 because no one ever put ranks into it, so any more difficult swim related task would be impossible for everyone? Or did it not go up, but the party invested in swim in some way, so they automatically passed any swim checks they came upon, but at that point is it even a skill challenge that needs the numbers at all?

We already had +Level to saves, BAB, spell DCs (sorta), the skills you focused in, etc.

Quoting for emphasis. It's now just normalized across everything so you don't have to play a game where one person passes any level appropriate challenge of a skill automatically while no one else has a chance at the roll.

Nightwhisper wrote:

DCs per level of the challenge. The text next to the DCs specifically calls out not just scaling check difficulty because the PCs gained a level, and if you decided that something was a given level, it stays that level unless something happens.

10-2 is not a "set DC by the level of the party" it's a "set DC by level of the opposition" and old assumptions about CR matching or exceeding the level of party are no longer valid.

Which brings up something that doesn't seem to be discussed as much. What is a "level appropriate challenge"? That is, you have a character of level 5. If they put all their character resources into a thing, what should they need to roll to beat a "level 5 challenge" of that thing? If they put as few resources (or as many negatives) into that thing, what should be the odds of succeeding a "level 5 challenge"? And, should the requisite die roll for each of those situations change from level 1 to level 20?

Here's a thought re: level to everything. I wonder if the part of its merit is that, without it, character's options for level appropriate situations goes down with level.

Take a "level 1" fortress invasion. There's a little moat that you could swim through, or you could try to sneak (or bribe) your way past the door guard. Or climb up the small cliff on the back. All sound reasonable? At level 1, the difference between any player on any of these challenges is going to be something like 5 points, because that's how attributes work.

Now, take a "level 10" fortress invasion. This is a well defended camp. A moat with magically enchanted tumultous waters filled with aggressive creatures. A well paid (or well controlled) door guard with scouts on the front walls. A massive cliff, in places trapped, on the back. Using pf1 as an example system, the difference in ability for a party member to tackle any given challenge is going to be something like 20 points. So, you write off the moat, because no one took swim because why would you? If the wizard doesn't have fly, you write off the back wall because only the rogue took climb. The rogue is also the only one with stealth, so no one else is sneaking past the guard. So you're left with "get the diplomancer to diplomance his way in."

With level to everything, all of those options are available, with varying chances of success. The party can actually decide what route they want to take in, instead of having more and more doors close for any given challenge as they level.

Another vote for removing touch AC, and letting casters just use casting mod to attack rolls for rays & the like. Fewer numbers, and keeps modifiers between spell attacks and spell "attacks" (like fireball) more consistent. Increasing caster proficiency slightly earlier (at least to expert) would be nice (though please not at the expense of class feats) as well.

Also I feel like rays are rather weak compared to aoe spells. The damage increase on single target doesn't feel like it makes up for the fact that a "fail" for a ray is 0 damage while a "fail" for an aoe spell is half damage. When a target passes a save against a fireball, I'm a bit disappointed, but have at least done something. When I miss a ray, it feels terrible as I blew a daily resource & 2 actions for no gain.

This would then exacerbate the issue of martials being innately better at multiclassing due to having more class feats to spend.

Don't all classes gain the same number of class feats? The exception being many classes get one of their level 1 feats based on some other selection (eg. Druid order), but you can't multiclass with level 1 feats anyway. Sorcerers were updated to get class feats the same as other classes so as to not be forced into developing their bloodline for those who didn't want to, though honestly they could probably just get the bloodline improvements for free, rather than having to spend class feats on them since at first glance sorcerers seem the weakest of the bunch.

Edit: Just reviewed, I did not realize that Expert / Master spellcaster stole the spot of a class feat. That seems odd considering Legendary spellcaster does not....

It may not be appropriate, but I've come to consider classes that don't get bonus spells to be 2/3 casters: Bard, druid, and cleric. Full casters are those that innately get 4 spells per level rather than 3.

Level 6 casters or riot

I do miss bladed dash....however are there hybrid classes that can't be accomplished in theme through multiclassing as pointed out above? Even the more limited number / level of spells can be handled by how many caster feats you take. Magus as a concept has a bit of a problem in not many spells are 1 action, so move-cast-strike is hard outside of, say, truestrike. Also doesn't come online until level 4 which feels a bit late for me, but, eh. I suppose bards also went up from level 6 casting to 9, but they still have strong emphasis on their performance party buff.

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Ckorik wrote:

I suppose it'd work as a concept when you gain levels - but you need 18 in your prime stat to survive the first few levels.

Please elaborate? I've had a couple of players field non-offensive casters* with 16s in their primary stats and they've been fine in low level playtest sessions.

*Fey Sorcerer focused on Utility and Summoning. Bard focused on Utility and Buffs.

The quote was you could do fine with a 12 in your prime stat - I tried it - it was very underwhelming.

A sorcerer with bless and 16 dex or str is looking at only a +1 to hit behind a fighter, or even with other martial classes. They're also then handing that +1 out to the party. And as you pointed out, a +1 is pretty effective.

Easier for a bard to pull off though with inspire courage. Lower cost, better effect. They can also do that without maxed charisma. Missing the extra spell points is a shame too, but at later levels (as a druid or cleric at least) you can get a pile from feats.

I'm a fan of removing dailies. They've already done so for stunning fist & rage, with different tradeoffs as balance (2 actions for 1 attack and fatigue respectively). Especially because of this problem:

Want to use magic to Fly past the obstacle? You can, but it'll cost you combat ability later.

Is the party going to be in combat "later" (without opportunity to rest)? And how hard will that combat be? Will fly in that combat be a slight bonus or absolutely necessary? Or is fly in a slot that a more combat oriented spell could be cast from? Will lacking that slot actually be a limit, or does the caster have enout other spells that there wasn't really a loss by casting fly now?

Daily resources ask the party to make decisions based on information they (probably) don't have. You could argue for scouting with the rogue or using scry, but that also eats up table time, potentially a lot of it. And you don't know if scouting will be a useful use of time or if you can brute force your way through the encounters.

If a player is making a decision without relevant information, it's not a meaningful decision. It's a guess.

Power attack adds a single die (or 2 at fighter 10). A level 7 character critting with a +1 greatsword with power attack would hit for 6d12 + 2xSTR.

1 die for weapon, 1 die for +1, and 1 die for power attack. I'm also not sure where you're getting str x 4 from...

Dire Ursus wrote:

I've seen a lot of people state "lingering composition" is a good example of how the treadmill is bad. But I disagree entirely. Lingering Composition is something that shouldn't be a static level, because then it becomes unbalanced

Why?

Why would lingering becomes unbalanced? Other metamagic feats don't require a roll: there's no roll involved with widen spell, there's no roll involved with quickened casting. Are those feat unbalanced?

No, they take extra actions, which are a percentage of your effectiveness. Taking an action for metamagic instead of a strike at level 1 is losing 1d8 or so damage (longbow). Taking an action for metamagic at level 10 is losing 3d8 or so damage (+2 longbow).

Lingering scales basically the same way, being a percentage increase because of more flexible action economy (not requiring an action on your next turn). Whether its effect is worth a spell point for a possibility of not working is a different question.

And then you can balance the game around that; eg, a failure in Stealth could just trigger a warning for team monster (they heard something, but they're not sure it's a PC) while a crit success could allow to remove a warning. Legendary Rogue Boy could never fail, and still be on the same RNG as anyone...

I feel like this should fall under "what is a level appropriate challenge"? Should an optimized character auto-succeed on a level appropriate challenge? Of what difficulty? What does that mean for non-optimized characters? How much does that optimization cost? Can one character reasonably be "optimized" in 2 fields? 3? 5? I sense that with such a system you end up where characters attempt what they're good at and auto-succeed, and never attempt what they're not good at. You can force them into those unspecialized areas (no one can swim, and you're all dumped in the ocean), but what does that feel like from a player stand point if your only options are ones that can't reliably succeed? And if an option is available that is of their specialty, are the other options actually options assuming there's not an added cost?

In the archetype document, Basic Sorcerer Spellcasting says it requires Bard Dedication. In addition, Wizard Dedication still says it requires you be trained in Arcana while other archetypes do not have such a skill prerequisite.

I see these as the three big issues right now:

1) Multiclassing is straight up better than 2nd level feats
Right now this isn't at critical levels, since we don't have many dedication options available. Many classes simply don't have any dedication options that work for them. However, for classes that do have "natural fits" so to speak, dedication is all but mandatory on any serious build. This is most obvious for Wizard and Sorcerer, and is so acute in their case that it actually makes most Wizards and Sorcerers play almost the same. If you aren't multiclassing fighter, you're seriously gimping your character. Right now people are kinda sleeping on wizard dedication because 16 int is an onerous prerequisite, but I think once sorcerer dedication comes around (16 cha is very doable for many classes) people are going to wake up to just how crazy multiclassing for Magical Striker really is.

Just to be clear, you're going to spend 3 class feats to get (up to) an extra d12 of damage. Now when you get it running at level 8 and only have a +1 weapon, thats a pretty sizable increase. But, you can't use it, because you can't cast anything beyond a cantrip (unless you're doing this as a bard / druid / cleric, but then you're only wielding a d8 weapon at best without further investment). So 4 feats so you can get up to 3 spells per day, which are probably all truestrike because truestrike magical striker is hillarious. 4 class feats for (up to) 3 empowered attacks per day (more with a wand or set of scrolls) just doesn't sound like great value to me, especially when it doesn't come online until level 8 at the earliest.

I'm also not sold on needing fighter dedication. Or rather, I expect it'd be less tempting if cantrips were more effective so that casters didnt feel like they were just a worse version of a shortbow. Without armor proficiency from the dedication or a general feat, you'd be lagging behind optimized ac by like 3 (-2 dex + armor and -1 shield). Which is not nothing, but it's basically a question of if it's worth a class feat for +2 ac. Maybe, but i think that's more I'm not a fan of most feats available to casters at the moment.

Druid, Cleric - bring more versatile options to the table than the sorcerer or wizard while doing as much casting as the people who supposedly do nothing but studiously attempt to harness their inner power or struggle to learn other things because they're so focused on their spellbooks

Not counting channel energy which i find a bit powerful of a feature, sorcerers / wizards have 33% more spells per day than druids / clerics (4 of each level in contrast to 3). Is that sufficiently more? Maybe not. But wizards / sorcerers are slinging the most spells.

Also keep in mind that full casters got short-changed by the implementation of the 3-action/reaction system.

This I'm also quite disappointed by, especially since metamagic costs extra actions to apply. I'd like more flexibility in spellcaster turns. More spells that only cost 1 action, and more cc / buff / debuff cantrips like Daze.

Horrid scaling DCs, many spells where you need to land a critical failure to even matter, short duration to utility spells, summon monster that is barely functional... together are enough to make me lose any interest in this edition.

Hoping the devs do give some thought when it comes to rebalancing this magic system.

On the other hand, many spells have an effect on failure. Paralyze compared to Hold Monster, for example. If the target passes its save vs Hold Monster, nothing has happened. If the target passes its save against Paralyze, they're slowed for a round. Basically, spells are currently guaranteed to do at least something, but don't have encounter ending effects unless on a critical success, which I think is overall much healthier for the game.

On a different subject, I had a thought recently: Damage spells really should scale with caster level rather than spell slot. I believe this because non-damage spells (buffs & debuffs) scale without requiring higher spell slots. For example, at level 1 the spell Bless represents something along the lines of a 10% damage increase for the party so long as you can keep it up. If the party averages 30odd damage per round normally, that's about 3 points of damage per round. Magic missile, by contrast if cast will all actions, averages 7.5 at level 1. Over the life of bless, it's an expected 30 damage (ideal & unlikely scenario I know). So less upfront damage, more efficiency.

At level 10, the level 1 spell Bless still represents something along the lines of a 10% damage increase. Since the party is now all wielding +2 magic weapons, they're looking at something like 60 damage per round, where bless is now 6 damage per round, and 60 over its life, compared to the (still) 7.5 of magic missile.

Basically, why have one category of spells that scale in power with character level, and another that don't?

The range on this spell could be 30 feet and it would feel the same.

In most APs and modules, there are precious little opportunities to fire on foes that are more than 30-40 feet away from you.

Just take a look at the Lost Star. There's no single encounter that's not designed to be played in a 20 ft. square.

When such rare situations happen, enemies are also generally moving towards you during their round, which cuts distance in half.
In years of playing Pathfinder, I don't think I've ever seen a Fighter having to spend two full rounds moving to get up to a foe.

I'm probably bound to see it happen at some point but this is certainly not going to reflect how an encounter goes for about 90% of the time.

There's a reason archers in 1.0 went for the feats and options to have their ranged attacks not provoke attacks of opportunity in the first place.
And that's because, most of the time, foes are right there in your place and not standing 120 feet away from you without moving.

I'll agree with that. In that case, shocking grasp would be a more fair comparison. With the same numbers, compared to a great sword, that's looking at 17.6 damage (spell) vs 20.4 (sword), not accounting for the extra riders on shocking grasp and assuming equal AC & TAC, which is more disappointing for having spent 2 spell slots to come out behind.

Milo v3 wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

Yes, tell the person playing the pacifist healer they don't get XP.

See how long if takes the rest of the group to find a new DM.

Or they can realise that they are partially responsible for violence they directly help occur....

It sound like an interesting moral conflict to roleplay.

...no it doesn't*, it sounds like cognitive dissonance. Like, the character is by definition not a pacifist, and continuously and deliberately makes the choice to continue to not be a pacifist (except by, perhaps, a very technical interpretation). A character whose entire time spent on screen is lamenting the things they actively choose to do...makes no sense. It's like someone training to be a wizard, preparing spells every day, and saying "magic is a tool of the weak, and such people must be scourged."

*okay sure, fine, you're allowed to have fun with whatever character you like, but "quirky" and "deep" don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Jader7777 wrote:

- Have weapon focus and weapon specialization apply to weapon groups, not just single weapons.

Would this really be that useful? outside of campaigns where weapons are randomly generated switching between weapons of the same group doesn't seem like that much of an advantage.

My thought is no, it wouldn't be, so why not have it? It isn't something one would build around, but in cases with random loot (or foe appropriate loot) it increases a martial's versatility without it being an increase in power, which is something the fighter especially desperately needs. You no longer feel shafted when the world keeps giving you weapons that aren't exactly the one you've been taking feats for.

Chess Pwn wrote:

This I feel had the closest feel to your build.

A lot of the fundamental choices I made on that posted build were for flavor/character.

And this is the (a) fundamental problem with the system. One should not need to compromise their in game effectiveness in the name of "flavor." So no, the Oread is not a dual-scimitar Qadiran warrior, but don't you think it's reasonable that your warrior should be of comparable power to another, regardless of flavor?

("Power" in this sense does not mean "same numbers and abilities")

Voss wrote:

Well, that's another problem. I have no idea what a 'fighter' is supposed to feel like.

The wonderful thing about fighters, they have the versatility to feel like just about anything.

All those feats can make for incredibly diverse builds and play styles.

The concept of a "build your own class" class has no purpose in a class based system. Otherwise the fighter becomes the background of "everything we haven't made a specialist class for yet". A class needs a characterful niche to fill, and the more classes you create the more specialized each niche must be. This is going to be a problem with most core (so to speak) classes, as they represent larger tropes that future classes take pieces off of (hunter vs ranger for example). Of course, the core wizard is "I have everything" while the core fighter is "I choose a subset from everything".

So if we want "low level is gritty, and high level as gonzo" to be the default way to play Pathfinder, could we just fix it with a full-BAB d10 HD no-spellcasting fighting guy who gets suitably gonzo with class features at higher levels?

You probably can't turn the fighter into this with feats, since feats are available to everybody, but maybe something like vigilante talents that are generally strictly superior to feats?

That's my thought. Only caveat is that gritty games that only use low levels (eg epic6) won't have a lot of scaling room. You'll have a lower feeling of progression throughout the campaign which I personally would find...annoying. but, other option is make 2 systems.

I mean, at the suggestion that you have high & low fantasy classes (and high & low fantasy enemies) built into the same system, the crb would have to explicitly state which were which so that things can match up nicely.

I have no interest in playing Cu Cuhlein, Gilgamesh, Or Thor. That's not my thing.

But you want your not-Thor to fight the same type of enemies, or overcome similar challenges (in magnitude) as Thor, correct?

The commoner argument is an attempt to falsely accuse people advocating non-magical chassis as wanted the abilities of a typical person which is of course nonsense

I don't know that it is. I think it's confusion at the request for a class that operates "mundanely" to run in a high fantasy environment. Basically, why ask for Aragorn (or similar) to be running in a campaign against interplanar demons and dieties? If one wants a character of that fashion, it would make sense for such a character to fight things of its ilk (ie epic6). If you want to fight big, powerful monstrosities, it would make sense that your character be comperably equipped.

This is wrong. Fighters skill monkey with ease now. It's just that being a skill monkey is not all that useful.

Any fighter can dump 7 feats (none of them on warrior spirit) to have 9 skill ranks per level over their int+2.

As Chess Pwn illustrates, a "skilled fighter," while possible, trades away a portion of his main class feature to equal what other classes have as base. Indeed, trading 3 feats to have the same skills as the ranger at level 6, the fighter has effectively only gotten 1 bonus feat, to the ranger's 2 combat style feats by level 6, and the ranger's companion, and spellcasting. The fighter's chosen skills for 2 of those is also limited based on what weapon group he takes at level 5, while the ranger has free choice of any skill (or can even have multiple skills not at max rank if so desired).

Beyond that, the fighter doesn't play like such a skilled class until level 6, while the ranger (or vigilante) played with their skills for those first 5 levels. Also, saying that the fighter can have 9 skill ranks per level over their int + 2 is a little disingenuous. It's right, but many of those points don't come online until the end of the fighter's life (levels 13+), so for the vast majority of the game the fighter won't have the benefit.

pathfinder 2.0 is just the GM making their own stuff. We don't need a new edition for it.

Yes and no. I mean, by extension, such is the same with every ttrpg. You don't need someone else's codified rules for anything, just make your own. But not everyone has the time or ability to do such effectively, even if only modifying an existing system let alone making one from scratch (such as if you disagree with core assumptions like magical item progression, feat power & spellcasting systems).

Ranishe wrote:

Rules & setting fluff should be strictly separate. Just because it's the standard fighting technique of one faction to use a set of feats in no way means another cannot learn the same, especially as the rules are (or should be) an abstraction.

Absolutely not. One of the worst things to come down from the publishers of D&D was the sense that "fluff" and "crunch" were some kind of separate entities. These are RPGs, not board games. The "fluff" is as important as the "crunch".

That said, the setting-specific stuff is as reskinable as it has always been, which is to say, infinitely reskinable.

I agree fluff is important, but it has no purpose interacting with the system beyond whatever basics is required. A combat encounter doesn't care what gods you worship, how devoted you are to your lord, or your dream to avenger your father, or whether you were bullied as a kid. It cares what your attack bonuses, damage & defenses are. It cares about your initiative. A raging river doesn't care if you have a heart of gold, simply how well you can swim (or fly over it). If you start tying these things together you start saying "only characters of x are (best) equipped for these kinds of challenges". Hence why people make fun of the number of bullied adventurers...

@UnArcaneElection I think you confused player statement with character statement. My description of the greateaxe wielding slayer would be one I (the player) give to someone else, not as a character to another character. It would be as if I were to say the main character of Consider Phlebas was a swashbuckling rogue, dancing around lasers in fights the same way he dances around authorities. It's not an accurate description because nothing he does (or nothing the character in my previous description can do) conforms to that description. This is why mechanics are necessary whenever talking about how a character operates in game apart from "personality" that is transferable to any concievable chassis.

Ranishe wrote:

If we're playing a different setting than Galorion, what all such strange prerequisites can we throw out? Should those feats / features be available at all? Basically my thought at this point is have a single book that's a setting summary for Galorion (or several for the several parts) that illustrates the feats, classes, dieties, etc that would (generally) be represented by characters from various locations, and let GMs (and players) work with that. Don't hide such setting information in gameplay rules. It's nothing but muddy.

Isn't that what they did? This option was published in the companion line it's "rules for golarion that you can use elsewhere with a little work".

Rules & setting fluff should be strictly separate. Just because it's the standard fighting technique of one faction to use a set of feats in no way means another cannot learn the same, especially as the rules are (or should be) an abstraction.

And again, I note that the "concept for a character" here is strictly mechanical. The concept is the feat, then the system dictates some roleplaying fluff to go with it. Which is fine by me.

Coming at it from the other direction, where the concept is more of a rp one, then the problem doesn't arise, since the concept isn't tied to "drinks potions really fast" or whatever.

Then you are asking the system support one band of players at the expense of another. But one cannot claim that their character is RP focused without mechanics to back it up. You can't be a suave member of high society having not taken bluff, diplomacy, sense motive, and having tanked your charisma. You can't say you're the Greataxe wielding slayer of eldritch horrors when you have no combat prowess because you took nothing but skill focus for your feats. I mean, you can, but it doesn't make sense.

Everything in game is mechanics. It's a game, you're kinda stuck with that. Indeed, what actually is a character concept made from an RP direction? Your commitment to "freedom"? Your family loyalty? Your lust for gold? You can do all of that with any class, any feats, any traits. But as soon as you get into "what class & feats do I take?" you are building the aesthetic of your character as it plays. How does it fight? With what weapon (if any)? Or does it do something other than fight (and what)? These, if they can even be considered RP choices (not really any more than the clothes the character chooses to wear), have no reason to be limited for any reason other than game balance, unless the setting calls for it. But if you're designing the system, the setting isn't your job. The setting is separate.

N. Jolly wrote:

This would work if the things being locked off weren't so powerful.

Well, maybe that's intentional to encourage roleplaying. Like with the traits (at least at the beginning). Those weren't introduced to give the PCs even more power, they were introduced to give you an incentive to think about your character background.

But...that's not a good idea. Indeed, in such a situation you have a player who has a concept for a character, and then the system is dictating what that character must be / do. Taken to the extreme, why not just say "only iconics are allowed" because all fighters from this region are like Valeros? It would be like adding further restrictions for various feats. Eg. weapon focus requires that you train, alone, an hour per day. Vital Strike requires you be a chaotic character. Deadly Stroke requires you to be evil, etc. This doesn't encourage roleplay. This doesn't encourage people to make interesting characters. This is the system trying to micromanage its players and that is not the system's job.

Well, to be perfectly honest, when playing in a setting, it's only natural that the setting defines such things.

If we're playing a different setting than Galorion, what all such strange prerequisites can we throw out? Should those feats / features be available at all? Basically my thought at this point is have a single book that's a setting summary for Galorion (or several for the several parts) that illustrates the feats, classes, dieties, etc that would (generally) be represented by characters from various locations, and let GMs (and players) work with that. Don't hide such setting information in gameplay rules. It's nothing but muddy.

Of course, making everyone high power leads to rocket tag in combat, and "app for that" spells out of combat. This leads to number inflation & expectations on the party that creates, effectively, gear checks.

"You must pass through this insurmountable canyon, dealing with the terrible foes within...unless you can teleport 200 feet, then just ignore it". Something that can already be done in the current iteration, but take that to the extreme as best your imagination allows. If you have abilities that are infinitely powerful, you end up with parties that can solve a problem, and others that can't, simply by virtue of the spells they may (or may not) know.

balance (and complexity) is subjective

I have to echo what Rhedyn said: balance is not subjective. What it is is subject to context. In a meatgrindy campaign a barbarian and fighter will be better equipped than the rogue. In a skill focused game the bard or investigator will be better equipped than the rogue. In just about any campaign, sorcerers & wizards will be better equipped to hanle presented situations than the fighter or rogue.

In regards to balance you have two levers to tweak: power and versatility. So for classes, how well can this class accomplish a given task (power) and how many tasks can it accomplish to some varying degree (versatility). Making specialized classes provide a problem because they need a lot of power in their given thing, which makes balancing encounters against such a party becomes difficult.

And I must make a related point: complexity is not subjective. Complexity doesn't mean "difficulty" or "required knowledge." Complexity is how many knobs you can tweak. To compare 5e & Pathfinder, 5e is less complex. Pathfinder has more feats total, more feats taken by a given character over their life, more intricate interaction with skills (ranks vs proficiencies), more spells to choose from (and I believe more spells per day), more magic items & expected party wealth, and the interactions of all the above with each other.

To address what Wraithsrike said earlier: building a computer isn't particularly complex if you're just assembling: a graphics card only fits in one place, the cpu only has one home, etc. Now aquiring the right parts is far more complex: what cpu slot does my motherboard use. Does the mobo have the right pci slots for the graphics card I want? Does that card have a good enough gpu / ram for whatever applications I want to run? More knobs to interact with.

stuff about lots of different pools to manage

In my defence (and curse me for failing to provide context) I'm operating under spheres in an effort to consolidate such pools. I'd also remove domains from clerics because they feel like a way to codify a concept rather than let the concept speak for itself. My current thought is just let channel cost a spell point like everything else, but I don't know if I'll stick with that.

stuff about classes not feeling like classes for immersion

I think this can be accomplished "in system" with tweaks to feats & class features. Stronger focus on what a class is (eg sorcerer bloodline influence) with the addition of more significant feats means that every class, as a baseline, has a thing they are. Rogues are fast, sneaky & skilled. Clerics channel the power of their diety. Monks master themselves & the power of ki. Then, the feats (or feature choices) mold that. One monk focuses on mobility (fleet, mobility, abundant step) while another on direct combat (ki strike, vital strike / double slice). One cleric channels energy for protection & defence (fast healing, resoration) while another to smite foes (channel smite, elemental channel).

I would like to see Detect Evil have the similar number of uses per day like Channel energy. To avoid the endless "I detect evil" spamming done by some players.

I don't know what to do with channel energy. I'd like it to have limited uses per day (like a monks ki pool) to prevent infinite full healing (and strengthen it to be the main cleric feature), but I don't like Clerics having to manage two different pools of energy...

Rosc wrote:

1) Combat Expertise: The combination of ho-hum function, a stat tax that takes a serrated knife to martial stats in a moderate to low point buy game, and BEING THE GATEWAY TO HALF OF THE COMBAT MANEUVERS IN THE GAME all combine to make this feat a tough pill to swallow. In my unprofessional opinion, the worst in the game. Gentle house rule changes the requirement of CE and its kin to 13 Dex, since making it baseline just adds another side rule that we'll all forget about.

{. . .}

Actually, Combat Expertise shouldn't be a feat, just something that you can do (like Fighting Defensively) if you meet the prerequisites. Same deal for Power Attack, Piranha Strike, Deadly Aim, Vital Strike, and any others like this that I might have missed.

I by contrast disagree. I think all that you labeled (except vital strike) should be removed in its entirety. I'm curious, can you think of situations where you play a character with power attack (or one of the similar), and there's a situation where you do not use it? How common are such situations? Do you know whether you should be using power attack or not before hand?

I don't have the play experience to back up this opinion, but it seems to me that all these abilities are just always on because they usually add to your average dpr. At which point, are they any more flavorful than just the flat +2 from weapon specialization? They have the same effect.

I'm Just gonna ask for more narrative approach and les Video gamelike stuff.

That is what annoys me.That you have to have like 3 feats just for graple or atempting a trip

Can you expand on this? What is videogamey that you would change & how would you change it?

1) only requires an optional magic system (like soheres), but is a problem with the core rules, not classes.

2-5 (ish)) sounds like a fighter with a set of feats, or a mount (or special animal companion)

6+) sounds like a bunch of background thoughts that either grant no real mechanical behavior (for the most part), or could be done by spheres (mind focused wizard), or are done with extra characters (angel & demon are gm controlled npcs, the ghostly twin is another player, etc)

And while I like most of your list, a lot feels like either character background fluff, or things that could be accomplished with one of the listed chassis & the feats they take as they level. Spheres could probably even do gilgamesh with a combination of creation & telekinesis.

Ranishe wrote:

Edit2:

Actually one final related thing. This concept is important for gaining new players. A complex and unapproachable system is intimidating to many, whereas a simpler or more organized system is not. This is also speculation, but I don't expect a superficially simple system to be a turnoff to those looking for more depth, so long as the knobs presented are able to provide that (think chess. Easy to understand piece movement, complex game).

Complex and unapproachable is subjective. I have always been able to teach new players how to play. That includes the time when I was allowing 3.5 material with much less restriction into my Pathfinder games. Now admittedly even some experienced(1st edition) players had trouble with things, but I also found out they had issues with 2nd edition rules.

In my experience, if I don't turn the dial up to 11 on difficulty when I GM for new people, and I run at least a decent game people stick around and learn(good enough to be sufficient), even if they don't master the game.

"Unapproachable" perhaps is, but "complex" is not. Rather, the complexity one is willing to tolerate is subjective, and is expanded when one has a teacher. Of course, presenting the game in a simplified format for those without a teacher is the beginner's box's job I suppose, but I've not actually bought the begginer's box so cannot comment on it.

one person's "trap" is another person's "I know it's not very good, but it's flavorful and matches what I want".

As idealistic a goal it may be, I'd prefer the rules provide balanced support for as wide a range as characters as possible so that no one has to make that compromise.

The "simplified" version of DnD exists in the form of 5E. I think it would be an incredibly bad idea for Paizo to move in that direction, since that niche is already occupied, and I would argue that many folks complaining about that complexity have already invested in 5E. As for things getting spread out...that is basically destined to happen with a complex system you support with expansions. As others have said..no one forces you to wade through every single book to construct a character

Sort of. I don't like the lack of advancement 5e provides. There's little room for character customization after level 3, and numerically characters stay pretty even throughout the 20 levels. I prefer the modularity of Pathfinder's skill system. I prefer the greater access to feats that Pathfinder provides. I prefer the greater change in character power over their 20 level career.

So, in the end, what are the main differences between Pathfinder and 5e other than "Pathfinder has more words printed." Feat advancement, skill point selection on level up for greater skill customization, generally more class features it seems, and more customization through magic items (5e seems lower fantasy than Pathfinder with its relatively low powered magic). And greater focus on stacking numbers throughout all those mechanics. I didn't look much into 5e's multiclassing so I don't know how that compares. But is there anything I missed? And within that list, is there anything wrong with trimming the fat, so to speak? Is Pathfinder better for having redundant feats because it offers more option?

Edit:

stuff about a cleric

Allowing same typed bonuses to stack would also solve this problem. I'm not suggesting the "typed bonuses don't stack" behavior is difficult to manage, but it's still an extra layer to manage that is unnecessary. (also I don't mind dependency on magic items. Pathfinder is a relatively high fantasy game by default. I think it's fair to assume magic items have a relatively large impact. Also I don't see how typed bonuses not stacking has to deal with teamwork directly, other than having players mix & match their spells & items to ensure they all play nice).

Wait a minute. That argument literally breaks down to "I want there to be fewer choices so I don't have to know what I'm missing."

....yeah that's actually fair and bad on my part. Rather, I'd like the system to be easier to navigate so finding what I'm looking for is less of a chore. But that's going to be difficult in any system with such an ocean of things to choose from. So I suppose that's really what I'd look for in a 2nd edition, which is what I mentioned in the first half of this post.

(but, to your last point, again, depth vs complexity. Don't confuse the two)

Edit2:

Actually one final related thing. This concept is important for gaining new players. A complex and unapproachable system is intimidating to many, whereas a simpler or more organized system is not. This is also speculation, but I don't expect a superficially simple system to be a turnoff to those looking for more depth, so long as the knobs presented are able to provide that (think chess. Easy to understand piece movement, complex game).

Quote:

Complexity for complexity's sake is not a good thing

It isn't, but you not liking something doesn't necessarily make it complexity for complexity's sake either (it's also an ironic statement given that you follow this with a needlessly complex and convoluted rant).

My communication is impeccable thank you!

Still, do we need both Gory Finish & Killing Flourish? Do we need both Bullseye Shot & Pinpoint Targetting? Do we need a Paladin class at all when a specifically built cleric would do? Do we need a magus if multiclassing well supported a hybrid wizard / fighter? Do we need versatile training when the fighter could have simply been given extra skill points (or with the new cunning feat from the villain codex), or the concept of trading weapon / armor training reworked so as to not have a specific list of specialty feats they related to? Do combat styles as a whole need to exist as their own feat subset? (the answer to some of these may be "yes," but none to me at the moment).

At the very least, one must acknowledge that Pathfinder is more complex than it needs to be, in part because of how it's developed (that is, expansions released over time. Some books like to impart new systems or concepts, and those systems / concepts don't always meld with the existing rules very well). New editions have the advantage of being able to restructure all the good ideas (and remove the bad) that have been proposed over the years of development.

(paraphrased) I like Pathfinder's complexity

Complexity for complexity's sake is not a good thing. Indeed, complexity is a turn off almost universally*. Depth (the main benefit of complexity) is what is usually chased.

For example, having to stack different bonus types. Does that actually accomplish anything? All that rewards is players who delve through the various books for all the different ways to combine all the different bonuses. Is it nice to figure out the optimal way to make that combination? Sure. It's kind of like a puzzle. Does it make a better system? Not really. It makes a harder to balance system. You create a new item that you want to give a bonus to AC. What type of bonus? Morale (it can be increased by moment of greatness)? Luck (it can be increased by that trait everyone takes)? Armor? Does it stack with magically enhanced armor? Natural armor (similar question)? Sacred because you want it to stack without making an exception to the "no same bonuses stacking" rule? Untyped? But if you have untyped, why all the different kinds? Is it important to the system that shield and armor bonuses stack, but shield bonuses do not? Indeed, why don't shield bonuses stack? Can I not defend myself with a shield while another magical shield defends another flank? (maybe this paragraph got a little verbose...)

The system as a whole is messy. And while one can say "well you don't have to use everything" how do I know what I want to use? If I'm in the CRB, and want to play a combative character with an array of supporting skills, but who isn't a ranger (because I don't like favored enemy, or don't want casting, whatever), what do? The slayer would be great for my concept, but that's in a later book. Unless I've read everything I don't know what options exist for me to ignore. Unless I've read the thousand and a half feats (which I have, not that I remember even a quarter of that...), how do I know which ones best fill out a concept I have? Should I take Gory Finish or Killing Flourish? The latter is better and can be expanded by Gruesome Slaughter, but I have to be a slayer, and be using those feats. Will my gm allow that class? Those specific feats? I was initially planning to take just cornugon smash to use intimidate in combat, but those two feats would better fill the idea of "showy & terrifying combatant." Of course, if I hadn't gone through the enormous list of combat feats, I wouldn't know they existed. And while the game is still playable without all the expanded material, a lot of character concepts are severely limited (I believe throwing weapons were expanded with weapon master's handbook, but I've not tried assembling such a build so am not sure).

*I can't think of anything off hand where one say "I like X because it's dense and incredibly difficult to get into, but no deeper than some other system"

Tarantula wrote:

That or someone more familiar with the caster tricks could make a martial. Most of my play has ended ~12. So my 20th level experience is lacking.

So far it seems like the playbook for the Wizard is:

1) Win Initiative
2) Cast Time Stop
3) During their extra turns, throw an unstoppable wave of pain at the fighter.

I don't think anything can be done about #2 (unless we wanted to add a rule against Time Stop), and #3 is going to be tough, so it maybe comes down to "win initiative, kill the wizard somehow."

I think it's more

Unfortunately a lot of the martial goodies to fight casters aren't in the sources here. Equalizer shield, or cyclonic on arrows both are from sources not allowed.

Neither of which I believe would have helped the caster. I mean, how does that look? With the equalizer, you move up and ring it (probably a free action). Wizard moves, eats the attack of opportunity, casts greater invisibility & a swift action teleport*. Cyclonic wouldn't help as no wizard has had fickle winds up. One round even had the wizard eating a full round of archery damage before winning.

*stand still or tripping on the attack of opportunity would solve this. Not sure if the wizard could pull some familiar shenanigans to get out of it. Hell, couldn't the wizard just have a contingency dimension door set up if he were subject to an attack and jump to the other end of the arena?

Also, I'm liking the idea of a heightened, persistent, enlarged suffocate. Cast as a 9th level. If the fighter fails one of the 2 fort saves, he dies.

A friend suggested using an unchained monk (not sure how martial that's considered with ki powers), and making use of dimensional dervish and the extra attacks from ki points. I've not looked into build specifics, and it would probably suffer from "doesn't go first, can't find mind blanked & invisible caster" like all the others have so far.

I'd actually like to have more mechanics tied to weapon type! I think the different weapons play way too similar - it doesn't make much of a difference whether I use a Greatsword or a Greataxe, all my feats and class features behave exactly the same either way. The only difference are class features and feats that trigger off critical hits (and that's mostly "oh, i get a point of panache back because of <number on the dice>, how exiting *yawn*"). Weapons are 99% flavor and base stats right now.

I'd like to have specific combat styles for the weapon types - like a better version of Cleave only for axes. Using an axe instead of a sword should change the way my character acts in combat.

I like the thought, but worry about how complicated a system it would make. "The cleave feat lets you hit through multiple enemies. Your damage is increased if wielding an axe, and decreased if wielding a piercing weapon. Also further increased if you're two handing." Not the worst, but put that on everything and things becone a mess.

More in general, I'm finding myself believing that a system should try as little as possible to tell you how you can play a character. I had a thought of restricting spheres of power access based on class, but came to the conclusion that it is not the rules' place to create such restriction. Basically, the rules should never say "no you can't do that, that's dumb." Their job is only to provide balance & consistency (as best they can).

It's in Magic Item Descriptions in the CRB.

Thank you very much. Although it doesn't seem to mention that a spell cast through an item is at a caster level determined by what spell list it's on, so I'm stuck assuming it's at the item's caster level (which makes the most sense). 5 hours of overland flight is still more than enough for most days though. Its stipulation of "minimum caster level needed to cast it" are for items that don't have a caster level in their description.

Improved Bravery compares to superstition

Eh....maybe. The barbarian is gaining the improvement to saves on top of an already good save, and it's for all saves instead of just against mind effecting. Being able to be doubled by moment of greatness (for superstition) is funny, but being unable to be targeted by ally casters without saving kinda sucks. So, much better bonus for the barbarian, but with an irritating drawback if you didn't fully prebuff.

Master Armorer can be taken at 3rd level, which starts the process of obtaining the items... as I said.

That's a little pointless isn't it? It's like saying that taking fighter 1 moves you towards Master Armorer, which also "starts the process." Since your not going to have the wealth to even craft* the flight armor you want until level 6-8, you could just as well wait on master armorer until then. Unless of course your crafting all throughout your low level career, but that seems...unlikely.

All spells from items are cast at the minimum caster level

Do you know where this is online? I believe you, but I can't seem to find it, and am also curious what that means for spells cast from items with higher CL than their spell requires.

Making statements like "the fighter has no access to magic and can't do anything against magic and can't fly but the barbarian can!!!!" is so largely disingenuous that it turns my stomach. People keep doing it, and I keep pointing it out, and I ended up naming a fallacy after myself years ago and whether or not you wanna take personal shots at me, I'm still right about it.

It's not that disingenuous. Yes, there are item mastery feats, but those also aren't fighter specific, so you're back to "the fighter has nothing unique to call his own to grant him versatility. He's at best able to do what others can, and nothing above that." They also come online really late & are low power by comparison (level 8 for 1/day flight, 2 if you take another feat, vs a wizard's level 5, augmented by high intelligence, scrolls or pearls of power to get it more than once per day).

Seriously, looking at everything that makes the fighter "passable" from all the splat books. Why do they take so long? I find it more that the fighter is in the worst spot early levels, because anything unique and interesting for him doesn't come online until level 6+ (maybe not in combat specifically, but as a character). You don't get your bonus skill points from versatile training until at least level 5, and even then you're at 4 / level (restricted) base, until level 9. Or play the barbarian and start with 4 / level. Or the ranger and start with 6 / level. You don't need to wait 9 levels to have that kind of versatility. This is why I complain that all these feats break character progression. Classes should scale up regularly as they level, not hit massive spikes. It's uncomfortable.

But I agree with Bob has been saying: "Narrative Power" is more about the options one has available to them when approaching a problem. Skills open options. Spells open options. Features (which tend to just act like spells or skill bonuses in a lot of ways) open options. But the fighter doesn't get any of these in a meaningful or effective way.

And as Blackwaltzomega mentioned, the difference in ability of a party with spellcasters vs one without is enormous, and it is really difficult to balance such large discrepancies.

Narrative power is...

This.