Scotto's page

I don't like Devastating Blow as written, and I don't plan to let it get used in any game I run.

As has been said, there is no reason for anyone with this feat to use anything but a scythe as their weapon. This breaks the flavor of the game very badly.

It is much more powerful in the hands of NPCs than PCs. NPCs often have many more HPs than PCs, and can afford to lose 100 or more at a whack. It's also easy to see a party getting snuffed out entirely by a giant barbarian weilding a scythe and using DB once per round.

Unlike all of the feats it has as prerequisites, it doesn't require the use of a two-handed weapon.

It works with magical touch attacks. I particularly like it with Vampiric Touch. It's now a melee touch attack that automatically crits for up to 20d6 damage, no save. Who cares about the penalty to hit when targeting touch AC? Oh, and the caster gets the damage dealt as Temp HPs. Ouch. I know the casters probably don't have the necessary +11 BAB, but it's an easy thing to put this in a Ring of Spell Storing or to multiclass your way to +11 BAB pretty easily.

I propose one of the following two changes:

1) The attack deals double damage. Not crit damage, so it works on everything. This makes it useful against constructs, animated objects, elementals, and other non-crittable targets. You must wield a weapon in two hands to use this.

2) The attack penalty is based on the crit threat range of the weapon you use. Crit 18-20 = -3. Crit 19-20 = -6. Crit 20 = -9. This way, the weapons which crit more often will be the ones more commonly used with this feat. The scythe is a scary option, but not as effective as a scimitar or falchion.

-Scott

A lot of characters are "broken" when roleplay is ignored. Divine casters have the potential to be seriously abused if the DM doesn't enforce some simple restrictions that would/should be enforced by the deity granting spells to the casters. It's not really fair to look at the cleric or druid in a vacuum and say that their immense selection of abilities is unbalanced. These abilities are meant to represent the entire spectrum of alignments and gods, and they need to be varied widely. This requires a DM.

Likewise, it is completely unfair to compare "first turn damage" as an indicatior of how powerful a character is. A caster can front load a combat with lots of damage and special effects, but can't sustain that all day. A fighter can do most of his routine all day long, and has infinitely more damage potential than any caster. If you compare builds in both "one combat per day" and a "nine combats per day" situations, you'll probably find that things even out quite a bit between casters and non-casters.

As for the druid, the new Wild Shape rules reign them in A LOT. While it's easy to get variety of shapes and abilities, you just can't build a powerful caster and a powerful WS combatant at the same time. It used to be possible, but PF fixed that. The druid is still powerful, but much select which to be powerful at, rather that getting it all.

I don't think that any of the PF combos are really broken. I don't like the spiked chain, mostly because it overshadows more traditional weapons. I hate the fact that multiclassing still gives all of the "+2" bonuses to saves when you take a new level. This should have been fixed a long time ago, giving +2 to each save only once per character. It's far from broken, though. I also despise Devastating Blow, since it means that weapons with a crit range of "20" will now crit far more often than a scimitar.

When discussing PF, maybe we should stick to defining what is broken in regard to PF. There is a lot of non-core, non-PF material that can be mixed in, and some weird combo built up from several sources doesn't have anything to do with the rules this discussion board is really about.

-Scott

In my home games, I look at it this way:

Orcs are only male. A problem with the species, to say the least. In order to survive, the race must procreate with other races, usually violently. On the plus side, they are able to breed true with a variety of other races.

Half orcs are the "runts" of this breeding system. They are the rare offspring that don't breed true, yet are still viable. You could create variants such as "half orc, half goblin", or virtually any other race you like.

This gives orcs a specific need to be aggressive and violent, conquering lands and taking women. PG-13 or R rating, for sure, but this is how my group likes it. Orcs are not nice, and they provide a lot of reason for PCs to go out and "rescue the princess". It's also a good way to have orcs that don't kill everything in their path. Using the default orcs, they would have little concern with taking prisoners, and would simply kill everyone. Fantasy RPGs are more fun (IMO) when the bad guys take prisoners to be rescued by heroes.

-Scott

The ability to retain a spell while taking damage should be removed from the skills chapter entirely.

To cast defensively, I can see INT as being the driving stat, so leave it as-is.

To keep casting when taking damage is another story. Put this in the Combat chapter. Use Caster Level + CON modifier against the normal DCs for damage dealt. This gives all casters an even chance to maintain casting or concentration. Another option would be to use Character Level + CON, giving gish characters much more of an advantage with this, and also being able to adjudicate various other things (picking locks, disarming traps, etc.) with the exact same rules mechanic.

This debate is over two different things:
1) The ability to ignore the effects of damage and keep on doing a task. I think this should be based on CON, and not INT, and it should also be an innate ability rather than a skill.
2) The ability to cast a spell in such a way as to avoid an AoO. I think this is more a function of INT and skill, as you're learning to do something new with your spellcasting, which lends itself to being a skill and not a class feature. Additionally, INT is the driving ability behind Combat Expertese, which is learning to improve your defense in a tactical situation, so it makes sense that an INT-based skill should be used to avoid AoOs while casting.

-Scott

This has been a big issue with my group.

I rule that (using Cleric as an example):

Level dependent effects are based on your full caster level. [not what the book says, but I'm a softy this way - a 16th level Cleric with 6th level abilities is too weak to be competitive.]

The abilities are gained based on your actual Cleric levels.

If the new PrC grants a domain, then you use the levels in the PrC plus your levels in Cleric to determine abilities gained. The power is based on your full caster level.

This means that a Cleric who dipped into two different PrCs that each give spellcasting and domains would have X level abilities for his base domains, X+Y level abilities for another domain, and X+Z level abilites for his next domain. All powers would operate at full caster level. X=Cleric levels, Y=first PrC level, Z=second PrC level.

Basically, the PrC text will need to be tweaked a bit in light of the PF rules changes. Non-core material will always need to adapt to core material, IMO, and that's always going to be the way of things. If Radiant Servant of Pelor should add levels in the Healing and/or Sun domains, then just change the wording in the PrC to make it so in your game.

-Scotto

The wording for Temp HP has always been bad. PF is no exception.

I like to say that these are tracked separately from your normal HP total. They are a pool that gets depleted before anything lowers your normal HP. They cannot be healed (though your normal HP can be healed while you have Temp HPs). They do not count for massive damage or spell interruption - you only take penalties for your actual HP loss, not the total amount dealt.

In effect, Temp HP act as a "Force Field" around your character, taking damage for you before it gets to your body. This wording is not thematically appropriate for D&D, but every time I use it, players seem to get the concept with no further discussion.

-Scott

Why would you take both Mystic Theurge and Arcane Heirophant? AH trumps MT in almost every way for a Wiz/Drd build.

I don't see either of these as being broken. AH is slightly overpowered if you focus on your animal companion, as it enables you to create a very tough and smart AC, and that can be buffed quite a bit with non-core feats and spells. Still, it comes at the expense of raw spell power. You get a huge variety of spells, but will always lag behind a single-classed character in terms of the number of max-level spells you can throw out. You're also more limited since you need two primary stats to keep your bonus spells and DCs high.

The disadvantage of these two in PF is that you lose most of your school abilities (for Wiz), domains (for Clr), or bloodline powers (for Sor) once you quit taking the base class. You get a great set of known spells, though!

-Scott

I like the new system in that it removes the "stat boost competing with wondrous items" problem.

It used to be that no sorcerer would have a Cloak of Resistance because they needed the Cloak of Charisma much more. Druids and clerics always had the stat boost neck item in favor of other useful neck slot items. Warrior-types always filled their belt slot with a boost item, even though other items could benefit them.

Now in PF, these items don't compete with other wondrous items at all. I love that.

The disadvantage is that if you purchase odd combos of stat boosts (STR+6 and DEX+2, for example), there are no items to handle it. I agree that the new rules are not as flexible as the old, but they still can do the same things. Ioun stones and non-affiliated slot items fill these roles nicely. If your DM sees fit to do some math, it's pretty easy to create a belt that gives different bonuses to different stats, and it just takes a bit of calculating to get the price hammered out.

I think that the PF system fixes a lot more problems that it creates. The fix is to a major problem in magic item slots, while the problem created is easily avoided.

-Scott

I don't think that casters need this kind of boost.

It's already built into the system - Heighten Spell feat covers this. In my home games, I allow this to be used by any caster without taking a feat or extra casting time.

A L1 spell slot only has so much power. As a caster gets better, he learns to manipulate stronger energies. The same spell in a L4 slot is harder to resist and is balanced by the number of powerful slots he has to use each day.

I play a 16th level druid, who has a WIS of 30. His ability modifier has definitel scaled as he's gone up in level. His DC for L1 spells is 21, and it's 29 for L8 spells. This has certainly kept him competitive with the higher saves of other classes, and I think it would be gross to have all of his saves at DC 29. This doesn't even count the Owl's Insight spell (SpC) that adds in another +4 to the DC for an hour each day.

I vote to keep DCs based on spell level. If anything, make Heighten a standard spellcasting option rather than a feat. Then casters all have the choice to increase the DCs for lower-level spells.

-Scott

The reason that you have to cast mulitple instances of Wish in rapid succession is that Inherent bonuses (like most others) don't stack. You can't give yourself a +1 Inherent bonus one day and then do it again the next. You have to apply the entire bonus to your attribute at once.

The books that add inherent bonuses work the same way. Five INT+1 books cannot add more than +1 to your INT. You need a bigger book, and it doesn't stack with the lower ones you may have used already.

Since there is no +5 Wish, you need to cast them all at once with no interruption in order to achieve the same effect. Wish would be totally broken otherwise, even with the GP cost.

-Scott

Personally, I just wish the ranger received BOTH of the combat style feat trees, rather than choosing one or the other. I like the idea that the ranger is good with ranged combat and with light melee weapons at the same time. It wouldn't be overpowered for the class, as being great at both feat trees requires that you have significantly different abilities and feats, which are always in limited supply.

As for creating other styles, I agree that these are pretty easy for a DM to come up with. There are a few levels where bonus feats become an option, and the DM need only put a list of feats together.

-Scott

I have played with a lot of different DMs using the 3.5 rules, and everyone I've met runs it where you count the squares you tumble through as double movement, not tumbling (moving full speed) in the others.
-Scott

In my home games, I like to either limit it to one PrC per character, or require that you complete 3 levels in any class before picking up a new one. If someone dedicates 3 levels to a class, I don't consider that cherry-picking.

I don't think that this should show up as a "rule" in the book, though. Maybe a mention in the DMG (where the rules for PrCs are, anyway) that says that there are RP concerns in finding someone to teach you the basics of ANY PrC. It is up to the DM and the story as to whether any given PrC is available to your character - these are not core classes, and require more than just the prerequisites mentioned for each. The prereqs are just the starting point, and don't usually consider the roleplaying factor.

-Scott

Sorry, I'm still of the mindset that DR should always apply if the monster has it, and the weapon doesn't meet the given type. Magic ability should NOT be a substitute for weapon type. If you want magic to trump all, then don't bother me with the rules for all the different materials - they're just taking up space in the rulebooks when every fighter just wants a +3 steel sword instead.

The change from 3.0 to 3.5 was a needed change. It strongly encouraged players to have their weapons enchanted with various benefits besides just another +1, and this added a lot of flavor and variation to the fighter-types.

With the new (3.0) rules, you now have a good reason for a "demonbane" sword to be cold iron, holy, +1, rather than just a "+3 sword". I think the former is much more interesting.

Also, at mid-to-high levels, overcoming the DR is really not an issue. Solid fighters over level 12 kick out 60-100+ HP per round, and DR 10 or 15 is not a big deal. Yes, you can have a swashbuckling fighter who deals low damage, but that guy should NOT be out demonhunting - he should stay in court. Rogues easily get around DR by using Sneak Attack (working on many creatures in PF), and monks have other options (always have).

Also, in PF: Damage to weapons and items is significant. Basic bonuses add to your weapon Hardness and HP, where alternate abilities do not. There are better reasons for having a +3 weapon in PF than there ever were in 3.5 already. If that weapon also trumps DR, there there is not much point in offering any buth the most powerful of special weapon abilities - no one would want them.

DR should mean something. Let's not go back to the days where magic was the trump card for all DR.

-Scott

Heal can be used untrained, and you are allowed to retry this check until you make it. It is WIS-based, and most animals have a WIS of 12. They roll at +1 to get a 15, so they have pretty good odds of "licking their wounds".

I don't think that bleed in this way is broken. If you hit a target for bleed, and it really doesn't have the time to heal or get a magical cure, then it deserves to bleed a bit.

-Scott

I don't like the new system. If a monster is resistant to anything but a silver weapon, then silver it should be.

Any +1 on a weapon gives you more ability to punch through that DR - it's a reduction, and not an immunity, after all.

If you're really in a campaign where you switch from fighting demons and devils (really what we're talking about, aren't we?), then buy a cold iron greatsword and keep some Silversheen handy. If you put Holy on your weapon, you're pretty well covered.

-Scott

An opponent is stunned until your turn on the next round. This is fairly straightforward, though your example makes it seem a bit odd.

Initiative doesn't change round-to-round. The monk acted on the surprise rouns (let's say at Init count 15), while the barbarian had no action in the surprise round, but rolled Init 11.

The monk acts, stunning the barb. Now, the monk is up again on the first full round. It is now Init count 15 of the full round, and the barb has been stunned for a full round, so loses the stunned condition. He has already lost an action for not acting in the surprise round, and he has lost his weapon.

Also, if the monk had three rogue friends who had Initiatives of less than 15, I'm sure it woule be more obvious why the barb should get to take an action on the first full round of combat.

I like your premise for a playtest, BTW.

I always ran this (in 3.5) as the effect of items being supressed while in WS. This works like being in an Antimagic Field - you lose the bonuses and access to the spells, but you regain them when you return to normal form again.

I love the new rules - they give the druid a reason to purchase items that grant these powers again. For a long time, my druid didn't concern himself with such things because they would all be supressed in WS. Now he'll have a reason to spend the extra gold or re-evaluate his item slots.

-Scott

Smite.

Please set Smite up to be the same for all classes the grant the ability. I don't see a need for all the different variations that have been listed for this. If a paladin uses Smite on a non-evil creature, then there should be consequences for him, but there is no reason to say that it just fails. Hit bonus could be set to equal the character's CHA bonus (minimum +1) and damage bonus could be determined by adding all levels the grant the Smite ability.

Likewise, I'd allow the paladin to Smite much more often. Paladin levels per day would work, or maybe allow a channel energy to be used for an additional Smite. This should be a signature ability for a paladin, and it's just not usable often enough to warrant its very limited uses.

I think that in a lot of ways they make sense. I didn't like the mechanic much, though.

I think that if two skills could apply to the same situation and the character is skilled in both, then a +2 bonus should apply as a synergy bonus. This is left to the DM, and is not tracked on the character sheet. This could go as high as a +4 bonus if three skills that the character is trained in would apply.

There are may skill overlaps where being trained in both should apply. The other option would be to allow Aid Another to apply for related skill checks, even if one person is aiding himself. Roll both checks and apply a bonus to the primary skill.

Thus, when dealing with the king, you might roll Diplomacy, with a bonus for Knowledge:Royalty and a second bonus for Insight. This seems reasonable, if the same character is trained in all three skills.

-Scott

The prone penalties already include such "real-world" penalties by limiting your firing of a bow. What is the reason for doing this, if not to demonstrate that the bow is too large and unweildy to use from a prone position? Why wouldn't a greatsword, spiked chain, or two-bladed axe suffer the same way?

Being prone has penalties, but these do not scale well. They just don't mean as much to a CR 11 creature as they do to a CR 1 creature, and my suggestion is that they should. By limiting your weapon selection while prone, this scales better IMO.

I know I'll get flak for this, but I think that it should be specified in the prone condition that the -4 penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuvers.

-Scott

I think that the Animal Companion option will be mostly made for flavor. The Domain ability (combined with the other domain abilities) does many of the same things, and offers many more options.

The advantages of the AC choice:
* You add feats and HD to your animal. My current druid (lvl 15) uses a dire wolf AC as a mount. Because of the extra feats and abilities, she is much stronger and more capable than a normal mount.
* Your companion will last longer in combat. The tougher AC will last through more combats than what you can get from the summoning list. This makes it a better target for long-term buffs and carried equipment. (BTW, nothing is said about what happens to the carried equipment of the summoned creatures. If provided with barding and a saddle, would this disappear or fall to the ground? Does it come equipped with the equipment it left with, or do you have to re-equip it each time it is summoned?)
* You can share spells and effects with your AC. For many druid builds, this is a powerful ability.

I'd probably give up the AC for the AD almost every time. I would recommend changing the AD ability to have a fixed and relatively short duration - too short to pre-buff with or use as a mount. I'd go with 1 minute/level, which would be long enough to get odd jobs done, but not long enough to function as a replacement for an AC.

-Scott

I like the new mechanic for PA. It makes it Strengh-dependent. The old rules had relatively low-STR fighters doing terrible amounts of damage via PA, with little concern for their weapon type or STR add. The PF rules change this so that PA really doesn't work well unless you have a decent STR to back it up.

As for the argument about scaling it - I don't agree. I think it should be a binary switch that you activate, not a scaling thing. You're either hitting hard and less accurately, or your swinging normally. This isn't so critical for time reasons, but because it can cause a huge amount of confusion during combat. The user needs to very specifically declare how much PA is being applied, and there is almost always a "how much PA?" or "did he delcare PA?" question that arises.

For PA options, here is my other suggestion:

Take a flat -5 to hit, gaining a +5/+10 bonus to damage.
PA is part of a single attack action, and can only be used for one attack per round.
If your BAB is +11 or greater, you may instead choose to take -10 to hit, gaining a +10/+20 bonus to damage.

This would actually benefit fighting characters by letting them hit hard once, then taking no penalty on iteratives and AoOs for the next round.
Low-level fighters would be able to PA for more damage than they currently can, and high-level fighters would gain the flexibility to increase their damage output.

-Scott

It's hardly appropriate to start a flame war over what one of another of us considers to be "cheese". The OP has his opinions, he's voicing them in the proper place, and there has been a lot of knee-jerk responses to his post.

I have seen that the Spiked Chain is one of the most overused weapons in the game. It should be - it has more abilities than any other weapon by far. It is certainly the hands-down best choice of the Exotic Melee weapons, if you're looking to get one.
Reach AND the unique ability to still strike close
Bonus to Trip
Bonus to Disarm
Able to employ Weapon Finesse
Looking at easy-to-get PrC abilities
Able to use Flurry attack

No other weapon, exotic or not, boasts this number of special abilities. It breaks the mold on what is a "normal" range of abilities given by a weapon. From what I've witnessed in many years of LG play, the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat should just be renamed Spiked Chain Proficiency - I don't think I've ever seen it taken for any other weapon.

I don't let this weapon threaten AoOs in my home games and I agree with the recommendation. If you don't agree, you only need to say so.

-Scott

I would prefer to have the wording be something like "until the start of his next turn, he may choose to push an opponent back five feet. This may be done immediately when he deals damage do the target in melee. This move does not provoke attacks of opportunity."

The barbarian should be able to choose not to do this. This would allow the barbairan to be a little more tactical, choosing one opponent to go at, and sweeping others aside.

-Scott

With Great Cleave, you can combine it with True Strike, and get the +20 bonus on all opponents you attack. Whirlwind Attack requires a separate attack roll (losing the True Strike bonus) on each subsequent target.

I have a couple people in my home game who play with a single level of Sorcerer, or with a Ring of Spell Storing for such occasions.
Round One - Cast True Strike
Round Two - Max Power Attack and charge into the center of a group and begin your Great Cleave routine.

Now Great Cleave is a Full Attack action, so cannot easily be combined with a charge. It will still be subject to such monkeying, though.

-Scott

Some of the domain powers are listed as Supernatural, which means that they take a Standard Action to turn on and to turn off. This is not in keeping with some of the powers that are scaled for 1 round/CL.

I would suggest that there be a notation that these are activated as a Swift Action, and last for one round, usable a total of 1 round/CL each day.

Examples:
Walk on Air (Air Domain)
Animal Form (Animal)
Chaos Blade (Chaos)
Body of Stone (Earth)
Scythe of Evil (Evil)
Crown of Flames (Fire)
Holy Lance (Good)
Staff of Order (Law)
Bramble Armor (Plant)
Might of the Gods (Strength)
Flight (Travel)
Weapon Master (War)(almost useless as written)
Mantle of Ice (Water)

I have not looked over the arcane schools or sorcerer bloodlines at length, so there may be similar effects that should also be on this list.

-Scott

The penalties are severe, but for CR 11-17 monsters, they tend to fade to being just a nuissance. Taking the pelalty in order to get a full attack routine is pretty common, and not in keeping with the flavor of being prone.

The penalties for being prone do not scale with encounter level, so hard-hitting monsters with reach are barely affected.

Please add to the Prone condition definition that "you may only attack/threaten opponents with a light melee weapon". The reasons for not using a larger weapon are the same as for not using a bow - you just need to be able to maneuver better, which is not possible on your back.

I've seen too many fights in D&D (at high levels, especially) when a target is tripped and finds it acceptable to just take the penalties and fight from prone with a big weapon. Tripping someone is hard, and it should have hard consequences.

-Scott

I love the CMB system, with one exception.

I miss the "make a Touch Attack to hit your target" step. This helped to prevent high-Dex opponents from getting hit with Grapple/Trip in the first place. The CMB system gives no credit to most characters that are hard to touch in the first place.

Pinning a weasel that you're grappling should be easy. Grabbing the weasel in the first place should be much harder.

-Scott

For my part, I love the new system for domains. My only issue is that it is close to but not exactly like the Schools for wizards. I'm not fond of a different mechanic for each class, but that's not the point.

The domain powers are not exactly compatible with the non-SRD material, and that's okay. I've seen official revisions of the material that were just as (if not more) incompatible with that material. The thing I've learned is that you don't base permanent and critical choices for your character on non-core material. It will never be looked at in the same light as core material, and it should not be a sticking point for core changes.

I play a cleric with three domains, two of which are not in the SRD. I will need to present a suitable option to my game group that will be a reasonable replacement for the old domains. Will this be difficult? Maybe. Will it take some time? Definitely. Will it involve me doing what I love to do in a hobby I've been active in for three decades? Absolutely.

This may be the single most extensive backwards compatibily issue I've encountered in Pathfinder. I really don't care. If a mod I use contains an old cleric, I'll probably just play him as written. If it's a critical NPC, then I'll rewrite him. No big deal.

-Scott

If we're looking to lose a skill between 3.5 and PF, then why not keep Concentration and combine Spellcraft and Knowledge:Arcana?

SC and K:A are both INT-based skills that really have a LOT of overlap in their function. If all the functions of both were wrapped into K:A and that was given to all casters as a class skill, I don't see how this would do anything but improve the game. No caster that had Spellcraft would complain about using K:A in its place.

Also, I noticed that Spellcraft is now usable as an Untrained Skill. Really? Do we want people who haven't studied magic to be able to identify spells being cast?

If Concentration needs to go, why not have a general rule for casting that uses the Concentration DCs, but you roll it against your CL+CON? This would give all casters the ability to cast defensively or maintain a spell, and would not be a skill at all. Combat Casting feat still works (I'd change it to modify any of these rolls) and we lose the Concentration skill.

-Scott

Regarding Domain and School first-level abilities (not spells, I know, but this seemed the best place for this).

Many of the first-level domains and schools have a Su ability that allows an attack roll for 1d6+(1/2CL) damage. These have to be activated as a Standard action, so allow for no iterative attacks. Some of them (Plant Domain) allow you the ongoing ability to deal extra damage without provoking on all attacks.

I'd like to see these act more consistently. I'd prefer to have each of these abilities usable as a normal ranged/touch attack rather than as a Standard action. This would make these abilities viable even at higher levels where a 12th-level caster would get two attacks for 1d6+6 damage each, which is not overpowered. Even a 20th-level cleric would only get three attacks for 1d6+10, which is not very impressive at that level.

Other Suggestions:

Detect Evil (and others) should only detect auras (per the cleric ability). This should be paladins, clerics, outsiders, undead, spells, and magic items with an evil aura. An evil fighter does not radiate as evil in any of my home games, and I think this should be specified in the spell description.

Reincarnate. What a pain this spell is... Please don't spend a lot of time on this one, as I find it always gets house-ruled to what the DM wants, anyway. A mention of what happens if you get a form with LA is in order (I vote to ignore the LA and play on with the form - there should be a good to outweigh the risk in this spell). I also think that something should be done with the new human/half-elf +2 to any ability bonus. Should this be ignored if you Reincarnate into one of these forms? It should also specifically say what happens with feats, particularly racial bonus feats, both for the form you "leave" and the form you "enter".

Thanks!
-Scott

I like +1 Skill Point per level. This adds to character abilities, but doesn't make them tougher. It also scales nicely with the number of levels they take in the class.

A bonus feat tied to each class would be a lot of extra rules text that probably isn't necessary and would be hard to balance.

I like the +1HP/Level because it is elegant. I just don't picture an elf wizard being tougher because he's a wizard.

In my home games, I like to use the Gestalt rules for favored classes (from Unearthed Arcana). At first level, you get the abilities of your favored class in addition to another class that you select. If an elf wants to be a wizard, he can choose Wiz/Ftr at first level, and then Wiz every level after that. If he wants to be a fighter, he has Wiz/Ftr at first level, allowing him to dabble in the arcane no matter what he chooses later. Thus, all elves can cast spells, all half-orcs start with Rage and d12 HD, all halflings have good skills and Sneak Attack, and all humans are very versatile in some other way.

-Scotto

I think:

Spellcraft, as written, should be a class ability for any caster class, and should be based on caster level. Use it as the druid/ranger uses Wild Empathy - CL+INT. This way, every class that uses spells has a chance to recognize them. It's just not a viable skill (compared to others) on its own, IMO.

Concentration should be as per the SRD, and based on CON. I think this skill is weak, and could use other associated abilities. I like the idea of taking 10 minutes meditating, DC 20 Concentration check, and recover HP as if you had rested for 8 hours. 1 minute and a DC 15 check would give you a +2 Insight bonus on the next skill check you make. Likewise, a full-round action and a check could relieve the Fatigued condition. Or it could let you hold your breath twice as long as normal. There are a lot of potential uses for Concentration that would be viable for non-casters, and this would make the skill much more attractive.

-Scott

I love the idea of treating robes as armor. One of the builder books has some kind of gnome scarf thing that is AC+1, 0%ASP, -ACP, and enchantable. This means that arcanists get armor that they wouldn't otherwise be able to wear (the same issue applies to arcanists that applies to monks with regard to armor special abilities).

Likewise, handwraps being treated as weapons would be nice. The damage could be between unarmed and a gauntlet, but non-lethal (d4 for medium). If a monk uses them, then the monk can use his own damage, including the ability to deal lethal damage.

These two items in the game would definitely serve to "uncomplicate" a lot of issues people have with the monk.

The text in the monk can be re-worded so that wearing armor does not automatically deny the monk's AC bonus, but that they don't stack at all. The monk can use his bonus or an armor bonus, but not both. This could help a low-WIS monk to have a better flat footed AC, and it would encourage monks to build special abilities into their armor rather than max out the AC bonus for it.

-Scott

I would really appreciate an extensive glossary for a game in the scope of D&D. That glossary would define game terms like "enhancement", "grapple", "pin", and others. When these terms are used in the rules they should be in italics if they refer specifically to the glossary definition.

This way, you can have fighters in the party, and you can have _fighters_ in the party, and the reader will never be confused as to the meaning.

By the way, I like "Buff", and I think it has become coined as an actual term in our collective gaming lexicon. I vote for defining and using the term for this purpose. The following sentence may sound weird from a formal editor's POV, but it is totally clear to us gamers: "Any buff with a fixed duration longer than 1 minute or a variable duration longer than 1 round per level."

-Scott

So the question for you is: do you think the amount of healing the monk can provide himself in this write-up is reasonable? (Look down around post #5 for my revised opinion on what it should be). Is that a balanced amount of healing?

I mean, I agree with you in principle, the question is what exactly that means in practice.

I think that 2 Ki Points = 2x Monk Level is appropriate. It's a drain on Ki Points, so won't be used unless needed. It's also scalable, so the monk can do it once and get back the HP he needs to resume the combat. I think it should be a Standard Action, as no one really gets to heal as a Move Action in the game.

-Scott

Many thanks!

I thought it was intended as such, but after many years of being a rules lawyer for a major living campaign, I noticed it might be misread by some.

-Scott

The monk should be capable of healing himself, and it should be a viable amount of healing. I love that this uses Ki Points, to balance it against other abilities the monk may want to do.

The reason the monk needs to self-heal is this: The monk is often on the periphery of the battlefield, operating independently of the party cleric. When it drops in the pot, the monk needs to be able to get back in action and can't rely on the cleric for assistance.

Also, the monk gets SR eventually, and this can be problematic when looking for a bit of a HP boost at high levels. Being able to provide it to himself without dropping his SR is important. It also doesn't tie up other party resources (cleric spells), and is in keeping with the monk's strategy.

-Scott

I have to agree. The paladin has a host of abilities, most of which are defensive. Giving the Pal an at-will Smite would help balance the class a lot and be in keeping with the flavor.

I'd make this a Swift Action, though, usable at will. Thus, it is only for one attack per round, and prevents other swift actions that round (preventing it from being combined with swift spells).

I also favor letting a Monk use Stunning Fist on every unarmed attack they make, for many of the same reasons.

-Scott

A single feat would do nicely here:

EXTRA CLASS ABILITY
Add one use per day to one class ability you possess that is normally usable once per day. If your class ability is usable more than once per day, then add two uses per day to that ability. Select the class ability when you take this feat. This selection cannot be changed.
If you choose an ability that is usable once per day and later becomes usable more than once per day (through class progression), this feat then provides the extra two uses per day.
You may take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, select a different class ability to apply it to.

This would apply to Rage, Wild Shape, Abundant Step, Smite, Lay on Hands, Channeled Energy, Bloodline Powers, Domain Abilities, etc.

-Scott

I don't see these as soft. I see them as furthering heroic play.

More PC abilities in a tougher game is an overall good thin, IMO.

Mages Disjunction got better. The only tweak I would make is to set the duration to days or hours per level, rather than 1 minute per level. The only other change I would make is to have no items in the area be immune - it should affect the caster's equipment just like everything else.

-Scott

I think that Beast Shape (and other Polymorph spells) should include the size categories of the lesser forms of the spell.

As written, Beast Shape II only allows for the sizes of Tiny or Large animals, not Tiny through Large.

This would be a minor wording change that would mean a lot while not imbalancing the spells. The problem is that the secondary effects of the spell (the abilities granted) increase with the higher level spells, but there is no way to become a medium creature with the better abilities.

The wording could easily be change to include the word "also" in the first sentence. "This spell functions as Beast Shape I, execpt that it also allows you..."

-Scott

Alter Self does essentially what it has done in other material, and having it in the game provides compatibility with other material.

I like to see Alter Self change you into another creature of your own type, rather than turn you into a Humanoid. A caster of a different type would become another creature of the same type, not a humanoid.

As written, it is a "Humanoid Shape" spell.

-Scott

I'll throw my opinion in here, as well. I agree with Pathfinder's treatment of SoD, and I feel that it doesn't go far enough.

I hate SoD effects. I'm not just talking about spells. Bane weapons, Power Word Kill, Massive Damage, Blasphemy, etc. I hate them all.

D&D is a game where Hit Points are used to track damage as an abstract system. A "25 HP wound" is not a specific amount of damage - it varies by the target, based on their condition.

I favor (and will use in my home game) a rule in which all "kill" effects are resolved with damage. Any effect which says it kills a character will deal HP damage instead - quite a lot, usually. I put this on a scale based on caster level and effect level, as per the normal limitations on spellcasting. Generally, I consider 10d6, 20d6, or 10/level a good ballpark figure. This works to cover all effects, even those from alternate sourcebooks.

I don't like to see anyone or anything killed by massive damage. I use the Stunned condidion, instead, and I make the save tougher. Being stunned for one round is not as bad as dying, but it still has a major impact on combat, and it serves my sense of what should happen when massive damage occurs.

Save or Die favors spellcasters and bad guys too much, IMO. DAMAGE is the only way that a character should ever really die (whether HP or Ability).

-Scott