Sean Foster's page

The Blackmith Background states: "You gain the Specialty Crafting skill feat for blacksmithing, and you’re trained in the Smithing Lore skill."

So you get a "skill feat"(?) (that has a prerequisite necessitating that you get the skill as part of you class) that gives you +2 to the skill

and

the skill Lore-Smithing @ Trained.

So I then choose Craft-Blacksmithing@Trained as a Fighter Signature Skill, to get the benefit of the background feat. Getting a total of +3 with the skill at 1st. Wow, I am underwhelmed.

In PF1 you put 1 skill point into a class skill and you got +4 in that skill - which is a lot simpler and a "+1" bit better. Arguing the whole DC thing does not override this lack of reasonable benefit for added complexity.

Remembering the bonus for your class level can be upto +20 compared to +5 for Legendary and the Speciality Crafting Skill feat. PF1 gave you +3 in a skill for a feat or 2x +2, even those were underwhelming. If you used the +2 to +6 for level from another RPG the +5 looks a lot more worth while.

I think the d20 ideal of skill points is still good and threading your way thru background and such to extract such minor benefits is pointless. Let the player say " I want to Character to have a background in blacksmithing" so I will invest a couple of points into suitable skills - much simpler.

At least the other game makes the whole thing a little better with the various Personality/Ideal/Bond/Flaw thing associated with each "Background".

I am creating a Dwarven Fighter with a Blacksmith background, using the straight 10 stat option.

1)
The Blacksmith background gives him Lore-Smithing@Trained & Crafting-Blacksmith@?*
1st Fighter gives a signature skill of crafting. If I choose Crafting-Blacksmith@Trained for being a fighter as well as getting it for my Background, do I get to upgrade the Proficiency Rank by a further rank? Assuming it is "Trained", can I use my fighter class level to raise it from "Trained"(*) to "Expert".

* Looking at the Blacksmith background text it does not actually state what Proficiency Rank you get it at.

2) On Table 3-13 p88, a fighter gets the following class features @ 1st
i) Ancestry feat,
ii) Attack of opportunity,
iii) Background,
iv) Fighter feat,
v) Initial proficiencies

Is i) a _SECOND_ Ancestory feat, to the one I got from my race? ie I now get another for choosing the Fighter Class. I assume not, but the i) & iii) listings should be removed, as it complicates the issue.

3) In PF1 you got feats for Character Level and for Class Level. Is this now the case? i.e. as you progress thru character levels now, your class gives you your only chance to get extra Ancestral, Fighter, General & Skill Feats.

The Blacksmithing background gives you:
"You gain the Specialty Crafting skill feat for blacksmithing, and you’re trained in the Smithing Lore skill."

Does this mean I can list on the character Sheet

Lore-Smithing @ "Trained" Proficiency
Craft-Blacksmsithing @ "Trained" Proficiency
ie both at Char lvl + 0 + Associated Stat Mod

It does not say so. Should we assume any skilled listed, without a starting proficiency is "trained". It is probably an editing issue but the final rules will need to so thru every similar type ref and put @ T,E,M or L after each mention.

Regards

Proficiency Rank Modifier
Untrained Your level – 2
Trained Your level
Expert Your level + 1
Master Your level + 2
Legendary Your level + 3

My initial thought is that the bonus for being "Legendary" (and E & M) at a skill is a pretty poor bonus compared to your character level or (probably) Stat Mod as well. It would be better if these are doubled or your level bonus be half this or less, ala another RPG.

Umm..what is the stat block for the hobgoblin recruit?

It references the Bestiary p175 which shows > Hobgoblin 1st Ftr 11hp (d10+6).

A 2nd Hobgoblin lvl Ftr would have a further +d10+3 > 20hp.
Note: Does it get +1 hp for Favoured class.

A Hobgoblin Recruit has 17hp, and is the 1st monster appearing in the AP.

Ahh...if you go to the Paizo SRD the base Hobgoblin get max hp and +1 hp for favoured class. d10+6+1 = 17hp. Does Paizo now give all 1st lvl "classed" monsters max hp for its first class? Should all monsters have their 1st HD set at max...

At this point in time the entire previous AP has 84 comments over the six issues. This single 1st Adv of the AP has 150. I think people are looking forward to this...

Our group decided to play Pathfinder AP Reign of Winter as written useing all the rules.

We just finished "The Frozen Stars". My 4 players are: Gnome Sorceror, Dwarf Cleric, Human Barbarian/Fighter & Human Paladin all 12th when entering Ivoryglass.

As a matter of course I maximise all hp. They killed the final encounter in 3 rounds, Malasinder in 2 rounds and I added a Cleric that Healed him 110hp in the first round. Paladin gets +4 AC, +4 to Hit & +24 Damage...this is really really silly. Aura of Justice (@ 11th) gives these bonuses to the Barbarian...<sigh>. During the development of Pathfinder the Paladin had a super-pac lobbyist group...pure sillyness.

I currently use the 4e idea that on becoming blooded the dragon can immediately breath as a free interrupt action. Further when doing a full attack the dragon can swap out its bite attack to cast a spell. It still gets trashed.

The adventure provide a plethora of new items with about 15% of these being recognizable from the base rule book. _ALL_ of these items are immediately sold to provide cash to upgrade items giving: Saves, AC & Stats in that order. These items, while provide flavor, cannot compete against the standard items the players chase.

Paizo really need to look into these issues - and design for balance rather than make fan boys happy.

I would like to see a slow paced AP, something where the players do not go from 20 year old newbies to 17th Level in 2 years! To be a paced Sandbox style. My Reign of Winter players are currently 6th, 2 months world time in...

Way to do this would be:

1)
A "Your in the Army Now" Campaign, where you play recruits slowly working there way up the ladder. May be a similar to Ironfang. And might be best with a very slow level progression on +1 Level per AP (see e6) - the AP ending when you reach 7th. Paizo can dust off their medieval /Byzantine history books...

2)
You play young members of a Drow trading clan (20 - 30 elves) - cf D3 Vault of the Drow, Trading Houses. You slowly work your way up, with players having the option of play humanoids (Bugbears, Trog's, Orcs, Goblins) etc etc. Each AP can be for a 20-50 year period...elves are old...again a sandbox.

We just played RotRL's Fortress of the Stone Giants - 6 Player Party. Our GM tends to increase the monsters and we are a level lower, with less magic items (in gp), than the character levels that are suggested. This was our first trial using the PFRPG.

Generally our GM added 2hp per level to monsters and this seemed to work + Monsters as necessary. However, on our end of weekend review, we found PFRPG to have increased power - which we think isn't necessarily a good thing. But this is our opinion - PFRPG is 3.5 add Sugar.

Funnily enough the PFRPG Paladins Smite never made it to the table. It had very quickly been nerfed over email prior - no 2x and no AC bonus. At least I had got 3 cbt rounds out of my initial trial of a 5th Level Crusader (Book of 9 Swords) before it too was nerfed - players and GMs started to note my 10hp / rnd regeneration...

Sean

If per-chance you have space in PF#19 or PF#20...at this late stage...

My impression is that Legacy of Fire this will be an Arabian Nights style adventure path. Any chance you could provide suggestions as to how you could fit in other published Arabian style adventures into it. Just a page + Map would be great for:

1) I3-5 Desert of Desolation series - a classic.
2) Al-Qadim - maybe how to insert Legacy into Al Qadim or vice-versa (Includes religion/pantheon/deity issues).
3) The 2-3 Al-Qadim adventures printed in the Dungeon Magazine.
4) Maybe X4 & X5

Cheers

Sean

And they could wear what they find in treasure hoards. No longer will the DM hear "What? +1 crappy splint mail? What kind of idiot wizard took the time to enchant crappy splint mail?

Thanks DM_Blake. You understand the issue I was trying to address.

Further, Full Plate will still be the best armour (for tank pc's anyway) because it will give you the highest AC when you are without your dex mod - albiet providing lower movement & Armour Check Penalty.

In having all armours on a sliding scale you at least provide the option for characters to wear something apart from Full Plate, Chainshirt & Breastplate (in that order).

On another note, I find it interesting that these boards will always get comments from someone with a completely opposite opinion. It is a good thing, but for poor old Bulmahn it must be as difficult as trying to herd cats to get what changes we all want in PF.

Cheers

The party started as a Half-orc wizard (going for eldritch knight), a human fighter, a human cleric, a half elf rogue and an elf sorceror (going for PrC Dragon disciple)

So lets just wait a couple of levels. By 5th your Fighter and cleric will be wandering around in Full Plate, and will continue to do this the whole campaign.

If they have move than 12 dex, they will have some variation, Mithril Full Plate...

I am suggesting it would be a good idea to make the top armour +8/+0 dex, then +7/+1, +6/+2 etc etc.

BTW :- Mithril is just a rort, it should only add +1 to the allowable dex and not change the class of armour ie Heavy Armour to Medium Armour, allowing Barbarians to easily wander round in Full Plate...

Cheers

I have always found it a pain that in 3.5 the only armours you would consider are Full Plate; Chain Shirt & Breast Plate - in that order.

Full Plate gives you 8+1=9 pts to AC
Chain Shirt & Breast Plate 4+4 or 5+3=8 pts to AC.

No fighter types or Clerics should be wearing anything but Full Plate.

I note PF has changed this some, but wouldn't it be better to make all Amour Bonuses & Max Dex Bonus add up to 8 or 9. This would mean that you could have some variation. 14 dex Fighters could wear Half-plate, 16 dex Fighters Banded or Splint...etc etc

Otherwise why don't you just cut all the pointless armours from the list - nobody uses them, unless it is their only option.

I'm sure you can nibble around the edges of my argument, but you see my point don't you.

Cheers

Sean

Any chance WOTC would let Greyhawk go, and allow Paizo to pick it up?

Probably too far down the Golarion path, but...

I understand Living Greyhawk ended with the birth of 4e. Is there anyway to source _all_ the LG modules produced by the various RPGA Networks groups ? Wow this possibility makes me salivate. Could somebody in the know contact RPGA?

Cheers

Sean

But that spread of X in d20+X starts becoming a problem at higher-levels.

To solve this issue I can only think of compressing the class levels. ie

1) Your BAB and hit points and caster level are half what they are now.
So a 20th Fighter gets 10d10+10xCon Hitpoints, +10/+5 BAB, a 20th Wizard does 10/5d6 Chainlightnings, 5d6 Fireballs, 8d6 Cones of Cold etc etc but DC's do not change.
2) Magic Weapons and Armour are limited to +3 as well as other buff spell bonuses being reviewed.
3) The game gets rid of the majority of buffing spells AND Stat bonus items (Circlet of Int, Girdle of Str)
4) Rogue Sneak Attack doesn't change BUT can only be used for one strike a round. Enables then to tumble in and attack.
5) Deflection bonuses not stackable with Shield Bonus. Monster Natural Armour and Fullplate etc Armour not stackable with Bracers and Amulets of Natural Armour. AC 59 Wyrm Red Dragons with +8 Bracers, +5 Ring and +5 Amulet of Natural Armour no more.

PCs with filled slots of magic items make the game untenable. The level of enhancing magic needs to be reduced to improve play.

Anybody thought of other ways?

It looks to me that Pathfinder will not address high level play - as it really is in the too hard basket.

Further, I would really like to find a way to move characters away from y = x progression to y = mx+b. If 1st level hp were say raw CON+die/2+Con Bonus/2 (as above) then this would go some way to toughening up the 1st level characters.
Cheers

Sean

Don't do crack, alcohol is my drug of choice :)

Are rogues and rangers weaker in your experience? (lets try to evade opinions :)

Are Barbarians overly powerful?

A barbarian doesn't have (significantly) thicker skin than a rogue nor is he from a high grav world causing him to have denser bones or flesh - see 3/3.5e hp definition.

HP used to be a measure of a characters ability to dodge and evade blows/attacks. When a heavily wounded fighter (one on low hps) was viewed he would be covered in lots of nicks, cuts and bruises (or just plain exhausted). When he goes from positive to negative hp, he just fails to make that last dodge and gets skewered, falling unconsious.

Anyway, on the premise that hps are a majority/partial measure of ability to evade damage I would suggest Rogues would have more hit points. I feel they are one of the more 'dodgy' classes in the PHB. Rangers could be viewd as similar - in 1e they used to get 2d8 hp at first level...

The extra hp would give rogues and rangers a little more ability to mix it in combat (they generally have poor AC).

Sean

I play a pretty much core only game and have spent the last 5 years getting a 20th paladin - 1-2 games per month doing a 3/3.5 Night Below Campaign.

We always found barbarians (and fighters in general) to be the most powerful classes - and the most enjoyable for active players. This is because they are always in the thick of it.

From review of the boards it seems that Pathfinder may be leading to buffing up all weaker classes, to try to match some of the splat book prestige classes. Please don't do this. Please just _try_ to balence the core clases.

Further, as an old player of a 17 year, 1e campaign, I have always felt rangers are nerfed - and silly as they became Drizzt's. In 3 to 3.5 they said they would improve them and then went and reduced there hp's to d8 - incredible.

Based on my experience may I suggest:
1) Barbarians go to d10
2) Rangers and Rogues go to d12.

Both these classes need some help (from my experience in a core game) and this will go some way into doing this.

Sean

Appologise for the rambling.

I have spent a day now reading the rules and this message board. I list what I wanted out of D&D4e.
1) Better skill system - Spent 4 years playing in a 3e>3.5e Night Below Campaign, and my 20th Paladin's d20+3 spot vs the Rogues d20 + 25 always seemed silly.
2) Grapple rules for Hand to Hand combat. I want my character to grab our 'feared' Archmage as she runs off from the Dragon after rolling a 1 (Her Mindblank having been dispelled).
3) Getting away from all the buffing. Prior to entering Dungeon buff with Holy Sword, Barkskin, Hero's Feast, Deathward etc etc etc.
4) Changes in Spells: Teleport, Polymorph, 6th Planeshift vs 9th Astral Spell etc etc.

So what did I feel I got: 1 & 3.
I also got:
i) A completely new game. Its Fight Club - everybody fights. Everybody can heal themselevs and keep on fighting.
I was reading a clean/beautifully illustrated computer game manual. There is still comparable roleplaying game support info for 3.0/3.5, but it is a new game. As with all new games there will be issues that come up that will need improvement, so I feel the game is at a similar stage as 3e was, it will need a 4.5e.
ii) Better skills system and better (but far simpler) combat system.
You wield two-weapons pretty much for show now, you only get one attack (Some feats give you off-hand attacks later).
iii) No grapple rules as far as I can tell.
iv) Far less variation in spells, they just do damage or skill enhancement. Hardly any buffing spells, rituals are a good idea, but the variation of spells is limited. No teleport or Find the Path of old.
v) A game that is incomplete and tailored to allow for add on books. The Monster Manual should have just focussed on monsters 1st to 10th maybe?

4e is a new game. It has started again. It is also intended to move into the computer game arena. It is a good, clean (new) game with probably all the attendent issues that go with new games.

My only critism is the (deliberate) Magic the gathering marketing slant where the system is incomplete. Forcing you to buy this book for Barbarians and that book for Frost Giants. Better that they produces 3 books that allowed you to play 1st to 10th Level, then MM2 for 11th to 20th monsters etc etc - that would have been far more reasonable.

I have bought these 3 books, but will try not to buy anymore splat books, the 80 odd 3.0/3.5 splats are enough. For old gamers out there, I think I will try to change 4e for use in a Runequest Sartar Campaign, somehow using Siz and Pow, and also using spirit/battle/rune/divine magic. This would make it RQ 6th edition...

Cheers