Skjaldbakka's page

I've never had any problems with Grappling or Attacks of Opportunity. Now, figuring out how to split your pool with celerity in old world of darkness, that was a complicated mess.

I'll agree that bull rushing and overrun are seldom ever worth doing though.

I've been thinking about taking Resilient Sphere on my sorceror, and it seems all-around good. I can use it to stop someone from escaping, take someone out of the fight, and in a pinch, cast it on myself or an ally if they are in a tight spot.

I'm a bit uncertain on what you can and can't do from a resilient sphere, in terms of spells. As I understand it, the resilient sphere blocks LOE, but not LOS. If someone could explain what I can and can't do with that, or link me to something, it would be appreciated.

Yes, but who is going to be getting the 4th level buff spells, the fighter, or the rogue? The answer is pretty clearly the rogue, which is a problem in my mind.

There is also the issue of brilliant energy weapons. Throw an energy damage enchantment on their, and your still hitting undead and golems with that (and can thus deal sneak attack damage). Although golems are pretty clearly one of the rare kinds of creatures that sneak attack doesn't work on.

Really, the rogue just needs one *really small* change. Put sneak attack back the way it was. Add rogue talents to let you sneak attack additional foes normally immune to sneak attack.

Then the rogue is pretty much perfect (aside from the L20 class feature that doesn't scale for epic level- but how often is that going to be an issue?).

1- Improved Invisibility
2- Greater Blink
3- Acid Flasks

Bottom Line- There are plenty of ways for a Rogue to trivialize an opponent's AC.

I've found that if your character concept doesn't include carrying the party's luggage, you have little reason to be a fighter. I still found this to be the case when playtesting a fighter in P3. Seriously, every class but fighter got significant power-ups (except maybe Paladin, I don't care enough about Paladins to have really read over the changes to it). The fighter got small passive bonuses. The only thing that's even remotely interesting about the changes is the possible implications of armor training for fighters with above-average dexterity. By which I mean full plate with a 22 dex (which you get the full benefit from by 20th level).

I still hold that 2WF sneak attack is not the problem (its reliability is). The problem is that Pathfinder gave the rogue too much extra stuff, including increasing the viability of sneak attack, since it now works on everything except golems, elementals, and some plant monsters (at least I would count a treant as immune).

I proposed elsewhere that the easiest way to adjust for this is to remove the benny to sneak attack, and then add rogue talents that allow you to sneak attack additional creatures. Being able to sneak attack undead would be a talent, for example.

I don't want to keep track of that. Many of my players will have different colored sets of dice, and roll all their attacks and damage simultaneously.

Close Wounds is the name of that spell, and I really like it. My favorite spell for Skjaldbakka, cleric of Fharlaghn.

I don't like this feat. I don't think you should need a +4 BAB to use improvised weapons. The other benefit justifies the +4BAB, but I want my barwench to be proficient in frying pan w/o 4 levels of fighter, or 6 levels of rogue.

The rogue will typically be targetting a lower AC than the fighter, and the invisible rogue can use acid flasks against foes with high flat-footed AC. The rogue is giving up 5 pts of to-hit for +10d6 dmg. The fighter that gives up 5 to-hit can only get a return of +10 dmg.

The rogue that is focused on being a combat monster only needs Dex and Con at high levels, which is on par with the fighter's Str and Con needs.

You don't have to be a rogue combat monster, but the class as written now does too well at making the fighter obsolete. It does 2WF better, the barbarian does 2HF better, the paladin does mounted combat better, the ranger does archery better. That leaves what, sword and board? 2WF is the only way to make that more effective than animated shield+2HF, and the rogue does that better if it takes shield prof.

Or the rogue to dip two levels of fighter for its requisite shield prof, two-weapon fighting and deft shield, which just adds insult to injury, IMO. Fighter needs to break out of the "I'm a 2-level dip" niche.

Interesting, but I think that would put it below the desired power level. By which I of course mean my desired rogue power level.

The more dexterous you are the more maneuverable you are in any armor, there is no cap.

We just aren't going to agree here. I make and wear armor, as I am an active participant in NERO. Armor is heavy and restrictive of movement, and I am going to stop arguing with you now, because I know your crazy idea isn't going to make it into Pathfinder, as it is not a good one, on multiple levels.

Lets not get into a discussion about plate armor and how easy it was or wasn't to wear. Professional Historians argue that point, with some citing examples of knight unable to stand up when knocked down wearing full plare, and others citing examples of knights in full armor doing acrobatics.

Lets stick with one of the other heavy armors, which people don't disagree on sucking- like splint mail.

I prefer a feat to improve the existing numbers rather than creating a new mechanic, so just a +3 max dex for light, +2 for medium, and +1 for heavy would mirror what you are trying to do without introducing what is in my opinion an awkward mechanic.

That would also make it stack well with the Armor Training class feature. I think your version, in addition to being awkward, is overly powerful for one feat, it should take one feat to improve the max dex, and two to remove it (or improve it to the point that it is effectively removed).

That and I like the idea of a feat tree to allow you to use 'light armor' class features in medium and heavy armor.

The current rogue strikes me as overpowered, and there are two culprits:

-Rogue Talents
-Ability to Sneak Attack virtually everything.

The current rogue is just as good (arguably better) than the fighter in melee due to the now incredibly reliable sneak attack bonus damage. The rogue then has the additional advantage of being highly skilled, thus making him more useful out of combat. Overall, this makes the rogue just better than the fighter, who has nothing useful to do outside of combat. The rogue either needs to have a reduced reliability with its sneak attack, or reduced staying power. Since the BAB/HD correspondence is, IMO a good idea, the sneak attack is the easiest thing to fix.

Here is my proposal:

Remove the current new sneak attack rule, and replace it with rogue talents, like so (some of the names are bad):

Undead Hunter: You now gain the benefit of your sneak attack damage against corporeal undead foes.

Weedwacker: You now gain the benefit of your sneak attack damage against plants.

Advanced Talents:

Discorporation: You now gain the benefit of your sneak attack against incorporeal foes, but only if wielding a ghost touch weapon or otherwise able to ignore the miss chance from incorpoeality.

Golem Striker: You now gain the benefit of your sneak attack against constructs, but only when wielding a weapon able to bypass the hardness or DR of the target (such as an adamantine weapon, or the benefit of the golembane scarab).

Elemental Bane: You now gain the benefit of your sneak attack against elementals, but only when wielding a weapon that deals energy damage appopriate to the target's subtype: Fire/Cold, Air/Acid, Earth/Electricity, Water/Fire.

Fortification Piercing Strike: You now gain the benefit of your sneak attack against foes wearing armor with the fortification enchantment as if it was one level lower (heavy->medium, medium->low, low->none)

Alternately, change the rule so that it requires 2 ranks in an appropriate knowledge skill to sneak attack foes whose creature type is covered by a different knowledge skill than the rogue's. So a giant rogue could sneak attack all of the knowledge (nature) creatures (humanoids, giants, animals, magical beats, etc.), but would need to have 2 ranks of knowledge (arcana) to know where the weak spots are on a dragon, and 2 ranks in knowledge (religion) to know where the weak points are for undead.

Note I am assuming my rule for humanoids and knowledge local/nature, which is that knowing about humans or elves is knowledge nature, but knowing about specific humans or elves would be knowledge local. Which is a houserule, I am pretty sure.

I favor Martial Weapon Proficieny with a Weapon or Weapon Focus in a weapon that you are proficient with from your class. Humans getting EWP for free strikes me as silly, but I agree with the above point that everyone in a fantasy setting would want some way to defend themself. Your average farmer would opt for the weapon focus in the simple weapon he is proficient with over MWP because he couldn't afford a martial weapon. Unless he was in the militia at some point, and then the MWP is justified, even for a commoner.

Most of those considerations are no longer valid in P3.

Re: Sir Urza

I didn't say you would, just that you could, and that the above is just as good as a fighter at sword/boarding (which is suboptimal for either).

The armor issue isn't really relevant. You get a higher AC and to-hit by not going sword/board and not going heavy armor and using weapon finesse. Since virtually everything is sneak attackable, you don't need strength for damage.

A proper rogue needs Dex and Con to completely outclass the fighter, as it is a match in combat for what the fighter is doing, and is universally better at contributing in all non-combat scenarios.

Does that also apply to feats taken normally? I had assumed that only applied to feats chosen with the combat style class feature.

But it is not possible for a reduced dexterity to improve your AC. I am aware that effects can reduce your dexterity, but there is no way under the current rules for a reduced dexterity to improve your AC. I highly recommend you re-read the rules on that you are trying to get changed before you dig yourself any deeper.

I smell confirmation bias.

"What if they get a great deal of dexterity damage and they would end up getting a higher bonus by the original rules?"

That is not even possible by the current rules. Are you sure you understand how the armor and max. dex. bonus applies? I seriously doubt you would have a problem with it if you did.

"If the wearer wishes they may now use these alternate rules"

This is a line that should never be part of a feat. Just houserule it the way you want and be done with it. If you really want a feat, it should be more like this:

Dextrous Armor Use:
Prereq: dexterity 15+
Benefit: Your maximum dexterity bonus allowed while wearing armor you are proficient with is double the normal value (min +1).

Improved Dextrous Armor Use:
Prereq: dexterity 17+, Dextrous armor use
Benefit: You ignore the maximum dexterity bonus when wearing armor you are proficient with, and class features that require you wear light or no armor now function even if you are wearing heavy armor.

So, effectively, have armor give an AC penalty, that is negated by proficiency with the armor. I don't see that as viable. Especially since there is absolutely no reason to change Max Dex Bonus. It works, conceptually and mechanically.

I recommend you put on a suit of chainmail, and try to dodge people throwing packets of birdseed at you for awhile, and then you will understand that the Max Dex Bonus system for armor is perfectly fine and doesn't need changed.

that might not allow just adding in Monte's stuff.

-His influence can be seen in the new DR system, and I doubt a design team that is using Monte as a consultant is unfamiliar with his work.

"Here is another idea. How about an armor minus to dexterity counted. If they are proficient, the armor can't drop the bonus from dexdarty below 0 or 1."

huh? I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean here. There are no armors I can think of that have a max dex of less than 0, and the maximum dexterity bonus only counts for your dexterity bonus to AC, not your dexterity bonus to other things (initiative, ranged attacks, etc). It is just atypical for someone to wear armor that won't allow them their full dexterity mod to AC, as touch AC is more valuable than full AC.

Also, to my knowledge, Japan was never big on anything we would classify as 'heavy armor', so if you would care to cite your sources on that?

"I can't give someone a +4 keen sword -- he'll immediately trade it for a +1 keen icy burst evil outsider bane sword, which under 3.5 is infinitely better."

Not necessarily, since he'll lose money in the process. An effective +5 weapon won't sell for enough to buy another effective +5 weapon, and there is no reason to let him just trade it. I understand the sentiment though.

I had a Frenzied berserker in a game once, and they were approaching the Final Battle with the BBEG. The dragon (trope, not monster) was a blackguard with a +6 adamantine greatsword, and the party new the BBEG had DR/epic. But rather than keeping the +6 greatsword, the berserker sold it, and used the money to buy a +1/+4 stuff greatsword with bane (sufficient to put the enhancement bonus to +6 with a GMW spell).

Needless to say, I was a tad annoyed.

Well, removing GMW isn't really to the advantage of the fighter, IMO, as it reduces the amount of stuff he can have on his weapon. GMW (almost) completely removes the need for 'natural' +x weapons, but without it, the fighter either loses out on +4, or loses out on +4 pts of 'stuff', with the max of +10.

Anybody have a problem with GMW providing a different, stacking bonus to +X weapons, and making +X weapons give +X tohit/+2X dmg (that way it maps to weapon focus/spec)?

What about removing the +5 cap, and boosting it to +10? GMW can't get higher than +5.

Then we could have the DR mechanic be more like:

+1-3: magic
+4-5: silver/cold iron
+6-7: wielder's alignment
+8-9: adamantine
+10: ignores all DR and hardness

Something else to consider is that with the change to power attack the math changes in the difference between a +1 to-hit/dmg and a +1d6 dmg enhancement.

With power attack and a two-handed weapon, a +1 enhancement is either +1 to-hit/dmg or +3 dmg, compared to the +3.5 av elemental dmg from before. I think the advantage with a two-hander is the +s, except for the GMW issue.

With new power attack based on strength, it isn't as cut and dried.

I'd be interested in learning more about your 'combat insight mechanic'.

I don't like the mechanic. I'd have the speed increase scale:

+0 (less than 10, fatigued 1 minute)
+5 ft (DC 10, fatigued 1 minute)
+5 ft (DC 15+1/successive rnd)
+10 ft (DC 20, fatigued for 1 minute)
+10 ft (DC 25+1/successive rnd)
etc.

This skill either cannot be used when fatigued, or the skill is penalized (-5?) if used when fatigued.

Given Monte is on the design team, I think they are familiar with the concept of Intermediate Save Progression.

I am actually more comfortable removing Greater Magic Weapon than I am with arbitrarily declaring "it doesn't count as an enhancement bonus".

Here is my thought on the matter:

Spells: Remove Magic Weapon, Magic Fang, Greater Magic Fang, and Greater Magic Weapon in favor of Magic Aura, Greater Magic Aura, Silver Aura, and Dead Magic Aura.

DR/Magic Weapons:
A +2 Weapon counts as silver, a +4 weapon counts as all the alignments of the wielder, and a +5 weapon counts as Adamantine (for all purposes, including hardness). Naturally, a +6 weapon still counts as Epic. Note, there is no Magic Weapon for cold iron, as cold iron is thematically difficult to enchant, and thus piercing DR with it from a big magic weapon makes little sense to me.

Spells Part 2:
Magic Aura, Transmutation
lvl 1 Druid/Cleric/Wiz/Sorc/other classes that got Magic Weapon or Fang
Duration: 1 minute/level
Target: 1 creature
Effect: All attacks made by the targetted creature are considered to be magical for purposes of striking incorporeal foes and piercing damage reduction.

Greater Magic Aura, Transmutation
lvl 3 Wiz/Dru/Cler
Duration: 1 minute/level
Target: 1 creature
Effect: All attacks made by the targetted creature are considered to be magical, ghost touch, and either flaming, frosting, or shocking, chosen at the time of casting.

Silver Aura, Transmutation
lvl 2 Wiz/Dru/Cler
Duration: 1 minute/level
Target: 1 creature
Effect: All attacks made by the targetted creature ignore DR/silver, and are considered to be bane against any creature attacked with DR/silver.

Dead Magic Aura, Abjuration
lvl 2 Wiz/Dru/Cler
Duration: 1 rnd/level
Target: 1 weapon
Effect: This spell creates a field of dead magic localized around the targetted weapon that is harmful to thaumavoric creatures, particulary the fey. All magical properties of the targetted weapon are suppressed for the duration of the spell. The weapon pierces DR/Cold Iron, and DR/magic, and is considered to be bane against all creatures with with DR/cold iron or DR/magic. It also gains the ghost touch quality for the duration of the spell.

note, if the whole cold iron isn't magic thing doesn't bother you, then by all means have Dr/cold iron be defeated at +3, and replace Dead Magic Aura with "Cold Iron Aura" and have it work exactly the same way as Silver in regards to creatures with Dr/cold iron.

You just don't get it, do you? The paladin was supposed to shine in that encounter. This is not bad DMing or favoritism. It would be if all the encounters were designed for the paladin's benefit, but that was not the case.

"See, I actually see knowledges being a fighter's iconic skills to some degree. He knows what monsters are and how to fight them. At a minimum, logistics is his thing, so Kno(geography) should certainly be on there. He needs to recognize heraldry on the field (Kno(Nobility)). He needs to be versed in military history (Kno(history)), and of course siege craft (Kno(engineering)). He needs to know the area (Kno(Local)) if he's to live off the land (traditional mode of supplying armies in the field historically). He needs to command troops (Diplomacy, Intimidate). He should really be an accomplished user of his weapons, including the ability to effectively feint (Bluff). And he should be able to *effectively keep watch* (perception). I could really add a load of skills to the fighter if I wanted to, the above recommended modifications are small-time.

I certainly don't see why acrobatics shouldn't be a fighter skill - its perfectly iconic in most cultures - even europe has fighter archetypes for which acrobatics is appropriate (fencers, duelists, etc...). If you don't want it for your fighter, don't invest in it. Its that simple."

We disagree then. I don't see the fighter as 'the knowledge guy', and quite frankly, I think that is a ridiculous assertion. Logistics isn't the fighter's job, its the job of the guys behind the lines, ideally spellcasters with teleportation magic. Recognizing heraldry is nice, and justifies knowledge nobility as a class skill, not extra skill points, especially since most battlefield heraldy would be low DCs, and that isn't something the fighter needs high ranks in, just a rank or two for flavor. Similarly, a fighter with diplomacy is acceptable, but not necessary, and an argument could be made for that as a class skill, but falls flat when begging for more skill points. Feint isn't worth it for a fighter, so being able to do it reliably is not important at all.

If you want a duelist/fencer, etc, Rogue is the class you want, not Fighter. Acrobatics =/= iconic fighter skill, escpecially since the duelist archetype is the rogue class, not the fighter class.

Also, living off the land is Survival, not Knowledge Local.

EDIT- Ah, and now I have discovered the real reason you want fighters to have 6+int skill points. You hate the ranger class. We are never going to agree on that point, as the ranger is my favorite fantasy archtype. Heck, even modern archetype, given Cowboys are essentially rangers.

Squirreloid:
"Any flavor we give them [ranger]is just the latest in an endless line of poor excuses for the existence of a class that isn't needed and has never been notably playable."

Assuming that GMW got fixed up a bit so that the spell does not allow you to punch through DR, what does this mean for the DR rules as they currently stand.

They still stink, as they currently stand, because they still trivialize DR. My Eberron campaign's BBEG would have been a pushover with these rules, since his combined Lich/Raksasha DR would have done nothing, since everyone had good magic weapons, just not the right weapons (except for the paladin, who had the magic blessed morningstar to deal full damage to it.)

The enounter was supposed to make the paladin feel awesome, but with the P3 rules, the whole party would have been dealing full damage.

It sounds to me that they hadn't gotten around to taking a hard look at monsters yet, and that is why they aren't changed yet. My theory is that by Beta, racial HD will be the standard PC class feat progression.

The supposed workable option doesn't make a +5 sword any more valuable than it was before.

Magic weapons punching Dr just cheapens DR, it doesn't actually make it more likely you'll buy a +5 sword, becuase of GMW.

Furthermore, you might buy a +5 sword if you are not part of an adventuring group with access to GMW. This crops up with non-traditional parties.

Assuming you are willing to spend no more than half your WBL on a +5 sword, you won't have one til 13th level, at which point GMW is giving you a +3 weapon. So there is some give and take there, GMW is behind what you can buy until really high level.

I thought Armor Training gave a benefit along those lines already. Also, I've never had a problem with this, and if you remove the maximum dexterity bonus from armor, you get weird situations like archers in full plate.

There is also the simulationist angle on it. Have you ever worn heavy armor? I [u]have[/u], and it is harder to dodge stuff in heavy armor.

But, whether or not you purchase a +5 sword is an option, and not one you have to take. You could also spend 50,000 gp on chickens, which would also be an ineffective and unlikely choice. I don't see why its existence as a possible bad choice is such a thorn in your side.

I take I. Initiative on casters a lot too. I don't see the impetus for a Monk to take it, honestly.

"But no character would ever buy one, ever. Any one they found, they would immediately try to sell for vastly more than we both agree it's actually worth. Would you allow them to find a buyer that gullible every time? I wouldn't. To assume that everyone other than the PCs is a low-grade moron, and will happily pay 50,000 gp for something that's worth maybe 2,000, really ruins my game experience."

You have stilled failed to see my point. Let me try to boil it down a bit. I don't mean to offend, but sometimes it is harder to get a point across on forums.

1) A +5 weapon is possible to make, and has to be, as it makes no sense otherwise, from an IG perspective.

2) A +5 weapon has to cost an equal amount to make as a +1/+4stuff weapon for purposes of OOG consistency.

3) Most people that make magic items know better than to waste the resources on a +5 weapon, since they know GMW is a more cost effective option. They therefore don't make them.

4) There will still be the occasional oddball item crafter/adventurer that makes/wants a +5 weapon, because not everyone is smart. Which means you might still occasionally find a flat +5 weapon.

5) A +5 weapon should in fact be harder to sell, unless you find a gullible merchant, due to laws of supply/demand. This makes them great items to give as gifts to nobility :).

6) Possible fixes for this include:
- Significantly changing the wording of GMW. I don't think that is a good solution.
- Allowing spellcasters to strip down magic items to use in item creation. Since the cost of creation on a +5 sword is the same as the cost to make a +1/+4stuff sword, that would allow adventurers to sell the +5 sword to an item crafter as components. I think Artificer actually has a mechanic for this.
-Make the enhancement bonus on a +X sword non-magical, thus granting a minor benefit that can't be replicated with GMW. This also makes it more reasonable to be able to sell +5 swords.
-Allow +X swords to scale up to +10, instead of stopping at +5.

7) Without those changes, +5 swords still exist, but only in theory. Along the lines of "yeah, I could make one, but GMW would be more cost effective". You can't buy them except via special order, and you won't find them in dungeons. If what you mean by 'remove them' is really 'remove them from randon treasure tables', then I'm with you, but it just makes no IG sense to remove them from the mechanics of item creation.

8) Removing an option because it is not effective is not good game design, IMO. Take Use Rope for example. Is it the best skill in the game? No. But now you can't tie knots except by GM fiat. It should not have been removed.

According to the SRD, I. Initiative doesn't have a DEX requirement. Did Pathfinder change that?

"He should certainly be more skilled than the Barbarian."

This is where I disagree. The fighter has NO reason to be more skilled than the barbarian. That's why he should have 4+int. He should not be as skilled as the ranger, which is the skilled full BAB class. The only other class with full BAB that has cause for 6+int skills is paladin, and that is simply because of the number of skills that they ought to have (sense motive, diplomacy, knowledge religion, knowledge nobility, concentration, ride).

What are the fighter's iconic skills? Pretty much climb, jump, and swim, and jump isn't really appropriate anymore, since it is got rolled into tumble and balance, which I don't see as 'fighter' skills. I suppose if we are going with the 'career soldier' model for fighter, knowledge (engineering) and diplomacy might make it onto the list.

I really think this falls under the KISS principle, as well as the old adage "if it ain't broken, don't fix it".

I think there is a feat in RotW that lets you use wisdom instead of dexterity for initiative, Yondalla's Sense, IIRC.

But as far as the specifics go, how is a +5 sword worth 42,000 gp more than a +2 sword, then? The lousy +3 to attacks and damage still just doesn't cut it.

That one's easy. It's expensive to make, and thus expensive to buy. Kinda like a limo. Is it worth the cost to get a car with crappy gas mileage that drives like a whale? No. Maybe that's not a great example, but the point I'm trying to get across is that just because something is expensive doesn't mean its worth buying. Fact Of Life.

edit- perhaps Vista would be a better example. ^_^

You don't get rage powers 'til second level, but I get your point. AS it stands, I don't expect Paizo will be ditching Rage Points, as the developer has invested too much time into already. Which just means my next campaign will be ditching Barbarian as a playable class in favor of some kind of "Rage" feat tree.

Thats no good either, as it creates DR that is more effective the stronger the thing hitting it is, which is counterintuitive.

d8+8 guy is losing 8 dmg, but d8+1 guy is only losing 1 dmg? No.

I like the special materials are poisons idea, but that won't fly with reverse compatability. Also, DR =/= a weakness, which is what that would create.

I find that I actually like to use fear effects as a PC, and fear is one of those status effects that PCs can use to great effect, unless the DM is making one roll for a group of bad guys, as it thins out the crowd, leaving you with just the brave ones to fight first.

Remove Rage Points in favor of a Rages/day and Rage Powers/Rage mechanic. Or possibly rage powers at will as a swift action.

An immediate action could also occur mid-charge, although I'm talking from 'makes sense' POV, not a 'I have analyzed the RAW and found it to be so' POV.

Also, something i just noticed. 6+ Int is absolutely ridiculous for a fighter. 4+Int is more than sufficient for fighters.

I had that same thought earlier today. Rage Points are more bookkeeping thatn rounds of rage because the barbarian's player was going to have to keep track of effects with durations anyway. Adding a power point mechanic is an entirely different set of numbers, and something else to wear a hole in your character sheet with.