Stalker0's page

The paladin has definitely become a powerful class.

Better will save, can heal himself for 6d6 10 times a day as a swift action, can create any kind of weapon he wants when he needs it, and can give the ENTIRE party +13 to damage and +4 to hit rolls against a guy!!

Um...so why play a fighter? j/k:)

I like to use Arcana Evolved to make points about D&D balance, because I hear people say, for example, "it's impossible to make spellcasters balanced, they use MAGIC, magic can do anything!"

I played AE for a year and a half. Its a great system, and I liked it alot.

But its still not balanced at high levels. Mages still get to do everything, and they are even more flexible than in the core book. I think the gap is narrowed in AE, but its still pretty wide.

I have no problems with the half-orc bonuses...though it is a little strange the half-orcs are actually the best clerics. +str/+wis and no cha penalty means yes to cleric!

I'm not discounting the future uses of the abilities, just the amount. Is 18 points at 18th level enough even if you can do it 9 times a day?

Well if your an 18th level paladin, I expect you to have at least a 24 charisma, so that's 16 times per day. That means you can heal 150 hitpoints (using the heal version) 4 times per day. That's a lot of healing.

What I would like to know from Paizo is...what is their intended purpose with the favored class rule?

If its to encourage people to play the archetype, the elven wizard for example, there's really no need. The racial bonuses already provide plenty of incentive to play certain classes with certain races. It would be a tough sell to me to play an elven fighter or a half-orc fighter for example.

If its to encourage staying in one class vs multiclassing, again no need. The new classes do that on their own with all of the fun stuff they grant at high levels.

To me, I would rather see an "unfavored class" mechanic. For example, if I wanted to play an off archetype, like an elven fighter, I could gain some bonus so I am not at such a disadvantage compared to playing a stronger race for that class.

I don't think the current favored class mechanic is bad...its just unnecessary.

I agree that the multiclassing rules really aren't defined anywhere in the rules. There are hints of it throughout the rules, but it never actually tells you how to multiclass. For seasoned veterans its not problem, for newer players those rules need to be there.

I personally don't think this is a problem at all. If I play a gnome fighter, I'm not getting as much out of that +2 charisma as I would have playing a sorc.

If I play a human with a class that already gets martial weapons, I "waste" that ability, but that certainly doesn't make humans weak. On my initial look, humans stack up just fine to the other races, they don't need a power up. Afterall, the ability comes in very handy if I'm playing a cleric for example.

BlaineTog wrote:

He's still underpowered

I agree. I can see no reason (other than roleplay, of course) to choose this race.

I couldn't disagree more. Half-Orcs are a great fighter race. +2 strength is wonderful for a fighter, +2 wisdom helps to shore up that poor will save, and they can use exotic orc weapons without a feat.

The problem in core 3.5 is there penalties are too high, in this beta that's not the case. They only have a -2 to int, which to a fighter isn't that big of a penalty in most cases.

I think the half-orc is fine as is.

So down to basics:

First of all, a major flaw in these chapters is that there is NO mention of multiclassing. After reading through the book, I was completely convinced that multiclassing had been taken out, yet you do mention it in a few spells, in a few class entries, etc. So either way it needs to be spelled out more clearly.

My next thought is on favored classes. Ultimately, my question to you is, what are you hoping to accomplish with this mechanic? If the answer is encourage certain races to play certain classes, there is absolutely no need.

Most people playing wizards are going to seriously consider the elf, because a +2 to int is big advantage for them. Same with the gnome and sorc or bard. Stat bumps go a long way to making races attractive to certain classes. In fact, you could almost go the other way, and give every race "unfavored classes". Basically if I'm playing an elven fighter, I've somewhat shot myself in the foot instead of playing a half-orc fighter for example. You could use the mechanic to provide players an incentive to choose off classes for their race...so players can play unusual combinations (and there players, so we all know they will) without being truly penalized for it.

Finally, as far as races go, I'm pretty pleased with the balance on paper as I take my initial read. I think some races are more flexible than others...the dwarf for example with his +2 to all saves against spells is always a winner, especially since con is such a solid stat for any class. However, every race fits its niche well.

Another aspect of the rogue is that sneak attack is negated by concealment.

This eliminates the archetype of the assassin in shadows. Further, it ironically makes one of the better rogue races the dwarf.

Perhaps its time for this aspect of sneak attack to go bye bye.

Hey there all,

When doing some of the math on the CMB issues, it became apparent that 10+CMB created a similar problem to the one we face in 3.5. That is that wizards (and other spellcasters) get "owned" by grapple, as it nearly always worked and they could rarely escape (I know there are ways, but in many cases, this was a big problem, I have seen a lich pummeled to death while grappled in an antimagic shell, it made me very sad). Putting it up at 15 made it a bit more of a challenge, but still keeps it well within reach for characters who want to specialize.

Consider an alternate method of helping the wizard. Instead of weakening the ability to make a grapple, weaken its hindrance of the wizard. For example, the biggest problem for most wizards in a grapple is that they can't use somatic components. Perhaps you could simply bump up the concentration check needed to cast a spell while grappling, but allow the wizard to cast somatic spells.

Consider this idea:

Every character gets 2 combat maneuvers per round.

Followup attacks are now "Empowered" attacks.

Mobility

Prereq: Dodge
Benefit: You don't take AOOs this round.
Empowered: Requires both of your combat maneuver slots for the round.

This way you have more flexibility in combat maneuvers, you can use two in a round or throw in an empowered maneuver.

The problem with chaining is 3.5 combats go too quickly to reliable get use out of them. Individual monsters are often dispatched in a single round, and whole combats are often over in 3 rounds. The 3.5 battlefield changes too fast to reliable set up uses for the chaining.

If you want to fix power attack, simply go back to the old 3.0 version. It was fine, not broken or underpowered in the slightest. Fighters used it against low AC opponents and to break things, or to jack up the DC on a coup de grace. It worked perfectly.

As for expertise, the feat just is not worth it anymore. The majority of characters that would take the feat (fighter types) are not going to commit enough intelligence to make this worthwhile. The rogue is probably most likely to make use of the feat, but its still only going to give them a small bonus.

Expertise in my opinion is just fine in 3.5, it doesn't need fixing.

If Paizo wishes to keep the concept, might I suggest a massive combination of feats.

For example, combine dodge and mobility into a single feat, along with cleave and great cleave.

Dodge (Combat)

Receive +1 to your AC.

Followup: On the round following your use of dodge, you can move without provoking AOOs. This consumes your combat maneuver for that round.

Cleave (combat)

As a full-round action, you can make an attack against one opponent. On a hit, you may strike another opponent within range using the same attack bonus.

Followup: On the round immediately following your use of cleave, you can use the feat again. If your cleave attack hits, you can choose another adjacent opponent to strike. As long as you continue to hit, you can continue to strike more opponents. This ability consumes your combat maneuver for the round.

I agree that the fighter's weapon and armor focuses could be applied to all weapons and armor. The fighter will use his favored weapon in 99% of combats anyway, so it makes little difference and adds simplicity.

The one thing this would effect is that it makes a fighter both a great meleer and a ranged attacker, which may be too strong.

So for that fix, simply have the fighter pick either melee or ranged weapons with his ability.

If your not planning any adjustments to hitpoints at later levels, I wouldn't recommend adding too many hitpoints at 1st level. You don't want to alter the balance across the whole game.

Instead, I recommend adding a small amount, such as 3 to each class. You'll get a bit more beef at 1st level, and it will have little impact on later levels.

First of all, bravo on your attempts to clean up and standardize the various combat maneuvers. I like the basic mechanic of a CMB number very much. However, I feel that your current system has weakened the various maneuvers too harshly.

If we assume two fighters of equal strength and skill (equal CMB, we will say 10 each). In order for the first fighter to disarm the second (DC 25), he needs a 15+ on the die roll (30%). If we give him improved disarm, that's +2. He now needs a 13+ (40%). Even with training in the technique, he has a less than 50% chance of success. That's simply not fun for most players.

Let me suggest an alternative. First, we lower the opposed DC to 10 + CMB, granting a slight advantage to the attacker. In my opinion this is fine, considering that the attacker is effectively giving up his action to attempt an action that does not directly relate in the slaying of his enemy (ie doing damage).

Second, we incorporate your wonderful version of the grapple rules into the other combat manuevers.

For example, disarm:

Meet DC: You weaken your opponents grip on his weapon and pull him off balance. He suffers a -2 to attack rolls in his round.

DC +5: You disarm the weapon. It lands at the wielder's foot.

DC +10: You disarm the weapon, and can send it up to 10 feet from the wielder in any direction.

Trip:

Meet DC: The target is off balance for one round.
DC +5: The target is prone.
DC +10: The target falls prone and you can immediately follow up with an attack.

This provides granularity to the maneuvers, so they aren't as binary.

I have deleted my post, as my suggestion was based on a complete misreading of the rules. I apologize for such.