Tir Gwaith's page

The big difference between Flaming Sphere and Call Lightning is location. The flaming sphere is one sphere, with a given speed, that stops in the square it attacks. Call Lightening, with a range of 150+ feet, that can strike anywhere in that range each round, is much more versatile (and therefore powerful).

Think of Flaming Sphere as a move action to direct an effect, and Call Lightning as 2 fold - casting it sets up the environment you can tap into, and standard actions to call down the effect.

As for spell level, let's look at a few spells balance.
6th level Divine casting
Searing Light - 3d6 ordinary, 6d8 against a vulnerable target, ranged touch.
Inflict Serious - 3d8+6, and Touch...
Call Lightening 6x 3d6 or 3d8, spread out over 6 rounds. total of 18d6. Yeah, a lot more than normal divine spells damage, but spread out.

For giggles: 6th level caster Fireball:
6d6 in 20' radius, at up to 600+ feet away. Yeah, twice as much damage to a creature, and longer range, but that is where Arcane spells excel.

Oh, and the duration is quite a big deal. You can cast it LONG before a battle and it will last for an entire battle in most cases.

I wouldn't call minutes per level "LONG before a battle". More like just long enough that you probably don't need to worry about duration for one encounter, but you probably can't use any leftover bolts on the second encounter.

The Call Lightening spell is basically the same as 3.5... Not like Paizo changed something for balance....

Well, regardless, the devs said flat-out 'no, half-orcs don't have light sensitivity.'

And also claim the orc subtype rule doesn't say half-orcs have light sensitivity.

While I don't agree with the logic of that claim and think the 'orc subtype' rather clearly DOES say 'half-orcs have light sensitivity,' I'm perfectly happy going by what the devs say they meant rather than what the text says.

Can you show a link to where they say that? Closest I've found is this:

Talks about how crowded the Race chapter is, and they handled stuff a particular way to save space.

Anyone seen any official Errata page for PF?

Little edit asking about an errata. Hit send too soon. :)

If that were true... then dwarves would have light sensitivity as well. (If we just go off of having Darkvision) If we include low-light vision, then elves, half-elves, and gnomes would all also have light sensitivity.

Not going off of Darkvision, but rather the "Orc" subtype.

From the PRD Creature Types and Subtypes:

Orc Subtype: This subtype is applied to orcs and creatures related to orcs, such as half-orcs. Creatures with the orc subtype have darkvision 60 feet and light sensitivity.

Wow, it even mentions Half-Orcs specifically....

Thus... if a race as listed in the core PRPG does not say it has light sensitivity... then it does NOT have it. Simple! :)

Except when another part of the PRD says it does. :p

NeoFax, check with your DM. Remember Rule 0. :)

Weapon Training is fixed (to the published PDFs). We're experiencing a little display bug where it shows on the character sheet ALL the different choices and the bonus associated, instead of just those above 0. Trying to figure out if it is a code or data issue. Since I'm on the Data team and can't find a problem, and I'm assuming it is Code problem, of course. :p

Are you seeing the 2+1 in the program or the output sheet? I wonder if that is a OS issue, ie hardcoded into the xlst files.

Paul, the x+1 thing is hard-coded into Domains code. We've trackered the Code FReq for 5.16.1. :)

Downloaded version 5.15.12 yesterday, and tried entering in a couple of characters and ran into a problem pretty quickly. PCGen says that I need to select a bonus language(s) because the character I am creating has an intelligence bonus, but when I click on the other button in the Lang, Weap Prof & SA window, I don't get the dialog to select another language.

I check the debug console and among all the detail there it said that there was an array out of bounds error. Unfortunately I don't have the complete error message at the moment, I just wanted to get a quick note off and let you know.

I was testing in the Pathfinder game mode, and didn't try another game mode, so I don't know if it is specific to Pathfinder or occurring in any game mode.

I will try another game mode tonight and reproduce the error and post it if you need me to. Thanks.

DJ

What races you were using that allowed to you see this error would be great. Even better if you can give me steps to replicate the error. I haven't encountered this issue.

With PRPG being backwards compatible, is there a way to use other datasets when operating in PRPG mode? I'd like to use feats, equipment and spells from Pathfinder Adventure Paths but can't seem to import them into the session I'm doing.

PF isn't really backwards compatible from a dataset perspective because of the change of Skill names, PreReq changes, and such. User beware.

However, I'll look at what we are doing in the GameMode, and see if we can't link in some of the other sets.

Again: User Beware. The PF data set is in our "alpha" stage, so getting an error when loading multiple sets might be incompatibility of the sets, or might be a bug in the original, and is harder to track down.

Thanks, I'll just ignore the extra first level spell for now. Otherwise everything looks good so far.

Glad to hear it. Please abuse it. If ANYTHING doesn't match what you expect, no matter how small, please let us know. I've managed to squash like 20+ very minor bugs in the last day, but I know there are more out there...

@Tholas: Hopefully the Weapon Training stuff is fixed. It looks good to me (albiet, still allow choices instead of regimental to order of selection.) Let me know if I missed anything.

I generated my first level cleric that I am playing in a pbp, and the only thing that I see at this point is the number of 1st level spells avaliable each day. It says that I have 2+1, when the cleric table in the PRPG beta says that I should have one 1st level spell plus one for my 15 Wisdom.

I'm just not sure where the extra first level spell came from.

Code for Domains.. I'm going to investigate and see if we can get rid of that. Might actually need a Code bit, so that may not happen until after 5.16. The Domains are actually NOT coded as domains. The Deity/Domain feature is just there to tie into the Deity granted lists....

For now, ignore the +1 bit. :) -- Tir Gwaith

I discussed this with Zaister and the +0 was due to a typo in the heavy blades part.

This has been fixed for today/tonight's Beta.

But I discovered something else. Weapon training for a weapon group you already selected does not go up when you're able to select a new group.

I made a level 15 fighter and gave him weapon training axe, bows and close. All three of them show at a +1 bonus in the special qualities and weapon statistics blocks.

It looks like Zaister has this set up for something similar to 3.5 Ranger Favored Enemy, as opposed to 3.0 Ranger Favored Enemy... Something I think I mentioned in the Playtest discussions a while back (I prefer the latter.)

Right now, the "Weapon Training Bonus" pool is adjusted for that method, but no choices show up. I'll fix that, and then have a discussion with Zaister about the method, since I don't want to code this up, and then have to re-code it later if the final version changes it....

Edit: Weapon training (Close) seems not work for unarmed attacks. Also tried adding the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and Monk levels.

Ok, I think I've fixed this, but I'm a bit worried about overlap, so I'd like some testing on tonight's beta, please. :)

And I wish I could figure out how to edit my post above, so I could remove some of the now-closed trackers... Druid is now complete for the next Beta, with some minor issues around Animal Companions, related to the fact that there aren't Animal entries in the PF Beta....

-- Tir Gwaith

No druids in Pathfinder dataset?

In progress. Since the first Beta, I've entered most of the Druid. I'm working on the Nature's Bond functions, and I still have the Wild Shape stuff to go.

Other in-completes (from our open trackers):
Conditional skills
Specific Weapons
Potions
Scrolls
Wands
Web Enhancement
Wondrous Items
Barbarian rage abilities
Implement Wizard class
Implement Druid class
Implement Monk Class
Implement Ranger, Rogue classes
Implement Sorcerer bloodline powers
Starting hit points options
convert ability SAB to VISIBLE:YES/DESC

---
Tir Gwaith
PCGen LST Chimp

Maybe I'm missing something but as far as I understand the skill points rules have been streamlined but not substantially changed. I mean that in 3.5 a 1st level rouge could spend all his (8+INT mod)x4 skill points to maximize 8+INT mod class skills (acquiring 4 ranks). With PF Beta he can still maximize 8+INT mod skills spending 1 point in each skill thus obtaining 4 ranks in each skill. The same holds for cross class skills.

Not 4 ranks. 1 rank, and a +3 bonus on class skills. Those aren't ranks. Can select 8 ranks of any skill (non class skills cost the same as class skills).

I'm sure that someone else has probably caught on to this already but in playtesting we came across a particular lacking (to put it mildly) or flaw (to put it bluntly) with human fighters... they simply do not benefit from the human's Weapon Training feature. This is also the same case with any other class (whether NPC, new Core, Prestige, or otherwise) that would be proficient in all martial weapons.

Lacking with Human fighters? Fighters get all the martial weapons. This benefit for humans is for characters that Don't. So a Human Wizard can be proficient in a Longsword, etc.

Elves have had a more limited version of this (Longsword, Longbow) and no one had any problems with it not benefiting Elf Rangers...

Humans are supposed to be versatile, not extremely good at whatever class they take. Are you wanting a bonus for the human for every class the character can become? +1 BAB, +1 to all skills, +`1 casterlevel for school of choice, etc. ?

It's ignorant players who don't understand and/or refuse to read the rules which cause the misconception. Your physical toughness is your constitution score. Your hit points are a lot of different things all rolled up into one number.

It isn't ignorant players. I've read the rules. And I've played the game. HP don't _feel_ that way to me. VP points, in the WP/VP do feel the way D&D has described HP. If we want to play a WP/VP system, I'll agree. Until then, HP feels like combat training and toughness, period.

Please don't call me ignorant because my play experience doesn't match what the older books have told me I'm supposed to experience.

Well, Gary Gygax thought it was preposterous to conceive extra hit points as anything more than constant physical training, luck, reflexes, divine favour and so forth. He said as much in the 1st Edition DMG, after all.

No disrespect to one of the original creators, but he hasn't been at my gaming table in a while. Please don't disrespect him by dragging out hearsay and old editions to make a point.

What about you, Arakhor? As a player, that's what matters...

On the whole "Bonus vs. penalty": A penalty is something that hurts a character. In my opinion, that means a negative bonus, or (often ignored) where balance plays against the character. For example, playing without a spontaneous cure casting character in the party is a penalty. Why? Because game balance, and expected survivability of the group is DESIGNED around having those healing spells available.

If the number of skill points a class receives is designed around "and remember, a Dwarf Fighter gets 3+ INT, not 2+INT if he wants", then the favored class bonus has become a standard thing, and not having it is a penalty.

Hit points don't represent just your physical toughness. The represent a combination of luck, training, skill, divine favor and on top of all that physical toughness.

If I believed that, I might be playing 4e. But since Healing Surges don't feel right to me, I'm still playing 3.5, and want to play PF. And since that point keeps coming up, I think the community needs to accept that there are some of us that DO see HP as toughness and training, period. :)

I don't see why a fighter should automatically be able to get full max ranks in any skill. Even a fighter with no ranks in any skill can fully fulfill his role as a fighter. It's not like a fighter is a wizard who needs Concentration to be effective in close quarters, or a rogue who needs Disable Device and Perception to make full use of trapfinding.

It is a balance issue. Skills are part of the mechanic of what a character can do. If a typical melee fighter can't get to his enemy, his pointless in that fight (and that character's Player is having no fun.) That means having some skills maxable (not that a character HAS to have max ranks in anything, although some classes it is worthless to not have some certain skills maxed). Your argument seems to be that a Fighter should get no skill points, and Rogue should get something close to 12 or more. That seems silly, and not a recipe for group fun.

Also, note that a character with Int 10 and fighter as a favored class does get 3+Int skill points per level.

I'm actually IGNORING that, because I've come to feel that the Favored Class mechanic isn't good. You should to, when figuring out class skill points. It should NOT be considered when looking at the skill points for a class as a balance issue. Otherwise, you make favored class not a bonus, but an actual penalty for those that don't, since they won't be balanced at the end. The idea everyone seems to agree on is that the mechanic shouldn't punish anyone for playing outside of stereotype.

On the other hand, see the Favored Class discussion thread for my thoughts on an alternative to the favored class mechanics.

I've seen that, and it is a viable solution. It becomes part of the Racial mechanic as such, and could be removed from some higher level races as a balance issue. (Basically, you can guarantee balance by doing race comparisons, not nebulous looking at lots of different cases as is the case with the +1Hp/skill thing.)

And sheesh, please repost your information if you want to make it in more than one thread. Some of us don't have hours to go reading EVERY post in every thread.

Thanks for the expansion, EpicMeepo

So, Favored Class as it is now must stay because we have a balancing issue in skillpoints? I don't buy that. We are changing CORE mechanics, and balance is going to be weighed all over the place. Adding mechanic B as a partial fix to mechanic A is NOT a good solution. It doesn't fix mechanic A. I'd rather fix mechanic A, and then we can talk about some small benefits for mechanic B.

I've been going over skillpoints issues with my group because we didn't really like 3.5e skills (and the number of checks required for some actions), and came to a similar skill breakdown as PF (but not quite the same). In doing so, we've been re-evaluating the whole skillpoint issue. Big issue is that Rogues no no longer need lots and lots of skill points to get all their core skills. (Spot and Listen as one skill, Disable device and Open Lock as one skill, etc.)

The skill points per class should change. The Q becomes, how many is enough? Answer we came up with, and what we are still struggling with: 1) enough that a character with INT 10 can do all "core skills" of his class. In PF terms, that means a typical fighter should be able to get full max ranks in Climb, Intimidate, and Swim. Another classic route would be Ride, Climb, Survival. That means 3+INT. This is a subjective call, but balance is (unless extreme issues). It means typical class members can have typical skills, and players still ahve to make trade-off decisions to go outside the norm, and won't be able to get max ranks in all skills (far from it).

Now, our system still has cross class to buy ranks outside of class skills, and we enjoy it. Evaluation will need to be different from PF, where all skills are bought with one rank, and certain skills gain bonuses based on class. But the same evaluation needs to happen.

That being said, I agree with Steve, that racial feats should be considered.

How about:

Bonus Feat
Prereq: Dwarf. Level 5 Fighter
Upon reaching 5 levels in the fighter class, a dwarf gains 5 extra hit points, or skill points, or any combination of the two totaling 5 points.

<snip>

etc.

Opportunity Cost of Feat? What is better to select, this feat, or say, Improved Shield Bash, or Spring Attack, or Great Cleave, etc.

Fighter with favored class mechanics = 3+Int skill points per level

Fighter without favored class mechanics = 2+Int skill points per level

Conclusion: keep favored class mechanics.

For a conclusion, you need an argument, or a thesis and expansion. I see two statements of fact, or one comparison, and a conclusion, without any support.

At the risk of sounding like an teacher, would you please expand and add depth to your statement / argument?

The more I think about this whole thing, the more it feels like if this is a "core rule", that it is stepping on the place of the "campaign setting". Should ALL Elves in ALL Campaigns get the same bonuses for taking Wizard? Change the Favored class to Ranger in the separate campaign. Ok, so ALL Campaigns should treat Favored enemies the same? Stereotype characters for any given campaign are either better skilled (as in Skills, not combat or anything else) or more hardy? *shudder*

I definitely think the Racial Feat stuff is a way to go, the more I hear about them. But they need to be valuable feats, feats worth taking at whatever level they become available, or there is no point to them. Flip side of things: can't be too powerful, or one starts punishing those not playing stereotype. Using a character resource (in this case the "Feat Pool" as we call it in PCGen) instead of granting another layer of benefits (as is done now w/ +1 HP or +1 skillpoint) would require it. The other route would be to re-work when characters get what feats available, and put restrictions on them. Easy enough to implement in my favorite program, but some SERIOUS redesign issues to change at this point, I would think.

The racial substitution level stuff in published works changes flavor of characters, and doesn't really push 'stereotype playing'. It also takes a LOT of room to describe on a page. I don't to lose lots of pages of other content just so a racial substitution can be presented along with the new race. However, it does have the advantage of being able to check power exchange easily in the design stage (feats are much harder to judge, because of all the ways feats interact with each other.) Racial Substitution Levels, esp. in WotC supplements, have been more 'flavor' of a race putting more of a stamp on a character throughout their career, than "these guys are really good at Class A, see, they can do thing B which is a bit more powerful, but themed to the race". That's the past presentation, what we turn them into can be totally different.

I guess to explain myself: Players like to play what they want, which is good, and should be encouraged, not punished. However, for a while in my experience during 2nd ed, EVERY Drow PC pretty much was a Drizzt in alignment, temperament, etc. Kinda killed the whole "theme" of what the Drow were supposed to be. Drizzt wasn't unique. Basically, players weren't "buying in" to the cultural world of the setting: Players are creatures of the Real World, and have a similar cultures (or they wouldn't be sitting around a table playing together). I see a need for Game Mechanics based carrots that help the players "buy in" to the world's rules, so the campaign and it's different cultures / races are more real, have more depth, etc. come into play. That is what I have seen Favored Class mechanics in the past, and what I'd like to see them be in the future, albeit a bit more robust than "this class doesn't give you an XP penalty".

The flip side of the coin is one of the downer points in 3.5: Race doesn't mean a whole lot once a character has, say, 5 PC levels, and even less the more levels a character has. The bonuses just aren't that much (and would be un-balancing at low levels if they were.) Adding racial feats to keep bumping stuff (while taking a character resource) is a way for races to still be relevant at higher levels, and providing more choice. It can be a way to help Player's buy into the world of their Characters, or it can be just another bit of background flavor of the world. Either way, I think I really like the idea of racial feats (linked to favored classes or not), and I'd like to start designing / using such. I definitely think it would add more flavor to a setting.

Sorry for the long post. I went a bit afield on that.

---
Tir Gwaith
PCGen LST Chimp

snobi wrote:

Oh, that's fine then. I'm just concerned that Jason is going to pull the plug on any sort of bonus at all. Beggars can't be choosers, so if an extra skill or hit point is all that's being offered, I'll happily take it.

Heh.

You're thinking like a player. I'm thinking like a DM.

-Steve

No kidding. I'm with you Steve. We are definitely thinking DM / long view. I wonder if that is 'tainting' our PoV?

---
Tir Gwaith
PCGen LST Chimp

but here it would BE really UNFAIR not to give the same option to the characters that doesn't follow a Favored Class... HERE you will REALLY be forcing the Stereotype on the players to be really equal and not in disadvantage with every one else...

while 1 hp or 1 skp feel like freebies or boons... mor than that feels like overkill

Wow. The point of Favored Class is, um, to be unfair: Giving a bonus for making one choice over another. If you want to be fair to all characters choosing whatever, you toss out Favored Class altogether. And I've played games that do that, and will again (we are about to start Rise of the Runelords, and Favored Class won't be used.)

I see the argument both ways: +1 HP or +1 skill point aren't much, and give instant gratification. My point is this: why does it have to be _EVERY_ level? The point is to encourage players to take classes that fit racial cultural type (when the PLAYER isn't of that race/culture.) So, it is, pure and simple, a Game Mechanic to encourage roleplay.

However, it still doesn't _really_ provide an encouragement to all characters. Hence the change from +1 HP, to +1 HP or Skill point. And yet, to my group, that doesn't fit the bill, so we've gone with tossing Favored Class altogether for our next campaign.

Another possible bonus: increasing DC for a spell (choose a spell each level, no spell more than once would be easiest implementation.) That only works for Spellcasters, but the idea becomes endless, now that I'm brainstorming.

If PF does only the +1 HP/Skill point, I won't ever use it. Of course, like most, I'm not taking PF as my new source book, but as a source of possible alternate rules. When we start a campaign after Runelords, we'll look at Favored Class, and probably do something along my ideas. As it is, Favored Class can only really benefit a few character types for playing in-stereotype, and for it to be universally accepted by those who like the Favored Class mechanic, it has to be universally applicable to all characters.

Heh, well, I'm not really staking a position and saying "talk me out of it," though I am interested in hearing counterpoints. Your points were interesting, but ultimately didn't move me. YMMV.

The point isn't to houserule it, either. The point is (for me at least) to change it for the final version of the game. Personally, I'm looking for other options if they're necessary. I'd say that just using the skill bonus is enough.

-Steve

I like the idea of a better version. XP penalty is a nasty way to encourage the racial preference, and I would still like to see that in mechanics. A bonus is much nicer, and a 'reward' rather than a 'penalty'.

a) if all it was was bonus HP, I can say that a few Wizards wouldn't gain ANY value out of it (the rest of the party covers them, to the point that they are rarely, if ever, hurt in combat).

b) Rogues can easily do with more Skill points. No brainer there. HP v. Skill points can be a bit of a tough choice between two good things. So the Favored class works _best_ with the Rogue / Ranger type classes.

c) Skill points for a Fighter? After Acrobatics, Climb, and Swim, does a dungeon/cavern delving fighter with a good group support need any more? Does 1 HP / level really mean that much?

My thoughts: limiting to HP and skills is shoe-horning. I would rather see this:
Choose one of the following:
1) +1 skill point
2) +1 HP
3) +1 to any save (perhaps limited by class, so Reflex for Rogues, etc.)
4) +1 times per day for certain class abilities, but this is a) getting too complicated to track, etc. and b) possibly unbalancing, and could possibly be done via granting extra feats (see #5)
5) Nothing, but add do this 2-3 times, and gain a feat (perhaps limited by class, so Item Creation / Metamagic for Wizards, Fighter feats for Fighters, etc.)

That starts giving rewards that are useful to _any_ character, and leaves more choice in the hands of the player (always a bonus, IMO).

-- Tir Gwaith
PCGen LST Chimp

I'd argue that the DM's an idiot for giving the party treasure they can't use.

Weapon training reflects the fighter's continued focus on a specific type of weapon. If you find a weapon that isn't part of that focus, tough. The idea is to let the fighter do more damage as he gets higher levels. What you're suggesting will cause fighters to gimp down in damage again.

Gimp down in damage again? If the character isn't using the ability (can't find/save up for, whatever), then those numbers don't help a lick.

Requiring the DM to cater to poor design isn't good. the idea of the flexibility of character creation allows classes to remain viable to growing characters, and results in not having to pre-plan a character completely, and go with whatever story the DM puts out.

Rules-as-written, the fighter gets armor training at level 19 again even though the intent is to stop him at level 15. Stipulations, ahoy.

I don't think there is an issue. It gives examples of the progression, not listing them all. I would expect an Epic Fighter would continue to gain both Trainings past level 20.

My info is based on Alpha 2.0

The Pathfinder Fighter "Weapon Training" has the same fault as the original Favored Enemy from 3.0. If the character finds a really nice Lance, he can't take full advantage of it, and bonuses for greater abilities keep advancing in a weapon group he may not be using anymore. Converting this to use the same basic mechanic as the 3.5 Favored enemy (pick a new one at each instance, and then choose a group to gain a +1) would put more of the character development in the Player's hands. Right now, it locks things at early levels.