Valian's page

It's all working exactly as designed.

The problem is that this game design sucks. Players and DM dont want to roll 4 itterative attacks, if the third and forth are almost always inefective.

If defense matches offense in combat between equal level fighters, they wont feel underpowered, but will take the hardship of combating another experienced fighter. In the other hand, in combats between fighters of diferent levels, the fighter with higher level will feel overpowered and better than he was at low levels.

You cannot defend the current system mechanic.

So we drew a conclusion after discussion:What If we have "BAC" so AC can benefit from it just like BAB for AB?Whether simple "20BAB=20BAC" type or"20BAB=20/n BAC" type or more complicated type like depending on your level,it will be a good description for a adventure who become more and more skilled at dodge,block when he level up,instead of the situation that "they only have same AC benefit from same sheild,no matter different level they're" or "a level 1 wizard who carry a sheild has higher AC than a level 20 figther because the figther don't know he can cross his greatsword to block or simply dodge."I mean,these situations are disappointed，a good swordman must be harder to hit than a rookie sheilder,and two 20 level PC's battle can't be one touch and die,their basic fight skill(BAB) can't all about hitting enemy and not include avoiding being hit (For those bad or normal BAB classes,they're not warrior or complete warrior,that's their class basic setting.so I pefer who has good BAB are also has good BAC)

Thanks again for you stand my poor english.Reading and writing are totally different things......

I share your concern. In our games we use a Base Defense Bonus for all classes and monsters which is equal to one-half character's or monster's Base Attack Bonus.

As a result of introducting a Base Defense Bonus, you will have to adjust to others parts of the system:

1 - Relance magic items bonuses: so AC bonus magic itens will have to be offset by Attack Bonus magic itens. The quantity of sources of AC bonus magic items (armor) will have to be limited to same quantity of sources of Attack bonus magic items (weapons). So, no AC natural armor bonus from amulets (give instead Damage Reduction) and no Deflection Bonus from rings (give instead saving throw bonuses or others).

2 - Rework warrior classes (Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger) Itterative Attacks Progression, to be more similar to 2E and 5E, like this:
Lvl BAB
1st +1
2nd +2
3rd +3
4th +4
5th +5
6th +6
7th +7/+3
8th +8/+5
9th +9/+7
10th +10/+8
11th +11/+10
12th +12/+12
13th +13/+13/+9
14th +14/+14/+11
15th +15/+15/+13
16th +16/+16/+14
17th +17/+17/+16
18th +18/+18/+18
19th +19/+19/+19
20th +20/+20/+20

For non-warrior classes (like cleric, druid, wizards and others) skip itterative attacks totaly.

We need to start to talk about a Pathfinder 2.0, since 5e is good but not the definitive answer to our needs. We need an evolution of Pathfinder not a rough simplification as 5e (besides it has its own merits).

My taked on PFRGP2.0 would be:

- More flexible and modular classes in line with what is presented in the Genius Guides of Talented Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Barbarian books from Rogue Genius Games.

- A Base Defense Bonus (BDB) equal to 1/2 character's BAB to avoid the need of magical items to scale AC (magic itens bonus should be relanced too, since if you have BDB you may only need magic AC bonus that offset Magic Attack bonus, making magic bonuses neutral)

- No need of Full Round action to use multiple/itterative attacks;

- No random hp roll, characters and monsters gain full hit dice hp at each level.

- Base Saves always equal to 1/2 Character level + ability modifier, plus a Flat bonus of +2 for good saves according to class;

- Spells base Save DC always equal 1/2 caster level + ability modifier

- Advance with skill consolidation and simplification of skill bonus (ditch ranks systems):

• Trained class skill: 1d20 + character level + key ability modifier.
• Untrained class skill: 1d20 + ½ character level + key ability modifier.
• Trained non-class skill: 1d20 + ½ character level + key ability modifier.
• Untrained non-class skill: 1d20 + key ability modifier.

Kestral, there are clear benefits in my opinion:
1st - since bdb functions as a kind of dodge bonus, characters will have a better AC against touch attacks;
2nd - since bdb scales in levels and substitute rings and amulets AC bonus, you reduce the BIG SIX problem;
3rd - monsters will have a better AC, making combats last a little longer.

I agree with Barathos issues about armor as DR.
Just to avoid the derail of this thread, the subject here is using a base defense bonus (bdb) stackable with armor AC bonus. We are NOT using or discussing armor as DR.

But in our game base Defense bonus stacks with armor, we just dropped magic AC bonus from rings and amulets. I will take a look in Purê Steam, is always good to compare thank you.

Sorry what do you mean with purê steam values? For the rings and amulets the issue was that togegher they can bring character's AC up to +10, but since we already give Base Defense Bonus progression equal to one-half BAB, we thought it would be too much to let rings and amulets AC bonus stack with Base Defense Bonus.

In our games we are using a Base Defense Bônus equal to 1/2 BAB for every character class, monsters and NPCs and results are being good so far. We just dropped from the game ring of protection deflection bonus and amulet of natural armor AC bônus to keep AC balanced.

Does anybody else is using base defense bônus and would lime to share experiences? With the future release of Pathfinder unchained we are curious to see if there will be a solucion for this issue.

In my hybrid 3.5e + Pathfinder rules, I already use a similar mechanic called BDB (Base Defense Bonus), which is 1/2 BAB for all classes and monsters.

To fix the entire system, I also rule that:

. Natural Armor Bonus do not overlap with Manufactured Armor Bonus;

. Review Magic Itens AC Bonus, making items that give Attack Bonus behave only 1 slot (Weapons) and Items that give AC bonus only have 1 slot (Armor).

I use all characters, NPCs have a saving throw progression of 1/2 HD.
Good Saves get a +2 flat bonus.

Works fine for me.

I would not add a Ref save to touch spells, since we already use a Base Defense Bonus (BDB) with a progression equal to +1/2 BAB.

Of course, to do that you must review magic items and exclude AC bonuses from rings and amulets, so you would have only bonus AC from magic armor or bracers.

too radical... you would to relabel it from d&d or Pathfinder to another name...

Shields can be made fine with a simple Weapon'n'Shield Fighting Style or Class feature:

Weapon’n’Shield Fighting Style
Prerequisite: BAB +1.
Benefit: You gain +1 shield bonus with small shields (total +2 shield bonus) and +2 shield bonus with large shields (total +4 shield bonus). Alternatively, you may forgo your shield bonus to AC to make off-hand attacks with your shield without penalty (-0/-0) if using a small shield (1d3 damage, or 1d4 if spiked), and with -2 penalty (-2/-2) if using a large shield (1d4 damage, or 1d6 if spiked).

Try these:

Add BAB to Initiative (for everyone, including foes).

Make Light armor grant DR 1/-, Medium armor DR 2/- and Heavy armor DR 3/-.

Light helm grants +2 AC vs. crit confirmations, Great helm grants +4 AC vs. crit confirmations and -2 Perception penalty.

Power Attack, Point Blank Shot and Combat Expertise are free to anyone who meets the pre-requisites.

Those changes have made a world of difference in our campaigns and haven't required a great deal book-keeping or re-balancing to pull off.

Like the house rule for the feats, already use then too, except for Combat Expertise (since I already house rule a Base Defense Bonus equal to 1/2 BAB for all, PCs and Monsters)

Dont like the BAB as initiative bonus, since it hurts rogues.

Like the helm bonuses.

Would have to try armor DR bonuses to see if it works fine (would allow it to stack with Barbarian DR class feature, otherwise barian class feature would be weakened).

An even more condensed skill list would also be very welcome, followed by a more streamlined skill system.

Weapon
Armor
Cloak of Resistance
Stat-enhancing Item (Belt of Giant's Strength, Headband of Vast Int)
Ring of Protection
Amulet of Natural Armor

These are items that the system assumes you have at a certain degree of enhancement to determine how challenging monsters are for physical combatants.

I just copy pasted the above from the thread by the same name.
I think the big 6 should be replaced by inherent bonuses of some kind.

Exactly that. The big 6 (implict magic item dependency for scaling AC and other bonuses) is a point that really needs to be worked out.

Weapon and Armor bonuses can be left the way as they are, since they, both weapon and armor bonuses, counter thenselves.

Ring of Protection and Amulet of Natural Armor which provides up to a +10 AC bonus total, could be replaced by a Base Defense Bonus (BDB) progression equal to 1/2 character's Base Attack Bonus (BAB). I already use this house rule in my games and works fine, since it is a very easy rule to adapt to the already existing material.

Instead of giving AC, I would make Rings give bonuses to Saving Throws that could be countered by amulets giving bonuses to Spell Save DCs. As for streamlining Saving Throws and Spell Save DCs, it would be better to adopt a rule that character's save is always equal to 1/2 his character level + key ability modifier (Dex, Con or Wis) + class mod (flat +2 bonus for class' "strong" save).

Also for magic heavy worlds, would leave it optional to use cloacks as AC protection which would be countered by gloves or bracers giving bonus to attack rolls.

Thus, magic itens bonus distribution should be reworked.

I want a 2nd Ed simply so they can fix a lot of the convoluted and unclear rules, and spruce up some classes.

Doesn't have to be a full overhaul that invalidates everything though. Someone's idea of a "Revised CRB" would be fine with me.

That is the real way of conducting this discussion.

The question is: Would you want a revision of PFPRD ("PF 2.0" or "3.95E"), that improves the system without completely invadating everything that came before?

Valian wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

5E already exists...I don't think it's a terribly great business tactic to try to emulate another simplified ruleset. There are certainly bit and bobs that could be smoothed over, and certainly the presentation could be improved, but Pathfinder as a complex game is probably a better niche for them to explore

Agreed. There is a tendency of people to embrace the "dumbed down modern American culture", in arts, cinema and even RPGs, but it is not my case. 3.X system is a brilhant game in many ways and I miss many of its incredible features in 5e. I think that to dumb it down because people simply lacking the will or attention span to learn a game is a terrible mistake, as 4E already showed to Hasbro. So if Paizo wants to make its way through the future, it has to start planning a Pathfinder 2, maybe for release in 2017... it can make some featurew simplier but not neglect and abandom all the progress made with 3.Xe, and even borrow some features from 4e (like a more rebuilt of itterative attacks, condensed skill system, not skill ranks, just trained and non-trainted, class skills and non-class skills etc.).

And this right here is where you lost me. Love how you say "dumbed down modern American culture" and other mentions of "dumbed down" or "dumbing it down". I take it you are not American, and you have never heard of K.I.S.S. or "Keep It Simple, Stupid".

Just gotta love the whole "dumbing down" BS that gets thrown around when speaking of pre-3rd edition and 5th edition. And sorry, 4th edition's lack of interest from a large number of people wasn't because it was "dumbed down", it was because it was a massive departure from so much that came before, which is why Pathfinder succeeded like it did.

And your comments are sounding quite Edition War-y.

I am not too young, I am 32 years old and have played 2nd edition since the early 90's. I\And you are right, I am not american, but do not have anything against the americans, much the contrary. KISS is a world wide famous expression for everybody who works in a corporative enviroment. Dont be stupid.

Cyrad wrote:

...D&D tradition of completely invalidating existing material. Almost each edition of D&D is essentially a completely new game whereas most games simply refactor existing mechanics between editions.

0E, 1E, 2E, B/X, and BECMI are all essentially the same system. It wasn't until 3.0 that developers scrapped the whole thing to start from scratch.

You are missing the point here. The question is not to identify which edition was exactly the turning point (and, by the way, I think 3E wasn't the turning point, what was a break and a totaly new game was 4E. Some people say that 3E was too complex but they seen to forget many points there were brilhantly streamlinded by 3E, starting by Ability Score Bonuses - no more bend bars/lift gates % from 2E etc., and the infinite number of modifiers each ability score provided in 2E. So 3E also made the game more simple in many points were it should be simple. By the other hand, some inovations like diferent critical modifiers and threat ranges for different weapon were a very nice add on without too much complexity. Maybe giving too many itterative attacks and at a decreasing attack bonus were a mistake of 3E but it can be corrected in future editions).

The point in this post is to discuss about the FUTURE of PFRPG, a possible PFRPG 2.0, not the past of D&D, and its zero, 1st or 2nd past edtions. If community wants, Paizo will answer its call and produce a PFRPG 2.0, but keeping it greatly compatible with its predecessor material, much like 3.0E was still compatile in most parts with 3.5E.

Cheers.

5E already exists...I don't think it's a terribly great business tactic to try to emulate another simplified ruleset. There are certainly bit and bobs that could be smoothed over, and certainly the presentation could be improved, but Pathfinder as a complex game is probably a better niche for them to explore

Agreed. There is a tendency of people to embrace the "dumbed down modern American culture", in arts, cinema and even RPGs, but it is not my case. 3.X system is a brilhant game in many ways and I miss many of its incredible features in 5e. I think that to dumb it down because people simply lacking the will or attention span to learn a game is a terrible mistake, as 4E already showed to Hasbro. So if Paizo wants to make its way through the future, it has to start planning a Pathfinder 2, maybe for release in 2017... it can make some featurew simplier but not neglect and abandom all the progress made with 3.Xe, and even borrow some features from 4e (like a more rebuilt of itterative attacks, condensed skill system, not skill ranks, just trained and non-trainted, class skills and non-class skills etc.).

The release of 5e has shown some good advancements, but come on guys... Paizo already shown that can do much better than that.

The 5e, besides some good improvements and reverting back to 2E in many good ways, it has basically abandoned all the progress made with 3.0, 3.5 and 4E.

I think there is a good window of opportunity for Paizo to start planning a version of Pathfinder II. This could keep Pathfinder I own advances but also give some direction to the advances made with 4e (condensed skills, combat advantage), 5e (itterative attacks as standard action) and beyond.

For example, 5e has thrown away the mechanic that gave weapons different critical threat ranges and multipliers, a mechanic that used to help to each weapon to become more unic.

As a suggestion for Pathfinder 2, I would start to tinker with a defense bonus for all classes and monsters scaling at a rate of one-half the character's Base Attack Bonus. This would help to reduce the system dependence to magical itens for those like me that play in low magic settings. If you choose to use a Base Defense Bonus (BDB) you should also think about dropping BAB decreasing progression of +20/+15/+10/+5, and make all itterative attack the same BAB, or maybe a faster scaling for the second and third itterative attack so at later levels they can reach the first attack BAB.

These are just some ideas, but the message I would like to pass above all is that, THERE IS ROOM for a PATHFINDER II, if not now, in a near future, and we will be waiting for that!

Cheers.

Using 2 handed fighting as the baseline, show me (with math) how this feat is overpowered.

Though I have been pondering adding 13 Dex and BAB +1 to the first feat, and BAB +3 to the second.

The baseline should not be 2 handed fighting, but other feats. Thus, your feat, as presented, is not balanced.

Using 2 handed fighting as the baseline, show me (with math) how this feat is overpowered.

Though I have been pondering adding 13 Dex and BAB +1 to the first feat, and BAB +3 to the second.

The baseline should not be 2 handed fighting, but other feats. Thus, your feat, as presented is not balanced.

Single Weapon Style
Benefit: When attacking with a single weapon in your main hand and not using a shield or a second weapon in your off hand, you add a +2 dodge bonus to your AC, as well as increasing the damage die of your weapon by one step. Utilizing any other weapon (including natural attacks or unarmed strikes) other than the single weapon in your main hand will cause you to lose the benefit of this feat.

I would the drop the increase of the damage dice of the weapon by one step OR require that you fight with a light or finessable weapon in your main hand (in that case, you could keep the increase of damage dice by one step).

I don't know if I can let this go.

I'm considering a replacement.

Will post back here if anything comes of it, be ready to re-submit whatever you had up there.

For sure. Thank you.

So many good material lost. It is a pitty. Thanks for your answers guys.

There used to be a Pathfinder Webpage hosted by Paizo called Pathfinder Data Base where fans could publish their homebrew contributions, like new classes, prestige classes, equipment etc. Anybody know if it doesnt exist anymore and why? Couldnt find it on internet.

Yeah, it's a slow process. I've also been working on my own system recently, though it hardly resembles pathfinder at all, or even d20 for that matter.

Still looking for your review about the ranger. Thx!

I don't have ANY complaints about the skill tricks; I was mostly curious about the design decision. Do you intend to keep prestige classes or gut them for improving the core classes? Same question, archetypes?

I am skipping prestige classes and archetypes. The best feature we got in this system is that it is modular, so you do not need hydrid classes. Every non-spellcasting class gives you a +1 base caster level bonus equal to 1/2 your level (like a +10 BAB progression). So you can multiclass a rogue with a wizard without screwing up.

If you want to develop the features of a class you can add more talents... ad infinitum. For the rogue for example I have many more than the ones already posted, but skiped some of then (like "B" sides hehehe) so people could at least get some courage and read my already long document.

Another example of skill trick not in the online domument:

Investigator: A rogue with this talent gains three investigation skill tricks, as following:
1) Analysis of Traces and Evidences (Ex) As a full-hour action, the rogue can make a Perception skill check againt DC 20 or the crime author’s Bluff or Stealth skill check result (if he attempted to hide the evidences), to attempt to discern the cause of death, theft, arson or sabotage of any corpse or crime scene he examines. If the rogue succeeds, he gain an accurate information about what killed the person, the size and approximate strength of any attacker responsible, how the thief infiltrated the area and through where he escaped, what was the cause of the arson or sabotage and any other key information the GM judges relevant. Also, by making a successful Insight check (DC 20) when talking with a witness to a crime, the rogue can gain an accurate mental picture of the author. The Rogue can attempt to commit this image to paper using the Perform skill (DC 20).
2) Detect Lies (Ex): The rogue can use this skill trick in an interrogation enviroment, where he can stay and talk in private with the target and ask him trick questions and use other interrogation strategies. As the target talks, as a full-round action, the rogue can concentrate and pay full attetion on the target, who must be within 30 feet, and make a Insight Skill check against a DC equal to the target’s Bluff Skill check result. If the rogue succeeds, he knows if the target is deliberately and knowingly speaking a lie by discerning disturbances in its body language and maneirisms caused by lying. This skill trick does not reveal the truth, uncover unintentional inaccuracies or necessarily reveal evasions.
3) Deduticve Augury (Ex): Once per day, the rogue may attempt to use his reasoning and deduction to solve a mystery, puzzle, or trap. As a standard action, the rogue makes an assertion that can be true or untrue (such as "the half-orc did it" or "If I pull the red lever, the door will open"). The GM makes a secret Knowledge Skill check against DC 20 (or highter according to the difficult of the problem and the clues the rogue already have to solve it). If the Skill is successful, the GM gives the rogue a correct "true" or "untrue" answer to the assertion, though no reason need be given for why the response is correct. If the roll fails, the GM provides no information. If the GM rolls a “1” on the skill check, he provides wrong answer to the assertion. Once the rogue fails the Knowledge Skill check, he can only retry the same assertion if he gathers new clues or informations about the matter. The GM is always free to determine that the rogue doesn't have enough information to make a reasonable guess, but in this case the attempt doesn't count against the allowed uses per day of the ability. Prerequisite: 4th level Rogue, Int 15, trained in Knowledge Skill.

ACG = Pathfinder Adventure Card Game?
Thanks anyway, you made me feel a lot better indeed.
As you will see, I have borrowed some of your ideas in this last update (see rogue talent: magic lore).

Skipping the personal part, which I disagree but prefer not to argue, I will answer about Hide in Plain Sight. If examine carefully you will see that it's weeker than the standard version in PFRPG, but also sounds more realistic:

Rogue Talent

Swift and Silent: A rogue with this talent gains three Stealth skill tricks, as following:
1) Fast Stealth (Ex): The rogue can use the Stealth skill while moving at his normal speed without penalty (normal -5) and takes only a -10 penalty on Stealth checks while running (normal -20).
2) Quicker than the Eye (Ex): The rogue can use the Stealth skill without penalty after succeeding in a Bluff check to create a diversion to hide (normal -10). The rogue can also use the Stealth skill to snipe without penalty (normal: -10; snipe is a standard action that combine a single ranged attack and a subsequent Stealth skill check to hide).
3) Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): The rogue can use the Stealth skill with a -10 penalty to attempt to hide from a single observer in a place that doesn't grant cover or concealment (such as grabing in the ceiling, going prone and standing up again and doing other maneuvers to move out from the target’s sight). For each additional observer the rogue attempts to hide in a place without cover or concealment, he takes an additional -2 penalty on his Stealth check. Prerequisite: 4th level rogue, Dex 13.

Diferences: Quicker than the Eye allows you to negate the -10 penalty AFTER succeding in a Bluff check to create a diversion to hide. Hide in Plain Sight from PFRPG allow you to hide without penalty regardless of sucessfully creating a diversion to hide.

Also, the number 3 is camouflage from PFRPG but it is relabeled and a little bit weeker too, since it only allows you to hide from 1 creature regardless of cover or concealment, but you take a -10 penalty.

Cheers.

No reviews yet, sad boards. People prefer to talk about the archaic rather than examine the new.

Take a look at this thread too, there is a link to an ONLINE DOCUMENT with a rogue class and many different skill tricks. Your feedback is appreciated. Cheers.

I have updated the ONLINE DOCUMENT, between the bigger changes are the concession of itterative attacks for rogues (+15/+15), and a very extended list of skill tricks. Your feedback is very appreciated (But be aware that it is a d20 system based in 3.5e and Pathfinder, but a little bit different too, since feats are more generic abilities open for all classes, while each character class has an special talent tree selection that make each of then unique and modular at the same time).

Cheers.
.
.
Sneak peech: Rogue's itterative attacks progression:

01) +0
02) +1
03) +2
04) +3
05) +3
06) +4
07) +5
08) +6
09) +6
10) +7/+1
11) +8/+3
12) +9/+5
13) +9/+5
14) +10/+7
15) +11/+9
16) +12/+11
17) +12/+11
18) +13/+13
19) +14/+14
20) +15/+15

Bump!

Yeah, it's a slow process. I've also been working on my own system recently, though it hardly resembles pathfinder at all, or even d20 for that matter.

Take your time it is ok. Most of your suggestions where helping us a lot and where added to the game. Do not miss the hunter (totaly original) and the rogue which is one of our favorite classes. If you need help or feedback with your own system we can work it out.

Cheers.

Still missing Riuken's excelent feedback about the other classes...

Never made an actual document for the Rogue. I've got something for a Fighter variant, but the key on a Fighter variant is feats even moreso then a class. Without a feat re-write, Fighters aren't going to compete.

==Aelryinth

Thats a pitty. If you have time and want to, you can write down some scratch and submit to us to evaluate your ideas and also borrow from then. Otherwise, if you have time and want to... you can review the martial classes, specially the rogue in our online document. I will be grateful for that. Thank you.

Tricks like:

- Hide from Scent
- See invisible traces
- See magical effects
* All with prerequisite rank requirements (which class skills allow 3 levels earlier).

- Use Intimidate to demoralize an enemy whenever they confirm a critical or deal Sneak Attack damage, as well as replace Sense Motive checks with a Intimidate or Bluff check (again, essentially getting a bonus skill point).

- Use Bluff to make an enemy count as an ally for the purpose of providing flank.
- Use acrobatics to avoid an attack (similar to Snake Style).

The suggestions above I like and will try to add to the rogue already presented in our ONLINE document. In this document there ate some nice skill tricks for the rogue class too. I use 3 skill tricks theme-related are gained for each talent selected. Could take a look in it and say what you think about?

Also, do you guys have any document to share with us describing your rogue classes?

Cheers.

Riuken wrote:

Valian wrote:

Riuken and others,

The ONLINE DOCUMENT has being edited incorporing Riuken suggestions and others (revision marks are set to help you to see what have changed). Before analysing the Hunter or the Rogue, check it again. Thank you.

Cheers.

The only edit I see is the addition of shields to fighter armor training. I don't see any revision marks. Not sure what's wrong, on my end, your end, or google's end.

My fault. Changes are marked as suggestions, I think it is only showed to the author of the document. I will try to fix it later, highlighting then in yeallow to make it visible to all, as I did with armor training.

ONLINE DOCUMENT is fixed and ready for use. Now the changes are highlighted in light blue.

Cheers.

Valian wrote:

Riuken and others,

The ONLINE DOCUMENT has being edited incorporing Riuken suggestions and others (revision marks are set to help you to see what have changed). Before analysing the Hunter or the Rogue, check it again. Thank you.

Cheers.

The only edit I see is the addition of shields to fighter armor training. I don't see any revision marks. Not sure what's wrong, on my end, your end, or google's end.

My fault. Changes are marked as suggestions, I think it is only showed to the author of the document. I will try to fix it later, highlighting then in yeallow to make it visible to all, as I did with armor training.

First time using google docs. ;)
Cheers!

Riuken and others,

The ONLINE DOCUMENT has being edited incorporing Riuken suggestions and others (revision marks are set to help you to see what have changed). Before analysing the Hunter or the Rogue, check it again. Thank you.

Cheers.

Here is an optional progression, for those who want to try 4 itterative attacks with full BAB:
.
.
.
.

Level BAB
01st. +01
02nd +02
03rd +03
04th +04
05th +05/+00
06th +06/+02
07th +07/+04
08th +08/+06
09th +09/+08
10th +10/+10/+05
11th +11/+11/+07
12th +12/+12/+09
13th +13/+13/+11
14th +14/+14/+13
15th +15/+15/+15/+10
16th +16/+16/+16/+12
17th +17/+17/+17/+14
18th +18/+18/+18/+16
19th +19/+19/+19/+18
20th +20/+20/+20/+20

Cheers.

Estimated barbarian strength:

Base strength: 18
Level increases (level 17): +4
Belt of strength: +6
Rage: +12
Total: 40
Attack bonus from strength: +15
Damage bonus from strength (2-hand): +22
This number could go even higher, such as starting with a 20 or even 22 strength (if orc is allowed), or using an inherent bonus. This seems a bit out of control, mostly for the attack bonus. The damage bonus makes sense, since power attack isn't an option, but for the same reason, the attack bonus is quite large.

Likely barbarian attack bonus at level 20:
BAB: +20
Strength: +15
Basic buffs (greater heroism + haste): +5
Weapon enhancement (+5 or +3 furious): +5
Misc (flank, feat, etc.): +2
TOTAL: +47

Likely fighter AC at level 20:
Base: 10
BDB: +10
Dexterity: +0
Mithral fullplate: +9
Armor enhancement: +5
Armor training (armor): +5
Ring of protection: +5
Amulet of natural armor: +5
Dusty rose ioun stone: +1
Haste: +1
TOTAL: 51

Comments:

A) Barbarian ATT:
+20 from level 20;
+4 from Strength
+6 from rage (+12 STR)
TOTAL: 30

B) FIGHTER AC:
10 from Base AC
+10 from BDB (base defense bonus) at level 20
+9 from full plate (in our games it allow +1 max dex)
+1 from Dex mod
+5 from Armor Training
TOTAL: 35

If the fighter chooses to use a heavy shield (+2), takes weapon'n'shield fighting style (+2), and adds bonus from 1/2 armor training bonus (+2), he will get +6 AC, so his total AC will be 41, and the barbarian will need to roll 11 or more to score a hit.

2) Skills: I do not think the barbarian as an absolute brute (besides some can be). I think he is raised in the wilderness so the type of skills he get trained are different, but he is not necessarily less skilled then the fighter. Just my view, but I respect yours. Armscraft is important to craft weapons (barbarian know how to forge weapons indeed) and to set traps. Maybe in the future I post the details about this skill, it is very interesting.

3) Proficiencies: I gave the barbarian 4, since fighter has 5. for example, a Barb could choose swords / Axes&Picks/ Maces & Hammers / Spears & Polearms + Basic. Or make a trade-off and choose bows in place of polearms. Etc. 4 weapon group slots works for me for this reason. 3 I think is too limited.

4) Saves: Already adjusted after your previous review about the fighter. Take a look again in the online document. Barbarians get +2 Fort and +1 Ref vs Fighters gaining +2 Fort +1 Will.

5) Rage: Dont know if you have noted but I removed limitation about the number of usages of rage per day (3.5e) or maximum number of rounds per day (Pathfinder). You can start a rage at anytime (as long as you arent fatigued or exhausted) for longs as you want, until the end of the encounter (after that you suffer the tiring/fatigue consequences). Removed the Constitution becaused it used to kill many barbs after rages runs out, so add renewed vigor instead. I think temporary hp is better to control than a subtle surge of hp that leaves the barbarian helpless and dead after rage. The strength bonus is in pair with Fighters weapon training as you already noted. The AC penalty for raging is reduced to -1 (instead of -2).

6) Damage reduction: AC in my homebrew is not a losing game, as I will try to show in advance.

7) MISSING ABILITIES:
"Improved uncanny." Yes, and the reason for me to remove this ability is to protect te rogues niche in duels. Only rogues can have an inherent ability to counter a rogue's main ability.

"Indomitable will is amazing. Why did you remove it?" Substituted by the talent of the same name but reducted its effect. I may let it stack with Save Bonus from feats as you suggested.

"Tireless rage is a talent now, and I'm 100% in for that, except that the level requirement is absurdly low." It is not low since it is not identical to Tireless Rage from Pathfinder. Tireless Rage here only allows the barb to enter in Rage while fatigued (because otherwise he cannot enter in rage while fatigued, for example, from a previous rage), but he becomes exhausted (instead of ust fatigued) after rage for using this talent to enter rage even if fatigued. In pathfinder, Tireless rage lets the barb end the rage without getting fatigued. So its VERY different and DOES NOT ALLOW rage cycling more than once.

SIDE NOTE: None of your classes have level 20 capstones, is that intentional? Yes. All classes are modular: 1 main class ability at every odd level, 1 talent at eevery even level. Feats are different too, but we can talk about it later on.

8) Talents:

Roar: Changes recommended: usable without raging (rejected, since he only becomes fearsome while raging). change to an intimidate check (prefer to give other a chance to resist through a Will Save since the shaken effect last longer than 1 rd). But, accepting your feedback partially, I will reduce it to a SWIFT action to make it a bit stronger.

Indomitable will: Accepted. Will allow stacking with iron will.

Clear mind: good ability.

Clarity of mind: "except for sounding too similar to its prereq, this is good." Any suggestion for a better name?

Strength surge: "Good idea, bad numbers." Works exactly as in Pathfinder. See it again.

"Mighty swing: identical to an already existing one. Good ability." It is not identical to the existing one since it allows you to MAXIMIZE the DICE DAMGE if you score a crit, but only once per rage.

Raging prowess: "enhancement bonus? The bonus type is weird, and the ability is mechanically weak. " Just merged raging leaper, raging leaper and raging swimer from PF into ust one talent.

"Freedom of movement: misleading name," Any name sugestion? Will think in a better one.

"Internal fortitude: weak ability that plugs a self-created gap." Will allow it stack with Great Fortitude Feat.

"Renewed vigor: make it a swift action, and specify current or maximum HP." feedbakc accepted.

"Amazing dodge: I like the flavor, but the mechanics are a bit off. Not sure how to fix it." Agreed, but not sure how to fix it too.

"Whirling frenzy: extremely weak." Disagree a free +1 Ac bonus. The is no dodge feat open for all.

"Leap attack: great flavor. Specify if the 10 feet can be horizontal, vertical, or both. "His weapon deals double damage..." does that mean just the base weapon damage dice, or the entire attack's damage? If the second, change wording to "The attack deals double damage..." I might add that the trip attempt doesn't provoke." Originally my it was only weapon deals double damage, but I am accepting your suggestion and making the attack deal doudle damage instead. The trip attempt doesnt provoke AO, but I must explicit it in the text. thank you.

Still waiting for the feedback about the barbarian, if anyone is interested in strengthing the rogue, there is a rogue version too.

Fighter class analysis:

5) Armor Training: I like that the bonus is linearly scaling and doesn't depend on the type of armor worn. I might add something to give shields half the bonus as well, to help offset the reduction in the bonus from weapon training from using a shield. You mention the bonus not applying to touch attacks and being lost while helpless twice.

Thinking twice, I am acepting this feedback about applying 1/2 armor training bonus to shields too. Makes sense. Already added it to our online document.

Valian wrote:

Wow... that is THE feedback I was waiting for. Thank you very much!

Just a quick reply:

Many of your responses are with regard to the other classes in your document (martials). The way I evaluated the fighter class is largely against a wizard, and how he can be an effective and valued party member alongside one. I might drop class based skill points from casters entirely, giving them only their int bonus in skill points (min 1). As stated, I would make it a goal to turn skills into the "martial specialty". Sort of like cantrips that scale: weaker than proper spells, but unlimited in use.

I'd want the talents, as a class feature, to feel like the "spells" of the martial classes. A broad list of powerful and scaling effects that help define your specific party role, or just help you diversify as a character. The core power of the "spells" class feature is twofold: versatility and quadratic scaling. I believe that achieving a lesser measure of that versatility and quadratic scaling with talents would help martial classes feel more powerful, especially compared to primary casters (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard).

You have a point here. Your concept seens very interesting and promising, remembers a concept used in an old 3.5e book called "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords". Besides our group prefference is for a more realistic feel for the martial classes, I have nothing against your concept which seens very reasonable too (but will need hard work!), if it is your obective. Go for it, and share with us. We are here to help in case of need!

Cheers.

Wow... that is THE feedback I was waiting for. Thank you very much!

Fighter class analysis:

1) Skills: I would increase the class skill ranks to 6+int mod. Actually, I would give all martial classes 2 more skill ranks. The goal of this would be to make skills the "martial specialty", and try to force casters into either using spells instead of skills, or just let the martial characters handle the skills. The whole skill system is screwy, both the base pathfinder one and yours. I'm not telling you that your skill system is bad, I just don't think it can be balanced in a way that resembles the current system. See the above vastly different opinions on what does and does not work in the skill system as proof that it's screwy.

Feedback accepted, but since I am very concerned with proportion, I am increasing skill ranks by +50%, so Fighter, Barbarian and Hunter starts with 6 ranks + Int mod; Rogue starts with 12 ranks + Int mod; Cleric, Druid, Wizard and Sorcerer starts with 3 ranks + Int mod. Class skill lists will remain unchanged.

2) Proficiencies: I feel that fighter weapon proficiencies could be brought down a touch, maybe 4 weapon groups. Currently they are proficient with at least 7/10 of all weapons, and more than that if weapons exist in multiple groups. The other option would be to flavor fighters as skilled with every weapon, not just a selection, and give them proficiency in all of them. That's a class feature worth picking a class for. Either way, the current selection of nearly every weapon feels a bit awkward.

Feedback partially accepted. Fighter weapon groups reduced to 5 + basic weapons (instead of six). The Fighter still receives more weapon groups than the Barbarian (4 + basic), Hunter (4 + basic) and Rogue (3 + basic), since Fighter is reputed to be the most technical martial carreer.

3) Saves: Fighters could use another good save, I'd vote for will. I see that bravery is still an option (getting to bonus talents soon), but as a non-default feature I think all fighters could use a buff to their mental fortitude and general stubbornness. Being able to add bravery on top of that for a massive bonus against fear seems appropriate and flavorful. One of the common complaints with the current pathfinder fighter is his single good save (not as bad off as the rogue, mind you).

Feedback partially accepted, but still thinking about how to Balance the system as a whole after acepting this suggestion. Maybe would give to Fighter good Fort (+2) and Will (+1), to Barbarian good Fort (+2) and Ref (+1), to Hunter good Ref(+2) and Fort (+1), to Rogue good Ref(+2) and Will (+1), to Cleric good Will(+2) and Fort (+1), to Druid good Will (+2) and Ref (+1), to Wizard and Sorcerer with good Will (+2) only.

4) Weapon Training: step 1, get rid of the damage adjustment for handedness. It's a bit clumsy and ultimately continues to reward two-handed fighting styles, which are already strong. It also does little to reduce the effectiveness of two-weapon styles under your system. Step 2, I would apply the bonus increase to all weapon groups. This follows a quadratic progression...

First step: rejected. Seriously, I can not do that. Besides clumsy, the damage adjustment for handedness has a clear and fundamental purpose: ensure the principle of neutrality of the fighting styles. It makes equaly balanced to figth with two-handed weapons or two weapons. Keeps also this Fighter class feature (weapon trining) balanced compared to the Barbarian Rage Str bonus that already does the same. It is basically a fix to that. Otherwise, the dmg bonus for fighting with 2 weapons will be much greater than the bonus for fighting with one weapon or two-handed weapons.

Second step: partially accepted. I would keep it applying to a single weapon group because it has flavour value, but would add a new class Talent allowing you to improve the weapon groups selected later which the bonuses lags behind, as following:

Extra Weapon Training (Ex): A fighter can select a new weapon group to gain a bonus of +1 on attack and damage rolls, or increase by +1 the bonus associated with a weapon group already selected. In any case, the bonus associated with this weapon group cannot exceed the bonus associated with your first selected weapon group. At any level, when your weapon training bonus increases, the bonus associated with this new or already selected weapon group also increases.

5) Armor Training: I like that the bonus is linearly scaling and doesn't depend on the type of armor worn. I might add something to give shields half the bonus as well, to help offset the reduction in the bonus from weapon training from using a shield. You mention the bonus not applying to touch attacks and being lost while helpless twice.

Feedback rejected. Since a heavy shield already provides a flat +2 AC, and combined with Weapon'n'Shield Fighting Style it improves to +4 AC bonus, I consider it an already big increase and advantage to use a shield (even more if you apply magic shield bonus).

6) Talents: A build-your-class-features class feature. Generally accepted as a good type of class feature, due to "modularity = good, pre-packaged = bad". Some base fighter class features live in this list, which weakens the fighter class overall. I would combine several talents into single talents that scale as you level, such as (armor adaptation/greater armor adaptation) and (critical focus/improved critical). You may also want to add a talent that grans a feat you qualify for, and can be taken multiple times. In general, I would look to buff this class feature and really make it the "meat" of the class, as part of offsetting the move of standard features to this list.

Will have to think about it, but fighter talents strength looks in pair with talents from other classes such as Barbarian and Hunter. The main class feature of the fighter is Weapon Training and Armor Training, the talents give him more options but are not as powerful as these main class features. Basically, you can direct your talents to improve your individual fighting skills (weapon and armor talents) or improve your teamworking and leadership abilities (some cool talents here, you should have noted). These are the 2 figter paths. Will wait for yor feedback about the other class, then maybe come back to rework this point.

Overall, your houserule fighter only manages to have one major change from the base pathfinder fighter that actually matters, and that is strength of skills (both class list and ranks). All of the other changes accomplish the same end result with different mechanics. His niche may be better protected due to other classes not having access to his talents, but the fighter himself feels almost unchanged.

Yes, this was our original purpose: improve the system but keeping its tradition, to avoid too radical changes (unlike 4e), making it more rounded, easier, flexible, but also standarized (all class receive a main class feature at each odd level, and a class talent at each even level), and keeping it more or less realistic too (again, unlike 4e).

Thank you very much again. Can't wait for the feeback about the other classes.

EDIT: Already added your sugestions to the online document!

Cheers.

What rules did you use? I've been trying to cripple save/suck.

For Death spells and effects, targets must make two saving throws in a roll. If the target fails the first saving throw, it steps immediatelly to the dying condition (-1 hp) and must make a second Fort Save to avoid death.

For Baleful Polymorph, we also use a similar mechanic demanding 2 saving throws in a roll. If the target fails the first Fort saving throw, it assumes the animal form for 1 round and must make a second Fort Save to avoid becoming permanently trapped in the animal form.

Finally, for Base Saves, we use a house rule that all classes have all Base Saves Progression (Fort, Ref, Will) equal to ½ their character level. Instead of a better save progression, each Class receives a "flat bonus" of +2 on its good save (e.g. Fighters get a +2 Bonus on Fort Saves). This makes sense, since Spell Save DC is also equal to 10 + ½ spellcaster's level + key ability modifier (Int or Wis). So both Saves and Spell Saves DCs progress equaly.

Valian wrote:

Doggan wrote:

I tried a bunch of different. Things. Average roll rounded up, normal rolls, roll and reroll if you get a 1... But it all felt kind of off to me. I've finally come to the point where I just have my players gain their max every level. The game finally feels right where the Barbarian has double the HP of the Wizard. Plus, I can throw fights out there that are slightly harder since everyone in the group has a larger HP pool. Level 2-4 critical hit deaths have become far less commonplace as well.

I am also with Doggan here. Mx hp every level is the rule currently used in our games, and we are greatly satisfacted with this: GM and players.

does this tend to give more or less weight to save or suck spells?

Save or suck spells are not really an issue for us, since we use alternate rules, making such spells harder to hit at full effect.