Laurefindel wrote:
And giving them the additional skill point in the Knowledge skill(s) (along with a half-class-level bonus to other Knowledge checks) more than balances this out... It's assigning two skill points, one to one of two perform skills, automatically, much the way this knowledge skill bonus works. If they were to rewrite the class as a 4 skill point class and write in the skill point as a bonus to two different perform skills it'd be no more or less a problem in terms of balancing the class... But it would (or should) render this entire argument moot if that were done... Perhaps it'd be best to just do that.
cliff wrote:
There was a comment, by somebody, about Profession and Craft being essentially the same thing - and in that same post the comment was made that Perform should be a Craft skill - I meant my comments, regarding Profession, in that light and not against the part you replied to... But, that aside even... Let's face it, we're talking about ONE FREAKING SKILL POINT PER LEVEL! Each Bardic ability that is mentioned in the beta text mentions at X level the bard has to have X number of ranks in the Perform skill... cliff wrote:
What makes a Bard special at performing is what they can do with their performance that NO ONE else can! All of those bardic abilities ARE what they can do with their performance that is special! And it absolutely makes sense that they would need a check to do this... Let's face it, anyone can belt out a song in the shower... Heck, I could sing like that with my friends before we go out to play football against some "rivals" from the next block over... But I promise you I won't be inspiring nothing but a beat down - on me, to get me to shut the heck up! A bard can use their performance, and by using the skill and actually performing well, to do a ranger of things - all lined out in their class abilities. The skill check is there because even a talented singer/musician/performer can screw up and blow it! And let's not blow this out of proportion either... We're talking about a single skill point per level in "a perform skill." So at best you're taking ONE POINT away from the Bard. Bards aren't Wizards who learn to recite arcane chants and phrases, or Sorcerers who have an innate ability to channel supernatural arcane power, or Druids who whisper to the spirits of the world around them to gain and cast spells, nor are they Clerics whose prayers summon divine magic... They learn to cast magic through their performance, through their song, dance, music. It's what they do. Also, it's important to note that ONLY these rare special abilities that they can do with their talents actually require a Perform check. There's nothing in their spellcasting write-up that says they need to do it cast their daily allotment of spells (other than that they're casting them through song, music, etc). And, with their Bardic Knowledge ability granting them additional ranks in a Knowledge skill, and applying 1/2 their level to all knowledge skill checks they more than make up for the ONE POINT PER LEVEL requirement to keep pace with the required number of ranks to perform specified bardic abilities. Those skill rank requirements are there to show that a certain level of proficiency is required to perform at a high enough caliber to be able to do that kind of awesome feat.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Any good ranged attack, or area effect, will hit them just as it would anyone else. And a Wizard casting a spell is hardly able to "leap out of the way" of an area effect spell (or anything requiring a Reflex save)... High level monsters aren't intended to stand up toe-to-toe with high level PC's... They ARE intended to crush them! A dragon of nearly any age/size should ALWAYS crush a high level PC in comparison... Let's face it, these higher level threats are monsters that NEED to be attacked "en masse" as a party against them... That's the whole idea! And I disagree that AC doesn't stand up against many of these monsters... You can get a fairy high AC relatively easily as a fighter and be relatively safe in combat against monsters that don't have a lot of "touch attack" abilities. *and for the record, I see "touch attacks" (including ranged touch attacks) to be a very "broken" aspect of the game in general - far too easy to hit, and far too many things make this WAY too exploitable!* Take the Gray Slaad... CR 10, BAB +10, standard claw attack +15... A CR10 means approximately 4 10th level characters are meant to fight this thing... Yeah, he'll hit a lot against even 18-24 AC... But those fighter types have the HP to handle this (for some length of time, at least - plus there should be someone in the party that can heal them too), but they'll also be able to this the creature's AC of 24 fairly often too... If a Fighter of 10th level, with a strength of 14 is fighting this thing, they has about 40% chance of hitting on any given first attack (a roll of 12 or better) - and that's not including any combat bonuses, magical weapon bonuses, etc. And if the caster casts things to support their fighters (Ray of Enfeeblement is always a nice one) they can lessen the threat of the monster against their comrade(s) in the front line and be more valuable than just as a "blaster" with "otherwise useless destructive power." And don't underestimate the power of the infinite number of times that the fighter can swim their sword - a caster IS limited in the number of spells they can cast per day - and even more so with each progressive spell level they can cast!
Disciple of Sakura wrote:
I had no trouble with Preview opening them... What version of OS X do you have? Also, those links aren't any good anymore... I pointed a friend to this thread (I didn't keep a copy of the files after giving them the "once over") and she said they were "invalid" links now. Is there a better link for them?
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I respect your (and everyone else on this side of the debate on this) opinion on this issue, but I have to disagree. I think that there's merit to the XP cost in item creation. Adventuring is not the only thing the characters do to gain additional power. The very act of leveling up implies a furthering of their abilities and a deeper understanding of whatever it is that they do (for casters it's more arcane knowledge, clerics are more knowledgeable in their faith and religion, etc). However, when a character takes time away from studying, training, and practicing - all things that reinforce what they've learned - you would expect them to "fall behind" others that don't take time away from this. A character that invest the kind of time it takes to create a magical item is taking time away from these sorts of things, and the relatively minor XP cost (even for more powerful items the costs are relatively minor by comparison to the power of the item) is a fair representation of that. Now I don't like the XP cost simply for casting a spell. If it's something that has such a strong "drain" on the caster (such as "taking part of their soul" or "energy of their soul/life force") have a CON drain (or INT... Whatever) instead. That would seem more appropriate - or even a permanent loss of hit points (instead of a CON point, as they would take hit points, lower saving throws, and could affect a few other things all at once) instead of a CON point or something... Instead of losing a level (since that does seem counter-intuitive to have a 9th level Wizard not able to make an item because he'd drop back to 8th level when an 8th level Wizard could make the item and still remain 8th level), make a "negative XP" count that the Wizard has to "pay back" through XP gains before they "advance" as normal... So, they can create items without fear of losing a level (unless it's something that takes a VERY long time, and/or VERY intensive work without a stop or break (and I don't mean hours, or up to 1-2 days off here and there)). Since it's highly unlikely that someone would be doing something that's a "side job" for so long they'd forget or get THAT rusty on the training and skills of their vocation. You could simply apply this negative XP idea across the board for all magical item creation - so that XP is not reduced at all, and that it'd only matter when it came time to level up (at which time you'd have to have "paid back" all negative XP to be able to level up). It would effectively apply a very similar (the same, really) mechanic to demonstrate personal investment, and a time investment, to something that is not really the trade of their character's class/vocation. And, for items being made for someone else (such as a party member), why not make them pay half of the XP cost? It'd balance the XP costs out for other classes when they would be gaining items from the character crafting them and help alleviate the problem of one character being held back by comparison to the rest of the party.
Adam Olsen wrote:
That is a wonderful method of simplifying things. And I agree with you on the "round down" thing... Almost everything else is "round down" so why should any of these be different (in fact, why not just make everything "round down" period?)
hogarth wrote:
Multiclassing for skill points?! YUCK! Talk about a bad reason to do something... BUT, the lower cost cross-class skills, the bonus for sticking with a preferred class, both make nice augmentations to the classes with 2 measly points per level. And they're a much more "elegant" solution I suppose.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I don't think that's true at all. If a nasty creature/monster rolls up on a Wizard and gets one or two hits on them, even at high level, there's a good chance that they're going to go down (or be very near it, anyway). The fighter can hold their own against a heck of a lot more in combat than practically all other classes (Barbarian and Paladins are in that "fighter-type" classification too). And their wealth of feats gives them the potential to be very very good at several things, or good at a few melee talents. Those kinds of intangible abilities more than level the playing field. As for mages... Yeah, some high level spells really rock, but the mages are limited in how many they can cast (and if they're long casting times to them they risk having them interrupted and lost, too) and once they're done with them, they're done. You can always swing your sword, hammer, axe, etc. as long as you're alive and kicking!
anthony Valente wrote:
I can understand why they don't get their full speed, after all armor is bulky and not very well made for ease of movement traditionally (and historically, here on Earth). But some reduction of how much speed they lose would make sense, as they're used to the discomfort and the limits of their motion and probably learn how to walk in the armor while lessening the ways it inhibits their movement. But seeing as this is just a game and not a "real recreation" of what medieval combat was like, I can see the argument for a Fighter not losing his/her movement speed (or having a lighter movement penalty instead of the full penalty) while in armor would have some merits to it. It wouldn't imbalance the game at all, even compared to other classes in armor (like the Cleric) but would make them the undisputed masters of the melee combat world... Maybe they could suffer a 5 foot decrease in speed, instead of 10, at some fairly low level (3, 4, or 5) and then, some number of levels later, gain back an additional 5 feet (effectively negating the movement speed penalty) so that they get better in their armor as they advance in level and gain more combat experience in it... Or start with -5 instead of -10 and move to -10 at level 5, or 6 or whatever. Alternately they could gain the ability to negate the speed penalty for medium armor at some level and then later, at a higher level, gain the ability to negate it for heavy/all armor too... There's a range of simple fixes that make sense with the idea of getting better at something by gaining experience in doing the activity.
Sneaksy Dragon wrote: im a fan that trapfinding gives you a perception check as an immediate action once within 10ft of a trap. Why not just allow them to detect hunter's traps as part of a Survival skill check? After all those are the kinds of things that would be used in the woods and certainly fall into the scope of the Survival skill (wouldn't knowing how to spot that pit trap designed to ensnare large (and very dangerous) prey be a critically important factor in staying alive in the wilderness?). That way you don't "step on the toes" of the Rogue class, and you allow the DM to make a judgement call on whether or not it applies to the trap (and allows for Rangers who are not very well versed in the devious wasy of the "human (and other races) hunting" trap makers.
Mattastrophic wrote:
I think you misunderstand what the difference between Perform and Profession, first of all. Just because someone has talent and can play an instrument, act, whatever, doesn't mean they have the savvy, the know-how, or the organizational skills to market their talent(s). That is the cut-and-dry difference (also that Profession can almost act as a knowledge skill for determining what characters know in regards to the practical and applied business side of a craft or trade, whereas Perform (which is more like the craft skill(s) than it is Profession) is simply that, the ability to utilize talent the character has (whether it be innate or trained; which really is a moot point, anyway, b/c you can use the background story for the character to suggest or outright declare any innate musical talents and simply represent it by spending skill points in the skill). You can also use perform in a myriad of "assisting" ways. Consider the following examples, which are all things I've seen as an observer or been party to as a player: A bard could be playing some entertaining act or instrument to distract someone (or a crowd of people) to aid their roguish comrade in sneaking into some area that would be otherwise too well guarded and/or that would have much more attentive guards than when the bard's making a scene and distracting them. A bard could use his oratory skills to talk up a great tale of heroics of heroes of long ago to inspire and incite a sense of pride and hope in a crowd, which would be a wonderful way to persuade certain officials in that town/area that a cause is worth supporting or taking up (that was a create bit of theatrics a fellow player came up with to get a stubborn magistrate to aid the heroes in their quest - which was really needed on a story level - which wasn't how the DM planned it per se, but very effective and a lot less violent and didn't require the town to come into danger before the man saw the heroes point.). Or one could be doing some dizzying array of acrobatics/gymnastics with some juggled items to confuse and mystify someone (or a group again) while making a subtle move towards an exit with his/her friends to avoid fighting their way to said exit... Those are all just "off the cuff" ideas that I've seen players come up with that all required skill checks in their respective and relevant Perform skills that (in most cases) worked wonderfully... (the 1 on the juggling check on that last example, well that worked wonderful until they were near the door and the bard lost concentration just a moment before they made a break for it... Can't always awe your way out, eh?). Mattastrophic wrote:
That is also wrong. Rogues, for example, must put ranks into Search, Disable Device, and Open Locks to be able to use their class ability of being able to detect and disable traps, as well as opening locked doors and chests and such. There's other uses for skills such as Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana) being used by Wizards to discern what a written spell is and to copy it into their book... While it's true the Bard has this mechanic applied to the class more than most of the classes is true, it is because the Bard (like the Rogue) is a skills class. It is built to be a skilled craft that represents the training and many talents and abilities of what those of the class can do. Rangers are very close to these two, but not quite as skills intensive, but they do need to make Survival checks to navigate, track animals/people/etc, and Handle Animals to calm and influence animals they run into. And let's not forget how handy Knowledge (Nature) is at identifying what you're fighting and whether or not the Ranger knows the strengths and weaknesses of that creature... That is huge and can be of critical importance sometimes!
Matthew Morris wrote:
You don't NEED a written rule or mechanic to do this! Just have a plot device "ritual" as part of the story... "During the heroic rescue Princess Issielle was slain by the mercenaries that kidnapped her from the Abbey. The bishop tells the heroes that in order to raise her from the dead he needs the heroes need to gather certain reagents from the nearby village and from the 'forbidden caverns' in abandoned mines outside of the village. They will also have to retrieve the Tome of Spirits from haunted ruins of the ancient keep that protected the mines when they were in use centuries ago." There, done. The ritual is now set as a story device, certain items have to be obtained (conveniently this is set as an adventure for the party to experience)... No need for mechanics and rules for something that ultimately won't influence much outside of the story elements anyway... And for those things that do influence mechanical elements - do it much the same way... Just don't make a major "spells per day" kind of deal out of it... Either allow, or disallow, certain items and reagents to be available for the casting of whatever "rituals" you want to include in the game as you see fit (as DM, of course).
Etales wrote:
I don't think this is a very fair comparison or question. It's like asking "Why should only Wizards/Sorcerers (or other arcane casters) be able to cast fireball?". It automatically assumes that something unique and special to those classes should be universally available to all classes. Without various uniquely exclusive abilities (or other unique feature(s)) to differentiate and identify the classes from one another what's the point of having different classes at all? I realize that I have made a very general assumption and over simplification of your question, but I feel the implications of what you're questioning (if "corrected" as a general rule to all abilities and classes) could be devastating to the individuality and uniqueness of the classes. I do agree with your questioning of why the Quicken Channeling should require so many additional uses. It should be, IMHO, comparable to the level adjustment of Quickened spellcasting.
hopeless wrote:
Do they have a lock on the Eberron races? I don't consider all of them to be so exclusive (to Eberron) as most people (so it seems) tend to automatically consider them to be. Some of the "core concept" races to Eberron (that aren't conceptually core to the basic "vanilla" D&D) are more common than many people realize. Let's face it, Shifters and Changelings are hardly "new" or "unique" to Eberron alone. Those are both something that could be found in other fantasy settings (including other D&D settings). To incorporate those into PFRPG wouldn't require a lot of extraneous work on the GM's part (they can be fairly easily adapted from existing SRD/PFRPG races and/or cratures).
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
I am excited about the PFRPG, it's got tons of potential (which is, IMHO, a lot more than can be said for 4e). The one thing I don't like is the increase in power of all of the classes. It was one of things I disliked most about some of the additional (and, for the most part, almost entirely optional) material that WotC put out. I felt that some things (the Warlock, to name one specific gripe) were just too powerful compared to the core classes and needed to be scaled back to be more "reasonable." I felt that the driving concepts of the later books were all based around the core theme of "more damage equals more fun." That just isn't the case - even for the "power gamers," the "min/max'ers," and/or the "character optimizers." Just because they could make ways to allow for more powerful characters (which only required more powerful monsters/enemies - to keep the game challenging) doesn't mean that they should have done it. Making the additional content uniquely engaging and viable didn't have to be entirely centered around the ideals of "more power." Attractiveness (to players; and to mean conceptually interesting and inspiring while comparable, mechanically, to the core material) and entertainment values needn't be considered mutually exclusive to one another conceptually.
Thraxus wrote: While I like that Manyshot and Rapid Shot combine, I would love to see some form of improved Shot on the Run feat that let archers move and get off two shots, similar to the old Manyshot feat. This would go a long way in making combat a bit more mobile, especially at higher levels. Why did they remove the attack penalty from Manyshot? It made sense that a weapon meant to shoot a single projectile being loaded with two wouldn't be quite as accurate (since it requires totally different physics and dynamics to propel them both at the same target point than a single projectile does). Having a -2 on that attack would not be unreasonable and would be more balancing. And seeing how they worded it I don't see why they wouldn't stack, but the -2 from Rapid shot to all attacks would still apply - and if they do reapply an attack penalty to Manyshot (please consider it) it'd make that first shot at -4, the second at -2, and the third (from Rapid Shot) and -2 (that's a 2-shot full-round attack action character, obviously). And am I reading Manyshot correct that the first shot has two arrows and your second is shot as normal (so you're getting off your second shot instead of using the entire action for just that one two-arrow shot)? That's awesome - much better than the 2,3,4,etc. stacking option adding more arrows (and increasing penalties to the attack roll).
Krome wrote:
Or 4e! *LOL* Now THAT'S funny! On subject, I agree. The low and mid-level abilities for the classes are great. Upper-mid level and high level characters are going to NEED the 4-page character sheet (or 4e-like "[insert clever marketing name] cards") just to keep up with everything they can do. Maybe making some of these "options" and just increasing the potency or frequency of use of these options at higher levels would be better than giving so many abilities (or scaling slightly back on them altogether - do we really NEED an ability or boost in ability as a class feature on practically every level of most of the base classes!?).
veector wrote:
But that is the price a Wizard pays for only being really a 10th level vs a 20th level. As a 10/10 multiclass character is not going to be as potent at either class as if they were a 20th level of a single class. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a trade off for the specialized training of two totally different skills sets. They both take time to develop and to cultivate into powerful tools, by splitting time between them neither of them are going to be as powerful as both of them could be if they were taken alone without the other. That's perfectly logical and reasonable. It does create some problems for the 20th level character against a 20th level monster, but it also gives them a lot more versatility and surprises for that monster to handle than a 20th level fighter or a 20th level wizard alone would present.
Donny_the_DM wrote:
The reason for that may be because the staff at Paizo (and other gaming companies) are more focused on the material they put out and therefor don't have the time to develop the skill set required to make such tools (or have the skills, but lack the time to use them). Where as hobbyists (which is what we gamers are, well, geeks and hobbyists :) ) tend to be able to pour more time into a project that's considered a hobby or a labor of love for them because it can be done aside from the responsibilities of a job, maintaining the home, etc. For a gaming product producing company, that time spent in gaming stuff is often filled up with doing things that fall into the realm of those responsibilities to ensure the company is successful and that products get finished and are well made. Who wants to do the same kind of thing at home on their own time as they do all day at work? Some of us would, but likely none of us would want to do it to that extent for the kind of time that it would likely take to develop what you're asking about.
LogicNinja wrote:
Mongoose Publishing has a very different form of Artificer. I've seen their "Power Classes VI - Artificer" booklet and it's nothing at all like the Artificer class presented in the Eberron Campaign Setting - which I agree has some serious power-balance issues (5 feats AT FIRST LEVEL?! - to name one such problem). It could be more suited to a common medieval fantasy setting, I've not looked into it too closely to know how well it would (or wouldn't) work to really say for sure. But it is something to look at. It very well may be OGL, or it could be possible to get permission from Mongoose to use the class if it would fit & work well.
I was reading through the "School Powers" entry and it seems pretty straight forward, however, unlike the d20 SRD it doesn't mention anything about not being able to select Divination as a prohibited school. The reason(s) for this in the SRD are pretty obvious; Divination contains Read Magic, Detect Magic, etc. The first, at the very least, being crucial to the Wizard's abilities as a spellcaster. Was the lack of a statement about the Divination school intentional (Would that mean that Read Magic would be "universal" as a class ability and not actually in the Divination school anymore?) so that it can be selected as one of the two a specialized Wizard gives up? Or is this an oversight and that line simply left out by accident?
Mikaze wrote:
And gamers at my table will be rejoicing if that comes to be (that they don't have beards). I've got a player or two that really like Dwarves, but really hate playing a bearded women or the thought of kissing one! *lol* So, naturally, something about that always comes into play at least ONCE in a campaign just to mess them and to give them those dreaded "visuals" in their heads. ;)
orcface999 wrote:
I agree. As part of a campaign setting book/module you could always list the regions or nations and their generally more pervasive classes and/or abilities. Say, for example a certain Gnomish nation in Eberron which is renown for it's massive libraries and how its people are very educated (as a general rule or practice), that nation would be likely to have something like a Wizard (a trained and studied class) favored class (or any of the "skills-based" classes) whereas a nation like that certain break-away from one of the original core nations that is more or less a giant druid's paradise forest would likely have Rangers and Druids as their preferred classes. This way would allow for variance without pigeon-holing races into specific categories based on their genetic make-up. That is one of the biggest reasons I got into the Eberron world, it did less of that - and it's the single biggest reason (other than not-so-friendly mechanics) that I didn't get into D&D in the pre-3.0 days. Let's not perpetuate that kind of problem. In general I can understand some races (Elves, for example tend to be more long-term thinking than say Halflings who are more apt to be doing things that require finesse and training, but who are also a lot less reserved and "rigid" than the elves - in general) to have one class as a preferred as a racial caveat; So instead of leaving the choice open between two racial or arbitrary choices, why not one of those be a racial choice (something to keep with the traditions of the fantasy game(s), sure) but make the other a regional/national/cultural choice. Or make it an "optional" (in the event that a player's campaign world doesn't have such a list, or the GM chooses to not make up one). That would satisfy both camps on this; the cultural choice would allow for the favored class to not be a predetermined genetic thing, and those that like that have that choice too. |