baduin's page

The reason why a "non-magical" Fighter has no place in High level D&D.

Wizard 20 can single-handedly take over the Earth in XXI century. Fighter 20 is a man in a tin can with a big knife. In XXI century he can fight with a motorcycle gang, unless they got a granate launcher - and some do.

Think about the power level of a wizard and a non-magical fighter. If you think about what game rules are supposed to represent, a non-magical figher is a medieval knight, perhaps better trained, but on the same level. A wizard is equivalent of something from XXX century. Guess what, medieval knights don't exactly inspire terror in modern armies. On the other hand, an egg-head from XXX century isn't very good at swinging swords - but he doesn't need to be.

You can play that game, and you will always get Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court ", with the knights blown up left and right. It is good for a bit of laugh at the idiots who agreed to play the knights, but nothing more.

If you want non-magical fighter to be able to fight wizards, you must pull wizards down to the level of actual medieval spell-casters, as described in romances, sagas etc.

That means no more Walls of Force, Gates or Wishes. On the other hand, you get to run around with a sack over your head to cause a blizzard.

And here is a short quotation from "Yankee"

http://bulfinch.englishatheist.org/yank/p9.htm#c43

"The sun rose presently and sent its unobstructed splendors over the land, and we saw a prodigious host moving slowly toward us, with the steady drift and aligned front of a wave of the sea. Nearer and nearer it came, and more and more sublimely imposing became its aspect; yes, all England was there, apparently. Soon we could see the innumerable banners fluttering, and then the sun struck the sea of armor and set it all aflash. Yes, it was a fine sight; I hadn't ever seen anything to beat it.

At last we could make out details. All the front ranks, no telling how many acres deep, were horsemen—plumed knights in armor. Suddenly we heard the blare of trumpets; the slow walk burst into a gallop, and then—well, it was wonderful to see! Down swept that vast horse-shoe wave—it approached the sand-belt—my breath stood still; nearer, nearer—the strip of green turf beyond the yellow belt grew narrow—narrower still—became a mere ribbon in front of the horses—then disappeared under their hoofs. Great Scott! Why, the whole front of that host shot into the sky with a thunder-crash, and became a whirling tempest of rags and fragments; and along the ground lay a thick wall of smoke that hid what was left of the multitude from our sight.

...

Now ensued one of the dullest quarter-hours I had ever endured. We waited in a silent solitude enclosed by our circles of wire, and by a circle of heavy smoke outside of these. We couldn't see over the wall of smoke, and we couldn't see through it. But at last it began to shred away lazily, and by the end of another quarter-hour the land was clear and our curiosity was enabled to satisfy itself. No living creature was in sight! We now perceived that additions had been made to our defenses. The dynamite had dug a ditch more than a hundred feet wide, all around us, and cast up an embankment some twenty-five feet high on both borders of it. As to destruction of life, it was amazing. Moreover, it was beyond estimate. Of course, we could not count the dead, because they did not exist as individuals, but merely as homogeneous protoplasm, with alloys of iron and buttons."

On the other hand, some people want non-magical Fighter in the game-world (so eg that the wizards are rare and unique, or they want looking mostly like Middle Ages). The solution?

To replace the Warrior NPC class with the Fighter, exactly as described in SRD. This is no loss: even if in some adventure there is a statblock of a Warrior, it can be used as is, since it has no special abilities. If an adventure suggest using a Warrior of eg 2 level, a fighter can be used instead - he certainly won't prove too dangerous!

For those who like the Pathfinder Fighter, the solution is equally simple. It can be seen that the fighter class features are roughly equivalent to feats. It would be therefore easy to change Bravery, Armor Training, Weapon Training etc into feat trees, and add the following note to the Fighter NPC class:

"The Fighter NPC class can be used also for player characters. In that case, the Fighter receives a bonus feat each level, instead of each even level. Before a player takes the Fighter class, he or she should consider the fact that the Fighter is weaker than other classes at high levels."

And for those who want a high-level melee combatant who can compete with mages, there are a few archetypes available:

-Legendary Fighter - such as Cuchullain or those from Mahabharatha. He is clearly "magical", but his magic is "inborn", not "wizardry". Many, but not all of the Legendary Fighter would be Barbarians.

-Similar to the legendary fighters are various Demigods, immortal eiherjar etc.

-Magic-using Fighter - a figher who uses magic and magic items to supplement his fighting ability. He uses the "wizardry" magic and magic items. An example of such Fighter can be found eg in the Irish Story of the sons of Turenn.

http://www.luminarium.org/mythology/ireland/sonsoftuirenn.htm

Such a Fighter could be exceptionally proficient in using the magical items and technology produced by wizards. The wizards can cast spells with more proficiency, but such a character is much better in using magical items than the wizards themselves. I think this is entirely reasonable - modern pilots or soldiers are much better at flying or fighting than the engineers who create their planes or guns, and nobody thinks it strange.

-Divine or Mystic Knight - something like a Paladin, eg Galahad from the Round Table Stories.

-Fighter with Artifact Sword (or some other artifact) - A fighter who for some reason gained access to a powerful artifact or special magic, which allows him to "punch above his weight". An example would be of course the Eternal Warrior of Moorcock with his sword, or Dilvish the Damned of Zelazny with his iron horse and the city-destroying infernal spell. Of course, that sword or whatever would be a class feature, because this is what makes this character useful at high levels. This also has its origin in the Medieval Sagas. The original Black Sword was Tyrfing, the cursed sword which could kill even gods, and which was once the god of Tervingi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hervarar_saga
http://www.northvegr.org/lore/oldheathen/018.php
http://meadhall.homestead.com/Angantyr.html

- And of course, the universally hated Wuxia Warrior.

Each of those archetypes (with the exception of Wuxia warrior) fits in the "pseudo-medieval" world, since each is based on the Medieval or earlier myths and legends. Each could also be a basis for a class which could be useful up to 20 level.

...

Okay, I've already stated that I'm not sure BC is important, but at this point I'm not even sure what it IS supposed to accomplish.

As I understand it, BC refers to the desire to allow 3.x and d20 and OGL material be compatible with the new pathfinder rule chasis. This should allow things like old modules and splatbooks to be fully compatible with new system.

Am I wrong on this?
...

I wrote a post about it.

My conclusions were:

As long as the Pathfinder party is balanced for the enemies of the same Challenge Rating and Encounter Level as the D&D party of the same level, the change in the character creation rules don't matter at all. In D&D you could (at least in theory) replace the party of Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard with a party of Beguiler, Factotum, Warblade and Favored Soul and play the same adventure. Similarly you could use the party of Pathfinder Rogue, Pathfinder Fighter, Pathfinder Wizard and Pathfinder Cleric to play the same adventure.

Similarly, the change in rules, mostly Combat Maneuver Bonus, shouldn't change things too much. CMB (if properly balanced) can make some enemies weaker, some a bit stronger, but the medium point should remain the same. The changes in the spells should be similar. Only most powerful spells should be weakened in a decisive way, and those were exactly the spells which were not often used by typical NPC wizards.

What in D&D should be possible to use as-is with the Pathfinder rules, without ANY convertion? (I don't count changing the name of skills)

1) Settings
2) Adventures
3) Monsters
4) Properly designed basic non-core classes and the prestige classes designed for them - the prestige classes only if they are taken mostly as intended, that is to the end of class. Here I think of such classes as beguiler, binder, factotum, warblade, crusader, swordsage, dread necromancer, warlock etc.

What parts of D&D 3.5 will be incompatible or will require DM to check and approve them?

1) Prestige classes, especially for core classes
2) Feats.

I think the relatively simple melee classes are a good point to discuss the basic problems of compatibility and balance.

The Pathfinder RPG is to be compatible with D&D 3.5 edition. In what aspects it can, and in what it cannot be compatible?

First, we take as granted that the Pathinder won't do "4th edition". The "imagined world" of the game will remain the same. All spells, magic items and monsters will remain, even if their rules change. With that assumption, what parts of D&D 3.5 will remain compatible with Pathfinder RPG - if it is properly balanced?

The answer is:
1) Settings
2) Adventures - without any conversion to Pathfinder.
3) Monsters
4) Properly designed basic non-core classes and the prestige classes designed for them - the prestige classes only if they are taken mostly as intended, that is to the end of class. Here I think of such classes as beguiler, binder, factotum, warblade, crusader, swordsage, dread necromancer, warlock etc.

What parts of D&D 3.5 will be incompatible or will require DM to check and approve them?

1) Prestige classes, especially for core classes
2) Feats.

What is the reason for this? Properly created Pathfinder rules will retain the same power lever. If the adventure is properly balanced for a D&D party of 10 level, it should be properly balanced for the Pathinder party of 10 level. Moreover, it should be balanced as is, without any conversion. There should be no need to replace the D&D fighter with Pathfinder fighter in the published adventures. Yes, D&D fighter was weak and Pathfinder fighter will be perhaps stronger. But the designer of the adventure in question, if he was any good, put there the weak fighter consciously.

As long as the Pathfinder party is balanced for the enemies of the same Challenge Rating and Encounter Level as the D&D party of the same level, the change in the character creation rules don't matter at all. In D&D you could (at least in theory) replace the party of Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard with a party of Beguiler, Factotum, Warblade and Favored Soul and play the same adventure. Similarly you could use the party of Pathfinder Rogue, Pathfinder Fighter, Pathfinder Wizard and Pathfinder Cleric to play the same adventure.

Similarly, the change in rules, mostly Combat Maneuver Bonus, shouldn't change things too much. CMB (if properly balanced) can make some enemies weaker, some a bit stronger, but the medium point should remain the same. The changes in the spells should be similar. Only most powerful spells should be weakened in a decisive way, and those were exactly the spells which were not often used by typical NPC wizards.

This ground rule is easiest to see with melee classes. The melee class, independently from its internal construction, has only some characteristics which interact with the opponent: movement, Attack Bonus, average damage per turn, Armor Class, hitpoints and saves. From time to time also grapple, now replaced with Combat Maneuver Bonus. Some very specialised rules could have also some tricks (eg tripping), but that doesn't change much - provided that they are balanced against the typical melee. As long as those number remain in the proper brackets. It doesn't matter whether the given character or monster deals a lot of damage because of sneak attack or because of massive strength and size. Similarly unimportant are the sources of hitpoints, AC, or attack bonus.

It can be seen that here I speak only about the most basic part of balance - the numerical characteristics. The second, much more difficult and important part, consists of special abilities (a pair of spells-Fly and Protection from Missiles are enough to defeat a strongest melee combatant). That part will be evident when balancing the wizard. But before we can consider the fancy radars and stealth abilities, we must have a solid chassis to put them on.

How to determine the required AC, Attack bonus etc? The best way is by considering the possible opponents. Not all opponents can be used as yardsticks. There are some enemies who have enormous numerical abilities, but can be easily defeated when using basic tactics available at their level. The tarrasque is the best example of that kind of enemy. But there are opponents that a fighter is expected to fight mano-a-mano with at least equal chance of victory.

Starting with them, it should be easy to create a table which would show the proper AC, Attack Bonus, Hitpoints and average damage per level. Such a table is a basic element without which any attempts to create a balanced figher, paladin or whatever are hopeless. Starting with such a table, we can consider eg the rules for stacking modifiers, the iterative attacks, whether to give characters some kind of basic defense bonus which grows with level etc. Without such a table, any attempt to balance the game is only a shot in the dark.

And as I have shown, without the proper balance it is meaningless to talk about compability.

So, I think it would be helpful if somebody would suggest what enemies the fighter/barbarian/paladin is expected to fight hand-to-hand at each level with an equal chance of succes. According to CR rules at pg 291 Pathfinder, it seems that an enemy which have an equal chance to defeat a fighter of level X, will be an average encounter for a fighter of level X+4.

As you well know, I am against using mages optimized in the extreme to use as a yardstick for the other classes; I fear it will drive the fighter deep into wuxia territory and basically move the baseline of the game from where it is now (for me and my style) to something I won't find nearly as palatable. I am afraid it will have the effect of turning a fantasy game into a supers game.

...
If however, you intend that to see all games become this game, or that fighters join this fray by becoming wuxia supermen to compete, or by nerfing mages to the degree that some version of the high level power game is no longer available to anyone, then you are simply trying to impose your particular playstyle upon the rest of us in order to resolve problems that are largely self created (self created because you have intentionally set out to play a game where the characters are highly optimized and the foes are apparently completely unaware such optimization exists).
...

First of all, to correctly remember the intentions of people participating in this discussion, we should always remember that we take part in the playtest. Therefore, someone who shows eg that the wizard class is powerful, does not in fact intend to strengthen the wizard. To the contrary, the natural consequence of such result of playtest would be the weakening of that class.

From the above-quoted comments, it would seem that the purpose for which you participate in this playtest is not making the game balanced, but the contrary: to keep the fighter as weak as possible ("not wuxia" using your terms, although most of the proposed changes had nothing to do with wuxia), and the wizard maximally powerful.

Prima facie, this would seem to be a case of intentional vandalism, ie - of an intentional attempt to make the game worse, perhaps motivated by some personal motive or by dislike of Paizo.

Such an interpretation seems supported by your claim: "If his world has only the strictest RAW interpretation to back it up, then his wizards (for example) should be as well aware as your character concerning the intricacies and "tricks" available to high level magical foes they might face within that RAW framework. If your DM is up to the task, then that is great for you, and the two of you can play a game where ultra-optimized wizards via for control of the world."

The obvious purpose of this playtest is to prove that the above situation is exactly what happens when somebody uses correctly options provided to a wizard. You are, of course, conscious of this, and try to deflect our attention from that fact by counterfactual claims that playtest uses "in this case character optimization in extremis". It is obvious that in the playtest there was used nearly no character optimization at all. The character in question is a straight wizard with no Prestige Class, who used a standard spell and an equally standard feat to gain two helpers.

If we in addition remember the obvious fact that RAW means Rules As Written, or in other word simply "rules" - the only rules which can be tested in the playtest - your intention would seem obvious: you enjoy playing superpowered wizards and resents any attempt to weaken them.

I must confess that I would be inclined to ascribe to you such a malicious and irresponsible intention, were it not for the results of the another attempt to balance D&D. I mean, of course, D&D 4 edition. The designers of that game started with the same assumption similar to that motivating the playtester, ie. the need to balance the classes. They assumed that the various abilities of the wizard and cleric, such as divinations and teleportation, were overpowered. As the result, such abilities were removed and we were left with much less fantastic and interesting game.

Now your intentions become clear: you want to keep the world of D&D mysterious and fantastic, and at the same time similar to the medieval literature. The balance between classes is unimportant compared to that goal. The responsibilities for both elements - realism and fantasy - were divided somewhat unequally between classes. The fighter was left with the realistic end of the stick, and is more or less equivalent to the medieval knight. The wizard got the fantasy, and can as the result destroy whole armies with one spell, summon devils and angels, move mountains and similar.

I think that all will agree that such a world is much more interesting that the "equal opportunity" world of the 4 edition. This solution has however two clear disadvantages:
1) Any high-level game will turn, as you noticed, into a duel between the DM and the player of the wizard, where " wizards via for control of the world."
2) Player who got to use the fighter will have either nothing to do, or will get enough spells from the cleric and the wizard at least to seem useful. In both cases not very interesting perspective.
3) The fantastic literature includes an immense number of powerful fighters. Contrary to what you think, the fighters as described in the wuxia literature and even films are not particularly strong. They can jump, and even fly, but compared to such heroes as Cuchullain, Heracles, or the heroes of Mahabharatha, they are really unimpressive. At high levels already are are at, and even above, the level of superheroes - it is enough to consider the kind of enemies the characters meet to see that. Why the characters, which are clearly reflecting the legendary literature and balanced as to power level should be excluded from the game?

I already proposed a compromise solution to the problem of underpowered melee fighter. The "Fighter" class should be reduced to an NPC class, replacing the Warrior, and in its place there should be included a new, adequately powered melee class.

How to solve the second problem: every high-level game changing into the duel between wizards and clerics for word domination? It has already been suggested: it is necessary to create a table of effects which must be taken into account for adventures of a given level. Such a table must be included in the rulebook, and show explicitly a few options of dealing with the spells. Of course, it is necessary to change the spells in order to provide more mundane ways of defence against them. Otherwise, the advice would be rather simple: in all adventures above, say 11 level, there must be included a wizard of that level who will cast the necessary protective spells, according to included table.

If selecting a new adventure, you can try Monte Cook's Black Rain (16 level) on Wizard's website. He is certainly famous enough, so there should be no claims that adventure is too easy. He also tried (I am not sure how successfully) to stop divination-preparation-teleportation system and to introduce short time limits. There are certainly some dubious elements, but they can at least prove funny.

Don't try Lochfell's Secret (15 level)- author thinks that Clone and Astral Projection are combat spells and should be kept prepared just in case. Some people could get heart attack reading about it.

Very interesting approach. While there are a number of things I think are borderline, I can't see where you violated any rules in a direct fashion. I do think your DM significantly failed to carry out his duty, (epic fail in your parlance) in that:

(1) He ignored the rules on page 13 of the DMG regarding game balance:

dmg pg 13 wrote:

A balanced game is one in which one character does not dominate over the rest because of a choice he or she made (race, class, skill, feat, spell and so on). It also reflects that the characters aren't too powerful for the threats they face;yet neither are they hopelessly overmatched. (emphasis mine)

Do you remember that we are playtesting? What you demand is the result of the playtest, not the start of it. If you start with the assumption that every game with a good DM is balanced, since a good DM will balance it - you can be even right; but it is little help for all those who cannot play with that mythic DM.

BTW, you forgot also that we don't use DMG here - this is the forum for playtesting Pathfinder RPG Beta rules, and nothing else. And funnily enough, those words are nowhere to be found in the Pathfinder rules.

BTW, is there any way to post actual concise reports from playtesting? Those posted on the forum seems lost amongst all the different threads. If the designers actually wanted to use them, they would have to spend a lot of time fishing for them. It would seem to be useful to have some way to simply post concise reports and conclusions, eg an email adress only for that purpose.

It is also debatable whether your enemies can see through the gate in the other direction (does invisibility cover up the item's effect, or just the item itself?)

Writing one web adventure does not a moron make.

"Each ring has a “entry side” and an “exit side,” both marked with appropriate symbols." When we considering this, the situation becomes a bit funny. The ring gate shows the situation on the other side from the "exit side", and the spells, weapons etc must be directed into the "entry side." You must target your spells, turn the gate ring exactly 180 degrees around, and fire it. When the gate is in some kind of special mounting (easy in magician's laboratory) this should be fairly easy. But there is still a problem: the simulacrum's side also has an entry and exit side. As long as it kept the entry side towards the target, it would get the spell right in face. In practice two precisely welded ring gate pointing in opposite directions would work much better.

From the wording of the item description, it seems the original authors assumed that you can look through it at the same time as putting items through. In other words, the light would go in the opposite direction to material items - it would enter on the "exit" side and go out on "entry"

The item description would really benefit from the discussion of such problems.

Invisibility

School illusion (glamer); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
casting
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (an eyelash encased in gum arabic)

Range personal or touch
Target you or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lb./level
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless) or Will negates (harmless, object);
Spell Resistance yes (harmless) or yes (harmless, object)

The creature or object touched becomes invisible, vanishing from
sight. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so. Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible. Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as stepping in a puddle). The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.
...
pg. 321
Invisibility: An invisible creature displaces water and leaves a visible, body-shaped “bubble” where the water was displaced. The creature still has concealment (20% miss chance), but not total concealment (50% miss chance).

pg. 395
Invisibility
The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can’t be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt. Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision. Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger’s favored enemy and from sneak attacks. A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Perception check, and even if a character succeeds on such a check, the invisible creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
...
If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. One could coat an invisible object with f lour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away). An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on
his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible. Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature’s location.
...

Is an occassion to an interesting discussion about the mechanics of the Invisibility spell.

Although it is nowhere said explicitly, it is obvious that Invisibility works either by "bending" the light so that it flows around the character, or by registering it on one side of the character (and absorbing any reflected light) and emitting on the other. The "bending" hypothesis we can reject out of hand, since the invisible creatures are not blind. The boundaries of the objects affected are set when the spell is cast. The light emitted by the affected objects is NOT affected.

In that case, the ring gate problem is easy to solve. The light emitted by the "exit side" is not affected by the spell, since it does not fall on its surface, so it cannot be "absorbed" and "emitted". But this is easy to remedy - the other ring gate should be kept in darkness, and the magician weak a dark or optimally a fuligin mask, to stop reflections. That way there is no light to emit. In that case the "exit" side would be dark, since the light falling into the "entry" side would be emitted on the other side. The invisibility spell would be able to cope with that effect easily - it is an equivalent of a very dark object and would be covered by the light emitted by invisiblity spell.

Conclusion:
Add some description of the way the invisibility works to the spell description. State expressly whether it is possible to see and listen through the ring gate, and from which side of the item light exits. Describe the effects of the invisibility on the ring gate.

Ring Ga tes

Aura strong conjuration; CL 17th
Slot —; Price 40,000 gp; Weight 1 lb. each.
Description
These always come in pairs—two iron rings, each about 18
inches in diameter. The rings must be on the same plane
of existence and within 100 miles of each other to function.
Whatever is put through one ring comes out the other, and
up to 100 pounds of material can be transferred each day.
(Objects only partially pushed through and then retracted
do not count.) This useful device allows for instantaneous
transport of items or messages, and even attacks. A character
can reach through to grab things near the other ring, or even
stab a weapon through if so desired. Alternatively, a character
could stick his head through to look around. A spellcaster
could even cast a spell through a ring gate. A Small character
can make a DC 13 Escape Artist check to slip through.
Creatures of Tiny, Diminutive, or Fine size can pass through
easily. Each ring has a “entry side” and an “exit side,” both
marked with appropriate symbols.

There is no mention that "Whatever is put through one ring, except light,comes out the other," Light has no mass, so it doesn't exhaust the weight limit. It is mentioned that a character can stick his head through to look around, but using the rules as written he can look straight through without such a maneuver. Such uses as putting an arm through the gate to grab something, or stabbing a weapon through it certainly presume seeing through it.

I would like to add that the purpose of playtesting is not so much to discuss the correct interpretation of the rules, as to find the rules which need interpretation or change, and propose a change to them.

I would ask, therefore, whether you feel that use of ring gates should remain, or is it problematic.

Recently, there has been evident a certain controversy regarding the Fighter class. Some of the participants demanded far-reaching changes to the class, and the opposite side thought the class should remain as-is. There is no need to discuss the arguments of both sides, since they have been extensively, ably and repeatedly presented both at this board, on the old Character Optimization board on Wizards site, and elsewhere.

In order to justify my proposed compromise solution of that controversy, it will be however useful to summarize the most important points of both sides:

The defenders of the Fighter class defended usually one of the following, positions. It is important to note that those propositions differ widely as to the facts, but agree as to the proposed course of action - ie changing nothing.

1) The Fighter class is perfectly balanced as is. Some thought that it is equally or more powerful than wizard. Ohers agreed that the wizards might be a bit stronger, but thought this a reason to weaken the wizards, not to change the fighers.
2) The Fighter class is weaker than wizards - and there is nothing wrong with that. According to that opinion, there is no reason why different classes should be equally powerful. Some people are stronger, some weaker. In a high-magic setting powerful magicians should be powerful, and that is nothing wrong with that. Players who play fighters are competitive at lower levels. At higher levels they can roleplay weaker characters - this is equally interesting. Anyway, the Fighter has important roleplaying benefits which wizards don't get - they can be kings, they can mobilize armies, etc.
3) The Fighter is equally powerful to the Wizard if the Wizard and Cleric play fair and use their spells to help the Fighter.

The opposite side is, to be honest, not so creative and is reduced to repeating over and over that they would like to play a fighter which can contribute to the fight at high levels by himself. They also spitefully claim that wizards and clerics can buff as well eg druid's animal companion or an animated undead.

There is however one argument that the proponents of changes in the Fighter class cannot refute:

1) The Fighter represents a medieval knight, of course grown to legendary proportions, but ultimately unmagical and more or less realistic. The wizards and clerics can do the impossible, because they use magic which allows them to do so. The Fighter is an non-magical class, and it can do what can be imagined a super-strong super-skilled medieval knight could do. Even if the Fighter can do more, he can do more of the same kind of things.
On the other hand, proposed changes generally give fighters abilities which seem somewhat supernatural.

There is also a second even simpler irrefutable argument:

2) Any changes in the Fighter class would make Pathfinder incompatible with D&D 3.5 ed.

Paizo, confronted with this thankless task of squaring a circle, proposed giving the fighter some numerical bonuses to abilities. This was welcomed by some and protested by others. It didn't end the discussion, and as a disadvantage, it was not fully compatible with D&D 3.5 ed.

My aim is to satisfy all the sides.

1) First of all, the traditionals who are satisfied with D&D 3.5 fighters, either in itself, or for purposes of compatibility:

When looking at the NPC classes in Pathfinder rulebook, we see one class which is nearly never used: I mean, of course, the Warrior. My proposal is simple: to replace the Warrior with the Fighter, exactly as described in SRD. This is no loss: even if in some adventure there is a statblock of a Warrior, it can be used as is, since it has no special abilities. If an adventure suggest using a Warrior of eg 2 level, a fighter can be used instead - he certainly won't prove too dangerous!

2) For those who like the Pathfinder Fighter, the solution is equally simple. It can be seen that the fighter class features are roughly equivalent to feats. It would be therefore easy to change Bravery, Armor Training, Weapon Training etc into feat trees, and add the following note to the Fighter NPC class:

"The Fighter class can be used also for player characters. In that case, the Fighter receives a bonus feat each level, instead of each even level. Before a player takes the fighter class, he or she should consider the fact that according to some opinions the Fighter is weaker than other classes at high levels."

3) For those who want a fighter-like class with class features comparable to the classes commonly considered powerful: a wizard, cleric or druid, I suggest creating a new class. Such a class should from the beginning include the reason why it can compete with obviously magical classes in special powers - something which can be hardly expected from a medieval warrior. (As an aside, when abstracting from the concrete rules and considering the world which those rules purport to describe, it can be easily seen that a 20 level wizard could take over any modern state in a day, and a fighter - he could fight, I suppose).

There are two obvious sources of power which could be used by such a warrior:
a) He could be magical by himself - an einherjar from Valhalla, a demigod or a legendary hero with supernatural powers.
b) He could be exceptionally proficient in using the magical items and technology produced by wizards. The wizards can cast spells, but such a character is much better in using magical items than the wizards themselves. Similarly, modern pilots or soldiers are much better at flying or fighting than the engineers who create their planes or guns.

The first possibility seems better fitted to a barbarian, so I would propose that we develop the second.

Since the names of the basic classes are generally single words, I would call such a class eg. Warmaster. The particular features of such a class would need to be developed and playtested, of course. Below I want to suggest not so much concrete features, but ideas which would justify giving to a fighter-like character some basic magic-like powers.

The Warmaster would be a master of all weapons and tools of war, no matter whether they are swords, bows, exotic weapons or magical tools such as wands, scrolls or staves. He would be proficient with all weapons and armor. At lower levels he would gain class features which would allow him to fight proficiently both with close combat and ranged weapons (which would be equivalents of the relevant feats such as Combat Expertise, Power Attack, Precise Shot etc.)

At higher levels he would gain class features which would allow him to use scrolls etc, even if in full armor, to recharge wands, staves and scrolls at lower price, to create magical items etc. Finally, he would learn how to build some basic utility magical spells (Dimension Door, Plane Shift, Restoration, True Sight etc) into his gear, so that he would be able to use them eg once per day.

The basic features of the class could be:
Warmaster
Alignment: Any.
Hit Die: d10.
Class Skills
The warmaster’s class skills are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Diplomacy(Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (all) (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), Swim (Str), Sense Motive (Wis), Spellcraft (Int) and Use Magic Device (Cha).
Skill Ranks Per Level: 6 + Int modifier.

BaB: Good (1/1)
Saves: Fort: Good, Reflex: Poor, Will: Good.

Class Features:
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Proficient with all simple, martial and exotic weapons, and with all armor (heavy, medium, and light) and shields (including tower shields).

It seems that many of the posters are so accustomed to looking at things from the point of view of DM that they are unable to change their perspective to that of a game designer.

A DM when confronted with a player who tries something which is certainly "broken", unfair, unrealistic etc either uses "Rule 0" and forbids it outright, creates a homerule forbidding it, or invents or deduces some balancing factor. Eg when the player abuses planar binding, DM can either forbid it or allow eg a friend or a master of the bound creature to attack player, or some other tactic. Similarly, when the player tries to "rule-lawyer" an imprecisely worded rule to his benefit, DM interprets in the balanced fashion, not troubling too much about the exact wording.

Unfortunately, when the same problems are mentioned here on the forum, most of the answers are EXACTLY THE SAME as if they were answers of a DM to the player in the game. Unfortunately, this is a completely wrong attitude. Since the aim of Pathfinder is to create better, new rules, the posters should look at the rules from the point of view of game designers, not of DMs.

Accordingly, when we see some rule that can be expoited, the answer "DM can rule in such a way as to neutralize the exploit" is all right were DMing or advicing the DM, but not when designing and playtesting the rules. In fact, such an attitude makes the playtest useless, since it does not report the potential problems, which have been avoided thanks to DM. The better reaction would be:

1) Note the problematic rule, the problem posed by it, and the solution used by DM.
2) propose either change in the rule, to make the DM intervention unnecessary, or
3) if in some case such a change would be either impossible or too casuistic, propose some advice for DMs how to solve the problems posed by the rule (Such advice to be part of the rulebook).

The rulebook should be enough to DM, without the necessity of searching for obscure posts on Internet or creating rules on the spot. Additionately, when something is clearly mentioned in the rulebook, it serves to avoid the potential conflict between DM and players, since the problem has been solved by an independed authority.

Most of Vance's wizards are very competent fighters, and use swords more often than spells. Tolkien's magicians, both Istari and elves, are some of the most powerful fighters in his world. R.E.Howards wizards are quite often very powerful in hand-to-hand combat, although they often prefer touch spells such as Black Hand or staves from the Tree of Death to swords. In Poul Anderson's Broken Sword his heroes are both fighters and wizards.

In Celtic myth heroes are very often competent wizards, if not on the level of full time druids.

Lugh Long Hand himself is master of all the arts, a wright, a smith, a champion, a swordsman, a harpist, a hero, a poet and historian, a sorcerer, and a craftsman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugh

Read the story of the sons of Turenn, perhaps most D&D style story ever told - it is all about gathering powerful artifact in order to get stronger. They are primarily warriors, but are quite adept in druidic magic.

http://www.luminarium.org/mythology/ireland/sonsoftuirenn.htm

"And now, how shall we set about the capture of the apples?" said Brian.

"Draw sword and fight for them," said Iuchar and Iucharba, "and if we are the stronger, we shall win them, and if not, we shall fall, as fall we surely must ere the eric for Kian be paid."

"Nay," said Brian, "but whether we live or die, let not men say of us that we went blind and headlong to our tasks, but rather that we made the head help the hand, and that we deserved to win even though we lost. Now my counsel is that we approach the garden in the shape of three hawks, strong of wing, and that we hover about until the Wardens of the Tree have spent all their darts and javelins in casting at us, and then let us swoop down suddenly and bear off each of us an apple if we may."

So it was agreed; and Brian struck himself and each of the brothers with a druid wand, and they became three beautiful, fierce, and strong-winged hawks. When the Wardens perceived them, they shouted and threw showers of arrows and darts at them, but the hawks evaded all of these until the missiles were spent, and then seized each an apple in his talons. But Brian seized two, for he took one in his beak as well. Then they flew as swiftly as they might to the shore where they had left their boat. Now the King of that garden had three fair daughters, to whom the apples and the garden were very dear, and he transformed the maidens into three griffins, who pursued the hawks. And the griffins threw darts of fire, as it were lightning, at the hawks.

"Brian!" then cried Iuchar and his brother, "we are being burnt by these darts—we are lost unless we can escape them."

On this, Brian changed himself and his brethren into three swans, and they plunged into the sea, and the burning darts were quenched. Then the griffins gave over the chase, and the Sons of Turenn made for their boat, and they embarked with the four apples. Thus their first quest was ended."

"The servants of the King were then sent with Brian and his brothers to the King's treasure-chamber to measure out the gold. As they did so, Brian suddenly snatched the skin from the hands of him who held it, and swiftly wrapped it round his body. Then the three brothers drew sword and made for the door, and a great fight arose in the King's palace. But they hewed and thrust manfully on every side of them, and though sorely wounded they fought their way through and escaped to the shore, and drove their boat out to sea, when the skin of the magic pig quickly made them whole and sound again. And thus the second quest of the Sons of Turenn had its end."

I think that's what people are looking for -- a fighter / arcane caster that rides the fighter side of the line, like the Paladin and Ranger. The Bard, for all it's good points, just doesn't cut it there. Given the long multi-classing tradition of Elvin Fighter / Magic User (which was what made Elves popular in the original D&D) I would have expected some decent combo class to emerge in 3.E. They seem to have stuck with multi-classing and then later, in various supplements, come up with some fairly unsatisfactory combo classes. It would be nice if somebody -- Paizo for example -- came up with a good class :) Just hinting here guys... but it would certainly help round out the core classes.

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48760

This is my proposition for a fighter/wizard class with a fighter BAB progression. This class is based on magicians in Vance's Dying Earth stories - they usually fought with swords, supplementing them with magic.

This class is distinctly weaker than a wizard, but on the wizard-fighter powerscale it is much nearer wizard than figher.

...
In retrospect, maybe I should consider the martial classes 'team' classes, in the same ranks of the bard. I should experiment with fighter duos and see what happens.
...

Of course, there is a multiplicator effect when you take two characters at the same time. As the CR/EL system suggests, however, it should have been included in the usual power calculation. 2 characters of level x are equally powerful as one character of level x+2 - this is the basic rule. Of course, certain combination of classes should be more powerful than other (and vice versa, some classes individually should be weaker than usually). So, if we want to test those classes adequately, they shoudn't be going solo, but in the proper combination.

So, which combination of classes should have the greatest multiplicator effect? Certainly, fighter is a class which was designed to be buffed by others - this is an unanimous verdict. On the other hand, there is similar agreement that bard is a class designed nearly only to buff others. Therefore, bard+fighter combination should be especially potent.

13 level figher + 13 level bard should be at least equal to one 15 level cleric, and much stronger than one 15 level wizard (wizard class is obviously designed as an artillery class, to stand behind others and shoot. A wizard going solo should be particularly vulnerable).

Therefore, a 13 level pair of fighter and bard should gain at leat 60% wins against CR 15 playtest opponents (as proposed before).

Why not keep the spell as written for PRPG (or even 3.X) and add the following line:

Material Component/Divine Focus: A map or ancient tome that reveals the approximate location or existence of the target location of the spell.

Simple, backwards compatable, and still allows the benefit of the spell without neglecting roleplay or adventure time.

This is a good idea. I would add a simple idea from Teleport spell: "You can cast Find the Path to reach the location you have seen at least once. Alternatively, you can cast the spell if you possess a map or ancient tome that reveals the approximate location or existence of the target location."

I would also elaborate the trap-avoiding and secret door-showing effect of the spell:

"The spell enables the subject to sense the correct direction that will eventually lead to the destination, indicating at appropriate times the exact path to follow or physical actions to take. The spell does not impart any knowledge about codes or spells to be spoken. It does not warn of any dangers in the way, provided that they can be avoided, nor shows how to avoid them. Accordingly, the subject will be shown secret door and its trigger or the codes to enter. He will not be learn any phrases etc which should be spoken, nor he will be warned that the door is trapped. The spell will not lead into unavoidable danger. The spell ends when the destination is reached or the duration expires, whichever comes first. Find the path can be used to remove the subject and its companions from the effect of a maze spell in a single round.
This divination is keyed to the recipient, not its companions, and its effect does not predict or allow for the actions of creatures (including guardians)."

K wrote:

I never understand why people say "we need more feats" when they are trying to fix Fighters.

Fighters need class features. We can't go back to all of our 3e books and remake every Fighter. We can add a template of real class features.

We don't even have to mess with the old feat structure. We can just place into every dead level something like "3rd: Deadly Criticals"

I don't want to go back and change around every fighter NPC. If I'm recalculating crap, then screw it. I want a game that's backwards compatible, and I'd like to leave the basic adventure text alone. If feats or abilities grant new stuff, that's fine, but I don't want to be changing around numbers everytime I run into an NPC fighter in a module. At most we should be changing NPC fighter CR and that's it.

As far as PC fighters, I'd say just make an entirely new class and make fighter an NPC class.

This is what we are supposed to be doing. Existing adventures are balanced, more or less, for a typical adventuring group. The aim of Pathfinder revision is to keep the power of a typical adventuring group at the same level (strengthening of core classes is supposed to make prestige classes optional). Therefore, there should be no need to change stats in existing adventures. And D&D 3.5 Fighter IS an NPC class.

I never understand why people say "we need more feats" when they are trying to fix Fighters.

Fighters need class features. We can't go back to all of our 3e books and remake every Fighter. We can add a template of real class features.

We don't even have to mess with the old feat structure. We can just place into every dead level something like "3rd: Deadly Criticals"

I would suggest a bit of customability. Eg Fighter can gain Advanced Talents at 10 level and at each even level thereafter, instead of bonus feats. Talents are based on mostly on legendary warriors.

Godslayer (Ex) (Diomedes, Iliad) - Melee and ranged attacks bypass all Damage Resistance, including DR/- and epic, and deals lethal damage to creatures with Regeneration.

Lord of Two Worlds (Ex) (Glorfindel, Lord of the Rings) Fighter is present both in Ethereal and Material Plane. Can see, fight and damage normally ethereal and incorporeal opponents, and they can damage him. Sees invisible. Darkvision 30 feet.

Tireless Swimmer (Ex). (Beowulf). Gains swim speed equal to walking speed and can move in water without making Swim checks.. Does not need to breathe. Can fight underwater without typical penalties.

Spiritual Guardian (Su) (eg Persian fravashi) - Is never surprised or flat-footed. Additionately at 10 level can re-roll one save per day. At 15 level can instead once per day after failing a save declare it successful. At 20 level can additionately receive Heal effect once per day, without an action and even outside his turn. This additionately ends all negative conditions eg entangled, paralyzed, fatigued, poisonded etc.

Bathed in Waters of Styx (Achilles) DR 10/-

Disintegrating Strike (Ex) You can strike a tremendous blow, pulverizing any immobile object and destroying even Force effects. As a standard action, you can use a weapon (heavier than light weapon) to make a melee touch attack against a non-living object (but not an active construct) or a Force effects. This affect the target as a disintegrate spell, but the target automatically fails the save. Your attack simply disintegrates as much as one 10- foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus it disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The strike affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand, Resilient Sphere or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field. If you make this attack with a nonmagic weapon, it is immediately destroyed as well.

Swift Feet (Ex) - Walking speed 100 feet.

Fierce Arrows (Ex). (Arjuna, Mahabharata) Ranged attacks with bow or crossbow count as Force attacks. Increase Range Increment x 100. All weather effects, wind, and spells protecting from missiles does not affect your ranged attacks.

Crystal Eye (Su) (Corum, Moorcock). One of your eyes is replaced with a magic crystal. When you remove the patch from your eye, you gain True Sight, but you are Sickened by the terrible visions granted by it. Covering and uncovering eye is a swift action which requires one free hand. At 20 level you are no longer sickened when using your Crystal Eye.

Haste (Ex) You are permanently hasted.

Variable Size (Su). (Kai, Mabinogion) You can increase or decrease your size as a standard action. You can change your size as per Enlarge/Reduce Person spells. At 15 level you can increase your size as Righteous Might spell instead (you gain Damage Reduction/magic)

I love the True20 rules and thier flexability. I don't like most of their settings, esp. Blue Rose and Caliphate Nights (although I might recommend the latter as practice for any Europeans on the forum . . .).

I'd love to see a D&D flavor varient of True20.

Mike

Check this:

http://shadowend.pbwiki.com/f/True20-D20_emulation.zip

http://www.true20.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2201&postdays=0&postord er=asc&start=0

... What are you going to suggest players of Fighters do when the battlefield is being defined by quickened wall of force? Seriously, there comes a time when just getting bigger numbers may not make any difference at all. What is your master plan for the Fighter at that point? ...
-Frank

I would suggest a following class power:

Fighter 15 level: Destroying strike (Extraordinary): You can strike a tremendous blow, pulverizing any immobile object and destroying even Force effects.

As a standard action, you can use a weapon (heavier than light weapon) to make a melee touch attack against a non-living object (but not an active construct) or a Force effects. This affect the target as a disintegrate spell, but the target automatically fails the save. Your attack simply disintegrates as much as one 10- foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus it disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The strike affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand, Resilient Sphere or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field. If you make this attack with a nonmagic weapon, it is immediately destroyed as well.

I really think fighters should remain simple. No supernatural stuff, no complicated abilities with uses per day or conditional applications. Just sheer martial prowess.

If it is found that the Alpha fighter is still too weak, there should be other things done to him - more HP, better AC and attack bonuses, more damage. Stuff that is straightforward to use. Maybe an extra bonus to combat manoeuvres.

If would be okay, if all other classes agreed to get rid of that supernatural stuff. Better attack bonuses and more HP don't help against flying invisible opponents.

Generally, what fighters should be able to do:

1st level. Fight, wear armor, ride horse and fight mounted. Noncombat - stand watch, survive in the field, hunt.

5th level. Understand basic battlefield magic and basic countermeasures (Evasion), command a company. Adventuring: Fight against level appropriate monsters, simple countermeasures against special effects like invisiblity and illusions (flour to detect invisible foes).

10 level. Command an army, rule a country, ride monsters (nightmare, griffon). Adventuring: Blindsight, ghost touch ability if wielding magical weapons, increased speed, improved ability to resist mind control.

15 level. Heroic level (Ahilles, Beowulf). High damage resistance AND ability to bypass any damage resistance of others. Can swim full day in armor underwater, fighting monsters. When shooting arrows, can ignore winds, Can throw rocks (as ability of giants).

17. Can gain inherent bonuses to abilities (as Wish), due to training.

Eventually, we may come up with more descriptive (made up) words for our devil, daemon, and demon races to replace the loss of words like baatezu, ta'narri, loumara, obyrith, and daemon, but for now we're going with the classics.

I suggest you should first consider existing names for such entities - there is certainly no lack of them! Eg from Zoroastrianism- druj (a Lie, since their master, Ahriman, created a lying version of reality), or daeva, div (God, since Zoroaster rejected those gods). For Hindoos, to the contrary, Devas remained gods, and Iranian gods, Asuras, were often perceived as demons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daeva
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asura

Instead of daemon you could daimon, which is closer to the original Greek form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_%28mythology%29

Some interesting names: Grigori/Egregores, Nephilim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori
http://www.lkwdpl.org/wildideas/archegre.html

http://www.theoi.com/Bestiary.html
" ACHLYS (Akhlys) The demon of misery was a pale green hag with bleeding cheeks and tear-stained eyes, overgrown fingernails and dusty hair.

EMPUSA (Empousa) A flame-haired vampiric demon with a leg of bronze and a hoofed foot of an ass. Disguised as a beautiful woman she seduced men to feed on their flesh and blood.

EURYNOMUS (Eurynomos) A blue-black skinned demon of the underworld who fed on the flesh of corpses.

KERES Dark-winged death demons which haunted the battlefields of men and fed on the blood of dying men. They were pale ugly hags with clawed hands and gnashing teeth.

LIMOS The demon of hunger was a starved, wasted creature with parchment skin, and swollen joints.

MELINOE A spectral underworld demon who issued forth from the underworld to terrify men. One side of her body was ink-black and the other bone-white.

ZELUS (Zelos) The demon of jealousy was a monstrous hag that fed upon venomous serpents. Her body was shrunken, her teeth black, and her breasts covered in green venom."

Fighter class has a few strange weaknesses, without any reasonable explanation:

1. 2 skill points per level and limited skill selection.

Fighter class supposedly represents experienced soldiers, generals, knights and kings. Such people should be able to dance at a a ball, to command an army, to build a fortress, to survive in the field, to ride a horse, to hunt with dogs, to oversee their fief or to plow their field (see Roman general Cincinnatus) and to compose verses on the spot (favourite pastime of many knights and Viking warriors, eg of the berserk Egil Skallagrimson) . They should be able not only to intimidate their opponents, but to bluff them or to use diplomacy (kings generally have fighter class). At present monks, who devote most of their time to training combat, have more class skills and skill point than fighters. Barbarians, who should be comparatively primitive and unskilled, have much more class skills and skill points. Fighters cannot serve even as sentries - they don't have Notice and Listen skills, not to speak about Hide or Move Silently - apparently no warriors ever sneak. They also should get Use Magic Device - why a barely literate thief can use a wand, and an educated officer cannot? Arcane magic is represented as a mostly scholarly pursuit. They don't have Appraise (it is apparently unknown for a mercenary to sack a city, for example), nor (thankfully eliminated) Use Rope.

Fighters decidedly need at least 4 skill points per level and a lot of class skills. Paizo went in the right direction, but not far enough.

2. Bad Will and Reflex saves.

As is commonly known, great warriors are uniformly cowardly and clumsy - I think not! Fighters had good saves in 2ed, and there is no reason at all for them to have bad saves now. Soldiers who serve all their life on magical batlefields should have good reflexes and be able to gain some resistance to mind-influencing magic. Since simply giving them 3 good saves would make the class too good as one level dip, I suggest eg the two following class features:

5 level: Battlefield Reflex: Fighters can use base save bonus of Fortitude save for Reflex save. In that case, Reflex saving throw equals Fortitude base save bonus plus Dexterity modifier and other modifiers usually added to Reflex save.

10 level: Stalwart Will: Fighters can use base save bonus of Fortitude save for Will save. In that case, Will saving throw equals Fortitude base save bonus plus Wisdom modifier and other modifiers usually added to Will save.

You know, a given creation has to be original and creative in order to be copyrightable. Any numerical descriptions which can be derived from a mathematical equation are not original - you cannot copyright mathematics. As D&D 3.5 experience tables are based on a simple mathematical rules, they cannot be copyrighted. They simply have to be written down in your own words. There is no need to create a new mathematical progression. For example, the experience table in Conan OGL from Mongoose is identical to the D&D one.

A simple band-aid kind of solution - new evocation school powers (only changes noted):

4th level: Mastery of Evocations- You can prepare evocation spells dealing hit-point damage in lower level spell slots.
The spells still count as spells of the original level. You cannot apply metamagic feats to those spells.

6th level: Spontaneous Enlarge Spell-You can spontaneously Enlarge evocation spells dealing hit-point damage
3 times per day. You don't need Enlarge Spell feat to do that. The spells can be prepared in lower spell slots using
4th level school power. The maximum level of spell to which you can apply that power
is equal to the maximum spell level you are capable of casting minus 1. You can apply multiple metamagic
powers to a spell. In that case maximum spell level to which you can apply the powers equals
your maximum spell level minus the total of all adjustments.

12th level: Spontaneous Empower Spell-You can spontaneously Empower evocation spells dealing hit-point damage
3 times per day. You don't need Empower Spell feat to do that. The spells can be prepared in lower spell slots using
4th level school power. The maximum level of spell to which you can apply that power
is equal to the maximum spell level you are capable of casting minus 2. You can apply multiple metamagic
powers to a spell. In that case maximum spell level to which you can apply the powers equals
your maximum spell level minus the total of all adjustments.

14th level; Spontaneous Maximize Spell-You can spontaneously Maximize evocation spells dealing hit-point damage
3 times per day. You don't need Maximize Spell feat to do that. The spells can be prepared in lower spell slots using
4th level school power. The maximum level of spell to which you can apply that power
is equal to the maximum spell level you are capable of casting minus 3. You can apply multiple metamagic
powers to a spell. In that case maximum spell level to which you can apply the powers equals
your maximum spell level minus the total of all adjustments.

16th level: Spontaneous Quicken Spell-You can spontaneously Quicken evocation spells dealing hit-point damage
3 times per day. You don't need Quicken Spell feat to do that. The spells can be prepared in lower spell slots using
4th level school power. The maximum level of spell to which you can apply that power
is equal to the maximum spell level you are capable of casting minus 4. You can apply multiple metamagic
powers to a spell. In that case maximum spell level to which you can apply the powers equals
your maximum spell level minus the total of all adjustments.

18th level: Improved Energy Ray (Su) - Your Energy Ray (1st level power) deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level.
Your specialist bonus applies to this ability.

DracoDruid wrote:

That's exactly what I was thinking about! (the last one about the 3.5 simplification).

1) no cross-class extra cost.
2) cross-class rank cap at (level+3)/2
3) Multiclass characters tread ALL class skills as class skills

And the system is improved without the need of big changes!

While personally I treat all skills as in-class skills (1:1 cost, cap level +3) and allow retroactive Intelligence bonuses, I'm happy to have these remain houserules. It will be easier for people who like them to add such elements rather than for people who dislike them to get rid of them.

Thus I vote in favour of DracoDruid's system, and for keeping 3.5 skill points with these improvements.

Retroactive Intelligence bonuses and removing skill synergy are necessary to simplify NPC creation. When you get rid of extra cost for cross class skills and give retroactive Int bonuses, you don't have to calculate skills at each level.

Most of the vestiges and their seals and descriptions are very much not copyrightable. They are based on real magic books.

http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/goetia.htm
http://www.esotericarchives.com/esoteric.htm

DM BRIEFING: Someone shows up to collect tithe on the PC's Potato farm for their last five hundred years of untaxed bliss. The Thugs (er...Bailiffs) demand 50% of the produce estimated at 25 TONS per acre (Turnip Maximum Yield) for 500 years (or 112,500 TONS).

What CR? How much XP and loot can you get from them?

An example of rules for making magical items:

Remove all item creation feats. Creating magic items costs their full cost in gold (or exotic components of equivalent price). There is no XP cost for creating magic items. NPCs who create items professionally receive some small reduction in cost to create them, so they can turn a reasonable profit, but adventurers are not professional item creators, and additionally do it very quickly, but inefficiently.

You must still fulfill all other prerequisites (spells etc). Non-spellcasters can find in-game rituals/incantations allowing them to create magic items (relevant Craft skills would be probably required) without spells. They must have character level equal to the level of cleric or sorcerer who would be able to create such items. The same rules apply - full price, no XP cost.

Wizards scribe scrolls using current rules, with XP cost and at reduced price.

If you want to introduce Frank Trollman's tiered economy, all items costing more than 15 thousand equivalent gold pieces can be made only using exotic components instead of gold. Exotic components can be only found adventuring (instead of gold or normal jewelry). Examples of exotic items: exotic jewels, lotus pollens, flowers etc (see Conan), sap of Upas tree, Sferra Cavallo, Prima Materia and other high level alchemic substances (Philosopher's Stone, azoth, panacea, elixir of life, alkahest). Prima Materia is the best one of those, since it lacks any qualities, among others weight, mass and volume. A given piece of Prime Matter has only one characteristic- the equivalent GP price of items which can be made of it. Prima Materia is totipotent - you can made anything out of it (In Aristotelian terms it is pure potentiality). You would need some adequate container to carry it, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_materia
"Prima Materia is the alleged primitive formless base of all matter, given particular manifestation through the influence of forms, according to the Alchemists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azoth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panacea_%28medicine%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_of_life
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/pseudodoxia/pseudodoxia.shtml
http://hyboria.xoth.net/sorcery/lotus_blossom.htm

Reforging items:
Magic items can be reforged into other magic items of reasonably similar shape and different enchantment, but only of equal or lower price. You can put additional enchantments on an item, if its price will remain below 15 thousand GP. If you want to bring the price of an item above 15 thousand GP, you need exotic components (q.v).

This system has two benefits: Characters cannot use item creation to get more items that appropriate at their level, but the item creation is so common, that they don't actually need magic item shops - they can make their items themselves. This is rather similar to hints about D&D 4ed.