katman's page

And if the players do something wrong you can throw up your hands and scream "No , no you idiots! Thats all wrong!!! That isn't how i envisioned it!! You're ruining my beautiful plot!!" CUT!

True 1E D&D play excerpt:

You descend into the dungeon...(blah, blah). You have reached a 4-way intersection.

"We go left."

- "A Blade Barrier appears in front of you" [N.B. 1st level characters...]

"We step forward."

- "A Blade Barrier appears in front of you."

"This sucks. We're out of here. We head back up the stairs."

- "A Blade Barrier appears behind you, on the stairs."

"Grrr... fine, we take the right-hand passage..."

It didn't improve much from there. Not the kind of Master I was looking for.

Session Producer... i love that. And if the players do something wrong you can throw up your hands and scream "No , no you idiots! Thats all wrong!!! That isn't how i envisioned it!! You're ruining my beautiful plot!!" CUT!

Ahem - some DMs do, you know. But No. Read what I wrote. That's the director.

The Producer is the enabler who brings the elements together, and makes sure everything is ready. There's a creative element to the role, but it's also very strongly organizational.

It's the cast (and director, who does not exist in RPGs) who make the movie an "everyone and everything gelled" success (vid. Galaxy Quest), or a concept that didn't execute well and fell short. Or even a bomb. The producer has limited control over that, short of pulling the plug entirely. Their role is to make sure the people involved are in the right environment for their bent and talents, and have all the elements they need in order to succeed.

The parallels are quite close - and thinking in terms of this mindset can help a lot:

Are all the elements in place for an adventure my group will remember? Strong opening? Dramatic locations that grab you? Interesting plotlines? Ability of the framework to adapt? Set up ready for dramatic and memorable scenes? Strong villain? Memorable extras? Players have physical accommodations they need? Opportunities in the story for each member of the group to play to their character AND PLAYER strengths? OK, everybody, take it away...

I'd argue further that if you look around at the top designers Paizo and WotC use, and listen to them talk about adventure design, there's a strong cinematic flavor to it. Not in a controlling way because you can't, but definitely in terms of their use of cinematic elements. You may or may not like Hollywood and TV but people do pay in droves to see its movies and watch its shows, probably including you (Buffy? Lost? Firefly? Iron Chef? Lord of the Rings?). That's not an accident, and the elite designers seem to have concluded that if you're not absorbing at least some of its creative lessons, your adventures will fall short.

I say that rather than wait until people have read enough designer interviews, good game design should nudge them toward the correct aspect of that mindset from the get-go, beginning with the language used. Especially if it can also communicate the game's nature more accurately, using terms that more non-gamers see as interesting and can understand.

I think this is a great idea. I don't know how much marketing to new players will help while the rules set is still in alpha or beta testing, though. I think a lot of people unfamiliar with RPGs in general will be turned off or overwhelmed by the idea of learning rules that are going to change in a year or so.

Agree. I was thinking that this kind of material would also go through alpha/beta with the community, so that everything is good to go once the release is ready.

Meanwhile, stuff like the questionnaire may help some of the DMs doing the playtesting, because its usefulness extends to existing groups as well.

What Should I Look for in a Pathfinder Gaming Group?

Keep an open mind, because people's gaming styles are often different from their real-life personas.... At the same time, it's important to look for someone you'll be comfortable with.... As a useful first step, we recommend answering the questions on this short form {url to form, see below for details}, and bring/send the results to Session Producers and groups you talk to. It will help them to help you.

The proposed questionnaire for new players, and its goals/rationale, may be found at this URL.

Suggestions and thoughts are welcome.

From my proposed "Pathfinder FAQ for New Players"

* The FAQ's rimary audience and focus is new players. The FAQ assumes that they know nothing about RPGs, or how to get started, and aims to make that as intuitive, non-threatening, and simple as possible....

* The FAQ should do more than just answer questions. It should give people everything they need to get started and make good initial decisions. That initial experience is critical - it will either produce a fan or an aversion. We want to help make that experience a good one all around.

What Should I Look for in a Pathfinder Gaming Group?

Keep an open mind, because people's gaming styles are often different from their real-life personas.... At the same time, it's important to look for someone you'll be comfortable with.... As a useful first step, we recommend answering the questions on this short form {url to form, see below for details}, and bring/send the results to Session Producers and groups you talk to. It will help them to help you.

Part of that is the new player questionnaire mentioned in the FAQ. This is a discussion tool that has 4 main purposes:

1. Start the potential player thinking about the possibilities of heroic role-playing, and begin to get them excited about what it could be.

2. Give the SP/GM a sense of the player's role-playing style, likely character type preferences, alignment leanings, and teamwork orientation, even if they haven't played RPGs before. Without using game mechanics concepts to discuss any of this.

3. Foster a discussion about the kinds of adventures, scenarios, and personalities that interest the player.

4. Create a clear understanding of boundaries and red flag issues with this player, before you run into any.

These questions can and should be used in 2 ways. They could be used as a great guide for the SP. Or, they could lead to the conclusion on the player or SP/group's part that this is a bad fit. In which case, a decision NOT to bring the new player in is the right decision for the hobby. That first experience will either make a convert, or create a long-standing aversion.

New Player Questionnaire

1. Let's start by thinking about the kind of hero you'd like to be. Rank these descriptions, with "1" being the description that most appeals to you, and "6" being the least appealing overall. You would most enjoy acting as:

____ Someone who participates in the adventures, while enjoying the exotic locations and meeting all sorts of interesting beings who play their own roles in the grand drama. It's all about the journey.

____ Someone who can and will take names, kick butt, and leave the wreckage of your enemies behind you. And the truth is, you kind of enjoy it. Standing tall before your enemies and giving them what's coming to them is a good feeling, your own way of setting some small corner of the universe to rights. After a while, enemies see you coming and say "uh-oh!" At least, the smart ones do. Now that's what it's all about!

____ The strategist and/or brains of the operation, always thinking ahead, solving problems, choosing tactics, and making sure the group is moving forward. It's all about the goal.

____ Someone with a strong steak of idealism, living both in the world and for those ideals - possibly even acting as a exemplar of those ideals for others. It's all about who you are, who you become, and what you stand for.

____ The brooding outsider, wrapped up in a personal story/ drama that often overshadows outside events in your consciousness. You are scorned and mistrusted by most others - possibly with some justification. It's all about your personal conflicts.

____ The unwilling ordinary hero, dragged into larger events against his or her will. You somehow manages to get through it all, calling on the skills and attitudes of your ordinary (and possibly low-status) life to keep yourself grounded while you make something of yourself. One day, people will ask you "What made you a hero?" and you'll reply: "Heroes aren't made - they're cornered." It's all about the situation and company you're dragged into... at first.

2. OK, now let's step beyond broad styles and talk about the kind of protagonist you want to be and become. Again, "1" is most appealing...

____ Someone who gets by on their wits. You usually have a clever move up your sleeve, the right line for the occasion, the ability to find important clues, etc. You use that to make your enemies' lives miserable.

____ Someone with strong ties to magic and the mysteries of the universe, whether the source of those ties is nature/faerie, channeling from on high, or arcane secrets. Your ties to that power source give you power in the world.

____ Someone who steps up to the front whenever trouble starts and physically goes toe to toe with enemies. If they want your friends or the people you're protecting, they're going to have to go through you first. And you're going to make that hurt.

____ Someone who loves and cares for the natural world.

____ Someone others look to and trust for leadership and direction.

____ Someone who looks out for others, and can act as the glue that holds a group together, whether or not it comes with a leading role.

____ A wild card who usually does their own thing, but somehow it usually works out OK.

3. Great. Let's talk about what you want for your hero one the fame/ love/ power scale. Again, rank from "1 = most appealing" to least appealing.

____ My character wants to be famous, a hero of great renown. If it comes down to a choice, however, fame and respect are better than being widely loved, and the trade of some independence for this kind of iconic status is worthwhile.

____ My character wants to be loved by their friends, by the masses, and perhaps to find true love. They may or may not see me as the most powerful hero, they may or may not recognize me in the street. But when they hear my name, they know that this is one of the world's true good and cool people, and those who do recognize me will stand by me no matter what.

____ My character wants to be formidable enough to call their own shots, fear few beings, and live life his or her own way. I will trade being famous or widely loved to achieve this, if necessary.

4. Who are your top 3 favorite Superhero/ Action Hero/ Fantasy Characters? Why?

I.

II.

III.

5. Who are your top 3 favorite villains of screen or literature? Why?

I.

II.

III.

6. The 3 places in the real world world or in fictional literature that I would most like to visit are...

I.

II.

III.

7. This question is about the genres you like most on screen and print are... (Again, rank from "1 = most appealing" to least appealing):

____ General Action/Adventure

____ Espionage

____ Fantasy fiction

____ Folk tales, any culture or one specific

____ Historical, fiction or non-fction

____ Horror

____ Military/War stories

____ Mystery

____ Nature related

____ Science Fiction

____ Sports Fiction

____ Religion/ Philosophy

____ Romance

9. Evil is (pick the one that most feels like you)...

____ Solely a matter of one's point of view. There is no real, impartial standard that can be used to say something is evil. Those who use this term are usually ignorant, or have ulterior motives.

____ Real, and must be fought when it arises, but within all of the rules. Your ideals are too serious to be set aside.

____ Real, and being a good guy is not a suicide pact. You do the best you can, break less important rules if you have to, make unpleasant choices when forced, and try to make sure the greater good is served. The consequences are too serious for too many people if you fail.

____ A label people use for things they don't understand, or are jealous of.

____ Real sometimes. Some beings are evil, and some ideas are evil. But people who think about it too much are dangerous. There are too many other things to live for.

What does your DM think is the best answer here? How compatible are those world views? How will you two resolve any differences in those views? Discuss.

10. How much realism do you want in the game's dramas, as pertains to evil and other adult themes? Pick one:

____ Full "NC-17". Right up to full horror film experience is fine as default mode re: the evil ones and their actions, nothing is off limits for them and the campaign reflects that faithfully. The world is a dark place, and fantasy is even darker. As for the rest, that's part of reality too. Bring it all on!

____ R-Rated. Bad people do terrible things, and that's why they have to be dealt with. Don't be gratuitous about it, but an adult campaign is fine with seeing that first hand; it underscores the seriousness of the stakes. Other adult themes are also fine, so long as they're handled with some minimum of tact.

____ PG-13. Bad things happen, and adult situations happen. Go ahead and tell us if they happen, but avoid anything seriously bad and keep all of the adult stuff off stage.

____ PG or below. I'm Ok with just using slapped-on labels for bad guys, and fantasy cliches to tell me they're fair game. Anything controversial or graphic should probably left out. It's not something I want to think about in a gaming context.

11. Notwithstanding anything else I've said, the following are subjects and situations I do not want to encounter in any way within the game, even as something that happens as "background" to someone else, and not to a player's character:

While there is no doubt that the term ‘Dungeon Master’ is wizards IP, how about ‘DM’.

My strong, strong recommendation: ditch both. WotC can keep them.

I've never been thrilled with the BDSM flavor of 'Dungeon Master.' Actually, I've made fun of that for over 20 years now. It's not the kind of 'role play' I'm inviting people to in my game sessions, and it's not accurate because it totally misses the social, cooperative nature of the game. Even 'Game Master' mischaracterizes the key relationship since players aren't subordinate.

Instead, I've picked another term that fits, is more accurate, and as a bonus has a strong cool factor. Alternative suggestions welcome, but I think Paizo has a big opportunity to take a step forward for RPGers here.

I've made the following suggestion in my proposed New Player FAQ for PATHFINDER...

What does the Session Producer do?

The Pathfinder Session Producer (SP) is like a movie producer with improv skills. She isn't a director, because Pathfinder is all about players making choices that can change a story. She isn't an opponent, because her goal is the same as the players': to have a successful, exciting, challenging session that everyone enjoys. Like a movie producer, the Pathfinder SP makes sure everything that's required is ready to go on the set, from making sure the story outline is ready to casting the "bad guys" and extras. Once that's all prepared, her role is to tell the story, act the roles for the story's cast beyond your team, let the players decide what to do, and use the Pathfinder rules framework to help figure out what happens next.

The SP knows all the secrets of the adventure she has bought, or created herself. The adventure only comes alive when the players step in, however, as their decisions can (and often do) surprise the SP and change the story. A good adventure, like a good movie, is all about the balance between a strong basic storyline, interesting characters on both sides, and a bit of surprise that makes for memorable moments.

With Pathfinder emerging as the flag bearer for v3.5 campaigners, an interesting thing happens: Paizo becomes the custodian of a decent part of the D&D community, and many experienced gamers. Since they're going to want to recruit new gamers, Paizo has an interesting opportunity to help. Paizo will even begin with an advantage - the Pathfinder name will be a step forward because it suggest broader adventuring themes that will be more familiar to non-gamers.

WotC has worked to put a FAQ together for new players, as it tries to branch out the RPG audience with 4E. Paizo ought to do the same - but with a better FAQ, because WotC's falls short in a few areas. My recommendation for that FAQ follows. Feedback welcome - let's make this all that it can be!

Oddly, this didn't publish on the other board. Perhaps we'll have more luck here, which is where it really belongs...

FAQ Goals:

* The FAQ's rimary audience and focus is new players. The FAQ assumes that they know nothing about RPGs, or how to get started, and aims to make that as intuitive, non-threatening, and simple as possible.

* Existing RPG players are a distant secondary audience; we can explain everything to them quickly and in shorthand.

* Tying the game into cultural experiences that non-games can grasp quickly is a priority; it will help us communicate, and help remove reservations. Langauge should reflect all of this.

* The FAQ should do more than just answer questions. It should give people everything they need to get started and make good initial decisions. That initial experience is critical - it will either produce a fan or an aversion. We want to help make that experience a good one all around.

With that, the FAQ....

What is PATHFINDER?

Have you ever watched an exciting TV show, or movie, and wished you could do that? Have great adventures in fantastic locations, make the key decisions, kick the bad guys' butts when necessary, and be part of a grand story? Pathfinder is a set of rules that lets people imagine, create and star in those kinds of adventures. Pathfinder's overall genre is fantasy, but the adventures can be of any type, and can duplicate stories and adventures from other genres including mysteries, espionage, exploration, complex social/political scenarios, horror, heroic quests, and more.

Above all, Pathfinder is a social game, not a solo game. It's like any other regular get-together with friends or team sport, which depends on people being together. In Pathfinder, one friend plays the role of the Session Producer (SP), and the others play a team of heroes. The game can also become a hobby, as players get better and begin investing time in creating their heroes and shared adventure settings.

I'm An Experienced Gamer. Can You be More Specific?

Pathfinder is a continuation and extension of the SRD/OGL v3.5 rules. Many of you out there have invested a lot of time and money in that framework. We're committed to supporting existing and new players with improved but compatible rules, great settings, fantastic adventures, and other products.

How Do the Rules Work? Aren't There a Lot of Them?

Most people think the same thing when they begin learning to drive. Within a little while, however, they can just drive, without thinking too much about it.

It doesn't take anything but pencil and paper, some dice, and a bit of imagination to play your first game - and your fellow players or Session Producer will bring dice. It's certainly possible to just dive right in, think like an action movie/ fantasy literature hero or sidekick, and have people explain things as you go.

The basic rules mechanic is simple, and parts will be familiar to anyone who has played video games. Your "player character" hero has certain abilities and skills, which change depending on your ancestry, hero type, et. al. Your skills, powers, and equipment tell you how good you are at different things. The Session Producer (SP) knows how hard something is, and how lucky you need to be to pull it off. You take on your character's role in the drama, and decide what actions you want to take. Your dice roll tells you how lucky you are at that moment, and whether you succeed. If you do succeed, great! If not, try again, or try something else.

You can try Pathfinder by learning just a bit, being part of a player group to learn more as you go, and reading the rulebook. The more you do it, the better you'll get. It's fun!

As your player character heroes succeed in their adventures and continue to train, they'll also get better. The sweet young noblewoman who rises to become a pirate queen on screen is much handier with her sword than she was at the beginning of the first movie. Most comic book heroes also have to learn all about what it means to be a hero, and how to use their potential, before they're good enough to face the most challenging opponents. It's the same with your Pathfinder characters. As they face more opponents and follow their own path, they'll gain more experience, upgrade their equipment, and unlock more of their potential powers. You'll also get better as a player, of course - and that combination will make it possible for your hero to undertake world-shaking missions and do great things that live on in legend.

What does the Session Producer do?

Aside: I've never been thrilled with the BDSM flavor of 'Dungeon Master.' Actually, I've made fun of that for over 20 years now - and even 'Game Master' mischaracterizes the key relationship since players aren't subordinate. So I've picked another term that fits, is more accurate, and as a bonus has a strong cool factor. Alternative suggestions welcome, but I think Paizo has a big opportunity to take a step forward for RPGers here.

The Pathfinder Session Producer (SP) is like a movie producer with improv skills. She isn't a director, because Pathfinder is all about players making choices that can change a story. She isn't an opponent, because her goal is the same as the players': to have a successful, exciting, challenging session that everyone enjoys. Like a movie producer, the Pathfinder SP makes sure everything that's required is ready to go on the set, from making sure the story outline is ready to casting the "bad guys" and extras. Once that's all prepared, her role is to tell the story, act the roles for the story's cast beyond your team, let the players decide what to do, and use the Pathfinder rules framework to help figure out what happens next.

The SP knows all the secrets of the adventure she has bought, or created herself. The adventure only comes alive when the players step in, however, as their decisions can (and often do) surprise the SP and change the story. A good adventure, like a good movie, is all about the balance between a strong basic storyline, interesting characters on both sides, and a bit of surprise that makes for memorable moments.

How do I get started?

The easiest way to get started is to find a nearby gaming group, or an experienced Session Producer/ Game Master who might be interested in a teaching session. If you're at school, there are probably gaming clubs. Outside of schools, your friendly local gaming store is an excellent place to start looking, and Paizo's messageboards also offer a good way to find games in your area.

Once you find the right group, good SPs and groups will help you create a character and get started. This will almost certainly happen before your first playing session, and will be a conversation about what kind of hero you want to be, the group, and the current adventure series. It may also include an initial briefing regarding the most basic rules, and what your hero is good at and not so good at.

If you're the type who prefers more preparation, that's great. Pathfinder's rulebook is available online from Paizo, and can be delivered as a book or downloadable PDF. Now, go find a group and have some fun!

Tip to Paizo: we need a "find a campaign" message board!

What Should I Look for in a Pathfinder Gaming Group?

Keep an open mind, because people's gaming styles are often different from their real-life personas - just as actors and actresses usually aren't like the interesting people that they play in movies. (We might make an exception for dedicated gamer Vin Diesel.)

At the same time, it's important to look for someone you'll be comfortable with. Do you want this person producing the campaign and setting up the stories you're in? Talk to the Session Producer about the kind of campaign it is, what kind of stories and themes are popular, thematic directions (s)he wants to take the campaign, etc. How good is the fit? How flexible are they? How adaptable are you? It's better to wait a bit for a decent fit if the role, story, or environment doesn't work for you.

As a useful first step, we recommend answering the questions on this short form {url to form, see below for details}, and bring/send the results to Session Producers and groups you talk to. It will help them to help you.

Where Can I Find Gaming Materials Like Rules, Adventures, et. al?

You can buy books, dice, and other materials online from Pathfinder's creators right here at Paizo.com.

From Pathfinder rules, to published adventures and imaginary worlds you can use, to dice and other equipment that makes your gaming easier, it's all here at Paizo! We're one of the top distributors of role-playing games and equipment, and have established an excellent reputation for service, reliability, and customer care.

Your local gaming store (consult your Yellow Pages) may also carry Paizo products.

With Pathfinder emerging as the flag bearer for v3.5 campaigners, an interesting thing happens: Paizo becomes the custodian of a decent part of the D&D community, and many experienced gamers. Since they're going to want to recruit new gamers, Paizo has an interesting opportunity to help. Paizo will even begin with an advantage - the Pathfinder name will be a step forward because it suggest broader adventuring themes that will be more familiar to non-gamers.

WotC has worked to put a FAQ together for new players, as it tries to branch out the RPG audience with 4E. Paizo ought to do the same - but with a better FAQ, because WotC's falls short in a few areas. My recommendation for that FAQ follows. Feedback welcome - let's make this all that it can be!

FAQ Goals:

* The FAQ's rimary audience and focus is new players. The FAQ assumes that they know nothing about RPGs, or how to get started, and aims to make that as intuitive, non-threatening, and simple as possible.

* Existing RPG players are a distant secondary audience; we can explain everything to them quickly and in shorthand.

* Tying the game into cultural experiences that non-games can grasp quickly is a priority; it will help us communicate, and help remove reservations. Langauge should reflect all of this.

* The FAQ should do more than just answer questions. It should give people everything they need to get started and make good initial decisions. That initial experience is critical - it will either produce a fan or an aversion. We want to help make that experience a good one all around.

With that, the FAQ....

What is PATHFINDER?

Have you ever watched an exciting TV show, or movie, and wished you could do that? Have great adventures in fantastic locations, make the key decisions, kick the bad guys' butts when necessary, and be part of a grand story? Pathfinder is a set of rules that lets people imagine, create and star in those kinds of adventures. Pathfinder's overall genre is fantasy, but the adventures can be of any type, and can duplicate stories and adventures from other genres including mysteries, espionage, exploration, complex social/political scenarios, horror, heroic quests, and more.

Above all, Pathfinder is a social game, not a solo game. It's like any other regular get-together with friends or team sport, which depends on people being together. In Pathfinder, one friend plays the role of the Session Producer (SP), and the others play a team of heroes. The game can also become a hobby, as players get better and begin investing time in creating their heroes and shared adventure settings.

I'm An Experienced Gamer. Can You be More Specific?

Pathfinder is a continuation and extension of the SRD/OGL v3.5 rules. Many of you out there have invested a lot of time and money in that framework. We're committed to supporting existing and new players with improved but compatible rules, great settings, fantastic adventures, and other products.

How Do the Rules Work? Aren't There a Lot of Them?

Most people think the same thing when they begin learning to drive. Within a little while, however, they can just drive, without thinking too much about it.

It doesn't take anything but pencil and paper, some dice, and a bit of imagination to play your first game - and your fellow players or Session Producer will bring dice. It's certainly possible to just dive right in, think like an action movie/ fantasy literature hero or sidekick, and have people explain things as you go.

The basic rules mechanic is simple, and parts will be familiar to anyone who has played video games. Your "player character" hero has certain abilities and skills, which change depending on your ancestry, hero type, et. al. Your skills, powers, and equipment tell you how good you are at different things. The Session Producer (SP) knows how hard something is, and how lucky you need to be to pull it off. You take on your character's role in the drama, and decide what actions you want to take. Your dice roll tells you how lucky you are at that moment, and whether you succeed. If you do succeed, great! If not, try again, or try something else.

You can try Pathfinder by learning just a bit, being part of a player group to learn more as you go, and reading the rulebook. The more you do it, the better you'll get. It's fun!

As your player character heroes succeed in their adventures and continue to train, they'll also get better. The sweet young noblewoman who rises to become a pirate queen on screen is a lot better with that sword by the final movie than she was at the beginning of the first movie. Most comic book heroes also have to learn all about what it means to be a hero, and how to use their potential, before they're good enough to face the most challenging opponents. It's the same with your Pathfinder characters. As they face more opponents and follow their own path, they'll gain more experience, upgrade their equipment, and unlock more of their potential powers. You'll also get better as a player, of course - and that combination will make it possible for your hero to undertake world-shaking missions and do great things that live on in legend.

What does the Session Producer do?

Aside: I've never been thrilled with the BDSM flavor of 'Dungeon Master.' Actually, I've made fun of that for over 20 years now - and even 'Game Master' mischaracterizes the key relationship since players aren't subordinate. So I've picked another term that fits, is more accurate, and as a bonus has a strong cool factor. Alternative suggestions welcome, but I think Paizo has a big opportunity to take a step forward for RPGers here.

The Pathfinder Session Producer (SP) is like a movie producer with improv skills. She isn't a director, because Pathfinder is all about players making choices that can change a story. She isn't an opponent, because her goal is the same as the players': to have a successful, exciting, challenging session that everyone enjoys. Like a movie producer, the Pathfinder SP makes sure everything that's required is ready to go on the set, from making sure the story outline is ready to casting the "bad guys" and extras. Once that's all prepared, her role is to tell the story, act the roles for the story's cast beyond your team, let the players decide what to do, and use the Pathfinder rules framework to help figure out what happens next.

The SP knows all the secrets of the adventure she has bought, or created herself. The adventure only comes alive when the players step in, however, as their decisions can (and often do) surprise the SP and change the story. A good adventure, like a good movie, is all about the balance between a strong basic storyline, interesting characters on both sides, and a bit of surprise that makes for memorable moments.

How do I get started?

The easiest way to get started is to find a nearby gaming group, or an experienced Session Producer/ Game Master who might be interested in a teaching session. If you're at school, there are probably gaming clubs. Outside of schools, your friendly local gaming store is an excellent place to start looking, and Paizo's messageboards also offer a good way to find games in your area.

Once you find the right group, good SPs and groups will help you create a character and get started. This will almost certainly happen before your first playing session, and will be a conversation about what kind of hero you want to be, the group, and the current adventure series. It may also include an initial briefing regarding the most basic rules, and what your hero is good at and not so good at.

If you're the type who prefers more preparation, that's great. Pathfinder's rulebook is available online from Paizo, and can be delivered as a book or downloadable PDF. Now, go find a group and have some fun!

Tip to Paizo: we need a "find a campaign" message board!

What Should I Look for in a Pathfinder Gaming Group?

Keep an open mind, because people's gaming styles are often different from their real-life personas - just as actors and actresses usually aren't like the interesting people that they play in movies. (We might make an exception for dedicated gamer Vin Diesel.)

At the same time, it's important to look for someone you'll be comfortable with. Do you want this person producing the campaign and setting up the stories you're in? Talk to the Session Producer about the kind of campaign it is, what kind of stories and themes are popular, thematic directions (s)he wants to take the campaign, etc. How good is the fit? How flexible are they? How adaptable are you? It's better to wait a bit for a decent fit if the role, story, or environment doesn't work for you.

As a useful first step, we recommend answering the questions on this short form {url to form, see below for details}, and bring/send the results to Session Producers and groups you talk to. It will help them to help you.

Where Can I Find Gaming Materials Like Rules, Adventures, et. al?

You can buy books, dice, and other materials online from Pathfinder's creators right here at Paizo.com.

From Pathfinder rules, to published adventures and imaginary worlds you can use, to dice and other equipment that makes your gaming easier, it's all here at Paizo! We're one of the top distributors of role-playing games and equipment, and have established an excellent reputation for service, reliability, and customer care.

Your local gaming store (consult your Yellow Pages) may also carry Paizo products.

I think channel energy should be selective.

For example, lets say I'm playing a LN cleric, of a LN deity. I chose to use negative energy, so that I'd have a chance of commanding undead to fight for my allies. After all it's better to use dead meat shield then live ones any day. Besides, players tend to complain when you ask them to take fire for you.

Under Pathfinder rules, I'd have to take a feat or I'd become a sever hindrance to my own party.

Perhaps so. Then again, think of the level of power your PC has.

Full armor, good attack bonus, cleric spells which are already quite powerful - oh, and by the way, your 5th level cleric is more powerful with the blasting magics than the 5th level wizard. Which isn't enough, so we'll take that blasting power equal to 3-7 lesser fireballs and let you exclude your allies, as a fireball can't. For which you give up the fireball's range.

Cleric was already way overpowered - and that is simply ridiculous.

Wow. I like this build a lot. That might be the best class build I have seen come out of the WoTC boards. It is flexible enough to allow for both focused builds (all archery) or more generalized builds and yet still be effective either way. I am definitely going to try this one out. The only thing I would add is some of the maneuvers from Book of Iron Might. I really think the fighter should be able to do things like slow, stun, or blind enemies for brief periods of time. I am impressed by how good of a fighter class that is.

Thanks, Aaron. It was very flexible for specialized roles as well as a range of useful NPCs. It also held up well to build testing at both low and high levels, and play testing.

I don't have the Book of Iron Might, but it sounds like its options might be best as additional Mastery of Battle options. Which, really, are the sorts of useful things fighter combat feats ought to be, and generally are not.

Combat maneuver: Demoralize

As a move action, you can attempt to demoralize your opponent and give him the shaken condition....

Interesting solution. Mechanic does offer a thought-out balance, too, which is good. Add Chris Mortika's idea of circumstance bonuses to encourage role-playing as well as roll-playing, and this addition becomes a solid contender worthy of broader consideration.

Relatively speaking, it has a lot of math, though, which makes it harder to remember and hence a game-slower when used, unless your group is very sharp in the area. That's just fine with some gamers, not such a feature for others.

The way around this, of course, would be to make the feat the key for some kind of morale rating mechanic (based on, say, target’s CMB + target's Hit Dice + target's Wisdom modifier + any bonuses to saves against fear effects). Then each monster/NPC would have an easy to reference DC morale rating a la 2ED, and the ability would become easier to use.

Of course, requiring changes in other rulesets that would become an important addition to the game is a high bar to set...

In this entire time, there's only ever been one circumstance where me-as-faceman has ever come into play, since the other players simply whine to the GM that having no role in social situations despite their character's lack of ability to express themselves on levels beyond what a shark could understand is "unfair", or "violates their character concept".

The reason why I point this out is this - most of the time, players abdicate their role in social situations. Giving them the option to have a place in social environments despite their clear, direct, and stated abdication is distinctly unfair to PCs whose stated intent is to specialize in social situations. If you want to be social "backup", then you're going to have to spread your points around....

Ah. I begin to understand now.

There are other ways to have a role, other than as a backup "face man." Using Chris' suggestion re: circumstance bonuses, for instance, the Mage holding a sizzling ball of fire in his hand (illusionary, but who else knows that?), or a Charm spell, has a role. The fighter who goes along with the Bard and uses Intimidation as a backup (because that has been fixed to work with rather than against his class strengths) has a role.

Are they the #1 face-man type guy your character is? No. You worked for it via class and ability choices, and you earned it. "Having a role" does not mean they will be your equal in this area. You still da man.

But your fellow players' complaints ought to tell you something. They don't want to just hand everything over to you. They want to be involved. Somehow.

"Giving them the option" is EXACTLY what needs to happen.

Frankly, part of that needs to come from you. You're the social situations guy. Which means that coming up with plans that involve them is up to you, just as handling the other side of the encounter is primarily up to you. You have the charisma? Then lead!

But some of this may also have to come from the game itself. Just as it needs to work with your GM, it needs to work with you, too, and give you some tools and hooks.

Your fellow party members need options that let them work with their class' strengths and effectiveness requirements, so that they can put points into relevant skills, or use class-relevant ability scores, as part of social encounter play. Does the Fighter Intimidate? Does the Ranger successfully use "Knowledge, nature" (shifted to INT or WIS so it synergizes with its key classes - Druids, and with Rangers where WIS investments also help with Perception) to help you by briefing you about the creature you're trying to deal with? Does the Wizard use "Knowledge history" to do the same thing before the meeting with the Margrave of Whatsit? Or cast Detect Thoughts from the shadows of the booth? Etc.

Now, if they are given abilities and options for skill investments that work well with their class' needs, and then refuse to make those investments, you are right to say that they have chosen to deal themselves out.

For instance, a number of useful Rogue abilities are Charisma based. The class is built to work well with roleplaying situations, in a number of ways. If the Rogue chose Cha as a dump stat and didn't invest in the skills, that really is abdication. He's going to have to either find some other way to contribute in social encounters, or accept that he has chosen to build a character that is badly suited to this facet of play.

You may still be able to use such characters in your plans, of course. If Chris' circumstance bonus is used (which is already sort of in the rules: circumstance bonuses can contribute +2/-2 as a general rule), the 22 Dex rogue's habit of putting knife after knife into the bullseye near your tavern seat can be drawn to your mark's attention as you make your Intimidate check, or extol your group's competence as part of Diplomacy, or whatever.

Cleric with low charisma? Sorry about turning undead, dude, and I guess you didn't read Pathfinder's new Channel Energy section. But maybe you invested a lot in Sense Motive (Wis) instead, and if so I still want you along. That's a role.

But you can't berate the fighter for not optimizing Charisma, to the detriment of his class' fundamental function, and for no other benefit, and say he has dealt himself out. No, the game has dealt him out. And until the game gives him viable options that let him play a role without compromising his main function, we have a problem.

I disagree that every class should have a role in every major facet of the game...

Then we agree to disagree.

As a GM, I prefer a game that helps me by keeping players involved and excited at all times, and not working against me at any time. The justification for why it may choose to work against me doesn't really matter very much.

If Reputation were added to the game, then Famousness and Infamy would have a large role in adding to these kinds of roles. Fighters and Barbarians making a physical threat might get a large bonus based on their Reputation of being physical, and a circumstantial bonus based on a display of Strength.

I agree with that. Famousness/Infamy rules would be one way of addressing this issue. Pair it up with Chris' idea of circumstance bonuses, and that would appear to be one viable solution. It is not a simple solution - in fact, it's more complex than my complex solution - but it has a lot of potential spin off benefits if done well.

Absent that option, which is the case now and may remain the case if Paizo looks at the infamy option and decides not to go with it, what other answers might work? I've put mine on the table, and explained it. Infamy+Circumstance can be said to be another option, not fully fleshed out yet but a clear idea.

What other useful answers might exist?

From a role-plaing game standpoint: We want social skills to be spread out so that they're not all based off the same attribute.

I'm very close to Chris on this one, as a matter of fundamental design. My broader concern is slightly different, but gets to the same place. It's that every class should have opportunities in every major facet of the game. Not only that, they should have opportunities that leverage their natural foci, so that they can be effective in some kind of understood role within that facet, without sub-optimizing. A game that neglects this is inviting players to become bored, or penalizing certain classes in practice as a gateway to participating effectively in a major element of the game. Neither is good design.

This does not mean all classes are equal at everything. It does means every class should have a role to play in the various major situations PCs find themselves in. One of which is social interaction encounters.

* Right now, Bards' roles in social interaction are obvious - it's their class' strength. As an NPC in my world is fond of saying: "Always remember, lass: a Bard's greatest power is her friends."

* Sorcerers also do well. Both have Cha as their key attribute, and Bluff is very helpful to sorcerers. Plus, they may have useful spells. Covered.

* Rogues have lots of skill points, and a number of key abilities like Gather Information in addition to the classic social interaction skills. Their potential role is also clear, and their "friends in low places" mold may well give them access to exclusive sources. They're definitely covered, even if they have a low Cha - but the class is rewarded in numerous ways for investing in Cha, if they decide to do so.

* Clerics have the strongest wisdom scores, which gives them very strong sense motive capabilities. Diplomacy is a class skill. And under Pathfinder Alpha's Cha-related Channel Energy, Cha has become their de facto primary stat now that investment in Wisdom brings dramatically smaller benefits. Even without the broken Channel Energy, however, they're covered.

* Paladins have strong reasons to invest in Cha via Channel energy, Divine Grace, et. al. Plus Sense Motive and Diplomacy are class skills. Covered.

* Wizards lack a compelling reason to invest in Cha, and don't have the social skills as class skills. They compensate with their ability to use spells as part of those encounters, and their own specialty which is High Int hence the best access to knowledge categories. So they're definitely still involved and covered. This is a good example of a class with proper compensating abilities AND skills to keep them involved in a key facet of the game.

* Barbarians. To be effective in the game, they need to concentrate on Str (weapon damage their main contribution), Con (need high HP given low AC), and Dex (need the AC boost). With limited choices, putting enhancements or high scores elsewhere is crippling. To the extent that you're looking for any concrete bonuses elsewhere, Wisdom is needed for good Survival and Perception scores, both very important to Barbarians. Outside of scenarios related to tribes and culture they're familiar with, therefore, they leverage very poorly in social interaction scenarios. Which fits in some ways with their stereotype, but in terms of role-playing in ways that leverage the class' strengths and the way the game has set them up, this is not a good situation. They need an option that preserves their "outsider in civilization" status, while giving them a role in social situations that makes sense. Unfortunately, correction with a feat is very, very expensive for them.

* Rangers. to be effective, Rangers need to think in the same terms as Barbarians for major abilities: Con, Dex, Str, though strength is more optional for ranger bow types than it is for barbarians. Wisdom is more important to rangers for their classic tracking role, so that's 4 abilities now which need attention. Which is already bordering hard on overload. Something that may, in turn, help to explain the ranger's consistent low ranking in polls re: classes, despite their iconic fantasy status. Now, where does the Ranger fit in social interaction situations, in a point buy abilities world? Animal empathy, maybe - a thin reward for Cha investment (5 abilities now?). Definitely needs a fix or two in the Pathfinder redesign, and feats are too expensive as fix mechanic for this class.

* Fighters. To be effective, they need to concentrate on Strength OR Dex, plus Con; ideally all 3, but there are builds that can reduce either Str or Dex to low importance. The class' inherent weakness as written also gives them little margin for error in terms of sub-optimization, and there are other areas that need attention. Skill points are poor, and so are Will saves. Int or Wis scores are needed to address that, and Int is required for Swashbuckler types due to things like the way Combat Expertise has been rewritten, as well as 3.5 prestige classes that leverage it. Taking a good Cha confers benefits on NPC fighters with the Leadership feat, but not on PC fighters unless your DM runs a lot of mass battles. Most run very few, if any. Fix options are also sub-optimal. Yes, the fighter could put points into Charisma, but it means weakening the class in its primary role. Correction with a feat is less expensive for fighters in one way, since they get more of them. But feats are the class' primary power - and so forcing them to burn one is, again, hindering the fighter in its primary role, in order to make the fighter much more useful in a major phase of the game which the designers should have already equipped them for in some way. And did not.

What's the common thread across the last 3 classes covered? They tend to have high strengths. And they need a better mechanical role in social interaction situations, which does not depend on sub-optimization or burning feats to get them there.

Making Intimidate (Str OR Cha) is the simplest way to begin fixing this. Other options must certainly exist for these classes, and I'd hope we'd explore some in Pathfinder design & discussion. There will almost certainly be more than one solution, at the end of the day, which overlap to get us where we need to be.

But if the goal of Pathfinder is a better game, this is definitely an area that needs to be addressed.

Or, borrowing a page from Champions, why not allow situational modifiers for scary actions? Just being strong might not be Intimidating, but threatening someone --with a horse you're holding over your head, or a door you ripped off its hinges, or an arrow you shot into his boot from across the street, or a fireball you have sizzling in your hand-- might be worth a +4 to a +10 circumstance bonus to the skill check.

This strikes me as an excellent idea! Definitely one of the overlapping solutions, with the bonus that it encourages good roleplaying and drama by ALL classes.

(I can hear Tracy Hickman in my head as I read this, saying "Make it exciting! Make it a great story!")

I would posit that a Feat that grants you potentially a +5 or more bonus to a single Skill is a rather considerable benefit out of a Feat (Charisma 8 to Strength 18 translates into a +5 bonus to the Skill).

I don't treat it as a bonus, because it isn't one. Iron Will is a bonus. I treat is as definition of the character. The feat (in this case) is being used to do something that's obviously possible to do and fits, or the feat would not make sense.

I can happily introduce y'all to a few bars where you can meet some people that aren't charismatic by any stretch, but will be rather large and good at intimidation.

Though Ian's system where he differentiates between panic and intimidation is an interesting variant...

While the zombies may be getting healed in this scenario, the 5th level clerics will be killing each other before anyone in the party dies. Even if each PC only has 10hp left at this point, I'm sure 4 7th level PCs with 10hp each can wipe out 12 2HD zombies without even one of them dying.

Hmm, you're right. For some reason I had read it as "good" creatures when it's "living". Must be some kind of mental holdover from 1E's evil clerics turning paladins.

You'd have to spring this one as an interesting sort of ambush, with undead and a cleric pouring out of 4 secret doors or rooms near a cross intersection, trapping the party in the middle and keeping each other out of the blast radius. Doable, but very difficult, and we'd have to up the zombies to 32 (8 each, 2 ranks deep in front of each cleric). At that point, we're probably past EL 7.

Still sounds like a fun one to try some time. And the whole thing does give me some fiendish ideas for an Egyptian pyramid/ tomb adventure with undead clerics of Set...

Not certain what you're saying. Are you complaining about the amount of damage output or do you prefer it increased? I like the DR option, but I'm also a fan of the curren Channel.

Damage output is fine if 1/2 damage and no morale issue is the outcome for turn-resistant creatures, not fine if turn resistance also includes DR.

Remove the DR, and apply the turn resistance bonus to the undead's will save. If you like, double the Will save bonus to +2 per +1 of turn resistance (would want to run this through more iterative testing to see results). As long as there's no DR from turn resistance, taking 1/2 damage in place is balanced.

It's a win-win scenario - the players get to play more and get further into the adventures before needing to rest, the cleric is able to cast spells other than healing (in the 3.5 game I'm currently in the Cleric has cast maybe two spells that weren't cure or heal), and the turn undead effect does something other than just make the undead fight you later.

Agree. But the DR needs to go, and the collateral heal/ damage needs a tone-down.

Consider negative channeling. Boy it could be interesting next time a 7th level party invades a temple and faces, oh, 4 5th level clerics behind a wall of 12 2HD zombies (3 ranks deep), in a 10' wide corridor. 4 x 3d6, for 3 rounds, is probably a TPK. Even 2 rounds could be pushing it, and that may remain true even assuming most saves are made against the DC 12-16 blasts.

Something to consider, and really, another reason to think about my proposed 1d6 + 1 per d6 damage modification for positive channeling as healing, or negative channeling as damage.

The wights take no damage at all. With at least +2 Turn Resistance, they absorb the 5 points of damage and having made their saves go about their business as if nothing happened.

Ah, yes. Page 59 sidebar. Hmm, this is a serious problem.

The solution seems simple, then - remove the DR from Turn Resistance, with a possible counter-balance of increasing the Will save to +2 for every +1 or Turn Resistance. So undead with resistance are quite unlikely to be turned, and are very likely to take 1/2 damage, but still take some damage.

As the example above shows, that works out well - and should still work for the 9th level cleric facing nosferatu.

In the counter-example, if said party was facing 5 ogres, the Cleric would be healing the Ogres of just as much hurt as he would be healing his or her allies. As a combat heal, there are only very limited applications for Channel (only if facing foes of the appropriate type, in this case Undead, and only if those are the only foes the characters are facing). The same is true of the Paladin.

Unless the Cleric has taken the Selective Channeling feat. And of course, channeling is an ideal healing action outside of combat, where a lot of healing still takes place.

katman wrote:

The 3.5 skill and feat systems are unquestionably its biggest weakness.

While I agree with most of the rest of your post, I'm not sure about your opening. YMMV but I have always looked at skills and feats as a strength of the system. Not that there aren't some feats and skills that could use some work...

They are a strength, but they are also its biggest ball and chain.

SKILLS

The immense amount of work and calculation required to do skills for an NPC or monster, and the universality of the need to do it, are the single biggest drag on DM prep time. Which means they're the biggest drag on DM productivity. That's a big, big minus.

Paizo acknowledges this by streamlining the skills in Pathfinder. WotC 4E acknowledges it by radically changing the skills system to make it much, much faster to assign skills (by a factor of about 5). I like the better granularity of Paizo's approach, but would add a full set of "standard skill scores" for every monster Paizo uses. If DMs want to change them around by subtracting from skill A and adding to B, great; otherwise, they're ready to go. That still leaves DMs with class/level NPcs, but it would help...

Intimidate is another weak point, weaker in implementation than any other skill. Unfortunately, it's also a skill that has the potential to be used a lot. Hurting role-playing for whole classes of PCs is another serious knock. Hence the fixes above.

FEATS

The limited usefulness of most feats, plus the Fighter's dependence on them as the prime feature of the class, did more than anything else to kill the fighter as anything other than "something you do until about level 3 or 4." It also leaves PCs with a lot of feats that have very limited usefulness at higher levels.

Am currently working in another thread on possible ways to make most feats auto-scale with level, using a common core system that fits with other conventions in the game. See: Suggestion: Feats that Matter at Higher Levels, Too.

I like the idea that threeblood suggested. I didn't at first, but after I thought about it for awhile, it makes sense and fits the flavor of the concept pretty well.... Seeker's idea is good, too, but.... I'm not really comfortable with the idea of a psicrystal and a familiar being practically the same thing.

Agree on both counts, except for the fact that I liked Threeblood's idea a lot from the get-go. It's brilliant. The fact that it would actualize an OOTS trope is just a bonus. And it's only an OOTS trope because so many games are actually played more or less that way.

I'm a big fan of paving the dirt paths people are already walking on.

Add the suggestion re: rising levels of instant metamagic ability to the current familiar progression table, plus Threeblood's suggestion that it can take an Improved Familiar shape at the appropriate time, and I think we're done. That gives serious benefits (any more would be unbalancing), follows players' natural desires, scales with levels, and follows the "familiar is derived from and improves your connection to magic" historical conventional rather than the "familiar = psicrystal" approach.

That package would be matched up against Seeker's concept in a competition for the realized solution - both qualify. As noted above, I prefer the Threeblood + metamagic option.

Couple guys in my group hate the healing part of it, they think it gives the players way to much healing we are talking about it and when we test we will give it a shot

And yet, I see Paizo being responsive to the "people don't want to play clerics and be a walking Wand of Cure Light Wounds" here. By adding healing to this ability, the Cleric and Paladin are given options that free up party spell slots for other uses.

It's a pretty powerful ability, too. So powerful that you could argue that it's broken.

Consider a 5th level cleric, in the middle of his party. They're facing undead - let's say 5 wights. And let's give the wights Turn Resistance to the point where they save automatically. The party is kind of beat up by this time, and things aren't going so well in the crypt room. Then WHAM! the cleric channels positive energy.

The crypt room isn't that big, so no party member is more than 30 feet from the cleric. Each party member is healed for 3d6 damage. Basically, you just cast Mass Cure Moderate Wounds.

The wights are all in the burst, because they're all engaged with the party. They all make their saves as we agreed, but each takes 3d6 damage/2. Given 10.5 points as average for 3d6, we'll say 5 points each. That cleric would have to be one serious combat dude to put 5 points of damage on 5 wights in 1 round, at 5th level.

An 8th level Paladin also has this ability, and can use it 3x/day plus Charisma modifier. 16 Charisma? That's 6 times per day. Or 18d6 of healing per day, for every single PC in the party, if they play their cards right. Yowsa. Want to take Extra Turning too? Make it 24d6 per day, per party member. I'd haul the 8th level Paladin along as a henchman with my 15th level party for that!

If I'm a good or neutral cleric, there's no way I take anything else but the Extra Turning feat as soon as I can. Heck, I'd take it just for the healing. What other feat gives you equivalent power to 2 healing waves like that? Nothing. And Wisdom? Feh. Put your best score in Charisma instead. If you don't believe me, do the math and figure out how many spells you'd need to gain, in order to equal the benefits conferred by this ability.

Change Proposal, edited: I'd change the rules to say that Energy Channeling heals d6 damage to appropriate creatures within its radius, +1 point for every d6 of damage it can do to opponents. That means my 8th level Paladin with 16 charisma can end up healing each party member for 39 points per day (6 times x 6.5 {3.5 avg + 3} points per). Not shabby, that's about equal to 2 Cure Serious Wounds for each party member.

NOTE: Added the 1d6 base because Paizo is trying to do 2 things (see their sidebar): help the "cure stick cleric" out, and not force low-level parties to stop and rest as much. The previous 1 point per d6 option would not have helped low-level parties. This option gives it enough oomph at lower levels to do so, without making the ability overkill at mid levels.

The 3.5 skill and feat systems are unquestionably its biggest weakness. Within that area, the Intimidate skill ranks near the bottom for "most poorly done". Its effect is to actively remove fighter and barbarian types from a number of role-playing situations, instead of involving them.

The problem is its mechanic, which is Charisma based. While that works well for Bards and Rogues, it's an exceptionally poor choice for fighters and barbarians because that is almost always their dump stat. So they don't get involved. And yet, here in the real world, I'd invite you to visit some bars (or high schools, if you're under age) and see who uses the Intimidate feat and how.

Paizo implicitly acknowledges this, and believes it is necessary to fix it with a new feat:

"Intimidating Prowess. Your physical might is intimidating to others.
Benefit: Add your Strength modifier to Intimidate skill checks instead of your Charisma modifier."

This is, I submit, perhaps not the quality of design one would expect from Paizo. Forcing fighter-types and (worse) barbarians to give up a feat, in order to be useful during roleplay encounters, is poor mechanics and will not attract a lot of players to that path. But it's a first draft, and the good news is that they recognize the problem (the mechanic) and solution (use Str).

There are 3 ways to fix this, all of which are better than forcing PCs to take a precious feat: The Simple fix, the Complex fix, and the Class fix.

The Simple Fix is to simply change the mechanic: Intimidate (Str OR Cha). From a game design point of view, I would argue that its elegance and simplicity makes bending convention worthwhile.

This was done in 2E, and worked. I have restored this in my own rebuilt fighter class. Suddenly, the party bard wants to take the fighter along for roleplay encounters, as an intimidating backup presence. Suddenly, the fighter sees this as a good place to put skills that confers real benefits. Suddenly, the incentive is to roleplay a bit instead of always handing this off to someone else. Paizo et. al. are invited to playtest this and see for themselves.

The Complex Fix is to acknowledge that there are 2 kinds of intimidation, and create appropriate skill mechanics designed for each.

Intimidating Personality (Cha). Same as the current skill.

Intimidating Prowess (Str). You are physically intimidating to opponents. Uses Str. for the base skill, but it's an opposed check. For every +2 of difference between your Strength, or your best attack bonus with all current modifiers (skill user picks), and your opponent's corresponding figure, you get +1 to the Intimidation check. If your chosen strength or best attack bonus is actually lower than your opponent's, you take a -1 to the check for every -2 difference.

I used Str. or best attack bonus for the opposed check because your 12th level fighter may not be as strong as that ogre, or in some cases even as strong as the Hobgoblin Fighter 2... but once it sees your moves or even senses your demeanor (ever been around a very good martial artist?) it's going to realize that it's seriously overmatched, and the fear will begin. Remember that Intimidation can be a combat move. I allowed the modifiers rather than using BAB because if you're holding a glowing, pulsing sword, that's more intimidating. If the sword looks inert but is +5 and makes you look that much better, it's still more intimidating. If you aren't holding a sword, it's not a current modifier and removes itself from the equation.

This fix is the most realistic, but also the most cumbersome. Is the trade worth it?

The Class Fix removes "Intimidating Prowess" from the feats roster, and adds it as a class ability to appropriate classes at an appropriate level. This is better design than making it a feat, but I suspect that every strength-heavy class would soon get it. At which point, it becomes obvious that the fix needs to be deeper.

I strongly recommend the simple fix. If this was broken enough to require a special new feat to fix, it's broken enough to fix at the source and encourage more widespread roleplaying, in a wider variety of situations.

Maybe I'm off the mark here, but there seems to be a dearth of decent high level feats for fighters. I would suggest that creating some of these might be handy.

Interestingly, shortly after contributing to this thread, I ended up in another THINK TANK type thread about feats. We're looking at a potential core mechanic set for feats that might come very close to giving the Fighter the required parity all by itself.

Suggestion: Feats that *Matter* At Higher Levels, Too

The core idea is to make all basic feats "feat trees" whose bonuses scale with level, just as Paizo's Armor Training and Weapon Training do. In fact, if the checkout goes well, my strong suggestion would be to implement stuff like Height of Battle as a bonus class ability instead, and make Armor & Weapon Training into auto-scaling feats like the rest.

Fighters, since they have many feats to use, would find that at higher levels they would get a lot of options that other PCs would not - and this would actually matter all the way through their careers, instead of the 3.5 feats that are mostly ineffectual or even a waste at higher levels of play. That's actually a big part of the fighter's problem, since feats are a fighter's main power. Stuff like the Warblade was meant to solve that with an auto-scaling martial powers mechanic, and many people seemed to like it. Could it work more generally?

This change would go a long way toward balancing fighters powers. AND, if it works out, would give us a core mechanic for feats that would be consistent and in sync with other aspects of the game, from Domains & Bloodlines to Prestige Classes (check it out and see what I mean).

So far, so good in our testing. But... not declaring victory just yet. We're now doing build-outs and examples to see how it works, is it broken, etc. I can tell you, DracoDruid, that if you want 3 good saves, I've just done an exercise that shows you can get this for your fighter. With 2 feats. Which you might well choose to spend on other things, once you see how this works... but the point is, you'd have that choice.

I'd be interested in feedback, thoughts, or any help folks want to offer over there.

Oh, I seem to have missed your idea of Level Requirements for Tiers... sorry about that! Did I understand correctly that you meant that you could only get Tier 2 at LVL 7, and Tier 3 at LVL 14? If so, I think you're actually correct -- the system would probably work a lot better that way... :)

Yes, though I'm thinking more along the lines of 6th level for Tier 2 and 12th level for tier 3 now.

For feats without a different middle tier, of course, it would just be that steady level-based bonus progression. For a feat in this category that begins at +1 the bonus ratchet is:

1st: +1
6th: +2
8th: +3
12th: +4
16th: +5
20th: +6

...and as you point out, by 21st level an Epic feat can put that character in exactly the same situation as our 20th level model, at +6. So OK, not broken. Good!

Really, Epic Feats should pretty much all be Prestige Feats anyway....

Gnomes...

I was thinking that the gnome should have wizard as a favored class because i too remember the days when the only specialist wizards were illusionists and the gnome where either illusionists or multiclass variants of the illusionist.

Me too. But the game moved on, and given gnomes' description (fey) and bonuses (charisma), sorcerer strikes me as exactly the right choice. And if you want an illusionist, gnomes still get the plusses re: illusion spells, and a sorcerer who selects those spells can cast lots of them. So you can definitely still play a gnome illusionist.

That decision, to me, was one Paizo really got right because it gives gnomes a solid niche they've been lacking since the illusionist's demise. Giving them "Wizard" would not have done that (elves have it too, after all). The sorcerer is a very popular class that needed someone. And the gnome race really can't afford to remain without a unique niche much longer, or it's "I'm a monster. Raaar!" time.

I think they done good here.

Elves...

If half-elves and humans can declare Wizard as their favored class to make multi-classing easier later on (and they can), elves should too.

Solution: you could always house-rule that Gray Elves had Wizard or Cleric as their favored class options, High Elves had Bard or Wizard as their options, and Wood Elves had Ranger or Druid, and close that circle with the whole range suggested for elves. 4E actually did well with the Elf/Eladrin split; but it sounds like Paizo is doing away with the elf sub-races altogether, so I don't expect to see that kind of option set in Pathfinder's core.

Halflings...

The halflings' description does not imply a higher charisma; indeed, they sound like they're either kind of insular, or wanderers on the fringe. Add to this the fact that you don't want to make "Halfling thief" an utter no-brainer - all the folks drooling over the idea of Halfling rogues with +2 charisma illustrate the reason why it probably is not a good idea.

But strong Wisdom IS very strongly implied in their description and mechanics. Given that, you're looking at divine caster favored classes, or a monk class which could be very interesting and amusing thematically.

If Cleric is taken by other races, and Druid fits better anyway but is not taken... good design, to me, says "fill the empty slot that fits." To me, that says "Druid" - or possibly "Monk."

I like "Druid", it needs a race to associate with it, and I think Halflings would work very well. You could do a lot with it in a campaign, and the existing illustration for a druid already looks rather halfling like. Ride that Cloud Leopard, baby, and bring the pain. Nothing like an animal companion who also thinks "run, run, my pretty little bundles of XP!"

But now that people bring up the concept, the "Hairy Feet of Fury" mental concept of the lone halfling who utterly wipes the floor with 4 big, burly human toughs after they confront him on the road... that's pretty damned amusing, and you could do a lot with it, too. The pastoral society, integrated with others, who developed combat with their bodies and simple farm implements to appear less threatening while still protecting themselves. Especially if/when human become repressive and wish to limit any armaments beyond the nobility (that's what happened in Okinawa here). I see that working extremely well, actually, especially in Golarion.

Question is whether the -2 strength is too much of a handicap, or whether their stealth and other bonuses just make them a different build of monk.

Wizard? Meh, no flavor there at all.

Wis +1 (+2 if you must, but no reason to), Rogue favored class, plus Druid or Monk. I'd be good either way.

So, let's revisit it and see if it works, and if it doesn't what change need to be made. At the end of the day, I think we're either going to have a new core mechanic for feats that shows it can handle all of the situations required, or we're going to show that the proposed core mechnic does not work,

I'm going to look at saving throw-related feats under this system....

Iron Will. Old version: "You get a +2 bonus on all Will saving throws."

Iron Will, New version: Can't get a re-roll on saving throws at mid-tier, go straight to the additional bonus track.

Iron Will, under 6th level: You get a +1 bonus on all Will saving throws.

Greater Iron Will, 6th+ level: Add +1/4 levels, rounded down, as a stackable bonus with Iron Will. A 6th level character has a +2 bonus, and 8th level character +3, all the way to +6 at 20th level.

3rd Tier progression: No change, per level increases as before, up to +6 at 20th.

[u]Pros and Cons:[/u] There could be an argument that +1 is too weak to really help at low levels, where it's most needed. On the other hand, there may also be an argument that +6 to will saves is pushing it at 20th level, and +7 would be even worse. Let's see.

Example 1: A Level 20 Barbarian with Iron Will suddenly has 2 good saves, +12 for Fortitude and Will before magic and abilities kick in. Along the way, Will is a mid-way save between Fortitude and Reflex from 1st-7th level, then begins oscillating between mid-range and parity with Fortitude during levels 8-20.

That's a pretty substantial benefit for a single feat. On the Pro side, it certainly lives up to its name, and builds an iron-willed Conan type. On the minus side, this means that 1 feat can turn other classes into "3 good saves" classes, and the fighter with feats to burn can cover that gap using 2 feats. Then again, those 2 feats could have been going into other cool powers like Power Attack and Cleave instead, done as feat tree feats. Would your fighter really make that trade? I think some would, some would not. Which, to me, says "success!" within the system itself. I want more hard thought about which goodies to take.

But can we break it using another class? Can we make an argument that this approach pushes the whole set of feat benefits too far?

Example 2: A Cleric really doesn't want to be bothered by mental attacks, and takes Iron Will. At level 20, Will saves are +18 base, and assuming 22 Wisdom (probably a bit low), that's a +24 Will save. Without a single magic item, this is a PC who slips out of DC 34 Will saves 50% of the time. And I don't know who even has DC 34 will saves at their disposal, other than near-deity class figures. A 9th level spell still needs another +15 to get it to that point. Mind Flayers see this guy coming and immediately run up the white flag.

Then again, he is a level 20 cleric of Asmodeus - if anyone is going to do the dominating around here, it'll he him thank you very much. Now pass him his whips, "Mr. Mentalist the Great, Sorcerer of Reknown," and bite down on the nice rubber ball. If you entertain him, he may let you live.

Too uber? Or good game flavor (the cleric, not the rubber ball which tastes terrible)?

Example 3: Even 12th level is a +12 will save for a Cleric with Iron Will. Now add Wisdom 20 and a Cloak of Resistance +3. That's +20 Will save at 12th level. How many EL 12 monsters can even dent that enough to force a save? An enemy 12th level sorcerer with a 20 charisma, firing a 5th level spell (Dominate, DC 20), is an automatic save barring extraneous factors. Heck, the enemy sorcerer could have fired a Mind Fog last round, and our iron-willed cleric of Sarenrae still has a 50% chance to walk through it all like it isn't even there.

Hmm. Now we compare to her "old feat" counterpart with same Wisdom and item, who has a Will save of +8+5+2, or +15. The 12th level enemy Sorcerer above would succeed 20% of the time (because only 1-4 fail), not high but not zero either. With a Mind Fog the round before, odds of success jump to 2/3 instead of 1/2.

Example 4: Or take a 20th level Paladin with the analogous Great Fortitude, a 16 Charisma, a 16 constitution, and a +3 Cloak of Resistance. Fortitude Save? +12 base +3 Con + 3 Divine Grace + 3 Cloak +6 GF = +27 Fort. DC 26 Dragon Bile was the highest DC poison in the 3.5 rules, and the Paladin is immune.

But then, with the 3.5 rules and version of Great Fortitude, our Paladin's save is a 3, and only Purple Worm poison and Dragon Bile have any hope of working at all.

Query: is this difference enough of a difference for us to say that Iron Will is broken? Or is it OK to reward PCs who take the feat, even if it makes them uber-tough in this respect? Are the feats given up enough cost? Does it leach too much challenge from the game? That would be an interesting playtest set.

My instincts say it's powerful, but it may pass. PCs with save-boosting feats will be rewarded well, but they're also giving up good stuff from other feats they could have taken (see Dodge up above, for instance). And this lets me throw tough enemy Orc Barbarians at the party, without giving up magic items to them because I needed to keep the wizard from just charming him.

But we'd have to test using more scenarios to know.

There are 3 kinds of feats:

Basic Feats, which auto-scale at 3 different levels and have no feat prerequisites.

Prestige feats, which have feat prerequisites and scale only at 1 relatively high level.

Magic Feats, which already auto-scale by becoming usable with more powerful magics and remain exactly as they are.

The question here is "what levels do they scale at?" That deserved a separate post from the foundational "here's the proposed strawman system, let's see if we can break it" post, because it's a separate issue.

* My original proposal for the 3 Basic Feat tiers was 1st, 7th, 14th.

I chose these levels because they are often "dead levels" in terms of exciting new abilities.

- 4th level is too low for the mid-tier in most campaigns.
- 5th level is big for wizards, clerics, and druids because they get 3rd level spells. For whatever reason, 3rd and 5th level spells offer a big step-change in he game. This is less true for Druids (although... call lightning?), but they also get Wild Shape.
- 6th is big for sorcerers (3rd level spells) and all fighter classes (2 attacks with full attack). The Ranger also sees their weapon path abilities kicked up a notch.
- 9th is big for Wizards and Clerics because it confers major abilities (Teleport, Raise Dead)
- 10th is big for Sorcerers, for the same reason.

Hence the 1/7/14 proposal. Although, the truth is that many campaigns never reach 14th. If you wanted these 3 to be accessible to more players, we might say that since fighters are the big beneficiaries, we can make the progression 1/5/10 or 1/6/12.

I'm actually beginning to lean toward 1st/ 6th/ 12th character levels as the best set points for Basic Feat auto-scaling. I also have to acknowledge that multiclassing will often make it an impossible challenge to guarantee hitting a "dead level".

5th level strikes me as too early. The good news: gives non-spellcasters a corresponding power-up at 5th level. Bad news: early in campaigns relative to challenges; and lost in too many other goodies for spellcasters, many of whom will not multiclass or Prestige Class yet.

7th level... Pros: Usually a less exciting level, and if you look at published modules, it tends to denote the threshold for the next tier of play. Cons: May be too late to wait for stuff like your Dodge feat to start getting really useful, and magnifies the effect by pushing the final stage to level 14.

Thoughts?

* The Prestige Feat kicker should be a pretty high level, somewhere in the upper 3rd of possible play. 2 Whirlwind Attacks, for instance, is something that should only belong to legends. Great Cleave, which can very conceivably kill 50 goblins in one round, also belongs here. 14th level is reachable, and also denotes the upper 1/3 of non-epic play.

Thoughts?

Asgetrion, thought about this last night. I worry that this discussion might be losing the plot, but really, it has 2 of them. One is in the title, feats that scale to remain useful at high levels. The other is your proposed core mechanic as an organizing principle for feats.

My sense is that the core mechanic is more important, because without that sort of simplification/ improvement, we're very unlikely to get the wholesale changes in the feat system that you're asking for.

So, let's revisit it and see if it works, and if it doesn't what change need to be made. At the end of the day, I think we're either going to have a new core mechanic for feats that shows it can handle all of the situations required, or we're going to show that the proposed core mechnic does not work, and we'll end up with pretty much the feat system Pathfinder has now.

FEATS, RELOADED:

There are 3 kinds of feats:

1. Basic Feats, which auto-scale at 3 different levels and have no feat prerequisites.

2. Prestige feats, which have feat prerequisites and scale only at 1 relatively high level.

3. Magic Feats (metamagic and item creation), which already auto-scale by becoming usable with more powerful magics and remain exactly as they are.

BASIC FEATS

* Basic Feats begin with a +1 to +2 bonus at Tier 1 (option: unless you're trading one capability for another, in which case the trade range doubles to -1/+1 to -4/+4).

* Some basic feats that do not grant attack bonuses or change saving throws auto-scale at Tier 2, by granting the PC one re-roll per day within its normal usage conditions.

* At Tier 2, Basic Feats that grant attack bonuses or change saving throws either remove a previous restriction on the ability in question, or go straight to the Tier 3 mechanic of increasing their bonus by a stacking bonus of +1/4 levels, rounded down.

* At Tier 3, all basic feats either add or continue a stacking improvement to their initial bonus of +1/4 levels, rounded down. At 20th level, therefore, Basic Feats confer a bonus of +5 to +6 ((1-2)+(20/4)).

* If we use the above option for "trade-off feats", adopting the stacking bonus would raise the level 20 figure to -9/+9.

PRESTIGE FEATS

* Prestige Feats require pre-requisites, and build on earlier feats. In this respect, they mirror the Prestige Class system. The pre-requisites can involve any aspect of a character, but always require a feat prerequisite of an earlier Basic or Prestige feat or feats. If a PC receives 2 or more feat slots at a certain level, it is possible to fill the last feat prerequisite and take a Prestige Feat at the same time.

* Prestige Feats aren't about straight plus bonuses, they're about multiples and doing cool things. Whirlwind Attack, Cleave, Spirited Charge, and Snatch Arrow are all good examples.

* Prestige Feats have an auto-scaling "kicker" of their own at a commonly designated high level (proposed: 14th), which "kicks them up a notch" to help these feats keep pace at the very highest levels of play.

* The default Prestige Feat kicker is the ability to use it 2x per round as a standard action. The kicker can be anything, however, as long as it remains balanced within the game.

Let's take that proposed core mechanic set, and see if we can break it by producing feats it either does not fit, or feats where its application breaks the game. Whether or not we would have designed the given feats exactly that way would not be the point, at least for now...

I would probably have the 'Basic' level Power Attack function as -1/+1 per 2 levels (max. -5/+5 at 10th level).... The Improved Power Attack would allow you to apply half your total character level as a penalty to AC and bonus to damage (-10/+10 at 20th level).

You need a 3rd tier to make the system work as a consistent mechanic. Take a second look at the option suggested.

The investigation into Power Attack as an auto-scaling Feat Tree appears to have revealed an additional rule for this kind of core system:

Feats that grant combat attack capabilities NEVER get the mid-tier re-roll; at 7th level, they ALWAYS jump directly to an additional stacking bonus of +1 per 4 levels, rounded down."

So Basic Feats like Power Attack, Mounted Archery, Trample, Two-weapon fighting, et. al. would all fall under this rule. It would probably be a good idea for feats like Two-weapon defense to do so as well.

Here's the thing: what if Feats in PF could be organized into "Feat Trees" so all of them could "upgraded" via the following simple and elegant mechanics:

There is little question that the 2 most broken aspects of the 3.5 system were skills and feats.

I think your approach has merit, though it will change a number of feats. I'd want to playtest this, but offhand my sense is that the limited number of feats characters get might make it OK to do automatic progression. BUT, that automated progression would have to be by level. I'm inclined to make it 1st, 7th, 14th, which fills some traditional dead level slots nicely and seems about right in terms of power.

Advantages:

* When you take a feat at 14th level, it's guaranteed to be immediately useful, not just a bleah pre-requisite.

* It follows the same meta-logic as the school and domain powers, for system consistency.

* It may go a long way, all by itself, toward fixing the fighter. Right now, their power is built of "feat trees" that only they have the feat numbers to take. With automatic progression, their advantage really shines because now they have all kinds of cool abilities to draw on. Casters have lots of cool spells, Rogues have lots of special class abilities, Fighters have lots of feats to draw on and each does something cool at the fighter's level.

* This approach also boosts humans, whose additional abilities are otherwise a bit weak even in the new Pathfinder system because one more feat isn't a huge deal. Scale the feats, however, and it gets a lot better. More parity for humans is good.

Basically, adopting this approach means switching feats over to level-dependent feat trees. It would still be possible to create feat-tree add-on feats, however, because of the 3 set limit and progression type.

Let's look at the Dodge/ Mobility/ Spring Attack/ (Combat Expertise)/ Whirlwind Attack progression under this system.

Existing Feat Tree Example

"Dodge" feat tree. +1 bonus. Add a miss chance to any attack at 7th level. Then up to +4 bonus at level 14, rising to +6 bonus at level 20. Nice. When you're facing EL 20 monsters, you need that kind of bonus to matter at all.

"Battlefield Mobility" feat tree. Begins at +2 when moving out of a threatened square (down from +4). Adds a miss chance to any attack of opportunity at 7th level, so taking both feats gives the PC up to 2 miss chances per day to use. OK, that's decent compensation. At 14th level, bonus rises to +5, up to +7 at level 20. This is pretty good - and I would now sever this from Dodge so it has no prerequisites.

But if you do take both feats, you could pick a creature eligible for an AOO, declare a dodge bonus, stack it with the battlefield mobility bonus, and take +9 to your AC at 14th level against that opponent. Not broken at that level, and against other opponents you're still only +5. Now we have a feat tree that makes sense for certain character choices, but we don't have to enforce it with prerequisites. Instead, we offer a natural synergy advantage and many players will follow. But those who don't follow didn't waste a feat with something lame like the v3.5 Dodge.

Combat Expertise feat tree. We run into a problem here. Like Power Attack, this is designed to be a variable, player-set bonus up to +5. But your system doesn't really accommodate that. We could say that since a character can always fight defensively (-4 penalty on attacks, +2 dodge bonus to AC), we stack with that to say you can now take -4 penalty and get +4 AC. But that's a stiff penalty at lower levels. We could keep the variability by setting -4/+4 as the initial limit, since it's inherently a variable range ability, and letting players pick from -1/+1 on up to -4/+4. That's a bit weaker, but probably close enough for Combat Expertise to work. Plus, there are additional compensations. At 7th level, you get the force an attack reroll (so someone with Dodge + CE gets 2 per day, and maybe another AOO related re-roll if they have Mobility). At 14th level, you kick the chosen CE range up to -7 attacks/+7 AC, rising to -9/+9 range at 20th level. OK. That probably isn't broken.

Prestige Feats

Spring Attack is our first example of a... let's call it a "Prestige Feat" that doesn't follow these progression rules. Prestige Feats will be defined by needing prerequisites. Spring Attack would have the same prerequisites as now, and it gives the listed ability. Taking Dodge + Mobility gives big advantages, but Spring Attack gives the same concept as a guaranteed ability with additional movement, targeting one opponent.

The question with this revised approach may become "Why take Spring Attack, as opposed to another auto-scaling feat tree"? If Dodge and Mobility are progressing nicely, they may be enough to do many of the same things (this should be a playtest focus), and another feat tree may offer bigger advantages. My fear is that we turn "Spring Attack" into another 3.5 Dodge with this approach, useful mostly as a prerequisite feat.

One way to balance this is to give "Prestige feats" a 14th level kicker, too. Let's say that this kicker can be flexible to allow cool effects instead of straight numerical progression, but the usual approach is that at the 14th level kicker, you can use a Prestige Feat twice per round instead of once. So you can make 2 Spring Attacks now, or 2 Whirlwind attacks, or 2 Spirited Charge attacks. That prospect may keep stuff like Spring Attack balanced with another feat tree as a long term choice.

Whirlwind Attack also maintains the same prerequisites and abilities under this Prestige Feat system. Its effectiveness is obvious. So let's look closer.

It appears that a very focused human fighter could have this as early as 6th level, and an equally focused human barbarian would have to be 9th. That hasn't changed from the previous system. At 14th level, applying the standard "2 uses at once" rule for Prestige Feat abilities means that our esteemed pirate queen fighter (swashbuckler) does indeed continue to progress in line with her increased abilities, and that flashing rapier now strikes at every opponent around her twice. This is good - compare to a 14th level barbarian with no Whirlwind Attack but a strength focus for ability increases instead of dexterity, a Greataxe, and Great Cleave. Our Pirate Queen is still well short of his ability to mow through weaker opponents - but at least it's a slightly more balanced scale thanks to the Prestige Feat kicker.

Alas, Power Attack will suck if it's just -2/+2, as this system suggests. A re-roll may not really matter much, either, if the bonuses remain weak.

You'll want to shift the core progression mechanic to say that the 7th level mid-tier for Basic Feats EITHER forces a related re-roll, OR immediately shifts the bonus maximum to a stacking +1 per 4 levels (which is what it will do later, anyway). So a 7h level Ranger sees their Power Attack range rise to -3 attack / +3 damage since we're rounding down, but it rises again to -4/+4 range at 8th level, -5/+5 at 12th, -6/+6 at 16th, and -7/+7 at 20th. Since it starts smaller and rises only with increased levels, the fact that we've duplicated the "Greater Power attack" bonus at lower levels doesn't matter.

Now we have an ability that's weaker at lower levels (where, let's face it, not a lot of "I take -5" decisions anyway), and a bit stronger at higher levels. Keep it as a prerequisite for the "Cleave" Prestige feat (which becomes Great Cleave as a 14th level kicker), and we're good.

Yes, I think this could work. We'd want to test it on some other trees, but you may have discovered a solid core mechanic principle.

It seems that the Cleave and Great Cleave feats now require a hit against one foe, versus the requisite of felling the foe (in 3.5).

I agree with reverting to the 3.5 rules. Cleave et. al. have always been important advantages to reward 2-handed weapon use, which gives up options like second weapon or shield. Whirlwind attack is good compensation, with a longer feat tree which is appropriate.

We've had warrior-types take both approaches, and there was nothing broken about that system. Disadvantaging the 2-handed fighter by watering down Cleave this way would have a balance effect, though. If you gave Great Cleave to our whirling blades fighter Jenis with just 2 feat selections, it would be very, very unbalancing.

Bad idea.

Big thanks to all the thread participants. Here's what I synthesized...

THE FIGHTER, RELOADED...

I really wish there was some way to do tables properly. What I posted was the pure 3.5 final version we came up with. I hope to have time to create a "blended" version that looks at incorporating Paizo's new features of Armor Training and Weapon Training.

Taking character action decisions out of the hands of players for non-magical reasons is almost always a bad idea. I might make an exception for torture only - but even then, you're risking the player's future affinity for his/her character, AND FOR YOUR GAME.

The minor rules benefit involved does not justify playing with or for those kinds of stakes.

I've done a PBeM where I killed a 15th level planar ranger with a succubus, and every action taken was the player's idea (once the situation became clear to the player, it was too late). It can be done. And of course, a fiend like that already has access to charm and domination powers, which can resolve within the existing game.

As this stands, it kind of looks like the "Grapple rules" version of social interaction. I'd recommend streamlining it, and excluding PCs entirely.

Halflings... the Strength/ Dexterity trade off is pretty much a given. The question is their other ability modifier - currently Intelligence +2.

I think it should be Wisdom +1 or +2, and their favored class should be Druid instead.

Let's start by looking at the description of the race:

"...it’s their spirit and sense of community that sets them apart. Half lings care a great deal about their families and other close relations, making them great friends as well as bitter enemies to those who have wronged them. While some halflings prefer to settle in one location, usually with others of their kind and extended families, others feel a greater sense of wanderlust and move from place to place as their moods and the situations dictate. Halflings have a relatively optimistic outlook, being able to find the bright side of nearly any situation. This, combined with their uncanny luck, makes them relatively fearless, willing to risk their lives for the chance of adventure."

That gives us traits of:

* Spirit
* Determination
* Mentally resilient, including strong optimism and ability to work through fear
* Able to get along in small groups for long periods of time without exploiting each other, or wander and size up/ adapt to new situations quickly.

None of this is about intelligence. All of this fits extremely well into the Wisdom category.

Now, let's look at the game design side, because that piece of the puzzle also fits. Races with arcane casters as favored class already exist. Elves as Wizards, Gnomes as Sorcerers (good choice, that!). One more is just clutter.

Races with divine caster as a favored class include Dwarves and Half-Orcs, both as clerics. Notice which class is missing here.

Druids. Halflings fit Druids exceptionally well, as a pastoral race known as excellent farmers et. al. who work with the land rather than forcing it. The wanderers can also fit, for they'll need adaptability to the terrain and there is a need for wandering caretakers of nature. Add the fact that this race should have a wisdom ability bonus, the fact that druids remain an unfilled slot in racial terms, and the fact that Dex bonuses are quite valuable to a druid due to armor restrictions, and the choice seems very obvious.

I'm inclined to make the Wisdom bonus just +1, because Halflings have a LOT of other positive abilities, from attack bonuses to save and stealth bonuses (also a big plus for a Druid). So my suggestions is:

+2 Dexterity, +1 Wisdom, –2 Strength: Halflings are nimble and mentally resilient, but their small stature makes them weaker than other races.

Favored Class: The favored class of halflings is rogue or druid. This choice must be made at 1st level and cannot be changed.

Big thanks to all the thread participants. Here's what I synthesized...

THE FIGHTER, RELOADED...

Hit Die: d10.

Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) x 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.

Fighter Core Class Skills:
The fighter's class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha OR Str), Jump (Str), Knowledge (tactics and war) (Wis), Profession (Wis), Spot (Wis).

Fighter Individual Add-on Class Skills - pick 4:
Balance (Dex) Climb (Str), Diplomacy (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (geography, local, nobility & royalty) (Int), Listen (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex), Use Rope (Dex).

[code]Table: The Fighter
Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special
1st +1 +2 +0 +1 Bonus feat, Weapon Aptitude
2nd +2 +3 +0 +1 Bonus feat
3rd +3 +3 +1 +2 Height of Battle 1/day
4th +4 +4 +1 +2 Bonus feat
5th +5 +4 +1 +3 Battle Mastery
6th +6/+1 +5 +2 +3 Bonus feat
7th +7/+2 +5 +2 +3
8th +8/+3 +6 +2 +4 Bonus feat
9th +9/+4 +6 +3 +4 Height of Battle 2/day
10th +10/+5 +7 +3 +5 Bonus feat, Battle Mastery
11th +11/+6/+1 +7 +3 +5
12th +12/+7/+2 +8 +4 +6 Bonus feat
13th +13/+8/+3 +8 +4 +6
14th +14/+9/+4 +9 +4 +6 Bonus feat
15th +15/+10/+5 +9 +5 +7 Height of Battle 3/day, Battle Mastery
16th +16/+11/+6/+1 +10 +5 +7 Bonus feat
17th +17/+12/+7/+2 +10 +5 +8
18th +18/+13/+8/+3 +11 +6 +8 Bonus feat
19th +19/+14/+9/+4 +11 +6 +9
20th +20/+15/+10/+5 +12 +6 +9 Bonus feat, Battle Mastery, Martial Mastery.[/code]

__ Class Features __

All of the following are class features of the fighter.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, medium, and light) and shields (including tower shields).

Bonus Feats: At 1st level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The fighter additional bonus feats as above, which must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums. These bonus feats are in addition to the feats that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. A fighter is not limited to the list of fighter bonus feats when choosing these feats.

Weapon Aptitude (Ex): Your training with a wide range of weaponry and tactics gives you great flexibility to adjust your fighting styles and tactics. Each morning you may spend 1 hours in weapon practice to change the designated weapon for any feat you have that applies only to a single weapon (such as Weapon Focus). You must have the newly designated weapon available during your practice section to make this change.

You can adjust any number of feats this way, and you don't have to adjust all of them in the same way. However you can't change the weapon choices in such a way that you no longer meet the prerequisites for some other feat you possess. For example, if you have Weapon Focus (Longsword) and Weapon Specialization (Longsword), you cannot change your Weapon Focus without also changing your Weapon Specialization in the same way.

Height of Battle (Ex): Once per day a fighter of 3rd level or higher can draw on his unmatched combat experience for a burst of inspired effort that lesser warriors simply cannot match. As an immediate action, he can gain a bonus on all attack and damage rolls, or a bonus to Armor class and all saving throws. This bonus is equal to 1/2 his fighter class level and lasts 1 round. At 9th level, and at every 6 levels thereafter, the fighter may use height of battle one additional time per day. He cannot use height of battle more than once per encounter.

Note that Height of Battle can be used even after an attack or save has already been rolled, possibly negating harm that would have otherwise affected the fighter, suddenly hitting on a near miss, finishing off a key opponent with that last bit of extra damage, et. al.

Battle Mastery (Ex): Each time you gain this ability (5th, 10th, 15th, 20th levels) you may choose a single ability from the following list. Some abilities have prerequisites. Unless noted otherwise, you may choose an ability multiple times:

Ambidexterity
Prerequisite: Two-Weapon Fighting, Dex 15
Your two-weapon fighting penalties are reduced by -2. This cannot reduce the penalties past 0.

Bonus Feat
You may gain any feat for which you qualify.

Mastery of Disarming
You gain a +2 bonus on Disarm checks

Mastery of Dodging
You gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC. This is lost if you are denied your Dex bonus to AC

Mastery of Grappling
You gain a +2 bonus on Grapple checks. This may be chosen two times.

Mastery of Grappling 2
Prerequisite: Mastery fo Grappling
You are considered one size category large for the purpose of grappling. This may only be selected once.

Mastery of Range
Your precision range is expanded by 30ft

Mastery of Survival
You gain a +1 bonus on all saving throws, and 1 extra HP per HD.

Mastery of Tripping
You gain a +2 bonus on trip attempts.

Mastery of War
You gain a +1 bonus on all attacks

Ranged Weapon Mastery
Prerequisite: Mastery of Range
You do not provoke attacks of opportunity for using a ranged weapon, and threaten all squares within 10ft of you.

Shield Mastery
You gain a +2 bonus to shield AC when wielding and light or heavy shield or a tower shield.

Swift Strikes
Prerequisite: BAB +6, Dex 15
When making an attack as a standard action, you may make one extra attack at a -5 penalty. If you fighting with two weapon, you may also make an attack with your off-hand weapon.

True Power Attack
When using the Power Attack feat, you deal damage on a 2 for 1 ratio with a one handed weapon and a 3 for 1 ratio with a two handed weapon. In addition, you are permitted to use the Power Attack feat with a light weapon, gaining damage on a 1 for 1 ratio.

Martial Mastery (Ex). The distinction between standard and full attack sequences vanishes. The fighter can make attacks up to her maximum number available, and do so as a Standard Action. This is the fighter's capstone ability, which gives people a strong reason to ride the class all the way to level 20.

** Some Thoughts on the Changes **

* Height of Battle, an ability directly taken from Lotus Crane's work, functions on the same line as the barbarians rage, the paladin's smite, or the ranged combat enhancement spells. It lets the fighter exceed his normal limits, to have an immediate surge in offensive capabilities, or be able to shrug off an otherwise lethal combination of attacks. As its name implies, its best used at the height of the battle, to shift the tide in the other direction. Its ability to be used after a roll has been made is what makes it the fighter's true killer ability.

How any times has your group been just this close to getting the Big Bad Guy, or one close but bad roll ended it all for someone. Believe me, once other classes see the fighter pull this out a couple of times, nobody who multiclasses into fighter will never quit before 3rd level.

* Adding Intimidate and reflecting the real world by making it (Str or Cha) had a surprisingly big fun factor effect, and restored something important that was missing from the fighter, without detracting from other classes like the Barbarian et. al. This one change alone can make the fighter types start paying attention in role-playing encounters.

* The boost to 4 skill points works very well, especially in combination with the "core + choose 4" approach. I found it led to fighters with the skill builds they needed as NPCs, and PC fighters with skill levels worth having. Suddenly, sneaking by the mid-level fighter guard isn't necessarily simple, that swashbuckler with the maxed tumble score can deliver unpleasant surprises, the mercenary is very good at reading the character and motives of potential employers, the wilderness warrior can't track like a ranger but can can at least survive very well in the woods, etc.

Here's an illustration of these additional choices in practice. As you can see, there are still real choices for a PC to make here - and the fighter's so-so Int score means further choices will be in order as they decide how they want to allocate skill points and where they want to be above-average. For NPCs, the change is huge because all of a sudden, they can do their jobs...

Police: Diplomacy, Knowledge local, Listen, Sense Motive
Bounty Hunter: Listen, Sense Motive, Survival, Use Rope
Bodyguard: Heal, Knowledge nobility, Listen, Sense Motive
Sentinel: Listen, Sense Motive, Knowledge - local, nobility
Knight: Diplomacy, Knowledge - geography, nobility, Ride
Mercenary: Knowledge geography, Listen, Sense Motive, Survival
Trained Thug: Knowledge local, Listen, Use rope +1
Musketeer: Climb, Knowledge nobility, Tumble, Use rope
Sailor: Climb, Swim, Use rope, +1
Wilderness Warrior: Climb, Swim, Survival, Use rope

* I really like what Paizo did with the Armor and Weapon Group fighter abilities. They do add to the fighter. Now, the bad news: the truth is, they aren't flashy enough to compete with other class' level-based abilities and keep people in the fighter fold. Worse, they don't offer the same kind of flexibility in building different types of fighters: Knights, Swashbucklers, Bounty Hunters, et. al. That's a serious weakness for Pathfinder, which needs to be more universal rather than supplemental book-based in terms of rules.

I'd absolutely make Paizo's Armor and Weapon Group bonuses into feat options, though - and in that mode, they'd synergize scary well with Battle Mastery options to build VERY interesting fighters who can hold their own.

* Speaking of which, let's talk about the reason fighter multiclasses will have to think hard about leaving before 5th level, and why others will want to stay fighters...

Battle Mastery is ff6shadow's own device, designed to enhance the fighter towards his chosen specialty. We ended up tweaking it in a coupe of minor ways, but ended up being very pleased at the kinds of specialized builds these choices make possible, from archers to non-monk martial artists, to swashbucklers, to ultra-tough types, etc.

For instance, a 5th level Fighter swashbuckler type gets full ambidexterity at 5th level, then adds swift strikes at 10th to take advantage of multiple attacks as a standard action, and finally true power attack at 15th level to add those strength bonuses to their light weapons. That is a swashbuckler you'll remember, and not someone to cross blades with. All within the pure Fighter class. Perfect. Want a great archer that could give Legolas a run? By 10th level, Mastery of Range plus Ranged Weapon Mastery will make you and your bow something to be feared - especially if you have a few Rogue levels, but of course that means waiting until 14th character level or so. Choices, choices...

Note that Swift Strikes has value beyond swashbucklers - it offers something no other fighting type character can emulate. With it, a fighter can maintain multiple hit capability that he relies upon for damage, while still being a mobile character. This creates more parity with options like the Scout, and adds a unique ability that puts the fighter much more head and shoulders above Clerics or Paladins in combat.

True power Attack both emulates the Improved Power Attack class feature of some prestige classes, and allows something unique: the ability to Power Attack with a light weapon. Sacrificing +5 to hit in exchange for +15 damage with that 2-handed greataxe ain't too shabby, either.

Shield Mastery combined with True Power Attack, allows a Sword and Board fighter a chance to compete with other weapon choices again.

Mastery of Survival is so good that it becomes a real dilemma, because it slows down other beneficial combinations but is hard to pass up.

Bonus Feat lets you gain additional feats if you prefer, and ff6shadow included this just as an option.

* Weapon Aptitude may not work so well with Paizo's conception, which seems to be nudging fighters to be more specialized and less generalist. Replacement with a choice of Paizo's weapon or armor extraordinary ability might be in order.

in its defense, however, Weapon Aptitude is great for DMs who are suddenly freed up to offer magic weapons outside of a narrow selection and add more flavor. In practical game dynamics terms, the boost this gives the fighter ends up being a bigger deal than the mere humdrum power itself might suggest. Now, you're the the guy who can say "hey, don't sell that - that magic trident is cool and I can switch my specialization with Weapon Aptitude - 'Wave,' come to Papa!"

* Melee Mastery is a capstone ability for those who take the full 20 level ride - and it gives fighters a very serious incentive to do so. The difference between a Level 20 pure Fighter with 4 attacks as a standard action plus a Shield and Shield Mastery, and a fighter who got off the bus at level 15 and has "only" Swift Strikes, is big enough that those other 5 levels had better offer something pretty damn special.

This ability also means that yes, perhaps that Pit Fiend or Balor actually DOES have cause to take the armored fighter gal very seriously, because teleports can't counter the fighter's main power unless the creature just stays absolutely away from her. This was not previously the case, and it goes a long way to balancing certain scales.

Ok, here's finally the real [THINK TANK] for Fighters. ;)

We all know they aren't good enough, but still all other classes get more special abilities than our poor fellow here.

Ok, here's finally the real [THINK TANK] for Fighters. ;)

We went through this on the Wizards boards with some immensely talented DM/ designers (sensei Aelryinth is just incredible on this issue), and it was an unbelievable exchange with sample builds and everything. In the end, we ended up with a fighter who:

* Could do some important things no-one else could do;
* Had some coveted abilities at high level;
* People would want to take the fighter up to at least 5th at least if multiclassing, while others would actually want to stay fighters;
* Could be built into builds that let you create desirable, effective swashbucklers, tank specialists, archers, et. a. without having to leave the Fighter class;
* Could be used to create useful NPCs with logical skills, including important roles like policeman, sailor, mercenary, et. al. with the skill sets they need to do their jobs properly. Without giving fighters too many class skills.

Here's the whole thread

To that end, I'm sharing some of the results of that work here (the material was posted publicly, for use by anyone, no rights reserved).

Paizo has taken a slightly different tack with Pathfinder's fighter, and to me it's missing a few things:

* Lack of NPC flexibility. Hard to create viable police and other roles given the skill set et. al.

* Weapon group bonuses and armor bonuses are good and flavorful, but not enough to match other classes' bonus abilities at higher levels. Worse, they don't give Paizo something it really needs: a Fighter class for Pathfinder that's flexible enough to be very versatile and effective in various roles as builds within the base class, from Knight to Swashbuckler to Archer et. al. That will take some cooler powers, rather than just plusses.

At the same time, Paizo's Armor and Weapon Group ideas absolutely ought to be part of the Fighter class. We need to look at how to do that.

So, without further ado...