pontoark's page

The original witch was was full with witch's references. Everything give you a witch type idea, I always thought it was meant to inspire you create a specific character, like:.
* The ability to attack with the hair remind you of Oriental movies type of witch like <i>the grudge</i>.
* The crackle ability was meant to inspire you to go for a more Hollywood kind of witch
* The fly ability that made you float over water was a reference to witches hunted by the church
* The heal hex ability was meant to allow you to create a misunderstood witch, a witch seems as bad but in truth it a healer

I think Paizo is choosing crackle as a class ability because it is too strong to be a low level feat, it is choosing mathematical reasons over RolePlay ones.

The same goes with the hair attack, it was meant to be a character defining feature, an ability used most of the time but it would be too good for that feat slot and now it seems more inspired in Entrapta (from she ha) than the grudge.

Also patron could be a good mechanic for a Sabrina (the new one) inspired witch but without a more detailed mechanic about fighting against you patron, GMs will feel it's better not to use it at all as they don't know if players will rebel against their patrons or not.

I think Paizo should take a more role play view of the witch.
In my opinion: crackle should be optional, hair attack should make playing with the character more similar to witches portraited in Oriental movies, Patrons should be optional and need to have a Rebelion mechanic.

What do you think?

Dear Paizo,

One of my orders haven't arrived yet, and the other one came with one of the books damaged, I sent an email about both of them and the only reply I got so far was: "Is it still happening" which I reply with: "yes".. and that was a couple of weeks ago. So... I don't know what to do now. What can I do to resolve this?

Thanks in Advance

Ok, my 10 cents on a suggestion on Studied Combat and Studied Strike.

First, you spend a standard action, in the next round you hit the target with the extra dmg (started from lvl 1 instead of lvl 4) also you get the Int bonus to hit and apply one of the following effects for Half your Int bonus rounds:

Resistance weakness: The creature lose damage reduction, damage resistance, spell resistance, regeneration and fast heal.

Arterial weakness: Creature takes Int bleed dmg for each of its attack (if the creature have several attacks in a round it takes the bleed dmg several times)

Hamstring: For each 5' the creature walks it looses Int bleed dmg.

Equilibrioception weakness: Creature use dex to hit in melee instead of Str if it is smaller.

In this new scenario Studied Combat and Studied Strike are the same ability, and the once per creature each 24 hours limitation still goes.

The numbers might not be so spot on, but it only would need some minor fixes

Personally, I think I'd rather the focus shift away from damage to conditions or debuffs. Fight smarter, not harder!

I would much rather it too, the more tatical/strategical the ability, the better

Also, the curent iteration of the ability is very bad, I have no idea how they see us using it, the way I see it, at level 4 you will do more dmg if you don't use it at all...by level 6 you dmg should be about the same weather you use it or not, then by levl 8 it actually start to be a dmg increase (considering you always have to spend an standart action, after all the move action is a option you should not be required to take)

I think this answers might make a good feedback for the developers

1 - How often do you thing you will use it in your campaigns?

2 - Do you expect to use it as a player os just as a DM?

3 - What makes you positively review a new rule? the number of options it offers? how balanced it is? the inspiring descriptions? how strong your characters will be? how often do you expect to use it in your campaign? (you may choose more than one)

4 - Does this rule inspire you to buy this book? (quite the contrary, not really, a little, a lot)

In my case:

1 - Maybe once in one campaign

2 - As a DM

3 - how often I expect to use it in my campaign plus a mix of inspiring description + balance

5 - not really, but other rules might inspire me to buy it... just not this one

And why is master crafter the only way to make poisons? Poisons are not magical items, you can make them with mundane craft (alchemy) checks, which you happen to be awesome at thanks to your class abilities. From the SRD:

SRD wrote:

Poisons can be made using Craft (alchemy). The DC to make a poison is equal to its Fortitude save DC. Rolling a natural 1 on a Craft skill check while making a poison exposes the crafter to the poison. Crafters with the poison use class feature do not risk poisoning themselves when using Craft to make poison.

...

The craft rules work for cheep things but a 400gp poison, without master crafter feat, would take 10 weeks to create (1 dose)

As for sticky poison, I'm not sure how that would work on ranged attacks, so yeah, it is pretty much specifically keyed to melee attacks.

Sticky poison just could be a poison that requires a smaller dosage to use, effectively allowing you to apply it to your Intelligence modifier weapons.

Poisoning my claws is ok.. but teeth is just wrong :P

Well, I guess I'll be a master crafter to create poison for my group, it will be a bit clumsy, they will have to carry an extra sword for me to poison (either that or risk spending poison on creeps)

I have another one to add: why there is no alchemist item? I mean, since you can't use metamagic rods or pear of power for the extracts, also there is no magic bombs... I expected to be some magic items for him, but, unless I'm missing something, there is none

Alchemist fluff is really good, but the design intent don't really match, for example:

Alchemist have to wait until level 8 to have +6 base attacks and get a secondary attack, it seems to me that it was the only design reason to put fast bomb(multiples attacks) with a level 8 requirement: so you can only take it when you actually need it, but of course it doesn't take in consideration feats like rapid shot, so in practice you end up having to play a fairly week bomb thrower alchemist until level 8, it is likely ok for people who play high level adventures often, but not every adventures work like that.

Another thing is stick poison, it is worded to be used only with melee weapons, but the melee alchemist is fairly directed to an unarmed melee, also it sort of remove the ranged alchemist without apparent reasons, I mean: it could be for balance reasons but I really doubt so.

In practice, you only use craft(alchemy) to create potions, alchemy items takes too long to create so you end up buying then and master crafter (the only feat that makes creating poison possible) is meant only to melee with weapon poison users alchemists (a rare kind) but the use poison, swift poison and etc are in the base class description, I guess they choose to put then there just so people could trade then with archetypes... that's a weird reason thought...

so... is it just me or do you also think that alchemist have some weird design calls?

wraithstrike wrote:

They don't really have a place, and it takes a certain level of games-fu to run them well. That is my 2 cents for this post.

Sir Frog wrote:

Because the Crunch doesn't match the Fluff.

These, essentially.

The monk seems to inspire someone to have high dexterity and wisdom, to run and jump around the place, to be vaguely aescetic and not use much equipment, and deliver flurries of attacks.

The problem is, your entire offense is based on strength, you need magical items potentially more then any other class, and if you're using that monk speed then you aren't using that monk flurry.

The best way to play a monk is to literally just stand in place and do nothing but punch people. For most people, that's not a monk - that's just a reskinned fighter.

That's pretty much what I think too..

This is my first time seen a post like this about monk, I guess I have been away too much..

I do enjoy the concept, played Oriental Adventures with a monk a few time, but pathfinder sort of drove then even farther away from a high dex, run and jump around the place class.

I do think monk got the smaller share in pathfinder's thoughts...

I tend to agree with the OP that Golarion is a little too generic. I think from a publisher perspective you have to make a world like that in order to fit all aspects of the system, but in doing so you have very little that makes it feel significantly different from other game worlds. Golarion does have the Aroden incident and all the mini-catastrophes (Abendego, Worldwound, etc.) that followed, but all those feel isolated and relatively unimportant if a PC is not directly involved in those happenings. It's the, "yeah I heard about them demons breaking into Sarkoris (I think that's right), but they got it contained, so what's it got to do with me," attitude that marginalizes major things like the worldwound

I say it is too generic in that it could be a post-apocalyptic setting, or a gothic horror setting, or a Arthurian setting, or a medieval Japanese setting (coming soon to a game store near you), or just about anything else, but in doing so it has nothing to set it apart that makes Golarion unique. What's the hook to draw people to Golarion?...

I Have the same felling about golarion generic setting.

Another thing that bothers me is that anti magic country in golarion, there is no rule saying how it works so if sort of fell poorly thought sometimes...

I think its mostly up to the GM, at least once per session I try to mix combat with something else, like:
* fighting while the place is falling apart,
* having a kidnap happens and some rogues blocking the way
* once they had to blow up a wall, run in, face some ghost and get a sample of the plant, but once the wall blow up I told then the structure would hold only up to 7 rounds and fall apart, and just to make things a bit more interesting I had a hole in the middle of the room and some ghost flying over it, so the couldn't just run to the other side and take the plant.
* another time, the players had an ambush waiting for then outside the cave, I set am ambush that could easily kill an unprepared group (as ambush should be) but a npc outside manage to warn the players of what was going on, so the players had to scout and plan before the combat.
* Players running away from the prison and a certainly deadly among of guards running after then

Of course, sometimes (quite often) players do characters that knows nothing but to stay in the same place and hit so they end up having a hard time with a more dynamic fight... but that is a different matter.

I recently build and played a summoner and I just wish he had some unique spells in his list, and the eidolon could have some more exotic kind of attacks and have then easier, just to further distance him from other classes, do anyone agrees with me?

why is slam underpowered ?

2x claws equals 2D4 (1D4 each)
1x slam equals 1D8

so slam does same max damage & 1 less minimum damage compared to claws
slam also gets increased str damage if only attack (I think thats correct) but claws wont
slam also has better chance to get through DR monsters since most have DR5 or better in my experience

am I missing something here ? I am not passing judgement on you it is just I don't see something that maybe you are & want to know what it is

Well, how long do you thing you will stay with just one attack?

2d4 + 2x str dmg bonus
1d8 + 1,5 str dmg bonus.

If you have 14 str that means:

2d4 + 4 (Avg 9)
1d8 + 3 (Avg 7,5)

If you have 12 str:

2d4 + 2 (Avg 7)
1d8 + 1 (Avg 5,5)

By level 6, when you get the Large evolution, and you already have +2 Str and Dex, both attacks are going to be bypass DR5

pontoark wrote:

Zurai wrote:

Define "as strong".

Combat effectiveness.. ˆˆ (Even thought I know that its sort of abstract...)

That's way too abstract to make use of. Give me an actual goal and I'll try, although keep in mind that Sting in particular isn't designed to deal damage as much as it's designed to be a delivery method for the Poison evolution.

That sting with poison one seems good enough... Slam still fell underpowered thought..

It all started when I tried to do a serpentine eidolon without claws or arms and I was not really happy with my result.

I think I'm going to create a post asking people for Serpentine eidolon samples/suggestions...maybe that will change my perspective

Define "as strong".

Combat effectiveness.. ˆˆ (Even thought I know that its sort of abstract...)

Unless you're fighting something with DR.

Just because Claws do 1d4 and Slam 1d8? I mean, that is a reason but I find it hardly worth it, and chances are, thought not always, even when fighting something with DR, claws are going to be better, the only case is if claws dmg don't pass DR and Slam does.

Still, I don't really think thats a balancing factor...

Lets add one more question then, for a lvl 5+ summoner, can you create an eidolon with Slam, Sting or Tail Slap (besides the one you get in your base form) as strong as a claw/weapon/tentacle eidolon?

@ Pontoark -

correction - sting is linked to tail not limbs but correct otherwise for pts
as for claws being better than slam I personally consider them equal - takes 2 attacks to equal same damage as can be for 1 but claws means better chance to do some damage

Just fixed the mistake, thanks ˆˆ

According to what I read, I wrote the following chart:

Claws+ Limbs: 3 points for 2 primary attacks (each for 1d4 dmg)
Slam + Limbs: 3 points for 1 primary attacks (each for 1d8 dmg)
Sting + Tail: 2 points for 1 primary attacks (each for 1d4 dmg)
Tail Slap + Tail: 2 points for 1 secondary attack (each for 1d6 dmg)

Tentacle: 1 point for 1 secondary attack (1d4 dmg)

And the only thing I can conclude is:

Claws > Tentacle == Sting > Tail Slap > Slam.

So.. lets just take math in consideration (forget about Role Play for a while), why would you take Sting, or Tail Slap, or even Slam? What kind of balance am I missing here?

Also, regarding what evolution you choose:

Serpentine -> Constrict

Quadruped -> Rake, Trample, Pounce

Biped -> Trample, faster reach.

Do you really anyone really think: Constrict == Rake + Trample + Pounce == Trample + Faster Reach?

Also, Does Limbs with weapon equal 2 points for extra primary attacks?

Shapeshifter eiodolon, a feat that lets you change your eiodolon shape somehow during the day

I also thing bard deserve some bard only spell options, I also think enchantment/charm need an increase in its spell options thought first to third spell levels, especially more enchantment than charm spells.

Are you running a one shot adventure or a regular one?

About the Spell-Like Ability evolution, does it uses charisma for the concentration check?

I think it would be better if we could choose to wear the armor or having the natural armor progression.

Wizards could use their familiars for scout for ages but I rarely see then doing so, I guess the 1 min/lvl would just make the players run for the next fight before the time expires, I don't really see it been used for utility, but the +CHA bonus to the duration people are talking about seens lika a very good sugestion.

The "3. Restricting the summon ability to 1 at a time." is a good call, but if you consider a 4 combat/day game he will rarely spent all his SLA (very rarely) once he gets around level 6.

<removing suggestions as Jason suggested :P>

I'm not sure the skill thing is a size-related issue so much as it is an inherent design issue. As written, all eidolons start with combat-focused stats, and this shouldn't be the case. There needs to be mwchanics for creating a creature that isn't predisposed to be a combat monster, making other roles difficult to obtain.

Smaller Eidolons is a hard issue, I would like to create a small/medium eidolon combat viable but actual design approach is too focused on STR/SIZE evolution. I think the actual Eidolon scout design lose too much combat prowess as price for it's utilities

I do think an eidolon should be very powerful at lvl 20 but I see your point. I've been reading the evolutions, and the size increase evolutions are a bit underpriced. It almost forces the eidolon to grow.

With "large"(3 points) the eidolon gains:

+8 Str (this alone would be 4pts)
+4 Con (2pts)
Natural armor 2 (1 pt)(not subject to natural armor limit)
-2 dex (I'll count -1)
Large size (I'll count 0, it has pro/con)
Total: 3 X 6 points

With huge it's almost the same thing. the natural armor bonus doesn't count against the limit.

With just improved natural armor you would be limited to 2/5lvls.

I suggest then that no NA is included in the size increase evolutions, since they are underpriced and not counting against limits.

Also, there should be an equal viability to eidolons that remain medium.
(I would still ask for decent Int/Cha eidolon options)

Very good point

Kolokotroni wrote:

I have a picture in my mind of having some of the creatures i created in the video game spore follow me around a dungeon. In fact if i use this class I am pretty sure i am going to use the creature creator to create the image of it.

I'm afraid of this in some regards, myself. There's nothing wrong with giving players a bit of freedom, but my inner pessimist tells me that there's a 50% chance any given Summoner will be dredging up some neon-rainbow horror from the depths of teenage internet hell.

I completly agree

Only really scratched the surface of the PDF before going to bed but what struck me as odd was the summoner gaining proficiency in light armor and the ability to cast in light armor without penalty.

Looking through the rest of the class he gets abilities to share hit points with his eidolon, can take aspects of his eidolon to improve AC and gain damage reduction as well as having the staple wizard protections like mage armor and shield on his spell list. he even has more hit points than a mage (d8 over d6) so why does he need light armor? and more to the point why is he trained to overcome its penalty to casting?

Also how will this ability work with the existing arcane armor feats? can a summoner take arcane armor mastery and apply it to his summoner spells only? if not why must he waste a feat learning something he already has (although limited to one class)?

My personal feeling is that this should just be dropped for 2 reasons, A) its not really that useful and B) it could cause more head-aches and miss-interpretations with existing rules.

I Agree, it doesn't fit in with the stereotype, and I don't see any Summoner putting points in Str and attacking with his light weapon.. really

Lord Fyre wrote:

Do you mean like ... OOTS #373?

Yes, that too. :)

Zurai wrote:

Remember that the Advanced Players Guide classes are intended to be much less common than their Core Rulebook counterparts. It's not a big deal if you have a hard time fitting large numbers of Summoners into your campaign world.

In case I haven't made myself clear, "being one of a kind" schtick is something I would like to avoid. Unfortunately, spell list and abilities of the class do not seem to offer much more beyond poke-training.

Things the class _could_ offer:
- major utility with regards to contacts with outsiders
- ability to explore and investigate far realms in addition to planes
- innate abilities to bind/calm/oppress outsiders
- special powers to create wide area wards (aka anti-extradimensional invasion security systems)
- special powers to breach such wards (who would not want to hire a summoner to secure her residence?)

Loose suggestions, of course. Firmly entrenched in reality of d20 fantasy.

Regards,
Ruemere

I agree it seens like it was not something the designers thought a lot about, and all those sugestions are really nice.

So far, Eidolon is build like a mister potato, using Quadruped, Biped and Serpentine as base and building in top of that with evolution points. What is your take on

1 - This design approach, do you thing it brings good/bad situations in your adventures?
2 - Evolutions, Is there any you think its potentially dangerous, too hard to describe or deal with?
3 - Summoner Eidolon interaction mechanics (Life Link, Bond Senses), is there any one you find particularly clumsy or cool?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 - I rather D&D class system over gurps buy points system, and in a similar way I would rather a pre defined set of creatures to choose from than a more abroad approach, while an Archon, an Hydra or even a Celestial Lion have a picture, a description, some times a history and as a DM I have a general idea of how it behaves or should behave, the actual Eidolon barely have a defined shape, might get one arm bigger than the other, pincers in one arm and a weapon in another and even worse, he just might lose his pincers over night and get a tentacle on his forehead.
The way he works now, Eidolon has no history, personality or even shape, I don't mean it can't have, a good DM/Player can work things out but the system is not helping at all...

2 - Besides the fact that evolutions can often turn your Summon into a true mister potato freak (Especially with Reach, Weapon Training and Armor Training), I think pounce is a "Cookie cutter" temptation, and so is Large and Huge. I Liked pull and push, both those abilities sounds fun.

3 - Bond Senses duration is sort of too small if you want to use your Eidolon as a scout, everything else is too soon to say for me.

Serisan wrote:

This has been my impression, as well. Of the available Foci, I tend to view Battle as the most powerful. Even so, the reason it's powerful is because it better compensates for the lack of spell casting oomph for the Oracle. Part of it is the Sorc progression, which delays each spell level. Part of it is the weakness of many of the Cleric spells, particularly spell levels 1-4.

I'm in favor of the idea of adding Cure or Inflict for spell levels 1-4 automatically. I'm up in the air about giving automatic access to the Mass spells, however. Giving an additional 1 spell known at all levels would potentially be a good idea, as well.

My group actually wanted to see a less melee oriented class. The comment I got was if they wanted a combat ready divine spellcaster they'll just play a cleric or even a druid. They wanted a more "powerful" divine spellcaster, with less of a melee focus. Which is why my group wants a spell boost of some kind(more bonus spells, spells per day, or more spells known).

Same here!

I think using the exact same choices you offered for "What were your 6 FAVORITE Changes in PRPG?" wasn't the best choice, as seen in the responses here.

I agree

pontoark wrote:

grasshopper_ea wrote:

Level 1 bard is just as good as level 1 fighter.
fighter gets 1 BAB + power attack, assume both have 14 str, both using longspear fighter has +2 attack 1d8 + 6 killing most enemies at that level in 1 hit.
Level bard takes arcane strike 0 BAB;;.

I don't think it really proves a point, also there are too many important stuff left out of the comparison, like: You did chose the Bard first level feat but the fighter got none, the fighter is using a simple weapon while he could be using something better like a Great Axe and the bard couldn't and that is just to ...

You're right the fighter can pick up a martial reach weapon and raise his ave damage by 1 or he can give up his reach and raise his ave dam by 2. Neither are going to compare to the ability to buff the whole group, Magic damage at level 1, cast spells in armor, 6 skill points per level, and use magic device. The defense rests your honor. Bards are awesome, just because you can't figure out how to make them work doesn't change that fact.

I was not comparing then, I was just saying there where some important things left out of your comparison.

Level 1 bard is just as good as level 1 fighter.
fighter gets 1 BAB + power attack, assume both have 14 str, both using longspear fighter has +2 attack 1d8 + 6 killing most enemies at that level in 1 hit.
Level bard takes arcane strike 0 BAB but has inspire courage, +3 attack, does 1d8 +5 MAGIC(overcomes most DR at this point) killing most enemies in one hit. Inspire courage and arcane strike also scale up with bard so no need for other feats.
Bards also have an awesome ability called UMD that let's them be the party cleric druid and wizard with the right tools.

I don't think it really proves a point, also there are too many important stuff left out of the comparison, like: You did chose the Bard first level feat but the fighter got none, the fighter is using a simple weapon while he could be using something better like a Great Axe and the bard couldn't and that is just to ...

Unless you were just trying to inform and there was no point in it.

pontoark wrote:

I'm curious, am I the only one bothered with facinate DC nerf? I mean its a nerf that goes down to everything related to it.

The fascinate DC nerf sucks, but makes sense.

Basically, there are 3 categories of rolls in 3.x:

Attack vs. AC
Saves vs. DC
Skill checks.

Point me to a place where you cross those lines (Attack vs. DC, Save vs. Skill, Save vs. AC, Skill vs. AC), and I will find you an exploitable rule. Because all of those things scale very differently.

They tried to remove these cross-checks. The ones they left in (The critical feat chain, intimidate/diplomacy checks) are still broken/dumb.

I always thought that the balance for such a good DC were in the effect itself of the ability, and since they nerfed the DC the next right thing in line would be to tweak it back to useful, but it stayed the same.

Also, out of curiosity, how often did you see fascinate been used in 3.5? how often did you see it been used in pathfinder and most of all, how often did you find it to be unbalanced in all those times?

I'm curious, am I the only one bothered with facinate DC nerf? I mean its a nerf that goes down to everything related to it.

Skill focus no longer applies as it is basically a modified caster level check. Combat Casting is applicable, but that is a moot arguement as both high and low level characters can take the feat if they choose.

Concentration change itself could bring an entire discursion forum for pages.. but in few words:

It pushes the Combat Casting feat to low level characters, the very same levels where they are week and struggling to get the basic feats to build they chars.
High level characters won't fell this feat to be so heavy, different from low level character, and as they base intelligence is bigger and spell selection way broader, a high level spellcaster can work things out. There are too many variables to mention about high level casters, just try it and see for yourself.

Also, just so people who don't play spellcaster could get a grip of what is it like for low level casters: Just remember how much fun you use to have against incorporeal trait, specially when you have only one attack with your full round action, now imagine that you only can attack about 6 times a day.

Also, one charge touch spells are gone in pathfinder, you will have a very hard time creating a build with then, even with gishs,

Overall, players low level casters will need an extra help from melee, and low level casters BBEG will require an extra dose of protection spells or they will die easier than a regular monster.

But you see, by arguing that you are not acknowledging the argument.

That smite evil is a martial ability, and has all the inherent flaws of being a martial ability. The fact you say you are just NOW introducing martial countermeasures into the game, implies that you were writing for wizards at later levels, rather than martial characters.

...and that is YOUR problem, not smite evils.

Sorry Dissinger, I'm not sure what you mean... and, as a side note, where in my post was I implying the "NOW I'm introducing martial countermeasures" or "and I was writing for wizards at later levels"?

...There are quite a number of very simple and very effective things they can do to counteract any strong melee combatant...

Smart enemies, blur, incorporeal and things like that is already part of our RPGs, it's been there before paladins became this strong and I don't think it should matter when you talk about balance between classes.

PS: I think it would fell cheesy if every evil outsider, dragon or undead BBEG had an anti-paladin special ability, and if I end up having to do it, in my way to see it, its a clear evidence that the class is not balanced.

Also, we already know melee attacks can't hit flying monsters or that displace self gives a 50% concealment, this post is already a flame war, so please lets try to focus more on less obvious points of view (no harm intended).

Wait, I may have missed something... we aren't qualifying an ALIGNMENT choice as a balancing factor for a prestige class, are we? <- you are welcome to read this as if I were giving you an incredulous stare

+1 to the increadulous stare scene

Because its fun to nerf the bard :P
Ok, that sounded like a throll... I'm sorry, I got depressed reading about the bard these days and had to spit it out somehow.

I just read the new Facinate DC, and how bardic music don't stack so I would either use Dirge of doom or Inspire Courage (most likely, Inspire Courage by far in most (Realy most) of the situations.. and got sad all over again

The numbers issue is the same issue behind the reason I don't like the game Galactic Civilizations (and its sequel). The game design is great, it's balanced, mechanically sound all the way through, the AI is actually pretty good ... but it has no soul, because everything you get in the game is just a number. Techs are all +x to Y or +z% economy, etc. Ships are pure attack/defense/movement. There's nothing that's special, nothing that isn't just a number.

Same thing with the fighter, IMO (also with some other non-core classes like Marshal and Healer). All he's got are numbers.

+1

4. Use averages for dice rolls involving large numbers of dice. Nobody that I know really enjoys rolling 20d6 and adding it all together. Provide a guideline that says 'large numbers of d6s result in a 4 on each die.' Use the same idea for the other dice types, of course. Its not mathematically true (a range from 1-6 should result, over a large sampling of an average of 3.5 but who wants to multiply that?) but its fast and convenient and balanced if the bad guys are playing by the same rules as the good guys.

Or maybe just reduce some dices and turn then into fixed numbers, like instead of 15D6 to 5D6 + 35.

I am part of the group that found level 14+ cumbersome time consuming and ultimately swingy in 3.5. What do people see as the 'fixes' in Pathfinder beyond seeking to largely remove save or die effects?

I was just wandering, what could they possibly do to reduce how swingy combat is after lvl 14?

Incorrect, Stunning fist is based off of Character level not class level. Unarmed strike still does it's normal damage... and you get the power attack full with each attack...

Ok, let me put it in another way, I think that any monk prestige class is poorly designed if it pushes you not to use your unarmed strikes by not increasing it. I rather not put any math as an example because it would end up bringing too many details and it would still be somehow subjective, so just consider it a not scientific test and fell experience.

Bardic performance even if not increased is still one of the only buffs available that offers a competence bonus, gets all your allies without limit, and gives a damage boost, and it only takes a standard action to start, it is a free action to continue it's use. Which means if you are willing to cast 'bless' or 'prayer' then inspire courage is just as good (actually better, and stacks since bless and prayer are both morale).

You could have just a +1 inspire courage (never reaching level 8th with your 3.5 bard) and be a level 14 bard for example, and besides there are other bardic performances too, like suggestion, or even the pathfinder Fascinate,

Reading the forums these days I wandered how different everyone thinks about what is a poorly designed prestige class and what is not. So, in your opinion what is the most common mistakes you see when you read a book with new prestige classes?

To me, the most common mistakes are:

1 - Creating a monk prestige class that doesn't increase unarmed strikes. It ends up making you attack with a weapon better than attacking with your unarmed strikes, and since your stun attack DC is not increasing the new prestige class is not really adding abilities to your class, its more like swapping abilities (you are losing everything you got related to your unarmed strike since you are not using it anymore and getting what ever the prestige class is offering you instead), that would not be so bad if the prestige class was based on the fact that it isn't adding new abilities it is swapping new abilities with the old ones.

2 - Spell caster prestige classes without some of its +1 existing spell level. Its not always a mistake but its very hard to balance because whatever ability you are getting instead must be better or equal than what a new spell would offer you in all the levels you will go thought after that: not getting a +1 existing spell level with a wizard at lvl 7 means you just lost 2 level 4 spells and 1 caster level, when you got to level 9 its value changed, that spell level took of 2 level 5 spells now, usually abilities don't increase with level so in time the new abilities you got are not going to be worth the spell levels you lost to get then.

3 - Bard without Bardic Performance. Its just like with the monk, in time your old bardic performance will not be worth your standard action (At least most of then), so in the end you are swapping abilities and most of the time the prestige class is not balanced around swapping.

4 - Removing rogue sneak attack and giving him role playing abilities instead. People love to completely remove rogue sneak attack and instead giving him role playing abilities, its not actually wrong but they do it way too often so in the end, if you are looking for a prestige class that change your rogue flavor without reducing it's combat skill, you will have a hard time looking.

The changes to Scrying and teleport (Scrying does not give condition to teleport) helps... polymorph and wild shape changes helps too...

I just did a comparison of Barbarian's, Fighters and Paladins in the PF Barbarian thread.

We have playtested they builds in 3 dungeon crawls and one arena battle.

Fighters in PF (and indeed 3.5 fighters) have (to our group) never really been unbalanced. Most melee'rs in our group (we have 9 total) Scout's:
1 Fighter/Rogue (Flanker, Sneak Attack DD)
1 Beguiler/JPM (Save or die or become a slave, in combat healer)

Melee:
1 Warblade/MO9 (charger, damage dealer)
1 Crusader, (lockdown tripper, in combat healer)
1 Cleric/RKV, (charger, buffer, healer)
1 Paladin, (Damage dealer, backup healer)
1 Fighter, (Tripper, Bull Rusher, AOO damage focused)

Caster:
1 Psion/Gish -Homebrew Psionic JPM type class (Blaster)
1 Warmage/Sandshaper/IOSV (Battlefield controler-maybe changing to PF Wiz or Sorc)

Our whole group optimises. We regularly beat encounters our level+2 somtimes better. Besides the Warmage (me) eveybody will have BAB16 or better by 20 and now we've switched to PF the Gish types have far more HP (in keeping with the new HP/AB rules)

What we are finding is that the fighter is not at all under powered (even with so much TOB abilities in the group) it's simply they lack options. By that I mean different combat actions. A manuvere is effectively a comabat feat- some special combat action.

Consider the gish types- there AC is about av 5pts less (made up for with things like gtr mirror image, gtr concealing amorpha) but thier HP (which used to suck) is now only marginally less (unbuffed) thier Attack is av 3points less but thier damage output is comparable/slightly better (because of manuveres) and they can cast. (thus having more options for tactics and escape if things get too heavy.)

The fighter's build focuses on B/C
The Crusader focuses on lockdown and does it better. (slightly)

Any well built fighter (including the one in this group) can easily handle his role- it's that the way he does it can be boring.
If you focus on damage you say' I attack' every round
If you focus on...

I completly agree, and I really wished things would change with pathfinder... in a way they did, but just marginally.

I would agree, having written the PrC, and it wasn't really intended to be awesome in a power kind of way. But it may be an interesting PrC to play that fills a different kind of role in the campaign, the uber utility character who, as the OP suggested, fills a concept more than a role.

If you wanna ramp it up in power for your campaign, though, go for it!

Sometimes players do make a sacrifice to take a prestige class to fill a concept but it's harder to see it happens if the prestige class is worse than the base class they had, so they end up changing their character concept or they just try to fill that concept without the prestige class nerf.

just my 10 cents ^^

Not enough was done with the monk to differentiate one monk from another. I'll be using my own variant in place of the stock one.

My opinion too