vuron's page

The problem is not that the classes in theory have niche protection (although honestly the idea that characters should only be competent in one area of expertise is a pretty dated albeit popular design choice) it's that the niche protection afforded the casters isn't really afforded to the skillmonkey and martial classes.

Now personally my preference is that classes should be competent in combat, social interaction and exploration phases of the game. That way if I have an extended session of social interaction the fighter isn't acting bored while the bard does all the work, further I like having each of the characters get some ability to advance subplots on their own which means pretty much every character needs at least one social skill moderately developed because otherwise they are too passive when separated from the designated face character.

Unfortunately the truth of the matter is that the martial and skillmonkey classes have very very limited niche protection and that's larely obviated by spells and called/summoned creatures by level 6-10.

The traditional balliwick of rogues is trapfinding, scouting, door opening, pick pocketing, etc. Trapfinding is useful but at a certain point in time can largely be done away with by summoned creatures and a 10' pole. Scouting can be done better with invisibility and silence. Door opening can be handled with knock, climbing is a joke with spider climb, etc.

PF toned down some of the skill bonus of various spells but it's pretty clear that the rogue is not a particularly stellar class and let's be honest the vivisectionist and urban rogue have basically killed it and stolen it's stuff.

The fighter still has a role to play but let's be honest it really begins to lose ground to some of the other martial classes and the casters around mid-level where called creatures, summons, and battlefield control can successful reduce the need for a tank to absorb opposition. Yes it's still useful to have some classes be able to do decent DPR but a decent battle oracle or druid or summoner should be able to step on the fighter niche pretty effectively not to mention how the fighter begins to lose ground to the barbarian and paladin.

Listen I'd love for PF to be a game about the big 4 classes and their various hybrids getting along as a team fighting crime and you can do that with PF but in many ways you almost have to work against the system.

What people are saying is that they'd like the fighter to actually deliver on it's promise rather than be the flunky of a wizard

vuron wrote:

Unfortunately limiting casters to x spellpoints or x spell slots a day tends to just heighten the problems of the 15 minute workday

The 15 minute work day doesn't exist in PFS play. It shouldn't exist in any proper game, not when it really matters.

So sandbox style games are not "proper" games then?

Considering one of the most popular PF APs is basically sandbox, PC driven exploration I don't think that the artificial "you need to get mcguffin x or princess y dies" is necessary or even desirable for many groups.

I realize that some people like their games to have some degree of urgency that limits the ability of casters to take advantage of crafting and divinations but seriously please stop assuming that your preferred play style is the only one possible or even the dominant playstyle.

Unfortunately limiting casters to x spellpoints or x spell slots a day tends to just heighten the problems of the 15 minute workday because make no mistake the martials are still completely dependent on the casters to function if you are fighting CR appropriate foes.

Also it would just make most casters really dependent on wands which isn't exactly a great solution.

Uncoupling healing from spells (and wands) helps because then the Fighter's core resource management mechanic becomes more controlled by the PC but we still have a large percentage of the fanbase that can't seem to acknowledge that hit points are not meat points.

You've failed to actually say why you think the game would suffer by giving the Fighter more options.

What harm is there giving the Fighter more mobility? I mean the Barbarian already has pounce and the Fighter has to go with an archetype to cover something even close to pounce?

What harm is there giving the Fighter better skill points? That it might make the Rogue seem even more incompetent as and adventurer?

What harm is there in giving the Fighter better defenses? Does the iconic fighter really have to invest in cloak of resistance to not be completely hosed by will saves?

What harm is there in fixing the HP system so that fighters can be less dependent on magical healing? Is the game really served by making the PCs dependent on healbot clerics and wands/potions of CLW?

What harm is there in making it where the Fighter is less dependent on magic items or spell buffs by incorporating stuff like inherent bonuses (for stuff like the mandatory +1 items) and/or martial buffs like a warrior's trance that functions like some common buff spells?

The game can be incrementally improved for martial players without either adding in too much complexity or too much "magic" so that people's precious verisimilitude can be maintained.

Yes we know that Paizo has no intentions of fixing caster vs martial imbalance in this edition (or possibly a future edition) but fans can still agitate for an improved game.

Keep in mind that a lot of games are basically built around high stakes games of rocket tag. This was especially prevalent in high end 3.5 games. PF toned down some of the rocket tag aspects of the game but they are still there.

You don't have to invest in init boosters if you aren't playing rocket tag . The GM can influence that decision by building encounters differently. The casters can also influence that by playing less selfishly.

The problem is that in some games the social contract necessary to neuter rocket tag doesn't exist. This can be really problematic in settings like PFS where one or more players deciding to optimize for rocket tag can heavily influence the entire group.

So just because swordsmen existing in reality means that they need to be bound by the restrictions that encumber you or I? Or would it better to just assume that fighters and thieves of D&D are actually legendary and can do legendary things just by the blessing of being a PC?

I mean people are okay with Wizards basically wholesale shaping reality on a grandscale and they can't get past the idea than maybe the high level fighter and rogue should be able to do completely unbelievable things?

I understand wanting to have more mundane games but that's why variants like E6 are fun because nobody gets earth shaking power, it simply isn't a particularly great design to have the 13 year old that looks at the cover of PF and really being inspired by Valeros automatically being inferior to the player that looks at Seoni and is inspired to play a sorcerer.

I think you want to reward every player for being interested in the types of characters depicted in the supporting art but unfortunately in many ways the actual game undermines some of that epic feel.

It's got less lasting power than the sorcerer and the specialist wizard (I pretty much assume that basically nobody goes generalist anymore) and most of the flexibility advantage it has can be negated by a decent batman wizard build.

I could see it being a wholesale replacement of the sorcerer and the wizard but I'm not sure I see a compelling reason to have all three in a setting simultaneously.

I've played a decent number of mega-dungeons across most of the editions of D&D.

Overall I'd say experiences have been mixed. I still enjoy T1-4 even though portions of the Temple of Elemental Evil were underwhelming.

Other classic dungeon crawls had a variety of issue which limited my enjoyment especially if they were highly antagonistic between Players and GM.

2e had some of the better megadungeons in my personal experience as this represented in some ways the high point of dungeon design that was intended to be more organic such as the dragon mountain with a bunch of kobold tribes living symbotically with a red dragon.

3.x saw a return of the megadungeon in a big way but many of them were distinctly underwhelming especially the Return to ToEE and some of the other 3.0 megadungeons (Rappan Athuk, etc). AEG's mega-mega dungeon that basically was designed to have the PC crawl through the entire MM worth of monsters kinda marked a point in which megadungeons were clearly being designed around gamist concerns rather than narrative or simulationist consistency.

Personally I still like the occassional dungeon crawl but I prefer it to be more geared towards a maximum of 3-4 sessions a dungeon rather than 10-12 sessions a dungeon.

The essential problem was that in 3.0 they decided to differentiate the 2 martial non-magical base classes by having the Fighter sacrifice non-combat utility for the sake of damage dealing capacity (although the increases in NPC HPs tend to negate that in many ways) while the Rogue sacrifices combat utility for being useful out of combat.

This artificial and frankly unnecessary divide in order to maintain an strictly defined class role has been unfortunately carried forward across the successor iterations of 3.x/PF even though it really wasn't that useful and was largely a design choice of 3.0. In contrast AD&D even with the optional NWP system has less of a differential between rogues and warriors in terms of non-combat utility.

Once you get past the artificial need for niche protection between the Rogue and the Fighter you can contemplate a more balanced system where the rogue is more of a dexterity and trickery based warrior and the fighter is more of a front-line smash and bash warrior and you can easily blend the two roles with skill and feat choices.

You can break the game with core only and indeed many people will suggest that some of the most imbalanced classes are the core ones.

That being said I think limiting choices in order to keep some degree of sanity in the face of a huge number of character design choices is somewhat viable. I just disagree with the default assumption that additional splatbooks automatically involves gamebreaking power creep. Typically most splatbooks might have some new options that can be exploited but most of the egregious ones merely highlight imbalances in the core mechanics

I have no problem with Sunder or stuff like Disjunctions being used against the PCs especially by monsters that are big and beefy and are unlikely to want to get loot designed around medium sized PCs.

That being said the cost to benefit ratio for sundering is pretty limited unless you pull out sunder specialists and they kinda stretch my credulity as a GM if they are used too often.

Doubling the critical multipler is really dangerous. While 20 x 8 might not happen very often when it does it will almost certainly result in massive damage to the victim.

This increases the swinginess of combat which almost always favors the NPCs (they are assumed to only face one battle) vs the PCs (who end up facing a lot of potential criticals over the course of their lives).

Even adding +1 to the multiplier is dangerous.

18-20 x3
19-20 x3
20 x 4
20 x5
etc.

I don't really care for imp. crit and keen as they currently work simply because they make 18-20 x2 weapons unreasonably desirable but there is some danger in throwing around big crit multipliers.

The game math is built around the elite array which means 15,14,13,12,10,8 before racial modifiers. So there is already an assumption that everyone will have at least one negative stat modification. This also means you can survive with only a 15(17 after mods) in your primary stat. I think you could argue that stats of 17+ really aren't necessarily needed at chargen although having them certainly is nice. I think a case could be made that excessive stats can actually harm a game because the system just doesn't handle high stats well.

Why would having a 7 or 8 in a stat broken the game?

An 8 charisma is just a -1 to social skills. As long as the PC in question takes one social skill as a class skill (bluff, diplomacy or intimidate) they can generally keep pace with standard DCs.

Once the party of all wizards has planar binding they can romp.

It's just that low level wizards need meat shields until they can bind their own.

You can have a penalty for dying that isn't necessarily tied to a death tax of a diamond and restoration spell.

Even if you reduce the physical cost of raising the dead there is still an inherent time cost associated (most clerics aren't necessarily going to have a raise dead prepared every day and spell scrolls of raise dead do cost a good big of money) which means that the PCs are hampered by at least a day in terms of raising the dead.

You could extend that time even by mandating that raise dead needs to take place in a space hallow (or unhallowed) to the PC's diety of choice. That means you'd still need to return to town or find a local shrine to the god in order to cast the raise dead spell.

This would give the BBEG a good amount of time to reinforce their lair or advance their plots.

You could also do some other materially significant penalties (like being raised from the dead ages you a year or more) or pure cosmetic effects (your hair is now bleached white). Another idea would be to have your diety of choice charge you with a quest that you must accomplish (like a geas). This would actually add some storytelling complications to the spell effect.

What I'm trying to get at is that there are times that there should be a penalty for failure but that penalty for failure shouldn't result in the most efficient and effective choice by a party being leave the PC dead and loot the body.

Invisibility is definitely a pain to deal with once improved invisibility becomes a common tactic.

One possible solution is to create single shot wondrous items that have an Invisibility Purge effect within a certain radius. It wouldn't be a cheap solution but it could definitely give martial NPCs a single shot method of defeating invisibility at least within a small radius.

Unfortunately echolocation is a 4th level spell so the ability to make a potion of echolocation doesn't exist and echolocation as a permanent magical effect has a massive price tag.

But honestly at a certain challenge rating you have to assume that muggle NPCs (most martial class builds) are going to be curbstomped by the PCs using advanced tactics.

This would be a really bad idea to be honest as it would require a significant rewrite of most of the bestiary. It also has the complication of making martials even weaker vs casters (who generally only need a standard action to do their stuff).

This is how 4e works but the game math is completely redesigned to accomodate this model.

The problem I have with the current rate exchanges can be illustrated.

If I give the PCs 20k gp a PC for defeating the BBEG the following can happen:

Player 1 is wizard with craft wondrous items; this player can create the equivalent of 40k worth of items bought on the open market

Player 2 is a fighter with no craft feats; this player can either get the wizard to craft for him or he can buy 20k worth of items on the open market.

If I give the PCs 20k gp a PC in the form of 1 magic item the following can happen:

Player 1 is a wizard who can either use the item he looted or he can sale the 20k item for 10k and use the cash to create a new item worth 20k.

Player 2 is a fighter who can either use the item he looted or he can sell the 20k item for 10k and use the cash to get the wizard to craft for him or purchase on the open market something worth a retail value of 10k.

This creates a situation where uneven distribution of wealth across the PCs is pretty much a given unless the DM gives the PCs the level appropriate items for his/her class. Even then this has issues because the warrior classes are more gear dependent.

Whenever you have big discounts like this the possibility for arbitrage situations exists but not all the PC classes are equipped to take advantage of the crafting system equally.

I personally feel this is a bad design that has been accentuated in the shift to PF with the elimination of XP costs because now there really is no disincentive to craft whenever possible.

If PF needs any product it's the PF equivalent of Unearthed Arcana where a ton of optional rules can be put forth in attempt to provide a toolset for people to monkey around with their game.

Because it would all be optional rules the people that feel like the existing product line doesn't need significant revisions are appeased and the optional rules give those rule monkeys are common source of inspiration for working around perceived issues with the game.

Yes there is a potential risk of fracturing the user base and it's next to impossible to design APs to meet the needs of a heavily modded system but I think more and more products should exist in the optional design space rather than the core design space.

This is also where you can test some core patches to the system such as the stealth system without forcing a major rewrite to PFS and existing campaigns. Good ideas would bubble to the surface and could be included in some future iteration of the game.

Other than that I do think Paizo has maintained a ridiculously ambitious publication schedule which can be good from a sales perspective but can result in significant gameplay issues from the perspective that it's hard to integrate the efforts of numerous freelancers while also maintain high quality and compatibility with existing rules. Rules bloat is also a concern, 3.5 definitely suffered this towards the end of the active line.

This just seems like a GRAR thread just to vent.

Honestly rule inconsistency is liable to come up whenever you have a bunch of freelancers developing products unless you have a brutal editor who has a encyclopedic memory of the rules and the ability to see how every new option might interact with each other.

Yeah having a big design bible might be worthwhile but I think at a certain point you have to either spend a huge amount of time playtesting everything or accept that some stuff will slip through the cracks and that you'll have to issue rule corrections and errata documents.

Damn this really isn't that difficult.

You charm person someone, they fail their will save, their attitude is Friendly. You then do a relatively simple diplomacy check to switch their attitude to helpful.

At that point you can ask for most routine favors without even needing a diplomacy check.

Revealing secret knowledge which is generally what the Bard is trying to get from his target is still somewhat risky to the target (if his bosses find out that could be bad) so I generally still require some diplomacy checks. Actually getting someone to give material aid to the PCs can definitely be risky.

Furthermore fanatical followers of an organization are still going to be morally loathe to betray that organization so it's hard to get meaningful information out of some NPCs particularly clerics, paladins, cavaliers, etc.

Fortunately many of the people you want to get secret knowledge from are fundamentally mercenary at heart.

So in short charm person is a helpful tool and while some people might have moral compunctions against abusing it, it seems like a relative low transgression on the list of sins. Alignment shifts aren't really needed unless you are doing morally icky stuff with the charmed people.

Actual torture on the otherhand is definitely morally problematic. Fortunately I think you can do enough of the good cop bad cop routine with intimidate that actually pulling out the pliers to torture someone for information is rarely used by the PCs. NPCs on the other hand..

My core problem with the Fighter stems from how poorly he survived the transition from AD&D to 3.x/PF.

AD&D Fighter - Really good saves
3.x Fighter - Poor Saves

AD&D Fighter - Mobile Combatant
3.x Fighter - Tied to 5' steps

AD&D Fighter - Not horrible in the skill department if you used NWP
3.x Fighter - Bad Skill Points and Bad Class Skill List

AD&D Fighter - Leader of men (Followers at name level, etc)
3.x Fighter - Big Dumb Fighter unless you use the Leadership feat (which is problematic at the least).

Yeah 3.x Fighter can be customized with a ton of feats and still do great damage (although monster HPs have gone up dramatically as well) but I don't really care for the design choices that suggest that the primary way the fighter interacts with the world is by swinging a big killstick at it.

I think the reaction against the 3.x Fighter was one of the primary reasons why the 4e fighter was buffed so heavily. You might like or hate 4e but I don't think anyone can deny that the 4e Fighter is one of the more powerful classes. I think few people would suggest that the 3.x/PF class is one of the tier 1 classes.

Yes Pathfinder made a decent number of improvements to the fighter but their hands were kinda tied by the goal of backwards compatibility. I don't think people should feel ashamed for thinking the fighter is still somewhat inadequate and making the changes in the game necessary to support the fighter being a more dynamic class with more agency in a broader area of the game.

I hate and never use the leadership feat.

PCs and NPCs recruit and attract cohorts, henchmen and followers based upon their actions, fame and station.

Treat those cohorts well and you'll have a secure resource but abuse them and they might stab you in back at night and loot your corpse.

Needing human skill point bonus and favored class bonuses and masterwork tools/magic competency items is just papering over the cracks though guys.

Fighters end up either sacrificing combat effectiveness or sacrificing utility to a degree that many other classes don't.

Fundamentally there is absolutely no reason why any class should be stuck with a 2+Int skill point value and mediocre skill list.

It was a design built around making the skillmonkey feel useful but the truth is that you can easily increase skill points across the board as well as increase the combat effectiveness of the rogue an not break the game. I'd venture that increasing skillpoints is one of the most common houserules in the game and there really was no reason not to fix in PF other than maintaining backwards compatibility with 3.5 statblocks.

If anyone in the party plays a bard, then most classes become useless outside of combat because bards are so good at diplomacy, sense motive, knowledge, etc.

Except for the occasional tracking...

If you have to start going all the way to the "yeah but outside of combat" argument you lost already.

Does your group do all social interaction as a team?

or do you actually have subplots for the various PCs?

I've never really cared for the dedicated face school of roleplaying. While it might be nice for the Bard to handle some of the negotiations with the Duke it's nice if the Fighter can talk to the Duke's General, the cleric can rally the troops with a stirring speech, the rogue can gather information in the shadows and the wizard can collect the lore of the ages.

The problem is that the Fighter as a daring leader of men has basically disappeared from the 3.x/PF and I'd personally like to see him return.

I think the disconnect is that Full BAB and weapon and armor proficiencies are significantly overrated in terms of it's value and that 3.0 made the decision that skills should come at the expense of combat utility.

If we remove spells from the equation you have fighter on one end of the continuum with Full BAB, heavy armor, weapon proficiencies and poor skills and rogue on the other end with 3/4 BAB, light armor, some martial proficiencies and lots of skills.

Personally I think it's possible to increase the utility of the fighter and the combat effectiveness of the rogue without disrupting the cleric and wizard that much.

It's not about losing your primary weapon which is going to be a pretty rare situation (Sunder is crap, locking gauntlets pretty much negate disarm, stealing weapons is dirty GMing) it's more about taking advantage of better equipment whenever it shows up.

That's not an insignificant advantage particularly in campaigns where you can't pretty much get an item crafted or upgraded on demand but I also think that it can be overstated and depends almost exclusively on GM play style.

Hell in in 1e-2e where PC crafting was largely non-existent I rarely if ever used random loot drops. It's so much more fun to make sure that the PCs have the proper equipment whenever they need it than to stick them with a ton of vendor trash that they need to cash in to pay for better equipment.

Not that I don't still throw in a decent number of oddball wondrous items but if someone is specialized in a even somewhat common weapon (longsword, greatsword, shortsword) chances are they are going to find +1 and +2 versions of those weapons sooner or later. Now if they really want to have elven curve blades or mancatcher then they are almost always going to need to use Knowledge skills to track down likely locations of more potent but rare weapons or they are going to go down the commisioning route.

Even when other classes take weapon focus, it doesn't hurt them too much to drop a +2 Greatsword to grab a +3 Greataxe. All they lose is the Weapon Focus's +1 to hit, which the better enhancement bonus makes up for anyhow. The +3 Greataxe is still an improvement over the +2 Greatsword.

A Fighter considering switching from a +2 Greatsword to a new +3 Greataxe is losing Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, and all levels of Weapon Training. The +3 Greataxe is actually significantly worse than the +2 Greatsword.

Other classes lose the benefit of maybe one feat; fighters lose the benefit of several feats and a primary class feature.

I think it's quite telling that Fighters are supposed to be the versatile masters of combat who can command any style effectively (whereas, for example, Rangers are "locked" into one chosen Combat Style), but their Weapon Training class feature and all of their special class-exclusive feats only work with one weapon or one group of weapons, whereas, for example, a Barbarian's Strength bonus works with all melee weapons. It's like the class features were specifically designed with the intent of not letting Fighters have that sort of versatility.

I think the fighter "versatility" is almost exclusively centered around build versatility rather than play versatility. You can build a generalist fighter but he's going to take a major hit to his effectiveness in combat.

The specialist is almost always going to run into situations where the new shiny is inferior to his optimized equipment. This is kinda a universal problem but particularly focused on the fighter's weapon of choice.

However after a certain point (+2 or so) the chances of getting a weapon that is better suited to you than what you can build yourself become vanishingly small simply due to the limitations of NPC wealth limits and the need to patch multiple areas (namely saves, stat boosters, etc). Yeah you can have a solo NPC with an outrageously overcost +3 or +4 weapon but sinking that much into a single weapon tends to nuke your NPC wealth budget and make those NPCs easy pickings.

Do I wish that the fighter could still basically take whatever random junk was thrown his way and be awesome with it? Of course but unfortunately each iteration of the game seems to reward greater and greater martial specialization.

Once 1e Unearthed Arcana brought in Fighter Weapon Specialization the idea of the Fighter as Master of Arms kinda went away. Yeah you still wanted to use you weapon proficiencies to get a wide variety of weapons especially if you used all the weapon vs armor charts and weapon speeds but once you realized the massive damage possible with a dedicated Two-handed sword or god forbid a dart specialist you tended to go down the one true build rabbit hole.

Personally I'd like to see a return of the fighter being able to beat someone to death with any given weapon (longsword, dagger, beer stein, bare fists, etc) so that you don't have to get trapped in the hyper specialization of WF/GWF/WS/GWS with fighters. Yes there should be some rewards to specialization but I think in general D&D rewards specialization to an excessive degree while hampering the talented generalist.

The same thing also happens with skill monkeys where +1 rank per level is basically assumed. The same thing often happens even with the casters where hyperspecialization revolves around pumping your Save DC into the stratosphere.

So while the fighter is kinda a blank slate that can be customized into a wide variety of builds you really can't build a generalist fighter without being severely hampered.

Now if you group is pretty laid back and you don't have to routinely fight CR +4 encounters you can get by with a low level of optimization and still have a lot of fun but I find that you almost have to have a agreement between all the Players and the GM because if one player goes optimized then pretty much everyone will.

I think if you are willing to go THF with a big weapon Weapon Training/ Weapon Focus/ Weapon Specialization/ Power Attack / Imp. Crit + appropriate magical gear is generally enough to cover raw DPR needs for the fighter. You are going to be able to do significant damage to anything CR appropriate. Basically you can generally 1-2 round most CR equivalent foes at this level of optimization.

That generally leaves a decent number of feat slots for shoring up other aspects of the character although I resent having to take Iron Will as a matter of course.

TWF/ TWF (Sword & Board)/Archer build generally are a bit more feat and ability score intense in terms of being effective and even then often lag behind the THF build. Charger builds are generally better built with Cavaliers.

What I kinda resent in the design is that I basically have 4 basic build paths (archer, THF, TWF, TWF (Sword & Board) and one is clearly easier to do at all point buy levels and even then I generally get stuck with the big dumb fighter archetype. I don't really like the Barbarian that much but in many ways it does big dumb warrior with a killstick better than the fighter. Yeah the Fighter is going to have a better AC but is generally going to be inferior in terms of mobility and skill usage.

Having grown up with 1e and 2e Fighters I felt like the 3.x/PF fighter was in many ways a step back and it didn't have to be that way. Yes I understand that people are adamant about the fighter staying a muggle but I think you could simulate the fighter doing a bunch more stuff in combat and out of combat without going automatically to fighter = spellcaster.

Personally I think of mooks as Extras in the narrative. The opposite of that are named cast members.

Are you asking for purely optimal numbers assuming that the PCs would be spending almost all cash on pumping the big six plus minimal investment in other items?

I'm not sure someone has done a real in-depth spinal analysis of the Pathfinder math but the following basically worked for 3.5.

Core 6 Items

Stat Booster
+2 at 6th
+4 at 12th
+6 at 18th

Weapon Enhancement
+1 at 3rd
+2 at 6th
+3 at 9th
+4 at 12th
+5 at 15th

Armor Enhancement
+1 at 3rd
+2 at 6th
+3 at 9th
+4 at 12th
+5 at 15th

Shield Enhancement (if applicable)
+1 at 3rd
+2 at 6th
+3 at 9th
+4 at 12th
+5 at 15th

Deflection
+1 at 3rd
+2 at 6th
etc.

Natural Armor
+1 at 3rd
+2 at 6th
etc.

Resistance
+1 at 3rd
+2 at 6th
etc.

This is basically the list for front-line martial characters (Fighters, etc). It also can be used for battle clerics but in general spellcasters don't need as many boosts to AC although they are helpful. Only giving them inherent bonuses to Deflection and Natural Armor and not Armor and Shield is fair though.

Beyond that I think most people assume a haversack by about 3rd level.

The main question is how to handle secondary stat boosting items.

Personally I would gauge how heroic of a game you want and then either boost all physical stats at the same time as the primary or at a -1 progression.

A minus -1 progression might mean that when the fighter would get an inherent bonus of +4 to strength he would also have a bonus of +2 to dex and con.

I would probably also assume a -1 progression for a wisdom booster (for non divine casters) so that when the fighter or rogue is at 12th level they have a +2 to wisdom.

I'll make a second post about spellcasters who generally are alot less gear dependent.

My core problems with the fighter bonus feats are that they aren't enough to patch the many core problems with the fighter.

Feats don't scale like spells do- Yes there is an additive effect with many feats and some of the good feats remain good from levels 1-20 but having to continue to invest in long feat chains to keep up with other classes is kinda frustrating.

Feat Taxes- having to purchase a bunch of mediocre feats in order to get to the relevant feats is frustrating

Feats don't solve most of the mobility issues- Vital strike is a mediocre patch to the fighter 5' step + full attack problem that shows up at 6th level. Prior to that the fighter can charge his 20'-30' as needed but once iteratives start showing up melee mobility goes way down. If pounce was a feat this would be solved but apparently fighters can't get nice things.

Feats don't solve the gear dependency- Fighters need a massive amount of gear probably more than any other class in the game. Many other martial classes can at least self-buff with spells or class features.

Feats barely patch core weaknesses- Having to take Iron Will and Improved Iron Will in order to patch basically horrible will saves is not fun. Same with non-combat utility.

Basically I want the martial classes to be awesome and the fighter can be frustrating especially to use as a GM as a BBEG. It just feels like you have to throw so much gear at a BBEG fighter in order to cover the basics that you often go over the NPC gear thresholds.

Little hint Jupp: If you have to say I proved my point in a post you probably didn't.

Listen I understand that people are fighter enthusiasts and they are fine with the fighter being a full attack + 5' move class. I understand that many or even most groups don't limit a class's non-combat utility to their skill points. I even get that many groups operate with a spotlight balance model where it's okay for one character to suck because someone else can pick up the load.

Where I have problems with the fighter and why I heavily revise the fighter for my own games is because the fighter was significantly revised in the transition from 2e to 3.x to go from one of the classes with the best defenses in the game to a class that has significant defensive weakness. From a class that was almost by default the leader of the group to a class that is basically expected to be quiet and glower at people. I dislike that the class went from being pretty mobile to a class that is often slow and limited to 5' moves in order to maximize their effectiveness.

For me I solved the problem of the fighter being outclassed by the paladin by making getting rid of the normal paladin class and making a prestige paladin (15 levels). Personally I love the fighter but from a strict evaluation of the classes bonus feats simply pale in comparison to the paladin class abilities. Yeah the fighter is arguably a better chopper than the paladin but the percentage of the game that revolves around being a ginsumatic simply isn't worth being relatively useless during long stretches of the game. So for me at least the fighter gets revised.

But don't feel sad I also revise the rogue and all the other common classes so that they fit my vision of no class being utterly worthless for long periods of the game.

The problem is that unfortunately the stats aren't weighted correctly in terms of actual utility.

Charisma just doesn't have enough particularly relevant factors attached to it unless you are a spontaneous caster and then it's super critical.

Skill ranks can basically negate almost any stat penalty by level 5 or so for charisma.

I think many groups are going to have a combat/exploration/social ratio of something like 40-30-30.

We've seen over and over in threads that the Monk is pretty limited in combat due to their accuracy lagging behind the expected numbers for a PC vs a CR appropriate foe. Stunning fist also tends to be pretty limited due to the difficulty in boosting the save vs average fort saves. CMB is also an issue.

There are mechanical fixes to this that range from simple (Full BAB, cheaper AoMF, etc) to almost complete rewrites.

In terms of exploration the Monk isn't horribad but it's still far from the utility of the Rogue or even the Ranger. It's got good saves which help durability but it's functionality as a solo scout is dramatically overrated simply because average perception scores tend to overwhelm the monks ability stealth. It's a great runner and can navigate pit traps like a pro but it tends to run into problems vs stuff like locked doors...

For social phases of the game poor skill selection and the extreme likelihood that Charisma will be a dump stat is a significant challenge. Unless the entire social phase is pure roleplay with no dice rolls needed the monk tends to be useless in the social phase.

For miscellaneous utility there are some okay abilities but the monk doesn't make the rest of the team better (the Bard is almost exclusively cooperative) as such it's kinda a solo class (although not good as a solo). It also is unlikely to help out in the form of crafting due to the lack of skill points for crafting and no magic crafting abilities.

Almost all the classes have one or more areas of the game that they really shine in. Personally I think some classes like the fighter are way too focused on combat to the point where they tend to be largely useless in exploration (other than carrying the gear) and social (intimidate isn't always a valid course of action). The monk doesn't really shine at any area and doesn't make anyone else better either. That's a real drawback to the class.

I've had a lot of good luck with the class over the years and tons of bad luck. I think it's definitely dependent on the player as for the most part the restrictions of the class have gotten quite lax over the years (your mileage may very per individual campaigns). As a result I've seen less lawful stupid paladins as I've aged as a gamer but that might be confirmation bias as I generally avoid gaming with jerks anymore (no gaming is better than bad gaming) whereas I was decidedly less picky when I was growing up.

When I DM and someone seems to be starting down the path of Lawful Stupid I try to talk to them as an aside and see if they are willing to tone down some of the stupid. If the player wants to take a paladin from wet behind the ears moral absolutism at 1st level to a more tolerant and experienced paladin character as the PCs level up I think that can be fun but I really don't like someone playing the No Fun Allowed role all the time.

The problem is that most people are going to agree that there are some basic roles inherent in most of the classes.

Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian- Front Line Fighter (i.e. Tank), primary job is doing melee damage and preventing the squishy classes from getting squished

Rogue/Ranger/Bard- Skills guy and light fighter, primary job is handling skill challenges and providing melee and ranged support to the tank, can do damage and take a hit but shouldn't be expected to withstand sustained enemy fire

Cleric/Druid- Healer/Support. Primary job is to make everyone else better either through healing or buffs and provide secondary melee (and ranged support) to the front line fighters

Wizard/Sorcerer- Blaster/Controller. Primary job is to provide ranged and AoE spell effects as well as to provide some buffing and control effects.

Now obviously each class can play against type some and fill other roles on a as needed basis but generally their class abilities pretty firmly put them in a specific role although some classes like the Bard and Paladin can clearly function in multiple roles.

The problem with the Monk design is that it kinda encourages the Front Line Fighter role because of how flurries and full attacks work but it also wants to promise the skills guy and skirmisher role.

The failure of the class is that it's not really that good as a front line fighter and it's not really that good as a skirmisher/skills guy. The result is that you have a class that promises a lot an fails to deliver.

Now I'm not going to say it's impossible to enjoy playing a Monk, clearly people still play them regardless of their functionality but they should be better. Invariably people will suggest that it's a great 5th man class but you can almost always benefit more from a Bard or Ranger more than having a Monk as a 5th man.

If you grew up in the old days (1e-2e), lawful stupid paladins abounded in the gaming community and tended to dominate stuff like Usenet and Dragon magazine letters.

Lawful Stupid was basically used to describe the tendency of certain players to always enforce a rigid code of conduct to every encounter and basically use that code of conduct to restrain the tactical options of the rest of the party.

Want to ambush the orc raiders or use hit and run tactics to reduce their numbers? No it's not chivalrous. Want to interrogate a prisoner in order to find out where the McGuffin is held? Not sporting old chap

Invisibility? Nope
Killing Prisoners? Nope and a definite source of many session derailments.
Looting bodies? Nope
Etc, etc, etc.

Basically it was an excuse to be a lawful jerk to the rest of the party with the secondary effect of making almost every encounter that much harder.

Tons of people got beat down with someone playing a lawful stupid Paladin in their formative gaming experiences and have been reluctant to release that hatred over the years even as most interpretations of the paladin have soften over various generations of the game.

Personally I think the type of people that played jerk paladins could've just as easily played jerk rogues or jerk wizards but there was all this baggage built up around the class that just intensified their negative tendencies and made it very easy to communicate the frustrations with this behavior in online and written communication.

"This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature,"

Are giants humanoids?

I believe one of the changes Pathfinder wrought was the Humanoid (Giant) subtype.

Well as publishers Paizo has to design their adventure paths to be relatively friendly to "casual" gamers that have little time to customize the AP to meet the specific needs of the party. There is definitely a marketspace for being able to grab an AP off the shelf and then be able to play it with a set of unoptimized beer and pretzel gamers.

In contrast building encounters so that they challenge highly optimized parties is a significant challenge as there are simply too many unknown variables. Further there is every likelihood that a product that needs high skill and highly optimized PC to succeed with be TPK after TPK for a different group which is pretty much ridiculously unfun and tends to limit sales.

I feel like the harrow deck has too high of a risk to reward ratio for it to be regularly used in a game as there simply are too many cards that would basically nuke a campaign.

I find that at low levels the whiff rate especially on characters without full BAB can definitely extend the average number of rounds especially if ACs or HPs fall out of the norm for a given CR.

Conversely a small number of crits can easily turn the tide of a fight so that an encounter that should easily be won by the PCs can turn into a slog fest or even a potential loss.

Optimized parties almost always have significantly improved defenses and to hit rates vs CR appropriate foes plus a higher average DPR (for characters designed to contribute DPR). This typically reduces average combat encounter length particularly in situations where they have a big advantage in the action economy.

Mobility is the other key issue as most encounters will assume the PCs are on foot (or maybe mounted) but often need at least one round to close with the opposition. At higher levels flight is pretty much assumed at a minimum with teleportation effects like dimension door becoming quite common. In optimized games that almost always means that a charger or a pouncer can hit anything in effective attack range with a dangerous attack. That generally means very few wasted rounds where single attacks are the norm.

There are generally decent SoL spell options at any given level which can effectively end many combats. The foe might not be dead in 3 rounds but they might be unconscious or otherwise vulnerable to CDG attempts from the PCs.

I think encounter design is a big part of the issues with brief combats. Encounters with one big CR +2 BBEG with no supporting minions almost always end quickly for one side or the other (generally he BBEG) as very few BBEGs have adequate defenses to withstand 4+ dedicated PCs worth of spell effects and DPR. In contrast an encounter where the PCs are almost always outnumbered by foes that can still damage or cast spells vs the PCs and still function as threats will almost always extend the length of the fight as most PCs aren't set up to do massive DPR to multiple foes and the strength of multiple target SoL spells is generally reduced.

I think there can definitely be room for games where orcs, undead, monsters, etc are invariably evil, evil, evil and the forces of team good are free to slaughter them without the need to feel bad about it afterwards. After all the early vision of the game basically was about teams of murderhobos breaking into the homes of various "monsters" killing them and then looting the bodies and lair of any booty that wasn't nailed down.

I totally support epic good vs evil narratives, or kill happy game where the monsters are meant to be slaughtered but I also think there is an increasing demand for a degree of naturalism in settings as well so that various opponents aren't exclusively EVIL in their motivations.

Yes this can risk making the lives of the party members a bit more challenging because they need to be more circumspect in terms of controlling their murderhobo tendencies for fear of alignment drift. It also has the unfortunate tendency of weakening the power level of classes that are really tied to alignment like the Paladin because suddenly foes that were reliably evil can no longer be reliably smited.

Personally I'm not a big fan of moral relativism and I also don't think conflicts in D&D should be exclusively seen through the lens of 21st century cultural norms. Killing sentient beings is almost always considered to be morally wrong in modern days (baring self-defense or sanctioned military or police action and many debate even that). In contrast a pacifistic D&D campaign doesn't really meet most player's needs. So there needs to be compromises so that the Paladin can actually kill stuff and loot it's gear without having to endure a massive amount of contrition through self-flagellation.

So when I try to design a new world or campaign I try to cover some of the basics of morality so that some acts like putting a tribe of orcs to the sword might be acceptable under certain levels of provacations. Similar some monsters can be safely slain without having to worry about whether they harbor fell intent.

As such I'm okay with some forms sentient undead such as Ghouls, Ghasts, and Wights being invariably evil due to their extreme aggression and eating habits. I'm okay with putting Cannibalism in the hierarchy of mortal sins.

Vampires that hold on to their humanity and avoid killing the mortal herd might be neutral or even good but I'm also content with most vampires being classical mustache twirling bad guys that the heroes can vanquish without feeling too bad.

I almost always use Dragons as singular individuals with no predictable alignment other than a tendency to view anything other than powerful outsiders and gods as inferiors meant to be used to further their inscrutable plans. Some are essentially benevolent, some are forces of nature to be avoided but even the nicest tends to view most PCs as essentially somewhat wayward pets.

Even outsiders who are composed of the very essence of elementally aligned matter and energy are capable of alignment change. The dukes of hell are generally powerful but fallen Solars for instance. More than one fiend has been redeemed. Redemption and falling are extremely rare and the few examples of fiendish redemption are often recorded in the lays of bards.

I'm also okay with the completely alien and hostile abberations like Beholders being essentially evil even though technically they like their Elder God progenitors are more accurately called amoral. It's pretty safe to kill aberrations and the cults that worship them without hesitation.

I'm mixed about the undead.

I think mindless undead should probably be neutral (they have no specific intent). Raising the (un)dead might be considered an evil act (depending on the setting) but the undead themselves are merely vessels for negative energy (which isn't evil). Now if the necromancer uses them for evil then yeah it's an evil act but inherently they aren't evil. So exceptions for being animated by an evil artifact might be made.

Feral undead like ghouls and ghasts and wights can definitely be considered evil based upon their tendency to murder and eat the flesh of victims.

I generally prefer evil intelligent undead especially stuff like liches. I think it's fair to assume that the ritual of becoming a lich could easily be considered an inherently evil conscious act. Maybe there are variants of the lich known by various spellcasters that don't involve evil rituals but overall I'm content if liches are by default considered evil. I don't use mummies alot but I could see the same for them. Regular mummification shouldn't produce undead.

Vampires and Ghost are really the exceptions as they are generally created from an external source and shouldn't be as default evil. Yeah drain blood or energy isn't going to win you any fans but I think it could be considered a neutral act if the undead creature seeks to limit harm.

I generally prefer the "evil" humanoids to be more or less neutral (LN or CN is acceptable) with specific tribes or individuals being deviations from the norm. I understand evil and good races are a standard trope of fantasy since Tolkien at least but relentlessly evil natural humanoids just seem so derivative.

Created races I have no problem with being evil or good but the more natural races should be more like humanity in their capacity to be good or evil.

Without heavily modifying the spell list to take away or alter any spell that nullifies another characters niche? Not really possible.

LFQW is definitely a problem that exists in the game both on the PC end and on the NPC end. It's a problem of power level and it's a problem of agency (i.e. casters can manipulate the world in a variety of ways that muggles simply can't handle).

While some groups compensate for the problem by taking suboptimal builds and making sure the muggles don't feel bad for other groups it can turn into Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit where the mundane characters just feel like glorified bag carriers for the casters.

If you've never experienced the phenomenon, good for you but to suggest that it doesn't exist seems like putting one's head in the sand.

That isn't to say that an intrepid house ruler can't modify the game to reduce or even eliminate most of the egregious issues.

Priority 1) Drop skills a balancing factor. People shouldn't be asked to suck out of combat in order to be decent in combat. Further the +Int mechanic just provides a massive advantage for Wizards vs Fighters even though they both start with 2+Int. Wizards can afford to prioritize and boost intelligence and fighters can't the result is that the fighter sits around and does nothing.

Personally I say give everyone 8 skill points per level for active skills and 2-3 skill points per level for background skills (knowledges, craft, profession) that simply aren't as valuable and just serve as trap picks.

Priority 2) Give the melee types greater mobility. If you have to stay within 5' to full attack then you are really static. The popularity of pounce build further indicates the need to enhance martial mobility. Allow people to full attack + move with a slight penalty to hit. Yeah dragons just got a lot scarier but so fragging what.

Priority 3) Make combat casting harder. The designers dropped weapon speeds in 3.x but the replacement was always mediocre and frankly easy to handle. By making the check to avoid losing a spell more problematic you encourage casters to be less adventurous thereby bringing back the 1e-2e norm of the caster hiding behind the front line. Clerics might have a slightly easier time of it being martial casters.

Priority 4) Fix average save DC vs average save progressions. Because casters can focus on a casting stat they quickly outpace average saves to the point where cloaks of resistance are required to give mundanes even a fighting chance of avoiding a SoL scenario. This is particularly noticeable in regards to NPC warriors who despite having good DPR totals typically go down like chumps in short order. Further the cost of actually boosting critical saves with magic items makes it so that they are veritable gold mines for the PCs to loot.

Priority 5) Any spell that replicates another classes core competency needs to be scaled so that the caster isn't better than the specialist but can merely provide backup. Thus the caster cannot be better at finding and removing traps or sweet talking the NPC or provide a better meatshield than the PCs just by using a spell.

Priority 6) Autoscale feats. If a fighter's core resource is martial feats then why doesn't his resources autoscale like spells? Either make casters pay extra for their awesomeness of give the fighter regular free upgrades for established feats and abilities.

Priority 7) Give people the ability to heal themselves easier. It doesn't have to be healing surges but we have to have a system that realizes that the bulk of HPs should recover quickly. Maybe 15 minute rest and X hitpoints are restored. Healing as a skill should be much more valuable than it currently is.

Priority 8) Make the things necessary to be good at class X (typically the big six) either be free inherent upgrades that scale with level or reduce their cost to the point where casters don't automatically have an advantage.

Fix those 8 issues and I think 3.x/PF would eliminate most if not all the LFQW problem but most people don't want their casters to take the relative power hit necessary.

I've tinkered around with spell point systems over the years.

The one presented http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm

Is probably as close to being good that I've found.

The problems with it are basically that it makes Casters even more powerful and flexible than they are under core. This obviously bothers some people but doesn't bother other people.

The other problem is while lack of autoscaling on direct damage spells is a good solution for evocation, many of the best spells aren't direct damage. Being able to spam your highest level SoL spells even more per day can make balance frustrating.

I'd continue using the cantrips/orisons as unlimited as per PF core.

Attractiveness is certainly a component of charisma but it's not the only component or even a critical component.

A undead lich sorceror can have magnificent force of will but still be a decayed husk. A beautiful NPC might have an abrasive and belittling manner that prevents them from taking advantage of their attractiveness.

It's just that we tend to base a lot of real world significance on things like physical beauty while forgetting that some individuals have been very charismatic despite having a distinct lack of physical beauty. Leaders and politicians prior to the television age typically could be said to be charismatic but often lack anything resembling sex appeal.

Personally I like including an attractiveness feat that provides bonuses to charisma skill checks when targeting individuals that might find the person attractive. That way there is a mechanical benefit to being gorgeous but it's separate but linked to the charisma attribute.

It works pretty well, especially if you provide bonus feats or make it a trait equivalent.