Personally, I like the new feat progression, but we'll see how it works as my group has adopted Pathfinder for the next leg of the campaign, to see how it goes. We also have three "standard" characters (human cleric, half elf bard, human paladin), and two "backward compatible" characters (gnome beguiler, goliath fighter/rogue).
Part of the "power creep" concern vis a vis non "core" classes isn't much of a problem. They get the extra skills and feats that the "core" classes do, for example.
Similarly, in some cases, if you tweak the classes in keeping with "Pathfiner RPG 101," some classes will be bumped up a hit dice, for example. I was looking over my Dragonlance books, and realized under this system, the Mariner is a full BAB front line fighter type, so it would get a d10 now. Minor change, but it is in line with other classes.
WOTC never released any "second tier" arcane casters with a d4 for hit points, so right there, it explains a lot. Further, great as they are, the expanded base classes that suffer the most by comparison are those that suffered under 3.5. Hexblades and swashbucklers were really cool concepts, but they weren't anywhere near equal to a duskblade or a knight.
I know it doesn't work for everyone, but I've been blessed with players that, while they like rules and building characters that can do cool things, also really like to roleplay, so if they want a character that is a swashbuckler, they will likely play one, balanced or not.
Ok this may be going slightly off the rails but how about doing prestige classes to fill in the rest of the classes i.e. a paladin starts life as a warrior (squire perhaps) and when found worthy can become a paladin. The same could work for most of the other "core" classes including the extra ones such as beguiler (either a rogue that studies some magics or an enchanter who leans to the unlawful side of life).
The problem is, 3rd edition *comes broken*. In my experience with it, you actually have to go out of your way and make a concerted effort not to break the game.
For example, the only non-broken druid I've ever seen was a drow (with the standard scimitar package), who, because of the level adjustment and because he dropped out of the campaign at level 6, never did anything useful with the character. The sad thing is, despite being gimped by the level adjustment, he still could have. He just insisted on using a bow rather than casting spells, so he never radically altered combats with simple spells like entangle.
But usually, anyone playing a full spellcaster can make the DM cry and the rules shatter, even by accident.
|
Hhhmm... You certainly gave me something to ponder about class balancing. Actually the druid of my group was never effective despite using spells - he just chose the wrong ones all the time. On other occasions the fighter quota of the group was too high: What they lacked in spells, they overdid in close combat. Whenever your party doesn't consist of the four base classes, things are slightly unbalanced.
So some basic adjustment for bringing classes en par again should be sufficient. You summed up what A1 says about it: Change a few feats, change the hit points according to the PRPG base classes. Maybe it is really that easy (if you don't have to change too many feats at once and feats don't differ too much!).
There is just this one topic which is bothering me: What about the monsters? I just read again that according to Jason certainly monster conversions will be required. And considering that any DM usually needs considerably more monsters than (N)PCs...
Looking at all the fine 3.5 monsters in PF, ToH, CC (to name just a few), I'd feel even more sad if those could be used only after a major conversion effort. I never met many problems using 3.0 monsters in 3.5 campaigns. Will it be that easy with 3.5 monsters in PRPG?
Cheers,
Günther
Please, please, please keep the every-odd level feat progression!! My long-running group switched to this years ago and never looked back. Adding a few feats here and there does not alter the game in any negative way... and opens up a PC to more feats as there are a ton to choose from out there.
I proposed that to my more recent group when I joined last year. They looked at me like I had three heads...but then explained that they allow PCs to purchase feats for 500 XP every other level. If you blew 500 XP every other level and gain the 1,3,6,9 etc progression, you will have MORE feats than just every odd level.
In terms of power, this has never bothered me. As a DM prefer the characters to play their characters effectively...that lets me throw challenges at them that are, well, challenging. I'm very likely to allow anything, but if something abusive comes to the forefront (say, Nightstick Persistent Divine Power cheese), I'll have a chat with the player. What I like as a player and as a DM is to be practical - make sure everybody is having fun, and don't hog or solve all the problems. Just because you can be super-cheesy doesn't mean you should be...
|
Please, please, please keep the every-odd level feat progression!! My long-running group switched to this years ago and never looked back. Adding a few feats here and there does not alter the game in any negative way... and opens up a PC to more feats as there are a ton to choose from out there.
I have to be honest, I'm in the 'keep it every three levels' camp, but I'm pragmatic enough to know that it doesn't make that much difference. A 10th level character has 2 more feats, and a 20th level character has 4 more -- not a very big deal, and easy enough to add or subtract, depending how I decide to go with my personal campaign...
However, what does it do for Prestige classes out there? Any examples of extra feats breaking things?
However, what does it do for Prestige classes out there? Any examples of extra feats breaking things?
We switched about 4 or 5 years ago and never had a problem. But we're not "let's break each others games" type of people either...we're all friends and want to have a good time.
If you game with strangers, cheesers or loonies, I guess there could be ways of abusing it...but like you said a few extra feats will not add so much as to amount to much. Most PRC prereqs have skill requirements as well as feat ones, so minimum character level is hard to get around.
|
FEAT PROGRESSION
This is the biggest problem area. Here are some of the ramifications.
-The obvious direct power comparison.
-Prerequisites.
-Synergistic Feats.
I agree. I'm not quite sure why the alpha version changed the feat progression anyway. Was it because some folks whined in the old 3.5 forum about characters not having enough feats? This is tinkering with the way all the old products were set up - causing incompatibility issues.
I would greatly prefer the new feat progression to be an optional sidebar added if DM's WANT to power up their campaigns this way. otherwise don't fix what ain't broken and can only cause issues for folks who want to use their old libraries as-is.
-DM Jeff
|
|
Please, please, please keep the every-odd level feat progression!! My long-running group switched to this years ago and never looked back. Adding a few feats here and there does not alter the game in any negative way... and opens up a PC to more feats as there are a ton to choose from out there.
Heh heh. Different strokes. I advise to please keep it like the core rules we already know. I tried this feat preogression ONCE, in my Eberron campaign, and it caused no end of troubles at every turn and shot the power curve way off base. I'll never use that progression again.
-DM Jeff
Some of the "power creep" claims, I just don't get. Take the fighter for example. Armor training gives the fighter +1 to his AC at 3rd level. At 15th level, that bonus is up to +4. Weapon training gives the fighter +1 on attack and damage rolls, caping at +4 at17th level). To me, those sound like a replacement for needing magical armor/weapons while still maintaining the 3.5 balance. People complain about the Christmas tree effect of 3.5 characters. This fixes it while still being relatively backwards compatable.
And yes, there are some indisputible power upgrades (feat progression, hp, etc). Some things could really use a change. Honestly, what's the point of taking 20 levels in sorcerer? If you can take a PrC that allows for arcane spell progression and gives you class features, does improving your familiar really mean a darn?
My best suggestion for feat progression, two different progressions: 1 as 3.5 does it and 1 as the alpha test does it. Then, just make a note, similar to the DMG similar to different point buy values (if you want a deadlier game, go with 25 points (or in this case 1 feat eveery 3rd level); if you want the characters to be more heroic, go with 32 (or the gain a feat at every odd level progression), or something like that).
Has anyone here bothered to notice that the cleric has a max of 4 spells per spell level granted by their class?
Power Attack and Combat expertise are now drastically different. Combat expertise are now restricted to wizards and rouges. While power attack is not only more complicated as there are soo many things that modify, but vastly weeker unless you truly pull in bonuses from strength from sacred, moral, and other sources, and also happen to be a barbarian.
Please, please, please keep the every-odd level feat progression!! My long-running group switched to this years ago and never looked back. Adding a few feats here and there does not alter the game in any negative way... and opens up a PC to more feats as there are a ton to choose from out there.Heh heh. Different strokes. I advise to please keep it like the core rules we already know. I tried this feat preogression ONCE, in my Eberron campaign, and it caused no end of troubles at every turn and shot the power curve way off base. I'll never use that progression again.
-DM Jeff
Interesting...like I said, we have been happily using it for a long time. What kind of troubles?
Has anyone here bothered to notice that the cleric has a max of 4 spells per spell level granted by their class?
Yes - this is one of my favorite changes. It always bugged me that clerics would be better casters than wizards - I would have been intrigued by upping the wizard progression to match the cleric, but reducing the cleric to the wizard makes sense to me.
Combat expertise are now restricted to wizards and rouges.
how so?
Power Attack and Combat expertise are now drastically different. Combat expertise are now restricted to wizards and rouges. While power attack is not only more complicated as there are soo many things that modify, but vastly weeker unless you truly pull in bonuses from strength from sacred, moral, and other sources, and also happen to be a barbarian.
I don't agree.
Combat Expertise is now restricted to smart people (experts). The higher your INT bonus, the faster you think, and the more you can influence combat with your expert-i-ness. INT doesn't have to be a dump stat for a Fighter, if you are trying to play a fighter that "fights smarter, not harder".
Power attack is restricted to powerful people. The more strength you have, the more power you can put into a blow.
I don't see a problem with it.
Combat Expertise is now restricted to smart people (experts). The higher your INT bonus, the faster you think, and the more you can influence combat with your expert-i-ness. INT doesn't have to be a dump stat for a Fighter, if you are trying to play a fighter that "fights smarter, not harder".
Power attack is restricted to powerful people. The more strength you have, the more power you can put into a blow.
I don't see a problem with it.
I am with yo 100'000 percent there man love the changes.
But if you make PRPG characters more potent you will invalidate all the other core classes that you can't update from books folks already own and they might want to use. That's not backward compatible.
-DM Jeff
I just don't buy that. By your logic, standard PHB classes are incombatible with the splat books and PHBII. And any character with a prestige class is also incompatible with the standard character of the same levle. Do you also think that later publications invalidate the monsters in MMI?
I just don't think the power creep between the Core PRPG classes and "Post PHB I" Base and Prestige classes is any larger than the power creep that already existed with all of the other books that people own. I don't think anything made it into a splat book, PHBII, etc. that didn't have at least some power creep in it.
As long as you equalize the number of feats and skills to whatever the final PRPG number comes out to, all the previous non-core classes hold their own. Currently, unless you're past 11th, it's only one extra feat.
Combat expertise are now restricted to wizards and rouges.how so?
Unless they some how produce a larger number of feats that makes a person with a high INT, not many fighter types are going to place their best stat into INT. They have too much to worry about, such as strength, con, and dex, to bother putting an extremely high stat in there. Even Wisdom is often more sought after before int, because of the higher will save bonuses, as well as spot and listen checks (in the past at least).
Unless they some how produce a larger number of feats that makes a person with a high INT, not many fighter types are going to place their best stat into INT. They have too much to worry about, such as strength, con, and dex, to bother putting an extremely high stat in there. Even Wisdom is often more sought after before int, because of the higher will save bonuses, as well as spot and listen checks (in the past at least).
The feat has always required an INT of 13, so any fighter that wanted to take it already had to be a bit brighter than average. A 13 is not a "best" under most stat buys, but it's not a dump either.
If you want to play a combat expertise fighter, you can probably leave STR off your list of high priorities, especially if you also take weapone finesse. You will want good INT, although it will probably come in second to your DEX. Maybe tied with CON.
It's a valid choice. You would have more skills than the average fighter. And even if you don't take weapon finesse, you can always get a strength item to boost your attack and damage.
You would be a few points under a "high strength" figher, but if you're spending a feat on combat expertise instead of power attack, cleave, etc, then you're not building a max damage character anyway.
|
|
Dear Pathfinder team,
First let me say how impressed I am at all the work that went into the new rules. And what about the actual Pathfinder adventures! wow!
However let me warn you that the buffs to the core races and classes described in the Pathfinder RPG may be a mistake in the long run.
Your decision to "stick with 3.5" will attract a lot of gamers under your banner, and from what I can read on the boards all around the web, you may have done so already. When these gamers show up with their Sun Elf Wizards10/Fatespinner5/Archmage5 or Rock Gnome Bards6/LyricThaumaturge3/ShadowAdept1/ShadowcraftMage5/SublimeChord5, they may feel a bit unsettled by the new core races/classes changes, and feel a wee bit disappointed. For many players, half the fun is to come up with creative builds. I currently DM a group with epic PCs, and half the group consists of complex builders, while the other half consists of two Cleric21, a Fighter21 and a Monk21, and I will say that the players of these characters are *NOT* jealous of the powers held by the complex builders... in fact, when they hit epic levels, the simple builders get several advantages as they have more relevant feats to their accounts, which lets them meet prereqs for the most powerful epic feats out there (i.e. the complex builders "cashed their chips early" by wasting feats to qualify for their various PrCs, while simple builders, well, built steadily and solidly, resulting in more "epic" heroes down the line)
The boosts you are now giving to the core classes are fine if you stick in level 1-20 campaigns, but they mess the bigger picture a little for gamers more interested in epic levels at this point.
Similarly, boosts to the core races now make the Level Adjustment races even more pathetic than they were before (i.e. with regular elves at +2 INT/DEX, why would ANYONE still go for the LA+4 winged Avariel, and even the LA+2 Drow, for that matter?)
My two coppers, of course, and I will add that I am a proud Paizo customer and will stick with you guys from here on end: your decision to stick with 3.5, despite the minor differences shown in the Pathfinder RPG download, are making me happy beyond belief! (because as a DM, even if my players still use the 'old 3.5', your adventures will still be compatible with our campaign!)
|
|
You would be a few points under a "high strength" figher, but if you're spending a feat on combat expertise instead of power attack, cleave, etc, then you're not building a max damage character anyway.
Exactly. I know that most partys breathe a sigh of relief when the fighter can dish good amounts of damage, but face it, some players don't like this kind of character.
The high INT fighter will have loads of unusual tactics (disarm, trip, high AC when using Combat Expertise, etc.), but he won't be able to fill the role of a 'true' party fighter. For that reason, I try to gently push such PCs to take rogue levels (to make up for low damage via sneak attack) and go for Two-Weapon fighting. There's also the fact that at high levels, the high INT fighter becomes more important (both because of his better skills and because his unusual fighting techniques and feats will serve better in the, let's face it, archmage bodyguard role - because let's be honest here: by level 16+, the damage expert in the part is the mage.
Similarly, boosts to the core races now make the Level Adjustment races even more pathetic than they were before (i.e. with regular elves at +2 INT/DEX, why would ANYONE still go for the LA+4 winged Avariel, and even the LA+2 Drow, for that matter?)
well let me say this .Eyeball it and adjust the LA as you see fit.Let me pull our my races of faerun and have a look see.
avariel get a total of +8 on ability's and -2 .+4 on perception and acrobatics.and flight of 50' I would peg em at ECL 2Drow still look ECL 2
Look guys A fighter will never be as good as a wizard ,or a cleric or a druid. thats not the point the point is he is a none magic class. he don't have to be as good as magic users if he was he would need magic and then he is not a fighter any longer.the alpha is great the fighter should be great at NON MAGIC death dealing he's not a caster. classes should not be all balanced to one another if they where why not have just once class its all the same right.
Well, I'm sure these changes will be labeled as a power-creep, but in many cases if you bring an option closer to par with another, is that really a power creep?
Take the fighter, bard, and Monk. Nobody has to play these characters and in comparison right now you can make more powerful choices in Barbarian, wizard, and rogue just for example.
Now do bringing these characters closer to par with the other characters really represent a power creep? Per class it's a creep, but looking at the game as a whole I would say it's not.
I think it's important to look at new options in relation to similar options that already exist in the game to see if it's truthfully a creep in power. In many cases it will be, but in many cases it won't.
Look guys A fighter will never be as good as a wizard ,or a cleric or a druid. thats not the point the point is he is a none magic class. he don't have to be as good as magic users if he was he would need magic and then he is not a fighter any longer.the alpha is great the fighter should be great at NON MAGIC death dealing he's not a caster. classes should not be all balanced to one another if they where why not have just once class its all the same right.That makes absolutely no sense at all. I'm not being facetious. Your point lacks clarity.
Ok . let me see if I can make more sence.
1 A fighter will never be as good as a wizard ,or a cleric or a druid.they wont and they should not be.
2 he don't have to be as good as magic users if he was he would need magic and then he is not a fighter any longer.
seems every ones wants then to be as good at people using magic to be good. sword vs. maximized fireball we all know how that goes.
3 the fighter should be great at NON MAGIC death dealing he's not a caster.
kinda self explaining there.a fighter is not a warblade. he is not a duskblade.he is not a hex blade. he is joe avage that is good at making things die with pieces of metal.over time he becomes better but still he is someone who uses skill and traning not magic .
4 classes should not be all balanced to one another if they where why not have just once class its all the same right.
Like I said a wizard and a fighter are not the same in combat. a cleric an a fighter are not the same in combat. a druid and a fighter are not the same in combat. a rouge and a fighter are not the same in combat.
each have there own skills. does the wizard need nerfed just because a fighter cant do as much damge as a prepared mage?
does the rogue need nerfed because he has sneak attack and can sometimes out damage a fighter?
why not make every one fighters and not have classes that way no one can be better at anything then some one else.
My point is a fighter does not need to become what he is not.
|
|
I'm too lazy to read all the back posts in this thread, but on the topic of power creep, there's been dramatic power creep just in the base WotC books alone.
take a look at the feeble Prestige classes offered in the DM's guide, and then compare them to more recent prestige classes in, say, Complete Mage or Complete Scoundrel.
A great example is the Unseen Seer or Spellwarp Sniper: Compare them to the old Arcane trickster, and you can see clearly how the power levels of classes have been creeping along since early 3.5.
This isn't a bad thing though; the shift to eliminate dead levels has been slow and gradual, but it's only been seen in the evolution of prestige classes under WotC. The base classes have remained static, and have been slowly and steadily losing appeal.
Some of the "stacking" feats that let you advance some features of two classes at the same time have helped; I've got a lot of player in my game running multi-class swashbuckler/rogues or scout/rangers, and they have no plans of ever taking a prestige class. The fact that that's what it takes to make players stick with one or more base classes might be a good indicator of some under-powered stuff.
Jason thanks for comeneting on this thing I hope you will make a complete conversion chart for us to convert our 3.5 WOC products to Pathfinder (mostly the mosters)
Just what I was asking for elsewhere. Glad to find another who feels the same.
Yes, by all means, power creep the fighter. Give him more options, more skills, more to do at high levels. My experience of the melee build has been that it's very masochistic: stay in the front, let people beat on you, wait for the artillery spells to evaporate or tie up your enemy, then have the cleric complain at how your injuries are nerfing their powers and have the wizard whine about your bloodied body got in the way of him casting a juicy area of effect spell. And as an added bonus, you're more likely to die, because you face more attacks than anyone else in the party.
But why, for all that is holy, would you power creep the wizard?
ever read howard man . Conan didn't fight magic unless he had no choice he often ran away .I do think fighters need some love but I keep hearing make them like warblades over and over .but thats not a fighter . give them feats or something I just myself don't want to see a mage/fighter as the core fighter.I also keep hearing make everyone weaker so the fighter can keep up. the fighter will never be as good as a wizard at mass damage a high level wizard should be able to make army's tremble thats a common fantasy therm to.But a skilled fighter up close should be able to do some damage .
|
|
ever read howard man . Conan didn't fight magic unless he had no choice he often ran away .I do think fighters need some love but I keep hearing make them like warblades over and over .but thats not a fighter . give them feats or something I just myself don't want to see a mage/fighter as the core fighter.I also keep hearing make everyone weaker so the fighter can keep up. the fighter will never be as good as a wizard at mass damage a high level wizard should be able to make army's tremble thats a common fantasy therm to.But a skilled fighter up close should be able to do some damage .
I support this statement.
I'm personally of the beleif that at high levels the mage should be the aggregate damage character, through area of effects and such.
But I also think that fighter and barbarian should be the two last classes you EVER want to spend a full round focusing on you. A full attack, or offensive full round action, from a top level fighter should be terrifying.
Look at all the other paradigms of high level (15+). The mage is literally bending reality. The cleric is restoring life to people who's bodies were destroyed. The rogue is capable of hiding, in your own bedroom, so well that you will never find him no matter how long you look. The monk can stop your heart from a hundred miles away with a thought, and all he had to do was touch you. Even the barbarian can increase his own strength to such a degree that he can now nearly carry twice as much weight, if not more.
What does the fighter get? I will admit, he gets hit points, but so does every other D10 and D12 hit die class.
Personally, while I like the fighter capstone ability, I'd almost like to see them get an ability similar to the rogue's. Something like: Fighter takes a full round action, makes an attack roll. If it hits, he does normal damage (and he can crit as well, if the roll was good enough). Additionally, the target must make a save (DC 20+Str Mod) or be killed/destroyed outright, regardless of creature type or crit/death effect immunity. (Maybe +2,3,or 4 to the DC if the crit confirms, based on weapon crit multiplier or such)
A 20th level fighter should be able to do more than just take blows that would normally level buildings. He should be able to deliver them as well. Just my opinion.
Unless they some how produce a larger number of feats that makes a person with a high INT, not many fighter types are going to place their best stat into INT. They have too much to worry about, such as strength, con, and dex, to bother putting an extremely high stat in there. Even Wisdom is often more sought after before int, because of the higher will save bonuses, as well as spot and listen checks (in the past at least).Combat expertise are now restricted to wizards and rouges.how so?
That's not a "restriction"... I can have a fighter with a high INT just as easily as having a wizard with a high STR.
I really wanted to post this as a separate topic but couldn't figure out how to do that.
1. On page 7, humans have lost there extra skill points. Was this deliberate or an oversight?
alpha does not use skill points you get a number of skills . and a new skill every even level
2. A number of the basic classes are missing, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, and Sorcerer. I am espically interested in the Sorcerer class.
they will be in later releases next in a few weeks.
3. On page 32, Combat Expertise has Intelligence bonus as the one to use. I would think that this should be Wisdom bonus as the feat appears to me (IMHO) as an intuitive ability. Also, intelligence is used for skills.
I kinda like it as Int fight smarter not harder and all that.
4. On page 9, Table 4-1, I was wondering why 2nd and 3rd levels have 300 points at the back and why these levels aren't even 1,000s. Also, the progression starts out similar to the regular 3.5 progression and later (level 7) and beyond become more expensive. Why?
well they cant use the chart. and they monster have more xp trust me it evens out. oh and I love the old school feel of the xp charts
5. On page 6, half-orcs have lost their -2 chariama adjustment. Why? Also, since they are half something else, why not give them a +2 to one ability score of their choice at character creation to represent their varied nature? If you don't want them to end up with a +4 to their strength or wisdom, limit that additional +2 to any ability other than strength or wisdom.
well the +2+2-2-2 never made any sence at all really and I myself like the +2 to wisdom.
|
There is just this one topic which is bothering me: What about the monsters? I just read again that according to Jason certainly monster conversions will be required. And considering that any DM usually needs considerably more monsters than (N)PCs...
Looking at all the fine 3.5 monsters in PF, ToH, CC (to name just a few), I'd feel even more sad if those could be used only after a major conversion effort. I never met many problems using 3.0 monsters in 3.5 campaigns. Will it be that easy with 3.5 monsters in PRPG?
Cheers,
Günther
I don't understand how beefing up monsters slightly with a couple feats, some hps or an ability is any different than what is going on now. If I put a CR10 up against my 10th level party it is usually a horribly one-sided affair with the monster sometimes not doing anything to the party. If I max out HP and toss in some DR they may last an extra round. I have 2 powergamers/min-maxers, 2 normal gamers and 1 guy who is in between.
Usually I have to toss a CR13 at them just to make a decent fight, and they took down an EL of 15 when they were 9th level without any PC death. I am a good DM and I know how to work monsters.All the fine 3.5 monsters can't fight the Spell Compendium, Complete Series, and Races of books. They don't compare.
I am hoping that PRPG has a simple method to upgrade existing monsters for play.
I would actually hope they release an updated Monsters book or three along with ways to convert existing monsters.
Most of the changes made to the rules up to this point are designed to add a bit of power to the base classes, at the point where many would start looking into clearly superior pclass or other base class options. I do not feel that this unduly adds power to a class, rather it brings it up to par with the one of the current most popular paths (1 base class for 2 levels, 1 base class for 3 levels, prestige class for 1 level, etc).
Many of the power changes are universal as well, meaning that they apply to some of the non-core classes (increased HD, feats, skills). If you really boil it down to basics, the core classes only got a few select upgrades here and there, nothing too dramatic. In some cases, these abilities outright replaced others (domains for example) netting little in the way of change.
Against monsters and existing material, you really can run it as is for the most part. The characters have a bit more staying power to continue adventuring longer, but the challenges are just as dangerous. Most of the add ons are still just options, you still only have 1 standard action per round, and the damage curves were not altered.
Just thought I would toss out some of the thoughts going on behind the scenes. Keep up the comments though, I am listening.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I agree with JB fully on this! I've already started playtesting the new rules and my group's doing another session this Saturday. As a DM, I've seen little in the way of problems, other than minor things here and there, (Note: some of which has already been fixed with the 3 page update that just got released.), but nothing on such a large scale as to suggest that Paizo's going in the wrong direction with this.
As for all of you concerned about the feat increase, I'd like to pose a simple question to you. Have any of you actually tried it out? From my experience it doesn't really mess up the balance of the game. Just give it a chance, and I think you'll see what I'm talking about here.
For about the past two years, I've been using an alternate feat/ability point distribution system that was presented on the WOTC website awhile back as someone's own house rules. (Can't remember the article though, ask Forgottenprince if you're interested, he always remembers things like that.) Basically, it gives a feat every odd level and an ability point every even level. (Note: to balance this take the ability tomes & manuals out of the game.) This system has always worked out fine in all of my campaigns.
On a side note JB, I am a little worried about the additional skill pick up as is for the rogue. By 20th level a rogue who started with an 18 in Int will have 22 skills. Now don't get me wrong, I like the idea of gaining skills as you progress, as it allows for characters to pick up storyline related skills, but might I suggest that you set it to once every four levels and place ability points every even level instead.
|
|
I don't understand how beefing up monsters slightly with a couple feats, some hps or an ability is any different than what is going on now. If I put a CR10 up against my 10th level party it is usually a horribly one-sided affair with the monster sometimes not doing anything to the party. If I max out HP and toss in some DR they may last an extra round. I have 2 powergamers/min-maxers, 2 normal gamers and 1 guy who is in between.
Usually I have to toss a CR13 at them just to make a decent fight, and they took down an EL of 15 when they were 9th level without any PC death. I am a good DM and I know how to work monsters.
All the fine 3.5 monsters can't fight the Spell Compendium, Complete Series, and Races of books. They don't compare.
I am hoping that PRPG has a simple method to upgrade existing monsters for play.
I would actually hope they release an updated Monsters book or three along with ways to convert existing monsters.
Ditto. The various CR values are in sore need of a re-haul, especially for mid/high level range creatures that are encountered as singles.
Some of them can hold their own, others are teh suck without a decent enough meatshield or flanker companion.Regarding the power creep issue, I really don't see it, at least in the actual alpha rules. Granted, there's a hefty rebalance of the core classes and their associated powers, but I didn't see anything blatantly broken - as opposed to quite a number of alternative core classes in the WotC splatbooks - excluding the skills problem and the unlimited wish for generalist wizards (both of them already taken in consideration by the community).
Moreover, some changes apply to creatures too (eg. the faster feats progression), and the feeling I got is more of a richer options basic frame of rules, which I really like.
That said, I'll keep using some house rules for armor and HPs values as I like a grittier style of play than the standard "heroic sword&sorcery" one, unless in the future releases of the alpha/beta rules we see the Paizo approach to these.
Ok . let me see if I can make more sence.
1 A fighter will never be as good as a wizard ,or a cleric or a druid.they wont and they should not be.
This is the worst game design advice that I have ever seen, bar none. You sir, win one internets for having produced a post of such epic fail that if we did not know in advance that you were serious, we would be forced to assume that you were kidding.
D&D has a system for measuring power. We call it "level." A weaker character is lower level, rather than being a different class. Fighters and Barbarians should not be less powerful than Wizards and Clerics of their level, they should be weaker than Wizards and Clerics of higher level.
Now Lichcraft is only available to Wizards and Clerics, not to Fighters and Barbarians. If you want to tell me that the assumed world should have more Wizards and Clerics who are high level and more Fighters and Barbarians who are low level - I'm fine with that. But if you want to tell me that we should have to keep track of different power levels for different character concepts over and above their level, I remain totally unsold on your frankly terrible ideas.
-Frank
Frank man you missed the point.a wizard of equal level to a fighter will out damage him. Sure a fighter should be damned good at killing ,but a wizard can always kill more over a larger area.My post was directed at the whole fighters should be warblade like magic using damage dealers.It is ok not to be able to do what a wizard does.I want my fighters to be well fighters they will never out damage a wizard but they should be able to do there own thing with out worrying over that.Lets go back to Conan he couldn't out damage a wizard was not as good at massive killing .but he was a god of bladed death and that is a fighter, hes a being of physical power of strength speed and physical skill . he will never be as powerful as a wizard but give him the the right moves and get him close and see who dies.
Also I wasn't meaning it to sound like I wanted 2 power systems .
I just don't want the fighter to be a mystic damage dealer just to try and keep up. I didn't word it very well it seems.the fighter should have his own things. non-magic trick and ability's not magic power ups like TOB.
Uhm, I didn't mention specific sources for a reason. We can trade examples all day -- but that doesn't add to the point. If you choose to ignore the obvious Fantasy sources where the fighter is a fearsome character in his own right, then you're simply being stubborn for the sake of winning an internet argument and not interested in a dialogue.
LOL I have made a good a point as you have.My point was the same as yours really just stated it in a different way.Fighters should be fearsome fighters,not wizard want a be's.that was my point there not gonna be the same.wizards are fearsome and so are fighters but not the same way.A fighter should be powerful and fearsome without having to dip into magic so many seem to want.You and a few others missed my point But it's cool were all here because we like the game .You have you ideal I have mine and I can respect yours.
Seriously, wtf? I never proposed that fighters should be wizard wannabes. You're the one that brought that up, and then tried (even now) to ascribe that view to me so that you could then refute it. That is a convenient way to win an argument, but it's certainly intellectually dishonest.
cerion I never once said you did. what I said was my first post was in response to hearing that over and over . I think thats where the error is here.you think I ment what I did not go back and read my posts man.Your agreeing with me over stuff that was never ment for you.dont worry with it man let it go for now somehow we got really screwed up in what we were trying to say your takeing what I said in a way I never ment it.Now we can drop this or we can just let it go .Its at the point now that were not even talking about the same things it seems.
Let me stat one more time I did not mean this the way you took it. If you would like to start this conversation over i would be happy to do so and try to be clear but it should be in another thread were kinda distracting away from this one.