Hello, all. I stumbled upon Pathfinder yesterday, and I have to say, I’m very impressed and excited! I was tremendously disappointed by 4e but also rather annoyed with the number of house rules I felt I had to drag around to make 3.5 as good as can be, so it’s really nice to see it all integrated together like this. That said, much as I like the changes, there are some I have suggestions/criticisms regarding. I decided to do it page-by-page, and it ended up coming out to this. I know it’s rather a lot, but for every change I took issue with here, there are at least two or three that I really like.
Anyway, let’s begin:
Pg 7: Charisma should not be physical attractiveness. Leave that up to the player. Perhaps there could be an “Attractive” feat for players that want to stress it, but it doesn’t really make sense in a slew of cases for the stat itself to equal hotness. Also, Charisma should have a built-in bonus other than adding to skills (but I already have a thread on this: ).
Pg 8-9: Dwarves. They need to be streamlined a bit. They just have too, too many abilities, and it seems inelegant. Specifically, I’d ditch “Hatred” and “Defensive Training.” The same for gnomes, too.
Pg 10: Half-orc: Orc Ferocity: I’d take away the “once per day” thing, as if they get knocked before 0 twice in one day, they probably deserve the extra round (perhaps once per encounter?). Also, I’m not convinced the half-orc is balanced yet. The reason they were so much less spectacular than the other races in 3.5 was because +2 to strength was deemed just too good. However, +2 to Int is probably better for a Wizard than +2 to Str is for a melee character, and more to the point, Humans and Half-elves could put their +2 into Str if they wanted. Upshot: half-orcs need a little more love.
Pg 12: Barbarian Rage. Love the change, but it might be worthwhile to state that barbarians above 1st level get (2 + Con mod)*Barb level + 2 rage points. Also, it might be nice for there to be a way for a barbarian to psyche himself up and regain some of these rage points, possibly with a feat.
Pg 14-15: Rage abilities: Clear Mind should be Ex, I don’t think Elemental Rage makes much sense, Low-Light Vision is probably only worth 1 point, Renewed Vigor seems like it should have a use cap and doesn’t need to be supernatural (while HP does partially represent physical damage, 1d8+Con mod at 6th level isn’t enough to require the points healed to equal physical damage), and Terrifying Howl definitely shouldn’t be supernatural. Finally, Mighty Rage should probably only cost 3 rage points per turn, though honestly, I don’t see a problem with both rage improvements being free.
Also, there should be a feat that gives the Barbarian extra rage points.
Pg 16: I love the Bard picture. As for the mechanics, I liked Bardic Knowledge as it was, what was wrong with it?
Pg 20: Uhhhh, Deadly Performance is way, way too good. Performance checks can get really, really high, and I just don’t see how anyone except maybe a Cleric or Druid will have a high enough Will save to have a decent chance to not keel over. I mean, it’s going to be *at least* 1d20 + 26 (read: 36.5 average), and most people probably won’t have a much higher Will save than +15, if that.
Pg 24: Not a critique so much as a suggestion: perhaps druids could also choose to form a Nature Bond with a specific location instead? More useful for NPCs, but it would be cool if , for example, the party came up against a druid in her glade and wished they had lured her out of it first.
Pg 27: I dunno, but it just seems to me that the Fighter needs just a little bit more, especially now that feats are more common. Maybe more fighter-specific feats would do it.
Pg 30: It isn’t totally clear that he can’t spend, say, 2 ki points to get 2 extra attacks, or 15 ki points to get 15 attacks. I think it’s pretty obvious what the intention is, but an extra sentence to nail it down could avoid confusion. Also, ½ monk level rounded down or rounded up? Finally, I don’t think Slow Fall is so powerful that it should have the additional requirement of being within arm’s reach of a wall. It would be pretty cool, actually, if he never takes damage if he’s within arms reach, and can fall the listed distance in freefall before he risks taking damage.
Pg 31: Abundant Step is cool, but I’d rather it could only move the monk Close Range away at caster level = monk level.
Paladin: I was kinda disappointed that it didn’t follow the trend of giving classes X points to spend and keeping the Smite Evil uses separate from Lay On Hands. I guess it kinda makes sense, but still
(Also, in the final release, my hope is that the Paladin description will be careful to oust the “detect *THUMP*” paladin as a fraud and charlatan.)
Pg 32: Divine Bond: It’s a tad unclear what “bonus” means, as well as whether or not, say, Flaming and Holy cost the same number of points. I can infer that that’s what the section’s trying to say, but it isn’t totally self-evident. Also, there isn’t actually a duration listed (1 minute per Paladin level is technically only the amount of time the weapon glows, since it says nothing about the abilities), and it also doesn’t say anything about whether or not two uses of the ability can stack with one another, in which case a 20th level Paladin could potentially have a +24 weapon for 20 minutes if he blew all 4 uses. Finally, how this interacts with the base weapon’s enhancements is a little unclear: it says “doesn’t stack,” but implies that only enhancement bonuses don’t stack, that you couldn’t turn a +5 weapon into a +10 weapon, but you could turn a normally +5 flaming freezing electric holy weapon into a +5 flaming freezing electric holy brilliant energy speed weapon. This is fine, but it needs to be clearer that that’s what it’s trying to say.
Pg 33: Why not let the Paladin call the mount more than once per day? He can enhance his weapon more than once per day, and frankly, the mount strikes me as less dangerous in general. I don’t even see a problem with letting him call it as often as he wants.
Aura of Resolve: should function on the Paladin even if unconscious.
Pg 34: Aura of Righteousness: should function on the Paladin even if unconscious. Holy Champion: the Paladin should be able to choose whether or not to banish the outsider.
Pg 36: It would be nice to be able to play a spell-less ranger.
Pg 37: Hunter’s Bond: neither bond functions for a solo ranger, which is unfortunate since if any class lends itself to the antisocial personality type, it’s the ranger. Maybe the hunter could choose to be really good with poison? Or trapping? Or even better at hiding? I dunno, something.
Pg 38: It’s a little unclear exactly who sneak attack affects and who it doesn’t. I take it zombies still don’t have to worry about it, but it looks like it requires a DM call.
Also, it would be really nice if there were an option for a sneak-attack-less rogue.
Pg 39-41: Certain Rogue talents should be able to be taken multiple times. Combat Trick should certainly be ok, and the same goes for Minor Magic, Major Magic, (either 2 extra times per day, or another spell) and Resiliency (use it more times per day). The same goes for Improved Talents: Defensive Roll (more times per day), Opportunist (more times per round), and Feat. Also, Skill Mastery should give her 3 + int bonus number of skills, so if her Int goes up or down after taking this, it changes the number of skills she can take 10 on.
Pg 42: Ah, the Sorcerer, my old friend. How long and hard I’ve argued to make you better.
Let me give you a little history: over on the WotC boards a few years ago, the chic thing to do was post a Sorcerer fix. It seemed more people wanted to do that than everything else combined. Anyway, when the smoke cleared, it seemed to me that there were four main problems with the Sorcerer:
1. Staggered spellcasting. You know, how all the real casters get the new spell level at caster level (2*spell level -1), but sorcerers have to wait that extra level. It’s arbitrary and unnecessary, so remove it.
2. Too few spells known. One more spell known per spell level gives them enough chutzpah to get along. The bonus spells from bloodlines help, but first, they shouldn’t be even further staggered, and really, I think the bloodline abilities are enough by themselves to get it across that sorcerers get their power from their genes. Also, 6 spells per day is much more than they need, so it’s ok to drop it to 5/day, or even 4.
3. Metamagic time increase. Also arbitrary, also unnecessary. Let the sorcerer be good at metamagic out of the box, it won’t break anything. At the very least, let them finally use Quicken spell.
4. Material components and scroll use. They really just don’t make sense for the sorcerer. They should have to be trained in Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft at least before they can use Scrolls. Since Pathfinger doesn’t have XP costs, I don’t see how we can remove pricey material components, but it would be cool if there were some way. I dunno.
Also, we found that giving sorcerers a slightly altered Thematic Spell (from Magic of Faerun) was a great way of making each one distinctive. For those of you without an obscure 3.0 Faerun book, Thematic Spell basically means all the sorcerer’s spells have a similar *ahem* theme (like darkness or tiny flying skulls), or something happens to the sorcerer’s appearance when he casts (ie electricity crackling, floats off the ground an inch, clothes float, eyes glow, etc etc). He also added +1 caster level to ½ Sor level spells.
Anyway, those are my suggestions towards fixing the Sorcerer.
Pg 43: Abyssal level 1: pretty much useless. When is it ever a good idea for a Sorcerer to go into melee combat? Same with 9th level.
Pg 45: Celestial Wings: there’s no listed action to activate this. It’s Su, so I suppose it’s a Standard Action, but it should probably be stated here too. Ascension: if the Sorcerer has tongues, he should be allowed to swap it out for free. Within Reach: As a bigger change, I’d suggest making all save-or-die effects merely drop you to -9 hit points and falling. With that change made, though, Within Reach would need to be made a little better. Destiny Realized: just make all critical threats against the sorcerer automatically fail (it’s simpler, not much more powerful, and doesn’t actually grant immunity).
Pg 46: Claws: Also useless. Breath Weapon: this would be cooler if it was ½ caster level and instead useable once per hour / once per minute / once every 1d4 rounds.
Pg 48: Incorporeal form: also doesn’t have a use listed, and probably should. One of Us: it gives you leeway re: appearance, but I don’t see any harm in tossing out a few more suggestions on how it might manifest.
Pg 49: So… a bonded object is basically +1 spell slot? But any spell the wizard has in his spell book, right? Or does “any spell the wizard knows” refer to spell mastery-ed spells? Also, specialist wizards should take a -1 caster level to all non-specialist-school spells (with Universal being tuned down a bit, consequently).
Finally, Sorcerers and Wizards were fine with a d4 hit die. Standardization of hit dice is nice, but not super important, particularly since Barbarians break it anyway.
Pg 52: I’m torn on whether or not to add Climb and Swim together. On the one hand, they clearly represent very different things. On the other hand, they aren’t really powerful enough to justify keeping apart. My inclination is to bite the bullet and add them. Other than that, I like the changes.
Pg 62: Perception (Scent) looks too easy to me. Maybe it’s just that I have a terrible sense of smell, but I’d think it should be +1 per foot rather than per ten feet.
Pg 68: Arcane Strike: Would be nice to be able to burn spell slots to add to attack and damage.
Pg 70: Cleave: I never had a problem with it before. It was just a fun feat for the fighter. (Same comment with Great Cleave later).
Pg 76: Channel Energy: Should probably only heal half the amount of damage it deals.
Pg 77-8: Grapple: looks good, but also has a lot of “if-then” statements, which are tricky to run.
Pg 81-2: Abjuration: I like Protective Ward, but would like it a whole lot more if it were what the specialist ability were based on. Like, it starts giving more and more bonuses as the wizard goes up in level. Maybe it gives a bonus to saves as well and energy resistance and spell resistance/immunity or something.
Also, with respect to all of these Specializations, the spells definitely shouldn’t be spell-likes. If it has a pricey material component, they should have to pay it just like normal.
I’m not going to comment on the Cleric domains, largely because clerics don’t interest me, and that’s a lot of information to go through. On a skim, though, it mostly looks ok.
Pg 100: Breath of Life: The healing shouldn’t be able to bring someone above 0 HP, and it should be able to fix death effects (setting the person at 0 HP). Also, good clerics should be able to spontaneously lose a 5th level slot to use this.
Pg 101: Darkness and Deeper Darkness: Aww, I really liked that darkness spells shut down darkvision. It was one of the funnest parts about them! At least let deeper darkness do it…
Pg 104: Find the Path: Why not just make it easy to counter this spell? I mean, the only problem with it is that it makes the concept of “lost city” absurd, right? Maybe the spell works through a sympathetic connection to maps, so if there isn’t a map to the place, it can’t get you there (uncommon/rare maps might require a check or something, and you only get a vague direction or something).
Pg 117-8: Slay Living: Um… it just deals damage, so the title is a total misnomer.
Pg 118-9: Wish: Inherent bonuses shouldn’t take away from one ability score, nor should you need to cast them in immediate succession.
Pg 142: Just to check, is magical item creation the same, except no XP cost?
Allright, that’s it. I’m sure there are other problems, but I tried to limit myself to aspects of the game I feel I have a good hold on. Thank you!
holy cr@p...wish I had that kinda time...Excellent points!
Hey, thanks for posting. I had the same reaction to 4e and Pathfinder - I'd started editing my house rules into the SRD when I found pathfinder.
The beta is off getting printed, and I hope that a number of things similar to your suggestions were incorporated into it.
As of Alpha 3, magical item creation is the same but no XP costs. Except staves, which I think are better off as lower-charge rechargeable items.
for.. All of it.
Please, *please* -please- play test before you go and post this kinda stuff.
Off the cuff "gee that could be better" comments are nearly worthless.
PLENTY of 3.0 and 3.5 stuff LOOKED ok but was either hideously underpowered or overpowered in actual game play.
I am not griping or complaining at you, I'm merely making a suggestion that you actually give some of the things you have complained about, a shot in an actual game.
I mean, c'mon.. If it was as easy as eyeballing it, Jason and Erik would have had a rewrite printed in final version for us to use by now.
-S
for.. All of it.
Please, *please* -please- play test before you go and post this kinda stuff.
Off the cuff "gee that could be better" comments are nearly worthless.
But perhaps not entirely. And you could have put that a little more nicely. My tone has hardly been acerbic.
PLENTY of 3.0 and 3.5 stuff LOOKED ok but was either hideously underpowered or overpowered in actual game play.
Hey, speak for yourself. Many of the problems I eyeballed in 3.5 ended up being, well, problematic.
I am not griping or complaining at you, I'm merely making a suggestion that you actually give some of the things you have complained about, a shot in an actual game.
I plan to. If I ever get the short campaign I was gonna run over the summer off the ground, it'll be with Pathfinder rules, and as long as the beta doesn't go off the deep end, I'll be using it for the year-long Eberron campaign I'm booting up in the fall. At the same time, though, what's the harm in trying to find problem spots first? After all, it's just words. If they make sense, they might stick. If they don't, then they won't.
|
Yah, there is value in actual playtesting - but there is a certain amount of being able to just detect when something may or may not work right out of the box. You need to have these first-look issues in order to know what you'd like to make sure you playtest later on.
Sometimes it's just an obvious problem. Heck, if just playtesting it would have solved all of our issues with 4e we wouldn't even have Pathfinder, right? :)
Anyway, BlaineTog, good list. As is usual, though, nobody will agree with all of your points - some, for sure, lots, maybe... but never all. :) It definitely shows a thorough reading of the material, though - which is more than some people have done who complain about very small changes that have been made.
If I can find the time I wouldn't mind going through your list and seeing how I feel about the same things.
The problem is that in this phase of the program off the cuff "that doesn't work" comments Are nearly worthless. You are basically coming on here after having read the material once or twice, maybe three times- you did say you had received it only the day before- and that having done so you see several glaring issues that need to be fixed, without ever having play tested a single thing.
I understand that you didn't necesarily mean to come across that way, but to me- you did. I didn't mean you any insult in my post, yet you seem to have read it in there as well. I even specifically said that I wasn't griping at you or anything, merely giving you a suggestion.
There are alot of things in 3.5 that seemed wrong when they came out. The Warlock for one, the Mystic Theurge for another. People shot those down right out of the gun. Until they were play tested. Then folks found that they were mediocre at best, and even if tweaked to the max they tended to be just on par with the rest of the group. Hardly the over powered monsters they appeared to be.
I intentionally didn't go down your list and type out "yes" or "no" because it would have been meaningless. Jason and the others apparently think enough of what they wrote to have published it. Yours, or mine, or any one else's compiled list of "I read what you did and you are wrong" really doesn't help anything. What they need to "fix" the game are the informed observations of play testers.
Once again I will state that I do not mean you any offense by this post. If you take such then there isn't much I can really do about it. All I am suggesting is that instead of reading the rules and posting about them, that you instead play test them and Then post your findings. The findings of your play test can be evaluated by others and your findings can be recreated and examined. Your opinions on a one day read through of the material isn't nearly so useful to the community as a whole.
Welcome to the Paizo boards. I hope to see you around ;)
-S
The problem is that in this phase of the program off the cuff "that doesn't work" comments Are nearly worthless. You are basically coming on here after having read the material once or twice, maybe three times- you did say you had received it only the day before- and that having done so you see several glaring issues that need to be fixed, without ever having play tested a single thing.
I didn't say that. I said that these were things I "took issue with," which was an intentionally vague way of saying "these things look a little off, you might want to double-check 'em." And I usually have good results with first reads.
There are alot of things in 3.5 that seemed wrong when they came out. The Warlock for one, the Mystic Theurge for another. People shot those down right out of the gun.
As I said, speak for yourself, please. I loved the Warlock when it first came out (still do, though it's hardly a CoDzilla) and thought the Mystic Theurge was pretty "meh." I'm not saying I'm infallible or anything, far from it, but I do have a good nose for problem spots.
|
|
Selgard, I don't think your criticisms are particularly warranted, nor helpful. It's great to see posts like this, especially being as well constructed they are. It's up to Jason and the rest of Paizo to determine if they are helpful or not, not you. Please refrain from calling these kind of threads 'worthless', it just comes across poorly.
|
I intentionally didn't go down your list and type out "yes" or "no" because it would have been meaningless. Jason and the others apparently think enough of what they wrote to have published it. Yours, or mine, or any one else's compiled list of "I read what you did and you are wrong" really doesn't help anything. What they need to "fix" the game are the informed observations of play testers.
-S
Sorry but gotta side with BT here.
Your comments are 100% out of line with the attitude of this post.
What I find 100% useless is any of us fans telling someone else what James and Jason need and want.
Playtesting has its uses, but if that were all it took, then we would all be in love with 4E. Einstein formulated his theories with only mind games, and never playtested them himself.
I found the OPs observations very useful and insightful. I did not find any of your responses to be of any use at all.
Now, I don't want to sound rude or nasty here, but honestly your tone made me think you were jealous and were expressing sour grapes rather than contributing anything positive to the dialog. Now I hope that impression was wrong and that you just did not express yourself the way you meant.
That being said, perhaps now we can look at the concerns, so elagently expressed and find ways to imrpove the game.
We're going to be getting a lot of drop-ins as we build up to GenCon, and I expect that the early Beta phase is going to be crazy crazy crazy.
We need to find a way to encourage people to read the threads and playtest - and I think part of that is going to be not jumping on people who don't do that right away. Let Paizo do the sorting of what's important and useful and what's not.
|
One thing that would be helpful would be "whys" to go long with the "whats."
Pg 76: Channel Energy: Should probably only heal half the amount of damage it deals.
Also, with respect to all of these Specializations, the spells definitely shouldn’t be spell-likes. If it has a pricey material component, they should have to pay it just like normal.
Pg 100: Breath of Life: The healing shouldn’t be able to bring someone above 0 HP, and it should be able to fix death effects (setting the person at 0 HP). Also, good clerics should be able to spontaneously lose a 5th level slot to use this.
Pg 118-9: Wish: Inherent bonuses shouldn’t take away from one ability score, nor should you need to cast them in immediate succession.
These four statements in particular stuck out at me as being based, at first glance, on personal preference rather than game play per se. Assuming I'm wrong, can you say why you think these should be other than they are in the Alpha?
I apologize if my post seemed as a "jump on". It was meant more as a "Please go playtest" type post.
-S
Too much said in the original post to really foster and effective discussion. It's like plopping down the encyclopedia britanica, pointing out 40 different items and saying "I don't like these". So since I can't work the whole enchilada I'm going to work a corner of it that I care about.
Pg 1. Staggered spellcasting. You know, how all the real casters get the new spell level at caster level (2*spell level -1), but sorcerers have to wait that extra level. It’s arbitrary and unnecessary, so remove it.Many people have begged for this, Jason has already said this is not going to change.
2. Too few spells known. One more spell known per spell level gives them enough chutzpah to get along. The bonus spells from bloodlines help, but first, they shouldn’t be even further staggered, and really, I think the bloodline abilities are enough by themselves to get it across that sorcerers get their power from their genes. Also, 6 spells per day is much more than they need, so it’s ok to drop it to 5/day, or even 4.
People have been playing sorcerers for some time and having a blast, nor is the class at the bottom of the barrel as far as power goes, mostly the sorcerer just needed a little nudge here and there to dial it in. My feeling is that it's pretty darned close to dialed in Alpha 3, I've also put some time into playing one and the changes are fun.
As far as I'm concerned what you propose is akin to trying to do a little tweaking with a 12 pound sledge when the class really just needs a little nudge here and there.
3. Metamagic time increase. Also arbitrary, also unnecessary. Let the sorcerer be good at metamagic out of the box, it won’t break anything. At the very least, let them finally use Quicken spell.
Jason has indicated he is making quicken work for sorcerer. The rest of meta-magic would be nice but they are definitely covering the important one (quicken).
Also, we found that giving sorcerers a slightly altered Thematic Spell
Feh... cute, cool but really can't we leave this sort of flavor up to the DM and the player?
Pg 43: Abyssal level 1: pretty much useless. When is it ever a good idea for a Sorcerer to go into melee combat? Same with 9th level.
Pg 46: Claws: Also useless. Breath Weapon: this would be cooler if it was ½ caster level and instead useable once per hour / once per minute / once every 1d4 rounds.
Eh... 1st level abilities all kind of suck and are worthless after 3-4th level and that's ok. I've been playing a draconic sorcerer in a 2 player party and the sorcerer just doesn't have much choice but to get his hands dirty a little sometimes. The claws give him 2 attacks per round and they are finessable? Also, the claws are a nice touch for a multi classed sorcerer.
Finally, Sorcerers and Wizards were fine with a d4 hit die. Standardization of hit dice is nice, but not super important, particularly since Barbarians break it anyway.
Well I'm not entirely sold on the d6 either. Combine this with the extra 1HP for favored class and suddenly sorcerers and wizards are averaging 5.5HP/ level. Considering Rogues average 6.5 and fighters 7.5 that's not a very big spread. Constitution is much less important for the typical wizard now.
For the sorcerer I've been testing it's worked out Ok though since he's gotten mixed up in melee enough times to get beaten down a bit.
That said, much as I like the changes, there are some I have suggestions/criticisms regarding. I decided to do it page-by-page, and it ended up coming out to this. I know it’s rather a lot, but for every change I took issue with here, there are at least two or three that I really like....
Thorough and some good points. Many of these have been sited in other posts but alas those are swamped by new posts, which are swamped by newer posts...add infinitum. Since I, as-well-as many of my fellow boardsters, have been griping about both the Sorcerer and to a degree the Fighter, I respect and appreciate your fix ideas. If nothing else, the designers of PF should see, and hopefully acknowledge that there is a sizable outcry for these classes to be fixed, and the need to fix them dates back several years. At least the Bloodlines bring the Sorc closer to something PF unique, yet slightly repaired. The downside is that the Bloodlines are not entirely balanced, but that is fixed easily enough...right game designers?
Here is my Sorcerer rant from a previous post
3.5's Sorcerer became a joke after the introduction of the Warmage...or so I am of the opinion. Looking forward, I still see the Alpha 3 version as the weaker of the 2 arcane mages (particularly at higher levels). I know there are 101 suggestions scattered across 1001 boards about how to make the Sorcerer a better, stand alone class but I don't see the longevity of this class should PF introduce a Warmage-like class down the road, that is of course if your Sorc is to be of the more battle-ready sort (the Wiz obviously not geared in this direction at early levels).
What the Sorcerer needs:
I would change their armor limitations and/or improve their access to a higher AC. Perhaps some Bonus Feat (at an earlier level) for armor use would be nice or they could have their armor selection be Bloodline based as either a Offensive or Defensive choice (since not all players care to have an armored mage). This would allow the player to move their caster into more of a frontlines style player that the Wizard just cannot compete with (at early levels) and could still work with the Bloodlines. It could play nicely into the Sorcerer's gradual augmentation into something uniquely evolved. Say at 3rd level, a Gnome Sorc with the Aberrant Bloodline choses to be a bit less Long in the Limb and more defensive with something like "Slippery Skin" a viscous acidic ooze that provides a +2 to AC and maybe even causes a bit of damage...just an idea. This would require an Offensive and Defensive Bloodline progression selection...sorry authors.
Also, 1d6 claws are nice for a few levels but are fairly useless at say level 15...am I wrong? If you are going to grow claws, have some way to make this body manipulation remain relevant through every level.
1.) Give the sorcerer a +1 bonus to caster level at level 4, and an extra +1 bonus every 4 levels after. (at level 8, 12, 16, and 20)
2.) Give the sorcerer's bloodlines, spell descriptor(s) for each bloodline that gives the sorcerer a +1 bonus to caster level when the sorcerer casts a spell with a matching descriptor as the one (or more) found in their bloodline. This stacks with the caster level bonus found in number 1. (Example: A sorcerer with the Celestial bloodline casts spells with the good descriptor with +1 to caster level, one with the Elemental bloodline: (Air) casts spells with electricity descriptor at a +1 caster level, and so on)
3.) Add a bloodline ability at levels 6, 12, and 18.
And not so much a problem but the level 20 transformation bloodline abilities are typed as supernatural, which means that they can be suppressed. I don't understand why you would revert back to normal just walking into a antimagic field after transforming into part dragon or fey or whatever your bloodline is. I would change them to an extraordinary ability.
There is some nice thinking there BM, well done, I am largely in favor of all of the above ideas. Also, I think it would play nicely in their favor if their Bloodline could manipulate their Known Spells. Like the 3.5 Warlock being able to blast away with Eldritch power, I think the Sorc should be able to tap into their inherent unusual powers within and augment their known spells in a unique fashion as dictated by their Bloodline (Like the Druid's Spontaneous Casting). Again with the above Gnome Sorc, perhaps his/her Aberrant Bloodline would allow some sort of summoning selection (Summon Aberrant Ally) or acidic spell substitute?
Lastly, how to bring back the familiar: Well, don't...but do. Rather than have another class of mage with a wily Raven friend (CAAAH!!!) have them have some pact with something to do with their Bloodline. The Dragon Magic book had a PrC, Pact-Bound Adept, that was a fair example of what I am talking about...or...maybe there can be a Bloodline option or something so that the familiar is optional. I do like the idea of having a familiar, though making the Sorc's critter unique/different from the Wiz's is more appealing than just having another caster with a beastie. Like having a Gnome Sorc with Aberrant Bloodline has some weak bond with Nyarlathotep or Hastor that grows over his/her levels...granting him/her familiar-like bonuses or, an Abyssal Bloodline Sorc having either a link to a lesser Demon that grants bonuses to say intimidate and sometimes can be channeled to make touch attacks would be cool....or having some little spawn of the Abyss as a pet....that would be cool too (Celestial=angel, Draconic=dragon, etc). In this instance the Sorc's familiar would not be always physically present but rather weakly linked in someway or summoned, adding to the mystique of the Sorcerer.
The F
One thing that would be helpful would be "whys" to go long with the "whats."
These four statements in particular stuck out at me as being based, at first glance, on personal preference rather than game play per se. Assuming I'm wrong, can you say why you think these should be other than they are in the Alpha?Pg 76: Channel Energy: Should probably only heal half the amount of damage it deals.
Also, with respect to all of these Specializations, the spells definitely shouldn’t be spell-likes. If it has a pricey material component, they should have to pay it just like normal.
Pg 100: Breath of Life: The healing shouldn’t be able to bring someone above 0 HP, and it should be able to fix death effects (setting the person at 0 HP). Also, good clerics should be able to spontaneously lose a 5th level slot to use this.
Pg 118-9: Wish: Inherent bonuses shouldn’t take away from one ability score, nor should you need to cast them in immediate succession.
For Channel Energy, I dunno, it just seems like the manner in which it is being called lends itself towards destructive rather than healing purposes. It just feels a little weird for it to heal everyone in the area as much as it damages undead. But you're right, this one is more personal preference than many of the others, and it's rather off-the-cuff.
Specializations: if they're spell-likes, they don't have material components. Those material components are there specifically so that the spells aren't cast as often as spells without them, and when cast, the wizard feels it for the rest of the game. By taking them away, you skyrocket the power of the spell (especially in cases like Wish, where you're effectively giving the Wizard a free 25,000 gp per day with just that one ability alone. It also puts spell-likes like that totally out of line with the power lever of other of the spell-likes, whereas otherwise, they're all (ostensibly) the same.
Breath of Life: the spell screams "do over!", which is certainly a good thing, but if that's what it's doing, that's all it should do. To that end, it should also counter save-or-dies, since they're powerful enough without getting a pass here (though perhaps it should only give the recently-deceased a second save against the effect with a bonus equal to the cleric's caster level or something, or a first save if the effect didn't offer one to begin with). As for being able to be cast spontaneously, this spell is the sort of thing you hope you'll never have to use, but at the same time will be so very grateful to have when you do. So, the upshot is that either the cleric wastes one 5th level spell slot every single day for what could be an entire campaign, or he uses that spell slot for something that routinely gives him the spotlight and as a result, when they do need it, someone dies. As-is, it's total scroll-fodder, and that's a real shame.
As for the change to Wish: This encourages digging deeper into dump stats and dropping odd stats one point, neither of which is particularly good for roleplaying. More to the point, a 9th level spell with a 25,000 gp material component is worth +1 to an ability score. Also, having to cast them in succession makes it less fun to use when being able to cast them whenever isn't at all overpowered.
Pg 1. Staggered spellcasting. You know, how all the real casters get the new spell level at caster level (2*spell level -1), but sorcerers have to wait that extra level. It’s arbitrary and unnecessary, so remove it.Many people have begged for this, Jason has already said this is not going to change.
I am not entirely sure who this "Jason" fella is, but from the tone in the boards I take it he is "the Decider." Well Jason I am not entirely sure what inspires the PF designers/deciders to be so dug-in over the Sorcerer's staggered spellcasting but it is one glaringly weak aspect to the Sorc that has always needed changing and seems to be a major reason, in my gaming experience with 3.5, why people do not play Sorcerers over Wizards...or Warmages...or Beguilers...or any other caster for that matter. I hope you will reconsider.
The F
Ok, I think this is a warranted comment. The designers are asking for feedback, section by section, in the appropriate Alpha 3 area. This stuff might be great for discussion, but if you want to get the designers attention, you need to break it down.
If, as you said, your intent was to get everyone else thinking so they can playtest and post it elsewhere, then you are dead on.
EDIT: Also you might want to hold up until the Beta is released. They have already made changes.
Not every ability has to or should be useful all the time. There are worse things than, say, being always armed for purposes of Attacks of Opportunity / resisting grapple attempts. Since natural attacks can be combined with touch spells, these also open up some interesting (if generally still underpowered) tactical considerations...
True, but most of the other bloodline 1st level abilities are useful. With respect to AoOs and resisting grapple, the Sorcerer is going to suck at them anyway. The only thing these claws are going to do is give new players unrealistic expectations of the sorcerer's combat ability.
Many people have begged for this, Jason has already said this is not going to change.
That is unfortunate. I'll just have to house-rule it, I guess.
People have been playing sorcerers for some time and having a blast, nor is the class at the bottom of the barrel as far as power goes, mostly the sorcerer just needed a little nudge here and there to dial it in. My feeling is that it's pretty darned close to dialed in Alpha 3, I've also put some time into playing one and the changes are fun.
As far as I'm concerned what you propose is akin to trying to do a little tweaking with a 12 pound sledge when the class really just needs a little nudge here and there.
The problem is largely that the sorcerer is underpowered in comparison to the wizard, probably moreso now that A) item creation is even better, and B) Wizards get actual class abilities other than spellcasting and feats now. If we wanted to tone both of them down, the end result would be acceptable, but since that's obviously not going to happen, they should at least be on equal footing.
Jason has indicated he is making quicken work for sorcerer. The rest of meta-magic would be nice but they are definitely covering the important one (quicken).
Ok, that's good. Thank you!
Feh... cute, cool but really can't we leave this sort of flavor up to the DM and the player?
Yes and no. We could leave everything up to the DM and the player, if we really wanted. I've found that this works better if it's in there to begin with.
Eh... 1st level abilities all kind of suck and are worthless after 3-4th level and that's ok. I've been playing a draconic sorcerer in a 2 player party and the sorcerer just doesn't have much choice but to get his hands dirty a little sometimes. The claws give him 2 attacks per round and they are finessable? Also, the claws are a nice touch for a multi classed sorcerer.
Most likely, he's still going to be better off with manufactured weapons. And some of them maintain at least some utility: the Destined, Fey, Celestial, and Arcane all maintain utility into the upper levels (Fey's has no saving throw or [mind effecting] tag, if you'll note), and at least the Aberrant Elemental ones don't try to trick the sorcerer into entering melee combat.
Well I'm not entirely sold on the d6 either. Combine this with the extra 1HP for favored class and suddenly sorcerers and wizards are averaging 5.5HP/ level. Considering Rogues average 6.5 and fighters 7.5 that's not a very big spread. Constitution is much less important for the typical wizard now.
Yeah, I'm just really not sure what the point is in standardizing hit dice, especially since there's already an exception (the Barbarian). It seems nice and all, sure, but it's not like hit die was ever hard to remember (and ever if it was, you'd only have to check when leveling the character, and you'll need to check anyway to see what class abilities you gained).
The problem is largely that the sorcerer is underpowered in comparison to the wizard, probably moreso now that A) item creation is even better, and B) Wizards get actual class abilities other than spellcasting and feats now. If we wanted to tone both of them down, the end result would be acceptable, but since that's obviously not going to happen, they should at least be on equal footing.
As far as I can tell the Wizard is about on par with where it was previously. The loss of specialist bonus spells versus SLAs is a toss up as far as Wizard 20 goes but he's not as good at PrCing as he used to be so I'm leaning towards maybe he's even marginally less powerful.
The sorcerer on the other hand is definitely better than in 3.5, the bloodline powers, bonus spells, and feats all add to the sorcerer. These changes keep him solidly in the top 4 as far as class power goes and as far as I'm concerned it's likely the most fun to play which is more important.
Most likely, he's still going to be better off with manufactured weapons. And some of them maintain at least some utility: the Destined, Fey, Celestial, and Arcane all maintain utility into the upper levels (Fey's has no saving throw or [mind effecting] tag, if you'll note), and at least the Aberrant Elemental ones don't try to trick the sorcerer into entering melee combat.
I don't think you can take any single bloodline power alone and hold it up by itself and say "Look this is borked this bloodline sucks", you have to take the bloodline as a whole and compare them. Fey is probably one of the more powerful ones with both laughing touch and the greater invisibility 9th level power. I think the laughing touch is a bit much and several people have pointed it out... we'll see what comes with the beta :)
I don't see why a manufactured weapon would be better than the claws. Two attacks at full BAB, 1d6 that scaled to 1d8+1d6 at higher levels, they even hit creatures that require magic to hit at higher levels. That... and the claws are kind of fun.
Regardless the first level ability is not meant to be very powerful and will likely not be used much past 4th level.
As far as I can tell the Wizard is about on par with where it was previously. The loss of specialist bonus spells versus SLAs is a toss up as far as Wizard 20 goes but he's not as good at PrCing as he used to be so I'm leaning towards maybe he's even marginally less powerful.
No, the wizard has gotten a very distinct boost. The bite of specialization has been almost completelly removed. Before, he had to totally lose two schools forever. Now, he just takes a penalty to spellcraft checks for those two and doesn't get to use his special ability (which he didn't even have before) if he prepares from them. Plus the special abilities, and he gets to choose between a Familiar and a special item (which, if I'm reading it right, gives him one spell-per-day cast like a sorcerer, only obviously he'll have many, many more spells known). And if the spells are actually spell-likes, he just got a massive boost, far and away worth the versatility of extra spell slots
No, the wizard is quite a bit more powerful in Pathfinder. He also gets a better hit die, probably gets bonus hit points for Favored Class (which is, by percentage, a bigger boost to him than most other classes), doesn't have to spend XP for item creation, can easily get +2 to Int from his race, and can deal with the change to how Wish gives Inherent bonuses better than most classes (since he really only needs Int and Con, and really just Int). Oh, and he gets unlimited cantrips per day, which helps him the most at low levels because the wizard has always had the biggest problem with running out of spell slots.
Sure, the Sorcerer is better than 3.5, but so is the Wizard. The change to item creation alone widens the gap by so very much.
No, the wizard has gotten a very distinct boost. The bite of specialization has been almost completelly removed. Before, he had to totally lose two schools forever. Now, he just takes a penalty to spellcraft checks for those two and doesn't get to use his special ability (which he didn't even have before) if he prepares from them. Plus the special abilities, and he gets to choose between a Familiar and a special item (which, if I'm reading it right, gives him one spell-per-day cast like a sorcerer, only obviously he'll have many, many more spells known). And if the spells are actually spell-likes, he just got a massive boost, far and away worth the versatility of extra spell slots.
No, the wizard is quite a bit more powerful in Pathfinder. He also gets a better hit die, probably gets bonus hit points for Favored Class (which is, by percentage, a bigger boost to him than most other classes), doesn't have to spend XP for item creation, can easily get +2 to Int from his race, and can deal with the change to how Wish gives Inherent bonuses better than most classes (since he really only needs Int and Con, and really just Int). Oh, and he gets unlimited cantrips per day, which helps him the most at low levels because the wizard has always had the biggest problem with running out of spell slots.
Sure, the Sorcerer is better than 3.5, but so is the Wizard. The change to item creation alone widens the gap by so very much.
1) The bite of specialization has been removed, but being a specialist is weaker now because the SLAs are worse than a regular spell -- you don't get to pick your SLA and the save is based on Cha, not Int. The SLAs for generalist wizards are a pure power boost, though.
2) Certainly lower-level wizards are more powerful now due to unlimited cantrips, a few extra HP, and a low level "at will" ability. But I doubt a few extra HP and cantrips will make much of a power difference at higher levels though.
3) The super-cheap crafting of the wizard's arcane bond is a bit ridiculous. I don't think eliminating XP costs for item creation makes much difference, but YMMV.
4) However, you also have to take into account that various spells have been nerfed as well. So a 3.5 Core low level conjurer is more powerful than a Pathfinder low level conjurer because his versions of Grease, Web and Glitterdust are so much better.
So I think that low level specialists and generalist wizards of any level are better off, but higher level specialists are slightly worse off.
I also suspect that posting a long point-by-point list of commentary on a variety of topics may not get as much reaction from Jason as an individual thread on a specific topic. :-)
I also suspect that posting a long point-by-point list of commentary on a variety of topics may not get as much reaction from Jason as an individual thread on a specific topic.
I like to see clear comprehensive lists like this with musings and suggestions. It's a lot better than everyone flooding 10 to 30 posts across the boards the first time they give feedback. I myself probably started way too many threads, which went by unnoticed generally.
When Jason reads posts like these and identifies an issue he wants more feedback on, he's likely to start a new thread about it. Like the one about spells. Which reminds me... I should get cracking with those. ;)
I like to see clear comprehensive lists like this with musings and suggestions. It's a lot better than everyone flooding 10 to 30 posts across the boards the first time they give feedback. I myself probably started way too many threads, which went by unnoticed generally.
Don't get me wrong; I sometimes find a list of suggestions and comments interesting, too. But I suspect a thread titled "This Specific Rule Is Broken And Here's Why" that has a hundred reponses saying "I completely agree" will have more weight. I could be wrong, of course.
No, the wizard has gotten a very distinct boost. The bite of specialization has been almost completelly removed. Before, he had to totally lose two schools forever.
First, I have to agree about Pathfinder Wizards not losing much for specialization. On the other hand losing 2 schools of magic has not been a significant penalty for wizards for some time. The vast majority of really useful, effective spells is in 3 schools, the situation started skewed and only got worse.
The other thing you seem to have overlooked is that pre-pathfinder wizards continued getting their specialist bonus spell after they switch to a PrC, under Pathfinder their specialist abilities are stagnent. Considering almost every wizard would PrC at some point in time under 3.5 this is a significant difference.
So while Wizard 20 might be marginally more powerful than before a Wizard+PrC is less powerful under Pathfinder than it was previously and considering most players I know ran Prestige Classes the effect is Wizards are less powerful overall.
Yes they are spell likes however I'm not sure how massive a boost that is. For 1 saving throws DCs for the Spell Likes are significantly lower than Spell DCs.
Everything the wizard gains with regards to arcane bond and crafting magic items also applies to the sorcerer though perhaps it's not quite so much.
Sure, the Sorcerer is better than 3.5, but so is the Wizard. The change to item creation alone widens the gap by so very much.
I don't agree, the changes to the wizard were much more give-and-take while the sorcerer gave up nothing and gained a bunch. Maybe the wizard is more powerful overall but the Sorcerer IMO is closing the gap. Many of the things you mention about the wizard have been brought up before, in particular the fact that specialization has little or no downside. I am hoping that there will be some changes to the Wizard in the beta to reflect these comments... waiting sucks.
Magic items are a much smaller component in my game overall and crafting is just not an issue for my group so any power shift due to magic items is just not going to be a problem for us.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I am not entirely sure who this "Jason" fella is, but from the tone in the boards I take it he is "the Decider." Well Jason I am not entirely sure what inspires the PF designers/deciders to be so dug-in over the Sorcerer's staggered spellcasting but it is one glaringly weak aspect to the Sorc that has always needed changing and seems to be a major reason, in my gaming experience with 3.5, why people do not play Sorcerers over Wizards...or Warmages...or Beguilers...or any other caster for that matter. I hope you will reconsider.
Jason is the guy writing the rulebook, so he's pretty much in charge of the whole thing. As for why staggered spellcasting is pretty much "right out" -- that has to do with backwards compatibility. One of the design goals for Pathfinder is to make it work with existing 3.5 sourcebooks. Changing spell progressions at all means that someone wanting to (for example) run a 3.5 module would need to rebuild the stat block for a Sorcerer, especially if said sorcerer was at an odd level.
Granted, it would be nice, but in the interests of backwards compatibility, I can see why the Paizoans have decided not to change this.
As for why staggered spellcasting is pretty much "right out" -- that has to do with backwards compatibility. One of the design goals for Pathfinder is to make it work with existing 3.5 sourcebooks. Changing spell progressions at all means that someone wanting to (for example) run a 3.5 module would need to rebuild the stat block for a Sorcerer, especially if said sorcerer was at an odd level.
I call shenanigans. You're going to have to re-do the sorcerer's stat block anyway to take into account all the bloodline abilities and the increased hit-die. And what about the changes to the skill system (which affect every class)? Those require minor tweaks of pretty much every other race and class out there (Oh, and virtually all other races need powering up, too). If you have a Barbarian NPC, you have to practically write up a whole new character. The druid's different, too, and you have to deal with Weapons Training for the Fighter (not to mention changing around some of their feats). Oh, and lest we forget, the bard has a different spell progression! Not hugely different, granted, but the difference is there.
You're going to have to re-do most NPC stat blocks if you want them to use Pathfinder classes. Unstaggering the sorcerer's casting isn't really all that much more work.
The point is that you can still walk some players through a 3.5 module with their PFRPG characters without redoing everything.
If you feel that every last little thing create as a DM, and everything that appears in your games has to go by the RAW, and has to use the exact same system as the PCs then fine. But you're just making unnecessary work for yourself. Not everyone worries that much about the small details.
This is completelly inconsistent with the reasoning given for not unstaggering the sorcerer's spell progression. I'm not saying I would worry about the details. I'm saying that if you do go through the trouble of updating, unstaggering the sorcerer doesn't add an appreciable amount to the already staggering amount of work you'll have to do, and if you leave the stats as they are, then unstaggering doesn't change anything anyway. Either way, the argument that "unstaggering the sorcerer makes the game less backwards compatible" holds no water whatsoever.
For prewritten modules you are probably better off using whatever stat block is in the module regardless. 3.5 NPCs won't be as powerful as PfRPG NPCs but the difference isn't huge.
Step back for a second and really look at all the upgrades the sorcerer has gotten in Pathfinder. Just focus on the Bloodline you think is the most powerful, don't just think about it, pull it up and look at the page.
Now, that is a fistful of changes and all improvements. I don't believe the sorcerer is getting the short stick here. Are these changes going to bring the sorcerer into parity with the wizard and the cleric? Probably not. Personally I feel the changes are reasonable, they add flavor and they bring the power up significantly. As far as I'm concerned trying to boost it more is being greedy.
We are 11 months from when the final product will be put in the can and sent to the printer. Let's put some serious time into actually playing the class and then we can argue about it after we have some time behind the wheel so to speak. I have some testing in but it's all been low level so I haven't taken many of the class features for a spin yet.
|
Pg 7: Charisma should not be physical attractiveness. Leave that up to the player. Perhaps there could be an “Attractive” feat for players that want to stress it, but it doesn’t really make sense in a slew of cases for the stat itself to equal hotness. Also, Charisma should have a built-in bonus other than adding to skills (but I already have a thread on this: ).
Physical attractiveness isn’t CHA, but it is a component of CHA. If anything it’s so important, there should be a 7th attribute for it alone.
Pg 38: It’s a little unclear exactly who sneak attack affects and who it doesn’t. I take it zombies still don’t have to worry about it, but it looks like it requires a DM call.
It says “Generally speaking, only creatures that do not have a weak spot at all, either due to a homogenous nature or nearindestructible build, are immune to sneak attack. Examples might include air, earth, fire, and water elementals, most oozes; and some undead.;” Since “some undead” are immune to sneak attack, I'm assuming most are not. But I agree with you...more clarification is needed. For example, I'm assuming plant types are still immune???
Also, it would be really nice if there were an option for a sneak-attack-less rogue.
You can still use the one in the SRD/Unearthed Arcana.
Pg 39-41: Certain Rogue talents should be able to be taken multiple times. Combat Trick should certainly be ok, and the same goes for Minor Magic, Major Magic, (either 2 extra times per day, or another spell) and Resiliency (use it more times per day). The same goes for Improved Talents: Defensive Roll (more times per day), Opportunist (more times per round), and Feat.
Good idea!
I am not entirely sure who this "Jason" fella is, but from the tone in the boards I take it he is "the Decider." Well Jason I am not entirely sure what inspires the PF designers/deciders to be so dug-in over the Sorcerer's staggered spellcasting but it is one glaringly weak aspect to the Sorc that has always needed changing and seems to be a major reason, in my gaming experience with 3.5, why people do not play Sorcerers over Wizards...or Warmages...or Beguilers...or any other caster for that matter. I hope you will reconsider.
Jason is the guy writing the rulebook, so he's pretty much in charge of the whole thing. As for why staggered spellcasting is pretty much "right out" -- that has to do with backwards compatibility. One of the design goals for Pathfinder is to make it work with existing 3.5 sourcebooks. Changing spell progressions at all means that someone wanting to (for example) run a 3.5 module would need to rebuild the stat block for a Sorcerer, especially if said sorcerer was at an odd level.
Granted, it would be nice, but in the interests of backwards compatibility, I can see why the Paizoans have decided not to change this.
Tamago: On bringing me into the the Jason Know...thanks, though I gathered as much. I am not an avid boardster so the whose who of the game world is beyond me and I prefer to stay blissfully ignorant. In fact I have been playing D&D since '81 and can only name 3 designers...guess I should go to a Convention someday.
On the backwards compatibility tip: I am with BlaineTog who wrote:
I call shenanigans. You're going to have to re-do the sorcerer's stat block anyway to take into account all the bloodline abilities and the increased hit-die. And what about the changes to the skill system (which affect every class)? Those require minor tweaks of pretty much every other race and class out there (Oh, and virtually all other races need powering up, too). If you have a Barbarian NPC, you have to practically write up a whole new character. The druid's different, too, and you have to deal with Weapons Training for the Fighter (not to mention changing around some of their feats). Oh, and lest we forget, the bard has a different spell progression! Not hugely different, granted, but the difference is there.
Yes the "3.75" version is fairly backwards compatible but then again there are fixes that WoTc needed to do that it did not, which PF could remedy and still keep a 3.5-ish flare. If PF is going to stand the test of time and compete against 4E it has to start with a strong foundation. All of this Alpha testing and such should be designed to listen to valid complaints and worries inherent in the game and then make attempts to fix those things. The Sorcerer and Fighter have always had flaws that made them weak. I have never been at a game table where there was not a home rule to modify these classes a bit. The PF system is an opportunity to get it right (finally). I hope Jason and Co come around and realize that if they are going to start making small changes that they had also better consider fixing the foundation of the very game they intend to build upon.
I call shenanigans. You're going to have to re-do the sorcerer's stat block anyway to take into account all the bloodline abilities and the increased hit-die. And what about the changes to the skill system (which affect every class)? Those require minor tweaks of pretty much every other race and class out there (Oh, and virtually all other races need powering up, too). If you have a Barbarian NPC, you have to practically write up a whole new character. The druid's different, too, and you have to deal with Weapons Training for the Fighter (not to mention changing around some of their feats). Oh, and lest we forget, the bard has a different spell progression! Not hugely different, granted, but the difference is there.
To be fair, converting a sorcerer to the Arcane bloodline (the default) is just a matter of adding a few spells known, maybe a couple of feats and the lame-ass ability to speed up metamagic. I wouldn't really call that redo-ing an NPC. YMMV.
The Sorcerer and Fighter have always had flaws that made them weak. I have never been at a game table where there was not a home rule to modify these classes a bit. The PF system is an opportunity to get it right (finally). I hope Jason and Co come around and realize that if they are going to start making small changes that they had also better consider fixing the foundation of the very game they intend to build upon.
The sorcerer HAS been bolstered, a LOT. It's biggest weakness (not enough spells known) has been strengthened. It's not as if Jason bolted on a tiny change to fix a huge gaping problem and said "That ought to do it". The change is quite large and quite substantial. If you've ever done any trouble shooting you know that the best way to fix something is by making incremental changes. Make a change then step back and see how it works, he's made some changes, lets see how they work.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'fixing the foundation of the very game'. Personally I think the foundation of the game is quite solid, it's just some of the structures on top of it that need a little work.
|
|
4) However, you also have to take into account that various spells have been nerfed as well. So a 3.5 Core low level conjurer is more powerful than a Pathfinder low level conjurer because his versions of Grease, Web and Glitterdust are so much better.
Aside from the lower DC of the escape artist and strength checks to escape and the change from
Once loose (either by making the initial Reflex save or a later Strength check or Escape Artist check), a creature remains entangled, but may move through the web very slowly. Each round devoted to moving allows the creature to make a new Strength check or Escape Artist check. The creature moves 5 feet for each full 5 points by which the check result exceeds 10.
to
The entire area of the web is considered difficult terrain.
which does bring down the "area denial" or battlefield control aspect of the spell.
The others do not seem to have been changed except to alter the skill names for checks. I keep looking and trying to see how Grease and Glitterdust have been nerfed. What am I missing?
|
Lot's of interesting ideas BlaineTog, and please do feel welcome to state what you think works and what concerns you. Ignore anyone not named Jason Buhlman who tells you that your ideas are not welcome here.
There's been idle chatter about Charisma, with the new 3e+ description as force of personality and not physical appearance, as being a better stat for Will saves than Wisdom (which is now more about perception and intuition, it seems, than willpower).
But for the sake of Backwards Compatibility, I'd just leave it. Charisma, somewhat ironically, will remain the 'ugly stepsister' of attributes, and the dump stat of choice for non-Bards and non-Sorcerers.
Mutants & Masterminds has an 'Attractive' feat that gives a +4 to Bluff and Diplomacy checks against those who might be physically attracted to you, and it doesn't just represent 'hawt' so much as a person who has specifically trained (or is just naturally gifted) in using their physical appearance to seduce, manipulate and / or distract people. That could be one option, I suppose.
As for the issue with Sorcerers, I have increasingly been of the notion, which I formed when 3E first came out the door, that Spontaneous Casting has been overvalued. Giving Sorcerers the same feats and spell progression that is given to Wizards would be, IMO, balanced. They already suffer from significant lack of utility compared to a Wizard, piling on with slower spell progression and no class features after 1st level (encouraging fleeing to a PrC at the first option) is, IMO, unnecessary.
Ideally, I would like to see every spellcaster, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, Ranger and Wizard, have an option to be a Prepared Caster or a Spontaneous Caster.
Make the choice at 1st level.
If you choose Prepared, you can prepare / pray for / memorize any spells you can get your little hands on (or that your god allows), but not cast quite as many per day.
If you choose Spontaneous, you only have a small selection of spells, can cast any of those spells you want and can cast more spells per day than a Prepared Caster of the same class.
Whichever you choose, the character would get the standard class features for a Druid, Cleric, Bard, Wizard, whatever. The Spontaneous Caster Wizard might take bloodline feats and be all draconic-heritage, fiery-eyed, wild-maned Witch of the Old Blood. The Prepared Caster Bard might be a noble's spoiled son, trained in leadership, swordplay, the arts and a smattering of arcane casting, from his daddy's expensive tutors.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I was under the impression that the Saves were based on this:
* FORT: the better of STR or CON mods
* REF : the better of DEX or WIS "
* WILL: the better of INT or CHA "Was I hallucinating this?
I think you were confusing this w/ 4e, in which FORT is as you indicate, REF is DEX of INT and WIL is WIS or CHA. None of that is happening in PFRPG.
4) However, you also have to take into account that various spells have been nerfed as well. So a 3.5 Core low level conjurer is more powerful than a Pathfinder low level conjurer because his versions of Grease, Web and Glitterdust are so much better.Aside from the lower DC of the escape artist and strength checks to escape and the change from
Once loose (either by making the initial Reflex save or a later Strength check or Escape Artist check), a creature remains entangled, but may move through the web very slowly. Each round devoted to moving allows the creature to make a new Strength check or Escape Artist check. The creature moves 5 feet for each full 5 points by which the check result exceeds 10.to
The entire area of the web is considered difficult terrain.which does bring down the "area denial" or battlefield control aspect of the spell.
The others do not seem to have been changed except to alter the skill names for checks. I keep looking and trying to see how Grease and Glitterdust have been nerfed. What am I missing?
I missed this question two months ago, so I'll answer it now:
Grease -- You're not flat-footed while you're standing in it, and you can move (slowly) out of the area without needed to make Balance/Acrobatics checks.
Glitterdust -- You get to save vs. blindness every round until you succeed instead of just once.
|
|
Hello, all. I stumbled upon Pathfinder yesterday, and I have to say, I’m very impressed and excited! I was tremendously disappointed by 4e but also rather annoyed with the number of house rules I felt I had to drag around to make 3.5 as good as can be, so it’s really nice to see it all integrated together like this. That said, much as I like the changes, there are some I have suggestions/criticisms regarding. I decided to do it page-by-page, and it ended up coming out to this. I know it’s rather a lot, but for every change I took issue with here, there are at least two or three that I really like.
By the way, great post. Very well reasoned, well thought out and, perhaps most important in this world of e-mail messages and message board posts containing ... (ahem) less than stellar grammar and/or spelling ... well written.
Welcome to the Paizo message boards!