Changes, or lack thereof for Beta

[Lopke]

Alright, so CMB is the same. DC 15 + CMB.

Improved --- feats retain their +2 bonus. The Defensive Combat Training still gives the +4 bonus against combat maneuvers. Not unbalanced?

My biggest beef is still how to deal with monsters that have Improved Grab. So, they only get a +2 bonus for Improved grab, plus size bonus?

Poison - Yellow Mold. Their poisonous spores are an exception from the poison rules? Because, as written, the Yellow Mold's spores do poison damage as per the 3.5 rules, not the Pathfinder RPG poison rules. Clarification, please.

Darn, now I forget my other points. I'll add more when I remember.

Please discuss.

[Robert Brambley]

Lopke wrote:

Alright, so CMB is the same. DC 15 + CMB.

Improved --- feats retain their +2 bonus. The Defensive Combat Training still gives the +4 bonus against combat maneuvers. Not unbalanced?

My biggest beef is still how to deal with monsters that have Improved Grab. So, they only get a +2 bonus for Improved grab, plus size bonus?

Poison - Yellow Mold. Their poisonous spores are an exception from the poison rules? Because, as written, the Yellow Mold's spores do poison damage as per the 3.5 rules, not the Pathfinder RPG poison rules. Clarification, please.

Darn, now I forget my other points. I'll add more when I remember.

Please discuss.

Exactly; thats how I feel a bit unfortunately. Dont get me wrong - i still love the PF rules - it leagues better than the 3.5 core that needed upgrading - but most of the vehemently argued and lobbied changes seem to have been lobbied in vain.

Others are the Jump, Search and concentration skills.

See this thread for more discussion that I made about the (non) changes.

That being said - I do like the removal of the limiting Combat Feats to only 1 per round.

Robert

[DeadDMWalking]

Robert Brambley wrote:

Lopke wrote:

Alright, so CMB is the same. DC 15 + CMB.

Exactly; thats how I feel a bit unfortunately. Dont get me wrong - i still love the PF rules - it leagues better than the 3.5 core that needed upgrading - but most of the vehemently argued and lobbied changes seem to have been lobbied in vain.

In full agreement here.

I really was looking forward to the Beta, but I feel like nothing changed from the Alpha. I mean, there were changes - like specialist wizards. Some things are better than they were. But a ton of things that NEED to be changed weren't.

What gives me hope is that the play feedback is going to be more organized. Instead of 100 different conversations on 10 subjects happening simultaneously, we're going to have a manageable level of discussion so that Jason get get the information we obviously think that he needs.

We're committed to playing the Beta, but we are going to have to figure out what to do with the things that aren't working from Alpha and still haven't been changed. But there is hope.

[Master Of Desaster]

Hi there.

Well I'm new to pathfinder (since yesterday). I browsed the more relevant sections of the game and one thing really struck me.

It's magic.

I know it's a freaking lot that I will talk about now, but I think if Pathfinder actually wants to attract new players (and not just lengthen the lifetime of 3E for diehard fans), then Magic could need a little improvement.

My personal beef with spellcasting has always been - and it continues in Pathfinder Beta - that there is no "short summary" on how to cast a spell. You eighter know those 4 to 20 Pages how to interpret a spells header or you have to pause a game just to find it out once more.

Well there are spells one gets used to pretty quickly and there are a few standard procedures (e.g. area effect damage spells).

If all those spells that would fall in such a common pattern (I call it "Casting-Procedure"-Type - short CP-Type ) would get a quick summary.
If you make a reference to where the "how to cast" instructions as a short todo are placed or if you alter those headers and have an index entry and glossary entry that explains this ... it would be GREAT.

I know it duplicates something, but it would be a gaming aid for all of the more casual gamers.
If I write all of it up, I'll need a few pages, true.
But writing a few pages for gaming aids should never be considered wasted space (also shorter spell headers will compensate that as well
- as there are hundreds of Spells).

IMHO D&D 4E has overdone it in formalizing their power-headers, but 3E Spell headers are simply needlessly unfriendly.

Annonymus Rules
Further there are several unnamed rules in spells. These would also fit well in a separate chapter as it is always the same.
I cannot give all of them right now - as I don't remember them all, though a few are pretty common.

Typical examples:
- Affects one [willing target/creature/monster/plant] of [size category] or 2 of ... or 4 of ..
- Normal animals don't get a safe, but Magical Beasts, Dire Beasts and Trained Animals and Familiar get a safe ...

Give those things a referencable name ...
I know it's one more index lookup, but making such things easy to find tables or named paragraphs would make some things more memorable - and writing/printing out spells a lot shorter.

Some sample CP-Types:
- Automatic
Actually I found this the hardest one to explain newbees. Because you got a long header and then ... they don't believe you that they don't have to roll any die.
And the worst they quickly assume that all Spells work that way ... unless it is specially marked (The next habit those people pick up is casting all spells as if they were a Area Attack Spells).

- Summoning
There are a few spell families, but most Conjuration(Summon) Spells work the same (something that I consider useful). All spells require a full-round action, can be dispelled and have a Duration of 1min/CL.

- Mind Affecting
Same here. Many enhancements that are Mind Affecting work the same in casting.
Why write out the same aspect multiple times ...

- Arcane Armor Penalty
- Ranged Attack Spell (only)
- Ranged Area Attack Spell
- Spell Penetration (only)
- Safe halfes [REF/FORT/WILL]
- Safe negates [REF/FORT/WILL]
- Partial Attack
- Partial Spell Penetration

- Special (See Below)
Well, I think that only a few spells would fit that category. But I don't play every week, so I may be wrong.

- Classical Method / You're on your own.
Consider all spells with 3.5 stlye headers as "classical".

[Shadowborn]

As long as we're on the topic of magic, I'm still nonplussed with the changes to the Darkness and Deeper Darkness spells. The idea that a second level spell can be countered by a torch? It's not as ridiculous as the 3.5 "shadowy illumination" effect, but considering that many adventures take place underground or in enclosed, lightless areas anyway, why waste a second level spell slot to create more of what you already have in abundance?

Parallel: Arcane Lock, another 2nd level spell, takes a mundane condition and improves it. You can take a (mechanically) locked door, cast the spell on it, and enhance the condition. Arcane Lock does not simply lock the door at normal DCs.

This also makes the ability of devils to see in magical darkness a moot point. Darkvision works perfectly well.

I'm just not seeing the attraction...

[Master Of Desaster]

URG ... that makes Darkness something between a Cantrip and a 1st level Spell. And you forgot that its duration was cut down to 1/10th (and still can be dispelled).

Arcane Lock is just a way to safe a few goldpieces. DC20 that's a simple Lock. That's a 50% chance for a 1st lvl Rogue with a Dex of 18 - without spending a feat.
1d20+ 1 (trained) +3 (class skill) +4 (Dex) + 2 (MW Thiefs tools).
Not that a 1st lvl Rogue is to good at lockpicking, the lock just is not "arcane" (read: good) any more.
In 3E the DC would be +10 to a normal door (and there was not that much as option to boost ones ability to go beyond that at lvl 1 through 4).

I can see that the new Arcane Lock favors NPCs (so that they can sneak into a room that PCs consider safe), but it also works the other way round and PCs will get into areas that should be "of place" without actual waiting or looking for a different way ...

[Estrosiath]

CMB is perfect. Remember that a maneuver replaces an attack, but that your CMB remains the same. Which means a 16th level fighter could try to disarm a target four times in a round, always at his full CMB, instead of taking iterative attacks with increasing penalties. Therefore the DC must be of 15 + enemy's CMB.

[Neithan]

The problem is when I grapple with someone and my CMB is 5 higher than his, he can only do anything to me with rolling a 20. I will be sucessfull with my rolls half the time, and he will be almost not at all.

Opposed CMB rolls with +5 for the defender would seem much more practical to me. With a fixed DC it does not matter if a weaker opponent rolls good or bad, everything but a 20 will always be a fail. But if both have to roll, the weaker one can at least hope that his opponent rolls bad and that a 16 or 17 might still let him suceed.

And to get +5 or more on CMB compared to characters or creatures of similar levels is very simple.

And then there's also the problem with grappling monsters often having awfully bad CMBs.

[The Red Death]

Neithan wrote:

The problem is when I grapple with someone and my CMB is 5 higher than his, he can only do anything to me with rolling a 20. I will be sucessfull with my rolls half the time, and he will be almost not at all.

I've read this several times. Alright. The DC's a bit steep. What do you suggest as an alternative though? DC 10+CMB? 12?

[Master Of Desaster]

In addition to my earlier post, I read chapter 10 again on a "short instruction" on casting a spell.

Actually the chapter does not give a real order of what applies. Well, 3E did as bad as well, though a short checklist would be not a stupid idea.
Especially as it contains about 10 steps - many of them are dependent on the spell in question as well.

And as this list is long, I came to ask myself: Are there unnecessary steps ? Too rare-to-be worth having it ?

Actually there is one hardly worthy thing: V&S Spell Components.
D&D 3.5 in its core rules has less then 60 (but close) Spells that do not feature both steps. Pathfinder Beta has less Spells in the book but maybe only ~ 25 do not have both V&S.

So the real question to be asked would be: Is it WORTH to keep such a few spells as exceptions to the V&S system ?
Especially those ultra rare cases of "all S + ..., but bard V&S".

Except for rules-lawyering there is no need to keep this split. It might have been vital for AD&D 1/2 when there were maybe 200 spells in PHB, but not for 3E/PF RPG where most spells are V&S + (M|F|XP){0,3}

I also like that I've seen that many spell writeups have been improved in readability.
There is one little thing that I would suggest to improve writeups for spells with "safe (partial); see text" - split those texts into "safe fauiled", "safe succeded".

Further splitting up "prerquisites" and effect would enhance those texts as well.
Some 3E writeups were jumping between effects and "applies to" tags ... The PF RPG writeups have a distinct split, but making that split instinctively visible using some horizontal bars won't cost much space, but would be pretty pleasing to a reader if applied to all spells that take more space then a few lines. (Dispell Magic e.g.)

[BM]

The Red Death wrote:

Neithan wrote:

The problem is when I grapple with someone and my CMB is 5 higher than his, he can only do anything to me with rolling a 20. I will be sucessfull with my rolls half the time, and he will be almost not at all.

I've read this several times. Alright. The DC's a bit steep. What do you suggest as an alternative though? DC 10+CMB? 12?

Per the consensus here, the Base DC needs to be between 10-12. I would prefer the number to be 10 myself, but I'm more concerned with getting the base getting lowered, and could live with a 11 or 12 base DC.

[The Red Death]

What about DC = X + CMB, with X a number reflecting the overall difficulty of maneuvers (the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the distractions etc) between 1 (obvious) and 20 (impossible) with a default of 10-12... or something similar?

Sure, a default of 10 would be easier but hey, one can bounce ideas around, right?

[Robert Brambley]

The Red Death wrote:

What about DC = X + CMB, with X a number reflecting the overall difficulty of maneuvers (the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the distractions etc) between 1 (obvious) and 20 (impossible) with a default of 10-12... or something similar?

Sure, a default of 10 would be easier but hey, one can bounce ideas around, right?

10-12 is what most who have tried playtesting claim that it's closer to being balanced. I've tried them all and my group has settled on 12.

Having a variable base DC defeats the purpose of the system - which was created and engineered mathmatically to have one simple and useable system and math to use across the board for all sorts of combat related maneuvers without having to keep track of a bunch of different variable - and eliminating dice rolls since only one is now made and not opposed.

Your idea falls more to the "realistic" side of rules, where I agree with the designers that simplicity on this issue trumps the realistic side - simply because historically these types of maneuvers were headaches to resolve time and time again.

Robert

[Absinth]

Hey guys, I have a quick question. Have there been changes to the Classes-chapter from Alpha 3 to the Beta? We're generating characters for a new campaign I'm gonna run tomorrow and I won't have the time to print out the Beta until then. But I still have the Alpha 3 printed and if there hasn't been any changes, I'd just use this then. Does anybody know if there are changes in the Beta and, if so, to which classes?
Thanks in advance!

[hogarth]

The Red Death wrote:

Neithan wrote:

The problem is when I grapple with someone and my CMB is 5 higher than his, he can only do anything to me with rolling a 20. I will be sucessfull with my rolls half the time, and he will be almost not at all.

I've read this several times. Alright. The DC's a bit steep. What do you suggest as an alternative though? DC 10+CMB? 12?

I liked the 3.5 version with opposed rolls. YMMV, of course.

[hogarth]

Absinth wrote:

Hey guys, I have a quick question. Have there been changes to the Classes-chapter from Alpha 3 to the Beta? We're generating characters for a new campaign I'm gonna run tomorrow and I won't have the time to print out the Beta until then. But I still have the Alpha 3 printed and if there hasn't been any changes, I'd just use this then. Does anybody know if there are changes in the Beta and, if so, to which classes?

Thanks in advance!

This thread lists some:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/alpha3ToBetaReleaseChanges

The bard's abilities no longer have DCs based on Perform checks, arcane schools and divine domains give bonus spells (not SLAs), the barbarian's Mighty Rage is a bit cheaper -- there aren't too many changes, overall.

[Absinth]

Ahh! Thanks for the link! Strange, that I didn't find this thread before, as I was looking for a title like that... Seems my search-fu is weak. Thank you! :)

[BrokenShade]

Shadowborn wrote:

As long as we're on the topic of magic, I'm still nonplussed with the changes to the Darkness and Deeper Darkness spells. The idea that a second level spell can be countered by a torch?

This needs clarification. It all hinges on what "see normally" means.

It's pretty clear that the normal lights and light spells counter the darkness. And that the darkness counters a light spell and normal lights.

So what does "see normally" mean? I read it to mean as if there were
(1) No darkness spell
(2) No lights or light spell.

So in a deep dark dungeon, seeing normally is seeing nothing.
Wheras in daylight, seeing normally is seeing everything.

This is what I would want the darkness spell to do, and what I think (or hope) it is intended to do. ^_^

Then again, it does make me wonder why Darkness isn't a cantrip the way light is!

[BrokenShade]

Master Of Desaster wrote:

Arcane Lock is just a way to safe a few goldpieces. DC20 that's a simple Lock. That's a 50% chance for a 1st lvl Rogue with a Dex of 18 - without spending a feat.

Yes - when you cast the spell on something without a lock.

Master Of Desaster wrote:

In 3E the DC would be +10 to a normal door (and there was not that much as option to boost ones ability to go beyond that at lvl 1 through 4).

And it still is ... +10 to a lock's difficulty, if there already is a lock.

It makes sense to me. ^_^

[Krome]

(I am at work so do not have the PDF with me so am doing this from memory)

Actually just as a note on the CMB...

Under the CMB it says that to make a Maneuver you must make an attack roll and add your CMB to the result.

Look up Attack Roll and it says an Attack Roll is a d20 + Base Attack Bonus + Strength Modifier + Size Modifier.

So, to make a Maneuver roll you roll 1d20, add your Base Attack Modifier, add your Strength Modifier, and your Size Modifier and THEN add your CMB- Which is your Base Attack Bonus and Strength Modifier, and Special Size Modifier.

So, a level 10 Human Fighter with Strength 18 has a total attack of 1d20+(10+4+0)+(10+4+0) which is equal to 1d20+28!

Against another level 10 Human Fighter with Strength 18 who defends against a maneuver with a total of 15+(10+4+0) for a total of 29, the attack can only miss on a roll of 1, which always fails.

Obviously the intention was to make the attack a d20+CMB, however, they say it is an attack roll, and they have defined an attack roll as d20+BAB+STR+SIZE.

This must be changed in the final version.

[Krome]

hogarth wrote:

The Red Death wrote:

Neithan wrote:

The problem is when I grapple with someone and my CMB is 5 higher than his, he can only do anything to me with rolling a 20. I will be sucessfull with my rolls half the time, and he will be almost not at all.

I've read this several times. Alright. The DC's a bit steep. What do you suggest as an alternative though? DC 10+CMB? 12?

I liked the 3.5 version with opposed rolls. YMMV, of course.

Opposed rolls never made any sense.

In normal combat you make an attack against AC.

In grappling you attack AC then have make an opposed grappling check.

This implies that the target of the grapple is RESISTING the grapple.

Which means that in Melee combat the target is NOT resisting being hit!

The whole idea of AC is that this represenst the targets defenses against being hit. In Melee you do not have the attacker roll to hit AC and then make opposed melee checks.

The opposed rolls make no sense what so ever.

[Robert Brambley]

Krome wrote:

Obviously the intention was to make the attack a d20+CMB, however, they say it is an attack roll, and they have defined an attack roll as d20+BAB+STR+SIZE.

This must be changed in the final version.

You are quite right, Krome. Actually, IMO, the text should read, "Make a CMB check."

CMB check is defined as "A d20 roll + CMB + any circumstantial modifiers at that point"

Robert

[Aelryinth]

Krome wrote:

hogarth wrote:

The Red Death wrote:

Neithan wrote:

The problem is when I grapple with someone and my CMB is 5 higher than his, he can only do anything to me with rolling a 20. I will be sucessfull with my rolls half the time, and he will be almost not at all.

I've read this several times. Alright. The DC's a bit steep. What do you suggest as an alternative though? DC 10+CMB? 12?

I liked the 3.5 version with opposed rolls. YMMV, of course.

Opposed rolls never made any sense.

In normal combat you make an attack against AC.

In grappling you attack AC then have make an opposed grappling check.

This implies that the target of the grapple is RESISTING the grapple.

Which means that in Melee combat the target is NOT resisting being hit!

The whole idea of AC is that this represenst the targets defenses against being hit. In Melee you do not have the attacker roll to hit AC and then make opposed melee checks.

The opposed rolls make no sense what so ever.

Actually, that's not true.

AC represents 'average defensive effort'. There's even a variant in the DMG where you can roll 1d20 + Your AC bonus vs the attackers d20+ attack roll. It's more realistic and involved, but involves more dice rolling!

AC 10+ AC bonus just speeds things up, and combat takes long enough as it is, now.

Opposed rolls imply an active, involved defense, not an average defense. It's just a different way of looking at the system. Using an average just speeds up game play, and should simply be set at 10+ opposing pertinent value. I'd suggest keeping auto-success and auto-failure, of course...

As for the +4 to defensive manuvers, defense always has the edge over offense. The +2 bonus applies against all enemies you try to pull something on...AND you no longer spring an AoO, don't forget. So, the offensive feat is doing 2 things at once, the defensive one is doing one. The defensive feat is only useful if a monster/enemy tries to pull something on you...otherwise it is 'wasted'. The offensive feat is useful whenever YOU decide to make use of it...that's much more important.

===Aelryinth

[Krome]

Aelryinth wrote:

Actually, that's not true.

AC represents 'average defensive effort'. There's even a variant in the DMG where you can roll 1d20 + Your AC bonus vs the attackers d20+ attack roll. It's more realistic and involved, but involves more dice rolling!

AC 10+ AC bonus just speeds things up, and combat takes long enough as it is, now.

Opposed rolls imply an active, involved defense, not an average defense. It's just a different way of looking at the system. Using an average just speeds up game play, and should simply be set at 10+ opposing pertinent value. I'd suggest keeping auto-success and auto-failure, of course...
...

I don't oppose making opposed rolls like the optional rule, but I do oppose combining the two methods when no other combat rolls in the game are combined. For example I would support opposed roles OR I would support Roll vs AC for grappling. However, the standard rules for grappling have you do both.

UNLESS, you were saying you liked using the optional rule of opposed rolls for grappling, but not including the roll vs AC... if so then I just misunderstood what you meant.