So Squirrel, what do you think of the Master's training feat I posted above?While I'm not Squirrel, I think the feat comes far too late in the game (and it feels like a bit of a punishment, for the Monk, *a melee combat class,* to have to blow a Feat to have the same BAB as an NPC Warrior). Paladins and Rangers manage to master spellcasting, tame animal companions and / or channel positive energies through themselves, and *still* keep their fighting skills up to the full BAB mark.
The frustration of the Monk starts at level 1, when they've got a +0 BAB, a special power that lets them take a -2 penalty for an extra attack, and the expectation that they actually *hit something* to be effective.
The playtester who describes how much more effective their Monk is using a Longbow than using martial arts, up through level five or so, really hits home how feeble the Monks 'open hand' stuff really is.
Even if the full BAB only applied to unarmed attacks, and they used the medium BAB for armed attacks, it would be a huge improvement that would go a long way towards allowing the Monk to *fulfill his role,* which is to punch things.
On a side note, there was a halfling alternate class feature that allowed a Monk to trade out Flurry of Blows for some singular higher-damage strike, which turned out to be a sweet deal, since the ability to penalize the attack rolls of a class that already had medium BAB too-often, in my play experience, resulted in a fat stack of jack.
Whiff, whiff, whiff. Next round, I UMD this wand we found...
I keep trying to separate my group's monk/sorcerer from my mind while I mull your suggestions over. That monk/sorcerer picked up the Draconic bloodline, which helps his H2H damage considerably. But not the BAB.
Anyhoos, where I'm heading is maybe a Tiger Claw feat for monks that gives them some extra 'punch' to their H2H. That could incorporate a BAB adjustment if desired.
|
This i like maybe an extra dice or 1d6 per attack gave up.
That might indeed be better balanced for use by Fighters who use lighter or heavier weapons.
Then again, perhaps it's okay for a Fighter using a longsword in his primary hand and a dagger in his off-hand and sacrificing only his single Improved Two-Weapon Fighting iterative attack to only get +1d4 damage, while the 11th level Fighter with the Greatsword who gives up both iterative attacks gets +4d6.
|
|
The Universalist Wizard.
Am I just being old-fashioned and / or reactionary here? I kinda hate the idea of the Generalist Wizard getting jack squat in the way of special powers, let alone the powers that they got...
I'm of the mind that the unlimited Cantrips thing is already a meaty and exciting 'gimme' for the Wizard, and that adding yet more magical power isn't really necessary.
The only changes I'd consider for the Wizard is the Monte-esque idea of giving everybody a base d6 for HD at minimum, and 4+Int skill points per level, at minimum.
While some of the classes, like the Fighter, I would like to see quite a few enhancements to, the Wizard, IMO, is one of the classes that least needs tweaking. It's already darn fun, and adding unlimited cantrips is just even more fun.
|
Unfortunately, We can't bump the Monk to Fighter BAB, per Jason's backwards compatibility issues. However, in my experience, monks in the games I have run, haven't had massive difficulties in doing damage.
The fighter may have +20/+15/+10/+5 at level 20, but a Monk can blow 1 ki point on his Flurry of blows and have +15/+15/+15/+15/+10/+5, which as long as they aren't fighting a 35AC creature, they should be able to hit.
I'm disappointed that Jason has done so little with the Monk tho. I'm glad he made abundant step a move action, but the monk NEEDS more work please Jason.
Since the Bonus Feat isn't available at 16 anyway, add Master's Training to the list of level 10 availability. It would remain backwards compatible, and bring the monk into frontline fighter status, while not breaking the flurry of blows.
We are using the Ranger, Barbarian and the Fighter classes in our campaign which is now Beta and has been through each of the Apha's.
We are running pure beta and pathfinder rules. No splat books.
This doubles as our play test so I will only comment on these. They are all now 9th level.
Barbarian.
The pure class Barbarian loves the rage powers and the rage points. He likes the versatility and added edge they give him in combat. He has no problem at all keeping track of the points. He does blow through them at a ridiculous rate in some combats. This is balanced by the amount of extra things he is doing.
A second character has one level of barbarian, he likes the fact that he can turn his rage on and off a few times each day, much better than his single use under 3.5.
All in all we are happy with the barbarian. I would only suggest dropping the cost of some of the rage abilities a bit more so that the barbarian does not blow through them all in one long combat.
Fighter.
Is my group the only group that thinks the fighters are rock hard now? The pure class Fighter in our group is by far the character capable of doing the most damage in each battle. Yes I know we have no wizard to compare him against, but the sorcerer struggles to keep up with him in damage potential, the barbarian can just about manage it when he is raging. He has feats coming out of his ears and every new feat makes him more and more scary. I would be reluctant to see any increase in their damage out put at low to meduim levels.
Rangers.
Animal companions for Rangers in Beta still suck, but the class feature in the campaign setting that allows the animal companion to be at the rangers level -2 as long as he stays with the same animal for ever fixes that. As this does not form part of the beta it invalidates our ranger test on animal companions.
Ok, some ideas I wrote in various posts here and there... I will summarize here (and add some other ideas that came into my mind):
Barbarian: as somebody has already suggested (don't remember who) change slightly the Elemental rage ability. The extra d6 with all attacks is good, but an energy type is perhaps too good, and slightly off-topic with the Barbarian himself. I would make it an extra weapon damage instead (and so, subjected to DR).
Monk: I would add the Weapon Finesse among the bonus feats a Monk can choose at 1st level. It would be nice (but perhaps, it would also be too much) to add Two-Weapon Fighting as a bonus feat from 6th level and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting as a bonus feat at 10th. Since the Monk's bonus feats can be chosen even without the standard requirements, a monk can take them even with low BaB and Dexterity.
Adding Elemental Ki ability (same as the Elemental Rage that exists at the moment), since a "flaming fist" or "electric fist" monk has a better flavour than a "flaming battleaxe" barbarian... and the old PrC from Monte Cook (Acolyte of the Fist) is looking at us!
Changing the DR the Monk takes at 20th level to DR 10/lawful. Seriously, DR 10/magic at 20th? It's like DR 15.000.000/everything, at that level (a.k.a. useless...)
Class progression: ok, this is a bit drastic and it will be probably "thrown off the window", but basically here it is (this is a post I already opened in another thread, but this could be a better place to post it).
I would use the 3 XP charts as a baseline to DIFFERENTIATE the progression for the existing classes. Something like "fast" progression for non-casters (barbarians, fighters, monks, rogues) , "medium" progression for semi-casters (bards, paladins, rangers), and "slow" progression for full casters (clerics, druids, sorcerers, wizards). This could fix the "wizards are too powerful compared to fighters" problem, since with same Xp the two characters would have up to 2 levels of difference.
With the SRD rules for adjudicating Xp, this was not possible, due to a "bungee-effect" that gave characters with a lower level more xp compared to character with a higher level facing the same CR creature/trap/whatsoever, and so in the end a party with a wizard and a fighter going together and facing the same obstacles would be at the same level after some time with the rules I suggested. With the PFRPG rules instead, since every CR has a fixed xp value , this "bungee-effect" would not appear.
This could be done with every existing class, either Core or PrC, and it could be done even with multiclassing. Let's give an example.
A "fast" progression character is at 5th with 10000xp and 6th with 15000xp ; this means , to level up from 5th to 6th level the character, if his current level is from a "fast" class, needs 5000 xp (15000 - 10000 = 5000)
A "medium" progression character is at 5th with 15000 xp and 6th with 23000xp; this means, to level up from 5th to 6th level the character, if his current level is from a "medium" class, needs 8000xp (23000-15000 = 8000)
A "slow" progression character is at 5th with 23000xp and 6th with 35000xp; this means, to level up from 5th to 6th level the character, if his current level is from a "slow" class, needs 12000xp (35000 - 23000 = 12000).
Of course, in the beginning it requires a bit of calculation, but in reality it would be faster if the table were something like this:
From 5th to 6th level: (Slow)+12000xp ; (Medium)+8000xp; (Fast)+5000xp
It's only a metter of subtraction from the 2 adjacent levels (in this case, 5th and 6th). Retrocompatibility is not an issue (since an NPC or moster is calculated by his level, not experience points), but it could be a tool to equalize the powers of characters. Also, characters from a straight class (or characters who take classes of same xp progression) can simply read the existing table as is, without any calculations at all (even if they take Barbarian 4/ Fighter 8/ Rogue 3/ Shadowdancer 2 or something like that, they would all fall in the fast progression and so you must only read the fast entry to know how much xp you need to level up)
|
|
The Universalist Wizard.
Am I just being old-fashioned and / or reactionary here? I kinda hate the idea of the Generalist Wizard getting jack squat in the way of special powers, let alone the powers that they got...
I'm of the mind that the unlimited Cantrips thing is already a meaty and exciting 'gimme' for the Wizard, and that adding yet more magical power isn't really necessary.
The only changes I'd consider for the Wizard is the Monte-esque idea of giving everybody a base d6 for HD at minimum, and 4+Int skill points per level, at minimum.
While some of the classes, like the Fighter, I would like to see quite a few enhancements to, the Wizard, IMO, is one of the classes that least needs tweaking. It's already darn fun, and adding unlimited cantrips is just even more fun.
I fully agree here. While I enjoy the sorcerer bloodlines as a way to equate the sorcerer in power with the wizard, and to give the sorcerer some flavor, I think the wizard extra powers are too much given unlimited cantrips.
Why would anyone cast ray of frost at will (previously a very awesome ability, something players would love) instead of using their supernatural energy ray? This applies equally to sorcerers and clerics who get an at-will damage-dealing power. If there is concern about cantrips eventually being useless, then I would say adjust the power of cantrips to scale better (so have ray of frost deal 1d3 damage, and an additional 1d3 damage per 3 caster levels beyond 1st, maximum 5d3 at 13th level.
That monk/sorcerer picked up the Draconic bloodline, which helps his H2H damage considerably.
How exactly? The claws are a full-round action, and worse at that than flurrying. The claws don't stack with unarmed strikes.
The fighter may have +20/+15/+10/+5 at level 20, but a Monk can blow 1 ki point on his Flurry of blows and have +15/+15/+15/+15/+10/+5
Due to monk MAD the fighter probably has +1 advantage. Weapon training gives the fighter another +4. Enchanted weapon vs Amulet of mighty fists might give anohter +1. Suddenly that's a +11 advantage against the monk. That's huge. When the monk needs a 20 to hit the fighter hits with a 9 or better.
He does blow through them at a ridiculous rate in some combats.
Just checking, have you noticed that rage powers are (mostly) swift actions? They still burn rage points fast, but not that fast.
I would add the Weapon Finesse among the bonus feats a Monk can choose at 1st level. It would be nice (but perhaps, it would also be too much) to add Two-Weapon Fighting as a bonus feat from 6th level and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting as a bonus feat at 10th.
Monks can take Weapon Finesse at 1st level anyway - Beta removed the BAB +1 restriction. Also the monks can take TWF at 1st level if they meet Dex requirement, same as Rangers. But low Dex rangers get their TWF at 2nd level, monks would have to wait till 6th? Ditto for improved TWF, 6th level vs 10th. The BAB is not an issue as monks fulfill those requirements at those levels.
|
Hi folks,
Until a "Classes" forum is opened, this can be the place to go to post comments and suggestions for classes in the Beta.
A few good places to start from suggestions in another thread:
Rage points: too costly? too complicated?
Ranger companion: too vulnerable?
Wizard specialists: not appropriate flavor?
Ki pool: fair to end an ability when out of points? Please remember to discuss issues related to classes only, and to try your best to provide an explanation of your comments and possible solutions to the problem.
This is a Think-Tank Thread. It is a place to go for Jason and others to skim for ideas for potential solutions.
Barbarians-I also thought that certain rage abilities were overpriced(edited from Overpowered, I made a typo), but I started looking at the Barb. He is a really good melee. He moves quick, he has auto-buffs (rage), d12 and full attack. In 3.5 he only gets to rage once a day. In PRPG he gets to do that plus a bit more and has some flexibility. I am unconvinced that just because the bonus stuff's cost is expensive that it has to be beefed up. The Barb is already beef and with Rage points his rages will offer some variability.
Ranger Companion-I think that Ranger companions should be equal to a druid's animal companion, although that is probably a bit too much... I could also see an argument for nerfing the Druid's companion down to the scale of the present ranger. Druids get a lot of great class feature and could stand a bit of a nerf in this regard.Wizard-I really haven't playtested them so I will withhold any opinions until I do.
Monk and Ki Points- Once again I haven't experienced them in Playtest so I don't feel qualified to comment on them.
That monk/sorcerer picked up the Draconic bloodline, which helps his H2H damage considerably.How exactly? The claws are a full-round action, and worse at that than flurrying. The claws don't stack with unarmed strikes.
I may be having a 'doh!' moment. Let me double check my statement cause I think you're right.
That monk/sorcerer picked up the Draconic bloodline, which helps his H2H damage considerably.How exactly? The claws are a full-round action, and worse at that than flurrying. The claws don't stack with unarmed strikes.
It's not clear to me that they're meant to be mutually exclusive with normal attacks, although it's certainly easy to read it that way.
The WotC writer who designed the Abjurant Champion even thought that Mage Armor was an Abjuration spell, and it should be, IMO. So it really doesn't fit as a Conjuration spell, or specialist ability.
Defintely an example of bad game design from the designer on up through all the various reviewers not being familiar with the schools of magic the specific spells belonged to which the PRC was supposed to effect.
Ranger: move hide in plain sight to 7th level, change it so it only works on favored terrains or favored enemies. then at lv 17 you give them a feat that mimics (and stacks with) either spell focus or natural bond, their choice. thus giving them a slight boost in combat earlier, since they can now spend 2 rounds to hit their favored enemies easier, and you can spend a feat to specialize in a pet (maxing at 16th level) or spellcasting.
Too weak and overall useless.
Hide in Plain Sight should be around tenth level; camouflage should be around third. Given that wizards have been casting invisibility for awhile, it's not exactly a big deal.
17th-level abilities come in too little, too late, particularly for the animal companion--it's been dead awhile now. Spell Focus/an equivalent is useless for rangers.
Rage points: too costly? too complicated?
Rage Points seem like a good idea, but I'm not exactly sure how being angry lets you get low-light-vision, darkvision, or add elemental damage to your attacks.
Ranger companion: too vulnerable?
They should be treated as a Druid of their level -3 when determining the power of animal companions.
Wizard specialists: not appropriate flavor?
Wizard Specialists should not be able to cast spells from their opposition schools at all - not even from scrolls, wands, and staves. They want that bonus spell to cast per level AND the extra abilities? There's a price that has to be paid for that. As it stands right now, all you have to do is just give up one of your many awesome special abilities per day and you can memorize whatever the hell you want.
I also don't think that Generalist Wizards shouldn't get any bonus spells. Special abilities? Sure. But no bonus spells. And all things considered, I think that their 20th level ability is maybe a little TOO powerful. I'm fine with the +2 to all of their spell DC checks, but +4 to checks to overcome Spell Resistance seems a bit much to me. +2 seems fine to me, but that's as far as I'd want to go with it. But I'll admit, perhaps I'm overreacting on this one. What do you guys think about this?
I realize that casters are supposed to do burst damage and that melee classes are supposed to be able to do sustained, reliable damage, but people already thought that there was a disparity in relevance between casters and melee characters in 3.5. Giving melee classes more special abilities in PRPG helps close that gap, but when you give Generalist Wizards more spells to cast per day then they did in 3.5, it seems like you're widening that gap once more.
Also: the Divination School Specialist Ability needs to be changed so that it scales like the other abilities, lest people be tempted to pick up a level in Diviner just to pick it up. It may not seem like much, but always being able to act during the surprise round seems pretty potent to me...
Ki pool: fair to end an ability when out of points?
Make the Ki Strike a constant ability - don't rob them of this whenever their Ki Pool bottoms out. Have current Ki Pool abilities run out the round after the character hits 0 Ki Pool.
Many people have suggested giving Monks a full BAB progression. I'm not sure about giving them a Fighter's BAB as of yet - I haven't played a Monk enough to really be able to make an informed decision about this. My gut keeps telling me that Cleric BAB (especially with Flurry Of Blows ) = extended miss-fest. It also tells me that AC derived solely from Dexterity, Wisdom, Deflection Bonuses, and Level Bonuses = getting hit much more often then the people that actually get to wear armor. Having D10 hit points might help with that situation. But I haven't ever really played a Monk before, so I don't know if their Ki Pool is sufficient to offset this, or if perhaps they have an ace in the hole that I'm not aware of.
|
|
You know all those spell-like abilities the wizard gets? They set save DCs based on *charisma modifier*. This is stupid. No one is going to want to be an enchanter or evoker for the spell-likes because virtually every spell from those schools calls for a save, and we're talking saves that are going to be upwards of 5 lower than normal spell slots.
Either the spell-likes should set DCs based on Intelligence or they're a waste of time to bother with.
(Similarly, the Cleric domain powers set DCs based on Cha. A cleric generally wants Str, Con, and Wis - he doesn't have the luxury of a cha worth caring about. Any domain powers that allow saves thus become useless. They need to use Wisdom for setting DCs or the cleric may as well not have them).
That's SOP for spell-like abilities. If they became supernatural there would be justification for using Con. I do not think it is such a bad thing that the bonus abilities to these classes is based on potentially low saves - they don't need much more power anyway. I do agree that if the enchanter has a bunch of abilities based on saves, and the others don't, well that isn't fair to the enchanted. I think more of the abilities should have saves, like the Touch of Evil for clerics for example.
You know all those spell-like abilities the wizard gets? They set save DCs based on *charisma modifier*. This is stupid. No one is going to want to be an enchanter or evoker for the spell-likes because virtually every spell from those schools calls for a save, and we're talking saves that are going to be upwards of 5 lower than normal spell slots.
Either the spell-likes should set DCs based on Intelligence or they're a waste of time to bother with.
I had not noticed that, and that's a pretty big problem. That actually makes specialists WORSE then they were in 3.5 in terms of spellcasting.
(Similarly, the Cleric domain powers set DCs based on Cha. A cleric generally wants Str, Con, and Wis - he doesn't have the luxury of a cha worth caring about. Any domain powers that allow saves thus become useless. They need to use Wisdom for setting DCs or the cleric may as well not have them).
Agreed. Unless they are gunning for the Leadership feat, Clerics don't usually bother with Charisma, and that makes these abilities sub-par.
|
My biggest greviences are with the "pool" mechanic for both Rage and Ki. The "X per day" mechanic was simple to use... and is STILL used by Pathfinder for lot of class abilities (Smite, Turn Undead, etc.)
A sidebar for those not wanting to use the "pool" mechanic (or vice versa) would make me a happy gamer, especially with Rage. From what I've seen on these boards, making a "canon conversion" for either mechanic would help to decide this issue for those on the fence.
1) Specialist Wizards still get bonus spells just like 3.5, so they're definitely not WEAKER than the 3.5 version as a Class, for one. SLAs being less effective just mean they're likely to be IGNORED and not used... Though it IS pretty silly to give out abilities that aren't worth spending a round to use.
The problem is, casters (OK, not Druids) have gotten so much 'candy', but without an eye for over-all balance. I would question if Universal Mages REALLY need Bonus Spells AND Spontaneously Cast Bonded Item spells, for instance. If Specialists are still getting Bonus Spells, the School Abilities don't need to REPLICATE spell effects (just with weaker DCs), they should give side benefits, enhancing how your School's spells work, or enhancing your immunities, etc...
2) Clerics definetely have a big use for Charisma: Channeling Energy. Probably more of a core ability than Strength for all but true Strength/Battle God worshippers. It also goes along with the more social aspect of Divine worship, and they even have a class skill (Diplomacy) based off of it. CHA vs. WIS is more of a style choice for Clerics, like going for Spellcasting or Wildshaping for Druids, and having CHA-based abilities (in addition to Channel Energy) just helps re-inforce Charisma's importance. I WOULD like to see some Feats along the lines of "consume one/X use of Channel Energy to instead cause X effect" as have appeared in some WotC material. Not necessarily alot of them for the Core rules, but introduce the basic concept, and setting books can develop more.
As for the monk, instead of giving him a full BAB, why not give him a stacking unnamed +1 to hit every four levels?
My gut keeps telling me that Cleric BAB (especially with Flurry Of Blows ) = extended miss-fest. It also tells me that AC derived solely from Dexterity, Wisdom, Deflection Bonuses, and Level Bonuses = getting hit much more often then the people that actually get to wear armor.
I've been playing a monk from 1st to 7th by now. The second playtest thread can be found here.
Executive summary:
That is, monks are fine through 1st to 7th, in my opinion. I see some problems arising past that but I need more playtesting.
You know all those spell-like abilities the wizard gets? They set save DCs based on *charisma modifier*. This is stupid. No one is going to want to be an enchanter or evoker for the spell-likes because virtually every spell from those schools calls for a save, and we're talking saves that are going to be upwards of 5 lower than normal spell slots.
Either the spell-likes should set DCs based on Intelligence or they're a waste of time to bother with.
(Similarly, the Cleric domain powers set DCs based on Cha. A cleric generally wants Str, Con, and Wis - he doesn't have the luxury of a cha worth caring about. Any domain powers that allow saves thus become useless. They need to use Wisdom for setting DCs or the cleric may as well not have them).
Just to reiterate what someone else has said:
Wizards now get bonus spells, not spell-like abilities. So you can stop complaining about this now. :-)
Clerics also get bonus spells as part of their domains, despite the fact that they're labeled as (Sp) in the domain charts. Here's the relevant text: "Domains grant one ability at 1st level and a second at 8th level, as noted in their description. [..] In addition, each domain grants a number of bonus spells." (Emphasis mine.)
So only (Su) abilities are based on Cha now. There are a few (Su) domain/school abilities that allow a save, but not many.
A thought on the paladin, inspired by a playtest thread:
What if the smite evil ability, rather than adding a point per level, what if it added extra d6s of damage, like the rogue's sneak attack? Would that allow it to be more useful at lower levels? Would it ultimately overpower the paladin at higher levels?
How many d6s would we be adding or rather how frequently would a paladin get an extra d6 for their smite? My first thought it to give them +1d6 for each daily smite usage they have. This gives a decent boost at the level when an extra smite is gained, but by 19th level, it's only a few points higher than the flat bonus (avg roll of +24.5 vs. +19). Of course, this would make feats that give extra smites more compelling since that would increase damage too.
I've always liked the idea of bonuses that are based off of ability score modifiers that are capped by class level. Since we want to keep Charisma relevant, what about having damage dice equaling the Charisma bonus but limited to 1 die per 2 class levels (removing such a restriction as part of the capstone). The Attack Bonus could then be based off of the greater of Class level or Charisma bonus.
There are a couple other threads that cover this topic. This seems to be the HUGE issue with paladins. Smiting should be there definitive class ability. They should do their damage to their enemies through this because they are meant to go out and defeat EVIL!
My solution (also listed in another thread) is that smite should be always active. Every attack a paladin makes should be considered a smite attack. They should get their Char bonus as a + to hit and 1/2 their paladin level to damage (again, if there opponent is evil).
I think this give the paladin the feel it should have. They are focusing their faith behind every attack they make. They do not have the "skill" of a fighter but their faith allows them to be as effective (especially when you compare the +'s a fighter gets now to hit and damage) when fighting evil only. Also compare them to a rogue who gets their bonus sneak attack damage anytime they get flanking...a paladin gets his bonus damage whenever his enemies are evil...its what they were meant to do!
1) Specialist Wizards still get bonus spells just like 3.5, so they're definitely not WEAKER than the 3.5 version as a Class, for one. SLAs being less effective just mean they're likely to be IGNORED and not used... Though it IS pretty silly to give out abilities that aren't worth spending a round to use.
If that's the case and I've been mistaken, then I see no reason to keep the SLAs at all.
The problem is, casters (OK, not Druids) have gotten so much 'candy', but without an eye for over-all balance. I would question if Universal Mages REALLY need Bonus Spells AND Spontaneously Cast Bonded Item spells, for instance.
Ack. I don't care for Bonded Items at all right now. It's a poorly worded and mechanic as it stands right now.
2) Clerics definetely have a big use for Charisma: Channeling Energy. Probably more of a core ability than Strength for all but true Strength/Battle God worshippers. It also goes along with the more social aspect of Divine worship, and they even have a class skill (Diplomacy) based off of it.
I get the feeling that many Clerics are going to set CHA as a dump stat, jack up their WIS, put lots of ranks in Diplomacy, and only use their Channeling Energy feature to heal the party.
I WOULD like to see some Feats along the lines of "consume one/X use of Channel Energy to instead cause X effect" as have appeared in some WotC material. Not necessarily alot of them for the Core rules, but introduce the basic concept, and setting books can develop more.
I concur with you on this - having these feats may make a Cleric more likely to put points into their CHA and use Positive Energy for something more then a quick heal.
Word.
Heck, while you're at it, take away or reduce the effectiveness of the druid animal companion. Even without it the druid is a powerhouse.\
Now that their number of spells per day have been reduced and their Wild Shape has been nerfed, I don't feel that Druids are as powerful as they used to be in 3.5. I think we can probably leave their Animal Companions as they are. Besides, if you do that, you set up a very odd situation where the class that has the greatest connection to nature has weaker animal companions then the hunter with the bow that happens to be a good tracker.
I believe that leaving Druid pets as they are and having Rangers get Animal Companions as per a Druid of their level -3 works out just fine.
Barbarians:
The one idea that I came up with to make Rage Points more acceptable to me (because I'm still not sold on the idea) is this: spend one rage point and you enter a rage that lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your class level. This won't change the rules much at low levels, but at 6th, 8th, 10th level a barbarian's rage lasts 3, 4, or 5 rounds for every one rage point spent! This makes raging viable, defrays the rather high point cost of the rage powers, and addresses the "fluctuating rage" issue. A Greater Rage still costs 2 points to enter, but doesn't end after just one round. If the issue of a high-level barbarian raging for round after round, using rage powers with impunity scares anyone, then we could cap the length of the rage, by saying it can't exceed your CON modifier (before or after the rage adjustment; your choice).
Sorcerers:
I've never entertained the idea of playing a sorcerer before. Even though I'm a huge fan of the "slots per day" style of spellcasting (and hate vacian style), the idea of such a limited selection of spells was a big turn-off. However, these bloodlines make the sorcerer a very attractive character class, one I could have a lot of fun playing. I say, more bloodlines, please!!!
Wizards:
Upon further study, yes a universalist wizard does seem a bit too much. Perhaps we should go back to 2E D&D: all these bonus spells are the perview of the specialist wizards. The universalist wizard still gets his bonus supernatural powers, but none of the bonus spells! This should go a long way to reducing a universalist wizard's power to a more acceptable level.
Well, let me hear it <braces for impact>
DogBone