[Think-Tank] Beta Classes


General Discussion (Prerelease)

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

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.

    It is not a place to complain about something, or even necessarily argue that something is broken. If you think it is broken, explain why, but the bigger point is to provide a possible solution so that others might be inclined to try it out.

    Have a good thread Team Paizo! Break!


  • Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    This is what I was hoping for! A serious tread.

    Hey Set, please post a link/download to your comments!

    Dark Archive

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    Well rage points I like I think that they are a much better option than the old rage/per day mechanic I honestly dont feel the point keeping itself is all that complicated although i do think that certain abilities arent all that good (elemental rage) but thats more from a flavor prospective than anything else. One possible solution is to sevearly lower the points cost of powers (make all of them only 1 or 2 points) Whilst at the same time cutting down on the number of rage points. you start with

    Dark Archive

    So, addressing stuff as it occurs to me;

    Thematically, I don't care for the Rage point concept. It was mentioned in the previous thread that Rage powers selected should just be 'on' when the character is Raging, and I prefer this idea to the notion of a Barbarian *choosing powers on the fly,* which doesn't 'feel' right to me. (Yes, I'm not sure I have a rational opposition to the mechanic, from a meta-sense, but the feel of a Barbarian entering one sort of Rage at one point and another sort of Rage at another point just feels overly deliberate and mechanistic for someone who is losing control and going all crazyflakes on people.)

    Having a few sub-abilities that can only be activated during a Rage as an Immediate Action might be one option, for an ability that might be too powerful to exist during an entire Rage or during every Rage. (Some sort of 'I can Cleave, but only when I'm flipping out' mechanic.)

    The key mechanical problem I have with Rage points in general is that mechanics that use points or pools, such as Psions, almost inevitable gain more expensive power options that allow the class to 'shoot their wad' doing some sort of 'nova' or 'alpha strike,' and then being a subpar character for the rest of the day, leading to the whole '15 minute adventuring day' issue.

    Thematically, I like the Ki pool idea better than the Rage pool, with the caveat that I wouldn't want to see a Monk go 'nova' and blow all of his Ki pool in a single encounter, do something probably outrageous, and then end up being a wimpy stone-around-the-parties-neck for the next 24 hours. If the Monk is going to have a Ki Pool that he can use for multiple different effects, I'd prefer for it to function like the current Stunning Fist uses, in that it wouldn't handicap the Monk when he runs out of daily uses (as the current ruling of zero Ki equaling no more magic fists does).

    Slow and steady wins the race, they say, but really, the issue is one of gameplay. If one player, the Psion or Wizard, shoots his wad in the first encounter, and the rest of the party is good to go for two more encounters, then they are held hostage by his use of resources, resulting in one of two options;

    1) They rest every time the Psion / Wizard (rage point Barbarian) has blown his wad, in which case their contributions are being consistently outshone by his nova / alpha strikes and their class abilities that allow them to go all day long are utterly wasted.

    2) The Fighters, Rogues and other 'all day long' characters drag him along after he's blown his wad, and essentially are dragging a Commoner with a Crossbow around and carrying his gimpness.

    Neither option seems great.

    For the same reason, feats that allow a Druid to blow multiple Wild Shape uses to do something, or a Barbarian to use multiple Rage uses in a single shot (particularly for some really minor 1 round effect!), or a Bard to use multiple Music uses, or a Monk to expend multiple Stunning Fists / Ki uses, are all annoying to me, as they promote this 'blow your wad' / 15 minute adventuring day problem.

    Elemental Rage, I don't care for thematically, particularly the interpretation that the Barbarian can *choose* his energy at time of activation, because that's both extremely powerful (how many creatures have Energy Resistance to *everything?*) and even harder to justify thematically. I could easily justify a desert dwelling Barbarian who calls upon the sun to charge his with burning fury and make his attacks do extra fire damage, or a Northman who has an 'icy fury' that lends the fury of the blizzard to his attacks, but someone can choose at a moment's notice that his swords is going to do fire damage *or* cold damage *or* acid damage? Harder for me to swallow. As a non-Rage point class ability, having Elemental Rage work only when the Barbarian is Raging, but automatically, and limited to a single Energy type, would probably be a balanced class choice somewhere between 8th and 12th level.

    Stuff on the other classes to follow.


    Set:

    Spoiler:
    Apologies. It seems that your post was lost in the deluge of fail.
    Set wrote:

    Using a point structure invariably seems to lead to powers where one blows a lot of points for some massive 'alpha strike' which then leads us right back to the 15 minute adventuring day. (Psions going Nova, for instance, or Duskblades Arcane Channeling everything they have and shooting their wad in the first combat of the day.)

    Having Rage Powers be in effect throughout a Rage, or activated as a Swift / Immediate Action *during* a Rage, might work better than the whole 'blow X points to do Y.'

    Correct on all points.

    Set wrote:


    I don't care for Elemental Rage thematically, but as an option for some dude from the frozen north who has 'ice in his veins' and can channel an 'icy fury,' it could be neat. +1d6 elemental damage is fine and dandy, even at high levels, because not every encounter is with an Outsider that has Energy Resistance. But it should be a much cheaper effect, and, if presented as a Rage Power option in a non-Rage Point revamp, might be a suitable power to add in around 8th-12th level as an option. "When Raging, the howling wind from the north chills my foes and makes my sword like bitter ice!" If it's Elemental Resistance *of your choice at the time of activation,* it's *way* more effective, since there are very few creatures with Energy Resistance to *everything.*

    I also do not care for elemental rage thematically, but what you've suggested is still really, really weak. What Squirreloid suggested was a very good alternative.

    Set wrote:


    Monks with full BAB has always seemed like a sensible choice, as well. They aren't Clerics who can cast spells, they aren't Rogues who may be using finessable weapons, ranged weapons and often benefitting from flanking bonuses. They are front-line warriors

    Well, here’s the problem: apparently, 3e devs didn’t see them as “front-line warriors.” I can understand the d8 HD, as monks are focusing on not being hit rather than standing up to taking hits. However, the 3/4 BAB is just crippling. Giving the monk extra attacks is a pain because a) it involves a lot more dice rolling, and b) it is a poor “fix” for the monk’s weaknesses.

    ”Set” wrote:
    Ah, Rangers and their Companions. At least it only takes 24 hours to replace them when they fall down in the first round of every combat. :) Can they be made more useful without overpowering the class?

    The ranger’s power level is the least of our concerns. The druid is a full caster and gets a better animal companion. And he can transform into things.

    The best way to fix this is to make the “standard” feats do more, giving fighters a bigger edge. As it stands, a lot of the feats are the same useless junk that WotC published “back in the day.” Feats should be merged and combined, and more should be made. For instance, you could smoosh Great Fortitude and Toughness into one feat.
    ”Set” wrote:


    Mage Armor, I agree, should be Abjuration. Even the Abjurant Champion PrC from WotC assumes that it is an Abjuration spell! A Conjurer's class power should involve conjuring either items or creatures. Perhaps a bonus to the Familiar, since the Conjurer is the specialty Wizard that should be most attuned to the whole companion creature concept.
    If it's a summoning effect, it could be a scaling Summon Monster effect, or just a bonus to duration for Summon Monster, or the ability to communicate with Summoned Monsters, regardless of language, allowing the Conjuror to make use of non-attack utility. Perhaps a reduction of metamagic costs to Conjuration spells (-1 to total adjusted cost, but never less than the base level of the spell) would allow for a Conjuror to Extend a spell for cheap. If it instead focuses on the Conjuration aspect more than the summoning, the Conjuror might be able to create small items within a limited size and mass, in their hand, producing whatever tool or item, within a very limited price range, would be handy at the moment. These items would be temporary, and of no use as spell components, but perhaps they could be 'used' in other ways, such as creating food or water or lamp oil that is then consumed. The Conjuror with this feature would be seen to reach into his 'bag of stuff' and pull out whatever sort of smallish item is needed. There are tons of options, some mechanically useful in combat (bonuses to summon spells) others more useful out of combat (conjuring temporary stuff). An armor bonus feels a little too unthematic. (Conjuring actual armor? Neat. Force field? Not so much.)

    There was actually a Mind’s Eye article that gave psions a nerfed version of what you’re suggesting.

    ”Set” wrote:
    making those sorts of changes to the Cleric at this point would, IMO, wreck backwards compatibility.

    No more than giving the bard a d8 HD, I think.

    ”Set”I would love, love, love if Clerics and Druids were forced to choose between Spontaneous casting (very small selection of spells known, able to swap one out every level) and Prepared Casting (big book 'o holy rituals, and I have to decide at the beginning of the day which ones I'm gonna prepare, and pay money for the priviledge of learning them and copying them into my scriptures). The Cleric and Druid would then function like either the Wizard (potentially tons of spells, but at a cost and not guaranteed) or the Sorcerer (much smaller list of spells, usable spontaneously). This, IMO, would go a huge step towards balancing the Cleric / Druid against the Sorcerer / Wizard.[/quote wrote:


    This could possibly work.


    Wizards: Because they weren't good enough already.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to introduce teh Universalist Wizard, otherwise known as the Specialist in Extreme Brokenation. With no class features at all wizards are one of the strongest classes in the game. 3.P beta has insured that the generalist wizard outshines everyone, even CoDzilla. Consider:

    Arcane Bond: Mulligan for spell as needed? Broken. Wizards do not need this. Craft without feats? Totally over the top. Note: Amulet is by far the best choice here - you can even wear it under your shirt to foil sunder-happy DMs. At least they removed the ability to add powers at half normal crafting cost (from 3.0.3.P) - 1/4 cost crafting was completely crazy.

    Metamagic Mastery: I can't spell broken fast enough. Do not want. Wizards were already among the best classes in the game, this is crazy talk.

    Mastery of All Schools: +2 spell DC and +4 SR penentration. An elf with both SR penetration feats and this turns SR32 into Tissue Paper? And +2 DC... the power creep, it burns.

    Universalists getting the same bonus spell payout but from any school: so wait, why specialize again?

    Admittedly, 3.P beta has made it so there are exactly 2 worthwhile wizard progressions: Universalist Wizard 20 and Universalist Wizard 8/Incantatrix 10/any full caster PrC 2 (probably archmage or DO). Ie, Wizard 20 is desirable now. On the other hand, that its made undesirable virtually any other progression is depressing.

    Scarab Sages

    Set wrote:
    Thematically, I like the Ki pool idea better than the Rage pool, with the caveat that I wouldn't want to see a Monk go 'nova' and blow all of his Ki pool in a single encounter, do something probably outrageous, and then end up being a wimpy stone-around-the-parties-neck for the next 24 hours. If the Monk is going to have a Ki Pool that he can use for multiple different effects, I'd prefer for it to function like the current Stunning Fist uses, in that it wouldn't handicap the Monk when he runs out of daily uses (as the current ruling of zero Ki equaling no more magic fists does).

    I've had a thought about the ki pool dilemna as you pose it - I really think that Jason intended the "keep one point or you lose magic strike" as a prevention of nova techniques, as characters realize that by spending all their ki points they not only lose ki powers, but also magic strike as well. Of course, all of this is moot if the players just haul off and rest. The swift action and low point cost does prevent having one really awesome ability that drains your points quickly, but they could still be wasted in one battle. Would it be so huge to have monks with ki points equal to level+Wis?

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    Wizards: Because they weren't good enough already.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to introduce teh Universalist Wizard, otherwise known as the Specialist in Extreme Brokenation. With no class features at all wizards are one of the strongest classes in the game. 3.P beta has insured that the generalist wizard outshines everyone, even CoDzilla. Consider: >snip<

    I fully agree. I am introducing a Universalist into my Ruins of Greyhawk playtest to replace my aberrant sorcerer. At 11th level, he can dish out 136 damage (Fort half) 1/day using maximized disintegrate. And I have him equipped with an adamantine ring, since he doesn't have forge ring yet. His real weakness is AC, but the ability to teleport 1/day (thanks to bonus spells from any school) can get him out of a jam quickly. And did I mention he is an elf? He already has +17 to beat SR, which is almost 50/50 on a CR 20 Balor.

    I've also just finished rebuilding a rogue NPC, previously rog7/thief acrobat 5. Now he is rog13. I must say, it was pretty neat to be able to build the same character (but better) using the PRPG rules and no prestige classes, but I am concerned.

    His current attack pattern is:
    All creatures in suprise round are flat-footed. 1d6+1+7d6 damage, 2 Str damage, 4 bleed damage per round. He has a decent chance to hit most party members, and this is a fairly strong string of abilities compared to a 3.5 rogue. My biggest concern, though, is that with all the "rogue talents" flying about, the rogue technically has almost as many bonus feats as the fighter. Now, if the rogue all of a sudden has fighter bonus feats (1 less in fact), then what does the fighter get above and beyond armor/weapon training? Methinks the fighter might need some help with special abilities, as the rogue can do so much more. I really think the fighter should get the spread out DR that Psychic is recommending, as well as something that allows them to negate some of the abilities that typically remove them from combat.

    For example, 1/day a fighter could use his BAB in place of his base Will save to resist an effect for which he has already failed a save.


    Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    I'll say up front that I'm a fan of the Bo9S system. I don't like some of the supernatural manuevers, given its designed for melee sword slasher types, but it scaled their abilities much better than the feat system (for fighters), and class abilities (rangers, barbarians).

    However, its a cumbersome system to implement (required its own 160 page book). For PF, though, the tank classes could benefit from some of the lore there.

    Fighters - great start with the armor and weapon specializations. Still reliant on feat trees, so these need to be vetted for scale and "worth" at all levels. Any thoughts of balancing power attack away from two handed weapons?

    Paladins - # smites per day is too limiting. Change to #/encounter. Perhaps expand the power to smite chaos at higher levels? Would give it a broader use.

    Barbarians - I'm ambivalent on the rage point system. While I think the rage/day is somewhat bland, it fails in the same area as the paladin's smites (minimal use at lower levels). Implementing a per encounter mechanic may help.


    Set wrote:


    The key mechanical problem I have with Rage points in general is that mechanics that use points or pools, such as Psions, almost inevitable gain more expensive power options that allow the class to 'shoot their wad' doing some sort of 'nova'

    I think that this is a strange opinion to hold, honestly. The new rage mechanic allows you to spread it throughout an adventuring day, whereas the old 3.5 option kinda forced Barbarians to blow it all at once.

    I'm a big fan of the new Rage. It's made me want to play a Barbarian for the first time ever. I feel like most other classes get cool goodies (skills, feats, spells) to choose from as they level up, but Barbarians just get tougher. Now they get cool choices, too.

    Scarab Sages

    nomadicc wrote:

    Any thoughts of balancing power attack away from two handed weapons?

    I would be willing to have power attack work different ways for different weapons.

    Power Attack for 2-Handed Weapons (or weapons wielded in two hands)lowers the AC of the character by 1 (in addition to attack bonus) for every 2 points of extra damage dealt, to a maximum penalty equal to your Str modifier.

    Power Attack for one-handed Weapons uses the normal power attack, trading attack bonus for damage bonus.

    No Power Attack for light weapons.

    Liberty's Edge

    Regarding Rage
    The biggest concern I have is 'fluctuating rage'. High level barbarians can choose to 'Greater Rage' one round, then 'Rage', then 'Mighty Rage' the next. Each has advantages (lower cost per round verus better bonuses to Str and Con). Having a character change his bonuses from round to round is FAR too complicated.

    My suggestion - once a rage 'improves' (ie, Mighty Rage) you may choose that rage for the same cost as the 'previous' version. Thus, at 1st level it might cost 2 rage points/round to rage. At 20th level it would cost 2 rage points/round to Mighty Rage.

    This would make things far simpler, and therefore better in my opinion. If costs need to be adjusted, I think that would be a good idea. I personally think that the rage point costs are too high. I'd suggest all costs be divided by 2 (at least) and some by 4. Rage points should equal 2 x (Barbarian Level + Newly Modified Con Modifier). Combining that with the idea of allowing 'always on' abilities, the costs should end up being 'on par' with 3.5

    A 20th level Barbarian in 3.5 could rage 6 times, each time for (3+Con Mod - approx 11 rounds each time or 66 rounds total each day). The 20th Barabarian in Pathfinder (assuming a modified Con of +8) would end up having (20+8) x2 = 28x2 = 56 rounds of rage. The big advantage would be that the barbarian could use all of them in a single encounter or spread them out in 'smaller chunks' - allowing more versatility but a slight cost in terms of 'number of rounds'.

    If 'always on' is not used, I suggest using 1 + Normal Con Mod x level. Thus, a barbarian with a normal Con modifier of +5 would gain 6 rage points/level. Rage should cost 1 point/round and most rage abilities should cost 1 point/use. To compare to a 3.5 Barbarian, they would have roughly 2x the number of rage rounds, but each use of a rage power reduces their rage time by a round (or more, as necessary).

    So, I certainly hope to see this revisited and hashed out in more detail.

    Regarding Specialist Wizards
    I wanted to make a Conjuration specialist for our Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign we began this week. I coudn't do it. I ended up choosing Enchanter instead. The Conjurer specialist ability (+2 Armor Bonus) was a major disincentive. Mage Armor provides a +4 bonus and lasts 1 hour/level. However, if I am a Conjuration Specialist, it only effectively grants a +2 bonus to my AC (since it does not stack with my specialist ability). In my mind that makes the spell only half as effective (granting a +2 bonus to my normal AC) and not a good choice for a 1st level spell. By choosing not to be a Conjuration specialist I did not get the +2 AC bonus, but when I cast Mage Armor (and I do) I end up with the same AC, but my specialist ability is still useful. I was very disappointed with that aspect of the rules.

    The 'arcane bonded item' is unclear. What spell can it cast? One that I have prepared? Can it cast any spell that I prepared that day? So, let's say I have 3 spells prepared (say Sleep, Charm Person and Mage Armor) - can I cast each of the three spells and then decide which one I would like my bonded item to cast (a second sleep might be useful). Or can it only cast the spell that is still prepared? So, if I cast Mage Armor and Sleep (leaving Charm Person) I could use my bonded item to cast Charm Person (leaving Charm Person prepared).

    That's what I have for tonight.


    Arcane Bonded Item: Its better than you think. It lets you cast one spell you *know* (ie, in your spellbook!). You didn't even have to memorize it today. Hence why I call it a mulligan. It doesn't matter what you prepped for and how horribly wrong you were, your arcane bonded item has you covered!

    Liberty's Edge

    The thought about rage points being unthematic for barbarians is interesting. If the character is flying into a foaming battle frenzy, does it make sense for the player behind the character to have to keep track of expended points? Too much bookkeeping for cracking skulls? Is there a better way?

    Maybe a barbarian chooses a theme like the Unearthed Arcana options and builds set powers from that? Sound a little too 4E to me though.

    Maybe they can exchange nonlethal damage or ability damage in exchange for powers (rage-a-hol takes a lot out of you)? eg. Bob the Barbarian is in a fight. He can take up to his level in nonlethal damage at any time during an encounter to enter a rage. For every point of damage he takes, add 1 to his STR and CON. Maybe add your original CON modifier to the bonus, I dunno. As Bob goes up in level, he can take extra damage to gain other abilities. You always know how many points you can spend, because it equals your HP.

    Just pulling an idea out of the air.


    I like Rogue Talents as a template for how to give Fighters special abilities, not just cumulative attack/armor bonuses like Armor/Weapon Training, but ones which can push their strengths into new territory... The Armor/Weapon Training could really be only ONE option from a bunch of unique, interesting ABILITIES a Fighter could choose from.

    The rules don't deal enough with disrupting casting, i.e. how do characters KNOW that someone will cast a spell so that they can delay action until that round (it's probably a perception check), but this would be a great Fighter ability: 'intuition' of anyone casting spells, and a Feat/Ability that makes their attacks "extra" disrupting (i.e. only 2/3 damage, but double the penalty for Concentration).

    Notice how Barbarians and Rogues get Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge, so they can't be Sneak Attacked? Why not a Fighter Ability so casters can't just Cast Defensively? It would work pretty much like Uncanny Dodge, higher level casters could ignore most of it, etc, but that sort of ability is what the Fighter really needs.

    I *DON'T* think these abilities should be magical/pseudo-magical, but rather, unique 'edge' abilities whose strength is cutting thru the standard operating procedure of magical effects, is where the change should be.

    For the Barbarian, likewise... Some of the comments on "Nova-ing" I'm not sure apply though, since I thought there was a limit of one Rage Power per round...? Anyhow, I think the Rage Powers are a good unique way for the Barbarian to accomplish some of these things, in a different way than the Fighter. I have specific feedback for some powers that I'm saving until the Class Chapter is open for feedback.
    (I'd second that the "greater" Rages should just be automatic/ free)

    I feel that it's pretty obvious to all (incl. Jason & all at Paizo) that the Casting classes have been buffed substantially, and it's important to balance those changes to keep the Fighter (and friends) viable.
    (I'd support the Paladin casting spontaneously, like Favored Souls vs. Clerics, and they're already CHA based)
    (Arcane Bond: Limiting it to spells prepared would be great. As is, it majorly expands the Wizard into supposed Sorceror category (you don't REALLY need to Spontaneous cast EVERY spell, just that one or two), and it's really just a minor boost to Arcane Sorcerors, since they don't have a big spellbook to cast from)

    Scarab Sages

    Squirrelloid wrote:
    Arcane Bonded Item: Its better than you think. It lets you cast one spell you *know* (ie, in your spellbook!). You didn't even have to memorize it today. Hence why I call it a mulligan. It doesn't matter what you prepped for and how horribly wrong you were, your arcane bonded item has you covered!

    I don't think it is THAT good. The exact wording is "knows and can cast" which, to me, means that your wizard must know the spell, and still have it available to cast that day. So you get one extra casting of a spell you have prepared.


    Jal Dorak wrote:
    Squirrelloid wrote:
    Arcane Bonded Item: Its better than you think. It lets you cast one spell you *know* (ie, in your spellbook!). You didn't even have to memorize it today. Hence why I call it a mulligan. It doesn't matter what you prepped for and how horribly wrong you were, your arcane bonded item has you covered!
    I don't think it is THAT good. The exact wording is "knows and can cast" which, to me, means that your wizard must know the spell, and still have it available to cast that day. So you get one extra casting of a spell you have prepared.

    "Can cast" is not "can cast today". Any spell I could have memorized I 'can' cast.

    However, its clear the wording is ambiguous and should be clarified.

    Dark Archive

    Jal Dorak wrote:


  • Rage points: too costly? too complicated?
  • I like the concept of a variable length rage and and powers you can use during a rage, but the point costs for the powers need to be redone. They're just not balanced. Elemental Rage costs 8 points and adds +1d6 damage per hit verus Powerful Blow at 4, and adds your barbarian level worth of damage to a single attack. Powerful Blow is almost given to do more damage more consistently as most people who are going to use it will use it on the first attack (the one most likely to hit) where Elemental Rage will need all attacks to hit, and for the extra damage dice to roll high. They at least need to have the point value swapped.

    Truthfully, Rage Points need to be completely reexamined. Most of the values need be lowered, as they aren't worth the rounds of rage they cost. I would advise a 1-6 point costs for the powers. Also, can we stop making the later versions of rage cost more?

    Jal Dorak wrote:


  • Ranger companion: too vulnerable?
  • Just make it equal to a druid's of the same level as the Ranger level-3. The Ranger isn't that strong, And Druids get it in addition to full casting and wildshape, some of the games best abilities.

    Jal Dorak wrote:


  • Wizard specialists: not appropriate flavor?
  • Not so much flavor, just weak in comparison to the universalist being much better then them. The unversalist needs to be nerfed. Metamagic Mastery needs be weakened (make it a number of spell levels equal to half your wizard levels with a stipulation that you can add only one Metamagic feat to the spell this way) and Mastery of all schools just needs to be replaced. Meanwhile, the specialist bonuses need to be boosted.

    Abjuration specialist bonus: Make it energy resistance 1 per level of wizard.

    Conjuration specialist bonus: +1 armor bonus at the first level of wizard plus for every two levels of wizard after that (3rd, 5th, 7th and so on)

    Jal Dorak wrote:


  • Ki pool: fair to end an ability when out of points?
  • Need more Ki points. Squirrelloid probably has a better idea then me at the moment as I remember him working on it during Alpha 3. I know that it needs to be Monk level+Wis Mod at least. (I remember me and him talking to Jason in the big monk thread, but can for the life of me remember what I said back then.)

    Other points:

    Monk:

    Wholeness of body need to heal more. Not worth the points as few as they are now, and not worth using in combat. Make it heal Monk Level*Wis bonus worth of HP.

    Paladin:

    Smite Evil: Needs more smite evil per day. 7 isn't enough given that a use of smite evil can fail. Either make the smite evil not be spent on a miss or increase the number of smite evil per day to 1 smite evil per day per level of paladin.

    Lay on Hands: Suffers the same as the Monk's Wholeness of Body. Make it heal Paladin Level*Cha Bonus worth of HP.

    Dark Archive

    Gah. Forgot to finish putting in the wizard comments.

    Evocation specialist bonus: Whenever you use a spell that deals damage, that spell does +1 damage plus an additional +1 for every 5 levels of wizard afterwards times the spell's level.

    Enchantment and Divination specialist bonuses need to be redone, through I have no idea where to start.

    Change whenever a wizard prepares a spell prohibited school, he loses the bonus spells, instead of the specialist bonus.


    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?


    Edit: Ok, this is more a spell complaint than a class complaint, removed and reposted in own thread.


    I'll re-post an idea some great thinker posted elsewhere on the boards:

    Give the Druid's Animal Companion (if they choose one, now that it's an option)
    something like Druid -3 equivalency, but limit the TYPE OF ANIMAL to something from the second tier or so... This means they can have a wolf, or Cougar or Bear even, and at 20th level, it will have appropriate HD, BAB, Saves, etc, but they won't be able to get the crazy Monstrous Creatures like T-Rex's and whatnot...

    The details on this (what minus to apply, which tier to limit it to) are just that, details, but I think a setup like this works and is easily balanced....


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Shadowborn wrote:

    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.


    My main problem is with the Monk, it needs a revamp. I'm using my Monk from here in my personal campaigns. It's backwards compatible and created based upon the fine work started with the rogue.

    I think the Ranger needs 2 things to buff them. Return to Medium armor. Animal Companion at Class-3 rather than 1/2 Class Level.

    Paladin smites need a buff. Perhaps make it (CHA)d6+level, . The existing smite is just plain useless.

    Perhaps the Universalist is a bit too powerful now. Universalist should just be the standard Wizard. I agree that the conjurer needs some work.


    BM wrote:
    Need more Ki points. Squirrelloid probably has a better idea then me at the moment as I remember him working on it during Alpha 3. I know that it needs to be Monk level+Wis Mod at least. (I remember me and him talking to Jason in the big monk thread, but can for the life of me remember what I said back then.)

    I wrote a monk class in the alpha 3 new rules forum. Its probably easy to find. I think its a vast improvement to the beta monk, ymmv. Someone else (can't remember the name) incorporated some of my ideas into his monk rewrite as well, and I thought his rewrite was a little sloppy and didn't have as good of a design theory, but it wasn't bad (and also better than this beta version).

    Scarab Sages

    Squirrelloid wrote:
    BM wrote:
    Need more Ki points. Squirrelloid probably has a better idea then me at the moment as I remember him working on it during Alpha 3. I know that it needs to be Monk level+Wis Mod at least. (I remember me and him talking to Jason in the big monk thread, but can for the life of me remember what I said back then.)
    I wrote a monk class in the alpha 3 new rules forum. Its probably easy to find. I think its a vast improvement to the beta monk, ymmv. Someone else (can't remember the name) incorporated some of my ideas into his monk rewrite as well, and I thought his rewrite was a little sloppy and didn't have as good of a design theory, but it wasn't bad (and also better than this beta version).

    Me Squirreloid...I also started the Monk Think Tank, which incorporated links to both of our monks. Actually my design theory was fine, I just didn't put lots of fluff in. My design theory is based upon the rogue example, and wuxia style kung fu. I also kept it backwards compatible and only slightly boosted the power. I also asked for lots of input, more ideas and more playtesting.

    You also need to invest in some ranks of Tact...


    Since I have a Barbarian(-Scout Gestalt) character in my game, I'm especially interested in resolving the Rage issues. The point-cost (for me) is what needs addressing.

    [Though this could apply to any class]

    Any bonus-die power should only cost the average value of the roll. In the case of ER, it ought to be no more than 3 or 4 points. If it were a d8 (4/5), d10 (5/6), etc. If there were more dice added (new option?), then obviously that cost would be per-die.

    From there, the other Rage-powers could more logically be re-priced (likely, downward).

    My two-bits.


    Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
    Squirrelloid wrote:
    BM wrote:
    Need more Ki points. Squirrelloid probably has a better idea then me at the moment as I remember him working on it during Alpha 3. I know that it needs to be Monk level+Wis Mod at least. (I remember me and him talking to Jason in the big monk thread, but can for the life of me remember what I said back then.)
    I wrote a monk class in the alpha 3 new rules forum. Its probably easy to find. I think its a vast improvement to the beta monk, ymmv. Someone else (can't remember the name) incorporated some of my ideas into his monk rewrite as well, and I thought his rewrite was a little sloppy and didn't have as good of a design theory, but it wasn't bad (and also better than this beta version).

    Me Squirreloid...I also started the Monk Think Tank, which incorporated links to both of our monks. Actually my design theory was fine, I just didn't put lots of fluff in. My design theory is based upon the rogue example, and wuxia style kung fu. I also kept it backwards compatible and only slightly boosted the power. I also asked for lots of input, more ideas and more playtesting.

    You also need to invest in some ranks of Tact...

    That was an honest, if blunt, assessment of what I thought of your work. I suppose I can be a little more approving: I liked it, but it didn't feel especially tight and some abilities still seem poorly thought out (for example, I really don't like your quivering palm, and said as much in the thread. You also lobotomized Broken Rabbit Defense, for another example - that ability is unplayable as you have it written). That sort of thing is the slop I was referring to.

    As to design theory, your write-up felt somewhat all over the place and without a clear idea for a role the monk was supposed to be fulfilling. Which means there's a hodge-podge of abilities and its hard to reliably assemble a functional class out of that. Its the same problem the 3.5 fighter has - even building something that is at all functional with the fighter is a lot of work because so many of the feats are traps. Without some structure, its easy to get lost in a free-form write-up like you provided, and most importantly, its not clear to me what you expected the Monk to be doing. Which isn't to say its as bad as the fighter in this regard, but it has started down the same slippery slope.

    Could I be more active in providing feedback and working to make it better? Sure. Or I could just be happy with what I wrote and move on to other projects and interests.

    Tact on the internet is overrated. I don't expect people to sugarcoat their comments about my work (and its generally more informative if they dont), and I won't pussyfoot around when talking about other people's work. People who matter will respect you for being blunt.

    But I did like your class, it has good ideas and implements enough of them well to be playable (and you can just not take the ones that don't work well). That's more than you'll hear me say about a lot of 3.5 material and a lot of 3.P material. You probably have problems with my work (otherwise you wouldn't have written your own), that's fine - my assessments of my own work are likely biased. Being up front and honest about what you think is the best way to make sure people understand what you're saying.

    Sorry about not remembering your name, anything which isn't a word in english or close to one is likely to totally slip my memory.

    -----------

    Now I'm almost tempted to go back and play with Monk a little more. There are some improvements to be made to my design, even if (i believe) the design theory is tight that doesn't mean it does everything I wanted. But I'm not sure these boards are the place for it - I'm tired about the weird schizophrenic definition of 'backwards compatibility' - monks need full BAB, and its not like I'd be doing another draft for some vague hope that its ideas make it into Paizo.


    Hello all,

    Just a few quick things off the top of my head:

    Barbarian

    *I think there should be alternate ways of recovering rage points (but I have a thread dedicated to that).

    *Guarded Stance rage power. Guarded stance? How can one fly into a berserker rage and yet still maintain a guarded stance? Adopting a defensive posture is not going berserk. Just seems thematically inappropriate. Also, it means that a high level barbarian, instead of losing defensive ability in his rage actually becomes one of the highest AC characters possible. Just strikes me as a power that shouldn't be there. They already have increased damage reduction as a far more appropriate defensive power.

    *Low-Light Vision and Nightsight rage powers: I'm so angry that I can see in the dark! Eh? Again, it's a nice ability, but I cannot understand how it thematically fits in with flying into a berserk rage.

    Bard

    *With all the versatility and options gained by monks, paladins, barbarians, and others, why not give that versatility to bards for their special abilities? Of course, powers would have to be tweaked to allow for scaling and whatnot, but it would really help to make bards unique from one another, and it would give players more options.

    *There's a line that says bards can cast spells while using a shield, but then the next sentence says they suffer a failure chance for using a shield. That needs to be cleaned up, I think.

    *For many ideas on bard versatility, I highly recommend the old 2nd ed. Bards Handbook. There were a vast number of very good kits there that I still cannot duplicate under the current rules. Maybe incorporating some of those abilities as options for a bard could help flesh them out as more than the merry minstrel.

    Cleric

    *Why remove initial powers from domains and yet give them to wizard specialist schools? It's fine with me, but I do find it odd. Other than that, I love clerics. They're good.

    Druid

    *I just don't know enough about the druid to say too much here.

    Figher

    *With so many feat choices, I wonder if there are enough feats in the book to keep fighters differentiated. Other than that, they look dang solid.

    Monk

    * "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." I hate this quote. The way the paragraph is worded, it sounds like the monk is constantly lashing out with any and every limb each with equal prowess. But it seems to mean that monks aren't allowed to make unarmed off-hand attacks. Sure, there's flurry of blows to represent many attacks, but you can use that AND off-hand attacks with kamas. So, shouldn't a bare handed monk get the same potential as a weapon wielding one?

    *Ki Strike: Personally, I'd like to see some options with this one. Counting as magical and lawful make sense, but it'd be nice to be able to choose between, for example, adamantine or flaming or who knows what else. Just a thought.

    *Ki Pool: I love it! I think there should be alternate ways of recovering points (but I have a thread dedicated to that). I'd love to see more abilities that can make use of the ki pool. Maybe add feats. It's very nice.

    Paladin

    *Wow. They seem very, very potent. But, I think everything in Pathfinder does. So perhaps they're balanced. It all looks good to me at any rate. That is to say that everything fits the theme quite well.

    Ranger

    *I still need to look more closely at theme before I can make any usefl comments.

    Rogue

    *Nice. They seem much more interesting than in vanilla 3.5. Though, since their the most skill heavy class, I'm not sure how all of the skill changes are affecting them.

    Sorcerers and Wizards

    (I'm lumping these together partially because I'm tired and partially because....)

    *At first, I noticed the bloodlines and thought it was a great way to differentiate the two classes. Then I noticed the way specialist school abilities worked, and they seemed much more similar again. However, both work well, and though they are mechanically similar, they are thematically very good. It also gives many new options for sorcerers and their background.

    *Infinite cantrips: Perfect! Now wizards feel more like masters of the arcane who are constantly performing minor, near-effortless magics.

    *Infinite use attack power: This is good. There's a reason both Neverwinter Nights games give you an infinite charge minor damage wand. This certainly helps the mages keep up with endurance and avoid becoming a stone after their 15 minutes are up. One thing to consider, though, mages can never be disarmed....

    Ok, so those are my preliminary thoughts. I hope they prove useful to someone.

    Kayn


    Since I'm just getting started GMing the Beta I appreciate the mechanics threads. I apologize that I can't contribute too much at this level. BTW, I havn't GM'd in a LONG while, and am still in transition role. Pls correct me if I mis-state any points.

    Points from our newborn 3rd level gestalt (sorry, this will skew my examples) party -

    Rogue - The sneak attack bonus on every flank has succeeded in getting the ranger/rogue into H2H at every opportunity. He's killing me a bit with the 2-weapon combo and the +2d6 on each attack, but I think it will balance out later. Significant boost from 3.5. The player is scaring me a bit since now he wishes he had made a fighter/rouge to maximize feats.

    Paladin - Interesting idea on bumping the smite ability to mimic the rogue. Combining this with their ability to channel energy thru their weapon might give them the epic good vs. evil battle feel.

    Shoot the wad problem - I think the mechanic fixes should stand on their own. IMO if a player blows all their best spells/abilities too soon in the day shame on them, and woe to the party. My group is pretty good conserving resources though. Still pursue the fixes on their own merit, to get balance. The conjuration specialist example shows why we need to.

    Bloodlines - The monk/sorcerer has a draconic bloodline, and is using it to great effect.

    My group is just learning Pathfinder at low levels so I'm sure new issues will pop up. Part of me is wishing that I hadn't jumped into gestalt characters but that's what we used in our 3.5 campaign. Overall my group's interest in the rules has skyrocketed with Pathfinder. We all love the robust material and flavor. It's a good base to build from.


    Rage powers - While I like the concept and the variety I agree that Guarded Stance seems out of place with the term Rage. Maybe it's the name. I can picture the ability being used to get to the BBEG quickly without (potentially) being bogged down by minions. Low-light and Darkvision seem a bit strange, 2 and 4 points for 1 round. Doesn't seem worthwhile. Maybe a tie in to blind-fight instead?

    Animal companions - I think the level -3 proposal is OK, but can be houseruled just as easily. CMB and grapple changes have made companions less of a hassle.

    Scarab Sages

    Hey everyone,

    Just wanted to say that so far there are a lot of great ideas flying around, which is exactly what I wanted for this thread. Keep it coming!

    Scarab Sages

    Squirrelloid wrote:
    Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
    Squirrelloid wrote:
    BM wrote:
    Need more Ki points. Squirrelloid probably has a better idea then me at the moment as I remember him working on it during Alpha 3. I know that it needs to be Monk level+Wis Mod at least. (I remember me and him talking to Jason in the big monk thread, but can for the life of me remember what I said back then.)
    I wrote a monk class in the alpha 3 new rules forum. Its probably easy to find. I think its a vast improvement to the beta monk, ymmv. Someone else (can't remember the name) incorporated some of my ideas into his monk rewrite as well, and I thought his rewrite was a little sloppy and didn't have as good of a design theory, but it wasn't bad (and also better than this beta version).

    Me Squirreloid...I also started the Monk Think Tank, which incorporated links to both of our monks. Actually my design theory was fine, I just didn't put lots of fluff in. My design theory is based upon the rogue example, and wuxia style kung fu. I also kept it backwards compatible and only slightly boosted the power. I also asked for lots of input, more ideas and more playtesting.

    You also need to invest in some ranks of Tact...

    That was an honest, if blunt, assessment of what I thought of your work. I suppose I can be a little more approving: I liked it, but it didn't feel especially tight and some abilities still seem poorly thought out (for example, I really don't like your quivering palm, and said as much in the thread. You also lobotomized Broken Rabbit Defense, for another example - that ability is unplayable as you have it written). That sort of thing is the slop I was referring to.

    As to design theory, your write-up felt somewhat all over the place and without a clear idea for a role the monk was supposed to be fulfilling. Which means there's a hodge-podge of abilities and its hard to reliably assemble a functional class out of that. Its the same problem the 3.5 fighter has - even building something that is at...

    Ah, my monk is all over the place, as I wanted it to be customizable to fulfill whatever vision the person playing the monk wanted. I dislike having straight-jacket roles, rather than loosely defined roles. The rogue's abilities are also all over the place...from fighter feats to magic use...

    As far as your broken rabbit defense, it's a defense, so I made it to be used as a full defense, to me that balanced it.

    Criticisms noted, and filed.

    bluntness accepted

    off to work.


    I think that Ki pool is a great mechanic... but does the monk really need more abilities than it already had in v3.5?

    Liberty's Edge

    I think all that's needed to really fix the monk is full BAB progression. IMO all the other fancy tricks and combat powers just seem to be compensating for that shortcoming. That's my opinion of course and I'll bet that 99.9% of monk players will disagree with me. :)


    Iziak wrote:
    I think that Ki pool is a great mechanic... but does the monk really need more abilities than it already had in v3.5?

    Not just the monk. Lots of classes have powers/abilities now. Balancing them both within and between classes is the trick.


    Emperor7 wrote:
    Not just the monk. Lots of classes have powers/abilities now. Balancing them both within and between classes is the trick.

    I know that all the classes have new features, and I think that this is, for the most part, good. I'm just concerned about the monk and bard because they seemed overly complicated, at least to me, in v3.5. Adding more abilities could scare away new players from those classes. Adding new things to the spellcasting classes is actually easier, because all of the spells follow a similar pattern, but the monk and bard have so many features that are like small sub-systems.


    Iziak wrote:
    Emperor7 wrote:
    Not just the monk. Lots of classes have powers/abilities now. Balancing them both within and between classes is the trick.
    I know that all the classes have new features, and I think that this is, for the most part, good. I'm just concerned about the monk and bard because they seemed overly complicated, at least to me, in v3.5. Adding more abilities could scare away new players from those classes. Adding new things to the spellcasting classes is actually easier, because all of the spells follow a similar pattern, but the monk and bard have so many features that are like small sub-systems.

    Thx for the clarification. I agree. I have two players struggling with that right now. Not to diminish their player skills, but it seems that they are getting bogged down in the class abilities a bit. Their character concept came before we had the Apha or Beta. (Again, we're really new to Pathfinder.)

    Their previous 3.5 characters weren't very deep or well run, due to lack of effort/interest. The two players, and everyone else, seem to be working hard at learning their new abilities (and enjoying every minute of it!). I'm hopeful.

    Dark Archive

    Psychic_Robot

    Spoiler:
    On some points, we're really in agreement. Monks need full BAB (far more than 'Flurry of Blows') to do their job. In others, not so much, as in whether or not +1d6 energy damage is a useless enhancement.

    My main rationale for wanting the Cleric / Druid being limited to Spontaneous or Prepared casting, and not the free-for-all goodness they get now is that *far* too many discussions about balancing other classes get derailed with the comment, 'but the Cleric gets...' or 'but the Druid gets...' I don't want to point out on the one hand that the Cleric and Druid are too good, which they are, and then suggest on the other hand that every other class needs to be balanced against them, because that takes brokenation to Broken Nation. Your suggestion of 1d6 HD and poor BAB for Clerics would have been a great idea, many years ago, but at the moment, we are stuck with the 'image' of a Cleric as wearing platemail and functioning as a warrior-priest who casts some spells, despite 3.X giving them nine levels of spells (instead of seven levels in 1st and 2nd ed) and much better spells at that. (Back in 1st and 2nd edition, Flame Strike was pretty much 'it' for Cleric offensive spellcasting, and now it's not even an optimal choice, *and it's gotten better.*) Clerics retained the extra hit points and armor and BAB over Wizards, despite a *vastly* improved spell-list, as well as Domains that give them access to some Wizard spells. This is fait accompli. We can't change this by redefining the Cleric as a Cloistered Cleric in light or no armor with lesser HD and BAB at this point, because then it would have moved too far away from the 3.5 Cleric, IMO. So, working within the limitations we've got, tweaking their spellcasting / spells known to operate within the limitations placed upon the Sorcerer or Wizard seems like the only real solution (as well as stuff that's already being taken care of in Pathfinder such as Righteous Might and Divine Favor, or just isn't being added at all, I hope, to Pathfinder, like Nightsticks, Persistent Spell and Divine Metamagic)

    Thoughts on the Wizard's specialty abilities;

    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.

    A Conjurer's class power should involve conjuring either items or creatures. Perhaps a bonus to the Familiar, since the Conjurer is the specialty Wizard that should be most attuned to the whole companion creature concept.

    If it's a summoning effect, it could be a scaling Summon Monster effect, or just a bonus to duration for Summon Monster (which, especially at 1st level, is a bummer, so perhaps bonus rounds equal to his Int bonus, allowing a 1st level Conjuror with a 15 Int to Summon a Celestial Badger that will last for 3 rounds instead of one?), or the ability to communicate with Summoned Monsters, regardless of language, allowing the Conjuror to make use of non-attack utility. Perhaps a reduction of metamagic costs to Conjuration spells (-1 to total adjusted cost, but never less than the base level of the spell) would allow for a Conjuror to Extend a Conjuration spell for cheap. If it instead focuses on the Conjuration aspect more than the summoning, the Conjuror might be able to create small items within a limited size and mass, in their hand, producing whatever tool or item, within a very limited price range, would be handy at the moment. These items would be temporary, and of no use as spell components, but perhaps they could be 'used' in other ways, such as creating food or water or lamp oil that is then consumed. The Conjuror with this feature would be seen to reach into his 'bag of stuff' and pull out whatever sort of smallish item is needed. There are tons of options, some mechanically useful in combat (bonuses to summon spells) others more useful out of combat (conjuring temporary stuff). An armor bonus feels a little too unthematic. (Conjuring actual armor? Neat. Force field? Not so much.)

    Even the Abrupt Jaunt Alternate Class Feature from PHB2 better fits the Conjuror's 'theme' than an AC bonus (although it's not OGL, so it couldn't be directly lifted, just used as an example).

    Each of the Master Specialist classes has suggestions, and while we can't directly lift them, we can at least look at them to see what is cool (minor enchantment esoterica, which overcomes some annoying limitations of charm/compulsion spells), what it too cool, what is not well thought out (necromancers give Turn Resistance to their allies, which makes them uncontrollable so that they attack their master! Brilliant!) and what is 'meh' (abjuration minor esoterica that gives a bonus to dispel checks).

    Much more pillagable are theSpecialist Wizard variants in the SRD.

    If anyone is getting an AC bonus as a Specialist class feature, it should be the Abjurer (with a deflection bonus or an armor bonus from a magical shield that blocks some attacks for him) and / or the Diviner (who could get a strong Insight bonus to AC/saves vs a single target, as she 'reads' them during combat, or a smaller Insight bonus to AC/saves vs a group).

    An Evoker could get some Energy Resistance (1 / 4 levels vs *all* Energy forms?), but, more thematically, a higher (doubled?) Energy Resistance *versus their own spells,* allowing them to occasionally do something iconically 'evoker-like' like drop a Fireball directly at their feet, knowing that they will survive it. These low levels of Energy Resistance might be tweaked a little to also provide equal pluses to fort saves to resist the effects of extreme heat or cold, as the Evoker's skill at resisting Fireballs and Cones of Cold has also made him somewhat unimpressed with the heat of the desert or the cold of a blizzard.

    Dark Archive

    Starting another post to deal with my thoughts on Fighters, which really haven't changed much since Alpha 1.

    Fighters, IMO, need some combination of the following;

    1) A scaling damage bonus equal to 1/2 their Fighter level (rounded up, so every odd level) that applies to all melee weapon, ranged weapon and unarmed attacks. +1 damage at 1st level all the way to +10 damage on every hit at 19th level, just for being a Fighter.

    2) Either a class Defense bonus to AC (+1 / 4 Fighter levels, rounded up?) *or* an Armor Optimization ability that allows them to get an additional +1 Dodge bonus to AC while wearing Light Armor, +2 while wearing Medium Armor and +3 while wearing Heavy Armor. Any idiot can strap on a Breastplate and get a +5 armor bonus out of it. Only a Fighter can wear the same Breastplate and eke out an additional +2 (Dodge Bonus to) AC out of it.

    3) The option to be a lightly armored Fighter, without playing another class. I'd allow them to swap out each Armor proficiency feat for a +1 Dodge bonus to AC. Swap out Heavy Armor Proficiency (and Tower Shields) and get a +1. Also swap out Medium Armor Proficiency (and Large Shields) and get a second +1. Also swap out Light Armor Proficiency (and Small Shields) and get a third and final +1. Is that +3 Dodge Bonus to AC going to compensate for not being able to get a +10 AC from that Fullplate and Lg Shield combo? Nope. Is it going to make you a Monk? Nope. But it means that your desert-dwelling Osirian Fighter who is *never* going to wear Medium or Heavy armor gets a +2 Dodge bonus to AC, and isn't automatically assumed to have trained in wearing Fullplate and carrying Tower Shields.

    4) The Fighters main 'class ability' as it stands involves FEATS. And the combat feats in particular seem to have been hit pretty hard with this 'only one feat / round' concept. A Fighter should *always* be able to use his Dodge and his Weapon Finesse and his Weapon Focus and his Cleave and his Power Attack *in the same round.* It's what they do, and handicapping the combat feats, IMO, destroys the class who *least* needed to be kicked in the face. Individual feats are also an important part of Fighter class balance, and stuff like Dodge needs to be buffed up (+1 Dodge bonus normally, an extra +1 Dodge bonus against a designated foe, like in M&M and True20?) while stuff like Power Attack needs to be balanced for use by dual-wielders, two-handers and sword-and-boarders (no extra effect for 2H use, no reduced effect for light weapon use?). Anywho, this is stuff better saved for a Feats thread, but since the Fighters big 'power' is lots and lots of Feats, its vital to the Fighter that his combat Feats remain useful.

    5) More options in combat. We've got a fair amount of options. Trip, Disarm, Sunder, standard attack, Charge, Overrun, Bull Rush, Grapple. But, IMO, a Fighter should be able to learn, through Feats or Class Abilities, to apply Conditions to foes. Each Condition could be a staged effect. Swing with the morningstar to the junk, using the appropriate Feat/Technique and the foe has to make a Fort save or be Nauseated for a round, and, even if failed, might be Sickened for a round. Increased effects could lead to multiple rounds of that condition. Open a bleeding cut on their face, and if they fail the save, they are Blinded for a round, and, even if they make it, they are still Dazzled for a round. Smash their kneecap and the must save or become Lamed (as per the Caltrop wound condition) for a round, even if they save they suffer a lesser movement penalty. A sharp blow to the midriff, and save or be Exhausted for one round (got the wind knocked out of me!), and be Fatigued even if you do save. Blow to th' 'ead? Stunned one round or Dazed one round. Throat Strike? Mute for a round, or just 'hoarse' with a chance of spell failure for spells with verbal components as if he was deafened.

    Each of these Condition-applying-strikes could have it's own attack penalty or other requirements, making them choices that a Fighter would have to make (it wouldn't be balanced for a Fighter to be able to Stun or Blind or Nauseate on every single attack, obviously!).

    6) An *option* to skip iterative attacks and just focus all power into one attack per round. For each iterative attack given up, the single full-attack blow does an extra die of damage, added at the end, like Sneak Attack dice (and not multiplied by Crits). If my 6th level Fighter with a Longsword doesn't want to roll a second attack at -5, he should have the *option* of just making one attack, and getting an extra d8 damage. After all of his damage pluses are added in, a successful second attack at -5 to hit would still be vastly more damaging, but maybe he's having enough trouble hitting this mob, and the extra attack would have missed anyway. It should at least be an option, to cut down on iterative attacks, an option which some people will embrace and others will shun.


    I had an Epiphany at work today.

    The easiest way to retool the Monk with it's problems in the later levels is with this feat.

    Masters Training
    Prerequisite: 16th level monk
    This feat brings the monks Base Attack bonus into the Warrior's Bracket. (This does not affect Flurry of blows, whose progression is still at the basic monk level.)

    My fluff needs work this is the rough draft.


    Iziak wrote:
    Emperor7 wrote:
    Not just the monk. Lots of classes have powers/abilities now. Balancing them both within and between classes is the trick.
    I know that all the classes have new features, and I think that this is, for the most part, good. I'm just concerned about the monk and bard because they seemed overly complicated, at least to me, in v3.5. Adding more abilities could scare away new players from those classes. Adding new things to the spellcasting classes is actually easier, because all of the spells follow a similar pattern, but the monk and bard have so many features that are like small sub-systems.

    Yes, the monk needed an overhaul. There are always more complex characters. After they have had a taste of the Fighter they can begin to start figuring out new classes...


    I just wanted to post to say I appreciated the work put into your Monk and Fighter builds, Squirreloid. I hope you at least post them again during the Class Feedback phase, to see if they can influence the process, at least to get feedback from Jason about what they do right and what he doesn't like, and why. I don't think Beta represents a specific rejection of changes like you propose, as much as other priorities, so I feel there's hope for good work to still be done in those classes.


    Quandary wrote:
    I just wanted to post to say I appreciated the work put into your Monk and Fighter builds, Squirreloid. I hope you at least post them again during the Class Feedback phase, to see if they can influence the process, at least to get feedback from Jason about what they do right and what he doesn't like, and why. I don't think Beta represents a specific rejection of changes like you propose, as much as other priorities, so I feel there's hope for good work to still be done in those classes.

    I might. That fighter needs some tightening up. The wording is loose and problematic in places, including some places no one else seemed to have noticed. (Ie, if they're charging and you lunge at them, when does your turning all the squares around you into difficult terrain cause that charge action to immediately abort because you moved difficult terrain onto/around them? That's actually more complicated then it looks at first, and I have to review some of the rules on charging to give a good answer to it, but I think I know what the answer is, at least functionally).

    The Monk is mostly good as is (but needs full BAB), but Xaaon is right that it is a straight jacket. There should probably be a couple of paths of abilities, representing different styles. So all monks have trained in one style. Or perhaps you learn a new style from levels 11-20. This would help make it more versatile while keeping each path tight from a design perspective.

    Totally a la carte is problematic unless you're going to go that way for the whole system (eg, classless, everything is feats and skills), and then you need to provide a chapter looking at character memes (ie, worthwhile combinations) so people who don't want to spend a week just processing the information can actually build a functional character. This is the big problem with feats - many feats are bad, and system mastery is not something an RPG should require to build a character. Too many choices is bad for new players.

    Scarab Sages

    So Squirrel, what do you think of the Master's training fat I posted above?


    Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
    So Squirrel, what do you think of the Master's training fat I posted above?

    I'm sorry, I don't see it in this thread. In which thread should I be looking?


    Set wrote:

    4) The Fighters main 'class ability' as it stands involves FEATS. And the combat feats in particular seem to have been hit pretty hard with this 'only one feat / round' concept. A Fighter should *always* be able to use his Dodge and his Weapon Finesse and his Weapon Focus and his Cleave and his Power Attack *in the same round.* It's what they do, and...

    Do the Beta rules still contain this restriction? If so, where? It doesn't mention anything like that under the small heading about Combat Feats.

    Dark Archive

    Xuttah wrote:

    Maybe they can exchange nonlethal damage or ability damage in exchange for powers (rage-a-hol takes a lot out of you)? eg. Bob the Barbarian is in a fight. He can take up to his level in nonlethal damage at any time during an encounter to enter a rage. For every point of damage he takes, add 1 to his STR and CON. Maybe add your original CON modifier to the bonus, I dunno. As Bob goes up in level, he can take extra damage to gain other abilities. You always know how many points you can spend, because it equals your HP.

    Just pulling an idea out of the air.

    Hey! That's not a bad idea! Instead of rage points, have the barbarian take nonlethal damage. He can stop whenever he wants, or he can fight himself into unconsciousness.


    Ok this is just a few things that spring to my mind.

    Barbarian
    I like the rage points I would like to see more powers and the cost there in worked out better. Maybe some rewrite of powers but the points themselves we love here gives a real feel of controlling your chaR and much better then the hated 1/day rage.

    Druid
    I would myself like to see wild shape move more toward the PHB II style other then that I don't see much for me to comment on right now

    Fighter
    Well i like the new fighter the only way I can think right now of improving it is better fighter only feats or maybe bring something like stances in for the fighter.

    wizard
    nerf the unversalist its way way to strong. It gives nothing up at all but gains every thing that the specialist do. I mayself would leave it a 1st 8th and 20th level power, weaker powers though not as good as now there just too good.

    and the specialist i like some need some work , make prohided school forbidden like 3.5 other then that I like.

    Monks
    More Ki points also make there monk damage stack with monk weapons, I have done this for a while it gives it a good feel as well as being useful at times with reach and trip and such.

    Also I would sujest a monks CMB be 2 levels higher then his HD so at level one its +3 + str

    Dark Archive

    Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
    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...


    Set wrote:


    1) A scaling damage bonus equal to 1/2 their Fighter level (rounded up, so every odd level) that applies to all melee weapon, ranged weapon and unarmed attacks. +1 damage at 1st level all the way to +10 damage on every hit at 19th level, just for being a Fighter.

    I like this makes a fighter more deadly

    Set wrote:


    2) Either a class Defense bonus to AC (+1 / 4 Fighter levels, rounded up?) *or* an Armor Optimization ability that allows them to get an additional +1 Dodge bonus to AC while wearing Light Armor, +2 while wearing Medium Armor and +3 while wearing Heavy Armor. Any idiot can strap on a Breastplate and get a +5 armor bonus out of it. Only a Fighter can wear the same Breastplate and eke out an additional +2 (Dodge Bonus to) AC out of it.

    Fighters get this now +1 every 4 levels as long as they have a sheild or other type of armor

    Set wrote:


    3) The option to be a lightly armored Fighter, without playing another class. I'd allow them to swap out each Armor proficiency feat for a +1 Dodge bonus to AC. Swap out Heavy Armor Proficiency (and Tower Shields) and get a +1. Also swap out Medium Armor Proficiency (and Large Shields) and get a second +1. Also swap out Light Armor Proficiency (and Small Shields) and get a third and final +1. Is that +3 Dodge Bonus to AC going to compensate for not being able to get a +10 AC from that Fullplate and Lg Shield combo? Nope. Is it going to make you a Monk? Nope. But it means that your desert-dwelling Osirian Fighter who is *never* going to wear Medium or Heavy armor gets a +2 Dodge bonus to AC, and isn't automatically assumed to have trained in wearing Fullplate and carrying Tower Shields.

    Am right with you here this is a really good ideal and combined with armor traing a fighter who gives up his med and heavy armor would have +6 ac by 15th with a +4 dex a shield and chain shirt his ac would be 25 at 15th no magic and light armored

    Set wrote:


    4) The Fighters main 'class ability' as it stands involves FEATS. And the combat feats in particular seem to have been hit pretty hard with this 'only one feat / round' concept. A Fighter should *always* be able to use his Dodge and his Weapon Finesse and his Weapon Focus and his Cleave and his Power Attack *in the same round.* It's what they do, and handicapping the combat feats, IMO, destroys the class who *least* needed to be kicked in the face. Individual feats are also an important part of Fighter class balance, and stuff like Dodge needs to be buffed up (+1 Dodge bonus normally, an extra +1 Dodge bonus against a designated foe, like in M&M and True20?) while stuff like Power Attack needs to be balanced for use by dual-wielders, two-handers and sword-and-boarders (no extra effect for 2H use, no reduced effect for light weapon use?). Anywho, this is stuff better saved for a Feats thread, but since the Fighters big 'power' is lots and lots of Feats, its vital to the Fighter that his combat Feats remain useful.

    The one feat per round thing is gone from the beta it's back to 3.5 standard

    Set wrote:

    5) More options in combat. We've got a fair amount of options. Trip, Disarm, Sunder, standard attack, Charge, Overrun, Bull Rush, Grapple. But, IMO, a Fighter should be able to learn, through Feats or Class Abilities, to apply Conditions to foes. Each Condition could be a staged effect. Swing with the morningstar to the junk, using the appropriate Feat/Technique and the foe has to make a Fort save or be Nauseated for a round, and, even if failed, might be Sickened for a round. Increased effects could lead to multiple rounds of that condition. Open a bleeding cut on their face, and if they fail the save, they are Blinded for a round, and, even if they make it, they are still Dazzled for a round. Smash their kneecap and the must save or become Lamed (as per the Caltrop wound condition) for a round, even if they save they suffer a lesser movement penalty. A sharp blow to the midriff, and save or be Exhausted for one round (got the wind knocked out of me!), and be Fatigued even if you do save. Blow to th' 'ead? Stunned one round or Dazed one round. Throat Strike? Mute for a round, or just 'hoarse' with a chance of spell failure for spells with verbal components as if he was deafened.

    Each of these Condition-applying-strikes could have it's own attack penalty or other requirements, making them choices that a Fighter would have to make (it wouldn't be balanced for a Fighter to be able to Stun or Blind or Nauseate on every single attack, obviously!).

    I would like to see this filled with fighter only stance feats much of BO9S I hated but I did like the ideal of stances and this could fill that. something like dazzling blade stance where ya give up so many attacks to try and daze your foe or something just working off my head there

    Set wrote:
    6) An *option* to skip iterative attacks and just focus all power into one attack per round. For each iterative attack given up, the single full-attack blow does an extra die of damage, added at the end, like Sneak Attack dice (and not multiplied by Crits). If my 6th level Fighter with a Longsword doesn't want to roll a second attack at -5, he should have the *option* of just making one attack, and getting an extra d8 damage. After all of his damage pluses are added in, a successful second attack at -5 to hit would still be vastly more damaging, but maybe he's having enough trouble hitting this mob, and the extra attack would have missed anyway. It should at least be an option, to cut down on iterative attacks, an option which some people will embrace and others will shun.

    This i like maybe an extra dice or 1d6 per attack gave up

    1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / [Think-Tank] Beta Classes All Messageboards