I'm running a mid to high level game in the hopes of testing some of the issues that really made 3.5 painful to DM past a certain level, I can already see that a lot of the spell changes have helped balance classes considerably without dropping the overall power level of the game or ruining anyone's fun. The game is starting at 12th level, and I'm going to try and run it up to at least 17th or 18th level, to get a good feel for how balance holds up.
We're using 20 point buy, and only the items/feats/spells in the Pathfinder beta book and Web Enhancement are allowed. No Prestige classes or other WotC material is in at this point.
Week One, Character Creation:
My players decided to make a fairly standard group, the one exception being the lack of a dedicated Rogue. Originally one of the players was planning on making a Fighter/Rogue archer that leaned heavily rogue, but in the end he went almost straight fighter with 1 level of rogue to get the class skill bonuses.
They ended up settling on an Archer (Fighter 11/Rogue 1), Cleric, Bard, Druid, and a Wizard.
A couple immediate observations, Combat Maneuver DCs are way, way too hard by default, even the nearly full BAB Fighter has no reason to attempt them, as he can generally do far, far better simply attacking.
The bonus to Stealth from Invisibility needs to be either toned down, or specifically limited to being spotted visually. A flat +40 to all stealth checks while immobile and a +20 while moving is way, way too good. Anyone that can afford a ring of invisibility or cast the spell themselves becomes a nearly perfect scout. The problem here seems to be the combination of Spot and Listen into Perception, making even the most clumsy fighter in full plate perfectly silent once he's invisible. At level 12, the fighter/rogue had a stealth check of +72 if he stood still, and +52 the rest of the time. In Full Plate. (+12 ranks, +3 class skill, +5 shadowed armor, +6 dex, +6 skill focus, +40 invisibility)
The spells being split between the main book and the web enhancement is a pain, I can understand the issue with having a limited number of pages in the print version, but would it be possible to get an electronic only version with the full list?
Also, some of the spells that were left in the enhancement are really surprising to me. Antimagic Field, Atonement, Astral Projection, Blasphemy/Dictum/Holy Word/Word of Chaos, Consecrate/Desecrate, Ethereal Jaunt/Etherealness, Fabricate, Gate, Hallow/Unhallow, Magic Jar, Permanency, Symbol of X, Telekinesis, and Veil are all spells that are either referenced in important game text (For example, Demon/Devil stat blocks) or are core spells that I see used very, very often. Leaving these in a web enhancement that someone using the print edition may not have could be really frustrating for them, as they'll have to break out their 3.5 books (if they have them) to look up the old spells, which may or may not be identical to those in the web enhancement.
Really, I'd rather have all the spells in a small font with trimmed down flavor text than have some of these really needed spells cut from the main book. In fact, you could probably save enough space to include several other spells just by removing the Casting/Effect/Description header bars, which.. my apologies to whoever is doing the page layout, are really visually jarring anyways, and seem out of place. The same goes for the Description/Construction block headers on magic items, I consistently quote the wrong price because it's so easy to look down to the Construction prices when you're scanning quickly over an item. Losing these headers and putting the construction details in an italicized font, or even just using a lighter font weight would really do a lot to save space, and to make them more readable.
|
I too noticed that CMB for any special combat option seemed too hard. We played an 8th level playtest on Alpha3 and we had one successful grapple in maybe 10, and that was an invisible stalker against a sorcerer!
CMB does not take into account flat footedness, touch AC, cover or any other host of variables that the current grapple rules do. Size should be a bigger factor again too (pardon the pun). I think that this should be examined. Either the DC needs to be reduced, or modifiers need to be added.
|
|
A couple immediate observations, Combat Maneuver DCs are way, way too hard by default, even the nearly full BAB Fighter has no reason to attempt them, as he can generally do far, far better simply attacking.
I think this is intentional. Given equal CMBs, a PC has a 30 percent chance of pulling off a special maneuver. The "Improved" feats give a 40 percent chance. I do think that most of the time, the best option should be a normal attack.
Note, though, that a fighter against (e.g.) a cleric will have a much higher chance, especially if built for the maneuver. Fighter 8, 18 STR (CMB +12, +2) versus Cleric 8, 14 STR (CMB +8) gives the fighter a 60 percent chance of succeeding. I haven't used it in play yet (we just converted our 10th- and 11th-level PCs last night), but it looks pretty good to me. No more auto-success on special maneuvers, as in 3.5.
(These things are powerful. Way too powerful in 3.5. Take disarm or trip, for instance. Costing someone a move action (and thus full attack) plus at least one AoO ... that just shouldn't be an automatic success. 30 percent against an equal opponent seems about right to me.)
BTW, there is some ambiguity on CMB attacks. These are "attack rolls," so arguably you add appropriate modifiers (i.e., haste, flanking, etc.). Against that interpretation, however, is the special +4 modifier specifically mentioned for the target being stunned. Also, note that if this isn't an actual attack roll, CMB maneuvers don't get worse with iterative attacks! Now this is kinda cool, as it's a nice alternative to the other Pathfinder option of "massive damage instead of iteratives," but this section does need to be cleaned up.
The bonus to Stealth from Invisibility needs to be either toned down, or specifically limited to being spotted visually. A flat +40 to all stealth checks while immobile and a +20 while moving is way, way too good.
Where's this rule? I couldn't find it under the invisibility spell, the Invisible glossary entry, or the Perception skill. Are you maybe confusing it with the +20 to Perception checks to pinpoint an invisible creature, or am I just overlooking it?
At level 12, the fighter/rogue had a stealth check of +72 if he stood still, and +52 the rest of the time. In Full Plate. (+12 ranks, +3 class skill, +5 shadowed armor, +6 dex, +6 skill focus, +40 invisibility)
For what it's worth, you're overlooking the ACP of -5.
Anyway, assuming +47 (while moving) is correct, the 10th-level druid in my game has a +29 Perception (+31 for sound), giving him a fighting chance of detecting your fighter/rogue. Given that your fighter/rogue has the benefit of two magical effects, it seems reasonable. This is someone who has invested heavily in being stealthy, after all.
[Split of Pathfinder Beta and spell layout.]
I tend to agree. I don't think there's any way in hell that the final release of Pathfinder can (or should be) a single book. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like huge, cumbersome books like (e.g., Ptolus or World's Largest Dungeon), and that's the size Pathfinder would have to be. Just give us three rulebooks. (Including the Pathfinder Bestiary. Get those people who did Classic Monsters Revisited started!)
The layout is a pain. While I like the labeling of the stat-block for spells (and creatures), I'd like to see better use of color to set things off. I specifically agree with you about the ease of confusing the Cost/Construction of magic items. Oh, and for the final, make sure somebody's paying better attention to the flow of the document, especially in this section. Having "Description" at the bottom of a page or column, by itself, with the actual text following on the next page or column, is pretty sloppy.
All that said, this is the Beta, obviously. It can't hurt to voice concerns, I guess, but I have a lot of faith in Paizo to fix this stuff for the final product.
The bonus to Stealth from Invisibility needs to be either toned down, or specifically limited to being spotted visually. A flat +40 to all stealth checks while immobile and a +20 while moving is way, way too good.Where's this rule? I couldn't find it under the invisibility spell, the Invisible glossary entry, or the Perception skill. Are you maybe confusing it with the +20 to Perception checks to pinpoint an invisible creature, or am I just overlooking it?
It's at the end of the Stealth skill, under special. The invisibility entry in the glossary also lists the bonus, but has it as always being Stealth + 40 for an invisible creature using stealth. I'm going with the option listed under the Stealth skill because it's more specific, and less game breaking, combined with the DC 20 Perception check to notice "something is up" when an invisible creature is within 30 ft. from the invisibility entry in the glossary.
At level 12, the fighter/rogue had a stealth check of +72 if he stood still, and +52 the rest of the time. In Full Plate. (+12 ranks, +3 class skill, +5 shadowed armor, +6 dex, +6 skill focus, +40 invisibility)For what it's worth, you're overlooking the ACP of -5.
Anyway, assuming +47 (while moving) is correct, the 10th-level druid in my game has a +29 Perception (+31 for sound), giving him a fighting chance of detecting your fighter/rogue. Given that your fighter/rogue has the benefit of two magical effects, it seems reasonable. This is someone who has invested heavily in being stealthy, after all.
Between Armor training and Mithril armor, there's no armor check penalty for him to worry about. Assuming an average roll of 11, that makes the perception check to detect the fighter a DC 63, so even a natural 20 would be 14 points shy of what you'd need to find him, with a +29 on perception. Looking at the best case scenario, an opponent of the same level, with comparable stats and equipment could have +34 to perception (12 ranks, 3 class skill, 5 Eyes of the Eagle, 6 Wisdom, 6 skill focus, 2 racial) which would still make the perception check absolutely impossible for them, unless he rolled a natural 1 or 2, and they rolled a natural 20. So given equal resources, he can sneak past the most highly trained, well equipped, and naturally gifted guard of his level, 99.25% of the time (397 out of 400).
It's not quite as much of a problem at level 12, though it is a little ridiculous. The real problem is that invisibility gives the same +20/+40 as soon as it's available, at level 3. Which makes it very, very hard to set up an encounter that the players can't just bypass unless it's a complete surprise that it's coming.
The layout is a pain. While I like the labeling of the stat-block for spells (and creatures), I'd like to see better use of color to set things off.
Glad someone else is bugged by the spell/item layout.
|
|
Yes, you're right, that's a ridiculous modifier for invisibility. To make matters worse, the +20 to Perception checks to pinpoint also seems to apply! Sheesh.
Invisibility shouldn't add to Stealth, it should simply permit Stealth when it otherwise would be impossible (e.g., when you're standing out in the open). Use the +20 to Perception DCs for pinpointing a square, and that's all it needs. I'd even be okay for a higher mod to Perception if the creature isn't moving. +40 seems excessive, but whatever.
(As an aside, where'd your fighter 1/rogue 11 pick up Armor Training? Even mithral full plate has a -3 ACP.)
Yes, you're right, that's a ridiculous modifier for invisibility. To make matters worse, the +20 to Perception checks to pinpoint also seems to apply! Sheesh.
Invisibility shouldn't add to Stealth, it should simply permit Stealth when it otherwise would be impossible (e.g., when you're standing out in the open). Use the +20 to Perception DCs for pinpointing a square, and that's all it needs. I'd even be okay for a higher mod to Perception if the creature isn't moving. +40 seems excessive, but whatever.
Absolutely agreed that the modifiers need to be looked at. And I like your suggestion on how to fix it, it's already hard enough to pinpoint someone just by sound, there's no reason to have invisibility do more.
(As an aside, where'd your fighter 1/rogue 11 pick up Armor Training? Even mithral full plate has a -3 ACP.)
Heh, that's the worst part, he's not Rogue 11/ Fighter 1, I'd be more ok with him being a stealth god if he was, he's Rogue 1/ Fighter 11. Just going by the first playtest session, he's by far the deadliest member of the party and has the highest AC and most survivability. So far his only weak point seems to be a low Will save (of course, that is a nasty weak point to have). At least until the casters settle into their roles and figure out what spells are effective. Then things should even up some.
Heh, that's the worst part, he's not Rogue 11/ Fighter 1Right! Got that mixed up, sorry.
I'd be more ok with him being a stealth god if he was, he's Rogue 1/ Fighter 11.On the other hand, he's only got one or two other good skills, right?
Yeah, true, he's pretty focused. Actually, looking back over what he used in the first session, I think he might have dropped the ring of invis in the end, so he ended up just being quite good at Stealth, but certainly not to the same level of brokenness.
I really just wanted to bring it up, since it seemed so nuts when he brought it up at the table.
Oh, and on a completely random note, Deadly Aim is a godsend for archer types.