I do have a question though, what does rope use fall under now ?If you are using rope to tie up a character, it is a function of the grapple rules. If you are using rope to climb up a surface, that is a function of the climb skill now. It was kinda silly to make two checks to climb up a wall, when really the rope should just give you a bonus.
And what of things like tying knots to secure a pack (and possibly to provide an opposed DC to someone's Sleight of Hand attempt to loosen those knots later), or playing in a seafaring campaign where suddenly being able to tie the right sailor's knot in the middle of a fight/storm is an important thing? ("You have to tie off the boom so the ship doesn't go out of control while pirate bob is attacking you! Go!")
Profession: Sailor? Craft: Knot?
I realize these are specific circumstances that aren't going to come up commonly, but they have come up a few times in games I have played. Which might say more about the peculiarities of those games than general use, but I'd still like to know. Since you're getting rid of what can actually be a very useful skill for a creative player or a particular kind of campaign, suggestions for alternative systems when these cases can and will arise would be much appreciated. :)
As for "two checks to climb up a wall"--that never happened. The Use Rope in that particular case provided a Synergy to your Climb check.
My only comment is on Perception. If you're going to merge Spot and Listen into one skill (which I support) then stop with the "applies to touch perception" or "smell perception only" or "sight perception only" junk. In most cases it's only the difference of a small +1 or +2. In the races, feel free to explain WHY they have a bonus to Perception (excellent sight) but just make it universal. I know, it might not make sense why it applies to hearing as well, but a lot of stuff doesn't make sense in the game and right now keeping track of FIVE senses within one skill is more trouble than its worth.
Completely agree with that; we either need Four Skills--Listen, Spot, Smell/Taste, and Touch, or we need one: Perception, with as few permutations as possible. How a given person perceives should be a matter of fluff... the Halfling might smell the rotten meat scent on the troll while the keen-eyed Elf sees them through the haze, but mechanically they should get to the result the same way--they sense the creature, or they don't.
This bleeds over to racial design since part of what makes Perception annoying is not the skill in itself but the Keen Senses trait many humanoid races have. Constantly asking, "Do I add my sight/hearing bonus to this?" whenever your GM asks you to make a Perception check gets old.
|
Truth be told, Concentration is just unnecessary. Successfully casting spells mandated it in many situations, making the skill a requirement for far too many classes. Add this in to a number of other compulsory (or nearly so) skill choices (Knowledge, Spellcraft, etc) and a lot of your spellcasters started to look the same. This skill was also based on Con, making it an oddity. In the end, to narrow things a bit it got rolled into Spellcraft, for reasons I won't go over here, but now I am thinking that it should be a simple automatic function (either a save or a caster level check).
I know that it screws with Psionics, but we can deal with that problem when we come to it.
Concentration is dead (along with Use Rope.. uggg)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason, perhaps Autohypnosis could be used to acquire Psionic Focus? It seems to me that finding one's "mental center" would work fine for a Wisdom-based skill. Besides, Autohypnosis remains an otherwise completely ancillary skill, and I think Psionics could benefit if most of its wielders were naturally talented in this "mind over matter" oriented skill.
|
|
My only comment is on Perception. If you're going to merge Spot and Listen into one skill (which I support) then stop with the "applies to touch perception" or "smell perception only" or "sight perception only" junk.
The way we have fixed Perception in my playtest is to make it cover all the senses simultaneously. You make one roll to see if you hear/see/smell/taste/feel anything. Similarly, we have abolished the racial bonuses to perception. Elves/Halfelves still get their +2 (that now applies to all rolls) and the rest got changed. Dwarves lost Keen Senses, as they already have a host of skill based abilities; stonecunning stays as written. Gnomes get a +2 bonus on appraise checks. Halflings get a +2 bonus on sleight of hand.
This abolishes the question, "Is the perception check smell or taste based?"
Ryn, who is not smell or taste based
The way we have fixed Perception in my playtest is to make it cover all the senses simultaneously. You make one roll to see if you hear/see/smell/taste/feel anything. Similarly, we have abolished the racial bonuses to perception. Elves/Halfelves still get their +2 (that now applies to all rolls) and the rest got changed. Dwarves lost Keen Senses, as they already have a host of skill based abilities; stonecunning stays as written. Gnomes get a +2 bonus on appraise checks. Halflings get a +2 bonus on sleight of hand.
This abolishes the question, "Is the perception check smell or taste based?"
Ryn, who is not smell or taste based
I think that it would be easier like that too.
|
The way we have fixed Perception in my playtest is to make it cover all the senses simultaneously. You make one roll to see if you hear/see/smell/taste/feel anything.
This is perfect. This was my original conception of what a "Perception" skill would be, even before pathfinder came out. So much of the game is abstract, why do we keep trying to assign a lot of "real world" hard and fast rules on things. If you're good at noticing things, maybe you notice that a horse was recently here by the distant sound of receding hooves. Or you smell the faint remains of his last meal. Or you see hoofmarks that others would likely miss. It's easier to keep everything very general. That simplifies so much. If a character is blind, only rarely will they be unable to make a perception check to notice something. pretty much only when it's a visual only illusion. Otherwise they get a faint puff of air in their face, a sound, or a change in ambient temperature. K.I.S.S. Sure, assign a blind character a flat -5 to perception checks because one sense is missing. So much simpler.
I think this obsession with "simulationism" is the reason fighters hurt so much compared to spellcasters too. We're constantly feeling the urge to say "A person can't leap 60 feet in a single jump! So fighters shouldn't be able to!" This is fantasy. a 16th level fighter is a superhero. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! Or some such stuff!
|
Hi there all,
I have been going over the feats that have been posted on Nov. 10th, and while we have ha no chance to cooperate them into our ongoing campaign, I do have a few thoughts:
Disruptive (Combat)
I do like the thought, but I don't think this is one that I would allow in my game.
The saving throw DCs is high enough for someone to either resist an effect or cancel it. Any further bonuses to a spell DC seems to leave spellcasters behind. Spellcasters themselfs do not have a save against a wielded weapon, thus leaving them in a vulnerable situation during combat rounds.
Master Craftsman:
I would say no to this one also. where the hell is a non-spell user, attempting to make a magic weapon or Armor getting the magical energy from to produce such an Item. Again, this takes away the special ability of a spell user that only he/she has. (or one of his sources of income). This unbalances the game in favor of non-spell users. Even if only slightly.
Sickening Critical:
OK, I can accept this one. Even if only hesitantly. Being sickened is already a drawback and my incapacitate foes and friends alike. There should at least be a fortitude save against that effect.
As a general thought, I think there are already enough feats for the warrior caste. I would love to see a few additions for spellcasters or rogues.
All in all, keep up working. so that the final Product will beat the crap out of all those who disbelieve in the Pathfinder RPG
Greetings from the old River Rhine
|
Master Craftsman:
I would say no to this one also. where the hell is a non-spell user, attempting to make a magic weapon or Armor getting the magical energy from to produce such an Item. Again, this takes away the special ability of a spell user that only he/she has. (or one of his sources of income). This unbalances the game in favor of non-spell users. Even if only slightly.
I would suggest you try reading R.A. Salvatore's The Crystal Shard for the Forgotten Realms setting - wherein there's a great (if not, iconic) scene where Bruenor (the dwarf fighter) forges the mighty legednary hammer of Aegis-Fang for his adopted son Wulfgar (who was the best dam chracter Salvatore ever wrote about by the way....says, I).
Regardless, to me (and I'm sure many others), it's a very powerful scene that that rules for D&D currently leave no room for such a moment.
I think the fighter forging a weapon is quite classic and shrouded in mystery and myth and worthy of exploring during a campaign!
Robert
|
|
And what of things like tying knots to secure a pack (and possibly to provide an opposed DC to someone's Sleight of Hand attempt to loosen those knots later), or playing in a seafaring campaign where suddenly being able to tie the right sailor's knot in the middle of a fight/storm is an important thing? ("You have to tie off the boom so the ship doesn't go out of control while pirate bob is attacking you! Go!")
Profession: Sailor? Craft: Knot?
If someone is trying to "know" how to tie a specific knot, I would say an INT check. If you're ruling the person knows and he's attempting to make one work, I would say a DEX check. If you're fighting a storm and you need to hold on to the rope and tie it off against the intense pull on the rope, I would say a STR check.
Profession Sailor may help synergize with this - perhaps either allow a synergy bonus to the ability check, OR allow the ability check or profession Sailor check to the player (whichever is a better option for him).
There are in fact so many circumstantial instances that occur throughout a campaign - you can't possibly have a skill for all of them. Judicious use of ability checks at like DC 10 are a great way to making simple, consistent and quick spot-rulings so that you can adjudicate easily and move on.
As for "two checks to climb up a wall"--that never happened. The Use Rope in that particular case provided a Synergy to your Climb check.
You often had to roll a Use Rope check to throw the grapple, and sometimes you had to make a use rope to ensure that your knot was tied tightly etc before you decide to descend the rope and wall.
Many DMs didn't simply state - "this gives synergy to that so the that roll assumes you succeeded on the this." Many are sticklers and want seperate rolls all the time. I can see the logic in not expecting a roll of the first since its alreayd rolled into the other skill as a bonus - but for many, it was two seperate rolls, and is agreeably a bit tedious and cumbersome.
Robert
|
|
Master Craftsman:
I would say no to this one also. where the hell is a non-spell user, attempting to make a magic weapon or Armor getting the magical energy from to produce such an Item. Again, this takes away the special ability of a spell user that only he/she has. (or one of his sources of income). This unbalances the game in favor of non-spell users. Even if only slightly.
I would suggest you try reading R.A. Salvatore's The Crystal Shard for the Forgotten Realms setting - wherein there's a great (if not, iconic) scene where Bruenor (the dwarf fighter) forges the mighty legednary hammer of Aegis-Fang for his adopted son Wulfgar (who was the best dam chracter Salvatore ever wrote about by the way....says, I).
Regardless, to me (and I'm sure many others), it's a very powerful scene that that rules for D&D currently leave no room for such a moment.
I think the fighter forging a weapon is quite classic and shrouded in mystery and myth and worthy of exploring during a campaign!
Robert
Hi Robert,
Yep, I agree to the point that the mentioned scene was/is powerful. That works well for a novel (and in novels I do welcome such things) but we are talking about game balance here and how skill and feat selection/choice gives all characters an even balance. I might, for storytellers sake, compromise a little and limot that feat "available to dwarfs only".
RPG Superstar 2013
|
My thoughts on defensive casting:
Defensive casting is too easy past 4-6th level. If you aren't going to make it harder, don't waste any effort on it. ALso, making it quite a bit harder to cast a higher level spell while threatened might help bring fighters and paladins back up to the pack. The spellcasters will lose a fraction of a step, and paladins don't have to concentrate to smite.
I don't like tying BAB to concentration checks because BAB aren't a sole contributor to challenge rating. An outsider might be a mediocre foe for your cleric or wizard, but it's BAB equals its HD - the number the PC has to compare to is higher than the actual challenge of the foe.
I don't like adding them to saves. Won't different conditions merit different save types? Failing a Reflex save to dodge lightning might mean you fail in your stance or somatic performance. Failing a Will save might mean you forget the words or stutter during distractions. Taking an axe to the chest might mean you sputer blood or go into shock while you cast. But then you add time discerning all those and assessing a DC based on the level of distraction or trauma.
The best plan I have seen here is to do away with defensive casting, as long as Combat Casting applies to all attempts to cast a spell once engaged. I like that casting during combat gets harder and there's some risk of losing your spell. Casters have high ACs and are often tactical minds, anyway. Let them pick their spot and stick with it. And let opponents decide whether to blitz the caster or deal with the barbarian in front of him instead. Maybe add a feat (with Combat Casting as prerequisite) that reduces the DC of a check, but still require the check. That way wizards are critted into spell failure less often.
Oh...still begging to fix the abjurer deflection bonus.
Also - since I read about it here - big fan of giving paladins strong will saves, which does a lot to make them more playable. Or maybe just the coercion equivalent of the fighter's courage ability. Also - I dig fighter feats for paladins, as long as "level -3" also means their equivalent level (ie, you must be an 11th level paladin to take Greater Weapon Focus).
Finally, supposing, since there are soo many feats fighters need, and fighter players feel behind the power curve, that the weapon training bonus counted for the Weapon Focus feat for the purposes of prestige class and feat prerequisites. It maybe only gives them one extra feat, but that can make a big dfference in character development.
|
colour me agreeing with Mosaic.
I wholeheartedly agree that Search should be seperate. It's an active conscious effort and choice of the individual - and should be INT based.
Spot/listen (perception) is a passive (wisdom based) ability that is just there......
Robert
I had the same complaint about the Perception Skill. Search is an active skill and Spot/Listen are passive skills, the three skills should not be merged into a single skill.
|
|
C'mon Russ, you and I both know there are not that many published non-spellcasting uses of the Concentration skill... and those that are, can easily be rolled into the new system, at the same DC, so long as the new system is built right.
Except that we, Battlefield Press, tended to use it a lot on Non-spellcasting classes for various reasons. However, that being said, there is no reason we cant use some kind of save (Will, Fort, Reflex) when we convert our material over for use with the PFRPG.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Except that we, Battlefield Press, tended to use it a lot on Non-spellcasting classes for various reasons. However, that being said, there is no reason we cant use some kind of save (Will, Fort, Reflex) when we convert our material over for use with the PFRPG.
I understand, and appriciate your flexability. My personal preference would have been to roll autohypnosis into concentration as one core skill everyone could benefit from, but to each their own.
The Spellcraft/casting defensively rules are starting to grow on me, even if I'd have gone a different route.
I'm going to try this again here, cos I get no reply/comment elsewhere. :-p
Lingustics I cannot understand how Forgery got rolled into Linguistics. Knowing more than one language does not improve one's skill at forgery, it just aids in forging documents in more than one language. If Forgery is going to be rolled into a separate skill, it should be rolled into Bluff because it doesn't matter how good your documents are if you lack the ability to back them up with behavior and chutzpah.
Perform I have always treated this like Speak Language in 3.5. For every two ranks one buys in Perform, one can choose to become skilled at another form of expression. Lute at rank 1, Singing at rank 3, Ballroom Dance at rank 5, Oratory at rank 7, and so on. My logic for this is that many of the musically skilled people I know became multi-instrumentalists as they learned. It makes sense that the more skilled one gets in performance, the more one can diversify. I did also have a rule that the more one diversified, the more one's skills were diluted. For each learned form of expression past the first, the character's overall Perform skill checks were made at -1, so a character with 3 different aspects of Perform would have an overall -2 modifier on their Perform skill checks.
Skill Points at First Level As I have posted in my playtest report Alpha Crew the players and I discussed many things about the game after our first session. One complaint was that characters with years of experiences before becoming adventurers might start with just one skill, which did seem unfair.* After the discussion, we agreed to test the following rule:
At their beginning character level, every character will get 4 apprenticeship skill points that can be spent only on his or her starting class skills. These apprenticeship skill points cannot be modified by any race or attribute. The character will also get the starting skill points as usual for their class to place anywhere they like.
Please let me know your thoughts and opinions on these. I appreciate all input.
*Finishing one's apprenticeship wearing a t-shirt that said "I spent four years laboring under the high cleric Osgood of the Dove, and all I got was one rank in Craft:Alchemy which I used to screenprint this lousy t-shirt" seems underwhelming. What the heck did I do for four years? At least give me a rank in chamber pot emptying! :-p
One issue with making it into a non-Skill function is that it would tend to break a lot of the already-published DCs for other uses of the Concentration skill check. So backwards compatibility would suffer. If it stays some form of a skill (like Spellcraft), the DCs likely would not need any adjustment.C'mon Russ, you and I both know there are not that many published non-spellcasting uses of the Concentration skill... and those that are, can easily be rolled into the new system, at the same DC, so long as the new system is built right.
C'mon... :-)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I totaly agree. And if there are any published non-spellcasting uses of the Concentration skill....have they ever been used or have they ever mattered? Concentration skill is dead and gone. Thanx :-)
Manyshot
"Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack."
What is considered precision-based damage?
- Point blank shot - for sure
- Deadly Aim? - not
- Favored Enemy? - perhaps, but I hope not.
The way Manyshot is written know it might be a useless feat for Rangers.
And please make it a standard action
:-)
One more wish: Please add more archer feats.
Good stuffI wholeheartedly agree that Search should be seperate. It's an active conscious effort and choice of the individual - and should be INT based.
Spot/listen (perception) is a passive (wisdom based) ability that is just there [...]
Robert
And I to agree wholeheartedly.
Serach = active = IntPerception = passive = wis
Can U really take 10 on a passive skill?
|
|
My thoughts;
Perception - Skip fussy modifiers (gnomes have +2 to scent-based perception checks) and just apply blanket modifiers (or not) as appropriate. I wouldn't mind if Search was separate out again, and having Perception only apply to see/hear/smell/taste/feel checks, but not enough to get into an argument about it. :)
Heal - IMO, there needs to be a better Treat Deadly Injury option. Have it only use a single 'use' of a Healer's Kit, and cure hit points equal to 1 + the recipients Con Mod or something (with a maximum number of hit points restored per day equal to HD).
Concentration - Either turn it into a caster level check, or fold the various Autohypnosis features into it to make it a valuable skill for non-casters (and to explain why the heck Monks have it). Call it Meditation or Focus or whatever. Maybe have it be Wisdom based.
Craft - Enhancing Craft skills would be neat. I'd love to see rules allowing for better alchemical mixtures or Masterwork weapons / armor with even better options, such as +1 weapon damage (at like 5 or 10 DC higher than the current versions, and still not stacking with magical enhancements). But this could easily be handled in a secondary product, and not in the core rules.
Big fan of consolidation. Hide + Move = Stealth/Sneak? Awesome. Listen + Spot = Perception? Very cool. Thumbs up on that!
|
|
Master Craftsman:
I would say no to this one also. where the hell is a non-spell user, attempting to make a magic weapon or Armor getting the magical energy from to produce such an Item. Again, this takes away the special ability of a spell user that only he/she has. (or one of his sources of income). This unbalances the game in favor of non-spell users. Even if only slightly.
I would suggest you try reading R.A. Salvatore's The Crystal Shard for the Forgotten Realms setting - wherein there's a great (if not, iconic) scene where Bruenor (the dwarf fighter) forges the mighty legednary hammer of Aegis-Fang for his adopted son Wulfgar (who was the best dam chracter Salvatore ever wrote about by the way....says, I).
Regardless, to me (and I'm sure many others), it's a very powerful scene that that rules for D&D currently leave no room for such a moment.
I think the fighter forging a weapon is quite classic and shrouded in mystery and myth and worthy of exploring during a campaign!
Robert
I don't often find myself disagreeing with Robert (too bad we don't live within gaming distance!), but I will in this case. :) Sure, the classic trope of a fighter forging his own weapon is fun... but that weapon doesn't usually flame, or blast electricity, or do 95% of the special effects that are possible with enchanted weapons in D&D. It might be nigh indestructible, or might be particularly good against a specific enemy, or something, but the range of magical effects possible in D&D make it a little tough to believe a fighter should be enchanting weapons. Special materials, by all means. Some boon from a god that grants the weapon a Bane quality against his enemies, sure. But I just don't think that a fighter has it "in him" to enchant weapons. It does take away from the flavour a little bit, too. Just my opinion, of course. :)
|
|
Lingustics I cannot understand how Forgery got rolled into Linguistics. Knowing more than one language does not improve one's skill at forgery, it just aids in forging documents in more than one language. If Forgery is going to be rolled into a separate skill, it should be rolled into Bluff because it doesn't matter how good your documents are if you lack the ability to back them up with behavior and chutzpah.
I'm just about to start Curse of the Crison Throne and moments ago finished writing up the character creation guidelines for my players. Included in this is how the Linguistics skill works with respect to languages.
1 rank = 1 additional language
2 ranks = 2 additional languages
4 ranks = 3 additional languages
8 ranks = 4 additional languages
16 ranks = 5 additional languages
The languages you know are distinct from each other. A Linguistics roll can be made at an appropriate DC to understand similar languages or convey a message in a language similar to one you know. For instance, if you speak Goblin, and a Bugbear is nearby screaming orders, you may make a Linguistics check to understand the commands. DC15 - understand perfectly; DC10 - you get the gist of it; DC5 - you can pick out a few key words but have no context.
It's hard to quantify, of course, since it is so subjective for each situation. But it will work for my group. :)
As for your skill point issue, I like players to have lots of skills. I've raised every class that only offers 2+INT skill points per level to 4+INT skill points per level. I've also given each character two free feats to start - the ones that offer +2/+4 to a pair of skills... those skills are considered class skills for them and they are always maxed. If someone takes something totally inappropriate for his character, we'll talk about it. That gives them four more skills that they have and don't need to worry about putting points into.
We have, in the past, used the skill groups as outlined in Iron Heroes, and that was pretty good. But with the skill consolidation in pathfinder (of which I wholly approve) they get out of whack. Rather than reshape that wheel, I thought I'd just go with a mechanic that already exists.
[...]Heal - IMO, there needs to be a better Treat Deadly Injury option. Have it only use a single 'use' of a Healer's Kit, and cure hit points equal to 1 + the recipients Con Mod or something (with a maximum number of hit points restored per day equal to HD). [...]
I Love heal ...as an idea. Heal need to be expanded. Make it more complex. Let it do more stuff. Why use heal at higher levels?
Here are some suggestions :-) The DC will be very high on some but at high levels it's OK.A) Restore damaged abilitie scores
B) Let it remove negative levels
C) Delay poison or similar
D) Identify how someone died (recognize poison, spell, weapon, monster, etc.)
E) Give target temporary hit points
F) Give target resistance (5), Damage reduction or something similar
G) Cure blidness and/or defness.
H) Remove fatigued, Exhausted, sickened and nauseated conditions
I) Remove frightened, shaken, panicked conditions
J) Remove slowed or stunning conditions
K) Remove Dazed, charmed, confused, paralyzed conditions (etc.)
L) Remove other harmful effects such as: feebleminded, insanity, petrification
M) At very high levels, Regenerat (or even raise dead)
N) Etc etc etc.
Also: With a higher DC - one should be able to use it quicker