Welcome to the Combat Playtest

[Jason Bulmahn]

Welcome to the ninth stage of the playtest for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. We have now wrapped up the first eight stages of the playtest, which took a look at the Ability Scores, Races, Skills, Feats, Prestige Classes, Equipment, and all of the base classes. For the upcoming holidays, we are taking a look at the Combat Chapter (something that might be useful in dealing with relatives). Although this discussion should proceed through to December 29th, much of the design staff will be on vacation next week, meaning that the feedback will be a bit light. I will attempt to jump on a few times during the week to get caught up.

As a general note, if the rules would not be placed in this chapter, then it should probably wait (so discussing the combat maneuver bonus is perfectly relevant here, but a spell that uses that bonus is not). When discussing topics in this playtest, start your thread title out with the general topic, followed by the issue you want to discuss. For example, if you wanted to talk about how good channel energy is, your thread subject might read: Channel Energy - Is it too Powerful? Here are a few thoughts to kick off the discussion.

- Is there any part of the combat chapter that is unclear or needs clarification? Now is our chance to make sure these rules are air tight.

- Channel Energy: We are having some serious thought about removing command and turning from these abilities and making them feats. Does this make the ability a bit more balanced and easy to use? Is channel energy too powerful?

- CMB: Is this rules subsystem well balanced? Is each maneuver as clear and easy to use as it can be?

I would appreciate that you label your threads appropriately and keep things civil. Lets try not to stray all over the book in these discussions.

The previous playtests were very productive and I expect this one to be just as exciting.

And, of course, have a happy holidays.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[JoelF847]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

- Channel Energy: We are having some serious thought about removing command and turning from these abilities and making them feats. Does this make the ability a bit more balanced and easy to use? Is channel energy too powerful?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Speaking of unclear, I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would this possible change mean that clerics would not start with the ability to turn or command undead unless they spent a feat?

[Jason Bulmahn]

JoelF847 wrote:

Speaking of unclear, I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would this possible change mean that clerics would not start with the ability to turn or command undead unless they spent a feat?

The thought here is that channel positive energy would still heal damage and harm undead, but no one would run away from it. Channel negative energy would cause damage and heal undead, but no one would be commanded by it. To get these extra features, you could take a feat...

There are plenty of folks (myself included) who believe that when undead run away, the game sort of breaks down (because they are often added to the next encounter, or simply disappear). This change would rectify that, to some extent, while still allowing for backwards compatability if desired. In addition, some undead, such as vampires, might have an extra vulnerability added to them if they are subject to positive energy (such as making a vampire back away or keep his distance, making spectres powerless... etc)

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[Kevin Mack]

Well the running away part I say get rid of (Never felt right to me or my group that an otherwise mindless creature could suddenly get scared) I would however keep the command ability from negative energy channelling (Having an ability that only helps an opponent in combat unless you take a feat seems rather silly to me)

[KnightErrantJR]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

The thought here is that channel positive energy would still heal damage and harm undead, but no one would run away from it. Channel negative energy would cause damage and heal undead, but no one would be commanded by it. To get these extra features, you could take a feat...

There are plenty of folks (myself included) who believe that when undead run away, the game sort of breaks down (because they are often added to the next encounter, or simply disappear). This change would rectify that, to some extent, while still allowing for backwards compatability if desired. In addition, some undead, such as vampires, might have an extra vulnerability added to them if they are subject to positive energy (such as making a vampire back away or keep his distance, making spectres powerless... etc)

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Before the Pathfinder Beta came along, our group was using the alternate turn undead rules from Complete Divine, which did straight damage to the undead when used. My players really liked it, and to this day, they groan a little if the undead start running away.

That having been said, I kind of like the "old style" turning that allows the undead to flee in terror, but its hard to put in practice. Leaving it as an optional feat would be good, and what I think would be a really interesting feat chain might be another feat that allowed a cleric to actually hold an undead creature in place, cowering on the spot if it is affected by the turn.

[Montalve]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

The thought here is that channel positive energy would still heal damage and harm undead, but no one would run away from it. Channel negative energy would cause damage and heal undead, but no one would be commanded by it. To get these extra features, you could take a feat...

There are plenty of folks (myself included) who believe that when undead run away, the game sort of breaks down (because they are often added to the next encounter, or simply disappear). This change would rectify that, to some extent, while still allowing for backwards compatability if desired. In addition, some undead, such as vampires, might have an extra vulnerability added to them if they are subject to positive energy (such as making a vampire back away or keep his distance, making spectres powerless... etc)

Thoughts?

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Jason...

i was going to enter in rage and in righteous anger complain...

but actually i really like that idea :D

there are any featsthougt to enhance Channeling? i know i shouldhave asked 2 rounds earleir... i just forgot :S

KnightErrantJR wrote:

That having been said, I kind of like the "old style" turning that allows the undead to flee in terror, but its hard to put in practice. Leaving it as an optional feat would be good, and what I think would be a really interesting feat chain might be another feat that allowed a cleric to actually hold an undead creature in place, cowering on the spot if it is affected by the turn.

i prefer that normally keep them at distance from the cleric 30'

this sometimes gets abused

but in a desperate situation in which everyone is really hurt it can give them a withdrawal option
what about expending 2 channelings for this?

[hogarth]

Finally! The Combat playtest is here!

[Majuba]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

- Channel Energy: We are having some serious thought about removing command and turning from these abilities and making them feats. Does this make the ability a bit more balanced and easy to use? Is channel energy too powerful?

In no way, shape, or form should a Cleric have to take a Feat to be able to Turn Undead.

Pathfinder has already solved this problem, with the save on the turning. The DC is not particularly high, as it's based on a Cleric's Charisma score, and Will saves are "Good" for undead. Also, as each undead saves individually, you don't have a group running away en masse, usually just 1/3 to 1/2 of the ones targeted.

That makes for an easier battle, rather than a non-existent one, and by the time the party finishes mopping up what's left, the rest may have returned to be dealt with - assuming they could leave at all and didn't simply cower in a corner.

Cleric's have Very few feats to be spending on things like this.

[Montalve]

Majuba wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

- Channel Energy: We are having some serious thought about removing command and turning from these abilities and making them feats. Does this make the ability a bit more balanced and easy to use? Is channel energy too powerful?

In no way, shape, or form should a Cleric have to take a Feat to be able to Turn Undead.

Pathfinder has already solved this problem, with the save on the turning. The DC is not particularly high, as it's based on a Cleric's Charisma score, and Will saves are "Good" for undead. Also, as each undead saves individually, you don't have a group running away en masse, usually just 1/3 to 1/2 of the ones targeted.

That makes for an easier battle, rather than a non-existent one, and by the time the party finishes mopping up what's left, the rest may have returned to be dealt with - assuming they could leave at all and didn't simply cower in a corner.

Cleric's have Very few feats to be spending on things like this.

i agree

but if they make the DC for the save higher it might be actually better

that si why i ask if there would be any feat that would add, boost or max channeling

or giving them such option inthe "dead levels" (which was agood idea) just like the wizard get magic item creation and metamagic feats

[Singular Lucid Malkovian]

I hope someone revises the heck out of grapple. Alas, our problem child.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

For the upcoming holidays, we are taking a look at the Combat Chapter (something that might be useful in dealing with relatives)

Not you, too. First, I find myself entertaining notions of murdering various family members and stash their body somewhere (or serve it to the rest), then the voices add their consent to this, and now you suggest something like that, too?

Or am I only hallucinating that you wrote that? I had hallucinations like that before (the TV guy who called me by name and gave me statistics on how likely I'd get away with murder if it was close family and I created a suitable diversion was definetly one, or that direct television is getting more advanced by the minute), but not that subtle before.

[kobault]

Greetings one and all. I would like to change the topic briefly. Combat Manuever Check... I get the gyst of taking away the opposed attack rolls to confirm a sunder or grapple, however now it is too difficult to achieve a successful grapple or sunder at a lower level. By setting a specific DC check takes out the realism of attacking. For example if you lose your dex you still have the same DC as when you have your full mod..... just a thought to hash out.

[Matthew Hooper]

Hmm. taking turn/command out of the base cleric class, you're essentially penalizing the cleric one feat. However, you also open up some interesting design space by providing alternate turn/command powers, especially if you don't have to specifically do one or the other depending on your alignment. For example: A good god of death (Like, say Kelemvor from the Forgotten realms) could channel positive energy and command undead. A sun god, instead of turning, could do extra damage or convert part of the turn damage to fire damage. Dark Sun clerics elemental clerics get that much easier to build, to. The list goes on.

I'm not convinced out of the gate that it's a necessary change, but it's an interesting one.