There are plenty of people right here on this forum who want exactly that plus a whole lot more. For those guys, 80-foot jumps and flabe bolts is, no doubt, barely a meager start toward the fighter gooeyness they would like to see.
We should compile a list for them, containing the games where they can have that. It will be preceded by an abridged list of games where they cannot have that. One entry: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. :)
We should compile a list for them, containing the games where they can have that. It will be preceded by an abridged list of games where they cannot have that. One entry: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. :)
Right. [sarcasm] The people who want unlimited spells per day, no saves for any spells, and iterative spells per round like iterative attacks -- they're most welcome though, right? [/sarcasm]
Are you sure? Is it possible that your fights seem to drag on and on and on so you simply feel like they're lasting 8 rounds? I'm not doubting you, or calling you a liar, I'm just asking if you're sure.For me, in multiple groups that I have DMed and played in, I'm quite sure the average combat is 5 rounds, except for the big boss confrontations which usually go a few rounds longer (but really, many of the pre-boss mook fights can go 3-4 rounds, so the average is still right).
Yes, I am. In the 15 or so years I've played, it's been almost exclusively DM-created adventures, which is why I ask. I don't have my DMG handy here, but I recall the sidebar to which you're referring. I don't remember it coming out at a 5 round/fight average, although I recall it describing about how many encounters per day you should expect. I'll take a look at it later. Boss fights, incidentally, I usually expect 10 rounds.
All this aside, the lingering song point is interesting. Putting the coasting back in would essentaily un-nerf it, but then you'd actually have a huge net gain in "uses" per day.
If I ever get a chance to be a player again and not a DM I am definitely making an Elven Bard with Performance (Dance) and a longsword. Finally a Bladedancer core class :DI had the same thought.
Doug
Me too guys, I want to play one now.
The one CR appropriate fight my players had this weekend (lots of role-playing in SD #4) lasted less than 2 rounds... that's kinda typical. It even started at medium range too.
*sniffle*, poor
Ahem, Power Attack got nerfed, at lvl 6 it will be -2 hit /+4 dmg (IIRC) regardless of the weapon being 2h or not ...
Did I miss this in the fighter preview?
Ahem, Power Attack got nerfed, at lvl 6 it will be -2 hit /+4 dmg (IIRC) regardless of the weapon being 2h or not ...Did I miss this in the fighter preview?
Nope people are just looking at something and making it up as they go along, based upon their worse fears and inability to believe the Paizo crew could actually get something right.
Nope people are just looking at something and making it up as they go along, based upon their worse fears and inability to believe the Paizo crew could actually get something right.
Well, given the monk offerings to date...
(EDIT: Sorry, that was a low blow and not really appropriate. Jason did fix the paladin, after all.)
Ahem, Power Attack got nerfed, at lvl 6 it will be -2 hit /+4 dmg (IIRC) regardless of the weapon being 2h or not ...Did I miss this in the fighter preview?
Yes, yes you did.
Nope people are just looking at something and making it up as they go along, based upon their worse fears and inability to believe the Paizo crew could actually get something right.
I'm not sure that Power Attack has been fully revealed yet, actually...
While Power Attack has not been fully revealed yet, the fact remains that Valeros has a very wimpy Power Attack. Less than BETA, less than SRD. Whatever was done to it, Valeros has suffered for the change.
Unless Power Attack has options, and the preview presents just one of the options, which might mean Valeros simply prefers a wimpy option to maximize his hit probability while using the feat (similar to the way a SRD fighter who could go -10 to hit for +10 damage might prefer to only go -4 to hit for +4 damage).
Nope people are just looking at something and making it up as they go along, based upon their worse fears and inability to believe the Paizo crew could actually get something right.Well, given the monk offerings to date...
(EDIT: Sorry, that was a low blow and not really appropriate. Jason did fix the paladin, after all.)
And the fact that the preview monk hasn't even been seen yet. Still I can't say I've had a problem with monks to date anyways (if a rogue can 'get all those sneak attacks' without issue a monk with the same BAB, but more attacks at the highest bonus should be able to do the same), and I think it is a disservice to dismiss 6 bonus feats that you don't have to meet the prereqs for (especially that three of those feats can be used to get even more attacks at full bonus), and Ki pool that was added to the monk in Beta, the upgrade to the Purity of Body ability, the improved use of Wholeness of Body Abundant Step and Empty Body, plus more weapon proficiencies. There was a lot of use added to the monk in the Beta, the fact that everyone wants to simply "pooh pooh" it all away is irking to say the least.
Plus the very little we have seen on power attack still includes a fighter using a two weapon style getting -1/+2 on power attack with the primary weapon and -1/+1 on the secondary... which is much more than was to be had with that style using power attack before pathfinder (before it was -1/+1 for one handed weapons and -1/+2 for two handed weapons). For all we know two handed weapons might be -1/+3... we don't know yet and I see it as an insult to the people of Paizo that after all the time they have put into this project and trying to be sure everyone had a chance to comment and discuss/ present ideas that they would simply toss all that to the side and not produce a good product.
The reason I ask if you're sure is that if you're playing by the design goals stated by the 3.x designers (read the side bars in the 3.x DMG), then your group is averaging 32 rounds of combat per average adventurig day, while other groups are averaging 20 rounds per adventuring day. That's a full 12 rounds (60%) increase over what the designers had evidently intended. Which means you are casting more spells, taking more damage, requiring more healing, and generally consuming more resources than the game is designed to require. Or maybe you just don't get to that 4th battle very many days. I know we don't.
I went back and looked at the 3.5 DMG and I can't find any sidebar that suggests the designers planned on about 20 rounds of combat per day. Looking at the sidebar index, none appear to address this topic. If you look at the section on encounters, at page 49, it talks about encounters using up about 20% of resources on average, with about 4 encounters per day. There's nothing about the length of an encounter, which was the point I was interested in.
While Power Attack has not been fully revealed yet, the fact remains that Valeros has a very wimpy Power Attack. Less than BETA, less than SRD. Whatever was done to it, Valeros has suffered for the change.Ahem, Power Attack got nerfed, at lvl 6 it will be -2 hit /+4 dmg (IIRC) regardless of the weapon being 2h or not ...Did I miss this in the fighter preview?
Valeros' Power Attack is *more* than the Beta. In the Beta he would have only had -3/+3 main-hand and -3/+3 off-hand. He now has -4/+8 main-hand and -4/+4 off-hand.
Vs. SRD, he would have had to power attack for 12 to equal the damage increase (-12/+12 on main-hand, -12/+0 on off-hand). That's 40% more hits per swing, for at least *some* of his attacks. [Somehow I don't think he's hitting all the time with +11 on his main attack.]
New. Power. Attack. Rocks.
I went back and looked at the 3.5 DMG and I can't find any sidebar that suggests the designers planned on about 20 rounds of combat per day. Looking at the sidebar index, none appear to address this topic. If you look at the section on encounters, at page 49, it talks about encounters using up about 20% of resources on average, with about 4 encounters per day. There's nothing about the length of an encounter, which was the point I was interested in.The reason I ask if you're sure is that if you're playing by the design goals stated by the 3.x designers (read the side bars in the 3.x DMG), then your group is averaging 32 rounds of combat per average adventurig day, while other groups are averaging 20 rounds per adventuring day. That's a full 12 rounds (60%) increase over what the designers had evidently intended. Which means you are casting more spells, taking more damage, requiring more healing, and generally consuming more resources than the game is designed to require. Or maybe you just don't get to that 4th battle very many days. I know we don't.
I didn't say the designers intended 5 rounds/combat, or 20 rounds/day.
I did say they intended 4 encounters/day because those designers said so. And I did say that other groups are averaging around 5 rounds/combat which makes them average around 20 rounds/day.
And finally I combined all that into saying "That's a full 12 rounds (60%) increase over what the designers had evidently intended." See, the "evidently" in there means it's not an exact quote, but rather, depended on external analysis.
I don't think the designers could possibly have designed for a specific number of rounds in a day. Such a concept might be quite difficult indeed.
However, the designers did give us levels. Those levels come with BAB, HP, Saves, Class Abilities, Feats, Spells, etc., that all have reasonably predictable effects (predictible over large sampling groups). And they gave monsters HD which come with BAB, HP, Saves, Abilities, Feats, Spells, etc., that all have reasonably predictable effects.
They then set up an encounter system whereby a group of a certain size at a certain level should encounter certain Encounter Levels to be adequately challenged. And they set up the system so that 4 such encounters makes an adequately challenging adventuring day.
As it works out, for most people it would seem (my own experiences plus an assessment of what people are saying on this thread) that these adequately challenging encounters are frequently resolved in about 5 rounds, give or take a small margin, so that the average over time seems to be right around 5 rounds. Whether that was intended or not, the mechanics that all compile into the huge D&D combat system end up making it so, most of the time.
Now, deviating a little, say by over-challenging the group (something frequently done with boss fights, or with specific encounters when the DM is not planning 4 encounters during the day) will significantly change these averages. I could easily a campaign that spends a great deal of time out on the open plains, encountering just two or three encounters per week, almost never on the same day, where most encounters are 3-4 EL above the party's level, and most fights turn into long Scoot-N-Shoot battles that take 50 rounds to finish. Sure, that group won't see the general averages that we're talking about here, and woe be unto their bard when the rounds/day mechanic goes into place.
Which takes me back to my first question. I was curious to ask if you're sure your average fight is 8 rounds, or if it just seems like it. If it is 8 rounds, I'm curious to find out what gives. Do you have lots of running fights? Lots of days with only one or two encounters so you often fight stuff of higher ECL to keep it challenging? Or do you really fight 4 encounters per day but spend nearly 2x as long as most everyone else (meaning you expend your resources almost 2x as much as everyone else - even conservative players will still take far more damage in 32 rounds of combat than they will in 20, meaning more healing resources would have to be consumed). Heck, maybe in your games everyone has ridiculously high AC, so your fights take longer because everyone is missing everyone else. Maybe you have houseruls for AC = DR or some other stuff.
Just wondering how you seem to manage so many more rounds of cobmat than most everyone else.
I went back and looked at the 3.5 DMG and I can't find any sidebar that suggests the designers planned on about 20 rounds of combat per day. Looking at the sidebar index, none appear to address this topic. If you look at the section on encounters, at page 49, it talks about encounters using up about 20% of resources on average, with about 4 encounters per day. There's nothing about the length of an encounter, which was the point I was interested in.
He may have been referring back to the quote from... Jason I believe, that he *spoke* with the 3.0 designers who confirmed the average they designed for was 5 rounds.
A key consideration is that the 4 encounter design (and rounds per encounter estimate) are based on *level appropriate* encounters. That means 1 CR X creature for a party of average level X. Or 2 CR X-2, etc.
If you're fighting 2 CR X creatures, 4 times per day, you're essentially doing two days work each day. If so, it's quite likely you'll have longer battles and frankly should run out of resources. Bards used to be a bit stronger for handling that sort of thing, now they're stronger in other ways. They still manage the standard.
If you're not fighting more then CR X per encounter, then kudos to your DM's strategizing. :)
Edit: Or maybe he meant what he posted right above me. (mine's shorter though!)
Edit: Or maybe he meant what he posted right above me. (mine's shorter though!)
Everyone's is shorter...
Take that however you'd like; I am the Tarrasque after all... ;)
That's closer to what I remembered.
Ahem, Power Attack got nerfed, at lvl 6 it will be -2 hit /+4 dmg (IIRC) regardless of the weapon being 2h or not ...Did I miss this in the fighter preview?Yes, yes you did.Nope people are just looking at something and making it up as they go along, based upon their worse fears and inability to believe the Paizo crew could actually get something right.I'm not sure that Power Attack has been fully revealed yet, actually...While Power Attack has not been fully revealed yet, the fact remains that Valeros has a very wimpy Power Attack. Less than BETA, less than SRD. Whatever was done to it, Valeros has suffered for the change.
Unless Power Attack has options, and the preview presents just one of the options, which might mean Valeros simply prefers a wimpy option to maximize his hit probability while using the feat (similar to the way a SRD fighter who could go -10 to hit for +10 damage might prefer to only go -4 to hit for +4 damage).
That's basically my recollection. Sorry for the side track!
While Power Attack has not been fully revealed yet, the fact remains that Valeros has a very wimpy Power Attack. Less than BETA, less than SRD. Whatever was done to it, Valeros has suffered for the change.Ahem, Power Attack got nerfed, at lvl 6 it will be -2 hit /+4 dmg (IIRC) regardless of the weapon being 2h or not ...Did I miss this in the fighter preview?Valeros' Power Attack is *more* than the Beta. In the Beta he would have only had -3/+3 main-hand and -3/+3 off-hand. He now has -4/+8 main-hand and -4/+4 off-hand.
Vs. SRD, he would have had to power attack for 12 to equal the damage increase (-12/+12 on main-hand, -12/+0 on off-hand). That's 40% more hits per swing, for at least *some* of his attacks. [Somehow I don't think he's hitting all the time with +11 on his main attack.]
New. Power. Attack. Rocks.
Interestingly encounters IGM tend to be comparatively short but explosively violent and resource intensive. 5 PCs is about average and encounters tend to hover around APL +2 with spikes of APL + 4 or 5. The main variable in our game that I can think of is significantly higher than average attributes due to a very generous stat gen method.
For our groups playing style I don't think the new Bardic music structure will be a problem. A player who wants to join our group wants to run a Bard so we may have a chance to play test this soon.
I went back and looked at the 3.5 DMG and I can't find any sidebar that suggests the designers planned on about 20 rounds of combat per day. Looking at the sidebar index, none appear to address this topic. If you look at the section on encounters, at page 49, it talks about encounters using up about 20% of resources on average, with about 4 encounters per day. There's nothing about the length of an encounter, which was the point I was interested in.The reason I ask if you're sure is that if you're playing by the design goals stated by the 3.x designers (read the side bars in the 3.x DMG), then your group is averaging 32 rounds of combat per average adventurig day, while other groups are averaging 20 rounds per adventuring day. That's a full 12 rounds (60%) increase over what the designers had evidently intended. Which means you are casting more spells, taking more damage, requiring more healing, and generally consuming more resources than the game is designed to require. Or maybe you just don't get to that 4th battle very many days. I know we don't.
I didn't say the designers intended 5 rounds/combat, or 20 rounds/day.
I did say they intended 4 encounters/day because those designers said so. And I did say that other groups are averaging around 5 rounds/combat which makes them average around 20 rounds/day.
And finally I combined all that into saying "That's a full 12 rounds (60%) increase over what the designers had evidently intended." See, the "evidently" in there means it's not an exact quote, but rather, depended on external analysis.
I don't think the designers could possibly have designed for a specific number of rounds in a day. Such a concept might be quite difficult indeed.
However, the designers did give us levels. Those levels come with BAB, HP, Saves, Class Abilities, Feats, Spells, etc., that all have reasonably predictable effects (predictible over large sampling groups). And they gave monsters HD which come with BAB,...
Still I can't say I've had a problem with monks to date anyways
You're in a minority, then, possibly of one. I playtested the Beta monk, after the ki pool was added, and found that it was still equally as unplayable as the 3.0 and 3.5 monks were (I won't repeat houstonderek's comments during our game sessions -- they're more or less unprintable). I honestly believe that redesigning it from the ground up is its best hope.
Still I can't say I've had a problem with monks to date anywaysYou're in a minority, then, possibly of one.
Make that a minority of two then. One of my guys plays a monk, and even though they are only 7th level (just made) he is easily one of the best characters at the table, especially with high acrobatics and use of ki pool for extra movement and an extra attack.
-- david
Papa.DRB
I wouldn't mind if the bard simply added his charisma mod in rounds for bardic music every level plus say 2. However I'm going to see how it plays out before making any adjustments to anything.
DM_Blake: Ah. From your other post it appeared you were saying that my group was well over the number of rounds the designers intended, and then were referring me to the place in the DMG where the designers said what they were intending. If you were only referring to 4 combats per day, then I agree with you.
As far as I can tell, there's not much on the rounds/combat issue. You and two other people here have said 5 rounds is average for you, and it appears to be what the Pathfinders designers assumed, so there's some support for that. It's just not representative of my group. I should add that, even assuming 5 round combats, the redesign still amounts to a nerf and is still problematic -- making it about 8th level before a bard can cover a day's combats, as opposed to 4th level under 3.5.
In any event, I tried to answer your other question in my previous response -- I have always played with DMs who use their own material. If I had to guess why we have longer combats, it could be because our main DM I think tends to give us higher CR encounters than average (with correspondingly higher point buys, etc), so that most encounters are at least at our CR.
The simplest way to fix this while keeping the new pathfinder version is probably either to use lingering song, or to up the rounds/lvl from 2 to 3, which speeds the progression enough that I'd probably be comfortable with it. On the other hand, you could have just kept the old system and added a few more uses at early levels to gain flexibility -- and that doesn't have to be 1st level, if you're worried about one level dips. I mean, the reason I wouldn't have used something like inspire competence isn't because it cost a use, its because the bonus was no greater than aid another. The new changes to up the bonuses do more for inspire competence, imho, than the change-over to rounds.
I mean, the reason I wouldn't have used something like inspire competence isn't because it cost a use, its because the bonus was no greater than aid another. The new changes to up the bonuses do more for inspire competence, imho, than the change-over to rounds.
Agreed. Inspire Competence was only useful when the bard couldn't use aid another (it's pretty hard to aid someone using a skill that you don't have).
The rounds/level thing will work better with that, assuming bards aren't running out of rounds, and the increasing benefit of Inspire Competence will help even more. I also like a suggestion that someone posted that Inspire Competence should affect anyone in the area (anyone friendly anyway) even if they're simultaneouly using different skills. This would increase the viability of Inspire Competence, at least a little.
Director of Games
|
You can tell no one is monitoring this thread anymore, lol.
I wouldn't sat that, but I learned a valuable lesson during the playtest. Not to get involved in bickering matches. Since no one here has seen the final rules or played with the final version and there is only so much I can reveal right now, it is not a very productive use of my time to get involved.
That said, I do still read the thread and the discussion here is less than cordial. I would suggest that folks cool down a bit, take a step back, and consider for a moment that this is a very complex game and no two groups are alike. If you can't find common ground, maybe you should just accept this fact and move along. No need to browbeat one another.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
That said, I do still read the thread and the discussion here is less than cordial. I would suggest that folks cool down a bit, take a step back, and consider for a moment that this is a very complex game and no two groups are alike. If you can't find common ground, maybe you should just accept this fact and move along. No need to browbeat one another.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Sounds like we can call this a thread. Everyone head home for an age/cultural/religious appropriate beverage, and I'll see y'all Wednesday for the Druid preview. :-)
-------
On a separate note: Jason, it's got to feel great that a PREVIEW of your creative work can inspire so much passionate discussion.
Bon nuit!
Jason, such changes should have been offered as a playtest, not snuck in. No wonder people feel a bit heated since that's exactly the way some MMOGs manage to make their fans mad.
|
These factors will alter the number of combat rounds in a day for a party.
I don't know too many parties that lean heavily on the bard for, well, much of anything. I don't know why they'd have to stop for the day if the bard couldn't play his magic tunes any more. He can still cast spells and swing his rapier, after all...
I've been comparing the 3.5e bard to the PF bard and, well, I have come to the conclusion that those who are saying 3.5 is better are high. I don't mean to bicker or anything, but seriously. Lack of gray matter is the only thing I can think of. OK, that's bickering. I take it all back.
I don't think anyone is arguing 3.5 bard is better at 1st. Really, pretty clearly not as good as PF bard.
So let's start at 3rd level where the PF bard supposedly breaks. 3.5 bard got 3 music uses. PF bard gets 12 rounds (18 CHA). PF bard also gets 2 more spells per day and knows one more. Plus can use Distraction, which is pretty cool. And Cantrips are at will. 3.5bard can fascinate a total of 9 rounds (PF bard gets 12). 3.5bard can Inspire Courage for +1 as a Standard Action, then either concentrate or let the effect linger for 5 rounds (PF bard can do the same, but let it linger as long as he wants at the cost of rounds--4 round fight and it's a tie as long as the bards aren't doing anything else). If 3.5bard saves even one use for some other effect, the PF bard suddenly looks pretty good. And which is better? Countersong/Distraction when you really need it or +1?
Moving on to 5th level, where 3.5bard supposedly really moves ahead of PF bard, we have an extra spell of both 1st and 2nd level for the PF bard and the Inspire Courage bonus is now +2 instead of +1. So while PF bard only has 16 rounds of performance, and 3.5bard has 5 uses, the PF bard's rounds are worth twice as much. Assuming 3.5bard uses Inspire Courage then lets it linger, the bards are getting the same quality. And, honestly, I think +2 is better than double because there are so many rounds to which it can be applied to really make a difference. Hands down, match goes to the PF bard at 5th level.
Moving on to 7th level, now the PF bard can activate uses as a move action. Plus major, kick-ass 3rd level spells (none for 3.5bard). Inspire Confidence now +3 (I know, whatever--I skipped Lore Master and Well-Versed, too). Inspire Courage still better than twice as good (+2 instead of +1). Do you really need 20 rounds of performance with all of the other stuff to do? Yeah, maybe. 20 rounds is supposedly the adventurer's combat day, though most of us go longer--and those who do conserve resources. So... conserve resources and you will kick any 3.5bard's ass along the way.
At 9th, PF bard has dirge of doom and discordant performance (ouch), as well as approximately one more of each spell (known and cast) 1st-3rd. 3.5bard can now Inspire Courage with the same bonus as a PF bard, but PF bard is leaving that stuff behind with better spells and plenty of rounds per day (24). I've completely forgotten about the skill substitutions, too.
At 11th, PF bard adds 4th level spells (one more known and cast compared to 3.5bard), and Inspire Courage is once again superior, and Inspire Competence is now +4. 28 rounds per day (overkill, just like 3.5bard was never able to use up 11 uses, PF bard will start wasting a few when not needed just because he has so many).
At 13th, swift action (sweet!) and one more 5th level spell. Soothing Performance (sweet!). 32 rounds per day (yes, still overkill). Complete ownership.
I've been comparing the 3.5e bard to the PF bard and, well, I have come to the conclusion that those who are saying 3.5 is better are high. I don't mean to bicker or anything, but seriously. Lack of gray matter is the only thing I can think of. OK, that's bickering. I take it all back.
Lack of gray matter? Please, build a 3.5 bard and you have +3 inspire courage easily at level 3 (inspirational boost, song of the heart), then later add badge of courage and vest of legends and go to town.) And with melodic casting, the bard can keep singing and cast spells.
|
|
These factors will alter the number of combat rounds in a day for a party.I don't know too many parties that lean heavily on the bard for, well, much of anything. I don't know why they'd have to stop for the day if the bard couldn't play his magic tunes any more. He can still cast spells and swing his rapier, after all...
Not sure why you quoted me there, but my experiences pretty much match what you said. Then again, only about 1/3 of the bards I've seen played have focused on their music as a party buff. In fact the most effective bard I've seen was focused on spell casting.
I was just kind of skimming and latched onto this line, really. Looking back (and the post was short, should really have read it fully before quoting it), what you posted isn't really bard specific anyway. So, sorry if my quote makes it look that way.
I think my point really is that the bard is a support character, even the historical fluff supports that. The bard is generally the fifth or sixth character type chosen (parties of four, from my experience, generally have a 'bard need not apply' sign at the tavern room door), and they are chosen to shore up what the other characters do better.
Since they can do a bunch of stuff with reasonable competence, but aren't totally awesome at any one thing (which isn't a bad thing unless the party is only three or four deep), running out of uses of one aspect of the character isn't that big a deal. They have other useful ways to contribute without having to strum the lute or go all a Capella all the time.
|
Jason, such changes should have been offered as a playtest, not snuck in. No wonder people feel a bit heated since that's exactly the way some MMOGs manage to make their fans mad.
Sorry, I can't agree with this statement. In some moment they have to stop playtest and take final choices. In the way you say there would be no end to playtest.
Look it with a different point of view: The rules of the bard are the consequence of the playtest, they aren't just snucked in.
Jason, such changes should have been offered as a playtest, not snuck in. No wonder people feel a bit heated since that's exactly the way some MMOGs manage to make their fans mad.Sorry, I can't agree with this statement. In some moment they have to stop playtest and take final choices. In the way you say there would be no end to playtest.
Look it with a different point of view: The rules of the bard are the consequence of the playtest, they aren't just snucked in.
The version you put in as final should be tested, not extrapolated. The only way there would be never ending tests would be if the "final" version fails the testing - and in such a case it is a good thing it's not put in prematurely.
|
|
Lack of gray matter? Please, build a 3.5 bard and you have +3 inspire courage easily at level 3 (inspirational boost, song of the heart), then later add badge of courage and vest of legends and go to town.) And with melodic casting, the bard can keep singing and cast spells.
As far as I understand you are digging deep into the Splat-Book Feat chest.
Compared to dozens of 3.5 Splat-Books, PFRPG, so far, has one, only partially revealed Book.So, we might find some more Feats for the Bard to take to make him last longer or get more power out of his songs.
With a little fiddling you can even use Splat-Book Feats on the PF Bard.
Lastly it looks like the 3.5 Bard has to take 5 Feats to be that good (if these are all Feats and not Spells?).
A non-human Bard has to be 12th level for that.
Now look at Lem and what Feats he took: Extra Performance, that's it!
So I think we shall wait and see what the PFRPG will reveal. Then we can play the Bard some. Then we can transform Splat-Books Feats and use it for the PF Bard.
And only then we can truly compare both 3.5 and PF Bard.
The version you put in as final should be tested, not extrapolated. The only way there would be never ending tests would be if the "final" version fails the testing - and in such a case it is a good thing it's not put in prematurely.Jason, such changes should have been offered as a playtest, not snuck in. No wonder people feel a bit heated since that's exactly the way some MMOGs manage to make their fans mad.Sorry, I can't agree with this statement. In some moment they have to stop playtest and take final choices. In the way you say there would be no end to playtest.
Look it with a different point of view: The rules of the bard are the consequence of the playtest, they aren't just snucked in.
I agree. It's a weak argument to say they had to make a call since it was time to publish, fine I agree they needed to go to press, bills need to be paid and all. But that is not the time to introduce whole cloth new rules that have not been play tested enough, as clearly this one was not else the inspire competence thing would not have been a surprise. Time to print isn't a good excuse for not doing proper testing. How many MMOs have recently come out that didn't do proper testing in beta and thus got run over by comparisons to WoW? AoC and WAR both jumped to 1 million subscribers overnight only to fail (both dropped below 500k in less then six months after release) because of poor game play and inexcusable lag/server issues. People were looking for a replacement for WoW, they seriously were, but they wanted a stable playable game. Yes bills have to be paid, but when your beta and play testing isn't complete you set yourself up for failure.
Lack of gray matter? Please, build a 3.5 bard and you have +3 inspire courage easily at level 3 (inspirational boost, song of the heart), then later add badge of courage and vest of legends and go to town.) And with melodic casting, the bard can keep singing and cast spells.Lastly it looks like the 3.5 Bard has to take 5 Feats to be that good (if these are all Feats and not Spells?).
Inspirational Boost is a spell from Spell Compendium (p. 124). Song of the Heart and Melodic Casting are both feats. Song of the Heart comes from Eberron Campaign Setting (p. 60), and Melodic Casting from Complete Mage (p. 44). I would guess that Badge of Courage is actually Badge of Valor from Magic Item Compendium (p. 208). Vest of Legend is obviously an item, but I'm not sure where from.
Anyway, it's hardly fair to compare a 3.5 bard boosted with 1 spell, 2 feats, and 2 items, some of which are from the most cheese filled books out there, with a PFRPG bard with one known feat from PFRPG. We all know, from what has been stated by Paizo staff, that the iconics are far from optimized.
The version you put in as final should be tested, not extrapolated. The only way there would be never ending tests would be if the "final" version fails the testing - and in such a case it is a good thing it's not put in prematurely.Jason, such changes should have been offered as a playtest, not snuck in. No wonder people feel a bit heated since that's exactly the way some MMOGs manage to make their fans mad.Sorry, I can't agree with this statement. In some moment they have to stop playtest and take final choices. In the way you say there would be no end to playtest.
Look it with a different point of view: The rules of the bard are the consequence of the playtest, they aren't just snucked in.
Sorry,
Paizo is the first company, EVER to have an open playtest. At some point, they have to publish or die. I mean that literally. Instead of complaining they put in some mechanics without your approval, perhaps you should thank them for asking for any input at all? They gave nearly a year for input, and at the end, took all that input and made a final version, which you haven't seen, haven't playtested yourself, haven't even read.Once you've got the book, read it, and playtested it, then complain or house rule it. Complaining at this point, and blaming Paizo for not testing the final version of the rules before publishing it is useless. Not only that, but the final version of the rules would never be playtested openly. Why? Because then no one would buy it, because they would already have the free version.
Because then no one would buy it, because they would already have the free version.
Absolutely correct.
That is why none of the print Beta rules sold.
Not to mention the free SRD versions will ruin the sales.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I thought that it wasn't so much that the bard was rebuilt to compete with the 3.x bard + goodies as it was the beguiler, warmage, warlock, spellthief, ninja, duskblade, dragon shaman, etc etc etc.
As to the length of music thing, *shrug* it requires new tactics, it doesn't cripple the character.
Now look at Lem and what Feats he took: Extra Performance, that's it!
So I think we shall wait and see what the PFRPG will reveal. Then we can play the Bard some. Then we can transform Splat-Books Feats and use it for the PF Bard.
And only then we can truly compare both 3.5 and PF Bard.
No. Any new bard has to stand up to the full bard that is currently in use - which includes splatbooks.
|
|
No. Any new bard has to stand up to the full bard that is currently in use - which includes splatbooks.
Now look at Lem and what Feats he took: Extra Performance, that's it!
So I think we shall wait and see what the PFRPG will reveal. Then we can play the Bard some. Then we can transform Splat-Books Feats and use it for the PF Bard.
And only then we can truly compare both 3.5 and PF Bard.
Why does it have to do so? I don't use splats, so for me it just has to stand up to core. If you use splats, you can STILL use them to punch up the PF bard. Nothing stopping you from doing so.
Because then no one would buy it, because they would already have the free version.Absolutely correct.
That is why none of the print Beta rules sold.
Not to mention the free SRD versions will ruin the sales.
Ok,
They would lose a lot of sales.Happy?