I agree. The soul knife in one of my PBP uses full BAB. I just really dislike "well he was a d10 before and he's special" You can't use that every time and boy have I seen that about 12 times now. If everyone ignores the HD/BAB thing just because whats the point. And how many other rules you gonna ignore"just because"
the HD/BAB is very clear on how it should work, you boost BAB or drop HD.
Sorry rantish there but other then that not bad
Except that it isn't.
You've got Dragon Disciple and Barbarian as clearly breaking the mold of HD/BAB. If the HD/BAB is very clear, why did no single pathfinder class - base or prestige - get a HD decrease? In all cases HDs were either left the same, or they were increased. In no case was a HD reduced.
Additionally, check the actual mechanics of the soulknife - he gets an effective full BAB - just not the iterative attacks to go with it, nor the early qualifying for PrCs / feats. This was the designers' way of upping the BAB without actually upping the BAB to minimize additional possible mechanical imbalances.
Finally, this whole discussion has already been done - and extensively done - over in the Soulknife threads if you'd rather read MaverickWolf and AngellisAter's insights - as they wrote this class in particular.
|
I agree. I am though generally cautious in my responses because I know others are much more fluent in the changes and adjustments to the new rules. This however is one of the few times I had a definite opinion and thought I should speak up. I almost wish we all had an online course we could take on game mechanics to make it easier on everyone.
the HD/BAB is very clear on how it should work, you boost BAB or drop HD.
Sorry rantish there but other then that not bad
Except that it isn't.
You've got Dragon Disciple and Barbarian as clearly breaking the mold of HD/BAB. If the HD/BAB is very clear, why did no single pathfinder class - base or prestige - get a HD decrease? In all cases HDs were either left the same, or they were increased. In no case was a HD reduced.
Additionally, check the actual mechanics of the soulknife - he gets an effective full BAB - just not the iterative attacks to go with it, nor the early qualifying for PrCs / feats. This was the designers' way of upping the BAB without actually upping the BAB to minimize additional possible mechanical imbalances.
Finally, this whole discussion has already been done - and extensively done - over in the Soulknife threads if you'd rather read MaverickWolf and AngellisAter's insights - as they wrote this class in particular.
so he works like a monk...monk HD then. DD and barb are explained why they gain d12, if ya read what I quoted it does not say you can not drop them it says bring them in line one or the other.
Sorry but it's an exception just to be an exception and there for pointless
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Seems strange to me to put the Pathfinder Compatibility Logo on a product but then not conform to design parameters of the system. Quite the disappointment, honestly, but not surprising. This sort of thing has been my main complaint with third party Pathfiner RPG content since the beginning and further supports my decision to wait for Paizo's official versions of this sort of thing. I wanted to jump on Dreamscarred's wagon for Pathfinder psionics, but not if I'm going to have to convert or balance all of it against the rest of the system.
Sorry but it's an exception just to be an exception and there for pointless
I'm going to leave this aspect of the discussion at this, because the horse's carcass is starting to attract flies:
If that's how you really feel, I'm sorry. This was a topic we've debated for probably hours - both internally and publicly on these and other forums. It is not a decision we made lightly, nor one we did just to be different.
In the end, no matter which decision we went with, someone was going to call foul - either because we lowered a HD when no Pathfinder class did that, or because we changed the BAB. You can't please everyone all the time - we're just doing our best to make things as balanced as possible and to follow the design paradigms set forth in the Pathfinder Role-Playing Game.
Agree or disagree, that's the truth.
I'll leave you to it but you did not fallow them or I would not have said anything. It does not have matching BAB/HD and only D12 may brake this and follow the guidelines. But it's your stuff so have at it
I'll leave you to it but you did not fallow them or I would not have said anything. It does not have matching BAB/HD and only D12 may brake this and follow the guidelines. But it's your stuff so have at it
If I'm reading that right, that means that if the Soulknife in the XPH had a d12, and we left it at d12, but average BAB, you'd be fine with it, but because it's a d10, it's wrong?
Just wanting to make sure I understand your logic.
Seriously - no class in Pathfinder had a BAB changed, nor a HD lowered. Aren't we sort of in a catch-22 in this scenario? Either way, it's not something any class in Pathfinder did... But they did leave higher HD than BAB would indicate intact - twice.
EDIT - and for the record, I just rechecked every class in the d20 SRD and the Pathfinder RD to back up the above bold statement.
But you failed to follow the rules. The conversion rules do not say to not lower them. It doessay to make it match. That same one also says when making it match if it had a d12, then a full bab matches the d12. If it did not have a d12 it uses the same rules as everyone else. You [b]Chose[/v] not to use the base guidelines and not follow the HD/BAB set up. To follow it you had to options raise BAB or lower HD. You chose to due neither, there for braking guidelines.
Nothing lost a HD in core as it all had a higher HD then the listed BAB. It does not say never to lower HD, it does say to make it match. You do not leave it uneven, unless it's a full BAB and had a d12.
Case in point the DD had a d12 , but medium BAB. To make it match they raised the BAB to full, thus bringing it in line with the rule
Edit" No class needed to be lowered to match, but they did bump BAB's to match HD when needed. Read the conversion doc, it states clearly what needs to be done
Case in point the DD had a d12 , but medium BAB. To make it match they raised the BAB to full, thus bringing it in line with the rule
Wrong.
DD has an average BAB, not a full.
EDIT - and just in case this argument comes up again, I've put together a blog entry to explain our logic, where all our precedents came from, and why we did it this way - blog post link
This way, I don't have to retype it - I can just link to it.
EDIT2 - the summation of my blog
The clear precedent in the Pathfinder RPG is to leave it intact. We can't increase BAB, because no class had its BAB changed (positively or negatively). We can't decrease its HD, because no class had its HD lowered, only increased. We can't increase its HD, because the BAB doesn't call for it and only existing classes should get d12.The precedent is set by the Dragon Disciple, who kept his d12 HD and his Average BAB, breaking the HD/BAB rule, but implementing an overarcing corollary to the rules above - if a change to bring something in line with the Pathfinder Design Paradigm would mean taking something away, don't do it.
This is the logic that left the Soulknife at d10 / Average BAB.
Your right on the DD, he is the d12 however[silly rules that]. Define it how you like you still broke guidelines. The precedent, there is not one just guide lines which tell you to match BAB/HD, you chose not to do so. Simple as that. There was no core class who went over the BAB/HD limit not a one.You broke HD/BAB just because you did not want to make the call. And to convert it it is a call that needs to be made. But I am done here
The precedent, there is not one just guide lines which tell you to match BAB/HD, you chose not to do so. Simple as that. There was no core class who went over the BAB/HD limit not a one.
Again, the Dragon Disciple is the precedent. d12 HD, average BAB - overarcing rule - if you're going to convert a class whose HD and BAB don't match, but it'd result in lowering the HD, don't do it.
I'm sorry if you disagree, but we made a choice - the choice we made was to leave the class's HD and BAB as written in 3.5 because that's the way the classes in Pathfinder were done by Paizo. We're following their lead in this project, whether you believe it or not. And when we got to a situation where we had ambiguity of what to do, the dragon disciple was our precedent of what to do. A clear precedent of how to handle a class whose BAB/HD didn't match and wasn't a HD upgrade.
|
|
So are we talking about a base class or a PrC here? Because where one is a mandatory, and as such part of the system. A PrC would be totally optional; and as such would seem to be the best option to "break" a rule, so to speak.
And while I can commend some for their zeal I would suggest taking a long hard look before posting so that things remain civil.
dragon disciple is because it had a dragons d12, that's it, it's an exception not the rule. Look it up d12 are the exception nothing else.
It's only a precedent if your class had a d12 in 3.5. The DD and barb did nothing else in core did, so nothing else gains the exception
Sorry, this time I will stop :)
It looked good over all I just can't get behind a product that ignores core assumptions when it suits them to do so, I just can't tell what else will be kinda comparable and not fully comparable
That being said Best of luck to you on your endeavor
I would say that the information in the conversion PDF are not inflexible rules. The PDF seems to be suggestions instead. Strong suggestion, but still just guidelines that one should look to, but not restrained to.
Given that using just the conversion guidelines would mean that a "correctly" converted Barbarian would have a d10 HD. The decision to let it keep it's d12 was an decision not really accounted for in the conversion guidelines. That was a reasonable decision that all classes don't need to fit this formula based on the designer's discretion.
I think that it is reasonable to give that to other designers as well. It isn't like this choice to maintain HD was random or capricious. From what I can tell, like the Barbarian and Dragon Disciple, they felt that following the HD/BAB would be a disservice to the conversion of the class.
|
The precedent, there is not one just guide lines which tell you to match BAB/HD, you chose not to do so. Simple as that. There was no core class who went over the BAB/HD limit not a one.Again, the Dragon Disciple is the precedent. d12 HD, average BAB - overarcing rule - if you're going to convert a class whose HD and BAB don't match, but it'd result in lowering the HD, don't do it.
Dont think using Dragon disiple as an example is such a good idea since A it is a prestige class so generally should get some leeway in abilities and B its a prestige class that is all about turning more and more into a Dragon. Whereas the soulknife is not a prestige class and it is not turning into some kind of d10 hd creature.
|
|
Copy and pasted from the Pathfinder conversion document found Here.
Base Classes
Of all the rules elements, converting a base class is the one that requires the most careful consideration. Most classes need a bit of an upgrade to be on par with those presented in the core rulebook. The first step is to ensure that the class’s Hit Dice and base attack progression match. If the class has a slow base attack progression (such as the wizard), it should use d6s for Hit Dice. Classes with the medium progression (such as clerics) should use d8s for Hit Dice, while those with a fast progression (such as fighters) should use d10s. As a general rule, if the class did not have a d12 Hit Die in 3.5, it should not get one in the Pathfinder RPG. Beyond this simple adjustment, any other changes to the class really depend on the class itself.
This seems to indicate to me that classes with d12's are supposed to be a special exception.
Finally using a prestige class for the precedence is a bad example because Prestige classes do work differently from normal classes (just look at the saves for instance)
Also my understanding is it is not a full Bab class but gets abilities that pretty much make it that way anyhow? Well why not just make it a full BAB class to begin with?
Maybe the same reason Paizo didn't give the MONK a full BAB except when using their flurry of blows ability? Because increasing BAB 1) allows them to qualify for feats earlier than originally designed 2) allows them to qualify for PrCs earlier than intended 3) changes a major mechanical hinge of the class, which apparently Paizo didn't want to do.
Quite frankly, this is just blowing my mind. "OH, let's deride the entire project and denounce the designers because we didn't mandate that a class suffer a HD decrease, the only time such a thing has happened to a class in the entirety of the PF design process?" Never mind that, if it really bothers you, you can just handwaive a d8 if you must. Never mind that the class as a whole is coming out of this stronger and more balanced than it ever was in 3.5, finally on par with other options. Never mind that the Mindblade Specialist ability is both flavorful and effective at allowing them to fulfill the front-line role that the Soulknife is conceptually there to play.
PF's other general design conceit was "add, don't take away." Give classes new features, don't take away things the class had. Give it new options, don't remove options. Aside from stealing heavy armor proficiency from the cleric (which people everywhere have complained about since it happened), not one class actually lost something. And a proficiency is much easier to get back than an increase to HD is to obtain. Paizo left the Barbarian HD intact with no real logic other than "that's the way it was, and so we left it that way." This is the same approach DSP has taken. And it's a good one. The Soulknife will have a comparable attack bonus to that of a full BAB class with the Soulknife Specialist ability when he's using his primary class feature. Just like the Monk and flurry of blows. He hasn't had his hit die reduced, just like the barbarian (and the Dragon Disciple). If prestige classes are allowed to randomly break the rules via exception based design, why did the Eldritch Knight actually increase its HD to match its BAB? HD went up, they never once went down. The Dragon Disciple's BAB didn't go up, though Dragons have full BAB. If the HD had to stay to better approximate the dragon, then the BAB should have been full as well. But it didn't change.
The PRD states that half-dragons don't recalculate HD, BAB, or saves. That means an honest to god half dragon sorcerer doesn't have a d12 HD, only his class's d6. Why doesn't the Dragon Disciple, which is all about being more like a half-dragon, have a HD that matches its BAB, like a real half-dragon sorcerer would? Because they didn't reduce hit dice.
If you were, say, converting a 3.5 Soulknife to the new pathfinder system, this would force an across the board downgrade in HP. It would necessitate rerolling every HD you've ever had with the class, and possibly change the general assumptions your character has been following the entire time. If a wizard converted, he'd be getting an upgrade in HD, along with new toys from his school. If a Soulknife converted over, your way would actually take away his hit points. This is just... wow. So much vitriol for one tiny HD.
|
|
PF's other general design conceit was "add, don't take away." Give classes new features, don't take away things the class had.
Assassins spells, Concentration as a skill and prestige classes having there saves the same as core are examples of tacking things away oh and several of the prestige classes themselves. Now admittedly I have no problem with most of those things being removed but dont tell me the only thing they took away was cleric's armour proficency.
Also finally if someone asks for feedback about something then for good or Ill I am going to give it (which is frankly better to do than to wait till after the product is released to complain about it)
Very nice, digging through my old posts to throw things at me. Of course, I DID raise issue with Concentration as a skill going away during the Alpha AND Beta. Paizo didn't listen (to me or any of the others who commented in support of it). But they didn't take something away from a published class by doing so.
Had they announced that they were removing reach from the spiked chain or heavy armor prof from the cleric during the playtest period, I'd have commented on that then. Same with the hippogriff not being in the bestiary.
You're right on the Assassin spells. And there was a large and vocal contingent opposed to them taking them away without really giving anything of commensurate value in return. In my circles, most people are going to be sticking with the 3.5 prestige class. None of the other PrCs that they kept did they take anything away from, aside from the saves, which I think they did to fix a common complaint about multiclassing (but they did it only half-heartedly, since multiclassing with base classes still produces the same old problem).
So, is the argument here that Paizo has taken things away from classes, and lots of people didn't like those things being removed, so DSP should do the same?
wow. So much vitriol for one tiny HD.Yeah kind of like wow so much Vitriol over a loss of concentration as a skill. or wow so much Vitirol over having hippogryphins not being in the first Bestiary
You don't see me calling the company's work completely worthless for those things, do you?
|
|
You don't see me calling the company's work completely worthless for those things, do you?wow. So much vitriol for one tiny HD.Yeah kind of like wow so much Vitriol over a loss of concentration as a skill. or wow so much Vitirol over having hippogryphins not being in the first Bestiary
Please point out where I called the companies work worthless? As far as I know I have not derided there product I have not called it worthless I have simply stated that I don't think they are following the PF conversion guidelines as closely as they believe.
Please point out where I called the companies work worthless?You don't see me calling the company's work completely worthless for those things, do you?wow. So much vitriol for one tiny HD.Yeah kind of like wow so much Vitriol over a loss of concentration as a skill. or wow so much Vitirol over having hippogryphins not being in the first Bestiary
Perhaps you didn't say it entirely. But then, perhaps I wasn't just talking about your vitriol. Perhaps I'm reading too much into comments like these:
I agree. The soul knife in one of my PBP uses full BAB. I just really dislike "well he was a d10 before and he's special" You can't use that every time and boy have I seen that about 12 times now. If everyone ignores the HD/BAB thing just because whats the point. And how many other rules you gonna ignore"just because"
Sorry but it's an exception just to be an exception and there for pointless
I'm with Seeker on this one (been using a pc one with full BAB and it works just fine)
Calling a project like this "pointless" maybe just rubs me the wrong way. I think I may be getting at one from these posts that I shouldn't be. Dunno. I'll probably come back in a day or so and see if it's something in the water today that's making me perceive it so.
What I found pointless was having to convert a supposedly compatible product to the pathfinder rules myself. 3PP have gotten into a habit of using the logo but ignoring the core assumptions when it suits them.I will not buy nor will I recommend any product with the logo that must be converted after I buy it.
This is not aimed at just dreamscarred or this one project , but it is what it is.
Phrenic ScourgeWe're also gonna be replacing the Mind Flayers from the Bestiary section and I am thinking about introducing the Phrenic Scourge. Would people be interested in this? (Note: We've released a Scourge product and it originally came from Iconic Bestiary: Classics of Fantasy) If you were, I would most probably tie a few of the psionic creatures available together with the scourge, thematically.Could you explain this a bit more? Is the idea that the Phrenic Scourge is a template? Or is it a thematic ur-creature? Or???
Thanks Jadeite.
To answer the original question, I guess as long as we can't use Mind Flayers, the Phrenic Scourge is a halfway decent substitute. I'll be interested in tying other psionic creatures to them thematically at that point.
you mean the fact that I was simply agreeing with his character using full BAB and it being okay?
I agree. The soul knife in one of my PBP uses full BAB
I'm with Seeker on this one (been using a pc one with full BAB and it works just fine).
My mistake, then. I thought you were agreeing with his assessment of it being "pointless." Sorry.
What I found pointless was having to convert a supposedly compatible product to the pathfinder rules myself. 3PP have gotten into a habit of using the logo but ignoring the core assumptions when it suits them.I will not buy nor will I recommend any product with the logo that must be converted after I buy it.
This is not aimed at just dreamscarred or this one project , but it is what it is.
I think this happens a lot whenever someone other than the original designers work on something. 3rd party material published for 3.0 and 3.5 often was all over the place with changes to the standard workings of the game. A slight HD discrepancy is just a mole hill to me, even if I did agree that it needs to be changed downwards.
How about this solution: The soulknife gets a d8 to match the BAB, and gets Toughness as a bonus feat at first level. Its HP average remains the same, and it conforms to Paizo's ironclad, never once violated in the core rules HD/BAB matching policy.
How about Nerfing the Cleric in general, and no I am not talking about Armor Proficiency. Turn Undead is now a Feat even a Cleric must take. Concentration work much different now and a wizard, or cleric needing a meat shield rather then casting defensively.
And you didn't post this in one of the hundreds of threads on this topic because?
|
|
How about Nerfing the Cleric in general, and no I am not talking about Armor Proficiency. Turn Undead is now a Feat even a Cleric must take. Concentration work much different now and a wizard, or cleric needing a meat shield rather then casting defensively.And you didn't post this in one of the hundreds of threads on this topic because?
Just repling to the above posts. truth be know most of the changes don't bother me much. But to say that changes werent made means you have not gone through the game much yet.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Forgive me if I am not reading the entire thread before posting. Since you're soliciting participation for design, here's a few design points I'd emphasize. I'm sure some of these things will be things you've already considered and discarded or things that have already been debated ad nauseam.
1. Point system = good. To an extent, different mechanics for psionics vs. spellcasting is a good idea; I think XPH got it right in splitting powers into 9 levels like spells and unifying the system for save DCs.
2. Nerf vigor. I read already why you think it's not OP but try balancing it against false life instead of against cure light wounds and you will see why it is. When a d6 hit die psion can crank out a max augmented vigor and end up with significantly more hp than the party tank, there's a problem. A simple reduction to 3 temp hp/PP would suffice... 30 temp hp at 10th manifester level is not out of line.
3. Psionics don't need to have the full range of capabilities of arcane and divine spellcasting. The fact that psionics have different capabilities, just like arcane and divine spellcasting have different capabilities than each other, contributes to their distinctiveness. Psionic healing *shouldn't* be as good as clerical healing, for instance. Cloud mind sucks enormously in comparison to invisibility and *that's OK* because there are things that psionics does better than arcane magic. BIG HOWEVER, for psionic base classes to function in published adventures, major capabilities offered by psionics need to come at around the same levels an arcane or divine caster could achieve those capabilities. For instance, if a psion can fly before 5th level or teleport before 9th level, they can wreck an AP. Also please look at clairsentience powers like object reading and sensitivity to psychic impressions with the same scrutiny as Paizo did with find the path... those kind of effects, which can be gotten as early as 3rd level, are full of adventure circumvention potential.
4. The flexibility of the energy attack powers is good and not game-breaking, but the special additional effects tied to the energy types do render the powers slightly OP. Sure, you're paying for that power since they don't freely scale but a lvl 10 cold energy ball does 10d6+10 and ignores evasion since it requires a Fort save... not anywhere near in line with a level 10 fireball or even a level 10 cone of cold. The -damage on sonic is absolutely necessary since fewer monsters resist sonic and sonic ignores hardness. XPH had kinks that were effectively errata'ed in Comp Psi, but those things (augment parity across powers) should have been gotten right the 1st time. On the other hand, if your character concept is a pyrokineticist, but in a pinch, he can manifest a sonic ray instead of a fire ray, it does strain suspension of disbelief a little. Perhaps a feat chain rewarding dedication to one energy type (Energy Focus, allowing you to manifest powers of with the appropriate energy descriptor at 1 manifester level higher, but you have to pay for the extra augment, would be appropriate for starters). An alternative class feature (like arcane bond) or discipline power (like bloodline powers, see below) enhancing the effectiveness of one energy type at the cost of restricting other energy types could be a good feature, but it should be something the player can choose or not choose.
5. Somebody said that psion discipline lists should be folded into the psion/wilder list and that Expanded Knowledge should go away. If you take a PFRPG tack with the psion disciplines it could work (more to follow), but that's going to increase the power of wilders since they can freely pick among the (frankly better) kineticist nuke powers without paying a feat. One way to mitigate this would be to fold most of the powers in to the psion/wilder list, but give psions discipline powers that work similar to sorc bloodline powers (the aforementioned PFRPG tack). The discipline powers could be available only by having picked the appropriate discipline at character creation (just like clerics who didn't pick the fire domain just can't get fireball, period end of text out).
6. Concentration should work like it does for spellcasters, except as regards psionic focus. Combat Casting should cover both spellcasting and manifesting without need for an additional psionic feat. Metapsionic feats should remain separate from metamagic feats since they use pretty drastically different mechanics.
7. Transparency. Very important or psionics become game-breaking to anything that lacks psionic-specific defenses; particularly important in a game in which psionics are secondary to magic.
8. Transparency (SR). SR should work against psionics; no need to have PR that does the exact same thing and also works against spells, only is called something different. That just creates unnecessary confusion.
9. Transparency (globes of invulnerability). Minor globe and globe should work against powers, and the rules should specify that effects that protect against particular levels of spells either a) affect powers of the same level no matter how high they are augmented, or b) cease to protect if a power is augmented to a higher effective level than the spell can protect against (it would have to be worded better than that in the rules for clarity's sake but I hope you get the idea; neither way is game-breaking but it does need to be specified).
10. Transparency (detect magic/detect psionics/Spellcraft/Psicraft/counterspelling). Information gathered by detect magic as regards psionics and detect psionics as regards magic needs to be clarified beyond "they can detect each other." If I cast detect magic and concentrate 3 rounds on a psionic effect, can I tell it's the result of a psionic power instead of a spell? Do I need Psicraft to identify the discipline? Do I know what school of magic it would fall under had the effect been the result of a spell instead of a power? Will Knowledge:arcana tell me that wall of fire was created by a power instead of a spell? What if I want to counter a magic spell with dispel psionics? Do I need to make a Spellcraft check or will Psicraft suffice? I do think Psicraft and Spellcraft should be separate, because a wizard wouldn't necessarily understand psionics and a psion wouldn't necessarily understand spellcasting.
11. Transparency (UMD/UPD). UPD shouldn't exist and the psionic rules should reflect that UMD allows activation of psionic devices. 2 different skills creates the same kind of confusion as SR/PR.
12. It's been said already but psionic effects that are basically identical to spell effects (psionic dimension door, etc.) need to reflect any changes in the underlying spells.
13. Add base class capstones. For probably 90% of campaigns they are just uber window dressing since unless you started there you're probably not going to reach 20th level, but it follows the paradigm. Different capstones for different psionic disciplines seems appropriate.
14. Since Concentration isn't a skill, you have to rework psionic focus a little bit. You could substitute Autohypnosis for the old Concentration check to gain focus. I personally find the check to be either annoying and un-fun to possibly fail when you're low level, or totally irrelevant once you can take 10 on it. Having to spend a full round action to gain focus without spending a feat is bad enough without the possibility of failing the skill check. On that note, a higher-level feat allowing you to gain focus as a swift action or even a free action would be a good addition since most of the things you can burn focus on are standard actions anyways or are cost-prohibitive (like metapsionic feats), preventing focus-spending spam.
15. Class feature choices like arcane bond or hunter's bond are cool. Psions ought to get to choose between a psicrystal and something else flavorful like wizards do.
16. I see a lot of extra classes based around concepts like the psychic warrior, but taken in different directions. Any attempt at making a psychic rogue seems about as lame to me as making a spellcasting rogue base class (lurk, I'm looking at you. that was probably Bruce Cordell and I love his work but that wasn't a winning moment). If you want to play a psychic rogue, multiclass! Psychic warrior fits a niche and does something very different than a fighter/psion, so I see its raison d'etre. There doesn't need to be an entire base class for psionic barbarian/bard/cleric/etc.
16. For the love of God, please do not bring back 3.0 and prior psionic combat with complicated attack vs. defense mode charts, etc. Making these things into normal powers that interacted normally with everything else in the game was among the best decisions of XPH.
17. I see the idea of having 0-level style abilities that you could use as long as you maintained focus. Cool idea, but why not unlimited use, not tied to focus? Unless, of course, they are better than 0-level spells. Speed of Thought comes to mind... if that was a 0-level ability, and I got 3 or 4 like it at the 1st level of psion that I could keep up as long as I maintained focus, that would be OP. Also, any 0-level abilities shouldn't be the kind of thing that you could augment... or else they become (2xPP-1) level abilities, which circumvents the restriction of limited powers known.
18. Let DMs impose alignment restrictions on psionic classes. I want to go all Wayne Brady when I see lawful-only psions or chaotic-only wilders.
19. Transparency (item creation/psionic magic items). Some item creation feats should be unified, i.e., Craft Magic Arms & Armor should let you craft psionic arms & armor too. Same for Craft Wondrous Items. All the rest you could do alternate psionic versions. For magical arms, armor, and wondrous items, a web enhancement listing alternate psionic prerequisites for crafting psionic versions of those things would be nice. I'm sure many a psion would like to make psionic bracers of armor, for instance, but can't without relying on DM judgment calls (I got it that everything in the game relies on DM calls, but it helps to have rules for it, and that's just the kind of thing that takes too much space to go in a book but goes great in a web enhancement).
20. Soulknife argument. Meh, soulknives. I always felt they weren't anything that couldn't have been accomplished by tacking on a feat tree to psychic warriors. But they are in the SRD, they have die-hard fans, throw them a bone or else someone will get their panties in a wad over it... o wait.... (and I say that not to disrespect those who have gotten their panties in a wad over it, lest my flippancy toward the class come off as snark to its adherents). As an aside, I find the argument that soulknives' class-granted enhancement bonuses put them on equal footing with fighters despite their reduced BAB to be spurious; what fighter isn't going to have the best magic weapon he can afford, anyways? Soulknives could have gone d10/full BA without becoming OP... they're one-trick ponies (primary melee types) who aren't really great at their one trick with less than full BA. I respectfully disagree that that would have been less in line with PFRPG conversion than leaving them with a mismatched HD/BA. You've answered that plenty though so please just register my dissent and feel free to disregard without providing further answer.
21. Slayers. A WotC IP-based class that somehow slipped into the SRD. Without mind flayers to eat your brain, this class seems like a clear target for redaction, except to the players who see a psionic eldritch knight with a lot of class abilities. You as designers have the opportunity to come up with a better psionic gish PrC and purge the vestiges of WotC IP flavor; please run with it. Please remember for balance reasons that since psionics aren't affected by armor, a psionic gish has an easier time of it than an eldritch knight; do with that what you will.
22. On that note, please don't make psionics affected by armor.
23. Psychic warriors should suffer the cleric heavy armor loss nerf, too. They have "P for Plenty" of AC buffs. Most psychic warrior archetypes (Jedi anyone?) are unarmored or lightly-armored anyways. Damaging powers are frankly class red herrings for a psywar; any time they take a nuke power they are giving up focus in what they should be doing best: buff/melee. I had kind of hoped that when XPH came out psywars would be d10/full BA classes with powers instead of fighter bonus feats, but that wasn't to be. Any kind of full BA psionic base class would be nice if that isn't a design feature you're planning to change on psywars.
24. Wilders are great, don't change a thing unless you buff their class abilities a little to keep them in line. I really like their limited selection of powers; they make good 1st psionic characters for players who are inexperienced with psionics.
I could probably come up with some more design recommendations after I've thought about it a while... these are based on observations I made DMing a game in which magic was reserved for NPCs and PCs used psionics instead--about 2 years of play time over levels 1-14.
Case in point the DD had a d12 , but medium BAB. To make it match they raised the BAB to full, thus bringing it in line with the ruleWrong.
DD has an average BAB, not a full.
EDIT - and just in case this argument comes up again, I've put together a blog entry to explain our logic, where all our precedents came from, and why we did it this way - blog post link
This way, I don't have to retype it - I can just link to it.
EDIT2 - the summation of my blog
The clear precedent in the Pathfinder RPG is to leave it intact. We can't increase BAB, because no class had its BAB changed (positively or negatively). We can't decrease its HD, because no class had its HD lowered, only increased. We can't increase its HD, because the BAB doesn't call for it and only existing classes should get d12.The precedent is set by the Dragon Disciple, who kept his d12 HD and his Average BAB, breaking the HD/BAB rule, but implementing an overarcing corollary to the rules above - if a change to bring something in line with the Pathfinder Design Paradigm would mean taking something away, don't do it.
This is the logic that left the Soulknife at d10 / Average BAB.
Just read the blog entry... I see no problem with this. Quibbling over one minor change that can be changed to how you'd prefer it with minimal work..I just can't understand. You don't like it wait for the official Pathfinder Psionics book. I don't have access to the XPHB so I either have to 1) wait till Paizo publishes their own Psionics rules , 2) buy a 3pp book , like Dreamscarred's upcoming book or 3) use the 3.0 PHB & hope I can deal with the needed conversions if I run a PFRPG based Eberron campaign.I'll choose option #2, especially if Dreamscarred's Psionic Book for PFRPG turns out as good it seems to be turning out.
I just wanna say; I love it!
Sometimes when you design parameters, exceptions need to be made. The matching of HD/BAB was not probably meant to be a God's Commandment. it was a standard for adjusting BASE classes, not addons like psionics which were created with different balancing factors than the main core classes.Pathfinder had other parameters which also had to be taken into account, such as a reasonable level of backwards compatibility. And sometimes you're going to have to balance one parameter by hedging on another. They did say in the alpha and beta that these were design guidelines not absolutes that Jason brought down written on three (oops! two:) stone tablets.
Ye know I was gonna leave this alone, as I had posted after being up 36 hours and may have been a bit bullheaded but I find the whole thing BS to be honest. Your reworking the whole class then fix the issue. D10 to D8 does not effect backwards compatibility at all. Hell ya could up it to full BAB and really not hurt it to be honest. Not changing the HD is not bringing to class into compatibility meaning who ever uses it will have to do it themselves to make it fully comparable.
And yes the BAB/HD is an absolute. I guess you wont be changing PRC saving throws as it messes Backward compatibility, or using the changed feat, or who knows what else in core you decided to ignore while making your "compatible "book . Now I could over look the HD/BAB thing if it was a 3.5 class but if your reworking it into a pathfinder class then the BAB/HD need to match
Now I have a player who wanted to try out your soulknife but we can not decide if he is a d8 or if giving him full BAB makes him to much with the changes. I just find it sad a compatible product is making me do the conversion so am unlikely to allow it.
I do wish them luck, but I strongly disagree with not bringing it in line as they are reworking it and using the compatible logo
This was put out by another poster on another thread, and I never noticed it, but it is a valid point.
Displays. These were poorly-handled as well, IMO. They're harder to remember since they change more than the V/S/M of traditional mages, and they're the first thing most psi players and DMs tend to forget. The Verbal component could be a chant of some sort, the Somatic component could be a gesture of the sort you see in buddhism or yoga, a sort of mystic self-focus thing rather than sigils and signs. A bit of shoehorning might be necessary, but better this one little piece than the whole system.
PS: I have not been online as much due to a broken monitor so it may have been mentioned already.
|
I´ve been reading up on the DSP forums since i learned of this project. And as much as I like much of what they´re doing, there is clearly a policy of not powering anything down in the system. Nor giving it any restrictions that it did not have before.
Which is why the soulknife as of the Alpha 2 is very VERY strong compared to it´s cousin the fighter. And it has been stated by one of it´s designers that in a toe to toe between a fighter and a soulknife the later is meant to win.
Just wanna point out that this is not an opinion for or against that policy, just pointing out what it is. Personally I will downgrade the soulknife to a d8 due to it´s great flexibility and vast options compared to th fighter.
|
|
And yes the BAB/HD is an absolute.Where is that stated in the core rules?
As I mentioned earlier
Copy and pasted from the Pathfinder conversion document
Base Classes
Of all the rules elements, converting a base class is the one that requires the most careful consideration. Most classes need a bit of an upgrade to be on par with those presented in the core rulebook. The first step is to ensure that the class’s Hit Dice and base attack progression match. If the class has a slow base attack progression (such as the wizard), it should use d6s for Hit Dice. Classes with the medium progression (such as clerics) should use d8s for Hit Dice, while those with a fast progression (such as fighters) should use d10s. As a general rule, if the class did not have a d12 Hit Die in 3.5, it should not get one in the Pathfinder RPG. Beyond this simple adjustment, any other changes to the class really depend on the class itself.
And yes the BAB/HD is an absolute.Where is that stated in the core rules?
Official pathfinder conversion guide chapter 2 page 13
"The first step is to ensure that the class’s Hit Dice and base attack progression match. If the class has a slow base attack progression (such as the wizard),it should use d6s for Hit Dice. Classes with the medium
progression (such as clerics) should use d8s for Hit Dice,while those with a fast progression (such as fighters) should use d10s. As a general rule, if the class did not have a d12 Hit Die in 3.5, it should not get one in the Pathfinder RPG."
Note: This does not say some times convert to BAB/HD, it does not say when you feel like it use HD/BAB. It says it's the very first thing to do.
So officially it needs to match or it's not really compliment
Now if it had the d12 such as the barb or DD you can make an augment to leave it. The barb as it's always had the d12 the DD because it's a dragons HD. A D12 is the only case that brakes this.