well some animals have poisons that theoretically can kill several humans in one bite and so on, and your right it is a fantasy setting, but poisons and diseases are far from mundane exclusive, i just would like them to be deadly after level 5...
the save or die stuff is a little iffy though.
Pathfinder is moving in the "lets make it last" direction. Perhaps flavor bad stuff wouldnt be a terrible idea.
Horrible scars from a disease, amputated limbs, occasional seizures that require medical attention?
L dub:
Sounds like a hot cross-dresser... you dont find out until its too late....
Omg, that comment wins. :D
Also, apparently I have a new nickname. *grins*
She came on to me... I mean he... oh whatever.
Ok, I've been wondering what the worst thing I find in Pathfinder and after a few days of thinking about it:
I know the game relies on numbers to work, but does it really have to rely on it this much? The biggest change I can think of from playing this game since I was 12, is that from 3.0 onward, the game has become much more numbers-heavy... and the numbers have exploded.
Take this example for instance.
In 1E/2E, it was very difficult to raise your ability scores. In certain obvious cases where you could (gauntlets of ogre power, belts of giant strength), the raise was often a defined amount. Numbers were involved of course, and maybe it wasn't quite as intuitive as it could have been, but it was simple and got the feel for what was supposed to happen across.
Fast forward into 3.0 and all its incarnations:
gloves of Dexterity +2, gloves of Dexterity +4, gloves of Dexterity +6, Belt of Might Constitution +2, Belt of Mighty Constitution +4, Belt of Mighty Constitution +6, Bull's Strength, Eagle's Splendor, Fox's Cunning, Rage, Greater Rage, Mighty Rage, and on and on and on. In actual play these numbers are changing constantly with each new level, and also often during a single session at times. It's a big time sink and a big headache. This is not an exciting part of the game. These numbers aren't interesting. It has got to be a big headache for the designers and writers to keep these in mind when writing work for high level play. It's too many numbers that just don't add an appropriate amount of quality to the game in proportion to the amount of bulk they add.
The game would be simplified and lose nothing if this one particular part of the game just mysteriously disappeared (of course the monsters in the Bestiary and Spell DC vs. Save progressions would have to be re-balanced to compensate).
Ok, I've got that off my chest now :)
the save or die stuff is a little iffy though.
Pathfinder is moving in the "lets make it last" direction. Perhaps flavor bad stuff wouldnt be a terrible idea.
Horrible scars from a disease, amputated limbs, occasional seizures that require medical attention?
I agree on avoiding save-or-die. That and level-draining stuff are the Omega Weapons of 3.5/Pathfinder...never to be used casually or often.
I would like to see more stuff that has roleplay-based effects in general, really. I think a good story-based RPG always needs more of that. :)
Ok, I've been wondering what the worst thing I find in Pathfinder and after a few days of thinking about it:
** spoiler omitted **
I know the game relies on numbers to work, but does it really have to rely on it this much? The biggest change I can think of from playing this game since I was 12, is that from 3.0 onward, the game has become much more numbers-heavy... and the numbers have exploded.
Take this example for instance.
In 1E/2E, it was very difficult to raise your ability scores. In certain obvious cases where you could (gauntlets of ogre power, belts of giant strength), the raise was often a defined amount. Numbers were involved of course, and maybe it wasn't quite as intuitive as it could have been, but it was simple and got the feel for what was supposed to happen across.Fast forward into 3.0 and all its incarnations:
gloves of Dexterity +2, gloves of Dexterity +4, gloves of Dexterity +6, Belt of Might Constitution +2, Belt of Mighty Constitution +4, Belt of Mighty Constitution +6, Bull's Strength, Eagle's Splendor, Fox's Cunning, and on and on and on. In actual play these numbers are changing constantly with each new level, and also often during a single session at times. It's a big time sink and a big headache. This is not an exciting part of the game. These items aren't interesting. It has got to be a big headache for the designers and writers to keep these in mind when writing work for high level play. It's too many numbers that just don't add an appropriate amount of quality to the game in proportion to the amount of bulk they add.The game would be simplified and lose nothing if this one particular part of the game just mysteriously disappeared (of course the monsters in the Bestiary and Spell DC vs. Save progressions would have to be re-balanced to compensate).
Ok, I've got that off my chest now :)
While I can see your point of view here is a small metaphor to explain my counterpoint:
When I want to make a cake I can do one of two things
1. Go to the grocery store and pick up a duncan hines mix. mmmmmm yummy, love me some cake. The directions are on the back, simple as can be. In no time at all I am going to have some decent frikin cake! talk about awesome right?
or
2. I can dig up my grandmothers old recipe. I have to measure each individual ingredient to a T, otherwise this cake is not going to be the way grandma made it! It may take a little longer and the time and elbow grease put into it might be a little bit redundant compared to Duncan, but its still cake, and some like homemade cake better because you know exactly why everything goes together the way it does.
Helps you learn more about things in general, like baking other things.
Basically my point is your not wrong, but doing math isnt necessarily a bad thing, and it doesnt prevent roleplaying, atleast in my PO
the save or die stuff is a little iffy though.
Pathfinder is moving in the "lets make it last" direction. Perhaps flavor bad stuff wouldnt be a terrible idea.
Horrible scars from a disease, amputated limbs, occasional seizures that require medical attention?
I agree on avoiding save-or-die. That and level-draining stuff are the Omega Weapons of 3.5/Pathfinder...never to be used casually or often.
I would like to see more stuff that has roleplay-based effects in general, really. I think a good story-based RPG always needs more of that. :)
Thus my suggestions for the scars and such.
"I know those scars... how long ago did you get the pox?"
"I was 24, young and stupid. We were on the eastern regions of netherfar. Necromancers attacked, I got lucky, others didn't..."
I say by level 10 you should be able to jump INTO the crows nest from the deck.
Now it will be impossible to have everyone agree at what point should a PC be able to do x. But this is where tier's should be able to shed some light from the designer's stand point. If levels 1-10 are reserved for fantasy where creatures can't quite do super-human things without magic, then a PC should not be able to jump from the deck of a ship into the crow's nest. Why? Because it breaks the sensibilities of that level range. It should start to be possible at 11+, and routine for a trained PC at level 16+.
I want everyone to ignore this post as soon as you finish reading it!:
I would just like to say I think its awesome the way this thread has somewhat turned into a "ways to possibly improve pathfinder in the past fifty posts" instead of what I was reading before.
Fives to all.
with that said.
DOnt comment on this and threadjack... and if you do... post something productive atleast lol
Now it will be impossible to have everyone agree at what point should a PC be able to do x. But this is where tier's should be able to shed some light from the designer's stand point. If levels 1-10 are reserved for fantasy where creatures can't quite do super-human things without magic, then a PC should not be able to jump from the deck of a ship into the crow's nest. Why? Because it breaks the sensibilities of that level range. It should start to be possible at 11+, and routine for a trained PC at level 16+.I say by level 10 you should be able to jump INTO the crows nest from the deck.
That's totally reasonable Anthony. Ten was just a ballpark. (In my own games I've actually got 5 of those 'tiers' you mentioned, every 4 levels in concordance with the paired spell levels.
Tier 1 Standard Fantasy (realistic, down to earth): levels 1-4
Tier 2 Heroic Fantasy (Expands to the next level, think Aragorn and the abilities Gandolf displayed): levels 5-8
Tier 3 High Fantasy (Wuxia/Mythology, like Beowulf or Odyseus): Levels 9-12
Tier 4 Epic Fantasy: levels 13-16
Tier 5 Divine (semi-divine if you prefer): Levels 17-20It actually fits the corresponding spell levels perfectly.
Spell levels 1 and 2
Spell levels 3 and 4
Spell levels 5 and 6
Spell levels 7 and 8
Spell level 9
If somewhere were a place we'd be going there right now
Basically my point is your not wrong, but doing math isnt necessarily a bad thing, and it doesnt prevent roleplaying, atleast in my PO
I shall tighten my POV succinctly then... Math is good for the game, but there is currently way too much sugar in the ingredients ;)
As an example, I've come to the conclusion that PF's concept of power attack is better than 3.5's concept of power attack in that it involves less math to use. Sure there is more versatility in the 3.5 version, but it isn't versatility that enhances the role-playing experience of a gaming session. In practice, when you're manipulating the benefit 3.5 PA, your just doing math.
Basically my point is your not wrong, but doing math isnt necessarily a bad thing, and it doesnt prevent roleplaying, atleast in my POI shall tighten my POV succinctly then... Math is good for the game, but there is currently way too much sugar in the ingredients ;)
As an example, I've come to the conclusion that PF's concept of power attack is better than 3.5's concept of power attack in that it involves less math to use. Sure there is more versatility in the 3.5 version, but it isn't versatility that enhances the role-playing experience of a gaming session. In practice, when you're manipulating the benefit 3.5 PA, your just doing math.
Ah so you want to modify grandmas recipe!
I follow.
What would you propose to trim? they already made BAB off HD and Skill Ranks off level.
Seems to me other than abilities they are trimming where they can, although I have to admit the whol abiltiy score system thing is weird...
Why not instead of oh say 18 strength you just give someone +4 strenth.... take all the plus twos and ones and make them ones and halves.
suggestions?
Actually, here's a concern I've had: What can be done about excessive magic AC stacking?
One of my friends plays a multiclass character, and she can use mage armor, shield, barkskin, haste, protection from evil, cat's grace, shield of faith, and...well, you get the idea. With a couple minutes of prep time, she's untouchable to anything but a natural 20.
Is this just an inherent 3.5/Pathfinder mechanical problem?
|
Actually, here's a concern I've had: What can be done about excessive magic AC stacking?
One of my friends plays a multiclass character, and she can use mage armor, shield, barkskin, haste, protection from evil, cat's grace, shield of faith, and...well, you get the idea. With a couple minutes of prep time, she's untouchable to anything but a natural 20.
Is this just an inherent 3.5/Pathfinder mechanical problem?
Attack bonus in D&D/PF scales up far quicker than AC bonus.
Barring some corner cases (Monks who blow half their fortune on boosting AC), at some point in the game everybody hits everybody, and pumping resources into AC is pointless.
Really, if you criticize a game then at least do have a good idea how the math beneath works. If your friend multiclasses a caster - great, he has access to a million spell, now where do we start explaining while multiclassing a caster (again, corner cases aside) has "mistake" written all over it ? :)
And also - yes, you can attack a company. It's somebody's property (in this case, Lisa's and Vic's), and that somebody is pouring his time and money to keep it in good shape. WotC/Hasbro is a property of a zillion shareholders (most of whom likely don't even know they own a part of it), while Paizo is a LLC owned by exactly two people who both work on it. If I called your dog a failure of existence that ought to be taken out and shot, you wouldn't feel very good about it either.
Attack bonus in D&D/PF scales up far quicker than AC bonus.
Barring some corner cases (Monks who blow half their fortune on boosting AC), at some point in the game everybody hits everybody, and pumping resources into AC is pointless.
Really, if you criticize a game then at least do have a good idea how the math beneath works. If your friend multiclasses a caster - great, he has access to a million spell, now where do we start explaining while multiclassing a caster (again, corner cases aside) has "mistake" written all over it ? :)
And also - yes, you can attack a company. It's somebody's property (in this case, Lisa's and Vic's), and that somebody is pouring his time and money to keep it in good shape. WotC/Hasbro is a property of a zillion shareholders (most of whom likely don't even know they own a part of it), while Paizo is a LLC owned by exactly two people who both work on it. If I called your dog a failure of existence that ought to be taken out and shot, you wouldn't feel very good about it either.
First off, don't talk down to me. You can take that superiorist, condescending attitude and put it somewhere useful...like Law School.
Now, as to your point, we're talking an AC greater than that of an ancient dragon, and which said dragon has to roll pretty high to hit, with no chance of the dragon's cohorts hitting at all (except on the aforementioned 20). Secondly, she's taking the Mystic Theurge prestige class.
Surprisingly enough, the ability to cast one or two 9th-level spells is actually not as devastating as the ability to cast ball lighting 20 times in a row. :)
That's dealt with easily enough. Don't give them time to buff up. Shield, for example, is one round per caster level.
The reason ninth level spells are so devastating is because of the power/efficiency you get out of a single cast, it's all about time management. Casting ball lightning or any other moderately low level, damaging spell does you no good if you die...
She always has prep time during idle moments of the adventure, and can afford to blow lots of spell slots on AC stacking. Our DM has had a very frustrating time trying to challenge her. Both his demon and his dragon wound up as kittens. :P
She kept one of them as a pet.
If there's one thing that I have learned, it's that a creative player can whip a power player anyday of the week. Her dual-class mystic theurge is more powerful than the group's single-classed undead-bloodline sorcerer, and they even had a mock fight to prove it.
"Breaking" the system in both 3.5 and Pathfinder yields a more powerful character than a powerful character that just advances straight to top level.
So...Midnightoker, Kyrt, I'm interested in this Ability Score change you guys seem to be discussing. What exactly is the idea being discussed? :)
The tiers idea with respect to character level helps to define what the game intends to do at given levels:
1-5) normal
6-10) heroic
11-15) legendary
16-20) epicIf the game came right out and said, in this level range, the game assumes a, b, and c... and your PCs should be able to do x, y, and z, I think it would be easier for designers to come up with level appropriate powers, skill uses, monsters, spells, magic items and so on. And it would create a bench-mark for players and especially GMs to gauge level appropriate adventures.
This is definitely what I'd want to see. It would fit into the "game setting dials" that I've talked about before. Being able to have explicit rule organization and even modifiers depending on the type of game you are going to play. Basically just integrate ideas like E6, E8, etc. into the 1-20 range of levels.
One thing that could also help reinforce the type of game you're going to play is that the rules could provided a scaled system of capstone abilities for classes. Rather than just have capstones at level 20, have level appropriate ones further down that can be used if the campaign is end at, say level 10.
4E started using Tiers, but just as a feat qualifier and "take advanced class here" benchmarks. I would love to see a Tier system for Pathfinder that actually does something useful, like making encounters faster to throw together and appropriately challenging. I also think it would be really cool to have racial abilities that are added on with your Tier. It would give your race an even greater long-term effect on your character. ^_^
|
|
Attack bonus in D&D/PF scales up far quicker than AC bonus.
Barring some corner cases (Monks who blow half their fortune on boosting AC), at some point in the game everybody hits everybody, and pumping resources into AC is pointless.
Really, if you criticize a game then at least do have a good idea how the math beneath works. If your friend multiclasses a caster - great, he has access to a million spell, now where do we start explaining while multiclassing a caster (again, corner cases aside) has "mistake" written all over it ? :)
And also - yes, you can attack a company. It's somebody's property (in this case, Lisa's and Vic's), and that somebody is pouring his time and money to keep it in good shape. WotC/Hasbro is a property of a zillion shareholders (most of whom likely don't even know they own a part of it), while Paizo is a LLC owned by exactly two people who both work on it. If I called your dog a failure of existence that ought to be taken out and shot, you wouldn't feel very good about it either.
First off, don't talk down to me. You can take that superiorist, condescending attitude and put it somewhere useful...like Law School.
Now, as to your point, we're talking an AC greater than that of an ancient dragon, and which said dragon has to roll pretty high to hit, with no chance of the dragon's cohorts hitting at all (except on the aforementioned 20). Secondly, she's taking the Mystic Theurge prestige class.
Surprisingly enough, the ability to cast one or two 9th-level spells is actually not as devastating as the ability to cast ball lighting 20 times in a row. :)
Sorry there, but it's you who fired off being snarky. In your very first posts in this thread, you went all over vancian magic fans, Paizo designers who went with the anthropocentric vision of Golarion (humans as the dominant race), Paizo itself, D&D nostalgia, you even managed to run all over Ultimate Magic basing just on two preview sentences. So, if you have the balls to criticize, grow a pair to handle criticism yourself.
And yes, I did finish Law School. Thanks for the compliment, made my day !
No back to The Math.
Ah, MT. A corner case indeed. I am curious how a MT got his AC to the 40+ range.
Anyway, such fights go like this: Ancient Red Dragon casts Antimagic Field. He walks up to the Mystic Theurge who has somehow got his AC to, say, 45 and he tears him a new one.
And as for cohorts - while I have no idea what CR they were, in D&D fielding several weak CR things against one high CR thing is never a good idea. 10 level 2 mooks don't equal one level 20.
Sorry there, but it's you who fired off being snarky. In your very first posts in this thread, you went all over vancian magic fans, Paizo designers who went with the anthropocentric vision of Golarion (humans as the dominant race), Paizo itself, D&D nostalgia, you even managed to run all over Ultimate Magic basing just on two preview sentences. So, if you have...
I went after vancian magic, specifically, not the fans of it (again, transposition). I said "I don't know why people seem to like it, but they do", not "people are stupid for liking vancian magic". I objected to the game setting. I objected to some of the game design. I expressed my disappointment with the end product so far, but went on to say I saw the potential of it.
The point is, all of my commentary has been about the game, and an awful lot of the rebuttals have been about me. Like somehow my talking about a game people like gives those people the right to rip on me personally, which it doesn't.
Keep your replies confined to this game, or other games I play (want to rag on World of Darkness? Have at!). I don't ever want to see another personal attack or defamation aimed at me on this forum unless I say something bad directly to someone here, or else I will report that person for harassment. Period.
Anyway, such fights go like this: Ancient Red Dragon casts Antimagic Field. He walks up to the Mystic Theurge who has somehow got his AC to, say, 45 and he tears him a new one.
Ah, but antimagic field, which nulls all magic (including supernatural powers like breath weapons), leaves the dragon open to their fighter, who is a ridiculously powerful cuisinart machine if you take magic out of the picture. This guy can do nearly-fireball damage with every hit, and he can do it just with feats, stats and class abilities.
No breath + no magic defense = choppy-choppy. A group in Pathfinder that can solidly work together and are all veterans of gaming (and know how to tweak the game) can be an extremely daunting challenge for even an experienced DM.
Of course, the unbalancing of the game at higher levels has already been discussed by others.
I've seen 50 lv1 wizards "one-shot" a Balor, co-operative casting and magic missle FTW! (though it made me a sad GM...)
Now that's just awesome. :)
well some animals have poisons that theoretically can kill several humans in one bite and so on, and your right it is a fantasy setting, but poisons and diseases are far from mundane exclusive, i just would like them to be deadly after level 5...
Not that after lvl 5 the PCs are like normal humans...
|
First off since some have trouble reading let alone listening. Enough with going after LW and or anyone else. I am not a mod I am the creator of this thread. Keep it up and I will ask the mods to close this one down and start a new one. If something a poster writes in this topic bothers you do not respond. No one is forcing you to respond to that person. And hiding behind free speech is an excuse.
Calm down be civil and respct each other and continue discussing.
4E's like "Look, I'm Pathfinder! See? We have the same outfit and everything." :D
This is what I was thinking when I did see that the schools of magic were SOMEWHAT back in essentials.
I imagined a kid, oblivious of previous iterations of the game, read it in the manual and say:
"See, in essentials wizards have schools! LIKE IN PATHFINDER!" :P
I know the game relies on numbers to work, but does it really have to rely on it this much? The biggest change I can think of from playing this game since I was 12, is that from 3.0 onward, the game has become much more numbers-heavy... and the numbers have exploded.
Take this example for instance.
In 1E/2E, it was very difficult to raise your ability scores. In certain obvious cases where you could (gauntlets of ogre power, belts of giant strength), the raise was often a defined amount. Numbers were involved of course, and maybe it wasn't quite as intuitive as it could have been, but it was simple and got the feel for what was supposed to happen across.Fast forward into 3.0 and all its incarnations:
gloves of Dexterity +2, gloves of Dexterity +4, gloves of Dexterity +6, Belt of Might Constitution +2, Belt of Mighty Constitution +4, Belt of Mighty Constitution +6, Bull's Strength, Eagle's Splendor, Fox's Cunning, Rage, Greater Rage, Mighty Rage, and on and on and on. In actual play these numbers are changing constantly with each new level, and also often during a single session at times. It's a big time sink and a big headache. This is not an exciting part of the game. These numbers aren't interesting. It has got to be a big headache for the designers and writers to keep these in mind when writing work for high level play. It's too many numbers that just don't add an appropriate amount of quality to the game in proportion to the amount of bulk they add.The game would be simplified and lose nothing if this one particular part of the game just mysteriously disappeared (of course the monsters in the Bestiary and Spell DC vs. Save progressions would have to be re-balanced to compensate).
Thanks! This is exactly what I was getting at about wishing the whole buff/debuff thing would get a major choking. I don't mind some buff/debuff action, but 3.x/PF has way too much, especially once you pass 5th level or so.
-The Gneech
Tier 1 Standard Fantasy (realistic, down to earth): levels 1-4
Tier 2 Heroic Fantasy (Expands to the next level, think Aragorn and the abilities Gandolf displayed): levels 5-8
Tier 3 High Fantasy (Wuxia/Mythology, like Beowulf or Odyseus): Levels 9-12
Tier 4 Epic Fantasy: levels 13-16
Tier 5 Divine (semi-divine if you prefer): Levels 17-20It actually fits the corresponding spell levels perfectly.
Spell levels 1 and 2
Spell levels 3 and 4
Spell levels 5 and 6
Spell levels 7 and 8
Spell level 9
If we're going to promote/push the "tier" system, which I also fully endorse, I'd want to second the breakdown presented by kyrt-ryder. I like the tier idea and strongly like the idea of tying some things more closely to the tier being played with.
However, isn't this entire conversation unfortunately somewhat pointless? Paizo has made clear they have no interest or intention of releasing anything remotely like a "2nd edition" for like at least 10 years. The kinds of changes many of us discuss or mention in this thread can not really be addressed with "patches" on top of the 3.x engine. They really sort of need an entirely freshly built engine or else the patches will fall off after a short time.
Unless of course the idea is that we all sort of just rattle off what we don't like in the hopes that 10 years from now 1) this board will still exist and 2) Paizo will have some level of interest and capacity to do some sort of data mining out of it. OR, is the theory that Paizo might release a PrC here and a feat there and a maneuver here and a splat book there that patches these concerns? Just wondering what is the practical goal of this? I suppose the more likely idea is that this is just more a therapeutic place for some of us to vent about our disappointments with PF, which I get and appreciate, but I don't know what the real chances are that there is likely to be any real addressing of those concerns.
Lastly, I'll reiterate that while I am dissatisfied with many of the core underpinnings of the system, the way Paizo either did or did not address them, and some other things, for me Pathfinder remains the most enjoyable fantasy medieval game I can find. It is the closest thing to my ideal system I have found and I really have no realistic alternative, which is why I too want to keep trying to push it in certain directions. For me its 90% perfect. That last 10% is a beast to accomplish but I have confidence that if anyone can do it, its Paizo.
Oh and one more "last" thing (lol)... Others have said it and I'll say it again, there is no other company out there (that I have seen) that treats their customers as well as Paizo does, that makes themselves SO available to the customers... it is an unfortunate side effect of this that the customers (i.e. me sometimes) feel "spoiled" by this great treatment and sometimes forget how much of a bonus this is and begin to treat it as a "right." I'll repeat that I truly appreciate how available Paizo staff are to criticisms and general conversations. Paizo is a company that creates a product, which is true, but in some ways they straddle the line and become friends with many of the customers, which can sometimes blur the seller/buyer relationship. Everyone needs to try to remind themselves of that from time to time, both Paizo AND the customers/fans.
Creative Director
|
Paizo has actually been making endeavors to end it to a degree, between the barbarian Pounce rage power and the Mobile Fighter Archtype.The whole full attack and standard action attack thing could use a revamp.Agreed. Though I suspect changing that would have had so many ripple effects that backwards compatibility would have suffered. But that's just a guess.It does REALLY screw with backwards compatibility. I've experimented with this (and am putting together a campaign with house-rules that allow such mobile combat) and it's dicey, but it seems like it will be a lot of fun to play.
It's not something I would ever expect Paizo to do though, maybe as an alternate option in the future Combat book.
Perhaps allowing you a movement every round and saying that a standard action allows you to perform all your attacks could break it, but it might just add versatility to your attacks and moving.
Really if you think about it all it does is allow you to move and attack. What is so broken about moving??? you still provoke AOO's for illegal moves and such, its like having a double standard, the game mechanics literally encourage you to find a spot and stand still, which is very unrealistic.
Has paizo taken a stance on this?
Not to mention the Vital Strike feat chain...
The tiers idea with respect to character level helps to define what the game intends to do at given levels:
1-5) normal
6-10) heroic
11-15) legendary
16-20) epicIf the game came right out and said, in this level range, the game assumes a, b, and c... and your PCs should be able to do x, y, and z, I think it would be easier for designers to come up with level appropriate powers, skill uses, monsters, spells, magic items and so on. And it would create a bench-mark for players and especially GMs to gauge level appropriate adventures.
This is definitely what I'd want to see. It would fit into the "game setting dials" that I've talked about before. Being able to have explicit rule organization and even modifiers depending on the type of game you are going to play. Basically just integrate ideas like E6, E8, etc. into the 1-20 range of levels.
One thing that could also help reinforce the type of game you're going to play is that the rules could provided a scaled system of capstone abilities for classes. Rather than just have capstones at level 20, have level appropriate ones further down that can be used if the campaign is end at, say level 10.
+1 to the capstone per level idea.
So...Midnightoker, Kyrt, I'm interested in this Ability Score change you guys seem to be discussing. What exactly is the idea being discussed? :)
We were talking about how the ability score itself, nie some of the poison and disease effects and your negative con for death are really arbitrary and just add to the math of the game.
The only thing that matters for in game math is the modifier really and all other effects to the score itself only matter when you change the modifier or reduce the modifier to -5(death, comat, immovable, ect)
Not to mention the Vital Strike feat chain...
Careful James lest the spring attack ruling and cleave+vital strike crowd will take over this thread with venom and bile.
i will reiterate my earlier comment:
the cloud column needs to impact the crunch column more, like a lot more so people don't just stand in one place and Full Attack. Incentivization in the system can encourage dynamism in scenes
mass combat/ trials/ performances /chase scenes etc need a more articulated, explicit system that works for all of them.
Not to mention the Vital Strike feat chain...
The man himself.
I acknowledge that Vital strike is nice, even for monks. But some people want to play the charging samurai who slices everyone on his path, and looks back at his dropped foes. The monk round kicks a guy mid air and then leaps over him to elbow the teeth of an ugly orc.
I love the direction, just hoping all concepts can be fleshed out eventually in the future :)