|
You mean by making the gods not real :)But I'd like that Torquemada and Richelieu to be deluded into thinking they are doing the will of their god.This could be done in PF without getting rid of Gods, Eberron in 3.5 did it :)
I may be misunderstanding what you mean by "making the gods not real" - they are as real as the gods in real world religion, and in some cases more so - i.e. the Silver Flame has a voice (but there is also a more sinister voice in the flame too meaning Cardinals can be evil.
The god's are just distant and it is not clear whether it is a cleric's faith in the god that provides his powers, or the god themselves.
Here is the text from the 3.5 Eberron Campaign Setting:
A cleric’s status within her church is usually more important than her relationship to her deity, who is—at best—a distant patron. Therefore, a cleric’s alignment need not remain within one step of her deity’s alignment.
A cleric can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric’s alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells, but the deities of Eberron do not prevent their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments. This rule supersedes the information in Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells on page 33 of the Player’s Handbook.
A cleric who violates the tenets of her church or deity might risk punishment at the hands of the church (though not necessarily, particularly in regions where the church is very corrupt), but risks no loss of spells or class features and need not atone. This rule supersedes the information under Ex-Clerics on page 33 of the Player’s Handbook.
As to my own thoughts on the topic:
Virtually any feat chain with the nomenclature "X, Improved X, Greater X", or similar can and should be condensed into a single scaling feat. Have Two Weapon Fighting? Then as soon as you hit the appropriate Dex and BAB, it automatically scales to include Improved, and then Greater TWF. Have Improved Grapple? Then it becomes Greater Grapple when your BAB is +6. Possible exception: Elemental/Spell Focus and Greater Elemental/Spell focus; raising DCs is a particularly powerful effect, and there is no prerequisite for the Greater feat besides the first feat itself. On the other hand, I would conflate Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will with their improved component without a second thought.
I would also give the Maneuver feats an interesting addendum at the Improved level as well as the Greater level--for example, reinstate Improved Trip's free attack, or reduce an Improved Grappler's penalties from the Grappled condition if he is in control of the grapple.
I also had the idea for replacing a fighter's Bravery class feature with a Rogue-Talent like selection of abilities called Strategems, which would include their own versions of Bravery and every archetype replacement thereof. The list I've devised so far:
* And Knowing Is Half the Battle: Some Fighters compulsively hoard knowledge, the better to form battle plans against any eventuality. You gain a bonus equal to ½ your Fighter level on all Knowledge checks, and may make Knowledge checks untrained. All Knowledge skills are class skills for you. A fighter must have at least a +1 Intelligence modifier to select this stratagem.
* Battle-Hardened: You gain a +4 bonus to saves against fear effects, and a further +2 bonus on all Will saves. This bonus does not stack with bonuses to saves granted by any other stratagem.
* Battle Instinct: As a swift action 1/encounter, you may select a single Combat feat which you meet the prerequisites for, and use it for a number of rounds equal to your BAB.
* Buckler Bash: You may employ a buckler to make a shield bash attack. Use the damage and critical modifier for a light shield.
* Clever Packing: You know how to pack to mitigate weight and allow easy retrieval. Your carrying capacity is doubled, and you may retrieve any item as a move action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If you have the Quick Draw feat, you may apply it to any item in your possession, not just weapons.
* Danger Sense: You gain a +4 bonus to saves against traps, and a further +2 bonus on Reflex saves. This bonus does not stack with bonuses to saves granted by any other stratagem.
* Deflective Shield: You gain your shield bonus to touch AC; this bonus is lost when you are denied your Dexterity bonus to AC. If using a Tower shield, you may also use your shield bonus as a bonus on Reflex saves against burst effects.
* Enduring: The fighter gains a +4 bonus to saving throws against any effect which causes the exhausted, fatigued, or staggered conditions, or any effect which imposes temporary penalties to ability scores, and a further +2 bonus on all Fortitude saves. This bonus does not stack with bonuses to saves granted by any other stratagem.
* Exploration Specialist: You gain a Climb and Swim speed equal to half your base land speed. You gain a +8 bonus to all Climb and Swim checks, and you may take 10 on these checks even in stressful situations. You may select this stratagem twice; if you do, your Climb and Swim speeds increase to become equal to your base land speed.
* Fleet: Your base land speed increases by 10 feet. In addition, you gain a +4 bonus on saving throws against effects that would impose the Paralyzed, Slowed, or Entangled conditions, and a further +2 bonus to all Reflex saves; this bonus does not stack with bonuses to saves granted by any other stratagem. You may select this stratagem multiple times, but you only gain the save bonuses once; each subsequent selection only increases your base land speed.
* Forge Lore: You gain the Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Arms and Armor feats as bonus feats. The Fighter must meet the prerequisites of Master Craftsman to select this stratagem.
* Hawkeye: You gain a +4 bonus to Perception checks, and halve all penalties to Perception checks due to range. In addition, increase the range increment for any ranged weapon you use by 10 feet. You may select this stratagem multiple times, but each subsequent selection only increases range increment.
* Improvising: You gain Improvised Weapon Mastery and either Catch Off-Guard or Throw Anything as bonus feats. You need not meet the BAB prerequisite for Improvised Weapon Mastery.
* Juggernaut: You gain a bonus equal to ½ your Battlemaster level to Strength checks to break objects, as well as a damage bonus against constructs or when making a Sunder attempt.
* Maneuver Specialist: You have learned the ins and outs of keeping your balance while throwing your enemies off theirs. Select three combat maneuvers; you gain a bonus equal to 1/3 your Fighter level to CMB and CMD to employ and defend against those maneuvers.
* Poison Mastery: You may apply poison to a weapon as a swift action. In addition, increase the save DC of any poison you employ by +2. You may select this stratagem multiple times; each time, increase the save DC of any poison you use by an additional +2. You must have the Poison Use ability to select this stratagem.
* Poison Use: You gain the Poison Use ability, as the Alchemist or Ninja.
* Spark of Life: You gain a +4 bonus on saves against energy drain and death effects, and a further +2 bonus on all Fortitude saves. This bonus does not stack with save bonuses granted by any other stratagem.
* Stand Firm: You gain a +4 bonus to CMD against Bull Rush, Drag, Overrun, and Trip attempts.
* Steadfast Mount: You gain a +4 bonus on Ride checks. In addition, when using the Mounted Combat feat, you may substitute a Ride check for your mount’s saving throws. You must have the Mounted Combat feat to select this stratagem.
* Tactical Awareness: You gain a bonus on Initiative checks equal to your Intelligence modifier, if positive.
* Tactical Movement: You may take a 5-ft. step as an Immediate action. This is in addition to any other movement you may take in the round, even another 5-ft. step.
* Uncanny Dodge: You gain the Uncanny Dodge class feature. If you already have Uncanny Dodge from another source, such as barbarian levels, you gain Improved Uncanny Dodge instead. You may select this stratagem twice; the second time grants Improved Uncanny Dodge.
* Weapon Guard: You gain a +4 bonus to CMD against disarm and sunder attempts against your weapon. This also applies as a bonus to saves against effects which target your weapon.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I may be misunderstanding what you mean by "making the gods not real" - they are as real as the gods in real world religion, and in some cases more so - i.e. the Silver Flame has a voice (but there is also a more sinister voice in the flame too meaning Cardinals can be evil.
The god's are just distant and it is not clear whether it is a cleric's faith in the god that provides his powers, or the god themselves.
I recently finished a campaign set in Ravenloft where I played an atheist character. When people tried to convince me using the divine spellcasting=proof argument, I would reply that as a sorcerer, I can cast spells without any gods intervening. Cleric-types just have different spells than I do.
Yes my character (properly, IMO) caught a lot of flak for this choice but the point is that you can have all the uncertainty of realistic religions in PF. Also, IMO, priest does not equal cleric class. Many would be adepts/experts. 3rd level expert chaplain who secretly worships an evil god doesn't even show up to detect evil.
I may be misunderstanding what you mean by "making the gods not real" - they are as real as the gods in real world religion, and in some cases more so - i.e. the Silver Flame has a voice (but there is also a more sinister voice in the flame too meaning Cardinals can be evil.
I mean just what I said. Compared to every other setting they are not real. In a world where the faithless have the same power for worshiping the color green as a cleric does worshiping a "god" and you can not contact that god and there is no after life..then yes they are not real. They are make believe ideas that gained popularity.
The one and only "god" in eberron that is real is the silver flame, and then it is not a god. Its a prison for a demon made of souls.
Virtually any feat chain with the nomenclature "X, Improved X, Greater X", or similar can and should be condensed into a single scaling feat. Have Two Weapon Fighting? Then as soon as you hit the appropriate Dex and BAB, it automatically scales to include Improved, and then Greater TWF. Have Improved Grapple? Then it becomes Greater Grapple when your BAB is +6. . .
This!
Feats should scale. Pathfinder did it with Skill Focus, and I think it should be done with most of the "chains", as Revan says.
|
Natural spell should be a class feature. It's not as powerful as you all claim, without it, the druid becomes a much worse class, it should be a given.
IME Natural spell takes druids from being a good class (about as good as a wizard) to being overpowered.
I'm open to the possibility of a nerfed natural spell as perhaps being better, because frankly, with the current version, I dont allow it at all.
Its not as bad as it was in 3.5, but it's still really powerful.
And people are thinking imp. init should take a nerf. lol. Natural Spell is much more powerful than imp. init.
I tend to agree that tiered feats are kindof crappy, granted. Particularly the TWF tree and the Vital Strike Tree, and the Cleave Tree, but I've seen natural casting allow the druid to garner all the attention and do better than all the other characters too many times, so I'm iffy on its use.
Maybe its best to just leave it out and disallow it.
I think without natural spell, returning wildshape to something closer to the 3.5 version would be viable.
Agreed the 3.5 wild shape was broke as hell and I do not use that term often. Now shape shift from PHB 2 was nice.
Natural spell needs its metamagic cost returned. Then it becomes balanced as a feat. It was +2 in 3.0, as I believe...probably still something a druid requires, but no longer able to use your higher level spells with it is a limiter.
Either that, or lose it entirely. I have no problems with a druid in wildshape being unable to spellcast. FOrms have advantages, and should have disadvantages.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I agree and disagree with this. But the MAD concept is invented by munchkins. People whinge that a fighter is bad at social situations because they have min/max'd him to do one thing. He would be a very boring person to talk to in real life.Monks are fine, there are other bonuses that are important, people forget monks have high saves and funky abilities to make up for perceived MAD problems. Min/maxing is the problem not MAD. If I was only good at one thing I would have poor career choices available to me, would like be very limited in conversation (as my interests or what I could converse about would likely be limited).
Want to fix MAD? Stop min/maxing, you don't need the best DPR to have fun or be useful. People need to get back to playing. Min/maxing can be fun but I rarely find I enjoy playing a game where I do amazing damage in some circumstances but have a boring character to play. I only have myself to blame if I play a socially inadequate character. The game should be more than combat and skill checks.
I would rather the game was about rule of cool, or interesting choices then about min/maxing damage/skills. Some min/maxing is fun but lately I feel more and more it is becoming the game and the game (and rules being written) are hurting from it.
We all like being useful, but being useful doesn't always mean being the best, and if it does at your table... maybe its time to find a better more creative DM. Rolling dice and numbers should only ever be half the game.
Btw, I give XP based on contribution...
I like the way you think friend. However I think you misunderstood what I was going for. To be honest I probably didn't explain it too well. I don't want to "fix MAD" I want MAD to be part of the game design. Right now min/max is so attractive because there really is no benefit not to.
You pretty much covered what I was going for with your comment " I would rather the game rules supported generalization better and not the perceived need to specialize to the extreme." I cant really say it better than that. In a perfect game you could generalize or specialize and still have an effective character.
BTW I dont give out XP at all anymore for anything in my games. Cheers!
|
|
I think without natural spell, returning wildshape to something closer to the 3.5 version would be viable.The 3.5 version of wildshape encouraged all the physical stats to be dump stats - even before natural spell existed.
No, the 3.5 version of wildshape was godawful.
I dont see any realy problem with telling the player this:
"When wildshaped, put away your druid character sheet. You can choose any animal with a CR less than or equal to your level, Your sheet is the bestiary animal entry with X quick adjustments if the creature is a lower CR than your level. Use your own hitpoints, and your own int score. You cannot cast spells while shapeshifted."
It's not quite 3.x wildshape, cause youre taking everything (and maybe adjusting the CR) as opposed to basically taking the better of the two in all cases.
For cool effects, make M:TG style cards with a photo or painting of the animal, with their statblock below it.
But then, I like the card method and find it convenient.
|
|
I mean just what I said. Compared to every other setting they are not real.
I take it you're an Atheist in real life then :)
In a world where the faithless have the same power for worshiping the color green as a cleric does worshiping a "god" and you can not contact that god and there is no after life..then yes they are not real. They are make believe ideas that gained popularity.
Fair enough, although it is debateable that in Eberron you can cast Divine magic without having faith, indeed it could be taken that the very strong belief is the source of the character's magic, along with the religious learning of his faith.
So in Eberron I can't imagine the faithless could have the same power for worshipping the colour green, as their worship would not have any faith behind it. Who knows? Perhaps Keith Baker could answer that one.
Also, there is an afterlife, or at least there is belief that there is an afterlife in Dolurrh - it is a plane of existence just like any other.
Basically in order to have evil clerics of good gods, all you have to do is say that it isn't the god that gives his clerics their powers but rather the source of their powers is their faith, or even that the god gives his powers to those who have faith in him - and can't be selective on an individual basis. You don't need to have the gods not be real just to do that.
The one and only "god" in eberron that is real is the silver flame, and then it is not a god. Its a prison for a demon made of souls.
This is open to interpretation, I would say the sovereign host are real, just that they are not as tangible as the Silver Flame.
But anyway, I think we can agree to disagree - for me gods in Eberron are "real" whereas you feel that they are not "real".
Fair enough, although it is debateable that in Eberron you can cast Divine magic without having faith, indeed it could be taken that the very strong belief is the source of the character's magic, along with the religious learning of his faith.
Not really. Its right there in the book, belief in a concept can power a cleric, CE clerics who only barely pay lip service to a LG "idea" can be full clerics just as powerful as the most devoted faithful cleric.
So in Eberron I can't imagine the faithless could have the same power for worshipping the colour green, as their worship would not have any faith behind it. Who knows? Perhaps Keith Baker could answer that one.
All you need by the book is a strong faith. How is faith that the color green is the base of all life any less true then the "silver flame" you can see green everywhere after all. How is that any less faith? You worship a silver flame coming from the ground as Proof, I see the color green in all things that grow in nature.
Also, there is an afterlife, or at least there is belief that there is an afterlife in Dolurrh - it is a plane of existence just like any other.
Except the learned know what happens there, you fade, slowly forgetting about everything you knew until your soul is nothing more faded to nothingness. Its not punishment, its not reword it just is.
This is open to interpretation, I would say the sovereign host are real, just that they are not as tangible as the Silver Flame.But anyway, I think we can agree to disagree - for me gods in Eberron are "real" whereas you feel that they are not "real".
No, that is what the flame is. It is covered, the silver flame is the remains of the souls of most of the Couatles that scarfied themselves to trap a major demon.
Humans just started worshiping it is all, that does not change what it really is.
What I would like to see handled differently
- Change the Fighter Bonus Feat into a class feature called "Fighter Talent" (or whatever pithy name you'd like to use). Allow the fighter to choose any combat feat instead of a fighter talent if they so wish, but also list unique weapon and defense tricks that only the fighter can take (I'd borrow ideas from archetypes but open them up so they can be taken with different kinds of builds--and leave armor and weapon training alone to boot). I would change any "fighter only" feat, such as Weapon Specialization, into a Fighter talent, since that's what they really are anyway. (Any class that allows such a feat despite not being a fighter could simply say, for example, "At xth level, the Arcane Duelist gains the ability Spellbreaker, as the Fighter talent.")
- Get rid of Escape Artist. We got rid of Use Rope, which was the basic antagonist to Escape Artist. The "cram into tight spaces" aspect can be folded into Acrobatics. Skills should not be used in combat maneuvers, it just is not intuitive to me how that works. Plus, I don't think I have ever had to make an Escape Artist check since I started playing 3.0 in 2001. I am sure people have, but it's not something I see a lot.
- Either make the monk into a dedicated unarmed melee expert (full BAB/d10), or into a mystic, somewhat skilled, defense expert (3/4 BAB/d8). Or even make both.
- I'm good with encouraging specialization, but don't punish multiclassers along the way.
- Change Uncanny Dodge back to the clearer and more sensible way it was in 3.5.
- Rename "Flat-Footed AC" to something else (like, IDK, "Fumble" AC or something), since everyone equates losing Dex/Dodge with Flat Footed, when the actual Flat-Footed condition ALSO makes you unable to make AOOs (something everyone always forgets).
- Any spell description that is longer than three paragraphs--ESPECIALLY if it also makes you cross reference other spells--needs to be gotten rid of or rewritten to be simpler. And cut out the spell cross referencing while you're at it. Each spell should be able to fit easily onto, say, a 3x5 index card.
- Most combat feats which have a "branch" which ONLY adds an incremental attack or bonus needs to become a single feat which scales with level, like Power Attack and Combat Expertise. So--TWF, Improved TWF, and Greater TWF just become TWF which gains extra attacks when the character gets a high enough BAB; likewise with the Vital Strike tree, the damage simply goes up when you get BAB +11 and +16.
- Remove the Power Attack or Combat Expertise prerequisites from combat maneuver feats. Pre-reqs should be BAB +1, [Ability Score] 13, and any preceding feats on the tree, if any.
- Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers should be one feat.
- WILD AND CRAZY IDEA TIME: Get rid of DR. Completely. Replace it with fast healing, regeneration, and/or more hit points. Running a high level campaign, it was bane of my existence--simply because everything had it and had a different kind and it was a giant pain in the tuchus to track. Oh, gotta subtract 10 from those last 86 hits the fighter dished out; but, wait, a third of those were with a Holy Fart Weapon that bypassed it, so then I have to subtract... Bleah. I actually ultimately made sure everybody had +5 weapons because I, as the GM, was tired of dealing with it.
- WILD AND CRAZY IDEA TIME, PART II: Get rid of SR. This was the other high level creature ability that just ended up making me annoyed and didn't really actually challenge a high level party, just had to make us roll more dice and get into ridiculous ret-con situations ("Oh wait, I forgot I have spell resistance." "Oh. Well, you're not dead after all."). This is a little harder to replace with the same feel, but I'd just say boost saves and/or grant immunities or improved resistance to certain kinds of magic--just, say, x creature can't be harmed by evocation or transmutation or whatever.
|
|
Not really. Its right there in the book, belief in a concept can power a cleric, CE clerics who only barely pay lip service to a LG "idea" can be full clerics just as powerful as the most devoted faithful cleric.
I think we are getting hung up on semantics here - I agree belief in a concept can power a cleric, and that concept doesn't necessarily need to be a deity - but I take "belief" as being a belief strong enough to be faith (i.e. you have faith in something) In fact this is just a core rule in all D&D 3.5 (from the SRD: "If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities")
All you need by the book is a strong faith. How is faith that the color green is the base of all life any less true then the "silver flame" you can see green everywhere after all.
So in Eberron I can't imagine the faithless could have the same power for worshipping the colour green, as their worship would not have any faith behind it. Who knows? Perhaps Keith Baker could answer that one.
Exactly, you need faith, hence you wouldn't be faithless. Therefore the faithless couldn't have the same power for what would be lip service worship.
Except the learned know what happens there, you fade, slowly forgetting about everything you knew until your soul is nothing more faded to nothingness. Its not punishment, its not reword it just is.
Its an afterlife - did you mean something more by "afterlife"?
[No, that is what the flame is. It is covered, the silver flame is the remains of the souls of most of the Couatles that scarfied themselves to trap a major demon.
Humans just started worshiping it is all, that does not change what it really is.
I am not sure what you are saying here.
All I am suggesting is that you can have a setting with deities that actually exist and are real and still have clerics who worship those deities faithfully and get divine powers, but whose alignment may differ significantly from their patron deity.
The Eberron books seem to disagree, as do I. You can not have both. Gods are real and grant clerical powers or they do not and faith alone does.
|
Personally, I much prefere the by faith alone version, (in any setting). It allows a lot more custumization and variaty, but it also puts more of the creativity back in the players hands, rather than shackling them by someone elses. It's also more fun, I think, as it allows for multiple explanations for how things really work, and allows for issues of morality.
In Eberron, I agree, the material strongly emplies that Clerics (and others) would have their powers regardless of the actual existence of any deity. That doesn't mean they don't exist, (which is a possibility), just that they do not grant any power themselves. Additionally, it is possible to gain said powers without worshiping a deity, such as the Blood of Vol.
Personally, I much prefere the by faith alone version, (in any setting). It allows a lot more custumization and variaty, but it also puts more of the creativity back in the players hands, rather than shackling them by someone elses. It's also more fun, I think, as it allows for multiple explanations for how things really work, and allows for issues of morality.
In Eberron, I agree, the material strongly emplies that Clerics (and others) would have their powers regardless of the actual existence of any deity. That doesn't mean they don't exist, (which is a possibility), just that they do not grant any power themselves. Additionally, it is possible to gain said powers without worshiping a deity, such as the Blood of Vol.
I don't actually see the need to make such a change a part of the core rules, when where and how Cleric's get their spells and powers from is almost entirely a matter of fluff. It's ridiculously easy (almost a matter of pure fiat) to simply say "In this setting, Cleric's gain their powers via X method" without having to make nearly any actual mechanical adjustments.
This seems more a matter of setting than actual core rules.
|
|
What change? In the Core Rules, Clerics don't need deities, either. I was just saying I like it much better that way, because the Fighter and the Wizard can make up whatever school they want as a backstory, the Rogue can design their own thieves guild, etc. . . but most divine classes are kind of stuck with someone elses (Dm, game designer, etc...) ideas.
|
|
I don't think it's really an argument of it either being one way or the other. But rather more along the lines of if there are Clerics that don't have a deity (or any sort of "patron" granting them power), do the Clerics with deities actually get power from those deities?
One seems to indicate that the existance of an actual patron is irrelevant. Secondarily, that said patron has any choice in who recieves their powers, in what way, or for what purpose a priest is "allowed" to use it. In PFS Golarion, Clerics must have a deity, and all deities also have the ability to grant any spell and any Domain, but choose not to, as rediculous as that is in some ways.
Saying there can't be clerics that draw from gods in the same world as clerics that draw from faith is like saying there can't be houses that draw from nuclear power plants in the same world as houses that draw from non-nuclear power plants.
He's got you there.
Not really. Its right there in the book, belief in a concept can power a cleric, CE clerics who only barely pay lip service to a LG "idea" can be full clerics just as powerful as the most devoted faithful cleric.
Which might be because the gods are false and divine magic just springs from willpower. Or it might be that the gods grant magic by plugging clerics into some font of magical energy which is not so easy to take away. Or it could be the CE cleric who believes he worships the Sovereign Host is, by his actual actions, paying homage to the Dark Six, so they're the ones actually giving him spells. Heck, maybe the Traveler is having a laugh by rerouting other god's spell-granting pipelines. It's ambiguous.
Holy Fart Weapon
if this site had signatures, this would be in mine. :-)
also, you make many good points.
Dont you think it would be better to change the general rule and just give rogues an exception to the rule so that in any case NOT involving rogues or a surprise attack this penalty is eliminated?Actually most GM's don't house rule it, but I will admit other than sneak attack I don't know the purpose of it.Change the stupid initiative rule that says if you have not yet acted you are flat footed.
I agree that your flat footed in a surprise situation.
but according to the rules if your opponent is 50 feet away and your both having a heated discussion with weapons drawn that opponent can charge 50 feet and hit you in the face with his great axe while you stand there flat footed with a stupid look on your face.
most DMs just house rule it but it just seems like something that should be looked at in official rules.
Not really.
Looking back on it, the "back and forth" with the bad guy is a popular trope. I guess they did not want to ruin it with a rule, which is why you can talk down to each for 3 hours and still be caught flat-footed.
1) The inquisitor class needs a ground up redesign. It's too MAD and it doesn't really accomplish what I feel they set out to do.
It is mad, but it is also effective. I will admit I have never built one without 20 point buy so I may have to look at this comment again. I don't like the fact that no inquisitor archetype has trapfinding as a class feature. Investigating people, breaking into the homes/camps, and dragging them off just seems like something they would do.
2) It's absolutely disgusting to me that the Cavalier class still does not have an archetype that focuses on non-mounted combat. They specifically designed paladin to have an option outside of their mount, why was this class overlooked in that category? Did the "dungeon problem" magically cease to exist? Seems to be present in every adventure path I've played in.
This is a very anti-AP class, but cavaliers are only cavaliers because they are mounted.
[quoted]
3) Dexterity is still far too heavily weighted a stat. Dervish Dance was a colossal mistake, one that was made in 3.5 that I thought they'd be above making again.[/quoted]
It is the 2nd stat dumped by many people unless they are going archer. Even most TWF builds suggest dumping it once you get the last TWF feat you need out of it.
5) Smite Evil, while it needed improvement, is now probably firmly in the "far too good" category.
I think it is fine as is.
6) Ranged damage got pretty ludicrous. I'd rather they hadn't "MMO-Tized" this.
See 5.
7) Either treat guns as core or don't devote large chunks of books to them. I don't care either way.
I was not aware guns were not PFS approved if that is what you mean. If that is what you meant then I agree with you.
8) The game needs a bit more prestige classes. Archetypes are great, but they're only useful when you're making a character. Prestige classes are fanservice for your long-existant characters when new content comes out. I don't want to see it balloon out of control like it did in 3.5, but is 1-2 per book that unreasonable?
What PrC's do you have in mind?
9) Caster level and "the multiclass problem". It's still nigh on impossible to make an effective multiclass caster.
I think you have to decide do you want to be a caster than can fight or a fighter than can cast. A true hybrid is hard to make without losing out somewhere. I liked the 3.5 battle sorcerer variant. The problem with your idea is that many people want the spells, but don't want to give up the melee damage.
10) Ninjas is the new Rogue. Seriously, they're just better in all ways. "Rogue Talent" as a ninja talent was just a kick in the groin.
They can only take on rogue talent IIRC, and they are no less mad than the inquisitor. They may be better than a rogue, but not by much.
11) Samurai. See Cavalier. Stop forcing mounted combat down people's throats. It doesn't work in most games.
The Samurai is just a variant Cavalier to me.
12) Alchemist. Stop making them all creepy "Dr.Jekyll/Mr. Hyde/Dr. Frankenstein" types that traffic in "disgusting."
They do?
13) Any class with 2 skill points that is not int-based. Enough said.
That 2 skill points should never have been redone.
3.) Return to the 3.0 version of DR, (not the 3.5, the 3.0 that actually mattered). Drop the Magic counts as _______ DR.
Didn't they have like DR 20 and 30 in 3.0? I don't mean at level 20 either.
6.) Expand on the Slow - Fast Xp chart idea, and offer options for different forms of game play, like low magic cutting back on the wealth by level and trippling the cost of magic items, or minor "fixes" for each class in games where there are only 2 or 3 players).
The problem is that every low magic campaign is a little different so first the community needs to agree on what low magic means.
I could never concieve how one could be a 1st level Paladin. A paladin (in my view anyway) is supposed to be a champion of the church, and would take years of trainning.
I would re-devise the classes, to make a logical transition as you go up in levels.
Start with the core classes, like fighter, barbarian, rogue, cleric, wizard, druid (maybe more)... Everybody starts here.
Follow up with "Master" classes... And would fit in things like Champion (would need x levels of fighter and x levels of cleric), Ranger (again, x levels of fighter and x levels of druid). Chevalier, Assasin, Arcane Archer would fit in here.
THEN follow up with "Prestige" classes which three or four different class levels would be needed... Making them rare and certainly powerful. Like the Paladin class (x levels of champion, x levels of monk x levels of chevalier...).
The "core" classes would be open to anyone, but as you move up with Master and Prestige classes, certain other classes would be closed off to you. Like choosing the paladin class would effectively close off classes like barbarian and rogue. Of course, nothing would prevent you from sticking to a single core class (like a very high level fighter...).
Just thoughts though. What do you guys think?
Ultradan
The background story can handle a first level paladin. Maybe he did heroic things as a squire, and since paladins are chosen by the gods maybe they see something special in him which makes him a paladin at the young age of 17 or 18.
I do like the Master Classes idea.
Remove iterative attacks .....
When I first played SW Saga I was disappointed that I only got one attack, but it makes the game run so much faster. Extra attack should be purchasable through feats though.
The god's are just distant and it is not clear whether it is a cleric's faith in the god that provides his powers, or the god themselves.
I am almost an Eberron fan boi, and I had this conversation with seeker before. He is correct. The quote is in the faiths of eberron handbook IIRC.
It is on page 7:
..... They are distant-if they exist at all. A commune spell contacts outsiders such as angels, not the gods themselves. Clerics gain spells from their own faith, not from divine intervention.
For all intents and purposes the gods really don't do anything
PS:Sorry to everyone about the multiple back to back posts.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Didn't they have like DR 20 and 30 in 3.0? I don't mean at level 20 either.
Yeah, 3.0 had DR like 15/+1 or 30/+3 at relatively low levels, but that was replacing 2e stuff like "+2 or better weapon to hit." The idea was that you could still hurt a werewolf with a bazooka, even if you weren't firing silver shells.
It is interesting to note that as magic weapons have become more prevalent, it has at the same time gotten easier to hurt monsters without them.
|
|
3.) Return to the 3.0 version of DR, (not the 3.5, the 3.0 that actually mattered). Drop the Magic counts as _______ DR.
Didn't they have like DR 20 and 30 in 3.0? I don't mean at level 20 either.
Yes, though that wasn't that common. But it did mean that monsters had a much stronger feel, that one needed the right weapon for the job. With 3.5 and PF, a normal greatsword can be better than a Silver dagger against a Lycanthrope, which I think is pretty dumb. I think the old system encouraged better preperation on the players part, holding on to a few more treasure dropped weapons as back ups rather than allowing them to mostly focus on getting 1 superweapon.
This is so wrong on so many levels. It is exactly the type of mentality that does not need to be applied to the game. This is a group play game. It's not about me me me.Its piss-poor design to have classes that are social classes and other classes that are combat classes.
Players want to feel that they can contribute at any time. To make the players playing fighters feel that its now time to make a taco bell run because the party is doing social stuff now is bad.
Likewise, the players playing bards shouldn't have to feel second class because the party is doing combat.
The fighter needs to have something to contribute in social situations and the bard needs a chance to become alpha in combat.
What keeps a fighter from being social? One trait and he has Diplomacy in class. Bingo. There is your social Fighter. And what keeps a Barb from being good in combat? He is build to be a Support Character. He makes everyone around him better. Its called a role.
As for what I would like to see.
1.I love arch types but I would like to see more Prestige classes
2. Im not a fan of the new Polymorph/Shapechange rules. They just feel like beefed up buffs now. A druid isn't a master of shaping. Its a super self buffer now. Just feels clunky to me.
Thankfully my group just uses 3.5 rules for poly/shapechange and we convert the prestige classes over.
3.) Return to the 3.0 version of DR, (not the 3.5, the 3.0 that actually mattered). Drop the Magic counts as _______ DR.
Didn't they have like DR 20 and 30 in 3.0? I don't mean at level 20 either.Yes, though that wasn't that common. But it did mean that monsters had a much stronger feel, that one needed the right weapon for the job. With 3.5 and PF, a normal greatsword can be better than a Silver dagger against a Lycanthrope, which I think is pretty dumb. I think the old system encouraged better preperation on the players part, holding on to a few more treasure dropped weapons as back ups rather than allowing them to mostly focus on getting 1 superweapon.
That only works if a GM drops good hints, and even then holding on to the silver dagger does not stop you from boosting the power of your favorite weapon, which the game supports with feats like weapon focus, weapon spec, and so on which work with one specific weapon.
Personally, I'd like to see combat maneuvers adapted to be more tactically viable, and usable in general. Investing in the varied feat-tax-trees required to get AoO-less maneuvers seems a ridiculously wasteful use of feats, given the alternatives.
Even when building a fighter, I tend to look sideways at the option of investing in those feat trees. But maybe that's just my perspective.
|
I love the idea of rogue Talents and Rage powers. I would like a similar system to be incorporated into fighters and the arcane caster classes. Much more interesting that specialist casters.
This would also be a way to upgrade / improve the metamagic system. Add meta magic abilities as "Wizard Disciplines."
It seems like there is too much / not enough? cross pollination between archetypes and Prestige classes. It feels as though they should be combined somehow into one unified system incorporating both ideas. I feel that Archetypes are too front loaded and that Prestige Classes are too... patchy?
I feel traits should be less specific. For example if the rules were
"-Pick Two
- +1 to any skill and that skill is a class skill
- +2 to initiative
- +1 to any saving throw
And then Explain it in a short paragraph or the d.m. may deny you these bonuses"
I think it would feel less min / maxy than having each and every one of your characters have the same trait.