Pathfinder 1.5


Homebrew and House Rules

151 to 200 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

You want an example of an incredibly charismatic person that is absolute garbage in social circumstances? Caboose from Red vs Blue, he's dumb as a box of rocks, incredibly socially inept, and is more than a little creepy, yet a lot of people really like him for some reason.

Contributor

Removed some unnecessary posts--flag it, move on, and post civilly.

The topic of this thread is bound to generate some heated feedback. Let's not make it (or take it) personal.


ciretose wrote:

Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.

Do you have a link or some context for this? Seems like a big thing to discuss.


The game itself has huge balance issues because it's based off of a system that was broken in the first place. The game has huge problems with proper scaling for health, defenses, and classes. Some classes level off at a certain level and become somewhat pointless. Others suck at certain levels and are better at other levels. Why is it that it feels the game nudges you into classes because of their capabilities? If you want a proper pathfinder 1.5 you need to build it from the ground up. Also, for the people that complain about the feel of the classes need to be changed because they don't match your idea, please just adjust the class to your liking. There is no need to pigeon hole a class into a specific type of setting just because you image the class to be just a certain way.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Yes, or a Temple Sword.

Yes, and they can take power attack at 3rd level. It will be the 4th feat they have at that level, 5th if they are human.


The problem is that if you balance the game too much, you get 4e. That isn't a bash, just a fact. 4e is very balanced because every class is the same as every other class. They just file off serial numbers & call it something different. Again, not a bash, as some people like that.


ciretose wrote:
K.I.S.S.

As simple as it has to be and no simpler ... do you want highly iconic spells like dominate, finger of death, flesh to stone etc in the game or not?

Liberty's Edge

Kerobelis wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.

Do you have a link or some context for this? Seems like a big thing to discuss.

This is the one I was thinking of

.

Liberty's Edge

Pinky's Brain wrote:
ciretose wrote:
K.I.S.S.
As simple as it has to be and no simpler ... do you want highly iconic spells like dominate, finger of death, flesh to stone etc in the game or not?

Yes, with multiple save opportunities and/or level caps.


Someone mentioned 4e-now the fun can begin.

Contributor

Ringtail wrote:
Someone mentioned 4e-now the fun can begin.

How about not? I'd like to not have to watch this thread on my day off.


ciretose wrote:
Yes, with multiple save opportunities and/or level caps.

Those are effectively the same thing, and if the spells can never be used on equal level threats (either because they outright don't work or because the odds of succeeding are neglible) they will simply never be used. They are high level spell slots after all ... you're not going to use them on mooks, the martial damage dealers can take out mooks without using daily resources.

This way the spells might as well not be there.


ciretose wrote:
Kerobelis wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.

Do you have a link or some context for this? Seems like a big thing to discuss.

This is the one I was thinking of
.

This brings me to the main page. Link broken?


Liz Courts wrote:
Ringtail wrote:
Someone mentioned 4e-now the fun can begin.
How about not? I'd like to not have to watch this thread on my day off.

*Sighs* All right. I suppose I'll find another way to entertain myself. :)

Liberty's Edge

Kerobelis wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kerobelis wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.

Do you have a link or some context for this? Seems like a big thing to discuss.

This is the one I was thinking of

.
This brings me to the main page. Link broken?

Try now.


I think there should be a save vs character loss, basically: you can roll a d20, add your level, if you beat a DC of 15 or 20, your character is knocked out, and they cannot be woken by any means, for a number of days equal to just how many ways they were dead.

For example: Friday I almost lost a character to a stone golem that was in a pool of water, it grabbed me, and started beating me. I managed to escape it, but it would have been death by suffocation, and damage. So I'd make a save vs character loss, if I made it, my character would be back after 2 days.


ciretose wrote:
Kerobelis wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kerobelis wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.

Do you have a link or some context for this? Seems like a big thing to discuss.

This is the one I was thinking of

.
This brings me to the main page. Link broken?
Try now.

Thanks, it works. Now I am off to read.


Liz Courts wrote:
Ringtail wrote:
Someone mentioned 4e-now the fun can begin.
How about not? I'd like to not have to watch this thread on my day off.

Which is why when I did mention it, I was in no way bashing it, but pointing out a design style. Works for some people, not for others.


For Clerics, make Turn Undead work off wisdom not charisma. It's their faith that powers the ability the same as their spells.

Paladin, tone down the smiting abilty

Wizard, they need to be the big cannon. They have very few spells and when they decide to cast one of these few spells it should have punch. Dear god I have Fighters doing 200 points of damage a round. A wizard has only so many spells a day and they should hurt and be feared.

Get rid of the ridiculous acrobatic and perception ranks that most monsters seem to have.

Love the witch and alchemist by the way. Very cool.

Monks need a little more. I would actually like to see them be very limited in magic items like earlier editions with more built in class abilities. Just my taste though

Rogue needs more skill bonuses or monster abilities lowered.

UMD should be an intelligence check. Being likable with a powerful personality isn't going to help you figure out how a magical item works.

Combine Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana), or make it just Knowledge (Magic) for all spellcasters.

Sorcerer kicks butt, love it to death.

Wizard damage spells need to kick butt. Can't stress that enough.

I would like to see more monsters of the Faerie and Magical Beast variety. Of course that is probaly because I have done Undead and demons to death and just need to back off them a little bit.

The number one thing I would like to see is the simplification of feats in a similar manner that skills were simplified.

And finally. Pathfinder is the best rpg I have ever played. You guys are great!


Beckett wrote:
Divine right is the idea that one holds power because the person is in the political/meritous POSITION they are in (like say a Cleric in a priesthood), and that they are there because G*d<s> deemed it.

No. Divine Right is the idea that a person is destined to rule. Their position is not a cause, but rather a circumstance of their destiny. In fact, many stories exist in which a person who is destined to rule begins the story as a pig farmer or in a jail cell or as the forgotten bastard son of the king.

Beckett wrote:

Therefore anything they do, regardless of their lack of charisma, Cha, Int, or undertanding of repercussions, is the will of G*d<s>.

I don't know how you got this last part. The way I see it, their Charisma is a measure of the will of providence (G*d if you like) for them to have dominion over others.

However, that dominion may not be absolute (ie. over everything) and many Sorcerers, for example, have dominion only over some small part of reality.

Another area where more fluff is needed - UMD has got nothing to do with figuring out how a magic item works. I know that, most of the posters here know that, some don't. The rules need fluff which explains that a person using UMD doesn't know how the item works, but makes it work anyway (like the Fonz hitting the jukebox).

Shadow Lodge

Liz Courts wrote:
Ringtail wrote:
Someone mentioned 4e-now the fun can begin.
How about not? I'd like to not have to watch this thread on my day off.

Enjoy your day off and the Halloweenness.


AXP_Dave wrote:

I can't think of anything that seems broken. My biggest request would be having redoing the cleric a little. In 4E I loved the premise that a cleric would heal the party after doing damage. It made it more fun to play a class that in my groups always has a had time to find someone who wants to fill the role.

Other thoughts would be fewer save vs. die spells at higher levels to make it easier to play at those levels.

Dave

I really hope that if they actually nix more SoD spells from the game, they make a really strong effort not to completely cripple the enchantment-specialist wizard in the process. They get few enough Enchantment spells as-is at higher levels (a number that declines in comparison to other schools with the release of more splatbooks, usually) that removing all of the ones that people think of as "save or die" (which would probably include most spells like Hold Person, Hold Monster, Waves of Ecstasy and Overwhelming Presence) would reduce the number of spells characteristically "enchanter-y" to a bare handful.


Ansha wrote:
AXP_Dave wrote:

I can't think of anything that seems broken. My biggest request would be having redoing the cleric a little. In 4E I loved the premise that a cleric would heal the party after doing damage. It made it more fun to play a class that in my groups always has a had time to find someone who wants to fill the role.

Other thoughts would be fewer save vs. die spells at higher levels to make it easier to play at those levels.

Dave

I really hope that if they actually nix more SoD spells from the game, they make a really strong effort not to completely cripple the enchantment-specialist wizard in the process. They get few enough Enchantment spells as-is at higher levels (a number that declines in comparison to other schools with the release of more splatbooks, usually) that removing all of the ones that people think of as "save or die" (which would probably include most spells like Hold Person, Hold Monster, Waves of Ecstasy and Overwhelming Presence) would reduce the number of spells characteristically "enchanter-y" to a bare handful.

Serious question, what's so wrong with SoD spells? I hate nerf bat games. Arcanists need to be feared.

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Divine right is the idea that one holds power because the person is in the political/meritous POSITION they are in (like say a Cleric in a priesthood), and that they are there because G*d<s> deemed it.

No. Divine Right is the idea that a person is destined to rule. Their position is not a cause, but rather a circumstance of their destiny. In fact, many stories exist in which a person who is destined to rule begins the story as a pig farmer or in a jail cell or as the forgotten bastard son of the king.

Beckett wrote:

Therefore anything they do, regardless of their lack of charisma, Cha, Int, or undertanding of repercussions, is the will of G*d<s>.

I don't know how you got this last part. The way I see it, their Charisma is a measure of the will of providence (G*d if you like) for them to have dominion over others.

However, that dominion may not be absolute (ie. over everything) and many Sorcerers, for example, have dominion only over some small part of reality.

You are confussing the two. Divine Right is the idea that those in power deserve it because something divine put them in power, and because of that, they can do no wrong. They are the law, but also above it because they are personally put there by the divine.

You are talking about epic (not 21st+ level epic) destiny.


Beckett wrote:

You are confussing the two. Divine Right is the idea that those in power deserve it because something divine put them in power, and because of that, they can do no wrong. They are the law, but also above it because they are personally put there by the divine.

You are talking about epic (not 21st+ level epic) destiny.

No. I am talking about Divine Right.

I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to 21st+ level as

1.) There are no stories in the wide world of literature which discuss a character's Pathfinder level

2.) Divine Right is a concept from real world history which has no concept of level.

3.) Pathfinder doesn't even have 21st+ level

AND you're ignoring the many stories from classical literature (Arthur, Prydain, etc.) where the character had the Divine Right -before- they had the position.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:
Kerobelis wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.

Do you have a link or some context for this? Seems like a big thing to discuss.

This is the one I was thinking of

.

This seems much more like they are talking about the list of things to correct for PF 1.0 sometime in the future than PF Revised/2.0/1.5/etc.


Arnwolf wrote:


The number one thing I would like to see is the simplification of feats in a similar manner that skills were simplified.

I concur, there are WAY too many feat chains out there. Things that cost you an arm and a leg (IE: Spring Attack/Whirlwind Attack/ Step-up and Strike) and that's not right.

Eliminate the feat chains and simplify the system. Make feats scale with BAB or Skill Rank.


Merge Charisma and Wisdom. The arguments about them are a sign they're two names for the same stat.

Eliminate the single casting stat. Intelligence and Charisdom should be as important to a spellcaster as Strength and Dexterity are to martial classes. Intelligence builds, Charisdom builds, and balanced builds should all be viable based on the unified casting mechanics, not on class choice.

Decouple hit die and BAB. It was a noble experiment, but it's the only apparent reason that monks aren't allowed to use the same BAB for full and standard action attacks and why rogues aren't allowed to be able to hit things. It's not even followed in the core rulebook anyways. Barbarians aren't d10 and Dragon Disciples aren't d8.

Decide what the Rogue is supposed to do and make sure that it can do it better than anyone else and that it's worth doing. Consider merging them into bard or ranger or gunslinger. A grit mechanic decoupled from firearms would fit the idea of the rogue nicely.

No 2+int skillpoints. Especially not for non-int classes, but if casters are made multiple attribute dependent they shouldn't be left at 2+int either.

Let Sorcerors know two spells of their highest spell level at all levels, either by changing the spells known table or giving bonus spells at even levels like oracles. Bards should not out-sorceror sorcerors for the first third of a 15 level game.

Decide how hard dispelling magic should be. Either let casters add a stat to their caster level for dispel magic or make spell sunder not use sunder rules that add a stat to BAB.


No, Rogues aren't allowed to hit things because of an innate fear of odd level sneak attack progression coupled with Full BAB.

And then there's the skills angle. 2 more skill points than the ranger and sneak attack vs favored enemy is how the comparison is usually made.

Class Skill UMD vs Limited Spellcasting

Liberty's Edge

Beckett wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kerobelis wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Somewhere Sean mentioned that he and Jason were discussing releasing some changes to core classes.

Do you have a link or some context for this? Seems like a big thing to discuss.

This is the one I was thinking of

.
This seems much more like they are talking about the list of things to correct for PF 1.0 sometime in the future than PF Revised/2.0/1.5/etc.

1.5 would be a major correction.

2.0 would be a new version.


The context of the Paizo post doesn't support even 1/100th of the things being discussed here and in the OP.

If they consider "stealth rules one of those things" and "we might do something for monk, haven't decided yet" then it's clear we are looking at very minor tweaks. This is not a signal that the high level spell list is going to be ransacked, that rogues are going to get fully redesigned talents with new tiers, monks get full BaB cleric spheres, etc. They aren't going to overhaul and fix pathfinder. It's going to be a small tweak here and there.

I'd suggest that we won't see any changes at all that explicitly rewrite how characters are built. All classes will get all existing same features at the same levels with the same requirements they always have. Some aspects of those features might be changed adjusting their value and thus what is declared "optimal," but those features are still going to look pretty similar. Anything else is going to wreck backwards compatibility and require "conversions" just like the OP's 1.5 would, and that is not worth doing for the scale of minor adjustments implied.


Atarlost wrote:
Merge Charisma and Wisdom. The arguments about them are a sign they're two names for the same stat.

I've heard people confuse Intelligent Design and Science, but it doesn't mean they are two names for the same thing. At most what is needed is more fluff to help readers distinguish the difference between these two attributes.

Atarlost wrote:


Eliminate the single casting stat. Intelligence and Charisdom should be as important to a spellcaster as Strength and Dexterity are to martial classes. Intelligence builds, Charisdom builds, and balanced builds should all be viable based on the unified casting mechanics, not on class choice.

I can't quite figure out what you're saying here. But I agree with one interpretation (ie. I want to see concepts like the Tactical Fighter better supported).

Atarlost wrote:


it's the only apparent reason that monks aren't allowed to use the same BAB for full and standard action attacks

I think the real gripe here is that monks don't have full BAB. But monks shouldn't have full BaB. They aren't a martial class. Their role in combat is much more similar to Bard or Rogue.

Atarlost wrote:


Decide what the Rogue is supposed to do and make sure that it can do it better than anyone else and that it's worth doing.

I think the game just needs an Ultimate Skills book with skill tricks and amped up AID ANOTHER. That will give the Rogue his needed boost.

Atarlost wrote:


A grit mechanic decoupled from firearms would fit the idea of the rogue nicely.

I think every class needs a grit mechanic. However, I don't want it to get confusing with hero points.

Atarlost wrote:


No 2+int skillpoints. Especially not for non-int classes, but if casters are made multiple attribute dependent they shouldn't be left at 2+int either.

I'm beginning to grow frustrated about the fact that we still have non-int classes with 2+int skill points. I definitely agree that this needs to be fixed.

Atarlost wrote:


Bards should not out-sorceror sorcerors for the first third of a 15 level game.

They don't. So, you weaken your position here.

Atarlost wrote:


Decide how hard dispelling magic should be. Either let casters add a stat to their caster level for dispel magic or make spell sunder not use sunder rules that add a stat to BAB.

The real problem is the ability to cycle RAGES.


I'm not sure why this didn't come up in my group during beta test, but there is a distinct lack of random lists concerning potions, scrolls, etc. Seems minor until such a time as you need a quick potion and have to try to figure out what is appropriate.

Another thing in the core book it states something about potions being essentially spells in a bottle. This is fine, except who would create a potion of mage hand or even web? Seems like a list would help.

Liberty's Edge

FoxBat_ wrote:

The context of the Paizo post doesn't support even 1/100th of the things being discussed here and in the OP.

If they consider "stealth rules one of those things" and "we might do something for monk, haven't decided yet" then it's clear we are looking at very minor tweaks. This is not a signal that the high level spell list is going to be ransacked, that rogues are going to get fully redesigned talents with new tiers, monks get full BaB cleric spheres, etc. They aren't going to overhaul and fix pathfinder. It's going to be a small tweak here and there.

I'd suggest that we won't see any changes at all that explicitly rewrite how characters are built. All classes will get all existing same features at the same levels with the same requirements they always have. Some aspects of those features might be changed adjusting their value and thus what is declared "optimal," but those features are still going to look pretty similar. Anything else is going to wreck backwards compatibility and require "conversions" just like the OP's 1.5 would, and that is not worth doing for the scale of minor adjustments implied.

Perhaps. But one can hope and dream...

And how would anything I suggested effect backward compatibility any more than the changes already made from 3.5 to Pathfinder?


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Atarlost wrote:


it's the only apparent reason that monks aren't allowed to use the same BAB for full and standard action attacks
I think the real gripe here is that monks don't have full BAB. But monks shouldn't have full BaB. They aren't a martial class. Their role in combat is much more similar to Bard or Rogue.

Lets check base monk to base bard and base rogue.

Compared to Bard
My monk can't buff the party and fight.
My monk doesn't get umd.
My monk can only be passable at range.

Nope not bard like.

Rogue then
My monk is great situantonally.
My monk is given mostly subpar weapon choices that rely on feats to be any good.
My monk is told he is more of a skill monkey.
Yep rogue sounds about right.

Once again the only 2 3/4th class that are bottom tier are also the only two mundane 3/4th classes.


The problem with that comparison Talon, is that the Monk is lacking something that makes the rogues shine a lot more. And that's skills.

How can someone call a monk a skillmonkey type character with 4+int skills per level? Is the Barbarian a skill monkey? It's less MAD than Monk and might actually be able to afford some Int.

Monks don't get sneak attack either, which is a huge factor in the rogue's contribution to the party in combat. Hell, Paizo decided to give monks the finger and forbid Improved Natural Attack ontop of all this.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

The problem with that comparison Talon, is that the Monk is lacking something that makes the rogues shine a lot more. And that's skills.

How can someone call a monk a skillmonkey type character with 4+int skills per level? Is the Barbarian a skill monkey? It's less MAD than Monk and might actually be able to afford some Int.

Monks don't get sneak attack either, which is a huge factor in the rogue's contribution to the party in combat. Hell, Paizo decided to give monks the finger and forbid Improved Natural Attack ontop of all this.

You know your making my point even more valid thank you.


Happy to be of assistance.

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some more posts. This thread needs to stay as on topic as any thread based on pure speculation and wish dreaming can. Discussion of Paizo's moderation policy, uploadable avatars or individual posters needs to go in website feedback, website feedback and nowhere on our site, respectively.


I'm coming to this party late...

ciretose wrote:


Alchemist: Fix bombs. They are cheesy at this point. I love the concept of the alchemist, but the mad bomber that bombs at midnight should me more an alchemist archetype than a central defining feature. The concept of the class is great, and bombs could be "a" feature. But they shouldn't me "the" feature. I would love to see the primary focus on having better infusions, with bombs being an archetype you exchange. I think the current alchemist is kind of silly, but the concept has lots of potential, love the concept, just needs refining and it could really be a great class.

I don't agree with this, but I'll admit I've never seriously played an alchemist. It's seemed to me that bombs are one way to focus and mutagen beatdown is another.

ciretose wrote:


Barbarian I think is actually pretty good right now.

The main thing I'd tweak here is bringing up some of the weaker rage powers, possibly by combining them or having a concept of half-powers that you get two of in place of one. I can't realistically see anyone picking something like Raging Climber now that there are so many good options now -- by the time the bonus starts getting worth if, who's climbing anymore? Either bundle it with Swimmer or something or let them give Climb/Swim speeds, etc.

ciretose wrote:


Bard is also pretty good right now.

The main thing I'd tweak here is Versatile Performance and the weird way it encourages you to have no ranks of a skill that you might someday pick up a VP for. Just let bards reallocate skill points that are subsequently made obsolete by VP and I think it's fine.

ciretose wrote:


Druid is fine.

I think the archetypes that allow for standard-action summoning were a bad idea; I'd patch them by saying the summoned animal can't act in the turn it's summoned. That still gives those druids an advantage (can get off a summon without being interruptable for a full round) without giving them two advantages (the animal gets to attack immediately).

ciretose wrote:


Monk I would add some physical enhancement bonuses at specific levels (maybe am extra +1 to a physical ability every 4 levels when you get the normal one). This would fix the MAD complaints and completely fit the flavor. I would also make the quiggong archetype part of the class rather than a variant. Choose your abilities each level rather than following the chart. Gives more flexibility in builds and also fits the concept. If you haven't noticed, concept is the key for me.

The first thing I'd do to the monk at this point is push its "I'm full BAB, kind of, and 3/4 BAB, kind of" more in the full direction. Either give it full BAB and give it gradually increasing hit/damage penalties for everything *but* unarmed and monk weapons, or keep it as-is and give it more exceptions. For example, I don't see why the 3/4 BAB should be your limitation for critical feats for unarmed attacks if you want to go that way.

The second thing I'd do is broaden their monk bonus feat list a bit. If you want to take Greater Trip as a monk without having a high INT I'm not sure why we should say no.

ciretose wrote:


Paladin was the most improved class from 3.5. No changes needed.

Agree with that; I think people who think it's now too good are wrong. It has the most stringent and pain-in-the-ass roleplay requirements in the game and it's moderately terrible against anything that isn't evil.

I would make the anti-paladin better; I don't like how focused it is on fighting good. To me, only cartoon black-hat evil is really that way. Give them half the smiting and let them smite anyone they like, for example. As-is it's completely useless to me as a villain class because you pretty much have to waterboard most of my players to get them to choose a good alignment, and I can't bring myself to punish the couple exceptions by using a class that's disproportionately awesome against them against them.

ciretose wrote:


Rogue needs an overhaul, as they don't currently really fill the role they were made for anymore. The concept of a rogue isn't being done justice at this point. You really need to follow one specific path to be effective as a rogue, and that is completely contrary to the classes concept. First suggestion is give them weapon finesse for free fairly early on. They need good fort saves, and perhaps later some kind of bonus to attack and/or damage dex or perhaps even from Charisma. Why Charisma? Because a) the charming rogue is the trope not currently appearing, since it needs to be a dump stat and b) it fits the concept that through force of will and personal magnetism the rogue is able to prevail.
For me the concept of the rogue is the guy who is quick if not strong, charming if not particularly wise or bright, who finds ways to get things done. That isn't how the rogue is currently playing, and it is a shame since that is a great concept.

I really agree. I love the idea of the rogue. I want it to be awesome. It's not awesome. It can be made to be pretty good at one thing, at the expense of several other things. My five minute stab at a fix:

1) If flanking or attacking an opponent denied their dex, get an additional +1/4 levels to hit.

2) Some kind of save help, be it a mid-track will and fort or something else.

3) Added to rogue's evasion or available as a rogue talent: against any area-affecting spell, regardless of whether or not it would normally result in a reflex save, you can choose to take a reflex save in place of the normal save. If successful, you evade the spell as you would evade a reflex-save area spell.

4) Split combat-useful rogue talents from combat-unuseful rogue talents as best you can; make them separate class features. Maybe every third level starting with 2 you get a combat rogue talent and every third level starting with 3 you get a non-combat rogue talent.

ciretose wrote:


Sorcerer is much better now that the bloodline powers are involved, it really comes into it's own as a concept separate from the wizard. Not much I would change here other than spell stuff addressed above.

I'd make a few small refinements here:

1) Something that makes cross-blooded less attractive as a wizard dip. I think it's pretty well balanced for a full sorcerer but when you compare that with its dip utility it gets a little silly.

2) Either move bloodline spells one level earlier, or let the sorcerer choose any spell if he already knows his bloodline spell. For example, if a fey sorcerer wants to pick Hideous Laughter at 4th as his first 2nd level spell, at 5th level when he would normally get it for free he can instead pick any spell. Essentially, don't punish sorcerers for wanting to stick to the feel of their bloodline early.

3) When a sorcerer chooses as a new spell known a spell that he already knows a lesser version of (hereby defined as having a lesser/normal/greater name or a lower roman numeral name, and maybe rename deep slumber to greater sleep in the process), he has the option of immediately exchanging the lower level spell for a different spell of that level. Essentially, don't punish a sorcerer who wants to stay on theme and always have the highest Summon Monster or Dispel Magic or whatever. Yes, he can use his every other swap on this; I don't think he should have to.

ciretose wrote:


Summoner...where to start...look, if you are going to make the pet as good as other classes by itself, you can't also make the summoner himself be an effective caster in addition. Take away the spells not related to summoning, and make the concept what it is. Someone who focuses all of their energy into summoning creatures. Will that take away his ability to buff the creature. Yes. That isn't a bad thing. Let him heal his buddy, let him maybe cast a host of conjuration spells, but it is ridiculous that the summoner is currently a 3/4 BaB 3/4 caster on top of being able to summon a creature as powerful as most PC's. While we are at it, the synthesist is a great concept for a class...make it that instead of just tacking it on to the summoner.

I pretty well agree with that; I think the summoner has a pretty reasonable spell list for a 6 level caster, and I think the eidolon stats are pretty reasonable, independently, but when you put the two of them together you can crank the eidolon's AC and damage / number of attacks way too high. A fighter (for example) can beat the eidolon at either but is hard pressed for most levels to compete with both. I feel like the eidolon's natural AC, for example, was picked without the thought that at a fairly low level it would be easy for the eidolon to have mage armor and shield both up for a free +8 AC in any fight remotely anticipated.

I also don't like that the eidolon (or summons, for the most part) are as stat generation independent as they are. In a hypothetical zero point buy game, the summoner can probably single-handedly murder the rest of his party without breaking a sweat because the eidolon can still be a high-AC meat grinder. I feel like it takes something more like 25 or 30 point buy before comparison with the eidolon starts to feel more fair to, say, a monk and I just don't think every campaign should have to be that.


You know what I'd like to see? The elimination of sneak attack. It's difficult to get into position to use, hitting is less than guaranteed, and forces the Rogue into a specific fighting style. I'd rather see Rogues get some new abilities that rely on precision and dexterity. It really needs some new features to make it more attractive. Right now, a Ranger or Bard can out-Rogue a Rogue, and that's not a good thing.


This is something I've always thought about and I guess it'll go here.

With the innate flavor of the sorcerer not needing to study to cast his spells, what about making homebrew spells a part of the class itself? I'm not sure how to implement this, but it would fit the theme. Subtle variations to spells already known, like fireball becoming ice ball without the need of a bloodline arcana, or creation of wholly new spells, like homemade force spells for an arcane sorcerer.

What do you guys think?

Note: I haven't read the entire thread, so if this was brought up, I'll look for the post.


Matt Stich wrote:
With the innate flavor of the sorcerer not needing to study to cast his spells, what about making homebrew spells a part of the class itself? I'm not sure who to implement this, but it would fit the theme. Subtle variations to spells already known, like fireball becoming ice ball without the need of a bloodline arcana, or creation of wholly new spells, like homemade force spells for an arcane sorcerer.

Depends on how well the system is done. If done poorly, it could be either useless or a shining beacon for munchkinism, but if done in a balanced manner it would be the most awesome thing in the whole of Pathfinder.

151 to 200 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Pathfinder 1.5 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.