|
The stupid as hell flat footed till you act in a round rule which means that a person can run 50 or 60 feet and punch you in the face while you stand FLAT FOOTED and unprepared for the attack just mecause you lost the initiative rule.
So if out of the blue someone just walks up an punches you in the face after talking for a few minutes, you think you should be fully prepped and ready for the fight before hand? Initiative <despite being Dex based> represents your mental wits and alertness to be able to pull yourself together and act in the chaos.
and second give some classes special class feats that i think they deserve... such as melee classes like barbarian and fighter should get step-up as a class ability simply because its silly that a person trained in combat would not naturally be able to naturally follow an opponents 5 foot step in combat.
Why would Fighter or Barbarian deserve that feat any more than any other class, as all of them are trained specifically for combat. Heck I can see a bigger case for Cleric and Wizard than Fighter or Barbarian being trined for this tactic. Even Monk. :)
The stupid as hell flat footed till you act in a round rule which means that a person can run 50 or 60 feet and punch you in the face while you stand FLAT FOOTED and unprepared for the attack just mecause you lost the initiative rule.So if out of the blue someone just walks up an punches you in the face after talking for a few minutes, you think you should be fully prepped and ready for the fight before hand? Initiative <despite being Dex based> represents your mental wits and alertness to be able to pull yourself together and act in the chaos.
Problem is, this rule applies all the time. Were I to walk in a swamp known to be teeming with Zombies, you'd better believe that I'd have my weapon drawn and looking for someone to assault me. A creature charging from the muck from 30 ft. away should NOT catch people off guard just because they haven't reacted first.
As to the 5-ft. step mechanic (or "Shift"), I think it's design is an OK concept but certain classes (and monsters) should have build-in way of stopping this effect.
Spells must be in the main book as you have classes that need them. what you do not need is 150+ spells in the book however.
I don't see anything wrong with having spells in a separate book. Much easier to reference.
|
|
Problem is, this rule applies all the time. Were I to walk in a swamp known to be teeming with Zombies, you'd better believe that I'd have my weapon drawn and looking for someone to assault me. A creature charging from the muck from 30 ft. away should NOT catch people off guard just because they haven't reacted first.
Which you could do. Flat-Footed more signifies not knowing where an attack is comming from, and so not knowing which directions to dodge and not knowing where to place your drawn shield to block. I kind of think of it as just before the adrenalin kicks in.
Spells must be in the main book as you have classes that need them. what you do not need is 150+ spells in the book however.I don't see anything wrong with having spells in a separate book. Much easier to reference.
Ok say you bought the rule book, with the current line up of classes and find out you can not use a single caster class without buying a new book? That is just bad, over Half the classes are useable. I agree I would cut down the number of spells and caster classes and kill spell lists but you must have them in the core book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spells must be in the main book as you have classes that need them. what you do not need is 150+ spells in the book however.I don't see anything wrong with having spells in a separate book. Much easier to reference.
New player, pretty young. Has no money and no job. Gets book as a gift from well-meaning but clueless relatives. Wants to play a wizard. Can't until someone else buys the book from them. Can't show up at a game with a statted-up magical character because they don't have spell selection, and don't know what spells do. The only chance they will get to read said spells is during play time, slowing the game down, unless someone loans them said book.
Honestly, one of the best things Pathfinder ever did was consolidate two $30-$50 books into one $40-$50 book. Only downside to it is that the sheer weight is ripping its binding apart, and it could use a ton of cross-referencing and more intuitive sorting of rules.
|
|
2) The game they really want is not popular and almost nobody plays it--if Pathfinder, the second most popular RPG on the market, became like their favorite RPG, they could easily find players.
This right here is one of the main reasons. If every Pathfinder player woke up tomorrow and played Swords & Wizardry, and Pathfinder had mysteriously disappeared from the world, it wouldn't phase me a bit, since the game system I prefer would then be fairly widespread.
I am just tired of the mmo-style items where every new item is a slight numerical increase from the last item.
EDIT2: Last edit I promise.
The perfect example for too many bonus types is armor bonuses.1 - Armor
2 - Enhancement to Armor
3 - Natural Armor
4 - Enhancement to Natural Armor
5 - Shield
6 - Enhancement to Shield
7 - Dodge
8 - Insight
9 - Deflection
10 - Sacred
11 - Profane
12 - DexterityThis is just too many options for the same thing.
Options are bad?
Said player could access the SRD online at the local library and see the spells.
Would you by a game where you could not use half the "Classes" in the core book without buying a second book? Not even counting things like monsters with SLA or a GM who now needs yet another book to use content put into the core book.
You do not need hundreds of spells. But you do need a selection that covers all levels of play used in the core product.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh that is kinda the point. You do not include things in the core book that people buying said book can not use. Can you name one game with casters in the core book that did not have the spells in the core book?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fix the fighter and also give him some "non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks!" (as a man in Black put it).
Fix the gnome. Give him the same favored class abilities as the human, and some more fun stuff.
4 skills minimum for all classes
iterative attacks, at least for the fighter.
Fix melee as an option at higher levels.
attack replacement feats should work together and they should be great at higher levels, not worse.
Fix Vital strike, just let it scale.
Fix the rogue and also give him some more and better "non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks"
Make Combat Expertise and weapon finesse built-in parts of the combat system.
Give all full casters, at least the arcane, some range magic attack they can cast at will. Why the hell should a wizard use a cross bow and why must all divine casters go into melee at lower levels or get PBS, PS and rapid reload.
Make Clerics fun at higher levels. Bring back or add the beta Cleric as an option.
Rework bardic music performances. As AMIB put it: "Inspire Competence uses combat time with non-combat tasks, bardic music performances often have random length minimums, it's just a mess."
Fix bards at higher levels. Give them - and clerics - some new cool buffs.
Make Inspire greatness ....Great
Let the bard be able to activate countersong, distraction and Inspire greatness (etc) as an imidiate actions (if they can identify and incoming threat). As of now they are more or less useless
Fix healing.
Give clerics some GOOD high level spells.
Consolidate some of the knowledge skills and let all classes (or races ) pick one aditional knowledge skill as a class skill.
Make traits a part of the core rules and add some traits.
Fix wildshape
Remove all feat taxes.
Fix the fighter and fix the gnome.
|
|
Heh that is kinda the point. You do not include things in the core book that people buying said book can not use. Can you name one game with casters in the core book that did not have the spells in the core book?
The only other game I've played is Warhammer FRP. I can't remember if spells were in the core book, because no one was stupid enough to try and play a caster.
Now, by core book do you mean just the players handbook, or the core set? I recall stories of early D&D not having spells in the PHB, but I don't know how true they were.
So if out of the blue someone just walks up an punches you in the face after talking for a few minutes, you think you should be fully prepped and ready for the fight before hand? Initiative <despite being Dex based> represents your mental wits and alertness to be able to pull yourself together and act in the chaos.
21 feet is the average distance that a man can move and attack a trained police officer in melee before the police officer can clear his holster; that's a pretty good example of charging in a surprise round. Saying that someone is "flat footed" when they are aware of their opponent and already have a weapon in hand is flat-out ridiculous.
The only other game I've played is Warhammer FRP. I can't remember if spells were in the core book, because no one was stupid enough to try and play a caster.
Now, by core book do you mean just the players handbook, or the core set? I recall stories of early D&D not having spells in the PHB, but I don't know how true they were.
Well never played warhammer. I do have rogue trader and it has powers in it, so I would guess that does as well.
All versions of D&D I have seen had everything a player needed in the PHB that included spells. I do not have 1e, but have 2e and the old red box. Have seen some of the others.
Every game I have played that has spell casters in the core book has spells. The difference with D&D and pathfinder and them is the number of spells and pages. Pathfinder has 9 levels of spells and in core alone 4 spell lists with different spells. This ends up making you have an massive page count to cover all 9 levels and 4 lists.
In contrast most other systems I have read with spells have a far smaller number of pages devoted to spells. Fantasy craft for instance covers all spell levels, hits all the major areas and it takes up 36 pages. Pathfinder on the other hand has far more then 36 pages I would guess ( My brother has my CRB can't look for page count). The other book I do have handy is shadowrun which spends 8 pages on spells, Savage world( 10 pages),Agone(8 pages) and Earthdawn (32 pages)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if out of the blue someone just walks up an punches you in the face after talking for a few minutes, you think you should be fully prepped and ready for the fight before hand? Initiative <despite being Dex based> represents your mental wits and alertness to be able to pull yourself together and act in the chaos.
what your describing is a surprise attack. that is not my complaint, I understand being flat footed in the surprise round.
my complaint is against being flat footed simply for loosing the initiative regardless of level or preparation or awareness.
and second give some classes special class feats that i think they deserve... such as melee classes like barbarian and fighter should get step-up as a class ability simply because its silly that a person trained in combat would not naturally be able to naturally follow an opponents 5 foot step in combat.Why would Fighter or Barbarian deserve that feat any more than any other class, as all of them are trained specifically for combat. Heck I can see a bigger case for Cleric and Wizard than Fighter or Barbarian being trined for this tactic. Even Monk. :)
Fair enough. give it to more classes. I simply think the step up feat is too fundamental to spend a full feat on. it should be a basic ability of some classes... or a natural ability for having a BAB greater than 5. or any other reasonable excuse.
as for the flat footed rule.
make up any excuse you want the flat footed due to inaction rule is stupid.
according to RAW two hostile opponents standing 30 feet from each other weapons drawn and clearly prepared to fight roll initiative and the winner runs 30 feet and gets to attack the opponent flat footed. this simply does not make sense.
Flat-Footed more signifies not knowing where an attack is comming from, and so not knowing which directions to dodge and not knowing where to place your drawn shield to block.
Your saying that just because I have not actively attacked you or made some other action I have no idea how to defend myself? winning initiative does not mean you have surprised the opponent and should not mean they are automatically off guard. it should simply mean that you got to attack first.
What if I won the initiative and held my action? why am I still flat footed? Hell... according to RAW, if I walk into a room full of bad guys and say to the GM "I charge in and attack" we then roll initiative and if I lose I am still flat footed to their attacks even though I initiated combat. the rule is an over simplification and I think it should be addressed.
I understand the rule is a nod to rogues but I think it would be better to eliminate this rule entirely except in surprise rounds, then give rogues a special ability that says that the rogue may treat an opponent as flat footed in the first round if the rogue wins the initiative and does not have to move more than a 5 foot step to engage the enemy.
|
according to RAW two hostile opponents standing 30 feet from each other weapons drawn and clearly prepared to fight roll initiative and the winner runs 30 feet and gets to attack the opponent flat footed. this simply does not make sense.
Incorrect. Those two opponents have already rolled initiative and their action was "Delay." They are not flat-footed.
EDIT: It may also have been "Ready" to prepare an attack against the other guy.
EDIT2: I'm assuming that they've seen each-other for at least one round since their weapons have been drawn.
Those two opponents have already rolled initiative and their action was "Delay." They are not flat-footed.
That's a good interpretation, but the RaW is unclear as to when combats start.
Two armies meet up in the plain for battle (withing charging distance of each other). Eventually one of the leaders says 'charge' and combat ensues.
Initiative isn't rolled until combat begins, that we know, but there's no indication that the combat began before the order to fight was sent. If such is the case, I would be just as appropriate to say that 'combat' starts when the adventurer enter the zombie-infected ruins (assuming that they are aware that zombies prowl in the ruins) and that they all have acted for 15 rounds until they actually encounter the zombies for the first time. That would actually be consistent with spells having a round-based duration (or round x10, aka minute-based) but I'm not sure if that is how people play however, nor how the game was intended to be played.
I'm all for DM's adjudication, but I also find the rule where you're flat-footed until you act does not fulfill its intention very well, seeing as how "at the start of a battle" is vague at best. It would have been better to leave it entirely to ambush situations and surprise rounds IMO.
'findel
|
|
Those two opponents have already rolled initiative and their action was "Delay." They are not flat-footed.That's a good interpretation, but the RaW is unclear as to when combats start.
Two armies meet up in the plain for battle (withing charging distance of each other). Eventually one of the leaders says 'charge' and combat ensues.
Initiative isn't rolled until combat begins, that we know, but there's no indication that the combat began before the order to fight was sent. If such is the case, I would be just as appropriate to say that 'combat' starts when the adventurer enter the zombie-infected ruins (assuming that they are aware that zombies prowl in the ruins) and that they all have acted for 15 rounds until they actually encounter the zombies for the first time. That would actually be consistent with spells having a round-based duration (or round x10, aka minute-based) but I'm not sure if that is how people play however, nor how the game was intended to be played.
I'm all for DM's adjudication, but I also find the rule where you're flat-footed until you act does not fulfill its intention very well, seeing as how "at the start of a battle" is vague at best. It would have been better to leave it entirely to ambush situations and surprise rounds IMO.
'findel
I say that combat starts as soon as one party is aware of the other. (And aware of a specific threat, not the vague idea that an enemy may or may not be nearby. AKA a successful perception check against a specific creature.)
In your "armies march up to each-other" example, they are "in combat" as soon as the one of the armies sees the other, and when the general says "Charge" they're merely triggering prepared actions or delayed turns. (EDIT: These, btw, are actions and thus remove the flat-footed condition.)
In the wander-through-the-ruins example I'd assume that combat has *not* started until one side notices the other. If they both notice each-other near simultaneously, then initiative is determining who reacted to "ready" themselves more quickly.
This does result in the "they run 30ft and hit me before I can get ready" weirdness*. While weird, doing otherwise would eliminate the "two people notice each-other, but one reacts quickly enough to get the advantage" situation, which is equally weird in its own way. Limiting to a standard action for the first round does not solve the problem as you can still charge when you are limited to a standard action.
Anyway.. that one (extremely mild and somewhat debatable) weak spot is not a strong enough flaw for me to consider a house rule for it, personally, especially when a simple solution is not clear.
*This makes me think of someone getting their weapon drawn just in time to get tackled, but not in time to be ready to defend themselves from it.
But said officer should be able to make AoO and shouldn't be a little surprized?
He should be flat-footed for the surprise round, but not before acting in the first normal round.
|
|
I agree with the OP. Hit point caps are a must in my opinion. Most of the ridiculousness that I find in d20 games stem from hp bloat. If players have hundreds of hp's then big critters need hundreds/thousands hp's to make them a challenge, which in turn turn means you need mechanics that allow players to do high tens/hundreds of hp's damage. Viscous and unnecessary circle. Unfortunately I think such a change would be so far reaching - redoing feats, spells, monster, that for a 0.5 upgrade impossible.
But at a core hp's and damage numbers are silly and nothing but a symptom of inflationary mechanics. I like the abstract idea of hp's and wouldn't want that core system replaced, just toned down.
S.
I'd change how attack actions work. I define them more clearly and get rid of the full attack action. Instead you'd have a Standard action and move action where the Standard Action can be used for any standard action and your move action can be used to add your iterative attacks. This may mean changes to some feats.
I'd change the rogue class split into two different classes both with the rogue feel. One would be the combat oriented rogue which would a fighter Alternate class. The other would be a non combat oriented rogue who can contribute but really shines in the department of skills, trickery, stealth, and deception using supernatural powers to do so. Hopefully this solve the problem of people who want the rogue more combat oriented or non combat oriented.
For the sorcerer I'd change the metamagic so it doesn't take extra time. I don't see the point of it. I think at first it seemed to make sense for balance but really it isn't needed as the sorcerer already delays access to high level spells by a level. It think that is enough.
The evasion ability is another change. I change that to be minimum damage instead of no damage when you succeed the save. So it save form minimum damage or take full damage and with improved evasion damage save for minimum or take half damage. Evasion seem too much of free pass for rogues, rangers, and monks when it comes to area of affect spells.
Then there is archery, it's too good now. There is little defense for it. Cover and concealment isn't any good with improved precise shot. DR doesn't help now that you have Clustered Shot. Point Blank Master removes the AoO for shooting in melee. All that is left as defense is deflect arrows or windwall. Protection for Arrows is useless because of Clustered shot and magic arrows. So I don't find a problem with how powerful archery is but I'd like to see some defensive feats, spells and magic items to balance it out.
I'd like to see alignment changed. I think system where you gather points based on actions that determines you alignment would be better. So you don't decide to be Lawful good and you are you have to work at to obtain that alignment. So you start the game with no alignment which qualifies you for any class and start obtaining point towards the alignment you desire or need to get. Having no alignment does not mean neutral but is starting place where you could acquire the neutral alignment. Actions would be defined so arguments would be reduced.
I like your ideas on alignment and combat... however I think such a huge change would be too much for a .5 variant of pathfinder. those are pretty big game mechanic shifts.
same for the HP cap. I always find it silly that a human character can basically bunch, stab or shoot with arrows to death a 30 foot tall giant or huge dragon.
that's why I run E6 campaigns. I essentially capping hit points and general progression at level 6 but allowing for feats to continue class advancement.
as for the flat footed till combat rule. no matter how you slice it the rule is either silly or unclear. at the very least I would like to see the rule clarified or fleshed out to stop in arguments that go something like this.
players: we approach the abandoned building where we were told the orcs were hiding out and where we see lights and sounds of voices. I pull out my weapons and approach cautiously.
GM: you get ot the door what do you do?
Players: open the door and look inside.
GM: you see a bunch of Orcs huddled around a fire gnawing on the bones of their last meal. they look up as the door opens and reach for weapons Roll initiative
Players and GM roll initiatives
Players: we got 7 14 and 13
GM: Orcs roll 20 19 5 and 15
GM: the first 3 orcs charge across the room and attack the first person in line. your flat footed so your AC is ridiculously low. Hit, Hit, Crit-threat, Crit confirmed by 1. OH!! this is gonna suck buddy. too bad you were flat footed, you should start rolling another character now.
Player: WTF? I walked upto the door with my weapons drawn ready for a fight when we opened the door they were busy eating, but somehow they were able to notice us, drop their food, charge across the room and hit me before I was able to raise my arms into a fighting stance? Thats BS!
GM: thems the rules buddy.
Doesn't 4E actually do that?* Decouple mechanics from flavor. (Allowing a nature-themed caster without being a druid, for example.)
** Corollary to the above: Remove alignment restrictions unless a class absolutely positively cannot work without it.EDIT: I do not mean to say we should remove *suggested* flavor, merely make it core that you can reflavor as long as the actual rule doesn't change.
Why can't you do that now?
I'd want to make NPCs and monsters a different, yet integrated, system simply to reduce the complexity of monster creation.
And Shadowrun, and World of Darkness, and New World of Darkness, and Cyberpunk 2020, and Aberrant, and Ars Magica, and Earthdawn...
What does it matter if 4E does it, too?
Not trying to be rude, but my point is if those games do it and this game doesn't, why not just simply play those games instead of trying to turn this game into those games?
I like point buy systems (HERO system, GURPS, M&M). But I wont try to turn Pathfinder into a complete point buy system. I know there's point buy for stats but I'm talking about point buy for EVERYTHING. Stats, feats, skills, spells, EVERYTHING. I'll just simply go play those games instead.
For some of us there's a reason why we don't like or play those other games. In my particular case I dont want Pathfinder to slowly start morphing into 4E. There are reasons why I dont play 4E and to have my preferred game turn into something I really dont like? I've kinda went through that already which is why I'm here playing Pathfinder in the first place.
|
|
Doesn't 4E actually do that?* Decouple mechanics from flavor. (Allowing a nature-themed caster without being a druid, for example.)
** Corollary to the above: Remove alignment restrictions unless a class absolutely positively cannot work without it.EDIT: I do not mean to say we should remove *suggested* flavor, merely make it core that you can reflavor as long as the actual rule doesn't change.
Why can't you do that now?
I'd want to make NPCs and monsters a different, yet integrated, system simply to reduce the complexity of monster creation.
And Shadowrun, and World of Darkness, and New World of Darkness, and Cyberpunk 2020, and Aberrant, and Ars Magica, and Earthdawn...
What does it matter if 4E does it, too?
Not trying to be rude, but my point is if those games do it and this game doesn't, why not just simply play those games instead of trying to turn this game into those games?
I like point buy systems (HERO system, GURPS, M&M). But I wont try to turn Pathfinder into a complete point buy system. I know there's point buy for stats but I'm talking about point buy for EVERYTHING. Stats, feats, skills, spells, EVERYTHING. I'll just simply go play those games instead.
For some of us there's a reason why we don't like or play those other games. In my particular case I dont want Pathfinder to slowly start morphing into 4E. There are reasons why I dont play 4E and to have my preferred game turn into something I really dont like? I've kinda went through that already which is why I'm here playing Pathfinder in the first place.
I think you misunderstand what I was asking for. I wasn't asking for "Here's a barbarian class, but if you swap these two things it becomes some other thing!" That's an archetype. We have those.
All I was asking for was "Here's a Wizard class, but if you say that this ability's appearance changes like so, and this other ability's appearance changes this other way, then you have what looks like a different thing without any new rules! Huzzah!"
This could even manifest as a simple line or two at the end of the class or class ability offering alternative interpretations. "Note: The Bard's performance can be reflavored as an aura that requires sight and/or sound to function in some fashion."
Stuff like that. It doesn't change how the ability *actually* works, but makes it different and interesting. Can you imagine a "Dirge of Doom" that isn't actually a perform, but rather just an aura of cackling madness (with accompanying illusions of ghostly faces) that you begin to hear/see when you get too close to the bard?
Sure, you can do this now, but the entire point of what I was asking for is to leave the idea that you CAN do this in the book, preferably with some guidelines on how to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. Not a huge ask IMO.
I dont think the above request is actually required. I mean... the GM can simply flavor that in to their hearts content... or refuse to for their own reasoning. I dont think Paizo is required to provide contingency permition for EVERY possibility. simply rules that work in a general sense.
having said that they did go a long way when they removed some of the sillier restrictions like ranger favored enemy cannot be the the characters race unless they are evil. Or barbarians MUST be chaotic.
|
|
I dont think the above request is actually required. I mean... the GM can simply flavor that in to their hearts content... or refuse to for their own reasoning. I dont think Paizo is required to provide contingency permition for EVERY possibility. simply rules that work in a general sense.
having said that they did go a long way when they removed some of the sillier restrictions like ranger favored enemy cannot be the the characters race unless they are evil. Or barbarians MUST be chaotic.
I was thinking more of a "guidelines and examples" thing, and also the fact that being in the core book would imply a degree of acceptability that the practice does not currently (from what I've seen) possess.
Sample guidelines:
* The ability's mechanical effect cannot change in any way.
* The ability should not seem to have an effect it does not have (in game or out).
* The ability's appearance (if any) must either be unchanged, or be one that meshes with the mechanical effect the ability has.
With the above I could reflavor Barkskin as being chitinous plates instead of bark, but I could not reflavor it to look like I'm on fire. I could reflavor bardic performs as being auras that require activation. I could reflavor the spellbook as a continuous scroll with the same total space (rather than the core's implication that it is always a book).
Options are bad?
I am just tired of the mmo-style items where every new item is a slight numerical increase from the last item.
EDIT2: Last edit I promise.
The perfect example for too many bonus types is armor bonuses.1 - Armor
2 - Enhancement to Armor
3 - Natural Armor
4 - Enhancement to Natural Armor
5 - Shield
6 - Enhancement to Shield
7 - Dodge
8 - Insight
9 - Deflection
10 - Sacred
11 - Profane
12 - DexterityThis is just too many options for the same thing.
False assumption here.
Armor and natural Armor bonuses do not stack with one another, ergo the enhancement bonuses would not cross stack either. Sacred and Profane bonuses, while they (I suspect, I am not certain) technically would stack it would be highly unlikely for someone to have both. Also the heavier the armor (and thus higher the bonus) the lower the Dexterity bonus that can be applied.
That said there are at least two other modifiers to AC that come to mind and come into play fairly often - Size and the infamous "unnamed" bonus.
Fix the fighter and also give him some "non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks!" (as a man in Black put it).
Fix the gnome. Give him the same favored class abilities as the human, and some more fun stuff.
4 skills minimum for all classes
iterative attacks, at least for the fighter.
Fix melee as an option at higher levels.
attack replacement feats should work together and they should be great at higher levels, not worse.
Fix Vital strike, just let it scale.
Fix the rogue and also give him some more and better "non-hitting-people problem-solving schticks"
Make Combat Expertise and weapon finesse built-in parts of the combat system.
Give all full casters, at least the arcane, some range magic attack they can cast at will. Why the hell should a wizard use a cross bow and why must all divine casters go into melee at lower levels or get PBS, PS and rapid reload.
Make Clerics fun at higher levels. Bring back or add the beta Cleric as an option.
Rework bardic music performances. As AMIB put it: "Inspire Competence uses combat time with non-combat tasks, bardic music performances often have random length minimums, it's just a mess."
Fix bards at higher levels. Give them - and clerics - some new cool buffs.
Make Inspire greatness ....Great
Let the bard be able to activate countersong, distraction and Inspire greatness (etc) as an imidiate actions (if they can identify and incoming threat). As of now they are more or less useless
Fix healing.
Give clerics some GOOD high level spells.
Consolidate some of the knowledge skills and let all classes (or races ) pick one aditional knowledge skill as a class skill.
Make traits a part of the core rules and add some traits.
Fix wildshape
Remove all feat taxes.
Fix the fighter and fix the gnome.
I like most of these suggestions, though the easiest fix to the gnome is to dump the over-powered little buggers. They are redundant with halflings, replace them with a standard race that is size, large instead, just to expand the racial options, something like the half-giants from Dark Sun.
My personal 2 suggestions are to just drop the gnome (as outlined above)
And drop the sponatneous casters. I have hated the sorcerer from jump st. The Sorcerer could be covered by a "Spontaneous Casting" Feat. Either that or prevent multiclassing as a wizard / sorcerer. This is the only circumstance in my 3+ ed experience in which anyone has played a sorcerer, it was to get around the barred school restrictions of specialization.
People need rules against multiclassing sorcerer/wizard? O.o
NO, they just need sense enough not to do it, but the rule would make it clear for those without. It just annoyed me that people would take a level of sorcerer as a work-around to the restrictions applied by specialization (at least on spell completion Items)
False assumption here.Armor and natural Armor bonuses do not stack with one another, ergo the enhancement bonuses would not cross stack either.
Er, yes they do. You can absolutely have natural armor and regular armor with enhancements to both. An Amulet of Natural Armor is practically standard issue for everyone that doesn't use unarmed or natural attacks (well, assuming they can't get a Permanent Greater Magic Fang).
Sacred and Profane bonuses, while they (I suspect, I am not certain) technically would stack it would be highly unlikely for someone to have both.They do stack, and could do so easily. Two neutral clerics in the same party, for example, could each choose opposite sorts of bonuses, specifically to make sure they could stack them.
NO, they just need sense enough not to do it, but the rule would make it clear for those without. It just annoyed me that people would take a level of sorcerer as a work-around to the restrictions applied by specialization (at least on spell completion Items)
That seems like a ridiculous reason to waste a level on. I would never promote that choice as overpowered. Crap, you know what else overcomes that limitation? Skill ranks in Use Magic Device. That's got a significantly smaller opportunity cost than an entire useless level.
1. Get rid of that rediculase link between base attack and hitdie.
2. Create arcane and divine caster levels, allowing for multi-classing between these matching casting type classes to stack caster levels.
3 would be= Give clerics poor base attack but give them full armor and tower shield proficiency.
False assumption here.Armor and natural Armor bonuses do not stack with one another,
Yes they do.
I like most of these suggestions, though the easiest fix to the gnome is to dump the over-powered little buggers.
I find them under-powered and I have never seen anyone play that race, ever.
1. Get rid of that rediculase link between base attack and hitdie.
2. Create arcane and divine caster levels, allowing for multi-classing between these matching casting type classes to stack caster levels.
3 would be= Give clerics poor base attack but give them full armor and tower shield proficiency.
Agree with 1 and 3.
Clerics + poor BAB = full caster + some good spells
Clerics + 3/4 BAB = 7 spell level levels + current spells.
Both classes 4 skills per level.
Nah I would just kill the cleric, druid, wizard and all the other Full casters and make em one class. I myself like the BaB/HD link but think full casters should only be Low BAB.
|
|
Yes they do.
False assumption here.Armor and natural Armor bonuses do not stack with one another,
I'm pretty sure that Leo_Negri's intent with that statement was to refute the comment he was replying to.
The comment he was replying to said "But then we'd have a very short and lame bonus list." He refuted that by saying you could have multiple names for the same bonus type (such as natural armor and armor actually becoming the same bonus type).
I'm making a small assumption here, but I don't think he was talking about RAW, but rather something he'd change.
|
|
Nah I would just kill the cleric, druid, wizard and all the other Full casters and make em one class. I myself like the BaB/HD link but think full casters should only be Low BAB.
This is essentially what I did with the spell point system I made, but I went the other way. I simply said "there is only one type of casting", then gave every class a Base Caster Level progression (identical to BAB, except full martial characters have a +0 at every level). 4-level casters become poor progressions, 6-level casters become medium progressions and 9-level casters become high progressions. The main reason to go this route was to keep the flavor-guidance that the existing caster classes provide.
Of course, this required some tweaks for the divine classes, but I'm hoping to get a playtest in to see how well they run. (This version is only a slight modification of a spell-point system I already did playtest, and it went over well, so I have high hopes.)
Link for those who care.
|
1) Make the monk's Flurry of Blows a standard action instead of a full-round action. That would solve at least one of the monk's major problems-- that it gets increased movement speed and a TWF equivalent, which are at odds with each other. Perhaps something similar but less dramatic could be done with the TWF feats... maybe Improved TWF gives you one extra attack per standard action, and Greater grants two (in addition to full attacking)?
2) Revamp the idea of preparing spells. The spontaneous casters are fine as is, but having to pick which spells on your personal list you can cast today is just more nuisance and disappointment than its worth. Sure, I get the intended flavor behind it, but it's just not fun to look at the 20-some-odd 1st level spells a cleric gets and have to pick two of them each and every day, gambling that those are the two that'll be useful today.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah I would just kill the cleric, druid, wizard and all the other Full casters and make em one class.
I've tried this idea before, and it really is not appealing at all (in my opinion). I would actually desire more seperation between Divine and Arcane, but when there is only one class, all sense of balance between spells pretty much goes out the window, and there would have to be a fairly large chunck of a core book devoted to just making various styles of caster, probably about the size of the Feats chapter. It really isn't a good idea, and in my experience a pretty big let down. It also leads to some pretty bad min/maxing, that I have seen.
Nah I would just kill the cleric, druid, wizard and all the other Full casters and make em one class.I've tried this idea before, and it really is not appealing at all (in my opinion). I would actually desire more seperation between Divine and Arcane, but when there is only one class, all sense of balance between spells pretty much goes out the window, and there would have to be a fairly large chunck of a core book devoted to just making various styles of caster, probably about the size of the Feats chapter. It really isn't a good idea, and in my experience a pretty big let down. It also leads to some pretty bad min/maxing, that I have seen.
I would disagree.I do not think you have balance between the casting classes now. Take the classes they have now, you could build most of them on the witch frame if you did not have spell lists. The thing is it would not take up any more space then they already do. In place of 3 class write ups you would have one and could trim the fat, you should shave even more page count down once you timed the spells and rebalanced them. There is simply zero need for more then one spell list. None. Doing it the way I suggested would cut down the footprint of the casting classes from the core boo by a large amount. Yes the class takes up more room, but less then all three classes. Same goes with spells.
And you get min/maxing everywhere. The issue with spells is that they are not balanced, they are all over the place "We need to make this weaker then x as its a stronger class" or "we need this spell stronger as its a wizard spell and they should be better then the same level of druid at doing this". This causes the issue. Kill the spell list, kill the silly x class spells need to be better then Y class spells and just balance spells based upon level. Not who casts them.
Nah I would just kill the cleric, druid, wizard and all the other Full casters and make em one class. I myself like the BaB/HD link but think full casters should only be Low BAB.This is essentially what I did with the spell point system I made, but I went the other way. I simply said "there is only one type of casting", then gave every class a Base Caster Level progression (identical to BAB, except full martial characters have a +0 at every level). 4-level casters become poor progressions, 6-level casters become medium progressions and 9-level casters become high progressions. The main reason to go this route was to keep the flavor-guidance that the existing caster classes provide.
Interesting but not a fan of this at all to be honest. Just not something I would use is all. I think non-casters should not need to be casters to do cool things. Which sadly is a flaw with the current system, I don't mean fighters should get fly but they and other non-casters should get things as cool and neat as casters without spells.
|
|
Interesting but not a fan of this at all to be honest. Just not something I would use is all. I think non-casters should not need to be casters to do cool things. Which sadly is a flaw with the current system, I don't mean fighters should get fly but they and other non-casters should get things as cool and neat as casters without spells.Nah I would just kill the cleric, druid, wizard and all the other Full casters and make em one class. I myself like the BaB/HD link but think full casters should only be Low BAB.This is essentially what I did with the spell point system I made, but I went the other way. I simply said "there is only one type of casting", then gave every class a Base Caster Level progression (identical to BAB, except full martial characters have a +0 at every level). 4-level casters become poor progressions, 6-level casters become medium progressions and 9-level casters become high progressions. The main reason to go this route was to keep the flavor-guidance that the existing caster classes provide.
(A quick couple of defensive notes)
In the spell point system (at least, as I've devised it), all casters are based on spontaneous (limited spells known) and actually have *fewer* total casts per day by around 8th or 9th level. Also, SR is a killer on your spell pool.
Also, barbarians can still shatter an active spell just because they feel like it, monks can still jump like they can fly (while some actually do fly), etc.
I'm not a big fan of the caster/non-caster gap either, and the spell point system (paradoxically) closes the gap somewhat without making the casters hate you (at least, they liked it in the playtest). The effects that casters do should still be a little more obvious than that of martial characters (given that they are limited in use and the ONLY thing a caster can do), but martials have their ways.
1. I'd definitely curb the prevalence of buffs by making more of them overlap and not stack (in the process reducing the amount of magic items expected to be carried and orienting the ones that remain toward activated effects and other new combat options).
2. I would also make the skill systems so that non-combat actions can be more immersive and rewarding for players (including introducing guidelines for XP rewards on such things).
I would agree on the limited spells know as being standard. To me that is one of the other issues, unlimited known spells. I am glad it is working out for your group, but not what I would do myself is all man.
I have toyed with making casting a skill and have a casting check to cast spells. You would still have the 1-9 range. I am also not a fan o one stat casting. I think all casters should have to at lest have 2 if not 3 stats like most other pc's.Anyhow just random thoughts.