A Pathfinder Open Questionnaire (From DEM Games)

[Dias Ex Machina]

PATHFINDER OPEN QUESTIONNAIRE

For the past few months, we here at DEM have been developing an adaptation for Amethyst using the Pathfinder rule setting, called Renaissance. This adaptation is not an update of our original 2008 D20 book, rather a conversion of our 4th Edition Amethyst Foundations and its sequel, Evolution. However, recently, a few of our playtesters have questioned some of our design decisions regarding this update.

More than one tester has voiced a concern that our rules have a distinct "4th edition" feel to them. This is peculiar considering a humorous remark I made while being interviewed for the Gamers Haven podcast a few months ago. On it, I'd commented that our Amethyst Foundations had been accused of having a "3rd edition mentality" and that our Pathfinder book may be accused of having a "4th Edition mentality." Little did I know that those would be the exact comments offered by my playtesters. So instead of walking blindly or ignorantly into the final product, I've decided to present all of our production concepts here and ask you, the gamers, what you think.

What I discuss below are not final decisions; the rules are still in their "alpha" phase and are due for more work, but responses will help us customize the gaming experience to the people who would be actually buying it. We want to make the product you want…well, a product we both will want.

NOTE: I wrote this article and these questions before the announcement of 5th Edition D&D, where they basically ask the same thing. Once again, WOTC steals my thunder (chuckle).

1. RACES
Our races, though following Pathfinder mostly, do deviate in one regard. Their ability adjustments are variable, a trend started with PLAYER'S HANDBOOK 3. Where a normal elf or dwarf is fixed, in our setting players have the option of where to take the penalty and where to accept the bonus.

Example
CHAPARRANS
Ability Scores: +2 Wisdom; +2 Constitution or +2 Strength; -2 Constitution or -2 Charisma

Question: Is this too confusing and would players prefer fixed adjustments? Just so you know, Amethyst's canon setting has no outside races.

2. SPECIAL ABILITIES
In an effort to make our race and class features easier to read, we decided to present them in bullet form, not unlike powers from 4th Edition. The same information is imparted, just in a way which we believe is easier.

Example
Action: Swift
Attack of Opportunity: No
Requirement: You must be within 5 feet to a tree.
Uses per Day: As many as your Wisdom modifier.
Effect: You teleport up to 50 feet to another tree within range. You emerge within 5 feet of the targeted tree. The trees must be rooted in the Earth.

Question: Will readers react coldly to this unusual shift in presentation?

3. LIFEPATH
Carried over from Foundations, Renaissance introduces lifepaths, which can affect your character in minor or major ways. These have no class prerequisites and with more than 40 of them, should satisfy any player. But shouldn't they be archetypes? Archetypes modify classes (like Amethyst's class focus did in our 2008 book) while our lifepaths do more general changes and are not tied to one class. Two lifepaths are workaround to select classes not permitted in the canon setting.

Examples
BLOOD ROYAL
Natural Instinct: You gain a +1 bonus to any two Charisma- or Wisdom-based skills of your choice.
Aura of Admiration: You gain Diplomacy as a class skill and gain 1 rank in it.

DOPPELSHIDO
Double-Form: Select one one-handed melee weapon without the double or reach property. This is your selected weapon with Double-Form. If you wield your selected weapon with two hands, the weapon gains the double property. Both the primary and off-hand attacks inflict the same damage. You must be proficient with the chosen weapon. Your chosen weapon is the only type of weapon you can receive these bonuses from (you may purchase magical versions later, but the specific weapon type cannot change)

Question: With archetypes already established, should we shoehorn lifepaths into that, even considering that many lifepaths wouldn't work as archetypes and would need to be removed?

4. DUAL CLASSES
We have this idea of creating dual classes—basically some of our classes are broken into two complete sub-classes. Each sub-class shares identical hit dice, saves, skill ranks, class skills, and base attack bonus, meaning they only differ with class abilities. Because both sub-classes are listed as one class, selecting one as your favored class will equate to both being a favored class; you will gain favored class bonuses gaining a level in either class. For example, you could multiclass either front grounder or heavy grounder and still gain favored class bonuses, but not if you multiclass in front grounder and marshal. These classes are still considered separate for the purposes of class abilities (e.g.: A 4th level front grounder / 2nd level heavy grounder character is not a 6th level grounder, nor is he a 4th level heavy grounder)

Question: Would such a mild alteration be accepted? We could always remove the rule outright and keep these classes separate. We're just trying to be clever.

5. POWER-LIKE ABILITIES
We know that some 3rd edition class abilities act like powers without looking like powers. If a character can do something unique each round, how is that different from an at-will power? As a result, we've offered certain class abilities that, though balanced and written for 3.75, do resemble powers (this is related to point 2 above).

Example
Burst Fire: Starting at 2nd level, you can make a burst fire attack. As a full round-round action, you can apply the heavy auto property to a weapon you are wielding which has it and target all creatures in a 10 ft radius in weapon range. All attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty.
6th level: The area of effect increases to 15 ft radius.
11th level: The area of effect increases to 20 ft radius.
16th level: The area of effect increases to 25 ft radius.

Question: Would players accept this or should our classes not deviate from the accepted form?

6. MEDICAL EXPLOITS
In a moment of both genius and madness, we gave our medical operator class a spell list. These are not spells, mind you, but are gained and operate just as a cleric would gain and use spells. They are presented as spells, but are actually extraordinary abilities he can use at any time given his exploit/spell list.

Example
STANOZOLOL INJECTION
Level medic 1 Casting Time: 1 full-round action
Range: touch Target: one living creature
Duration: 1 hour
Effect: The target gains a +2 enhancement bonus to Dexterity (affecting attack bonuses, Reflex saves, Dexterity checks, etc). The target also receives a +10 ft bonus to speed.
Advancement: At 10th level, you can target up to 2 creatures, but each requires a full-round action.

Question: Is such a bizarre application of existing rules too weird to be accepted?

7. MONSTER LORE
Simply put, we've included our monster lore from Foundations. We don't have a problem with this.

Question: Do you?

8. MULTIPLE MONSTERS
The Pathfinder bestiary offers one orc. We included five different pagus at different challenge ratings and weapon loadouts. Even though it isn't hard to upgrade monsters in Pathfinder, we still wanted to remove the stress of designing different versions of the same creature.

Question: Should we bother?

9. MINIONS
I love minions from 4th Edition. I think they're a little too much experience, but I really wanted them to remain in Amethyst. So we made them by adding the special ability "Minion".

Minion: If the pagus strifebringer suffers more damage in a single hit as his hit dice, it is killed (8d6 = 8 damage or more in a single hit).
As a result, minions have reduced experience but do allow for larger battles. (One a side note, our puggs are actually weaker than kobolds if encountered alone; I thought that was funny).

Question: Should we include such an obvious homage to 4th Edition and is this unwise? Are you guys cool with it?

10. COMPLICATED CLASSES
Our classes offer a lot of customization, different abilities depending on your basic concept, and abilities trees similar to that in D20 Modern. Some of our playtesters have argued that we should attempt to make our classes similar to Pathfinder classes, borderline copies, altering the rules only when in regard to using firearms. I think that would taste of being unoriginal, but it would make the transition easier for those unaware of how D20 modern created their classes.
Question: Make the classes distinct or stay close to the mold of Pathfinder?

There you have it, ten questions. Answers may be posted here, on our facebook page, or at the forums at DiasExMachina.com

[Distant Scholar]

Just a few quick comments:

3. The Lifepath sounds more like an expanded version of character traits, rather than archetypes. Viewed in that light, they should fit in with Pathfinder just fine.

4. If I'm understanding dual classes correctly, a more Pathfinderesque way of doing them might be to make one "grounder" class, but have abilities selectable from a set of abilities (like rage powers or rogue talents), and then let the character choose abilities that are more regular grounder like, or heavy grounder like, or mix-and-match. Then favored classes won't be an issue, and the classes will be more like Pathfinder classes to boot.

5. There are plenty of Pathfinder abilities that work like that. They're usually worded like "the radius increases 5 feet for every five levels above 1st" rather than listed out separately, but that's a matter of wording more than actual game effect.

6. Alchemist extracts are not technically spells, but are statted up pretty much like spells, so I don't think the medical exploits should be an issue.

8. Some people will appreciate having the work for such monsters done for them. Some people will lament paying for work they could have done themselves. I don't think you can please everyone with this one.

9. I don't mind minion rules; I actually appreciate them, given the types of campaigns I run. I would suggest calling them something else, though, both to avoid the appearance of 4E, and because the mechanics aren't (exactly) the same.

10. I'm not sure why ability trees are an issue; if you look at the rage powers, for example, there are essentially ability trees within those powers. If your ability trees are extensive and deep, you might consider loosening up some prerequisites, but otherwise they should fit in fine with Pathfinder.

[ShadowcatX]

I will say that I've read good things about Amethyst, and I was initially jealous that it was 4e, not pathfinder.

1) I like this actually. Its one of my homebrew rules changes.

2) This I don't like. Like you said, this looks like 4e, I don't want my pathfinder to look like 4e. This would be a definite turn off for me.

3) Why not just call them traits and be done with it?

4) I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

5) Again, don't take something that's 4e and call it pathfinder just because it uses pathfinder rules, make it confirm to pathfinder standards. Another, significant turn off.

6) So they're limited by slots like spells and generally behave like spells but they're not susceptible to anti-magic fields / dispel magic? I think that would be acceptable. Definitely not any harder than alchemist's kinda sorta like potions but not really.

7) I don't know what foundations are (and so obviously I haven't bought them) but I generally wouldn't have a problem with lore about monsters in the world.

8) I don't want you to give me 5 pages of the same monster in different clothes (classes, equipment, etc.), I can do that myself. Give me 5 pages of different monsters.

9) This wouldn't bother me, if and only if you can make it fit into the CR system.

10) I play pathfinder to play pathfinder, I don't want it to look like modern or 4e or anything else.

[Alzrius]

Chris, I think it's cool that you're publicly asking for feedback on these issues (for what it's worth, I think you've beaten WotC to the punch simply because you're actually here soliciting feedback from the community instead of simply saying that you're going to be asking for feedback). Here are my answers:

Quote:

1. RACES

Our races, though following Pathfinder mostly, do deviate in one regard. Their ability adjustments are variable, a trend started with PLAYER'S HANDBOOK 3. Where a normal elf or dwarf is fixed, in our setting players have the option of where to take the penalty and where to accept the bonus.

Example
CHAPARRANS
Ability Scores: +2 Wisdom; +2 Constitution or +2 Strength; -2 Constitution or -2 Charisma

Question: Is this too confusing and would players prefer fixed adjustments? Just so you know, Amethyst's canon setting has no outside races.

The mechanics of this are not confusing, but the rationale is. The ability score modifiers are considered to be biological factors that are inherent to each race - humans (and half-human races) have a "floating" bonus because they're considered to be diverse and adaptable.

The method you're proposing is confusing because it seems to be trying to blend both methods, but has no explanation for why some chaparrans, for example, are so different than others. Either a race has set modifiers reflecting their innate qualities, or they're diverse and adaptable like humans; I can't figure out what your method is supposed to represent, as there's no flavor text to say just what these differences are.

Quote:

2. SPECIAL ABILITIES

In an effort to make our race and class features easier to read, we decided to present them in bullet form, not unlike powers from 4th Edition. The same information is imparted, just in a way which we believe is easier.

Example
Action: Swift
Attack of Opportunity: No
Requirement: You must be within 5 feet to a tree.
Uses per Day: As many as your Wisdom modifier.
Effect: You teleport up to 50 feet to another tree within range. You emerge within 5 feet of the targeted tree. The trees must be rooted in the Earth.

Question: Will readers react coldly to this unusual shift in presentation?

Unfortunately, yes. Style of presentation is important, and while it may be unfair, Pathfinder players tend to grade things based on the style used in the Paizo books themselves, particularly in regards to the presentation of mechanics. Most Pathfinder mechanics have at least some semblance of an artistic nod in them, by which I mean that there'll usually be a small bit of flavor text, and they'll be presented in prose rather than in separated bullet points. I believe that Pathfinder players want their information communicated to them in a way that doesn't seem indicative of charts (unless a chart is expressly needed; e.g. a class table).

Quote:

3. LIFEPATH

Carried over from Foundations, Renaissance introduces lifepaths, which can affect your character in minor or major ways. These have no class prerequisites and with more than 40 of them, should satisfy any player. But shouldn't they be archetypes? Archetypes modify classes (like Amethyst's class focus did in our 2008 book) while our lifepaths do more general changes and are not tied to one class. Two lifepaths are workaround to select classes not permitted in the canon setting.

Examples
BLOOD ROYAL
Natural Instinct: You gain a +1 bonus to any two Charisma- or Wisdom-based skills of your choice.
Aura of Admiration: You gain Diplomacy as a class skill and gain 1 rank in it.

DOPPELSHIDO
Double-Form: Select one one-handed melee weapon without the double or reach property. This is your selected weapon with Double-Form. If you wield your selected weapon with two hands, the weapon gains the double property. Both the primary and off-hand attacks inflict the same damage. You must be proficient with the chosen weapon. Your chosen weapon is the only type of weapon you can receive these bonuses from (you may purchase magical versions later, but the specific weapon type cannot change)

Question: With archetypes already established, should we shoehorn lifepaths into that, even considering that many lifepaths wouldn't work as archetypes and would need to be removed?

You should not make lifepaths into class archetypes. Class archetypes are expressly tied to specific classes, allowing specific themes or ideas to be better presented in that class by swapping out abilities that aren't part of a given theme with new abilities that are. If lifepaths don't do that, they shouldn't be made into archetypes.

The two lifepaths you posted seem much more like feats, or perhaps traits, than they do archetypes. Also, in a nod to my previous answer, please consider adding a line of flavor text to each lifepath, presumably between the title and the benefits line.

Quote:

4. DUAL CLASSES

We have this idea of creating dual classes—basically some of our classes are broken into two complete sub-classes. Each sub-class shares identical hit dice, saves, skill ranks, class skills, and base attack bonus, meaning they only differ with class abilities. Because both sub-classes are listed as one class, selecting one as your favored class will equate to both being a favored class; you will gain favored class bonuses gaining a level in either class. For example, you could multiclass either front grounder or heavy grounder and still gain favored class bonuses, but not if you multiclass in front grounder and marshal. These classes are still considered separate for the purposes of class abilities (e.g.: A 4th level front grounder / 2nd level heavy grounder character is not a 6th level grounder, nor is he a 4th level heavy grounder)

Question: Would such a mild alteration be accepted? We could always remove the rule outright and keep these classes separate. We're just trying to be clever.

I strongly recommend looking at the alternate represented in Ultimate Combat - the ninja and the samurai - for examples on making this idea work in Pathfinder. These are, essentially, new classes, but seem to work in a manner similar to how you're describing. Perhaps with one or two new mechanics on multiclassing between alternate classes (though this is an area to tread carefully; multiclassing restrictions were shed in the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder, and as I recall few were sorry to see them go).

Quote:

5. POWER-LIKE ABILITIES

We know that some 3rd edition class abilities act like powers without looking like powers. If a character can do something unique each round, how is that different from an at-will power? As a result, we've offered certain class abilities that, though balanced and written for 3.75, do resemble powers (this is related to point 2 above).

Example
Burst Fire: Starting at 2nd level, you can make a burst fire attack. As a full round-round action, you can apply the heavy auto property to a weapon you are wielding which has it and target all creatures in a 10 ft radius in weapon range. All attack rolls suffer a -2 penalty.
6th level: The area of effect increases to 15 ft radius.
11th level: The area of effect increases to 20 ft radius.
16th level: The area of effect increases to 25 ft radius.

Question: Would players accept this or should our classes not deviate from the accepted form?

I'll be honest and say that I'm not sure what you're asking here. You're using the word "powers" in such a way that it seems to imply something specific, but I don't understand what. Class abilities are class abilities, and while they have different flavor associated with them, and different tags (e.g. Ex, Su, or Sp), they're still class abilities.

If you're asking about certain abilities being tied directly to a class level rather than being universal abilities (e.g. such as being able to burst fire with a gun as a class feature, rather than something anyone can do), that's a trickier needle to thread. The default option is that, if it's something that presumably anyone can do, then it's a combat maneuver, with some feats that allow you to improve how well you can perform that maneuver (e.g. Improved Sunder, Greater Sunder, etc.).

Quote:

6. MEDICAL EXPLOITS

In a moment of both genius and madness, we gave our medical operator class a spell list. These are not spells, mind you, but are gained and operate just as a cleric would gain and use spells. They are presented as spells, but are actually extraordinary abilities he can use at any time given his exploit/spell list.

Example
STANOZOLOL INJECTION
Level medic 1 Casting Time: 1 full-round action
Range: touch Target: one living creature
Duration: 1 hour
Effect: The target gains a +2 enhancement bonus to Dexterity (affecting attack bonuses, Reflex saves, Dexterity checks, etc). The target also receives a +10 ft bonus to speed.
Advancement: At 10th level, you can target up to 2 creatures, but each requires a full-round action.

Question: Is such a bizarre application of existing rules too weird to be accepted?

This is not too weird to be accepted, but be prepared to answer a lot of questions that arise from this being non-magical. You'll be asked about why it can only be done so many times per day (e.g. why a non-magical ability is "fire and forget" or "so many slots per day"). Can they be "cast" defensively? Can metamagic feats be applied? Can they be identified with a Spellcraft check? Can magic items mimic their powers, and if so does someone who can "cast" these use such magic items if they're spell trigger or spell completion items? All of these questions and more will come up, so you'd best have as many answers as possible in the description of the class ability that allows for "casting" these "spells."

Also, bear in mind that having these be "non-magical spells" will usually be something of a net gain in their overall power/usability (e.g. no dispelling or spell resistance to stop them), and so their non-magical nature will be seen as something of a power-up. Because of that, I'd recommend that most of these "spells" be defensive or utilitarian in nature, rather than offensive, and generally tone down their overall power (e.g. perhaps a given non-magical spell level is as effective as a magic spell of one spell level lower).

Quote:

7. MONSTER LORE

Simply put, we've included our monster lore from Foundations. We don't have a problem with this.

Question: Do you?

If by "monster lore" you mean that there is specific information that can be found on specific skill check DCs, then no. Bear in mind two things, however: first, that you make sure to get the right Knowledge skills with the right creature types, and second that Knowledge skills already set the DCs for such checks (though they do equivocate a bit, so you can vary the DCs as necessary).

Quote:

8. MULTIPLE MONSTERS

The Pathfinder bestiary offers one orc. We included five different pagus at different challenge ratings and weapon loadouts. Even though it isn't hard to upgrade monsters in Pathfinder, we still wanted to remove the stress of designing different versions of the same creature.

Question: Should we bother?

This is a very difficult question. If you mean that you have the "base monster" (without any class levels, templates, or advanced natural Hit Dice), and then a few variants by using any of the aforementioned methods of changing the monster, that's tricky...I've seen some players who hate that as "paying for material I could have made myself," while others appreciate having pre-made creatures for them. If these are out-and-out different monsters, e.g. a sub-race with different inherent racial abilities, then you should be fine, as they're essentially seen as new, albeit similar, monsters.

To put it another way, this is two different questions: are these variant monsters the result of different life experiences and training, or are they just assumed to be "the same monster, but different"? Most Pathfinder players are warmer towards the former than the latter. The second question is: are these useful pre-made NPCs, or filler that I could have done myself? Unfortunately, this one seems to be split, so I can't advise you there.

I can tell you that most Pathfinder players I know dislike the 4E naming convention for variant monsters. While alternate names are necessary to distinguish between creatures, the 4E style of "name" followed by "compound word composed of a noun and a verb" (e.g. "orc fleshripper") tends to be greatly disliked among the Pathfinder fans I know.

Quote:

9. MINIONS

I love minions from 4th Edition. I think they're a little too much experience, but I really wanted them to remain in Amethyst. So we made them by adding the special ability "Minion".

Minion: If the pagus strifebringer suffers more damage in a single hit as his hit dice, it is killed (8d6 = 8 damage or more in a single hit).
As a result, minions have reduced experience but do allow for larger battles. (One a side note, our puggs are actually weaker than kobolds if encountered alone; I thought that was funny).

Question: Should we include such an obvious homage to 4th Edition and is this unwise? Are you guys cool with it?

In my opinion, Pathfinder fans do like the idea of minion rules, as Fourth Edition has them, but can't quite figure out how to present them under Pathfinder rules. The problem becomes largely one of what Challenge Rating (and thus, how much XP) you assign to a creature that potentially dies so easily, but doesn't otherwise have its offensive abilities altered (the proverbial glass cannon)?

If you can find a way to make this work, then I suspect a lot of people will adopt it, but you can expect that whether or not it "works" to be a point of contention (e.g. area-effect spells and weapons, for example, will quickly become the order of the day where minions are concerned). Make sure your "minion" special ability lowers their Challenge Rating by an appropriate amount (and again, I couldn't tell you what "appropriate" should be, but it'll be in there), and adjust their XP value accordingly.

Quote:

10. COMPLICATED CLASSES

Our classes offer a lot of customization, different abilities depending on your basic concept, and abilities trees similar to that in D20 Modern. Some of our playtesters have argued that we should attempt to make our classes similar to Pathfinder classes, borderline copies, altering the rules only when in regard to using firearms. I think that would taste of being unoriginal, but it would make the transition easier for those unaware of how D20 modern created their classes.
Question: Make the classes distinct or stay close to the mold of Pathfinder?

Given the nature of classes like the barbarian and rogue, which have a list of abilities that you can pick from at various levels, I think most players will find this palatable. Without an example, it's hard to say for certain. I can tell you that if you make too many points where you pick from a list of abilities, you start to dilute the class identity, to the point of thinking of it like a class-less RPG where you just pick powers directly to define your character.

Pathfinder is most comfortable, to me, when its classes have a mixture of set abilities that are gained at set levels, and at other levels letting you pick from a list of abilities. You can tweak the ratio between these probably quite a bit, but there's a tipping point when you make too much too variable.

[ShadowcatX]

I want to address something that isn't directly in your questionnaire but I think may be helpful for you.

The gaming community knows a couple of facts and with those facts comes a certain set of assumptions: It is known that 5th edition has been announced which will likely make 4th edition support slow to a crawl and die. It is also known that Pathfinder has been outselling 4th edition. What it seems that you're doing is leaving a sinking ship for a healthier one.

I have no problem with that. I love 3pp, and as mentioned I'm very interested in your campaign setting. So by all means, come on board, but please, do so respecting the format and way Pathfinder is laid out and designed, leave the old luggage behind.

[Dias Ex Machina]

Before I get to answering all of these and implimenting MANY of your suggestions (compiled from here, Enworld, and a few others), let me throw down another offer: select one of our new classes and I will release the beta for that class for free.

Front Grounder - Mobile Infantry / Support Specialist. Close to a fighter.

Heavy Grounder - Heavy Weapons / Crowd Control

Marshal - Group abilities / leadership

Gunslinger Stalker - One/Two pistol attacks. Very agile, based loosely off of monk

Sniper Stalker - Impose status effects at range / long range fire.

Medic Operator - spell-like exploits, related to cleric.

Mechanic Operator - Gear modifications both in an out of combat

Vanguard - UFC-inspired grapple/striker specialist.

I'll release one of these for free. The question is which one.

[mdt]

Classes
As suggested, there are several examples of this in Pathfinder already.

1) Ranger. The Ranger is a single class, but each has multiple paths it can follow, but with all the similar bits the same at the same level. So, a Ranger can be a two-weapon fighter, a ranged expert, an expert in natural weapons, crossbow expert, etc. Combined with archetypes, this makes the Ranger class extremely flexible.

2) Subclasses. Anti-Paladin, Ninja and Samurai are examples of a subclass, where a class is modified so heavily by an archetype that it is easier for a new full class entry than to force the player to work it all out.

I'd suggest either 1, 2, or both. From your descriptions above, it honestly sounds like your 'grounder' could be a Grounder class with different 'weapon specialties' such as Heavy Weapons, Sniper Weapons, Small Arms, etc. This would be, imho, a better way to do the class, and allow someone to do favored class 'Grounder' regardless of whether they wanted to do sniping, anti-vehicle, anti-personnel, or stealth recon.

Lifepaths
These are Traits it sounds like, use traits.

Formatting
If you want to have PF fans buy your products, use PF formating, and artwork if you can afford it (IE: contract the same artists). Here's the logic. There are 2 groups who could buy your books. Group A is the people that Like PF and Hate 4E. Group B is the people that Like PF and Like 4E.

If you follow 4E formatting, then Group A will hate your product and not buy it, while Group B will be happy with it.

If you follow Pathfinder formatting, then Group A and Group B will like your product.

Logically, following 4E formatting nets you people who will stop reading at page one and not buy, while following 4E formatting nets you all the PF fans as possible customers. Really a no-brainer when you think about it like that.

[proudgeek159]

Okay, here are my thoughts:

1. RACES: I don't mind the mechanic, but I need more information. Why are the options there? Are there multiple subraces or subtypes involved?

2. SPECIAL ABILITIES: This may say more about me than about the concept, but it would definitely be a turn off for me.

3. LIFEPATHS: They feel more like feats than archetypes. I would present them as bonus "Lifepath Feats."

4. DUAL CLASSES: These don't appeal to me much. I'd me more comfortable working with archetypes or variant classes such as the Antipaladin.

5. POWER-LIKE ABILITIES: I have no problems with these as long as you stick with a PF/3.5 presentation instead of the 4E format. Yes, 4E bugs me that much, no offense.

6. MEDICAL EXPERTISE: I know I only have the one example to work off of here, but if the class is based on injecting meds, I would use the alchemist class as a base, plus specific medical abilities, such as diagnosis, first, aid, xenobiology, etc.

7. MONSTER LORE: One of my favorite concepts from 3.5. I would love to see it.

8. MULTIPLE MONSTERS: I like the idea. I'm working on a 3PP project as a freelancer doing exactly that. Instead of separate bestiary categories, maybe try the Game Mastery Guide NPC stat block approach. Each layout can have four or five different variants of the beastie, without being a whole new monster.

9. MINIONS: I don't have enough practical experience with 4E to be a judge of the mechanics, but at higher levels, NPC cannon fodder has a hard enough time surviving without the game designers handing them red shirts and saying, "Welcome to StarFleet!"

10. COMPLICATED CLASSES: Between archetypes, cavalier orders, oracle mysteries, eidolon evolution, bloodlines, prestige classes, and feat selection, PF has a LOT of options as is. I wouldn't mind trying out some new ideas, but take a look at the APG in particular before you build from scratch. What you're looking for may already exist.

I hope my somewhat biased opinions help. As for the playtest class goes, I'd like to see the heavy grounder, please.

10.

[Alzrius]

Dias Ex Machina wrote:

select one of our new classes and I will release the beta for that class for free.

[...]

Mechanic Operator - Gear modifications both in an out of combat

I opt for this one.

[Set]

I'm just going to comment on a few items, since I have no strong feelings on others.

Dias Ex Machina wrote:

1. RACES

Our races, though following Pathfinder mostly, do deviate in one regard. Their ability adjustments are variable, a trend started with PLAYER'S HANDBOOK 3.

I love this idea. Having half-orcs, for instance, give, instead of +2 to any attribute, a choice of +2 Str *or* +2 Wis, could be cool, or having Gnomes have the choice of +2 to either Int, Wis or Cha, their choice, would open up the 'tinker/illusionist' clever gnomes of previous editions, the 'entertainer/bard' charming gnomes of 3.5, or the more naturalist druid-y forest gnomes, depending on what bonus you picked, and make the gnome a cool option for a sorcerer, a wizard *or* a druid.

It also feels more 'elegant' or streamlined, to me, than having sub-races like High Elf, Wood Elf, Wild Elf or Rock Gnome, Forest Gnome, etc.

Quote:

2. SPECIAL ABILITIES

In an effort to make our race and class features easier to read, we decided to present them in bullet form, not unlike powers from 4th Edition.

Format does not equal edition, IMO. If one format is easier to use, then it's easier to use.

Quote:

3. LIFEPATH

Carried over from Foundations, Renaissance introduces lifepaths, which can affect your character in minor or major ways. These have no class prerequisites and with more than 40 of them, should satisfy any player.

IIRC, there was something like this in Midnight, and I thought it was kinda brilliant. Unlike Archetypes or Bloodlines, *anyone* could be 'dragon-blooded' or 'dark aspected' or 'assassin trained,' and gain abilities that aren't utterly class-dependent.

Quote:

4. DUAL CLASSES

We have this idea of creating dual classes—basically some of our classes are broken into two complete sub-classes. Each sub-class shares identical hit dice, saves, skill ranks, class skills, and base attack bonus, meaning they only differ with class abilities. Because both sub-classes are listed as one class, selecting one as your favored class will equate to both being a favored class; you will gain favored class bonuses gaining a level in either class.

Very cool concept. Kind of MMO-ish, IMO (and that's not an insult, I love the way that you can play a Wizard or a Druid in an MMO and have three different wildly different play experiences, depending on which 'branch' of the 'tree' you pursue). Having a Cleric, for instance, alternate levels between being holy-smite faux-fighter machine and 'healer-spec' could be a fun way of having some cake and eating some too, unlike an Archetype, which locks you for life into a single role.

Quote:

8. MULTIPLE MONSTERS

The Pathfinder bestiary offers one orc. We included five different pagus at different challenge ratings and weapon loadouts.

I remember a complaint about one of the later 3.5 Monster Manuals (five, IIRC) that entirely too much of it was seen as 'X with class levels in Y' instead of entirely new creatures.

I think such a thing sounds useful, but it might be a better choice for a follow-up project, like an 'NPC Guide' sort of book, than a core bestiary.

Quote:

10. COMPLICATED CLASSES

Question: Make the classes distinct or stay close to the mold of Pathfinder?

If they remain too close to the Pathfinder mold, there's not much reason to publish them at all, other than to say, 'Like Druid, but with these minor changes.'

And that might be an option, as well. If a class comes out to be almost exactly like a Pathfinder class, it's probably better to just make it an Archetype of that Pathfinder class, rather than call it a class.

[Damon Griffin]

Quote:

1. RACES

Our races, though following Pathfinder mostly, do deviate in one regard. Their ability adjustments are variable.
Question: Is this too confusing and would players prefer fixed adjustments?

Seems perfectly straightforward to me.

Quote:

2. SPECIAL ABILITIES

In an effort to make our race and class features easier to read, we decided to present them in bullet form.
Question: Will readers react coldly to this unusual shift in presentation?

Not a problem. The format is very similar to what Pathfinder uses for feats and spells.

Quote:

3. LIFEPATH

Carried over from Foundations, Renaissance introduces lifepaths.
Question: With archetypes already established, should we shoehorn lifepaths into that?

As others have noted, this sounds like traits rather than archetypes. You should treat it as such.

Quote:

4. DUAL CLASSES

We have this idea of creating dual classes—basically some of our classes are broken into two complete sub-classes.
Question: Would such a mild alteration be accepted?

Not by me; I'd just ignore it.

Quote:

5. POWER-LIKE ABILITIES

We know that some 3rd edition class abilities act like powers without looking like powers.
If a character can do something unique each round, how is that different from an at-will power?
As a result, we've offered certain class abilities that, though balanced and written for 3.75,
do resemble powers (this is related to point 2 above).
Question: Would players accept this or should our classes not deviate from the accepted form?

I dislike power-like abilities that are not readily explainable as supernatural racial or class abilities (and if it's a supernatural class ability it doesn't belong to a fighter, rogue, or other "mundane" class. Even where it makes sense to have such abilities, I dislike in almost all cases the idea they can be used every round all day long without penalty. I don't even like that for Pathfinder cantrips.

Quote:

6. MEDICAL EXPLOITS

In a moment of both genius and madness, we gave our medical operator class a spell list.
These are not spells, mind you, but are gained and operate just as a cleric would gain and use spells.
They are presented as spells, but are actually extraordinary abilities he can use at any time given his
exploit/spell list.
Question: Is such a bizarre application of existing rules too weird to be accepted?

This sounds like a good idea, but if they are gained and used as spells, are they limited to being used 3-4 times a day? Despite my complaint above about unlimited use of power, this seems like something that shouldn't have a fixed limit of uses. Also, the example you gave seems like it might be accomplished using something like Brew Potion. Or perhaps this could be a new use for an old skill (Heal?)

Quote:

7. MONSTER LORE

Simply put, we've included our monster lore from Foundations. We don't have a problem with this.
Question: Do you?

I have no knowledge of Foundations, so I can't comment.

Quote:

8. MULTIPLE MONSTERS

The Pathfinder bestiary offers one orc. We included five different pagus at different challenge ratings.
Question: Should we bother?

If you're careful, yes. Saving GMs work will be appreciated, but the more you write up ahead of time the greater the chance some errata will get through, which can be counterproductive.

Quote:

9. MINIONS

I love minions from 4th Edition.
Question: Should we include such an obvious homage to 4th Edition and is this unwise? Are you guys cool with it?

I'm not cool with anything that adds a new combat rule or monster class when all it amounts to is fewer hit points. If the GM thinks that persons or monsters in the role of minion will typically have fewer hit points than normal for creatures of their type, he canjust reduce the hit points accordingly.

Quote:

10. COMPLICATED CLASSES

Our classes offer a lot of customization, different abilities depending on your basic concept, and abilities trees similar to that in D20 Modern.
Question: Make the classes distinct or stay close to the mold of Pathfinder?

No need to reinvent the wheel. Decide up front whether you want to emulate Pathfinder or d20 Modern and don't mix the two. If the former, start with the Pathfinder core and base classes; add archetypes to modify them. If there's still something so very different in Amethyst from anything you can easily model using those pieces, consider creating a new archetype or prestige class before creating a new class.

[Trikk]

Full disclosure: I would probably not buy this product, but play it if it was introduced by a GM.

1. It's not too confusing, but I think stat modifiers should be like they are in Pathfinder Core: one modifier that's variable or a couple of modifiers that are fixed. To me it represents a diverse race that can excel at anything (in the first case) or a genetic predisposition (in the second case).

2. I prefer the verbose ability format that 3.x uses, even if it is unclear and sometimes prone to poor wording. The bullet point format reads like something from a design document that I'm supposed to program into a video game.

3. Lifepaths are more like traits than archetypes. I think they work on their own.

4. Why not simply give every class two favored classes? Takes way less time to explain and accomplishes the same thing.

5. The key here is that while they act in practically the same way, the fact that they aren't just "hotkey super powers" is what makes the difference. If you just want to make 4e content then why release a book for PF?

6. I think it works, as long as you explain how it works (since you can't hand-wave it as magic).

7. Nope.

8. This differs from GM to GM, but it would be useful for some people I think.

9. I think minions are stupid and don't see a reason for having them given how exp works in PF. You can add low CR creatures to encounters if you want there to be a lot of bodies.

10. The advantage of universal classes like in PF is that you are less prone to take the lead into a specific mold. If you see Rogue 6/Fighter 2 on my character sheet, you have no way of knowing what my character is like. In other systems, if you see my class and spec you will know exactly what my character is about. The more general approach is much more preferred than getting stuck in a specific role, even if you have a wide variety of roles to choose from.