| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Half-orcs. Why do half orcs get shorted race points relative to every other race? Couldn’t they get a bonus feat, bonus skill points, or something? Is there a reason this race has to be the worst in every edition of the game in the CRB? I’ll also chime in with the thought that their ability score bonuses are terrible. +2 Str, -2 any mental, +2 any other might solve both problems.
2. Why do oracles receive a bad fortitude save? We are talking about a class that is already hands down worse than a cleric. Bad spell progression (sorcerer), few spells known despite the divine list, worse primary casting score, and just for giggles lets gimp their fortitude saves. What the hell?
3. Why do witches get the short end of the stick with regard to spells per day compared to literally ever single primary caster in the game? Why don’t they get patron spells like clerics get domain spells? Wouldn’t that make sense, and actually create a reason to possibly take some of the awful patrons that add to the witch list 7 or 8 spells already on the witch list? Come on now. Also, why are they shorted things like lesser restoration, beast form, and other iconic witch powers? I don’t understand the reasoning behind most of the witch list, but they honestly feel like the worst primary caster around.
4. Why must multiclass spellcasters be terrible? This one goes back to 3.5, but really, it’s impossible to play a truly multiclassed spellcaster without it being flat out worse than any single classed character – or any multiclassed martial character. You add options that are ineffective, while splitting ability scores, wealth, and feats between multiple focuses. Awful. On top of that you fall behind in caster level (which weakens even utility magic), spells per day, and spell level available. Awful. Why has there been no attempt to fix this, or even make it remotely playable. I understand wanting pure 1-20 builds in a single class to be attractive, but making other concepts unplayable is a terrible way to do it.
5. Lets talk about cross-blooded. Seems like an awesome cool archtype, until you realize you fall two full levels behind clerics, wizards, and witchs in spell access, and a full level behind oracles and other sorcerers at well. Congrats, you get your first 6th level spell when wizards have had 7th for a level and sorcerers have had 6th for a level. Have fun with that. You also eat it on will saves. The good news, you get an extra bloodline arcane, one extra class skill, and an expanded group of options for feats and bloodline abilities (though not more actual feats or abilities). This seems like a terrible trade for 9 spells known and -2 will, even before you take into consideration that the 9 lost spells are often your only spells of a given level. A 14th level crossblooded sorcerer knowns 2 6th level spells and 0 7th. A 16th level crossblooded sorcerer knows 3 and two respectively (and no 8th). That sounds like twelve kinds of fun.
6. Why is the human favorite class option for the oracle and sorcerer flat out better than every other? I happen to think it’s a good option that adds a lot of flexibility to the classes, but I lament that only a single race has the option. Seems like everyone else gets the short end of the stick.
7. Why did we change save or die spells from ‘everyone save or die’ to ‘PCs save or die?’ These spells are unlikely to one shot any appropriate CR opponent, but are likely to kill PCs (especially those most subject to them). Who thought that was a good change to make? It’s like the designers were halfway towards making them more fun at tables, then abruptly stopped.
8. Why did we fold together move silently and stealth, listen, search and spot, gather information and diplomacy, and tumble and jump, but not swim, jump, and climb? It’s like someone decided “lets make the most popular and used skills easier to get, but keep the less frequently used skills as stand alones. Seriously, this one baffles me on so many levels.
9. Why are the flames, stone, waves, and wind final revelations for the oracle so bad? In all honesty, the moment I saw these I felt I must have read something wrong. I know myself and others gave feedback on this problem during the playtest, so I’m curious as to what the thought process was on keeping them as is. How do these options meaningfully affect the game in the same way as any other class’ capstone?
10. Why do Sorcerers get their capstone 4 levels before everyone else via Robes of Arcane Heritage? I don’t necessarily think the option is overpowered (especially given the fact that they are still a level behind every other core caster in spell access for an unknown reason), but I’m curious as to why they got special treatment compared to everyone else.
11. How do designers think rings of revelation are likely to be encountered in the game? The incredibly specific limitations on their uses (have to be an oracle, have to have the proper revelations, have to be the proper level) seem designed as a giant screw you. That they also sit outside of use magic device also vexes me.
12. Why do transmuters get nicer things than other wizards? Annihilation spec’s seem like one of the hands down best pieces of wizard gear ever published. Why don’t other specializations get similarly nice things? Again, this isn’t so much a matter of OP, as it is favoring certain builds that are already quite powerful.
13. Why did Paizo make an effort to reduce save or die / save or suck spells, then begin adding options for them that are really powerful such as persistent spell in later books?
14. Why are so many bloodline abilities and arcanas so bad? I’m looking at you Starsoul sorcerer with your dazzled (-1 attacks and perception) on a failed save arcane.
15. Why was the SLA option for summoners in the APG beta removed and replaced in UM with a terrible limitied choice SLA option instead? Is there a reason the skill / spellcaster option was removed from the summoner in place of a one size fits all melee brute selection? I recall a bit of outcry over wish and limited wish with the ability (which required the investment of virtually all evolution points), but was every other option so strong as to require a complete removal?
16. As touched on above, why do so many witch patrons grant spells that are already on the witch list? Is this just oversight by developers or is there some secret benefit I’m missing? Portents – REALLY? 8 out of 9 already on the list? How is that not a waste of space?
To be clear, I'm not looking for responses that say "house rule if you have a problem". That's been done in most games I play in. I am simply curious as to why certain rules were done they way they were.
1. Half-orcs. Why do half orcs get shorted race points relative to every other race? Couldn’t they get a bonus feat, bonus skill points, or something? Is there a reason this race has to be the worst in every edition of the game in the CRB? I’ll also chime in with the thought that their ability score bonuses are terrible. +2 Str, -2 any mental, +2 any other might solve both problems.
2. Why do oracles receive a bad fortitude save? We are talking about a class that is already hands down worse than a cleric. Bad spell progression (sorcerer), few spells known despite the divine list, worse primary casting score, and just for giggles lets gimp their fortitude saves. What the hell?
3. Why do witches get the short end of the stick with regard to spells per day compared to literally ever single primary caster in the game? Why don’t they get patron spells like clerics get domain spells? Wouldn’t that make sense, and actually create a reason to possibly take some of the awful patrons that add to the witch list 7 or 8 spells already on the witch list? Come on now. Also, why are they shorted things like lesser restoration, beast form, and other iconic witch powers? I don’t understand the reasoning behind most of the witch list, but they honestly feel like the worst primary caster around.
4. Why must multiclass spellcasters be terrible? This one goes back to 3.5, but really, it’s impossible to play a truly multiclassed spellcaster without it being flat out worse than any single classed character – or any multiclassed martial character. You add options that are ineffective, while splitting ability scores, wealth, and feats between multiple focuses. Awful. On top of that you fall behind in caster level (which weakens even utility magic), spells per day, and spell level available. Awful. Why has there been no attempt to fix this, or even make it remotely playable. I understand wanting pure 1-20 builds in a single class to be attractive, but making other concepts unplayable is a terrible way to do it.
5. Lets talk...
1. Half orcs do not have to take a minus to an ability at creation, they get a +2 to the ability of their choice. Lots of flexibility there, with no perceived weakness.
2. Most classes have at least one bad save category. Oracles get great Will saves. Its a game of choices, deal with it.
3. Witches get Hexes, and from what I have observed, the ability to use a beneficial hex on every member of the party individually, and a harmful hex on every enemy you meet each day, means the witch is hexing and casting far more often than other spellcasters of the same level. The spells are just extra gravy, the hexes are what makes the witch tick.
4. If you spread your attention around to different endeavors, you are not going to be as good in a specialty as someone that devotes all their time to one specific ability. That is true in almost anything, (all talent being equal) in life, not just in the game. Multi-classing is not meant to make a character that is more powerful than a single class character, but as a way to give a player options of different ways to play the character.
5. It's a game of choices. To get something good, you often have to accept something not so good. The game was built so that all classes shine in certain areas, but also that they are lacking in others. That way, the party concept works. You need to rely on others, not just be an army of one.
1. Half orcs do not have to take a minus to an ability at creation, they get a +2 to the ability of their choice. Lots of flexibility there, with no perceived weakness.
You know who else gets the same option and addition ones that add up to 9 or more race points? Humans and half-elves. You've effectively dodged the question entirely. Why do half-orcs get fewer points worth of abilities than every other core race?
2. Most classes have at least one bad save category. Oracles get great Will saves. Its a game of choices, deal with it.
Oracles have worse will saves, worse fortitude saves, get spells later than, and have access to fewer spells (at a time and per level) than a cleric of equal level. I'm fine with choices, I think choice is great. Some being inherently inferior is where I take issue.
3. Witches get Hexes, and from what I have observed, the ability to use a beneficial hex on every member of the party individually, and a harmful hex on every enemy you meet each day, means the witch is hexing and casting far more often than other spellcasters of the same level. The spells are just extra gravy, the hexes are what makes the witch tick.
Depends on the hexes I suppose. It seems to me that the vast majority are either out of combat (cook people), fail to scale meaningfully (healing), or single target, save negates, and requires you to be single class witch your entire career to be meaningful (since the DC is based on witch level).
4. If you spread your attention around to different endeavors, you are not going to be as good in a specialty as someone that devotes all their time to one specific ability. That is true in almost anything, (all talent being equal) in life, not just in the game. Multi-classing is not meant to make a character that is more powerful than a single class character, but as a way to give a player options of different ways to play the character.
Right, the problem is not that they are inferior in some ways and superior in others or that they are not superior everywhere. The problem is that a Cleric8/Rogue8 is probably all but useless to a party. Half of his class features - spells - are likely to have no meaningful effect in a battle. His buffs provide half or less the benefit of a full sorcerer. His debuffs are similarly weak. His caster level is meaningless against CR appropriate foes. Why must the dynamic be better than everyone or worthless? You've once again dodged the question behind a catch-all none-answer.
5. It's a game of choices. To get something good, you often have to accept something not so good. The game was built so that all classes shine in certain areas, but also that they are lacking in others. That way, the party concept works. You need to rely on others, not just be an army of one.
Again dodged the question and deflected the entire discussion. This isn't a question of being good at everything, or trading something for something. It's a question of unequal trades. A level of spellcasting, 9 spells known, and will save for a class skill and a bloodline arcana (often less than the equal of a feat). How is that a reasonable trade? It is one that makes you hands down worse than you would have been before it.
1. The race creater isn't perfect. Half orcs aren't the worst race to choose by far. Versatality is a nice thing to have. +2 to any state, can trade out darkvision(which is good too) for skillpoints, can have a +1 to all saves, have several choices for weapon familiarity. I actually like Half orcs. I'm just attached to playing humans. Many casters are limited to certain races for optimization because they don't have that +2 to cha/wis/int. Kitsune Witch or 2h fighter for instance.
2. Oracles are to Sorcs what Clerics are to Wizards. They may not have envisioned all oracles are men on the battlefield with great fortitude, in fact many have a crippling physical attribute. They aren't bad at all though, full casting is wonderful. Even if spontaneous.
3. Scaling DC means you wait your entire life to be good? Gosh, spellcasters must have it so rough. Hexes are great. There are a lot of awful choices, but many of those are purely flavorful. Misfortune, Slumber, Fortune, Cackle, evil eye. Solid choices that can put foes out of the fight.
4. Multiclassing wasn't a thing for spellcasters in 3.5 or pathfinder. Optimized builds would dip into many priestiges for their class features. I'd argue its harder on martials now, being that they lose so much for multiclassing. In 3.5 multiclassing was the way a lot of martials went, Whirling Frenzy Lion Totem barbarian 1 was fantastic, but probably shouldn't have been necessary.
5. There are worse archetypes. Charlatan rogue for instance. Many archetypes are a nerf to the class they came from, at some point balance between the classes was traded for flavor or forgotten. Some Archetypes are strong and some do nothing.
1. Half-orcs. Why do half orcs get shorted race points relative to every other race? Couldn’t they get a bonus feat, bonus skill points, or something? Is there a reason this race has to be the worst in every edition of the game in the CRB? I’ll also chime in with the thought that their ability score bonuses are terrible. +2 Str, -2 any mental, +2 any other might solve both problems.
They simply forgot to add up the Race Points. If you point this out to a developer they'll post an errata online.
2. Why do oracles receive a bad fortitude save? We are talking about a class that is already hands down worse than a cleric. Bad spell progression (sorcerer), few spells known despite the divine list, worse primary casting score, and just for giggles lets gimp their fortitude saves. What the hell?
That was done purely out of spite. Think of it as a bonus Oracle curse.
3. Why do witches get the short end of the stick with regard to spells per day compared to literally ever single primary caster in the game? Why don’t they get patron spells like clerics get domain spells? Wouldn’t that make sense, and actually create a reason to possibly take some of the awful patrons that add to the witch list 7 or 8 spells already on the witch list? Come on now. Also, why are they shorted things like lesser restoration, beast form, and other iconic witch powers? I don’t understand the reasoning behind most of the witch list, but they honestly feel like the worst primary caster around.
Because the witch's familiar get tired of doing all the work with regards to spells all the time.
4. Why must multiclass spellcasters be terrible? This one goes back to 3.5, but really, it’s impossible to play a truly multiclassed spellcaster without it being flat out worse than any single classed character – or any multiclassed martial character. You add options that are ineffective, while splitting ability scores, wealth, and feats between multiple focuses. Awful. On top of that you fall behind in caster level (which weakens even utility magic), spells per day, and spell level available. Awful. Why has there been no attempt to fix this, or even make it remotely playable. I understand wanting pure 1-20 builds in a single class to be attractive, but making other concepts unplayable is a terrible way to do it.
I have no idea where you're even getting that from. The mystic theurge is totally awesome to the max.
1. The race creater isn't perfect. Half orcs aren't the worst race to choose by far. Versatality is a nice thing to have. +2 to any state, can trade out darkvision(which is good too) for skillpoints, can have a +1 to all saves, have several choices for weapon familiarity. I actually like Half orcs. I'm just attached to playing humans. Many casters are limited to certain races for optimization because they don't have that +2 to cha/wis/int. Kitsune Witch or 2h fighter for instance.
So what you are telling me is, because they get the option of trading some racial traits for others (like with every single other core race and many non-core) its totally cool for them to get shorted RP compared to every other race. That seems like a non-answer.
2. Oracles are to Sorcs what Clerics are to Wizards. They may not have envisioned all oracles are men on the battlefield with great fortitude, in fact many have a crippling physical attribute. They aren't bad at all though, full casting is wonderful. Even if spontaneous.
Ah, it makes more sense now! Wizards get better saves than sorcerers, so clerics should get better saves than oracles. Wait... If your analogy was correct Oracles should have received good fort saves like every other divine caster.
3. Scaling DC means you wait your entire life to be good? Gosh, spellcasters must have it so rough. Hexes are great. There are a lot of awful choices, but many of those are purely flavorful. Misfortune, Slumber, Fortune, Cackle, evil eye. Solid choices that can put foes out of the fight.
No, scaling DCs based on class level means you cannot multiclass out of witch without effectively abandoning the entire class feature. Compare to bloodline arcana, bloodline abilities and school features which though often scaling are not negated. A +3 to an ability score or the ability to teleport as a swift action is always somehow useful. The ability to hit someone with a DC 19 Hex at level 15 is less so.
4. Multiclassing wasn't a thing for spellcasters in 3.5 or pathfinder. Optimized builds would dip into many priestiges for their class features. I'd argue its harder on martials now, being that they lose so much for multiclassing. In 3.5 multiclassing was the way a lot of martials went, Whirling Frenzy Lion Totem barbarian 1 was fantastic, but probably shouldn't have been necessary.
I'd disagree with you on both points. It is entirely possible to build quite powerful martial multiclass characters. A fighter/paladin is a melee monster who is all but unstoppable. A fighter/barbarian receives a flat increase to his attack bonus and damage. There is an inherent trade off in the form of high level abilities, but the character remains basically functional as a fighter or barbarian or paladin. He can still hit and do effective damage.
A cleric/rogue, wizard/sorcerer, and so forth is useless. His spells cannot penetrate spell resistance. He cannot dispel, his nukes do no meaningful damage, he doesn't have access to proper buffs and debuffs or utility magic. He is fundamentally unable to fulfill his role in a party. That caster level does not increase with multi-classing in the same way that every other core statistic does is a tragedy that should have been fixed in Pathfinder.
5. There are worse archetypes. Charlatan rogue for instance. Many archetypes are a nerf to the class they came from, at some point balance between the classes was traded for flavor or forgotten. Some Archetypes are strong and some do nothing.
Access to a 10th level rogue talent at level 3 and an effective +2 on subsequent bluffs. Not great, but not horrible given you are trading only trap finding and trap sense away. That's hardly the same as a full level of spellcasting. That aside, the fact that there are worse archtypes doesn't excuse a bad one.
snipped
:D
or....other Divine casters shouldn't have good Fort saves.
==Aelryinth
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, bombarding the boards with 16 some questions isn't bound to get you the answers you want, especially when you nit-pick the very first response ; it seems like a poorly veiled attempt at trolling. And we only had a million of these threads.
That said let me take a crack at it. The inherent flaw with your complaints is a simple one, you're asking why are these things unequal. My answer to this fundemental question: Things are unequal because they were designed to be so.
-You may ask, Why were they designed such a way?
Pathfinder and 3.X is built on the premise of inequality. Many gamers specifically dislike 4.0 and other games where equality is promenint because they see equality as blandness. If everything is optimial, then choices are meaningless. To differentiate themselves, things are unequal.
-But why does [Insert Option Here] have to be bad?
Cause, it comes back to the fact "we" want these options to be unequal.
Multi-classing was ineherently overpowered in 3.5, there weren't incentives to stay in a class long enough to justify being just one class. Paizo's "fixed" a lot of things, making multi-classing inherently weaker. As a result they've released dozens of archetypes/bloodlines/mysteries/etc to accomedate different concepts so people don't have to multi-class. Some of these options are weak cause they trade off things so they aren't (generally) better than the core class. Casters benefit poorly from MCing because they are already the strongest classes. They inherently become weaker by going to other classes in most cases.
And some options that are "all bad", because they fullfill certain flavorful options that are otherwise niche. Were it better it wouldn't likely be as niche. It's a trade off in mechanical power for flavor.
-Is it right to trade mechanical power for flavor?
Mabye, maybe not. But when the core premise is unbalance, then why not? This is a flexible game. Optimization is only the goal if you make it such, and to that end, it's good that there are better options. It may be a shame option [x] isn't one of them, but it is sorta the point.
Edit: I'd also like to add, that it's not important that the specifically better options are better, it's simply that there are better options. That there is benefit given to system mastery is what's kept the 3.PF crowd here.
I'm willing to give it one more go.
1. I don't think they used RP to measure these classes in the first place, its certainly not perfect. I was just pointing out good options in the race. Without additional options, darkvision, the ability to play a caster of your choice, and free weapon familiarity isn't a bad thing. Can we pick on halflings instead? I always felt like they got shorted.
2. I tried to explain why they might not get fort. Will is a great save, almost every class with spellcasting has it and it is much better than fort only or reflex only, which those poor martials get... Poor fighter doesn't even have a way to bolster it except feats. Oracles can buff themselves. Given time to buff they can be real monsters.
3/4. Lost hex progression is no different than spellcasting. I'd say pure paladin is better, and he doesn't just lose out on high levels he lost some scaling on those abilities he collected so far and spellcasting. I'd say spellcasting is powerful, and if you could multiclass and keep it, it might be hard not to. Cleric 4/wiz 15 with the arcane power of wiz 19... imagine it. Personally I prefered Martial Adept progression myself.
5. I think Charlatan is awful really. Its +2 if you succeed an earlier one(how often do you bluff the same guy twice, and you have to make both), and it gives you a power you already had. Unless spreading a rumor is impossible without that talent.
There certainly shouldn't be bad ones. Most likely they were afraid that 2 bloodlines would be too powerful, and somewhere it was nerfed into oblivion. Would you rather have 2 bloodlines at the cost of a single -2 will?
Some archetypes are just flavorful. There are bad and good choices. I'm not a fan of trap feats or classes being dramatically weaker than others, but its what happens when there are so many options. What do you suggest we do instead?
First, bombarding the boards with 16 some questions isn't bound to get you the answeres you want, especially when you nit-pick the very first response ; it seems like a poorly veiled attempt at trolling. And we only had a million of these threads.
Would you have preferred that I bombard the boards with sixteen different threads each asking one question?
Laying that aside, what answer do you think that I want out of this? I'm interested in seeing if anyone (devs included) can offer a compelling response to any of the above questions. Answer that ignore the question are likely to be picked apart, because they aren't answers at all. When I ask why half-orcs get fewer racial points, and the response I get is that half-orcs are great because they don't take a penalty on ability scores (like the human and half-orc) I don't think it is unfair to observe that the question has not been answered. An opinion has been offered to a question (are half-orcs great?), but it is not an opinion offered that responds to the question.
With regard to trolling, I suppose it depends on how you define the term. That's one that has seen a dramatic expansion in its use. I ask then what do you mean be trolling? Do you think I'm simply here to mock poor answers and start fights? That is not the intent, if so.
That said let me take a crack at it. The inherent flaw with your complaints is a simple one, you're asking why are these things unequal. My answer to this fundemental question: Things are unequal because they were designed to be so.
An interesting premise, and one that has more intellectual legitimacy to it than previous responses (Humphrey Boggard's not withstanding).
-You may ask, Why were they designed such a way?
Pathfinder and 3.X is built on the premise of inequality. Many gamers specifically dislike 4.0 and other games where equality is promenint because they see equality as blandness. If everything is optimial, then choices are meaningless.
Ah, and here is where we diverge in opinion. I think what players hated about 4E was not its ever present concerns about balance (which evidently so many on this forum share, given the number of balance related monster threads I see), but rather its removal of meaningful choice.
While I agree that at some point a given choice is likely to be better than others (though unlike you I think this a simple product of designing in a complex system, rather than an intentional creation) I don't think that legitimizes creating options that are simply bad. Choice, trade offs, can create fundamentally different options for a character. These options may be better or worse in a given situation, but should not be inherently greatly unequal in every situation.
-But why does [Insert Option Here] have to be bad?
Cause, it comes back to the fact "we" want these options to be unequal.
Again, I think the desire is for options to be different, not for them to be unequal. The fighter and paladin are substantially different, but not necessarily unequal. Similarly the cleric and druid are different without one being inherently unequal. A summoner built to be a melee brute and one built to be a spellcasting toy (under the beta rules) were inherently different from each other, without being unequal.
This is in sharp contrast to any two classes in 4E, where they are all built around the surge, daily, encounter, and at will power mechanics.
Multi-classing was ineherently overpowered in 3.5, there weren't incentives to stay in a class long enough to justify. Paizo's "fixed" a lot of things, making multi-classing inherently weaker. They've released dozens of archetypes/bloodlines/mysteries/etc to accomedate different concepts so people don't have to multi-class. Some of these options are weak cause they trade off things so they aren't better than the core class.
I don't think multiclassing was necessarily the problem in 3.5, so much as an ever present power creep associated with publishing 3-5 poorly edited hardcovers a month, each of which commonly added 40 feats and 10-15 prestige classes which could interact with each other in poor ways. I didn't see overpowered Cleric8/Rogue8 in 3.5, but perhaps we were playing at different tables.
Incidentally, that problem still exists in PF and gives rise to things like hippos that combine feats and spells to do hundreds of damage with a single attack.
Laying that discussion aside however, wasn't the basic design idea in PF to buff the core classes so they would remain competitive and compelling options, rather than render every other option worse?
And some options that are "all bad", because they fullfill certain flavorful options that are otherwise niche. Were it better it wouldn't likely be as niche. It's a trade off in mechanical power for flavor. And again, not every option can be optimal because if it were, you'd again be turning on your customers.
Again, I would express that I believe what customers desire is not imbalance, but choice. Providing options that allow you to specialize and become better at one thing at some cost elsewhere is well and good.
Lets pretend for a moment that you are right, and that the design paradigm is to create imbalance under the premise of adding choice. That still fails to answer many of the above questions. Why do some patrons for example add 8 spells to the wizard list that are already present on the witch list? That's hardly a question of creating imbalance to produce choices. Similarly removing the SLA evolution didn't reduce balance as much as reduce options themselves.
just to point out, you do mention that bloodline abilities and others are always useful even if you multiclass out. I take an opposite position, and advise that a lot of them become useless whether you mutliclass or not, because they are meant to be low level abilities. Ranged touch attacks for 1d6 damage do nothing at 10th level for example, and are effectively useless if you multiclass or not.
Cherrypicking the few (the teleport) that do not and claiming otherwise is a fallacy to my mind.
That being said, one of the things the pathfinder devs strive to do is make single classing the preferable avenue. Its a specific design path away from the rampant multiclassing in 3.5. It was stated as an intention, and from the looks of it, they've succeeded. The brunt of your complaints seem to be with this style of developement. I'm not sure that you'll be able to find a resolution, since their stated intentions are the opposite of what you'd like.
Besides half orcs, or whatever.
I'm willing to give it one more go.
1. I don't think they used RP to measure these classes in the first place, its certainly not perfect. I was just pointing out good options in the race. Without additional options, darkvision, the ability to play a caster of your choice, and free weapon familiarity isn't a bad thing. Can we pick on halflings instead? I always felt like they got shorted.
A fair argument, and if it was simply a case of overlooking the difference at creation years before the ARG, that's fine. It's a problem at tables I play at that has been fixed, but I'm curious as to whether or not it was intentional or unnoticed.
2. I tried to explain why they might not get fort. Will is a great save, almost every class with spellcasting has it and it is much better than fort only or reflex only, which those poor martials get... Poor fighter doesn't even have a way to bolster it except feats. Oracles can buff themselves. Given time to buff they can be real monsters.
Sure, but every other divine caster gets good Fort and Will, along with access to every spell on his/her spell list. It seems bizarre to me that the Oracle is the outlier here. Was the class perceived as too powerful with two good saves? My understanding of 3.X design that that generally divine casters were given significant durability on things like fortitude and will saves to mitigate the possibility of their incapacitation through attack types that rely on those abilities which are typically only fixable by divine casters, while also making them more attractive to play than simple heal bots. Why does the Oracle break from the pattern? Is its role expected to be meaningfully different?
3/4. Lost hex progression is no different than spellcasting. I'd say pure paladin is better, and he doesn't just lose out on high levels he lost some scaling on those abilities he collected so far and spellcasting. I'd say spellcasting is powerful, and if you could multiclass and keep it, it might be hard not to. Cleric 4/wiz 15 with the arcane power of wiz 19... imagine it. Personally I prefered Martial Adept progression myself.
Laying aside hexes - because we don't seem to be on the same page here, I'm not suggesting that a multiclassed character should be better than a pure class character. I'm even ok with them not being equal (at least in every respect). Where I get fuzzy is where they are so unequal as to be actively poor choices at tables. A Cleric4/Wizard15 reeps almost no benefit from his cleric abilities. He can use magic items on the cleric list, but his actual cleric spells are unlikely to be meaningful in a conflict with a CR 19. Similarly, he's suffered as a wizard, taking a -4 to caster level, which reduces damage, buff strength, debuff strength, increases weakness to dispel magic, and reduces the wizards ability to penetrate SR from an expected level from ~50% to ~30%. He also has access to lower level spells than a pure wizard (8th vs. 9th) and has fewer spells per day of meaningful levels (7th, 8th, 9th).
That seems like a problem. The trade off is not only inherently unequal, it is so unequal as to make the option almost untenable. I'm not suggesting that the wizard should lose nothing in the trade, but lets say for instance that they stacked caster level at a 50% rate. The wizard then as a caster level of 17, increasing the potency of his spells by 10%, and making them 10% weaker than the full wizard. He's still behind in spells per day and spell level (still having access only to 8th level spells vs. 9th). His cleric spells are now slightly better, with a caster of 12. They are still not likely to be meaningful, but they aren't so useless.
Isn't that a better option than the first? The current situation would be like base attack bonus for a fighter not stacking with that from a paladin. It prevents them from accomplishing basic level expected tasks.
5. I think Charlatan is awful really. Its +2 if you succeed an earlier one(how often do you bluff the same guy twice, and you have to make both), and it gives you a power you already had. Unless spreading a rumor is impossible without that talent.
Then shouldn't your response be that crossblooded isn't the only gimped archtype, and that you'd like to see some support for these weak options or at least a decrease in their numbers moving foward, instead of an observation that the poor options are numerous?
just to point out, you do mention that bloodline abilities and others are always useful even if you multiclass out. I take an opposite position, and advise that a lot of them become useless whether you mutliclass or not, because they are meant to be low level abilities. Ranged touch attacks for 1d6 damage do nothing at 10th level for example, and are effectively useless if you multiclass or not.
Cherrypicking the few (the teleport) that do not and claiming otherwise is a fallacy to my mind.
That being said, one of the things the pathfinder devs strive to do is make single classing the preferable avenue. Its a specific design path away from the rampant multiclassing in 3.5. It was stated as an intention, and from the looks of it, they've succeeded. The brunt of your complaints seem to be with this style of developement. I'm not sure that you'll be able to find a resolution, since their stated intentions are the opposite of what you'd like.
Besides half orcs, or whatever.
Well, lets be clear, both wizards and sorcerers get a pair of 1st level powers. One is a limited use per day ability, typically a small nuke, inserted into the game to make them more capable of doing something other than using a crossbow at 1st level when they cast their 2-4 spells per day. The other is a scaling ability that provides an always on benefit. Things like +1 damage on each die when using fire spells, +1 DC with cold spells, longer duration summon monster, bonuses on initiative and always acting in the surprise round, and bonuses on skill checks.
While the nuke typically becomes laughable at high levels whether you multiclass or not (the difference between a 1d6+1 acid dart and a 1d6+10 acid dart at level 20 is tiny), the always on power is typically always at least somewhat useful. +1 damage per die, a bonus to DC, and a bonus on initiative or bluffs is always somewhat useful. It provides the same relative benefit. The same is not true of hexes, which largely their power tied directly to level. A slumber hex on a witch20 is far more powerful than the same hex on a witch10/loremaster10. That seems sort of unfortunate, especially since both witches have the same number of spells. Thus the argument that hexes balance out for spell loss is somewhat lost on me.
Which is fair. Some witch hexes are fine enough without scaling though. Take fortune and flight for example. On demand featherfall is useful always in the same way that the 5 foot teleport is.
Sure the offensive hexes dont scale well, but thats again part of the design decision to make multiclassing a weaker decision overall.
I am going to try and answer what I can as the mood strikes me. Please understand this is just my take on things.
1. Half-orcs. Why do half orcs get shorted race points relative to every other race? Couldn’t they get a bonus feat, bonus skill points, or something? Is there a reason this race has to be the worst in every edition of the game in the CRB? I’ll also chime in with the thought that their ability score bonuses are terrible. +2 Str, -2 any mental, +2 any other might solve both problems.
Comparing Half-Elves, Humans, and Half-Orcs, the Half-Orcs do come out very slightly behind.
Humans are your mechanically optimized choice in most generic areas. This is simply due to the fact that a flexible feat is very valuable.
Now when we compare Half-Elf and Half-Orc we see that aside from the obviously identical features they have the following to compare.
1.) +2 to Intimidate(Half-Orc) vs +2 to Perception(Half-Elf)
Generally Perception is regarded as the more important skill, however Intimidate is not a waste it is simply only useful for things like Inquisitor Intimidate Builds.
I would say the Half-Elf comes out ahead here.
2.) Dark vision(Half-Orc) vs Low Light Vision(Half-Elf)
Dark vision is a much more powerful ability.
The Half-Orc is ahead at this point even counting the small amount that the Half-Elf was ahead due to a superior skill bonus.
3.) Orc Ferocity(Half-Orc) vs Elven Immunities(Half-Elf)
The Ferocity can be quite useful, however the fact is that elven Immunities are a better overall package and apply to a wider variety of situations.
The Half-Elf is ahead again.
4.) Weapon Familiarity vs Multi-Talented,and Adaptability(Half-Elf).
The big pay off from Weapon Familiarity is the fact that you gain two of the best Martial weapons and a decent exotic double.
If playing a 3/4 BaB class and choosing to melee such as battle Cleric, Inquisitor, or Rogue the access to Falchion can be a powerful thing.
If playing a spell caster the fact that weapon familiarity is wasted makes Half-Elves again the superior choice.
Basically here we are comparing Martial Weapon Proficiency (Falchion) + Martial Weapon Proficency (GreatAxe) + Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Orcish Double Axe) to Skill Focus (Any) + Eclectic.
In short for Martials generally Half-Orc > Half-Elf, and for caster Half-Elf > Half-Orc.
5.) Languages: The Half-Elf is just flat better here.
Summation: The Half-Orc is in my opinion a superior race for many martial builds, however the Half-Elf will be better in builds that make Weapon Familiarity superfluous.
This makes half-Elves very slightly generally more appealing, however this should be examined on a case by case basis.
For RP I personally believe that the RP values used in the Race Builder of the ARG are off.
I would have said that both Half-Orc and Half-Elves are at 7 RP.
Half-Elf
Skill bonus (Perception)2 rp --> 1rp (Skill Bonuses are over priced)
Static bonus feat (Skill Focus)2 rp --> 1 rp(Each Feat should be valued independently as some are just better than others.)
Multitalented 2 rp --> 1 rp (This is basically Static Bonus Feat Eclectic)
Half-Orc
Skill bonus (Intimidate) 2 rp --> 1rp
In short I feel that they are roughly Equivalent and that RP is a bad fine guage of Race power. Now obviously a race with 30 RP is generally stronger than one with 10 RP however when comparing 10 RP to 8 RP it becomes a question of how well the racial abilities synergize.
I feel the thrust for Half-Orcs was to make them more of a Martial race choice and they seem to fill that role adequately.
Dwarves, Humans, and Elves are generally >>> Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs.
This seems to be an intentional design choice to carry forward the Flexiable Human Dominated, Magical Elves, Hardy Wise Dwarves trope from many high fantasy novels/games of older eras.
Which is fair. Some witch hexes are fine enough without scaling though. Take fortune and flight for example. On demand featherfall is useful always in the same way that the 5 foot teleport is.
Sure the offensive hexes dont scale well, but thats again part of the design decision to make multiclassing a weaker decision overall.
Right, but keep in mind that this entire hex discussion is just an offshoot of another question - why do witches get fewer spells per day than every other full caster?
The response I got was because hexes made up the diffference, but you've just more or less agreed (I think) that there is a rough balance to be had between most hexes and the benefits other classes get (when they both multiclass). Which still puts the witch behind in spells per day. It seems odd to me. Does anyone believe a witch capable of preparing her patron spells like a cleric prepares domain spells would be broken?
Most Patron spells are awful, so probably not. Probably wouldn't be overpowered to give hex d/c half progression outside of the witch class either.
I am going to try and answer what I can as the mood strikes me. Please understand this is just my take on things.
Not a problem, all any of us can do is offer our own takes on things. I also understand that it's quite a list of questions, none of which have an easy answer. I appreciate you taking some time to offer your thoughts.
In short for Martials generally Half-Orc > Half-Elf, and for caster Half-Elf > Half-Orc.
Well, I'm not certain I agree in full. In the vast majority of cases the half-orc martial is going to have the meaningful proficiency already. A barbarian, fighter, ranger, and paladin all have proficiency with the greataxe and the falchion as is. You've also written off such proficiency at large for sorcerers and wizards (perhaps less so at 1st level, but certainly more so at higher levels). Druids meanwhile can't use them.
That leaves us with the bard, cleric, and rogue getting a benefit (in core). Overall I might agree that with these classes the half-orc comes out a bit ahead of the half-elf. That's a pretty small list though.
With regard to discussion on the relative merits of race points - I'm on board with you with regard to repricing some things. At times I found the breakdowns very bizarre and questionable. That said, by their own system, the PF guys shorted the half-orc, and what I'm most curious about is the why of it all. Was it simple oversight on their part? Was it, as you've described, that they felt it could be superior in some cases and thus came out fine in the end? The opinion you've offered is the first I've seen that makes a compelling and complete argument in any direction.
Most Patron spells are awful, so probably not. Probably wouldn't be overpowered to give hex d/c half progression outside of the witch class either.
This is probably true of most classes that have abilities tied to class level instead of character level.
Well, I'm not certain I agree in full. In the vast majority of cases the half-orc martial is going to have the meaningful proficiency already. A barbarian, fighter, ranger, and paladin all have proficiency with the greataxe and the falchion as is. You've also written off such proficiency at large for sorcerers and wizards (perhaps less so at 1st level, but certainly more so at higher levels). Druids meanwhile can't use them.
That leaves us with the bard, cleric, and rogue getting a benefit (in core). Overall I might agree that with these classes the half-orc comes out a bit ahead of the half-elf. That's a pretty small list though.
With regard to discussion on the relative merits of race points - I'm on board with you with regard to repricing some things. At times I found the breakdowns very bizarre and questionable. That said, by their own system, the PF guys shorted the half-orc, and what I'm most curious about is the why of it all. Was it simple oversight on their part? Was it, as you've described, that they felt it could be superior in some cases and thus came out fine in the end? The opinion you've offered is the first I've seen that makes a compelling and complete argument in any direction.
For the purpose of the Weapon familiarity, I agree on the fact that perhaps Half-Elf might be preferable for Martials that already have the proficiency.
I do believe however that for Martials Orc Ferocity is stronger in general than it is for casters.
I feel that Half-Orc comes out generally even when speaking about martials who already have the proficiency unless you need to multi-class or need skill focus for your concept/Build.
I think that since the ARG was written after the CRB that the codified system in the ARG, which I feel is weak, was not used when originally designing the Core races.
Looking at Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs from an "Eye-ball" design perspective they seem to vary on a case by case basis and be roughly equivalent.
Thank you for the refreshingly elucidate discussion of your points.
EDIT:I forgot Paragon Surge. This spell alone means that half-elf sorcerers > all other sorcerers...
Ah well.
Now I honestly completely rewrote all races for my next game, so I can understand your frustration, as I added something to both Half races so as to allow for more equality with Humans.
I've also seen some changes in my long running game (though I don't GM). Race changes I've played with for the last four years
Half Orc
Darkvision 60ft.
Ferocity A half orc brought to below 0 hit points but not killed can fight on as if it still had positive hit points for one round. If it is still under 0 hit points at the end of its next turn, it suffers the normal penalties.
Weapon Familiarity: Half-orcs are proficient with greataxes and falchions and treat any weapon with the word 'orc' in the name as a martial weapon.
+2 intimidate
Bonus feat: Half-orcs select one bonus feat.
Humans
Bonus feat
Ambition: Humans gain two benefits for their favored class.
Weapon familiarity. Can choose proficiency in one martial weapon OR one exotic weapon to be treated as martial.
Gnomes
Halflings
Half Elves
Full list of house rules here.
Question two Inquisitive Bugaloo...
2. Why do oracles receive a bad fortitude save? We are talking about a class that is already hands down worse than a cleric. Bad spell progression (sorcerer), few spells known despite the divine list, worse primary casting score, and just for giggles lets gimp their fortitude saves. What the hell?
The three factors which an Oracle gains are the Mystery, Revelation, and Curse class features.
The cleric in comparison has Channeling and Domains.
The mystery effectively grants two things, a list of Revelations, and bonus known mystery spells.
That means we stack the mystery spells which are not normally on the cleric spell list + Revelations against Domain Powers and Domain spells.
Now if you look at the bonus Mystery spells they do contain some spells that are not normally available, such as Enlarge Person and Fog Cloud, however the Cleric domains also allow for access to spells such as Fireball, so in general I would call this a wash.
Clerics can base cast fewer spells per day than oracles, however their extra domain slots, knowledge of all divine spells, and earlier access to spellcasting make them in my opinion superior spellcasters before considering domain powers and revelations.
Comparing Domain powers and Revelations in general Revelations are better with the exception of standouts such as the travel domain, and
the protection domain.
However when you add in channeling the oracle is still slightly behind the cleric.
In short the only design reason that I can see for oracles having a bad fortitude save is the fact that over their progression to level 20 an Oracles curse actually becomes beneficial in many cases. Immunity to exhaustion, tremorsense 30 feet, blindsight 15 ft, immunity to disease, all of these are what I believe knocked the oracle from a good to a poor fortitude save.
In short I partially agree with you and see no problem if the Oracle had a good Fortitude save, however I can see where the designers were coming from and believe that the Oracle is playable and even good as it exists.
Lots of stuff that the board cut off and that I'm not going to address piecemeal.
I suppose that must have been the logic used, though I tend to weigh the two domains (and thus 18 spells) more heavily than revelation spells (9). Similarly with domain abilities vs. revelations.
The curses... I honestly have had bad experiences with. The whole idea of starting out with what can be a huge penalty (deaf, blind) and only slowly getting anything back doesn't seem worth 6 points of fortitude. Of course the deaf curse almost broke our game, so I might be slightly biased. On the whole the fact that the curse mechanic wasn't tied to overall level (as opposed to oracle level) is another of those little things that bugs me.
Even setting aside my prejudice however (or attempting to) I still have trouble seeing how the oracle is the equal of the cleric, when it is behind in almost every, if not every, match-up. The fort save thing is just that extra little kick in the nads. I wonder, if the designers had it to do again, would they change it?
Lots of stuff that the board cut off and that I'm not going to address piecemeal.I suppose that must have been the logic used, though I tend to weigh the two domains (and thus 18 spells) more heavily than revelation spells (9). Similarly with domain abilities vs. revelations.
The curses... I honestly have had bad experiences with. The whole idea of starting out with what can be a huge penalty (deaf, blind) and only slowly getting anything back doesn't seem worth 6 points of fortitude. Of course the deaf curse almost broke our game, so I might be slightly biased. On the whole the fact that the curse mechanic wasn't tied to overall level (as opposed to oracle level) is another of those little things that bugs me.
Even setting aside my prejudice however (or attempting to) I still have trouble seeing how the oracle is the equal of the cleric, when it is behind in almost every, if not every, match-up. The fort save thing is just that extra little kick in the nads. I wonder, if the designers had it to do again, would they change it?
In all honesty I feel that the Oracle is behind the Cleric, just slightly more than the Sorcerer is behind the Wizard, and this is entirely due to differences in design lifetimes.
I do agree that you could most likely add a good fort save to an Oracle and change game balance very very little if at all.
However the Oracle and Sorcerer with proper play and itemization are already tier one classes, so I tend to shrug and just say good enough.
I know that is a lazy attitude, but I honestly have spent a lot of my class balancing time rewriting the Fighter, Rogue, and Monk so :-).
Spontaneous casters tier one? Not quiet... but yes, them being full casters is pretty close to ultimate power though. Curses are wierd, some of them almost don't do anything at all(legalistic) others probably don't represent someone with a good fort save(Lame).
Don't forget to rewrite something about paladin's and how they fall while your balancing those. I hear thats a big thing here.
On a different note, would race balance feel different if you could use any favored class bonus and you could pick where the bonuses and negatives for any race went? Just a thought.
Spontaneous casters tier one? Not quiet... but yes, them being full casters is pretty close to ultimate power though. Curses are wierd, some of them almost don't do anything at all(legalistic) others probably don't represent someone with a good fort save(Lame).
Don't forget to rewrite something about paladin's and how they fall while your balancing those. I hear thats a big thing here.
On a different note, would race balance feel different if you could use any favored class bonus and you could pick where the bonuses and negatives for any race went? Just a thought.
Humm..
I personally feel that with the addition of spells like Paragon surge and items such as rings of spell knowledge and pages of spell knowledge that spontaneous 9 level casters are solidly tier one, however I do agree that the prepared classes are still more powerful due to earlier spell access.
On the race specific Favored Class bonus front humans have the choicest for spontaneous casters followed by Kitsune, however if you could just pick what you like I think it would be overpowered.
I do not like race specific favored class bonuses personally however my players do so I allow them. *Shrug*
1. Beats me, i agree with you that they get the short end of the stick (at least for the medium races), in my games half orcs get the right orc ferocity and not the needlesly watered down version they get.
2. I don't know, maybe because spontaneous casters must be worse than prepared casters?
3. I can't help you here, i don't do witches anymore.
4. This is just something so basic of the system that i don't think that it can be changed without a system overhaul.
5. Don't get me started on crossblooded, but on the fun side it's a really good archetype for dipping (especially for blaster wizards).
6. Because humans should be better? I really don't know and it irritates me too (especially the fact that humans get the same deal on ALL the spontaneous casters).
7. I think that you might be overeacting a bit, i hadn't noticed this in my games (or at least to that degree).
8. Jump is now part of acrobatics and i guess that climb and swim could be one skill called something like athletics, anyway it's a way too minor thingy.
12. Can you please link to what you are talking about, i can't seem to find this "Annihilation spec’s".
13. To make them a little better than they are now but not as good as they were in 3.5.
14. I think i am repeating myself here but i fear that the answer is again that spontaneous casters should be worse than prepared casters(sigh)
15. I don't know i don't do summoners.
16. As i said, i don't do witches.
I find the fact you are complaining that patrons grant spells that are already on the witch list to be hilarious.
Sorceror bloodlines largely grant spells that are on the sorc list. Oh nooz!
Wizard school specialties grant spells that are all on the wizard spell list. Oh nooz!
Cleric domains frequently grant spells that are already on the cleric spell list. Oh nooz!
And witches do the exact same thing. It's just the wizard specialization bonus, re-flavored.
==Aelryinth
I'm not sure if that use of paragon surge was its intended one, and how is it overpowered to pick any favored class if someone else already has it. The logic is usually fluff, not balance.
I should also point out that sorc/wiz/cleric abilities you mentioned all effectively add to the players spell list(spont) or spells per day(prep). Oracles also add spells from their revelation. Witches are the only ones not to get an additional spell per day from that choice, and getting them at even levels means you aren't taking them when they come if its a good choice. I almost never needed spells on my witch, hexes were my first thought and handled most issues that came up.
I find the fact you are complaining that patrons grant spells that are already on the witch list to be hilarious.
Sorceror bloodlines largely grant spells that are on the sorc list. Oh nooz!
Wizard school specialties grant spells that are all on the wizard spell list. Oh nooz!
Cleric domains frequently grant spells that are already on the cleric spell list. Oh nooz!And witches do the exact same thing. It's just the wizard specialization bonus, re-flavored.
==Aelryinth
Right, except these aren't even remotely the same thing. Sorcerers get a strictly limited number of spells known, so adding extra spells no matter the origin is useful. Wizard specialties grant an extra spell slot at a cost, so I'm not sure how they relate at all. Cleric domains grant an extra spell slot and often add spells from off list - in addition to having a choice of two domains.
A witch with the portents patron literally gains nothing except blood biography. No extra slot to prepare the spells on the list if they are ones especially important to the character. No extra spells known on a limited list. It is in no way related to specialization or domains, and is in no way as powerful as sorcerer bloodline spells.
It's a non-addition in most cases. It literally adds almost nothing, especially compared to a patron that adds many spells off list such as lesser restoration, speak with dead, fireball, divine power, miracle, shapechange, and so forth. That's ridiculous.
Oracles are proficient in medium armor actually, and shields. And they have a good will, not fort. All spellcasters except alchemist have a good will save. Several revelations focus entirely on being in melee and tearing into someone with a greataxe(or whatever your weapon of choice is.) The only reason I can think of them being weak in fort is becuase the first curses all focused on physical ailments.
You can create a blanced hybrid, melee, and caster in a game. I've seen it dozens of times. Its not a terrible thing to have options available to you, the result is usually that each of the 3 have their own flavor and options.
If all the classes were close to being the same, in abilities or power, it would be a very boring game.
Concentrate about what is positive with each character, rather than the negative, and you will have much more fun. (I think that is the point of the "game".)
I don't know what you mean by discrepancy. I'm just reading from the print and double checking myself.
Extracts are very similar to spells. You prepare them and they're based off a mental stat. I've always found alchemist kind of wierd though. Doesn't have a caster level either if I remember right, but gets some truly powerful buffing power if given time. I've only played one and I chose to focus on being a skillmonkey and brute instead of the extracts. Level 1, just for fun.
I mean the guidelines I gave are accurate for all the core classes. All medium armor classes get good fort save and no class without medium armor gets good fort save except for Monk. Same applies to Will/Spellcasting and Reflex/Base Skill Bonus >= 6. Beyond the CRB, it kinda follows the rule, but introduces several exceptions as with Oracles having medium armor but no good fort save or Cavaliers having good reflex save but only 4 base skill points. Also, "Very Similar" still isn't "Same As". Alchemists don't have the "Spells" ability. They have the Alchemy (Su) ability which allows them to prepare "extracts" which, while they work as spells, it still isn't technically a spellcasting class and, thus, doesn't get good will save (Will save is the only one that obeys the precedent set in CRB throughout all books).
I think you are looking for a hard and fast rule when there isn't one.
Can someone tell me what is that "Annihilation spec’s" mentioned in number 12?
Annihilation Spectacles. Expensive magical item. Gives you the amazing versatility of changing a transmutation spell you prepared into another transmutation spell.
Personally I'd argue Conjuration is a nicer school, and that necromancy could use cooler school powers.
Annihilation Spectacles
Slot eyes; Price 25,000 gp; Weight 1/4 lb.
DescriptionCreatures viewed through these darkly tinted glasses sometimes seem to flicker briefly in and out of existence.
A transmuter can use these spectacles to spontaneously convert any prepared wizard transmutation spell into any other wizard transmutation spell he knows; the desired spell must be of the same level or lower than the prepared spell. Once per day, he may use the spectacles to spontaneously cast disintegrate in place of one of his prepared transmutation wizard spells of 6th level or higher, even if he doesn’t know that spell.
Thank you.
1. Half-orcs. Why do half orcs get shorted race points relative to every other race? Couldn’t they get a bonus feat, bonus skill points, or something? Is there a reason this race has to be the worst in every edition of the game in the CRB? I’ll also chime in with the thought that their ability score bonuses are terrible. +2 Str, -2 any mental, +2 any other might solve both problems.
2. Why do oracles receive a bad fortitude save? We are talking about a class that is already hands down worse than a cleric. Bad spell progression (sorcerer), few spells known despite the divine list, worse primary casting score, and just for giggles lets gimp their fortitude saves. What the hell?
3. Why do witches get the short end of the stick with regard to spells per day compared to literally ever single primary caster in the game? Why don’t they get patron spells like clerics get domain spells? Wouldn’t that make sense, and actually create a reason to possibly take some of the awful patrons that add to the witch list 7 or 8 spells already on the witch list? Come on now. Also, why are they shorted things like lesser restoration, beast form, and other iconic witch powers? I don’t understand the reasoning behind most of the witch list, but they honestly feel like the worst primary caster around.
4. Why must multiclass spellcasters be terrible? This one goes back to 3.5, but really, it’s impossible to play a truly multiclassed spellcaster without it being flat out worse than any single classed character – or any multiclassed martial character. You add options that are ineffective, while splitting ability scores, wealth, and feats between multiple focuses. Awful. On top of that you fall behind in caster level (which weakens even utility magic), spells per day, and spell level available. Awful. Why has there been no attempt to fix this, or even make it remotely playable. I understand wanting pure 1-20 builds in a single class to be attractive, but making other concepts unplayable is a terrible way to do it.
5. Lets talk...
I am going to start with my general response before getting into specifics. First and foremost, this is a game that is about choice that rewards system mastery. Therefore, at its core it has some good options for characters, some bad options for characters, and some trap options for characters (feats like monkey lunge and prone shooter come to mind). Now as you have seen this mentality goes beyond the basic feats and into just about every option available. It is up to the player to learn the system and apply his knowledge accordingly when creating a character. (Not saying this is a good thing. Just that it is simply an assumption of the 3.5 system that Pathfinder is based off of and, as a result, some of that assumption has carried over into the design of this game).
1) Personally, I think Halflings got shafted more than Half-Orcs. Small size and the Strength penalty hurt their offense (another thing the game rewards) when trying to play martial classes, and the speed penalty isn't doing them an favors while their bonus to CHA doesn't do them many favors beyond Sorcerers and Oracles (not exactly the best casters in the game). But, if the Summoner isn't banned then the class can carry the race, but again if board behavior is an indicator then good luck getting that one approved. Now, yes, the luck bonus to saves is handy and stacks with almost everything and the perception boost is always welcome while the +2 against fear (look everyone it's Bravery as a racial ability!) isn't worth talking about neither is the bonus to climb (but I would say acrobatics is a wash, neither good or bad). Also, are their any halfing weapons? I can't honestly remember hearing of one. Now, yes, they don't work is you want a defensive character, but again the system itself rewards offense over defense which still puts them behind. So, yeah half-orcs are not great, but they certainly don't have it as bad as halflings (regardless of what the advanced race guide says).
2) Why do fighters have a bad will save? Honestly, I agree Oracles having a bad fort save isn't good, and all class in my opinion should get two good saves (while the monk retains his 3 good saves).
3) The reason they get so few spells per day are because hexes are what are supposed to carry the class (and when I say hexes I mean Fortune, Misfortune, Cackle, Slumber, and Evil Eye maybe throw Flight into the mix but it is certainly less of a consideration that the others). Also, yes, the patrons should grant abilities similar to domains as their are several that simply aren't worth taking as they do nothing for you beyond give you spells you already have on your list. If not that then the spells from the patrons need to be reworked so as to not have redundancy with the Witch spell list. As far as spells that are not on the list that should be I would gripe far more about not having shield than I would about the others, but again Witch comes into its own through the hexes not the spell list.
4) Now this I will dispute as a Paladin Oath of Vengeance 4/Sorcerer with a Gold Dragon Bloodline 2/Dragon Disciple 10/Eldritch Knight 4 can actually be pretty darn effective. Now multiclassing in general in Pathfinder is going to make you weaker overall unless you have a really specific idea in mind and a clear goal to work toward (such as the progression above), but that doesn't mean it can't be done at all (even as a multiclassed spellcaster).
5) Cross-blooded overall is a weaker archetype for anything that goes beyond pure blasting (which in and of itself is a weak choice),so yes, you are again correct in that as a general build this archetype isn't really worth it.
6) Because some choices in the game are flat out unbalanced and better than others because this is not a game that considers balance to be all that important as a primary goal. Again, in short, this is a game that rewards system mastery and stacking already good options on top of each other just as its base system 3.5 did.
7) No clue. I honestly haven't investigated this well enough to confirm or deny your allegations (or really to argue effectively on the point at all). If this is the case it would strike me as odd as the rules for PCs, NPCs, and Monsters are not suppose to be all that different from one another.
8) I don't mind the way they rolled skills up (although I do agree that climb, swim, and jump should be one skill). I do mind in how those skills are allocated into classes themselves (no perception for the fighter just because).
9) Again, trap choices are apart of the game. Flavor is the king of Pathfinder not mechanical balance. If balance was the king of the game then Monk vows would have been presented differently.
10) Because Sorcerer's need nice things the most? Again not sure as to the specifics, but it was probably be designed as something that was nice to have and reward those that found it first.
11) Don't know. Maybe they wanted them to be Oracle only items and an exception to the rule when it came to UMD. Personally, I would bring it up as an FAQ request and see where it goes if you're worried about it.
12) I would dispute this assertion as well. Transmuters are good, but Conjurers are still the kings of wizards in my mind.
13) Save or Suck spells are generally bad to begin with in Pathfinder. This could simply be an effort to actually correct an imbalance they saw in the game (maybe they thought they went too far one way on it), but I am not sure.
14) Trap choices. They exist. Not everything in the game is going to be good, and some are just going to suck.
15) Don't know never saw the Summoner beta test. On general principle I think the Summoner flat out needed more play test time and possibly a rewrite to make the Eidolon close to the druid's animal companion, but that is rather different than the question you originally posed.
16) Because some patrons are designed to be bad while some are designed to be terri-bad. Honestly, I don't know why they added patrons that only grant witch spells, but I certainly agree that it was a bad idea in general.