Monk Abundant Steps into the bad guys and Flurries them 6 ways to Sunday.
Mage drops some AoE effect and then Dimension Doors the party into melee range, letting the actual combat classes get full-attacks off without needing to move.
Yes, the Monk made better use of the feat. Meanwhile the Mage's group had an easier time with the encounter.
Now you're getting into Schrodinger's Wizard.
I don't know a wizard who doesn't take DD, and I think it was just an example of something. That monk is schrodinger's monk. He was at least 12th level and had 2 ki points to spare.
12th level is about average.
For who? Schrodinger's game now. (the point was I can point to any circumstance as schrodinger btw.)
|
And, to keep the discussion "pure," I avoided bringing magic items into the comparison. You can mention how Pearls of Power make Wizards better, but at the end of that line of thought, both casters have enough staves/wands/wonderous items/etc. that they're both fully prepared for anything, and both have nearly identical spells per day.Prepared casters have a much easier time crafting, using and benefiting from scrolls and other consumables, though. And simply increasing your casting attribute (which is something all casters do as much as they can!) also provides more spell slots per day.
Lenny, please!
Pathfinder has added a good number of feats, preferred class options and magic item to add extra spell know, making rings and wondrous items don't require to know the required spells, so it is not hard at all to make the most important magic items.Thanks to page of spell knowledge a sorcerer with craft wondrous items and the money can add any spell from any sourcebook with a spellcraft check.
A cheaper option? Craft wondrous items, 2.500 gp and a captured spellbook. Craft a Mnemonic Vestment.
You need more than 1 extra spell know every day? Craft another vestment, there is no limit on how many you can use in a day.
Last I checked, there's an Oracle archtype that gives Trapfinding.
|
|
If you suddenly bring into play the fact the wizard can BUY spells, then the sorcerer can spend gold on Pages of Spell Knowledge, etc, and ALSO increase his numbers of spells...with the caveat that his aren't buried in a book, they are always available. It may be more expensive then the wizard, but an additional 5-10 spells can do wonders for the all-around versatility of a sorc, while similar things generally just take up space in a wizard's book.Understatement of the year? ;)
It's literally 100x more expensive for the Sorcerer to learn a new spell than it is for a Wizard.
5.000 gp once for a Mnemonic Vestment (2.500 if you craft it yourself) plus the price of paying a wizard or magus to write a new spell in your spellbook. What would be that? another 50% above the price of buying a new spell and copying it?
We totally agree on Rogues and skills, but I'm gonna fight ya on this one. ;)
Well, sure. But it's 100x more effective for the Sorc to learn new spells and always have them at his fingertips, then it is for the wizard to be wishing he had The Perfect Spell in memory instead of sitting in his books.Wizards get Scribe Scroll at first level for free. They can have the spell "at their fingertips" just like the Sorcerer can.
In fact, taking a 9th level spell for example, a Wizard can copy a Time Stop into his spellbook, and then make 40 scrolls of it, and still have paid slightly less money than the Sorcerer paid for just a single Time Stop Page of Spell Knowledge. (And for every spell level you drop, the number of scrolls that Wizard can make for the same price goes up. ;) )
Now, Now. You're employing the cost effectiveness of a Create feat against standard costs.
how about both sorc and wiz get Craft Wondrous item? That way the Sorc gets his pages at half cost.
now, there's a 20 scroll difference, no need to draw and find a spell from a selection, or get an AoO for trying to read one, wasting actions.
Also, you're basically saying that the wizard is going to have 20 scrolls available for every Spell Knowledge page the sorc has. that is a LOT of scrolls to be toting around, and yet the sorc will effectively have 5-6+ of whatever spell available all the time, every time.
If you just add Versatile Spontaneity to the equation, the sorc can prepare that 1/day niche spell in one of his copious spell slots, and save it for emergencies. He won't even need the scroll.
And kindly note the sorc has 'buy scrolls' as a play ability, costing nothing. 10 scrolls of the niche spells for the same cost as the wiz makes 20, and have them available when he absolutely, positively has no other choice, is all fine. The wizard's 'niche spell ability' is getting assaulted from all directions, now!
Oh, and let's not forget the Human FC ability to add Spells Known. Each of those is monstrously valuable, starting at 1k and going all the way up to 64k gp EACH. +3 8th level spells!
==Aelryinth
And of course, let us not forget the Ring of Spell Knowledge
Sure, it's only restricted to levels 1-4, or levels 1-3 if you're using spells NOT ON THE WIZARD LIST, but it basically means every day you can get a different lower level spell on your SPells Known.
Which means in downtime, all you need is a wizard's spellbook and spellcraft check to 20, and you're spamming any niche spell under level 5.
Btw, what's the name of the magic item that gives Sorcs extra casting slots? (their version of the Pearl of Powr)
==Aelryinth
BAB and saves that are less than full should lag behind full by a fixed number, not drop further and further behind as you rise in level.
Well, sure. But it's 100x more effective for the Sorc to learn new spells and always have them at his fingertips, then it is for the wizard to be wishing he had The Perfect Spell in memory instead of sitting in his books.
---------------------
People may rightfully hate the 3e skill point system, but it was a hardcore nerf to the Rogue, the same way granting multiple attacks, higher BAB, and higher HP to all the other classes was a hardcore nerf to the FIghter.If you wanted skill points in 3.5, you took a level in Rogue. You did it because you had to. It was like if you wanted to learn wizard spells, you took a level in wizard.
Skill points were VALUABLE. Just because every class got them, everyone screamed they wanted more. ANd rogues had more of that precious resource then anyone, and could use them to full strength.
In PF? Meh. There are no skill monkeys, because anyone can have the skill. Rogues completely lost their 'sweet spot'. Skill points are only valuable in passing, and access to skills even less so.
You may not like it, but cross-class skills made Rogues IMPORTANT. They don't have that, now.
I consider cross-class skills no different then not getting free caster levels when you take another class. What do you mean, my caster level in cleric doesn't go up because I took 4 levels in fighter! His BAB went up, why shouldn't my caster level?!?
I looked at Cross-class skills the exact same way. You had limited skill points, the same way you had limited BAB, or limited caster level if a paladin or ranger. If you were a Rogue, you got Full Skill Points and Skills. It was no different.
Do me a favor and look at your PF characters with Cross-class skill point penalties. You'll probably be looking at the rogue a bit differently again, won't you? exactly as it should be.
==Aelryinth
Instead of gimping everyone with cross class skills, why not make Rogues better at using skills? Let them reroll skill checks, give them a scaling bonus to skills, give them access to "skill tricks" of some sort.
Better yet, do that and make it so "skill guy" is not the only thing they have going for them. All other skilled classes have a bunch of useful stuff, and not one of them is OP. In fact, Bards, Inquisitors and Rangers are some of the best balanced classes in the game.
Give Rogues more "debuff" stuff like the Rogue talents that cause Str damage or stop enemies from making AoO. Sneak Attack, like Monk's scaling unarmed damage die, is a mediocre class feature that has been used time and time again to justify making the class ineffective.
I'd rather have Rogues lose it or have its progression halved and be able to add Int to damage roll. This gives Rogues an actual reason for boosting Int and makes their damage less situational and more reliable, which tends to be much better.
Bring back cross-class skills would be like reducing every full BAB class to medium BAB so that Fighters can shine.
You can't have any one class be the "undisputed master" of combat.
What about Barbarians? What are they the master of?
Or Paladins, or Monks, Rangers, Cavaliers, etc. etc. etc.And when you say "combat," that's an incredibly broad term. What exactly do you mean?
If Fighters are the "undisputed masters of combat" and Barbarians are the "undisputed masters of savagery" then is the Fighter better at savage combat than the Barb? I'm confused...
That is kind of the point. The fighter class was basically nerfed from 2nd ed to 3.0 and never really recovered. I would give the fighter better saves, Paladins would get even better saves and instead of +16/+11/+6/+1 I would just give them 4 attacks at +16 and eliminate the reliance on full attacks.
Damage would be scaled down though for most of the classes and ost scaling buff spells for example would be nerfed. The game would still look like a 3.5 type game as fighters would retain their bonuses feats and +20 BAB but I would overhaul the numbers, classes and combat chapter.
One would still have save or dies/save or suck spells they would just not be as good as they are. Druid animal companions would go back to being a familiar type pet rather than a combat wombat wild shape would be limited to large forms only. I would also consider capping cleric and Druid spells at level 7 like AD&D.
The spell caster do take a hit but they can still teleport, fly etc and the non casters can't. What broke 3rd ed was a lot of the changes from AD&D to 3.0 and Pathfinder has inherited a few of those problems like the game not really working at higher levels although AD&D was not much better there (broken at level 14+ as opposed to 9+).
There would be a small focus on balance but I would not carry it to extremes like 4th ed. You get hit by a save or suck and blow a save? Oh well poo happens. The main 4th ed influence I suppose in my "fixed" 3.5 would be on the monsters. In theory you could pick up a hypothetical PF 2 and recognize it as a descendant of 3.0. You would have BAB, feats, and most spells would be the same or resemble ones you know. Just things like divine favor/power might have a static number like +2 or +4 to them rather than +1/3 levels.
I more or less stopped buying Paizo products at the end of 2012 after 10 years just because I am sick of 3.x as it is. 4E blows so I have been playing retroclones for my D&D fix so to speak. I think some aspects of TSR era D&D could add something to 3.x games while still having a 3.x type game. I would draw on AD&D and 3.5 books from 2004/2006 and PF splat books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the thread title : mistakes in pathfinder due to faulty ALL edition d&d assumptions.
The worst thing in 3.0 all the way through to 4th and Pathfinder are all basically cludge fixes for the mess that having character classes &, levels cause , in my opinion.
Classes = atereotypes. In order to make stereotypes more flexible, you either have more classes, kits, or feats. Which leads to balance problems and excessive complextiy.
Levels leads to an assumption that almost every encohpunter will be balanced ; when it isnt all sorts of fixes are attempted to"nerf" this, that or the other. Without the faulty assumption that encounters should be balanced, alot of those vanish too.
But then, you might argue that without that ,its not D&d/Pathfinder, and I'd find it difficult to disagree. But then, I dont think D&d /Pathfinder is the greatest system out there...jut the best playtested and most easily available (due to its huge number of players).
P.s. Thats not to put any hating on it- I think the system fits neatly into the "decent enough" bracket, and paizo have done some good stuff with/ for the game... But really, I'd prefer to see the game with professions rather than classes , and then those professions only used in character generation, not during gameplay...something like a BRP/Pathfinder or skyrim/pathfinder hybrid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the mistakes I see boil down to things from 3e being tweaked in pathfinder. Basically, "Wait, the spell doesn't do that anymore?"
Instead of gimping everyone with cross class skills, why not make Rogues better at using skills? Let them reroll skill checks, give them a scaling bonus to skills, give them access to "skill tricks" of some sort.
See also: Rogue Talents.
For example:
Fast Stealth (Ex): This ability allows a rogue to move at full speed using the Stealth skill without penalty.Ledge Walker (Ex): This ability allows a rogue to move along narrow surfaces at full speed using the Acrobatics skill without penalty. In addition, a rogue with this talent is not flat-footed when using Acrobatics to move along narrow surfaces.
Quick Disable (Ex): It takes a rogue with this ability half the normal amount of time to disable a trap using the Disable Device skill (minimum 1 round).
Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should be made in secret by the GM.
Assault Leader (Ex): Once per day, when the rogue misses with an attack on a flanked opponent, she can designate a single ally who is also flanking the target that her attack missed. That ally can make a single melee attack against the opponent as an immediate action.
Befuddling Strike** (Ex): When the rogue deals sneak attack damage against an opponent, that opponent takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls against the rogue for 1d4 rounds.
Camouflage (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent can craft simple but effective camouflage from the surrounding foliage. The rogue needs 1 minute to prepare the camouflage, but once she does, it is good for the rest of the day or until the rogue fails a saving throw against an area effect spell that deals fire, cold, or acid damage, whichever comes first. The rogue gains a +4 bonus on Stealth checks while within terrain that matches the foliage used to make the camouflage. This ability cannot be used in areas without natural foliage.
Canny Observer (Ex): When a rogue with this talent makes a Perception check to hear the details of a conversation or to find concealed or secret objects (including doors and traps), she gains a +4 bonus.
Charmer (Ex): Once per day, the rogue can roll two dice while making a Diplomacy check, and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Diplomacy check. A rogue can use this ability one additional time per day for every 5 rogue levels she possesses.
Coax Information (Ex): A rogue with this talent can use Bluff or Diplomacy in place of Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward her.
Cunning Trigger (Ex): A rogue with this talent can use a swift action to set off any trap within 30 feet that she constructed.
Expert Leaper (Ex): When making jump checks, the rogue is always considered to have a running start. Also, when the rogue deliberately falls, a DC 15 Acrobatics check allows her to ignore the first 20 feet fallen, instead of the first 10 feet.
Fast Fingers (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent can roll two dice while making a Sleight of Hand check and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Sleight of Hand check. A rogue can use this ability one additional time per day for every 5 rogue levels she possesses.
Fast Getaway (Ex): After successfully making a sneak attack or Sleight of Hand check, a rogue with this talent can spend a move action to take the withdraw action. She can move no more than her speed during this movement.
Fast Picks (Ex): A rogue with this talent can use the Disable Device skill to attempt to open a lock as a standard action instead of a full-round action.
Follow Clues (Ex): A rogue with this talent can use Perception to follow tracks as per the Survival skill.
Guileful Polyglot (Ex): A rogue with this talent who has at least one rank in Linguistics gains four additional languages. A rogue with this talent who does not have any ranks in Linguistics gains two additional languages. If the rogue later gains ranks in Linguistics, she gains two additional languages, to a total of four additional languages above those granted by the Linguistics skill itself.
Hard to Fool (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent can roll two dice while making a Sense Motive check, and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Sense Motive check. A rogue can use this ability one additional time per day for every 5 rogue levels she possesses.
Honeyed Words (Ex): Once per day, the rogue can roll two dice while making a Bluff check, and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Bluff check. A rogue can use this ability one additional time per day for every five rogue levels she possesses.
Nimble Climber (Ex): When a rogue with this talent fails a Climb check by 5 or more, she can immediately make another Climb check at the surface's base DC +10. If successful, she stops her fall by clinging onto the surface. The rogue does not take falling damage when she stops her fall in this manner.
Peerless Maneuver (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent can roll two dice while making an Acrobatics check, and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Acrobatics check. A rogue can use this ability one additional time per day for every 5 rogue levels she possesses.
Quick Disguise (Ex): A rogue with this talent can use the items at hand and seemingly innocuous material hidden on her person to create startlingly effective disguises, reducing the amount of time it takes to create a disguise using the Disguise skill.
The time needed for the rogue to alter her appearance in this manner is based on the complexity of the disguise, as noted on the following table. The times are cumulative, so if a female rogue wants to disguise herself as a male of a different race, that takes 2 minutes.
<table omitted>Quick Trapsmith (Ex): As a full-round action, a rogue with this talent can set a simple trap with a CR no greater than 1/2 her rogue level. To do this, she must purchase the components, spend the required time constructing the trap in advance, and have its components at hand. The type of trap that can be constructed in this way is subject to GM discretion.
Survivalist: A rogue with this talent adds Heal and Survival to her list of class skills.
Fast Tumble (Ex): When a rogue with this talent uses Acrobatics to move at full speed through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity, the DC of the Acrobatics check does not increase by 10.
Frugal Trapsmith (Ex): When a rogue with this talent constructs a mechanical trap, she only pays 75% of the normal cost.
Master of Disguise (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent gains a +10 bonus on a single Disguise check.
Thoughtful Reexamining (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent can reroll a Knowledge, Sense Motive, or Perception skill check to try to gain new or better information from the roll. This reroll can be made any time during the same day as the original check.
Convincing Lie (Ex): When a rogue with this talent lies, she creates fabrications so convincing that others treat them as truth. When a rogue with this talent successfully uses the Bluff skill to convince someone that what she is saying is true, if that individual is questioned later about the statement or story, that person uses the rogue's Bluff skill modifier to convince the questioner, rather than his own. If his Bluff skill modifier is better than the rogue's, the individual can use his own modifier and gain a +2 bonus on any check to convince others of the lie. This effect lasts for a number of days equal to 1/2 the rogue's level + the rogue's Charisma modifier.
Deft Palm (Ex): A rogue with this talent can make a Sleight of Hand check to conceal a weapon while holding it in plain sight, even while she is being observed.
Esoteric Scholar (Ex): Once a day, a rogue with this talent may attempt a Knowledge check, even when she is not trained in that Knowledge skill.
Getaway Artist (Ex): A rogue with this talent adds Fly, Handle Animal, and Ride to her list of class skills, and gains a +2 bonus on all driving checks.
Rope Master (Ex): A rogue with this ability can move at her normal speed when using rope on a Climb check, can take 10 when using Acrobatics to move over narrow surfaces even when in danger or distracted, and gains a +4 bonus when determining the DC to escape bonds when she ties up a creature.
Strong Stroke (Ex): A rogue with this talent rolls twice when making Swim checks and takes the better result. If she already rolls twice while making a Swim check because of another ability or effect, she gains a +2 insight bonus on both of those rolls instead. If the rogue is under the effect of a spell or ability that forces her to roll two dice and take the worse result, she only needs to roll 1d20 while making Swim checks.
Terrain Mastery (Ex): A rogue with this talent gains a favored terrain as the ranger ability of the same name, though the favored terrain ability does not increase with her level as the ranger's ability does. A rogue can take this ability multiple times, each time applying it to a new terrain, and granting all other favored terrains a +2 increase to the favored terrain bonus.
Underhanded* (Ex): A rogue with this talent gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all Sleight of Hand checks made to conceal a weapon. Furthermore, if she makes a sneak attack during the surprise round using a concealed weapon that her opponent didn't know about, she does not have to roll sneak attack damage, and the sneak attack deals maximum damage. A rogue can only use the underhanded talent a number of times per day equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 0).
Wall Scramble (Ex): A rogue with this talent rolls twice when making Climb checks and takes the better of the two rolls. If she already rolls twice while making a Climb check because of another ability or effect, she gains a +2 insight bonus on both of those rolls instead. If the rogue is under the effect of a spell or ability that forces her to roll two dice and take the worse result, she only needs to roll 1d20 while making Climb checks.
Getaway Master (Ex): A rogue with this talent gains a +10 bonus on all drive checks. The rogue must have the getaway artist rogue talent before choosing this talent.
Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): A rogue with this talent can select a single terrain from the ranger's favored terrain list. She is a master at hiding in that terrain, and while within that terrain, she can use the Stealth skill to hide, even while being observed. A rogue may take this advanced talent more than once, each time selecting a different terrain from the favored terrain list.
Rumormonger (Ex): A rogue with this talent can attempt to spread a rumor though a small town or larger settlement by making a Bluff check. She can do so a number of times per week equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 0). The DC is based on the size of the settlement, and it takes a week for the rumor to propagate through the settlement. If the check succeeds, the rumor is practically accepted as fact within the community; succeeding by 5 or more over the DC decreases the time it takes the rumor to propagate by 1d4 days. A failed check means the rumor failed to gain traction, while failing by 5 or more causes the opposite of the rumor or some other competing theory involving the rumor's subject to take hold.
Plus some archetypes have several "skill tricks" as well; a lot of class archetypes do, but rogues especially.
I'd say it'd be nice if talents were a little more consistently designed and/or maybe some were more genericized (rather than 8 talents that let you roll two dice and take the highest, make one where you choose from a pool of skills), that feature's there.
(And yes, cross class skills are dead and thank goodness for it.)
Instead of gimping everyone with cross class skills, why not make Rogues better at using skills? Let them reroll skill checks, give them a scaling bonus to skills, give them access to "skill tricks" of some sort.See also: Rogue Talents.
Yes... Unfortunately Rogue Talents are terrible. How many of those are plain terrible?
The vast majority of them is extremely situational, offers minuscule benefits and/or can only be used a limited number of times per day, despite being completely mundane in nature.
And none of them fixes the issue with Rogue's AC and awful saves.
I have a homebrew Rogue fix that is basically a revision of many Rogue Talents. And a few extra class features, such as Poison Use and Improved Evasion.
Good Rogue Talents could possibly fix the Rogue class. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll be seeing many of of them anytime soon.
- I absolutely believe there should be a d10, full BAB class that is designed around martial arts. I do not believe Pathfinder has satisfyingly provided such a class, not even with the unarmed fighter archetype.- I do not think this d10, full BAB martial arts class should be the monk.
- I think the monk should be more of a skilled mystic with some martial arts skills.
- I think the monk tries to be a skilled mystic with some martial artist, but it is a very poorly, inconsistently designed one. Some of the monk archetypes get much closer to what I personally think the monk should be.
- But if I saw the monk I really wanted, it would still be a d8/3/4 BAB class (that would also exist alongside a separate d10/full BAB martial artist class).
Perhaps one of the hybrid classes that haven't been announced for the Advanced Class Guide is a Fighter/Monk cross that fulfills this wish? :)
As to the flaws in the game that have been brought up in this thread...well it has never been perfect, but it has always tried to capture the feel of the archetypes in question. Sometimes it succeeds and other times it fails. Trying to generate a story-telling system and integrating it with a tactical game system has always been a hard chore. The fact that so many editions exist is testament to the fact that no one has ever gotten it exactly right.
One of the problems I have had with Pathfinder can be found in the solution to the multi-class/prestige class glut of 3.5. By making the base classes better, the designers attempted to make characters that stuck to one class as good as those that multi-classed or went for prestige classes. But they ended up making sticking with one class better than multi-classing, resulting in very few people playing with multi-class characters. The reaction was stronger than the initial action.
So even when trying to adjust from 3.5, things don't always improve. Sticking with some rules that aren't great but for which a viable alternative is tricky to come by is the safest option until someone comes up with a real solution to the problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate cross-class skills because it hurts the sense that each character is unique. That sense should be broken only occassionally and with good cause in the background. Traits manage that well.
Conversely, traits and feats that make skills class skills always become hugely valuable if you have cross-class skills. They raise the value of someone who is good with skills, and make characters more unique, not less. As it is now, the Traits give a +1, and +3 for class skill...essentially up to +4 to a skill if you don't have it on your class list.
If you have cross-class, that Trait only gets MORE valuable with levels. At level 10, it's worth 9 skill points!
The ranger, bard and inquisitor make great skill monkeys because NONE of those three are at all reliant on skills the way a rogue is/was. All three have magic. All have non-skill reliant combat abilities.
The Rogue Talents that accentuate skills should simply be given to Rogues with the appropriate levels and skill Ranks to qualify for them. Forcing them to burn a feat/talent for minor niche skill enhancements is idiotic.
Someone with Rogue levels and a lot of skill Ranks should be a terrifyingly diversified, tricky and dangerous person. He still couldn't outshine a spell at doing something in particular, but all the time, he could be THAT cool. His ability to use skills should be on the level of Batman or the Black Widow.
==Aelryinth
cross-class skills don't make Rogues a good class. It just nerfs everyone. In the same way that long feat chains don't make Fighters a better class..
It's much better to buff underpowered classes than bring everyone down to their level, or make the underpowered classes 'good" by crippling everyone.
Cross-class skills just remove character variety. Everything that removes viable options does. Cross class skills make very character have the exact same skills because they punish so harshly characters who try to diversify their skills. They were a terrible mechanic.
Actually, I'm not.
I'm approaching it from the fact by making skills valuable, you make the class that gets a lot of skills and class skills valuable in comparison.
I'm showing the value of that, and how it instinctively changes your mindset. Getting skills, skill points and class skills becomes a precious thing.
I don't see why having a Trait that grants a class skill isn't even COOLER under a cross-class system. It's much more valuable, and the person who has it even rarer and more unique.
The problem is that people want all the skill point goodness without having to multiclass. I consider that similar to wanting spellcasting without taking spellcaster levels, or full BAB without being a full BAB class. Because everyone gets skill points and BAB, they automatically devalue both vs spellcasting, and they shouldn't.
==
I would also like to point out that the Rogue is not the skill class in PF. That very specifically is the Bard (just look at all the skill abilities in the base class) now. The rogue is, the, um, Sneak Attack class. Yeah.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that people want all the skill point goodness without having to multiclass. I consider that similar to wanting spellcasting without taking spellcaster levels, or full BAB without being a full BAB class. Because everyone gets skill points and BAB, they automatically devalue both vs spellcasting, and they shouldn't.
Apples and oranges, eh? Alternatively, view it like people say to view it, where cross class really did hurt the system more than help. It made it extremely difficult to make a character who could do anything but his pre selected class skills. Skills weren't valuable, just harder to do. There's more than a slight difference. What's more, everyone needs skills in this system, its how you jump, know things, and talk to people. Its a good thing that everyone can do skills, but its a bad thing that rogue isn't good at much(even skills...) There's likely a much better solution than making everyone else weaker.
Never been a fan of niche protection myself. Means you need a particular kind of person. I like everyone to be competent rather than have everyone die because your missing someone.
Instead of gimping everyone with cross class skills, why not make Rogues better at using skills? Let them reroll skill checks, give them a scaling bonus to skills, give them access to "skill tricks" of some sort.See also: Rogue Talents.Yes... Unfortunately Rogue Talents are terrible. How many of those are plain terrible?
The vast majority of them is extremely situational, offers minuscule benefits and/or can only be used a limited number of times per day, despite being completely mundane in nature.
And none of them fixes the issue with Rogue's AC and awful saves.
I have a homebrew Rogue fix that is basically a revision of many Rogue Talents. And a few extra class features, such as Poison Use and Improved Evasion.
Good Rogue Talents could possibly fix the Rogue class. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll be seeing many of of them anytime soon.
Like I said it would be nice if they were more consistently designed (some are awesome, some not so much. Actually I think most of the skill based ones are pretty nice, but some of them with limited uses per day need to be changed so they can be used more often or be more powerful enough that a once-per-day limit actually makes sense).
What I'm getting at is the MECHANIC exists already. What fills in the mechanic just needs to be designed better across the board. IIRC Rogue Talents were added late and not tested in the open beta, which probably accounts in part for why they are very inconsistent in terms of utility. But you don't need to add anything new to the rogue, you just have to take what the rogue has been given and make it work better.
The thing is... You wouldn't lower everyone's BAB to make the Fighter shine. Or remove wands and scrolls to make Wizards shine.
The solution is not crippling every character and forcing them to choose the same skills all the time. Its to buff Rogues.
If a class should be good at something, make it be good at it, instead of making everyone terrible and the class less terrible at it.
Cross class skills cripple characters and make many character concepts all but impossible to achieve. Bards don't feel overshadowed because of rangers, neither do Inquisitors.
So the problem is the Rogue, not the skill system.
Like I said it would be nice if they were more consistently designed (some are awesome, some not so much. Actually I think most of the skill based ones are pretty nice).
What I'm getting at is the MECHANIC exists already. What fills in the mechanic just needs to be designed better across the board. IIRC Rogue Talents were added late and not tested in the open beta, which probably accounts in part for why they are very inconsistent in terms of utility. But you don't need to add anything new to the rogue, you just have to take what the rogue has been given and make it work better.
I agree, which is why my Rogue fix consists mostly of revised Rogue Talents.
Most skill-based talents are... underwhelming...
e.g.:
Move across narrow surfaces... Did it really have to be tall that specific? Why not a simple scaling bonus to Acrobatics checks?
Quick Disable (Ex): It takes a rogue with this ability half the normal amount of time to disable a trap using the Disable Device skill (minimum 1 round).
How useful is this? How often do you disable traps during combat?
Assault Leader (Ex): Once per day, when the rogue misses with an attack on a flanked opponent, she can designate a single ally who is also flanking the target that her attack missed. That ally can make a single melee attack against the opponent as an immediate action.
Why is this limited to once per day? Does the Rogue forget how to do it? Does the God of Rogues only concede this completely mundane ability to Rogues once every 24h?
Camouflage (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent can craft simple but effective camouflage from the surrounding foliage. The rogue needs 1 minute to prepare the camouflage, but once she does, it is good for the rest of the day or until the rogue fails a saving throw against an area effect spell that deals fire, cold, or acid damage, whichever comes first. The rogue gains a +4 bonus on Stealth checks while within terrain that matches the foliage used to make the camouflage. This ability cannot be used in areas without natural foliage.
Why is this a talent? This is basically a masterwork tool! And again, why is it "once per day"?
Canny Observer (Ex): When a rogue with this talent makes a Perception check to hear the details of a conversation or to find concealed or secret objects (including doors and traps), she gains a +4 bonus.
Boring and more specific than it should be. Why not an scaling bonus?
Charmer (Ex): Once per day, the rogue can roll two dice while making a Diplomacy check, and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Diplomacy check. A rogue can use this ability one additional time per day for every 5 rogue levels she possesses.
Could be useful, but having to choose to use this once per day ability before making the Diplomacy check means it will be wasted most of the time.
Coax Information (Ex): A rogue with this talent can use Bluff or Diplomacy in place of Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward her.
Cunning Trigger (Ex): A rogue with this talent can use a swift action to set off any trap within 30 feet that she constructed.
How often does this happen? Building traps is insanely expensive in PF.
Expert Leaper (Ex): When making jump checks, the rogue is always considered to have a running start. Also, when the rogue deliberately falls, a DC 15 Acrobatics check allows her to ignore the first 20 feet fallen, instead of the first 10 feet.
Could also simply be an scaling bonus to acrobatics, instead of an situational benefit.
Fast Fingers (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent can roll two dice while making a Sleight of Hand check and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Sleight of Hand check. A rogue can use this ability one additional time per day for every 5 rogue levels she possesses.
Same problems of Charmer.
Fast Picks (Ex): A rogue with this talent can use the Disable Device skill to attempt to open a lock as a standard action instead of a full-round action.
Again... How often does this happen? Is it really worth to spend a class feature to be able to do something that will come up 2~3 times during the whole campaign?
Follow Clues (Ex): A rogue with this talent can use Perception to follow tracks as per the Survival skill.
Meg...
Hard to Fool (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this talent can roll two dice while making a Sense Motive check, and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Sense Motive check. A rogue can use this ability one additional time per day for every 5 rogue levels she possesses.
Same problems of Charmer...
Honeyed Words (Ex): Once per day, the rogue can roll two dice while making a Bluff check, and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Bluff check. A rogue can use this ability one additional time per day for every five rogue levels she possesses.
Same problems of Charmer..
Frugal Trapsmith (Ex): When a rogue with this talent constructs a mechanical trap, she only pays 75% of the normal cost.
If only creating traps wasn't such an useless ability...
Rumormonger (Ex): A rogue with this talent can attempt to spread a rumor though a small town or larger settlement by making a Bluff check.
Why is this a Rogue Talent? Everyone with bluff/Diplomacy checks should be able to do this!
I agree, which is why my Rogue fix consists mostly of revised Rogue Talents.
Most skill-based talents are... underwhelming...
e.g.:
** spoiler omitted **...
I laughed... but I feel bad for laughing because its someone's class features and the meat of their class.
I don't see why having a Trait that grants a class skill isn't even COOLER under a cross-class system. It's much more valuable, and the person who has it even rarer and more unique.I think, maybe, a point you're missing is that traits make skills class skills for the PCs who have that trait. So, cross-class skill point distribution offers those PCs nothing.
You're right, I'm totally missing what you are trying to say.
If you have the Trait, you take that skill you want and get full benefit for it without paying cross-class.
People who don't do it, are much, much worse at the skill.
------------
Note that 'character concepts' gets redefined. It becomes HARDER to do certain builds, just like it is IMPOSSIBLE to do certain builds without spellcasting...but no one is whining that the fighter can't get into Archmage.
And as the Rogue found out, just like the Fighter, when you give class uniqueness away to nearly everyone, it's a nerf.
As for the Fighter, you could have given everyone BAB, but if you had restricted multiple attacks to the Melee classes, things would have been fine. Why? Because 1E and 2E you didn't need great BAB to hit things...other classes didn't get any more effective because they could suddenly hit more then the older versions.
What they got was unlimited Str (and other) buffs AND multiple attacks. That was what destroyed the melee role.
I still believe that multiple attacks should come with class levels as an attribute, NOT from BAB. But, ah well.
==Aelryinth
More Stuff About Monks...
1.
Amulet of Mighty Fists STILL is cost as "Oh, it gives bonuses to ALL the unarmed attacks so it needs to be super expensive."
It should not cost 2 times as much as a weapon bonus. It takes up a slot so it arguably should be even cheaper!
It's priced about the same as two magic weapons, which is the benefit it provides. Aaaaand now you know one of the other hidden costs of the TWF style.
==Aelryinth
Ok
1) How does having the cross-class skills like in 3.5 make characters "more unique"???? If anything it does the reverse. Why? Because now every rogue will look the same. Every wizard will look the same. Every fighter will look the same, ect. Now, you can have a wizard who is also an avid trapmaker. You can have a fighter who is also a booknerd (high knowledge skill). You can have a paladin who can ACTUALLY sneak (assuming he isn't running around in plate). Now the ranger can ACTUALLY US DEX for his skills (i.e. acrobatics). If you put the huge penalty into cross class skills (like in 3.5) you will end up with: every wizard only has Know X and Spellcraft, Every fighter will only have Intimidate, and the "perception" skills, and parry; ect.
2) You can actually say bards have EVEN MORE skills than most people are suggesting since you have to take into account that Bards can ALWAYS roll knowledge can can take 10 on knowledge checks. That is ALOT of skills they effectively got for free.
3) Amulet of Mighty Fists is not so expensive because of the monk... the cost is so high because of the Druid, and later the Summoner. Both classes are capable of having a REDICULOUS amount of natual attacks, and with AoMF enhancing ALL of them, they can very easily break the item if it didn't cost so much. The best way to fix the problem would probably be to release a new type of weapon. You can call it "handwraps" or something similiar. Effectively it would simply be like a boxers wraps to protect their hands, but it could be enchanted to add an enhancement bonus to that limb (there are also foot wraps which you would just simply be the same item, just on your foot). This would allow you to "fix" the monk by giving them an affordable way to enchant their fists without breaking the Druid or Summoner. Additionally, it would give them an added bit of versatility since each wrap could be enchanted with a different element or enchantment to let you do a varity of things.
With the cross-class system, nothing was keeping you from increasing any skill you wanted. Nothing was stemming your uniqueness at all.
But the devs used the logic that, "Reading lots of books doesn't do anything to keep your sword-arm strong, which is why Fighters won't get as much out of it as Wizards." And if you stop Fighting long enough to justify more depth of knowledge (ie: higher Knowledge skill) then you're not a Fighter anymore, and you've either retired or started leveling in a class that offers "Knowledge" as a class-skill.
The theory behind Cross-Class Skills was absolutely fine. It was the rules minutiae that made the system bad.
Except that there was almost NEVER a reason to cross class skill train other than to meet pre-reqs because by the time you got any points in it, you would be so far behind that the skill was near worthless to you.
As for the "books don't keep your sword arm strong" argument, that is not quite true. Books on fighting theory would actually apply alot. And, historically speaking, most of the greatest warriors and generals were actually fairly intelligent and learned men. Additionally, I can speak from first and second hand experiance, when your in a battlefield you actually read alot. Most of the marines I have deployed with probably read more than the average person by a large margin. Why? because it is something to tak eyour mind off things.Also, you would be suprised by how many people who spend extreme amounts of time training to fight for war are actually pretty skilled in alot of other things as well. The guys in my father's unit (US Army 1st SFOD-D) spend extreme amounts of time training, conducting ops, and drilling, but all of them are also skilled in a bunch of random things. One guy can take apart just about anything and put it back together again with ease. Another guy (the guy who puts 1 rank in all skills guy) pretty much learns something within a few days and then picks up a new hobby when it gets to easy constantly. Another guy is pretty much the biggest computer nerd you will ever see. xD
That's an argument for, "Fighters* have historically had a bad class-skill list," not an argument that, "Cross-classing was an all-around bad idea."
You'll notice that even now, Fighters lack "Knowledge: History" in their Class skills (the knowledge used for war study).
But my point was in regards to the Fighter who wants to be "well-read" in, for instance, other planes of existence (Know: Planes) for RPing reasons alone. That kind of thing goes against the core of what the class is, fundamentally, which is why you wouldn't be able to raise it as high as, say, a Wizard would.
There is, after all, a rather significant difference between reading as a distraction (as you posture above with soldiers) and reading to make something a main focus of study.
(*-Fighters aren't alone here, but they're probably the most famous for it.)
Ok
1) How does having the cross-class skills like in 3.5 make characters "more unique"???? If anything it does the reverse. Why? Because now every rogue will look the same. Every wizard will look the same. Every fighter will look the same, ect. Now, you can have a wizard who is also an avid trapmaker. You can have a fighter who is also a booknerd (high knowledge skill). You can have a paladin who can ACTUALLY sneak (assuming he isn't running around in plate). Now the ranger can ACTUALLY US DEX for his skills (i.e. acrobatics). If you put the huge penalty into cross class skills (like in 3.5) you will end up with: every wizard only has Know X and Spellcraft, Every fighter will only have Intimidate, and the "perception" skills, and parry; ect.2) You can actually say bards have EVEN MORE skills than most people are suggesting since you have to take into account that Bards can ALWAYS roll knowledge can can take 10 on knowledge checks. That is ALOT of skills they effectively got for free.
3) Amulet of Mighty Fists is not so expensive because of the monk... the cost is so high because of the Druid, and later the Summoner. Both classes are capable of having a REDICULOUS amount of natual attacks, and with AoMF enhancing ALL of them, they can very easily break the item if it didn't cost so much. The best way to fix the problem would probably be to release a new type of weapon. You can call it "handwraps" or something similiar. Effectively it would simply be like a boxers wraps to protect their hands, but it could be enchanted to add an enhancement bonus to that limb (there are also foot wraps which you would just simply be the same item, just on your foot). This would allow you to "fix" the monk by giving them an affordable way to enchant their fists without breaking the Druid or Summoner. Additionally, it would give them an added bit of versatility since each wrap could be enchanted with a different element or enchantment to let you do a varity of things.
1) Your point is making mine.
Yes, the classes will tend to look the same. Therefore, if you want a wizard with Stealth ranks, you blow a trait and you have a stealthy wizard. He's now unique. Ditto the fighter with a good Perception (although I feel any fighter fix should include a ton of non-combat feats that would help a fighter address the skill point problem).As it stands, any wizard who wants to be stealthy just spends a few of his prodigious spell points. Talk about vanilla wizards...there's no cost or uniqueness to acquiring skills. ANYONE CAN DO IT IN PF. It's not special. Not in the slightest.
Keep in mind that one of the advantages of a lot of skill points is being able to take ranks in EVERYTHING. That's what a skill monkey does. Yeah, it can mean rogues can look pretty similar...but that's like saying wizards are all identical because they can all cast spells. There's still going to be variation in what is taken. Is a wizard who has access to fifty spells on command identical to the next wizard who does? No.
2) Yeah, bards taking the skill monkey schlock, and having magical class abilities, and having spells, is kinda sad to me. Skills should have stayed with the Rogue like Feats stayed with the Fighter.
3) The problem with handwraps is that UA damage is head, elbow, and knees, in addition to grappling. The AoMF takes all that into account. If you only have one handwrap, can you not flurry anymore? What about if I use a kicking style, but want to punch somebody? How do you adjudicate that silliness?
AoMF is priced correctly for what it can do, just like you have to pay for two magic weapons or more.
If you really, really want to correct the AoMF, you'd just adjust the price based on HOW MANY ATTACK METHODS it covers. I.e. price it as a magic weapon if it covers one primary attack, two if it covers a second, three if it covers a third, and keep multiplying.
Something with 10 natural attacks is paying 10x the price of a monk who isn't flurrying. That's how you fix it.
The same limitation applies to casting Magic Fang, and should port over to the amulet.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Your point is making mine.
Yes, the classes will tend to look the same. Therefore, if you want a wizard with Stealth ranks, you blow a trait and you have a stealthy wizard. He's now unique.
As it stands, any wizard who wants to be stealthy just spends a few of his prodigious spell points. Talk about vanilla wizards...there's no cost or uniqueness to acquiring skills. ANYONE CAN DO IT IN PF. It's not special. Not in the slightest.
Sort of. You just made it so no one else could do it. Its a fake sort of special and it punishes everyone to make that special. Its one of my least favorite design philosophies. Making everyone else incompetent or incapable so one person is capable and competent. How does that really help? What happens if that guy is missing? There are better alternatives.
2) Yeah, bards taking the skill monkey schlock, and having class abilities, and having spells, is kinda sad to me. Skills should have stayed with the Rogue like Feats stayed with the Fighter.
Alternatively, fighter and rogue should've grown with the system and changed into something else. Its good that we have feats now, and its good that we have skills. Its bad that fighter and rogue fell behind, and that doesn't mean we should drag everyone else down into the mud to make them look better. Would be awesome and fighters had more feats than everyone else, used them better, and was great with weapons and armor? Or rogues had talents that actually worked for them and came off as skillful and reliable, more so than everyone else is even with an abundance?
Mr. Sin, by that philosophy, everyone should have caster levels and access to magical spells, and be able to dip into the core strengths of every other class.
You're applying a double standard. Arcane casters are unique...nobody dips into their stuff, and nobody minds.
Skill monkeys COULD be unique, and it would be hard, or at least harder, to dip into their stuff. And suddenly you say that's not good.
What do you do when the wizard isn't there? Oh nooz the game stops? You SHOULD feel the absence of the skill monkey keenly, just like you'd feel the absence of your main meat shield, your main healer, and your main boomer.
But no, no, we cants have that!
----------------
A Rogue Fix for skills isn't that hard.
Gather up all those Talents for ROgues that affect skills, and label them as 'skill mastery'.
Make ONE Talent, Skill Master. "Choose a number of skills equal to your Int+1 (minimum 1). You gain the benefits of Skill Mastery with all those talents. If your Intelligence increases in the future, so does your Skill mastery set. You may take 10 on those skills at all times."
ANd then do the same for the Greater talents, which upgrades Skill Master. Boom, one and two Talents, become awesome at the handful of skills you pick out, and get rewarded for a High Int.
Alternatively, you could pick a number of skills equal to their SA dice from class levels, insuring that they get good at a LOT of skills by level, instead of relying on Int to do the trick (and likely topping around 5 to 7 instead of 10). I'd personally use Int so they could pick their handfuls, and reward high Int Rogues.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mr. Sin, by that philosophy, everyone should have caster levels and access to magical spells, and be able to dip into the core strengths of every other class.
No. That's comparing apples to oranges, rather than apples to apples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's an argument for, "Fighters* have historically had a bad class-skill list," not an argument that, "Cross-classing was an all-around bad idea."
You'll notice that even now, Fighters lack "Knowledge: History" in their Class skills (the knowledge used for war study).
But my point was in regards to the Fighter who wants to be "well-read" in, for instance, other planes of existence (Know: Planes) for RPing reasons alone. That kind of thing goes against the core of what the class is, fundamentally, which is why you wouldn't be able to raise it as high as, say, a Wizard would.
There is, after all, a rather significant difference between reading as a distraction (as you posture above with soldiers) and reading to make something a main focus of study.(*-Fighters aren't alone here, but they're probably the most famous for it.)
If you're talking professional soldiers, do you know that the U.S. Army actually has a Reading List that soldiers are encouraged to study, especially the officer corps?
There's some very heavy stuff there, philosophies of war, histories, the whole works. I can't see where ANY professional killer of dangerous things would NOT make a concerted effort to find out all he could about the things he'd be fighting. To do otherwise is stupidity, bordering on downright foolhardy insanity. He doesn't have to be a Ranger, but he should know what he's going up against and how it's going to try to make hash out of him.
I mean, seriously, professional soldiers have to basically learn a second language (Initialese); a blizzard of regalia for their own and hostile militaries; to identify all sorts of military equipment from weaponry to vehicles; maintenance and care of increasingly complex personal gear; possibly foreign languages if deployed overseas; and then whatever their primary and secondary MOS might be.
Eesh!
==Aelryinth
Mr. Sin, by that philosophy, everyone should have caster levels and access to magical spells, and be able to dip into the core strengths of every other class.No. That's comparing apples to oranges, rather than apples to apples.
No, it's not.
You're saying everyone should get strong skills, and the rogue should get stronger ones, somehow.
I'm saying everyone should get arcane magic, and the wizard should get stronger arcane magic. See? Apples to apples.
Conversely, I'm suggesting that everyone can have strong skills within their fairly narrow field, and be weak to non-existent outside of it without taking exceptional steps.
Just the way that every non-arcanist has a primary expertise in their own field, and has little to no ability outside that field, such as in arcane magic, without taking exceptional steps. Again, apples to apples.
As soon as you elevate Skill Monkey to a Primary Expertise, it should be treated like one, not as the red-headed stepchild.
but oh nooz, we can't treat Skills as something that is actually SPECIAL. You know, like casting spells, or something. Skills should be bland and boring and available to anyone who feels like it.
==Aelryinth
Mr. Sin, by that philosophy, everyone should have caster levels and access to magical spells, and be able to dip into the core strengths of every other class.No. That's comparing apples to oranges, rather than apples to apples.
To expand upon this, feats and skills are already something everyone gets. Spell casting, rage powers, bloodlines, those are things that are class specific(sans some archetypes, feats, domains. They aren't inherent is the point though.) You don't take away everyone else's HD, BAB, skills, or feats to make the fighter and rogue look better, you give the rogue and fighter something to separate them from the other classes, and make them better at their role for taking levels in that class. Its a good thing everyone gets those things, but its a bad thing fighter and rogue don't get much in the way of class features.
I'm saying everyone should get arcane magic, and the wizard should get stronger arcane magic. See? Apples to apples.
No. not really. It sounds the same in that your giving everyone something, but its not something they had before. Skills and feats really are something they had before. Its been stated several times in this thread too. You don't need spells to be competent, you do need skill points, Health, BAB, and feats however. Spells sure help, but you don't need to them to function(unless your a wizard, ofc).
Using some Hyperbole, something I hate, we could use your philosophy and apply it to breathing. Breathing is special, only certain people should do it. We should take away breathing from everyone but one class to make breathing special. Obviously this won't work. Hyperbole in both directions is a bad thing.