How Essential to the Pathfinder Game Do You Find the Following Concepts.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

GreyWolfLord wrote:
GypsyMischief wrote:

I was going to post something constructive, then 4e got jabbed with a stick. I started playing Rpg's with second edition, now any nostalgic harkening back to "better times" leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Pathfinder isn't D&D, I wouldn't force it in that box.

While I personally love 2e and 1e and OD&D...I'd also agree...PF isn't D&D.

It has become it's own creature...and as such should be seen as PF instead of D&D modified/OSR 3.5/D&D mod.

I suspect other than that sole idea, our opinions would probably go counter to each other...and as such have nothing else constructive to say either.

While Pathfinder is more than just a D&D mod now, it's rather hard to ignore the fact that it started out being advertised as 3.75 and the core rulebook has a lot of text that was copy and pasted unaltered from the 3.5 SRD. While there were a lot of things that got tweaked around and added (favored classes, new class features, spells, etc), but CMB/CMD was the only major change to the fundamental core mechanics of 3.5. Everything else works more-or-less exactly the way it did in 3.5. Skills were tweaked, but you still get skill points every level, there are still class skills, etc. Feats changed from every third level to ever odd-numbered level, but you still get feats that mostly do the same kind of things they did in 3.5. There are still dungeons you go explore, and dragons you stab in the face for XP and loot.

As far as magic item crafting goes, Pathfinder's biggest change was to make crafting even easier than it was in 3.5, since they removed the experience cost for crafting.

Rare as it is for me to say this, I have to agree with Dr. Deth's first post in this thread: Pathfinder has retained every single iconic core element of D&D. Alignment. Experience Points and Levels. Classes. Vancian spellcasting. The core party roles are the same as they've always been, even if the balance between them has shifted a bit.


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:

I will never, ever understand why some folks have such a hard time with wands of CLW. We enjoy video games and in said games there might be potions of healing popping out of corpses, first aid kits floating in mid-air or the like. Why should PF be any different.

Consider the 3rd level party:

The wizard likely has more than their allotment of spells/day thanks to consumables like scrolls, so they can last more than 3-5 fights. The melee types are really starting to shine in DPR, the ranged types are almost keeping pace. But all of these folks, without access to a steady stream of healing is still a single crit from being out of the fight, give or take.

If however the same party has a single wand of CLW they can probably last through 10 fights scattered through the day without having to rest. What's more fun; fighting 3-5 fights, exploring a couple areas and going "well, let's rest for the night" or pulling off 10 APL encounters and securing a small compound of rooms in a dungeon?

Personally, I like being able to have longer days and not having a healbot who spends all of his resources on keeping the party going. But I want it to be more elegant than CLW wands. It shouldn't take any system mastery to be able to efficiently heal between combats.

I wasn't aware "buy a wand and have a single person put a single point in UMD" was system mastery. I thought that was the basics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


I wasn't aware "buy a wand and have a single person put a single point in UMD" was system mastery. I thought that was the basics.

It's really not, particularly when dealing with players who used to play lots of older-school AD&D when wands were decidedly more difficult to make.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Zardnaar wrote:

It has been around 2 years since I last ran a PFRPG game and around 2 weeks since I last played PF as a player. Last time I house ruled the game a lot and had a list of banned stuff.

To some extent I am somewhat traditional in my D&D and it was a main reason why I rejected 4th ed and went to Pathfinder instead and since then I have branched out into OSR gaming spurred on by the retrieval of my 2nd ed books in 2012 which had spent 12 years at my parents place in a box.

I am still a big fan of 3rd ed type games but I have kind of been burned out after 12 years DMing them from 3.0, 3.5 a Pathfinder and even Star Wars Saga I suppose. I do not have a favourite edition of D&D as such but if I had to pick 2 it would be a toss up between 2nd ed and Pathfinder if I had to pick one only it would be between those 2.

IN the change over from 2nd to 3rd ed though they kind of dropped the ball on a few things even though I liked the basic concepts of the d20 mechanics as some things in AD&D were kind of silly like level limits (make a better human FFS).Anyway some things I personally do not like in 3rd ed but do not regard as essential to the 3.x D&D/PF experience.

1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)

I suppose my ideal game D&D game would be a d20 type mechanics hybrid between AD&D 2nd/Pathfinder. Pathfinder for the mechanics (ascending ACs, feat, skills, BAB, fort/ref/will etc), AD&D for the math (smaller numbers)and options growth with less power creep.

Not that interested in "fixing" 3.x via 4E and probably D&DN now I know a bit...

1. The natural spell feat. - Non-essential. The druid can play switch-hitter and doesn't have to cast and bash simultaneously.

2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells. - I personally like this aspect, so I'm going with "essential", though it could probably be streamlined a bit.

3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular. - Non-essential. The game would probably benefit from it not being so easy to largely replace classes with cheap consumables.

4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power. - Non-essential. Magic mart is probably my least favorite aspect of the game. I like crafting, but wish it didn't suck so much of the mystery out of magic items. The crafter should have to acquire recipes for a magic item before he can craft it or something similar. I personally dislike that a wizard has to either research or acquire his spells, but just knows off the top of his head how to spin those into every item in every publication.

5. Number bloat/complexity. - Not sure what you're getting at here. There should be classes with varying degrees of complexity and modularity, however.

6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me. - Iteratives in general are probably non-essential, but 4 16's screws the math of the entire system. If you're going to have iteratives, decreasing value is essential. I think removing the full attack dynamic and iteratives entirely and replacing it with better scaling damage and martial abilities is a better way to go here.

7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons. - Non-essential. They're basically triple dipping here. They already have larger damage dies, but they're also getting STR multipliers and improved PA damage? I get that the intent was that it should always equate out to the same damage potential as TWF, but given the other costs and penalties associated with that combat style, I think the mark was missed here.

8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves. - Non-essential. Creates late game situations where some classes are guaranteed to save and others are virtually guaranteed to fail. Standardized save progressions between classes with various class abilities and stats shoring up the appropriate saves is probaby equally effective, if not moreso.

9. Spell DCs over 20. - This isn't essential or non-essential, this is tied to the saves and gaps. Casters should have the option to invest in their spells potency and ensure that it's always at least as competitive as a martial character investing in his to-hit. Given that the high saves currently scale up to +12, I certainly wouldn't relegate casters to always having a 40% or less chance to succeed when targeting a strong save. 8 and 9 would need to be resolved together if any changes were to be made.

10. Unlimited ability score progression. - Umm, non-essential. I'm unclear how you think this exists now.

11. Fighters with only 2 skill points. - Non-essential and detrimental. Fighters having the worst facility with influencing the world of any class brings nothing to the game, and actually takes things away, unless you consider player frustration at not beig able to execute the character they envision a contribution to the gaming environment.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

@Thomas: It may seem that way to you because of the experience you have with the system, but how is a beginner to know?


Petty Alchemy wrote:
@Thomas: It may seem that way to you because of the experience you have with the system, but how is a beginner to know?

I found reading the book very instructive. I recommend the same for all new players.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
@Thomas: It may seem that way to you because of the experience you have with the system, but how is a beginner to know?

Word. I don't think I've ever seen a group who didn't have a forum-goer as a member actually use UMD regularly unless they were playing a Bard or trying to be like Jarlaxle from the Salvatore novels. Neither of those ideas was using the wands for CLW.

I think most people enter the game with an assumption that someone in the party is going to be the healer, and that person has class abilities specifically to cover that role. They'll also probably get any wands of CLW that drop by virtue of the fact that their the ones who can use them naturally.

UMD for CLW is kind of a thing that evolves either through experience and experimentation, or exposure to people who've already had the experience.


When playing with beginners I often ask this: "ever played Diablo or Gauntlet or Skyrim or ANY video game where the guy eats or drinks something to get their health back?" If the answer is yes, I quickly tell them a wand of CLW is 50 of those and suggest someone in the party buy one and learn how to use it. If not, I show them the spell Cure Light Wounds, I then explain how a wand works, and finally suggest the PCs buy a wand of CLW and learn how to use it.

If you want "elegant" re-flavor the wand. You've found a magic lamp which, when lit a certain amount of times bathes you in healing light; a serving platter that produces healing food when opened and saying "ta-da!" but only a set amount of times; a singing spirit bound to a stone - each time it heals the user it sings to them momentarily but it's song gets progressively fainter until after 50 uses it's binding fades and it dissolves into the aether.

Or healing surges...

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

The mechanic itself is not elegant in my opinion, so reflavoring it doesn't improve it on that front (you can rub gold on your wounds to make them disappear is funny though).

Healing surges are elegant. I like it, and would prefer a similar mechanic.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Zardnaar wrote:


1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)

1) nATURAL sPell is totally unneccesary. It should have a +2 Metamagic modifier, as it's effectively silent, still, and no material comps all at the same time. Make druids work for it if they want to cast as a raven.

2) Yeah, too many of these. Duration should be shorter or they should use the same buff mods. Non-stacking would be nice.

3) HP management becomes more important with less healing. However, it also places severe stress on those classes with healing magic. If you do this, you'll need some way for non-casters to recover some HP so they don't force an 'all-heal' character just to keep moving.

4) This is easily taken care of by raising costs to make stuff. However, note that is NICE not be dictated by the DM exactly what your gear is going to be, and being able to get what you want, when you want it. It's also fairly realistic.

5) Less complexity is good. easiest way to do that is to scale down what numbers are acheiveable, i.e. put limits on stuff.

6) 4 attacks at +16 would be massive. The system, mathematically, works out to almost perfectly what 1E had. If you have 4 iteratives, and your first strike hits 95% of the time, your following attacks hit at 75, 50, and 25%, right? Add those up...that's 250%. Which is mathematically the same as getting 5/2 attacks.
The difference in 1/2e was that you got them ALL THE TIME. Not just on full attacks.
Go back to 1, 3/2, 2 and 5/2, and you'll be right there with less book keeping.

7) The extra dmg of a 2h weapon should be reflected in the 2h weapon, like 4e, I agree.

8) This is definitely a problem all over. There are class features that balance this out, but the feats to do so tend to, well, suck.

9) Not a problem at higher levels. At low levels? Yeah.

10) Definitely a problem. Cap this, and you bring at least some measure of control back to the game. 1/2e it was 25. 4e was 30. Pick a number and stand by it.

11)Those without magic should have more skills then those who do. It just makes sense.

==Aelryinth


I like healing surges as well, but I've not seen a good conversion of them into 3.x or PF that fixes more problems than it makes.

That being said, I think smarter people than I could probably work it out, and hopefully we're finally at a place where 4e mechanics can be evaluated objectively rather than with reactionary fervor. As I've tried to argue for a while, a lot of 4e problems come from implementation, rather than the ideas themselves.


I do not understand people's problems with natural spell. I also don't understand people's problem with CLW wands either.

The first, I feel like is ripping out the core of the druid's identity and crippling the class, making it a mess of mechanically dissant abilities. The latter just seems like people would rather everyone drank potions (which is just a more expensive consumable that the GM would just have to hand out more loot to keep everyone at WBL for balance sake).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don't like CLW wands, but its not because I don't see the mechanical value.

It's because I like replicating the fantasy novels I read and the party carrying around lots of mass produced wands of various effects just isn't a thing in any of them.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Steve Geddes wrote:

I don't like CLW wands, but its not because I don't see the mechanical value.

It's because I like replicating the fantasy novels I read and the party carrying around lots of mass produced wands of various effects just isn't a thing in any of them.

Yeah, there's often that guy with a trick for every occasion, but generally if he's a wand of healing it's not coming out unless he's at the bottom of a shaft with a broken leg and no one around to help. I'm fairly certain I've never read a book where a guy looks up from picking a lock and goes "Ouch man, when did that happen? Gimme a sec to finish opening this up and I'll nail that broken arm with the ol' healstick".


Steve Geddes wrote:

I don't like CLW wands, but its not because I don't see the mechanical value.

It's because I like replicating the fantasy novels I read and the party carrying around lots of mass produced wands of various effects just isn't a thing in any of them.

This is pretty much where I am, too. The issue is, if you remove Wands of CLW, you run the risk of pissing people off with how you replace them. You have one camp who is uncomfortable with non-magical healing, so you'd end up with Clerics being heal-bots again. In the other camp, you'd have something similar to 4e's healing surge system, which basically removes the necessity for magic for out of combat healing, but this makes the aforementioned group upset.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Which stems from how/if you abstract HP and damage.

If a level 1 fighter gets chopped by a greatsword for 13 damage, he probably goes down and he probably has a pretty deep cut in his side.

If a level 10 fighter gets chopped by a greatsword for 13 damage, does he have an equal gash in his side and simply is tough enough to power through it? Or does the sword strike his armor and tire him, without actually creating a wound.

If you abstract damage until the killing blow, healing surges make sense. If you don't, then one can see why some want magical healing.


For out of combat healing, I tried giving everyone fast healing equal to their BAB/5, rounded down. It works really well (at level 5, fast healing 1 is negligible in combat), but you still need to get past the realistic range in levels 1-4. I could potentially just give fast healing 1 to everyone regardless of level or class, but I find it immersion-breaking if the "real" people can heal all their wounds so quickly. Eventually my group just accepted that real people have very low endurance compared to mythological heroes, so it is okay that level 1-4 characters have low endurance.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Tholomyes wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I don't like CLW wands, but its not because I don't see the mechanical value.

It's because I like replicating the fantasy novels I read and the party carrying around lots of mass produced wands of various effects just isn't a thing in any of them.

This is pretty much where I am, too. The issue is, if you remove Wands of CLW, you run the risk of pissing people off with how you replace them. You have one camp who is uncomfortable with non-magical healing, so you'd end up with Clerics being heal-bots again. In the other camp, you'd have something similar to 4e's healing surge system, which basically removes the necessity for magic for out of combat healing, but this makes the aforementioned group upset.

Maybe expanding the function of the Heal skill a bit would be a better resolution?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
GypsyMischief wrote:

I was going to post something constructive, then 4e got jabbed with a stick. I started playing Rpg's with second edition, now any nostalgic harkening back to "better times" leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Pathfinder isn't D&D, I wouldn't force it in that box.

While I personally love 2e and 1e and OD&D...I'd also agree...PF isn't D&D.

It has become it's own creature...and as such should be seen as PF instead of D&D modified/OSR 3.5/D&D mod.

I suspect other than that sole idea, our opinions would probably go counter to each other...and as such have nothing else constructive to say either.

While Pathfinder is more than just a D&D mod now, it's rather hard to ignore the fact that it started out being advertised as 3.75 and the core rulebook has a lot of text that was copy and pasted unaltered from the 3.5 SRD. While there were a lot of things that got tweaked around and added (favored classes, new class features, spells, etc), but CMB/CMD was the only major change to the fundamental core mechanics of 3.5. Everything else works more-or-less exactly the way it did in 3.5. Skills were tweaked, but you still get skill points every level, there are still class skills, etc. Feats changed from every third level to ever odd-numbered level, but you still get feats that mostly do the same kind of things they did in 3.5. There are still dungeons you go explore, and dragons you stab in the face for XP and loot.

As far as magic item crafting goes, Pathfinder's biggest change was to make crafting even easier than it was in 3.5, since they removed the experience cost for crafting.

Rare as it is for me to say this, I have to agree with Dr. Deth's first post in this thread: Pathfinder has retained every single iconic core element of D&D. Alignment. Experience Points and Levels. Classes. Vancian spellcasting. The core party roles are the same as they've always been, even if the balance between them has shifted a bit.

You're absolutely right, it did start out that way.

And many still play with only the CRB.

But when you toss in the APG, the ARG, UC, UM, and soon ACG, I think it remains compatible, but becomes a very different game in many ways with it's own flavor and own way of doing things.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zardnaar wrote:

1. The natural spell feat.

2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)

1. Pretty essential to the concept of a caster druid a big part of what makes them a solid choice is the fact that they can use wild shape as a utility spell. This would pretty much make codzilla ubiquoutous for all druids.

2. So lets remove the positive team play aspects of the game and encourage people to play on their own? Buffs are a big way in which casters and martial characters work together. This would make most of the key buff spells pretty pointless.

3. Assuming there is another way to recover hit points between combats I could care less. If there isnt, then you would be hard pressed to find someone willing to be a divine caster and spend all of their resources being a giant bandaid for the day.

4. Generally dont like this, and have actually created a large set of house rules to replace the bulk of magic items in my game.

5. I dont honestly know what you mean by this or what you would change, so no comment.

6. Full attacks are already murder machines. The issues with martials has nothing to do with how many attacks they get when full attacking. I consider this a pointless change.

7. Why exactly is this an issue. There is actually an even mix of bunuses (assuming everything hits) between two weapon fighting and 2handed fighting. Why on earth would you nerf this?

8. I guess thats fair, though in general thats why cloaks of resistance exist.

9/10. The fundamental math the game is built on works with 9 and 10. Changing that and you are messing with a major portion of the game. Changing this is going to require as much work as writing a new system from scratch possibly more.

I know you mentioned you want save or die spells to be crappy at high levels, but keep in mind there are lots of no spell abilities build off the same concept of 10+1/2 level + ability score. All you are doing is making non-save spells the only spells in the game at higher levels, and they arent in the weak end. Things like energy drain, black tentacles, are still awesome. They wont be impacted by this change, and since buffs arent worth a damn without their scaling bonuses, and evocation becomes pretty worthless when everything passes its saves, the only meaningful magic that will remain in the game is the spells that dont use saves.

11. Agreed, though In general I think the fighter ultimately needs to be replaced with a class that is more in line with everything else in the game mechanically.


Petty Alchemy wrote:

Which stems from how/if you abstract HP and damage.

If a level 1 fighter gets chopped by a greatsword for 13 damage, he probably goes down and he probably has a pretty deep cut in his side.

If a level 10 fighter gets chopped by a greatsword for 13 damage, does he have an equal gash in his side and simply is tough enough to power through it? Or does the sword strike his armor and tire him, without actually creating a wound.

If you abstract damage until the killing blow, healing surges make sense. If you don't, then one can see why some want magical healing.

Eh, I'm not so sure it has as much to do with abstraction. For example, I'm in the camp that doesn't mind non magical healing, but I also like to think that every hit point lost is at least partially 'meat' (though, not necessarily every hit point healed being so). So, sure, the level 10 Fighter has a gash same as the level 10, but the fighter powers through it, by virtue of being a level 10 fighter with the resilience and force of will that comes with it.


Tholomyes wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:

Which stems from how/if you abstract HP and damage.

If a level 1 fighter gets chopped by a greatsword for 13 damage, he probably goes down and he probably has a pretty deep cut in his side.

If a level 10 fighter gets chopped by a greatsword for 13 damage, does he have an equal gash in his side and simply is tough enough to power through it? Or does the sword strike his armor and tire him, without actually creating a wound.

If you abstract damage until the killing blow, healing surges make sense. If you don't, then one can see why some want magical healing.

Eh, I'm not so sure it has as much to do with abstraction. For example, I'm in the camp that doesn't mind non magical healing, but I also like to think that every hit point lost is at least partially 'meat' (though, not necessarily every hit point healed being so). So, sure, the level 10 Fighter has a gash same as the level 10, but the fighter powers through it, by virtue of being a level 10 fighter with the resilience and force of will that comes with it.

The 10th level fighter is early zaraki kenpachi from bleach. He rips the blade out from his shoulder, blood spurting as he does so, and laughs as he tosses it aside and keeps fighting.


Ssalarn wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
@Thomas: It may seem that way to you because of the experience you have with the system, but how is a beginner to know?
Word. I don't think I've ever seen a group who didn't have a forum-goer as a member actually use UMD regularly unless they were playing a Bard or trying to be like Jarlaxle from the Salvatore novels. Neither of those ideas was using the wands for CLW.

Then re-flavor the wand of CLW to be a ring that does CLW when passed over someone's injury? Give it charges per day instead of 50 charges=all used up to make it feel more Salvatore-ey?

Ssalarn wrote:
I think most people enter the game with an assumption that someone in the party is going to be the healer, and that person has class abilities specifically to cover that role.

Because the classic iconic party from the dawn of D&D time was fighter/thief/wizard/cleric. People who haven't played D&D in a while and then come back to the game after a 10-15 year hiatus tend to think of that as normal party composition.

Ssalarn wrote:
They'll also probably get any wands of CLW that drop by virtue of the fact that their the ones who can use them naturally.

Any class with CLW on their class list can simply use it. Witches, oracles, druids, rangers, paladins, inquisitors.... Rangers aren't a party's typical healing battery, but with an item that reliably provides CLW, then rangers/paladins/inquisitors/alchemists can become the post-fight healing battery.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

My point was in support of Petty Alchemy's response that new players aren't going to think that UMD and a wand of CLW should be default assumptions. It had nothing to do with not liking or understanding how a wand of CLW works, it had to do with the fact that Thomas was claiming a wand of CLW and ranks in UMD were the basics. They're not. They're things you learn from experience, either your own or the shared experience of others.

Like PA, I don't think that they're an elegant solution to covering healing during low resource levels. I also think the "just buy a wand of CLW" encourages the entitled magic-mart attitude of play which I have mixed feelings on.

Basically, thank you for telling me a bunch of things I already knew, but you missed the point I was making completely. It had nothing to do with wands of CLW and everything to do with the expectations a new player brings into the game.


Zardnaar wrote:


1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)

1) Honestly, I think druids shouldn't have the feat tax to begin with when it comes to wild shape. Wizards certainly don't when they turn into dragons or the like. Beside, some people might actually LIKE the idea of their druid becoming a magical, spell casting animal as their means of assuming the "protector of nature" role for flavor purposes.

2) As someone who mostly runs 3/4 caster or cleric support characters, buffs are essential to how I play. I find buffs as a good way of reducing the need to optimize a character. I can't tell you how many times I've seen sub optimal builds that players picked for flavor/role playing reasons that were made viable because of competent and effective buffing. Buffing also promotes teamwork, which, IMO, is a good thing when it's easy to get caught up in personal glory. Making support one of the more powerful options really encourages good teamwork, which seems like good game design rather than bad.

3) When I play a cleric, I want to kick arse for the lord, not to sit in the back and be a walking kit of band-aids. Those wands of CLW let me heal people AND wreck face with buffing and summoning. This lets me enjoy the game more because I get a more active role and my companions get to have more fun because I can shower them in gifts of the divine so they can kick more ass by boosting their capabilities.

4) Many people complain that magic items feel less personal when you can just buy them from any old store in town and want to recapture the feel of a dramatic quest to finds relics or ingredients. Guess what? Item creation feats let you do that! In fact, the item is even MORE personal and iconic to you because not only did you collect the materials (either with hard earned cash or the DM letting you do a cool quest), you put YOUR time and soul to forge that item to cause your enemy's undoing!

5) I can't say PF's math is really that hard. Number confusion in my groups arise more when people forget the that the bard is buffing them rather than math issues.

6) That's a two way street. if you're a player, how do you feel about a rage-pouncing barbarian slamming you with 4 devastating bows that are almost guaranteed to hit? No thank you.

7) Eh, it makes sense for two handed weapons to do more damage. I can attest to this from real life weapon training.

8) Different things are better at defending against different forms of attacks. I'd like to see the fighter be given a good will save, but I see no issue with the save system itself

9) Dude.... 20 is low for most parts of the game. by capping DCs at 20, all you're going is encouraging wizards even more to adopt the more problematic play styles (most spell dropped by the optimized god wizard are used specifically because they are good spells that don't allow saves) and discourage less optimized casting strategies that the monsters and APs were actually balanced around (blasting or save-or-die/save-or-suck). Not only are you not solving the problem, you're actually sucking the fun away from less powerful players in the process!

10) given that this isn't part of the game, it's definitely not essential!

11) Fighter DEFINITELY need, IMO, 4+ int skill points. Fighters are supposed to represent trained warriors who get their skills from practice and bravery. They are often used to represent "mundane" military characters, and having grown up in a military family, I can DEFINATELY say your average fighter knows a LOT more than just how to hit people with a stick and how to scare people with a stick. While we're at it, throw Perception on their skill list. Who wants a Fighter to be their guard when a Rogue is better at actually spotting intruders? If you don't have magic, you need wit and keen senses to survive, and one of the most basic things to this is situational awareness. I honestly don't get why more classes don't get this as a class skill given how essential it is for adventuring.


I don't get this elegance complaint against CLW wands. You can't get more elegant than desirable emergent properties of the item rules. Any separate mechanic would be a tacked on kludge and require another tacked on kludge to move low level wands away from the quadratic pricing all other items use. This is the very antithesis of elegance.


I think the mai problem with wands of CLW is that they are to cheap and there is no sign in the book saying "these wands are really really good".

The last 3 3.x groups I have come across do not use them as they do not know how good they are. My Barbarian/Rogue is the parties healer with my wand of CLWs.

The Cleric can also heal with his channel ability and ye olde AD&D cleric did not have that. I would add other options into the game like feats that allow for generous amounts of healing compared to default rules if wands of CLW went by by.

I probably need more experience with them but how do people find the APs with wands of CLW being cheaply available? Unless a fight is a tpk it seems most encounters would be easy as you just pull out a cure stick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like wands of CLW's either to tell the truth.

If you like Video game RPGs and such...I suppose they are like mana from heaven though.

It's the playstyle.

As for wands of CLW's in APs, depends on the level of the encounter and the characters. Once you get a certain level, they really are less effective then other types of healing.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't like wands of CLW's either to tell the truth.

If you like Video game RPGs and such...I suppose they are like mana from heaven though.

It's the playstyle.

As for wands of CLW's in APs, depends on the level of the encounter and the characters. Once you get a certain level, they really are less effective then other types of healing.

Actually, no. Mathematically Wand of Cure Light Wounds is the second best life restored/gp ratio. If you are wondering whats the best it's Wand of Infernal Healing. Because even Wizards should be able to patch themselves up after a fight.


Anzyr wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't like wands of CLW's either to tell the truth.

If you like Video game RPGs and such...I suppose they are like mana from heaven though.

It's the playstyle.

As for wands of CLW's in APs, depends on the level of the encounter and the characters. Once you get a certain level, they really are less effective then other types of healing.

Actually, no. Mathematically Wand of Cure Light Wounds is the second best life restored/gp ratio. If you are wondering whats the best it's Wand of Infernal Healing. Because even Wizards should be able to patch themselves up after a fight.

I'm not talking after the fight, I'm talking in the fight itself.

CLW doesn't really matter much if you are fighting something that does far more damage than it heals. Better to actually get something that will let you survive the next round than get CLW and die the next round anyways.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't like wands of CLW's either to tell the truth.

If you like Video game RPGs and such...I suppose they are like mana from heaven though.

It's the playstyle.

As for wands of CLW's in APs, depends on the level of the encounter and the characters. Once you get a certain level, they really are less effective then other types of healing.

Actually, no. Mathematically Wand of Cure Light Wounds is the second best life restored/gp ratio. If you are wondering whats the best it's Wand of Infernal Healing. Because even Wizards should be able to patch themselves up after a fight.

I'm not talking after the fight, I'm talking in the fight itself.

CLW doesn't really matter much if you are fighting something that does far more damage than it heals. Better to actually get something that will let you survive the next round than get CLW and die the next round anyways.

Does anybody actually use CLW wands for in-combat healing after the extremely low levels? The main thing people like them for is to patch up in between encounters.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't like wands of CLW's either to tell the truth.

If you like Video game RPGs and such...I suppose they are like mana from heaven though.

It's the playstyle.

As for wands of CLW's in APs, depends on the level of the encounter and the characters. Once you get a certain level, they really are less effective then other types of healing.

Actually, no. Mathematically Wand of Cure Light Wounds is the second best life restored/gp ratio. If you are wondering whats the best it's Wand of Infernal Healing. Because even Wizards should be able to patch themselves up after a fight.

I'm not talking after the fight, I'm talking in the fight itself.

CLW doesn't really matter much if you are fighting something that does far more damage than it heals. Better to actually get something that will let you survive the next round than get CLW and die the next round anyways.

You are in trouble then. Only Heal a 6th level spell can be expected to outpace the damage being dealt. Best to kill the thing that wants to kill you before you die, because then it won't damage anyone.


Anzyr wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't like wands of CLW's either to tell the truth.

If you like Video game RPGs and such...I suppose they are like mana from heaven though.

It's the playstyle.

As for wands of CLW's in APs, depends on the level of the encounter and the characters. Once you get a certain level, they really are less effective then other types of healing.

Actually, no. Mathematically Wand of Cure Light Wounds is the second best life restored/gp ratio. If you are wondering whats the best it's Wand of Infernal Healing. Because even Wizards should be able to patch themselves up after a fight.

I'm not talking after the fight, I'm talking in the fight itself.

CLW doesn't really matter much if you are fighting something that does far more damage than it heals. Better to actually get something that will let you survive the next round than get CLW and die the next round anyways.

You are in trouble then. Only Heal a 6th level spell can be expected to outpace the damage being dealt. Best to kill the thing that wants to kill you before you die, because then it won't damage anyone.

Indeed, one thing of note about the game is that the healing values on the cure spells is dated all the way back to 1e where you could reasonably expect an enemy to deal 1d8 flat or maybe a small bonus with a longsword.

Nowadays, cure spells have not inflated but I think we all know for dang sure that damage has gone way up since the days of yore.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zardnaar wrote:

It has been around 2 years since I last ran a PFRPG game and around 2 weeks since I last played PF as a player. Last time I house ruled the game a lot and had a list of banned stuff.

To some extent I am somewhat traditional in my D&D and it was a main reason why I rejected 4th ed and went to Pathfinder instead and since then I have branched out into OSR gaming spurred on by the retrieval of my 2nd ed books in 2012 which had spent 12 years at my parents place in a box.

I am still a big fan of 3rd ed type games but I have kind of been burned out after 12 years DMing them from 3.0, 3.5 a Pathfinder and even Star Wars Saga I suppose. I do not have a favourite edition of D&D as such but if I had to pick 2 it would be a toss up between 2nd ed and Pathfinder if I had to pick one only it would be between those 2.

IN the change over from 2nd to 3rd ed though they kind of dropped the ball on a few things even though I liked the basic concepts of the d20 mechanics as some things in AD&D were kind of silly like level limits (make a better human FFS).Anyway some things I personally do not like in 3rd ed but do not regard as essential to the 3.x D&D/PF experience.

1. The natural spell feat.
2. Scaling buff spells and quantity/stacking of buff spells.
3. Wand of cure light wounds/knock etc in particular.
4. Cheap/easy magic item creation and/or purchasing power.
5. Number bloat/complexity.
6/ +16/+11/+6/+1, 4 attacks at +16 is fine by me.
7. Bonus strength damage via power attack/two handed weapons.
8. Large gaps in fort/ref/will saves.
9. Spell DCs over 20.
10. Unlimited ability score progression.
11. Fighters with only 2 skill points (house ruled to 4 IMC)

I suppose my ideal game D&D game would be a d20 type mechanics hybrid between AD&D 2nd/Pathfinder. Pathfinder for the mechanics (ascending ACs, feat, skills, BAB, fort/ref/will etc), AD&D for the math (smaller numbers)and options growth with less power creep.

Not that interested in "fixing" 3.x via 4E and probably D&DN now I know a bit...

The only one that really bothers me much is 5. in reference to numbers bloat. With numbers bloat though it's more that their comes a point where rolling the die is almost superfluous to the damage modifier. Even then though I think what I would like to see as the fix is more bonuses that add dice to my attacks, dmg, or other variable effects rather than just static bonuses.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't like wands of CLW's either to tell the truth.

If you like Video game RPGs and such...I suppose they are like mana from heaven though.

It's the playstyle.

As for wands of CLW's in APs, depends on the level of the encounter and the characters. Once you get a certain level, they really are less effective then other types of healing.

Actually, no. Mathematically Wand of Cure Light Wounds is the second best life restored/gp ratio. If you are wondering whats the best it's Wand of Infernal Healing. Because even Wizards should be able to patch themselves up after a fight.

I'm not talking after the fight, I'm talking in the fight itself.

CLW doesn't really matter much if you are fighting something that does far more damage than it heals. Better to actually get something that will let you survive the next round than get CLW and die the next round anyways.

You are in trouble then. Only Heal a 6th level spell can be expected to outpace the damage being dealt. Best to kill the thing that wants to kill you before you die, because then it won't damage anyone.

Indeed, one thing of note about the game is that the healing values on the cure spells is dated all the way back to 1e where you could reasonably expect an enemy to deal 1d8 flat or maybe a small bonus with a longsword.

Nowadays, cure spells have not inflated but I think we all know for dang sure that damage has gone way up since the days of yore.

Though that's not necessarily a bad thing, since if healing outpaced damage then encounters where both sides have a healer would turn into long slug-fests until one side's healer runs out of spells.


Petty Alchemy wrote:

The mechanic (*CLW wands) itself is not elegant in my opinion, so reflavoring it doesn't improve it on that front (you can rub gold on your wounds to make them disappear is funny though).

After just playing some sessions of Midgard, an RPG system where you can only be magically healed once every three days (at least by the same priest) and lying around half sessions because no one could heal me I don't mind easy magic healing nearly as much as before.

Luckily, after the boss fight was over, which was finally a fight I would have been able to contribute to, had I not been unconscious, we had some days down time so I could get back to business.

*comment added by me


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't like wands of CLW's either to tell the truth.

If you like Video game RPGs and such...I suppose they are like mana from heaven though.

It's the playstyle.

As for wands of CLW's in APs, depends on the level of the encounter and the characters. Once you get a certain level, they really are less effective then other types of healing.

Actually, no. Mathematically Wand of Cure Light Wounds is the second best life restored/gp ratio. If you are wondering whats the best it's Wand of Infernal Healing. Because even Wizards should be able to patch themselves up after a fight.

I'm not talking after the fight, I'm talking in the fight itself.

CLW doesn't really matter much if you are fighting something that does far more damage than it heals. Better to actually get something that will let you survive the next round than get CLW and die the next round anyways.

You are in trouble then. Only Heal a 6th level spell can be expected to outpace the damage being dealt. Best to kill the thing that wants to kill you before you die, because then it won't damage anyone.

Indeed, one thing of note about the game is that the healing values on the cure spells is dated all the way back to 1e where you could reasonably expect an enemy to deal 1d8 flat or maybe a small bonus with a longsword.

Nowadays, cure spells have not inflated but I think we all know for dang sure that damage has gone way up since the days of yore.

Healing spells have inflated. In 1st ed you did not get to add your caster level to the cure spell and cure moderate wounds did not exist until the last days of 2nd ed and it healed 1d8+1 instead of 2d8+3- 2d8+10.

I have 2 ideal forms of D&D. AD&D 3rd edition and the other is a fixed 3.x type game and damage would be reduced more or less across the board.

Blaster spells would probably be left alone because they are not really that good atm so they are probably fine.

Dark Archive

Zardnaar wrote:

I have 2 ideal forms of D&D. AD&D 3rd edition and the other is a fixed 3.x type game and damage would be reduced more or less across the board.

Blaster spells would probably be left alone because they are not really that good atm so they are probably fine.

Back to my re-write: Creatures do not get Con bonuses and non-full BAB classes get a max +2 hp per hit die for high Con (like AD&D). Full BAB classes only can get a Max +4 hp/hd for high Con.

Most creatures do not get a stat bonus to damage and some damage dies have been reduced a step or two in die values. By reducing HP, I now have reduced the amount of damage PCs need to do with each attack (point 7 - Pow Attack, Two hander, weapon damage enhancers, crits, etc)

Here's an quick conversion and example to reflect what a new creature (my AD&D 3) would look like.

Griffion Conversion, Partial Stats:

CR 4
XP XX (was working on that, probably be a mesh between 1st and 2nd ed. So a base value of say 475 +8 per hp for this (level 4) specific monster = 691, more if it has more hp.
N Large magical beast
Init +2; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, scent; Perception +XX

DEFENSE
AC 17, touch 12, flat-footed 15 (+2 Dex, +5 natural) (no size penalty, this is rolled over into natural AC)
hp 27 (5d10) (no con bonus - note, AD&D 2 Griffon has 7hd, not 5hd)
Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +3 (bad save changed to "average" save class)

OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft., fly 80 ft. (average)
Melee bite +6 (1d6), 2 talons +5 (1d4) (no Str bonus to hit & damage or Size bonus or penalty)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
Special Attacks pounce, rake (2 claws +5, 1d4)

STATISTICS
Str 16, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 5, Wis 13, Cha 8
Base Atk +5
Feats: Weapon Focus (bite), Ability Focus (Perception)

Note Base attack and primary attack is tied to CR once you undo mods to hit and damage due to stats. Stats are kept in for challenge/opposed checks, skills and a metric of comparison between creatures for a few other sub systems.

Evo would mostly be left alone, again - I would allow some metamagic feats to change energy types and maybe increase range - but nothing that increases die, or gives max damage as those would be (lol) too powerful under this system.

It isn't impossible, just takes some time and effort to undo some of the bad stuff/number inflation of 3rd ed. We still keep: scaling AC, Save DCs, BAB, Feats (some), Skills, creature modularity/what's under the hood, while chucking the bad stuff - stats taking values wildly out of CR, arbitrary creature values at CR, high damage/high hp game, unbalanced/incorrect DC values out of CR due to stats, DC is tied to CR, etc.

Anyway - just an offering from the other side of the aisle.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Capping stats like the COn bonus to HP above is a classic way of limiting player power and forcing them to rely on other things...like, oh, class skills.

Bill Webb takes this to extremes in his game (you can buy his guide). High stats give a +1 over normal stats...that's it! Almost everything is by class level.

BECMI limited you to 18. AD&D to 18 or 19 (25 for gods). 3E blew it wide open.

Limits are good things for balance...they set end points. End points are massive help in seeing how things balance out.

==Aelryinth

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Aelryinth wrote:

Capping stats like the COn bonus to HP above is a classic way of limiting player power and forcing them to rely on other things...like, oh, class skills.

Bill Webb takes this to extremes in his game (you can buy his guide). High stats give a +1 over normal stats...that's it! Almost everything is by class level.

BECMI limited you to 18. AD&D to 18 or 19 (25 for gods). 3E blew it wide open.

Limits are good things for balance...they set end points. End points are massive help in seeing how things balance out.

==Aelryinth

BECM limited you to 18 - the "I" part let you go up to 100.

While starting scores in 1e/2e were limited to 18/19, there were ways to exceed those caps. The girdle of giant strength for example, would just set your score to something in the 19-24 range. Wishes could also raise your scores slowly up to 25 if you wanted. And the DM was allowed to make things like magic pools of +1 to a random ability.

Dark Archive

ryric wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Capping stats like the COn bonus to HP above is a classic way of limiting player power and forcing them to rely on other things...like, oh, class skills.

Bill Webb takes this to extremes in his game (you can buy his guide). High stats give a +1 over normal stats...that's it! Almost everything is by class level.

BECMI limited you to 18. AD&D to 18 or 19 (25 for gods). 3E blew it wide open.

Limits are good things for balance...they set end points. End points are massive help in seeing how things balance out.

==Aelryinth

BECM limited you to 18 - the "I" part let you go up to 100.

While starting scores in 1e/2e were limited to 18/19, there were ways to exceed those caps. The girdle of giant strength for example, would just set your score to something in the 19-24 range. Wishes could also raise your scores slowly up to 25 if you wanted. And the DM was allowed to make things like magic pools of +1 to a random ability.

Wishes raised ups stats very slowly, I think they even suggested .1 increment after a certain score (15 or 16 IIRC?) and the cost/price paid by the wish was very high. So after a few wishes you would have a 16.3 Dex, etc - while still aging whenever you cast the wish.

The big stat boosters were primarily to Str, since this was seen as being critical to higher level fighters success (remember, magic items were heavily limited by specific class use). You didn't need them and you could play a high level fighter in a 10-14 level module without the need of gauntlets or girdles.

So while you might find some martials with item enhanced STR that was mostly the extent of it in most common (and rules adherent) games.

Capping stats is a good thing, it helps establish a baseline to a functional game which in turn takes focus away from mechanics/mechanical exploit mentality and back to actual game play (adventuring, rp, etc) - IMO of course.

I will also throw out another heresy - monsters should not follow character rules and strict guidelines to be balanced against PCs. Monsters should be designed based on challenge and need.


So, maybe whilst ability scores can continue to increase, they are all capped at a maximum bonus of (say) +4. Each class would have two exceptions to this:

Bard: Dex & Cha
Barbarian: Str & Con
Cleric: Wis & Cha
Druid: Wis & Con
Fighter: Str & Con
Monk: Dex & Wis (alternatively, all stats capped at +5)
Paladin: Str & Cha
Ranger: Str & Wis
Rogue: Dex & Int
Sorcerer: Int & Cha
Wizard: Int & wis


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arakhor wrote:

So, maybe whilst ability scores can continue to increase, they are all capped at a maximum bonus of (say) +4. Each class would have two exceptions to this:

Bard: Dex & Cha
Barbarian: Str & Con
Cleric: Wis & Cha
Druid: Wis & Con
Fighter: Str & Con
Monk: Dex & Wis (alternatively, all stats capped at +5)
Paladin: Str & Cha
Ranger: Str & Wis
Rogue: Dex & Int
Sorcerer: Int & Cha
Wizard: Int & wis

What happens if soemone wants to play a dex based fighter or a strength based rogue? These concepts are no longer viable? That seems kind of arbitrary to me.

If you want lower stats start lower. I cap starting stats at 17 after racial bonuses. This means that though they will increase over the course of the game, they are well balanced with the basic assumptions of the math of the game.

But if they STAY that low, in particular dcs of abilities become easily overcome, espeically when considering non-humanoid opponents.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Arakhor wrote:

So, maybe whilst ability scores can continue to increase, they are all capped at a maximum bonus of (say) +4. Each class would have two exceptions to this:

Bard: Dex & Cha
Barbarian: Str & Con
Cleric: Wis & Cha
Druid: Wis & Con
Fighter: Str & Con
Monk: Dex & Wis (alternatively, all stats capped at +5)
Paladin: Str & Cha
Ranger: Str & Wis
Rogue: Dex & Int
Sorcerer: Int & Cha
Wizard: Int & wis

What happens if soemone wants to play a dex based fighter or a strength based rogue? These concepts are no longer viable? That seems kind of arbitrary to me.

If you want lower stats start lower. I cap starting stats at 17 after racial bonuses. This means that though they will increase over the course of the game, they are well balanced with the basic assumptions of the math of the game.

But if they STAY that low, in particular dcs of abilities become easily overcome, espeically when considering non-humanoid opponents.

It is and was arbitrary and limiting. One reason for the initial changes from 2e. So you weren't locked into playing as one kind of person to be good.

I actually liked alot of the system 2e had to offer but the fact that in the end fighters always had to be high strength people wizards were always squishies with super high int and such meant that it was very limiting in what you could play. Not an idea I was a fan of.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


6. If attacks were taken away I am going to join team caster most likely.
he means instead of losing 5 each attack, you get 4 at +16
I think that is a bit much. Martials already do enough damage, and I dont want a giant(insert other enemy melee type as needed) swinging at me all high bonuses since they would get the same advantage.

You do that, and your player might as well simply chuck their armor out the window. At upper levels, AC will probably do diddly squat against the primary attack, but it least offers protection against some of the iterative ones.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Auxmaulous wrote:
I will also throw out another heresy - monsters should not follow character rules and strict guidelines to be balanced against PCs. Monsters should be designed based on challenge and need.

You are right about the incremental nature of raising ability scores with wishes. I played quite a bit of 1e, though, and it was certainly something that tended to happen at high levels. It was not terribly unusual to have a high level character rockin' a 20 or so.

About your monster statement, I'm basically okay with that as long as there is some non-gamist logic behind where their stats come from. Monsters don't have to follow the exact same logic as PCs(although I think that's a plus myself), but there should be an in-game explanation to fit their stats.

I'm not trying to edition war here, but 4e is a perfect example of what I don't like. When I was trying 4e I made an early adventure for my friends consisting of your basic goblin lair. I put a suit of magic armor at the end with the leader, and in fine roleplaying tradition, chose to have the leader wear the suit. I looked all through the rules trying to figure out how the leader's original AC was computed so I could appropriately alter it by applying the magic armor. Eventually I realized that the monster's AC was just a number set by the expected level of the PCs, and there was no in-game justification. So the equipment I gave him didn't matter; it had no effect on his stats because his stats were derived from arbitrary game benchmarks and not any in-world logic. This level of "monsters follow their own rules" will cause me to quit a system in disgust.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Arakhor wrote:

So, maybe whilst ability scores can continue to increase, they are all capped at a maximum bonus of (say) +4. Each class would have two exceptions to this:

Bard: Dex & Cha
Barbarian: Str & Con
Cleric: Wis & Cha
Druid: Wis & Con
Fighter: Str & Con
Monk: Dex & Wis (alternatively, all stats capped at +5)
Paladin: Str & Cha
Ranger: Str & Wis
Rogue: Dex & Int
Sorcerer: Int & Cha
Wizard: Int & wis

As I see it, adding exceptions for primary stats would defeat the point of the caps in the first place. One issue that caps would help fix is the single attribute dependent classes pumping their offensive casting stats into the stratosphere and outstripping the primary bonuses that can be obtained for multiple attribute dependent classes as well as outstripping the defensive bonuses that boost saves.


I agree with my generous responders. It was just a post that I knocked off in about ten minutes flat. :)


Auxmaulous wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:

I have 2 ideal forms of D&D. AD&D 3rd edition and the other is a fixed 3.x type game and damage would be reduced more or less across the board.

Blaster spells would probably be left alone because they are not really that good atm so they are probably fine.

Back to my re-write: Creatures do not get Con bonuses and non-full BAB classes get a max +2 hp per hit die for high Con (like AD&D). Full BAB classes only can get a Max +4 hp/hd for high Con.

Most creatures do not get a stat bonus to damage and some damage dies have been reduced a step or two in die values. By reducing HP, I now have reduced the amount of damage PCs need to do with each attack (point 7 - Pow Attack, Two hander, weapon damage enhancers, crits, etc)

Here's an quick conversion and example to reflect what a new creature (my AD&D 3) would look like.

** spoiler omitted **...

I am experimenting with capping ability scores like in D&DN and I have been rewriting some monsters in my rewrite.

Ogre

Large Giant
Initiative -1 Senses darkvision 60'
HD 4d8+8 hp 30
AC 17
Saves Fortitude +9 Reflex +5 Will +4
Speed 40'
Attack: Melee +7 Dmg 1d10+6 (club)) or
+7 ranged damage 1d8+4 (javelin)
Alignment CE Languages Giant
Skills Perception +3 Stealth +10,
Str 18 Dex 8 Con 15 Int 5 Wis 7 Cha 7
Skills: Athletics
Equipment: hide armor, club, 3 javelins

Bugbear
Medium Humanoid
Initiative +2 Senses Perception +3; darkvision 60'
HD 3d8 hp 15
AC 16
Saves Fortitude +6 Reflex +8 Will +5
Speed 30'
Attack: Melee +5 Dmg 1d8 +2 (morningstar) or
ranged +5 damage 1d6+2 (Javelin)
SQ: Stealthy
Str 15 Dex 14 Con 10 Int 8 Wis 10 Cha 9
Alignment: NE Languages Common, Goblin
Skills: Perception +3, Stealth +5
Equipment: longsword, large wooden shield, studded leather, 3 spears
Stealthy: Bugbears have advantage on stealth checks

Overall just lower ability scores. Going a bit back towards AD&D in some ways I suppose. I may have dumped wands but monster damage is being scaled down and I am trying to tone down rocket tag.

Dark Archive

ryric wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
I will also throw out another heresy - monsters should not follow character rules and strict guidelines to be balanced against PCs. Monsters should be designed based on challenge and need.
You are right about the incremental nature of raising ability scores with wishes. I played quite a bit of 1e, though, and it was certainly something that tended to happen at high levels. It was not terribly unusual to have a high level character rockin' a 20 or so.

I tend to view this as very/ultra high level play and sometimes softball DM realm - but it wasn't impossible. Generally this occurred if players were playing in a day-to-day campaign, with plenty of resources and time on their hands vs. people running back to back high level adventures and having less time to spend on character improvement, inventing silly magic items or to go on personal quests to improve stats/gain Holy Avenger, etc.

Again, not saying it didn't happen - it happened in campaign games with too much down time. When I ran adventures and things popped up there was considerable less time to worry about where your next .1 was going to come from. YMMV

ryric wrote:

About your monster statement, I'm basically okay with that as long as there is some non-gamist logic behind where their stats come from. Monsters don't have to follow the exact same logic as PCs(although I think that's a plus myself), but there should be an in-game explanation to fit their stats.

I'm not trying to edition war here, but 4e is a perfect example of what I don't like. When I was trying 4e I made an early adventure for my friends consisting of your basic goblin lair. I put a suit of magic armor at the end with the leader, and in fine roleplaying tradition, chose to have the leader wear the suit. I looked all through the rules trying to figure out how the leader's original AC was computed so I could appropriately alter it by applying the magic armor. Eventually I realized that the monster's AC was just a number set by the expected level of the PCs, and there was no in-game justification. So the equipment I gave him didn't matter; it had no effect on his stats because his stats were derived from arbitrary game benchmarks and not any in-world logic. This level of "monsters follow their own rules" will cause me to quit a system in disgust.

One of the things that drew me to 3rd ed from 2nd was the "under the hood" aspect of creature structure and layout. In my conversions I would want to retain that but change the math expectations and Monster/PC paradigm.

Example - in my converted Griffon stats I want to keep it's attack in a certain range (CR 4: range +3 to +6 attack) and I don't need to apply STR bonuses to do this. I follow a HD/Monster type = BAB number. So if I want a creature with good to-hit numbers or a specific number I need to make the creature at the right HD (Full BAB HD) and not get an attack score that is artificially inflated or manipulated via stats.

You can make these assumptions with base damage die (without modifiers), DCs tied to CR/Level, etc, without it turning into 4th ed or losing the ability to customize monsters.

So it doesn't have to be a generic Level 5 Brawler monster or some such non-sense, it also doesn't have to be a 5HD creature with 29 Str + willy-nilly SLA's based off of HD and Stat mods and then figuring out what the CR should be once the mess is put together.

You can have internal consistency and follow a set of numbers, I just don't think (personally) that 3rd ed based numbers are good, nor is the structure and creature design philosophy (current CR guidelines).

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How Essential to the Pathfinder Game Do You Find the Following Concepts. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.